Federal Communications Commission	FCC 19-111


STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER GEOFFREY STARKS
CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART 

Re:	Bridging the Digital Divide for Low-Income Consumers, WC Docket No. 17-287; Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization, WC Docket No. 11-42; Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 09-197.
A few short months ago, I stepped through the doors of Miriam’s Kitchen, a social services organization working to end chronic homelessness here in Washington, D.C. This organization is located just blocks away from pricey restaurants, a private university and elite law firms. The people who visit this organization’s facility look to gain access to warmth in the winter, food to nourish their bodies, and some genuine interaction from smiling employees looking to lend a helping hand. 
I sat down at a folding table alongside six people experiencing homelessness as they shared with me that the only way they can access the internet or make a call through a device that they themselves own is through the Lifeline program. It was there that I heard what it actually means for them to have a phone: one person uses it to speak directly with her doctor and arranges appointments over the phone; another needed it for job applications; and virtually all of them spoke of the isolation of homelessness, and how a phone is essential to connecting with family and friends.  
For those who were Lifeline subscribers, they were grateful that the government steps in to ensure people who are in unforeseen and unfortunate circumstances have access to communications services. That gratitude was even expressed while they identified significant flaws with our program such as their wait time to obtain a Lifeline phone, their troubles with customer service representatives, or even difficulties figuring out how best to ration their precious and limited data. 
***
The crux of our decision today is this: do we aim to strengthen the underutilized Lifeline program and build up some of our most marginalized citizens; or do we aim to deflate the program and further burden its recipients?  I know which side I’m on.   
If we truly seek to increase broadband adoption, then I do not believe the elimination of the Lifeline Broadband Provider designation would assist in this process. The 2016 Lifeline Order asserted the Commission’s authority to designate ETCs for the purpose of offering broadband internet service providers in the Lifeline program as a method to “unlock the Lifeline program to new innovative service providers and robust broadband offerings for the benefit of low-income consumers.” Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et al., WC Docket Nos. 11-42, 09-197, and 10-97, Third Report and Order, Further Report and Order, and Order on Reconsideration, 31 FCC Rcd 3962, 4044 para. 231 (2016) (2016 Lifeline Order).
 Commenters pointed out in that Order that the streamlining of the process and the cutting of red tape lessens the burden on both small and large carriers, thus causing increased service provider participation. See 2016 Lifeline Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 4047, para. 236 (citing comments by Cox Communications, the Benton Foundation, and the Telecommunications Board of Puerto Rico supporting a streamlined, national ETC designation process).
 There are approximately 40 companies with pending LBP designations, many of which have applied to provide service in several states with high rates of poverty.  With our actions today, we will never find out how much carrier participation would increase, and how many people could have easier access to life-changing health services, jobs, and connections. 
Additionally, I am deeply troubled by many toxic questions asked by the FNPRM. It seeks comments on whether the Commission should “ask Lifeline applicants whether they would be able to afford their Lifeline-supported service without the Lifeline discount,” and asserts that some consumers may be willing to “purchase some level of broadband service even in the absence of a Lifeline benefit” because they “may value broadband access so highly.”  It goes on to ask questions about a fee in exchange for receiving a handset or device in-person at enrollment, and about program integrity recommendations as it relates to usage requirements.   
To the best of my research, I don’t believe we’ve ever probed elderly Medicare recipients on how much they actually value their medical services; nor should we probe vulnerable, Lifeline recipients on how much they value their connectivity.  These are government programs and services designed and targeted for the benefit of particular citizens, and frankly our chief concern should be exploring how to make sure that they are fully utilized.  With regard to a fee, I heard firsthand from subscribers at the Larkin Street Youth Services center in San Francisco, California that they see the device alongside the voice and broadband service as inextricably linked. We shouldn’t even articulate the possibility of placing yet another barrier to participation in front of these communities.  Regarding USAC check-ins and data use records, I stand opposed.  These amount to unnecessary additional burdens on recipients, and in the case of data use records, a real risk of oversurveillance of low-income communities and communities of color.  
Finally, I do believe that there are some common-sense measures in this item that prevent waste, fraud, and abuse and that is why I concur in part. As a former enforcement bureau official, I do believe that we have to preserve the integrity of this program such as triple checking that there are no ETC’s claiming and seeking reimbursement for deceased subscribers. 
However, despite the efforts I agree with to save the integrity of this program, I find that it is packaged in a way that continues to create uncertainty in the lives of low-income people who are working to put clothing on their back and food on the table.  Ultimately, I fear that much of today’s item will negatively impact the people I met at Miriam’s Kitchen and the Larkin Street Youth Services center. 


2