In a country where there are more mobile connections than people, most of us take communications services for granted. It is sometimes easy to forget, that there are millions of low-income consumers, who simply cannot afford phone service. But there are. And that is where Lifeline comes in.
The Universal Service Fund’s Lifeline program has been instrumental in increasing the number of low-income consumers, with telephone access. By providing a modest monthly subsidy of less than $10 per month to needy consumers, Lifeline has significantly increased the overall penetration rate for phone service in this nation. But Lifeline has been under attack as of late, and what the critics always fail to mention, is what one major provider shared with us: That its most typical Lifeline customer, is a middle-aged grandmother, raising her grandchildren, on only $12,000 per year. In 1984, 80 percent of low-income households had telephone service, compared with 95 percent of non-low-income households. With Lifeline, that 15 percent gap was narrowed to four percent by 2012. As a result, the overall telephone penetration rate in the US also has risen.
Those most vocal in their attacks on Lifeline, assert that the Universal Service Fund is funding free cell phones for people who don’t really need the service. This is an Urban Myth. First, the program does not support phones – it only supports telephone service – a distinction that is important. Second, this program is a significant benefit to about 14 million families, who otherwise could not afford phone service. It connects them to 911, social services, health care providers, and job opportunities. Without this program, approximately millions of low-income families would have to choose between feeding their children or going without a dial tone that potentially could save their lives, and put them on a better economic path. During the Bush administration, Lifeline was expanded to include cellphone service, but today, some critics seem to want to relegate Lifeline subscribers, to only a wired service.
This does not make any sense. For starters, often it is Lifeline subscribers who are most in need of a mobile connection. To what home would the phone service of a homeless family be affixed? How is someone between several part-time, low-skilled jobs to communicate with their childcare provider without a mobile phone? How is someone seeking to pick up additional shifts on a work site to be contacted on short-notice without a wireless connection? Making Lifeline a wired-only program is taking a major step backwards and ignores the critical telecommunications of needy Americans and is out of step with the communications evolution. While it’s true that reforms were necessary, it’s counter-productive to eliminate support for one technology, thereby abandoning the Commission’s commitment to technology neutrality and competition for and among low-income consumers, due to some bad actors who didn't respect our rules.
