Ahead of the FCC vote on a draft order to extend Lifeline subsidies for low-income households to  broadband services, the National Governors Association today urged the federal regulatory agency to eliminate a provision that would create an FCC-administered mechanism for certifying service providers as Lifeline broadband providers. Currently, states have the primary role for certifying providers as eligible telecommunications carriers (ETCs), although providers may seek FCC certification as ETCs if a state won’t or can’t act on their applications.  The new mechanism envisioned by the draft order circulated at the FCC earlier this month would give providers a choice between using existing state-certification methods and the new “streamlined” national process, which FCC officials hope will encourage “non-traditional” providers to participate in the Lifeline program.

The NGA, however, said in a statement today that the new mechanism “would disrupt the existing state-federal partnership and preempt states’ authority to protect consumer interest.”

Brad Ramsay, general counsel of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, recently argued at policy conference that FCC certifications would undermine state Lifeline programs that are based on state certification of providers (TRDaily, March 23).

However, in a blog post today, Charter Communications, Inc., praised the national certification proposal.

“First, the proposal to remove the state ETC requirements by creating the more streamlined category of provider called ‘National Lifeline Providers’ would make it easier for cable broadband companies to participate in Lifeline by allowing the FCC to be what some have called a ‘one-stop-shop’ for providers to offer Lifeline services throughout their footprint,” Charter said.

 “Second, removing the requirement that providers determine eligibility would eliminate an important cost previously imposed on providers. By shifting that responsibility to a national third-party verifier, this reform would facilitate greater provider participation. Importantly, it could also decrease the potential for waste, fraud and abuse, which is essential to the long-term viability of the program,” Charter added.

Meanwhile, Daniel Lyons, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute’s Center for Internet, Communications & Technology, said in a paper released today that the $2.25 billion budget proposed for Lifeline in the draft order as circulated earlier this month “is unlikely to narrow the digital divide.”  Instead, he said, “Congress should adopt a comprehensive approach that encompasses digital literacy outreach programs and low-cost equipment plans as well as monthly service plan subsidies.”  Those subsidies should be “direct and portable,” he said.

“The program should be placed on a fixed budget subject to congressional control and oversight, to increase incentives to deploy funds efficiently and reduce opportunities for fraud and waste. Finally, Congress should consider moving the program to another agency, such as the Department of Health and Human Services, that has a better understanding of poverty-related issues,” Mr. Lyons said. —Lynn Stanton, lynn.stanton@woltersklwer.com

Courtesy TRDaily