NARUC to Vote on Asking FCC to Suspend Lifeline NV Rollout, Not Cap USF
Requiring Lifeline providers to use a federal database to check if consumers are eligible for government-subsidized, carrier-provided phone and broadband services is causing more concerns from states, as they lose the ability to run their own checks. NARUC members will vote at their July 21- 24 meeting on asking the FCC to halt activation of the national verifier (NV) in any more states this year, and separately on recommending the agency not cap the overall USF. NV rollout prompted concerns subscribers are being dropped from carriers' customer rolls over difficultly verifying eligibility even though they may indeed be eligible (see 1907080009).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
If state commissioners approve, their association would ask the FCC and Universal Service Administrative Co. "to consider halting or suspending" NV hard launches "to permit, based on lessons learned to date, an improved National Verification process that includes access to multiple State and Territory databases that can be interrogated with" application programing interfaces and developed by January. Lack of APIs prompted advocates to fear unnecessary de-enrollment. "Anecdotal data strongly suggests that many eligible Lifeline subscribers have been denied service or were de-enrolled," the resolution notes. The "problem ... will necessarily continue in each hard launch state until needed improvements are implemented."
State NV "rollout has not functioned as intended," the draft resolution says. It caused "numerous deficiencies," it says. The draft cited NV's "often limited (or non-existent) access to state databases needed to confirm subscriber eligibility" and no API between providers, potential subscribers and the NV program. Such an interface "would enable providers in real time to efficiently communicate with the National Verifier program to determine a prospective or existing subscribers’ eligibility."
Chairman Ajit Pai and another FCC GOP member defended the agency's work on telecom issues affecting states. And Democrats had concerns. The various members were answering our questions in post-monthly meeting news conferences Wednesday.
The agency "made it a point to work with any interested entities to make sure that the national verifier works well and for all involved," Pai responded. "We are open to working with any state that wants to work with us" on making such systems mesh, he said. "This critical tool" of the verifier "will be a useful tool for weeding out waste, fraud and abuse in the program," he said, noting the effort began under the past administration. Commissioner Mike O'Rielly said he's waiting for data. Commissioner Brendan Carr declined to comment.
"We are starting to see some serious problems" on the rollout, and an API is needed, Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel told us. "Not every database that accounts for Lifeline is part" of the verification system, she added. Rosenworcel wants to identify what databases are missing and how it will be fixed "so we do not inadvertently kick off those who are going to rely on this program to get basic communications services." Commissioner Geoffrey Starks said it's "deeply problematic" that "the most vulnerable in our communities that need Lifeline ... could end up kicked out or not able to get enrolled."
Manual review approval rates differ from automatic systems, Starks said: "It is shocking. We have to get this right." When subscribers can be certified via existing NV automated systems where the process is linked to existing eligibility databases already hooked into the system, their verification rates are much higher than when individual participation is based on their documentation being manually reviewed, an aide to Starks told us later.
Another NARUC resolution would back establishing "self-enforcing budget caps" for the Lifeline and Connect America Fund programs similar to current "self-enforcing caps" for E-rate and rural healthcare. It would oppose the "proposed cap limiting the total budget for the overall" federal USF. "Establishing self-enforcing budget caps for the individual FUSF programs in lieu of an overall budget cap would protect the funding of each program in the event of any new FUSF programs that may be introduced," says the draft. A recently approved 3-2 NPRM asks about this (see 1905310069). Pai noted "the comment period is now open." He looks forward to comments from state commissioners.
O'Rielly disagrees with NARUC's "approach" on the USF spending limit and continues to back an overall cap. It's "ironic they say you should cap each of the individual programs and not the program total," he continued. "We can do a cap that doesn’t lead to this false narrative that we’re going to have these programs fighting against each other. But people are just so closed-minded on the topic."
Rosenworcel and Starks are encouraged NARUC may oppose the budget, they told us. Such a limit is "a mistake. I don’t think the law compels it," said Rosenworcel. "The idea of having telehealth centers slug it out with" other funding recipients like hospitals isn't OK, she added. "I'm glad to see that NARUC also does not support it." Starks, agreeing overall with his Democratic colleague's comments, said "you would have programs that would start to cannibalize each other." O'Rielly said such a scenario, which Rosenworcel likened to The Hunger Games, wouldn't occur.
The other telecom resolution state commissioners will consider at their annual summer gathering in Indianapolis would ask the FCC to not reduce Lifeline voice services as the regulator proposed. The FCC declined further comment, and USAC didn't comment.