Low-income

Under changes the Federal Communications Commission recently proposed, fewer people may receive subsidized broadband service under the Lifeline program. Those left out will struggle to do online tasks such as filling out a job application, or paying bills online. About 12.5 million low-income people across the country, and thousands in Ohio, could be affected.There are even health implications, since so much of today's medicine relies on patients having the ability to make appointments, refill prescriptions and view test results online.

[Comentary] The Federal Communications Commission GOP majority did what it was intended to do with net neutrality, which was ignore overwhelmingly positive public support across political affiliations and kill the policy anyway. Aside from hurting real sources of innovation, rather than the fake sources like finding new ways to charge more, it opens the door for people of more moderate means and the poor to be at a greater disadvantage than before.

Reducing effective Internet access has a profound impact on low- to moderate-income individuals:

The federal government is going to make it even more difficult for people on Tribal Lands to be connected to the wider world. In fact, most Native Americans who were counting on the Federal Communications Commission to continue with policies that many tribal communities were counting on to bring more service to far-flung tribal lands may see even cell service reduced.

[Commentary] The Federal Communications Commission took its first major step toward overhauling the controversial Lifeline program in a move that will punish not just low-income citizens but perhaps small, innovative service providers as well.  Yes, Lifeline was once teeming with fraud, waste and abuse. Yes, the program still has significant flaws. And yes, companies that fail to provide adequate services should be forever barred from Lifeline for preying on some of our most vulnerable citizens.

On November 16, 2017, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Report & Order to change its definition of “rurality” for Tribal lands eligible for the enhanced Tribal subsidy of the Lifeline Program. Despite a thorough record of Tribal filings in this proceeding—including previous reform and modernization proceedings beginning initiated in 2011—the FCC has decided to eliminate the enhanced Tribal Lifeline support that was previously designated for all Tribal lands.

On some evenings, after the Cleveland Public Library branch on Woodland Avenue closes, people linger near the low-slung entrance or sit in cars in the parking lot. Heads down, their eyes locked on a phone or small computer tablet, they come to do what most of us do without much thought or the need to leave the living room couch -- connect to the internet. For the people who live just across the street in the apartments that make up the King Kennedy public housing complex, access to the internet is not so easy. Broadband networks are available, but many can't afford the service.

The Federal Communications Commission took steps to transform its Lifeline program. A Fourth Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order changes FCC rules to:

[Commentary] Under the guise of promoting network investment and deployment and enhancing consumer choice, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai’s attack on the Lifeline program does the complete opposite. His plan proposes to kick all non-facilities-based service providers out of the Lifeline program, which includes wireless carriers like Tracfone’s Safelink Wireless or Virgin Mobile’s Assurance Wireless, that don’t have their own networks but lease capacity from facilities-based providers (e.g., AT&T, Sprint) and serve approximately 70 percent of Lifeline subscribers.

[Commentary] Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai contends his proposed reforms to the Lifeline program will “more effectively and efficiently help close the digital divide by directing Lifeline funds to the areas where they are most needed.” Opponents, however, believe the proposed changes “will gut the program and continue to widen the digital divide.” The likely outcome, if the proposal is enacted as currently written, will be somewhere in between. Some of these proposed reforms are important, positive steps that will improve the Lifeline program’s efficiency.