As a former FCC
Commissioner – and a strong supporter of a healthy Lifeline program – I was pleased
to see the comments
that FSF President Randolph May's recently filed in support of TracFone's
request that the FCC revise its rules regarding the in-person distribution of
handsets.
There are
providers (Nexus and others) who utilize mobile vans and other
"in-person" distribution processes that are not only successful in
reaching qualified recipients but also provide trained staff to insure that
recipients meet stringent income qualifications and do not "double dip."
These "good guys" should be applauded for helping police the program.
However, there are unscrupulous "fly by night" operators whose
practices need to be addressed in this further revision of the Lifeline rules
and regulations.
In my capacity
as a Distinguished Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Free State Foundation, I have
supported reform measures intended to reduce fraud and waste in the Lifeline
program, while at the same time recognizing its importance as "A
Vital Lifeline." That's why I support both private and public efforts to
reduce fraudulent or abusive practices.
Commendably, the
FCC already has adopted some politically charged and often unpopular but
much-needed reforms to the Lifeline program. Most of these are being implemented
apace, and, according to an FCC press release, have already produced over $300
million dollars in savings.
One of the
biggest challenges to implementing further reforms has been the lack of a
"national database," and just this week the FCC held a database
webinar regarding this issue. It is too bad that the FCC didn't follow the suggestion
made by me and others to work with other departments of government (HHS,
Agriculture, WIC, RUS, etc.) to insure a subsidy recipient is qualified by
virtue of some existing program for low-income eligible persons, (for example,
free and reduced lunch, AFDC, etc.) and then to check each Lifeline recipient
against a national database populated by every Lifeline provider.
Or, the suggestion
of requiring a "bond" similar to the construction bonds all road
builders pay, in order to be a Lifeline provider and reduce the possibility of
these "fly by night" or "tent cities" issuing
"Obama-phones."
The FCC should
give these and other suggestions, including the one offered by TracFone in its rulemaking
petition, serious consideration so that Lifeline can continue to be just that –
"A
Vital Lifeline" to those Americans most in need.
How in the world
in this day and age would any of us apply for a job, respond to a job offer,
get a phone call from school about a sick child, or even know to pick up a
prescription at the drug store without our mobile device. So if we throw out
the baby with the bathwater, we increase the likelihood a digital divide
continues and diminish the possibility that our citizens most in need will "graduate"
from the Lifeline program to become gainfully employed, tax-paying citizens.
Posts
