Nation’s poor to the FCC: ‘We’re way ahead of you’

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission adopted a proposal that, according to the agency, takes “significant steps to modernize its Lifeline program.” Lifeline is a 30 year-old telecommunications subsidy program for low-income households. After 30 years, you would think that the program has made a demonstrable impact on making “phone service affordable for low-income Americans,” as the FCC put it. You would be wrong.

As I think most American’s would agree, the FCC is right for caring about the poor, but the agency’s plan doesn’t put that care into action. Despite FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler’s statements to the contrary, this isn’t a partisan issue. It’s an evidence issue. Why does Lifeline make no impact? The poor purchase service without the subsidy. In my home state of Florida, for example, in 2005, under the original program, about 90 percent of low-income households had telephone service, but less than 20 percent participated in Lifeline. One study found that people signing up for the subsidy almost always already had phone service. Why were poor households abandoning landlines and ignoring Lifeline? People participating in the study said they moved often, which meant costly connection fees. They also said cellular phones are more convenient and that it is easier to control access to cellular phones. What should the FCC do? Devote more radio spectrum resources to broadband. Poor customers have shown themselves to be just as talented as others in determining what communications services best fit their needs, and they are taking advantage of dynamic competitive markets just like everyone else. The primary need of these markets is more radio spectrum. This is particularly true for the poor since they have demonstrated a preference for mobile devices.

[Mark Jamison is the Director and Gunter Professor of the Public Utility Research Center at the University of Florida]