Why we need a market-driven, consumer-focused revamp of the Lifeline program

[Commentary] The basic tenet of universal service – that the government should assist those who cannot afford basic access to the telecommunications network – has long been a cornerstone of the nation’s telecommunications policy. This assistance is justified by network effects: the larger the number of people a network reaches, the more valuable that network is to each user. Universal service also supports non-economic goals such as improved civic participation, enhanced economic opportunities, free speech, and public safety.

As the telephone gives way to the Internet as the nation’s primary telecommunications network, Congress must consider options to narrow the digital divide and assist low-income consumers who cannot afford basic network access. I advocate for a voucher-based approach to broadband universal service. America’s migration to broadband networks presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform its existing telecommunications subsidy program, which is outdated, mismanaged, and unnecessarily complex. Of course, subsidizing access does not alone solve the digital divide—consumers face additional cost hurdles such as equipment costs, and there remain areas where broadband buildout is uneconomical. But a voucher-based broadband program would help bring Lifeline into the Internet era with market-driven incentives that promote consumer choice and competition, while avoiding some of the pitfalls of the existing regime.

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