FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 8, Pages 6653 to 6954, Supplement (February-March 2012) Page: 6,693
iii, 6653-6954 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this book.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Lifeline support.
81. Several commenters recommend that the Commission adopt a rule allowing for one
Lifeline-supported service per consumer, which they assert is the best means to ensure the availability of
telephone service for low-income consumers.214 Other commenters advocate for adoption of a more
limited "one-per-person rule," for example recommending that we adopt such a rule only for residents of
Tribal lands or group living facilities.2' In support of a one-per-person rule, such commenters point to
the increasing wireless penetration rate, as well as the varied living situations of low-income
consumers.216 They state that although the increasing availability of wireless Lifeline services has
increased consumer choice, it has also made it more difficult to enforce a one-per-household or one-per-
residence requirement."17 Such commenters also point out that the challenges in applying the
Commission's existing one-per-household policy have been exacerbated by the fact that some residences,
such as those on Tribal lands, lack a unique U.S. Postal Service address.2'8 Other commenters point to
the potential public safety impact of a rule permitting only one Lifeline-supported service per household
or residential address.2'9
214 See, e.g., GCI Comments at 39-40; COMPTEL Comments at 15; NALA/PCA Comments at 2; NHMC Reply
Comments at 1, 3; Budget/GreatCall/PR Comments at 9-10. In response to the Lifeline and Link Up Public Notice,
a few commenters mistakenly stated that the Commission already adopted a one-per-qualifying consumer rule in the
2011 Duplicative Program Payments Order. See, e.g., AT&T Public Notice Comments at 1-2; CTIA Public Notice
Reply Comments at 3-4. To the contrary, in that order, the Commission explicitly prohibited a qualified low-income
individual from receiving more than one Lifeline-supported service at the same time; it did not hold that each such
person was entitled to Lifeline benefits. 2011 Duplicative Program Payments Order, 26 FCC Rcd. 9022 at 9026-28,
paras. 8-14.
215 See, e.g., SBI Comments at 9-10 (recommending that the Commission provide one Lifeline discount per eligible
adult to eligible residents of Tribal lands whose annual household income is at or below the federal poverty level,
which SRI estimates would cost approximately $25 million with a 32 percent program take rate); Letter from John
T. Nakahata, Counsel, GCI, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. WC Dkt. No.
11-42 et al, at 2-3 (filed Dec. 6, 2011) (stating that Lifeline-supported wireless services should be available to each
eligible adult on Tribal lands and estimating that this would expand service to an additional 22,000 adults in Alaska)
(GC[ Dec. 6 ex parte Letter); Letter from Steven M. Chernotl, Counsel, PR Wireless d/b/a Open Mobile, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Dkt. No. 11-42 et al.. at 5 (filed Jan. 25, 2012)
(stating that if a one-per-qualifying-adult rule is adopted for Tribal lands, it would be essential to extend such a rule
to Puerto Rico, which has economic and infrastructure conditions similar to many Tribal areas) (PR Wireless Jan. 25
ex parte Letter). But see Letter from Michael R. Romano, Senior Vice President - Policy, NTCA, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Dkt. No. 11-42 et al, at 1 (filed Dec. 22. 2011)
(stating that there is no reason to base a rule of general applicability on unique circumstances that may be faced in
specific areas) (NTCA Dec. 22 ex parte Letter).
2L6 See, eg., N-ITMC Reply Comments at 1, 3; Sprint Reply Comments at 8; GCI Comments at 39-40; COMPTEL
Comments at 15; BudgetlGreatCall/PR Comments at 9-10.
217 Commenters point out that multiple members of a family, for example, or adult roommates may each sign up for
a separate plan from different companies so that each person has his or her own subscription. Additionally, low-
income consumers. such as residents of nursing homes or shelters, may share a residence with other similarly
situated consumers, each of whom may wish to obtain a Lifeline service.
218 SBT Comments at 10-12; GCI Reply Comments at 10; Consumer Groups Comments at 19-20; State of Alaska
Reply Comments at 2.
219 Commenters state, for example, that one member of a household could take a mobile phone with them outside of
their residence, leaving the rest of the household members without a phone. Letter from David A. LaFuria, Counsel,
SBI, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. WC Dkt. No. 11-42 et al., at 1 (filed
Nov. 25, 201 I) (SBI Nov. 25 ex parte Letter); GCI PN Comments at 13; Letter from John T. Nakahata, Counsel,
GCI, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WC Dkt. No. 11-42 et al.. at 3 (filed
(continued....)6693
Federal Communications Commission
FCC 12-11
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 8, Pages 6653 to 6954, Supplement (February-March 2012), book, 2012; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc111169/m1/51/: accessed April 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.