Lifeline’s proposed reseller ban will likely harm low-income households

[Commentary] The Lifeline program is one of the Federal Communications Commission’s most important, most noble ventures. It is also one of the most problematic, suffering repeated criticism from the Government Accountability Office and others for waste, fraud, and abuse. In an effort to reform the program, the FCC has suggested limiting Lifeline participation to facilities-based telecommunications providers. But far from improving Lifeline, this proposal is likely to undermine the program and harm the vulnerable populations that the program seeks to serve. First, the reseller ban restricts choice and ignores the preferences of Lifeline consumers. More fundamentally, the reseller ban ignores the role that wireless substitution plays in low-income communities. I have long argued that Lifeline is a flawed program in need of fundamental reform. But these reforms should enhance the purchasing power of eligible households. A true market-based subsidy would allow these households, as much as possible, to participate like any other family in the marketplace for telecommunications services. The reseller ban instead limits Lifeline recipients’ options and relegates many to wired solutions when most Americans — including many low-income families — prefer the advantages of mobile connectivity. There are better ways to promote buildout and limit abuse without limiting the options of families that have few choices to begin with.

[Daniel Lyons is also an associate professor at Boston College Law School]