B. Third-Party Eligibility Determination
1. Streamlining the ETC Designation Process
122. We seek comment on streamlining the ETC designation process at the state and federal levels to increase market entry into the Lifeline space. First, we seek comment on the Commission’s authority under section 214(e) to streamline the ETC designation process at the Commission.250 In the
ETC Designation Order, the Commission adopted requirements consistent with section 214 of the Act,
which all ETC applicants must meet to be designated an ETC by the Commission.251 In line with that decision, we believe we have substantial flexibility to design a more streamlined ETC designation process for federal default states. We seek comment on this conclusion.
123. Given this broad authority, we seek comment on ways in which to streamline the Commission’s ETC designation process to best promote the universal service goals found in section 254(b).252 We believe many entities, including many cable companies and wireless providers, are unwilling to become ETCs and some have in fact relinquished their designations.253 Are there certain requirements that are overly burdensome? Can we simplify or eliminate certain designation requirements while protecting consumers and the Fund? Will establishing a national verifier lessen the need to
streamline the ETC designation process? We specifically seek input from the states on examples of requirements that could be simplified or eliminated in order to make it less difficult for companies to become ETCs under the Lifeline program and suggestions for how the Commission can best refine the ETC designation process.
124. Second, we seek comment on coordinating and streamlining federal and state ETC designation processes.254 What are the benefits and drawbacks to a uniform, streamlined approach at both the state and federal levels? How can we best encourage state commissions to adopt a path similar to a federal streamlined approach? We strongly value input from the states on the pros and cons of such an approach and what measures could be adopted to encourage state commissions to adopt a similar streamlined approach.
125. Proposals for ETC Relief from Lifeline Obligations. In this section, we seek comment on
25047 U.S.C. § 214(e). In the limited cases where a common carrier is not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission, Section 214(e)(6) of the Act authorizes the Commission, upon request, to designate ETCs. 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6). Under Section 214(e)(6), the Commission may designate only common carriers “providing telephone exchange service and exchange access” as ETCs. Id. Because of the complex interrelationships among Tribal, state, and federal authority, providers may seek designation directly from the Commission to provide service in Tribal areas without an affirmative statement from the relevant state that it lacks jurisdiction. Federal-State Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Twelfth Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 15 FCC Rcd 12208, 12265-69, paras. 115-27 (2000).
25147 U.S.C. § 214(e)(6). section 214(e)(6) of the Act directs the Commission to designate carriers when those carriers are not subject to the jurisdiction of a state commission.
252See 47 U.S.C. § 254(b).
253Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 09-197, Order, 30 FCC Rcd 297 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2015); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 09-197, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 14368 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2014); Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support, WC Docket No. 09-197, Order, 29 FCC Rcd 14372 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2014). 254Section 214(e)(2) assigns primary responsibility for designating ETCs to the states. 47 U.S.C. § 214(e)(2). See also Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 6371 (2005) (ETC Designation Order) (the Commission declined to mandate that state commissions adopt the
Commission’s ETC designation requirements; rather, the Commission encouraged states that exercise jurisdiction over ETC designations to adopt the same requirements as the Commission when deciding whether a common carrier should be designated as an ETC); Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC, 183 F.3d 393, 418 (5th Cir. 1999) (nothing in section 214(e) of the Act prohibits the states from imposing their own eligibility requirements in addition to those described in section 214(e)(1)).
proposals in the record that the Commission permit ETCs to opt-out of providing Lifeline supported service in certain circumstances,255 Pursuant to section 54.405 of the Commission’s rules, carriers designated as ETCs are required to offer Lifeline supported service.256 AT&T, among others, notes in comments in response to the Further Notice that competition in the Lifeline program has resulted in multiple areas where several ETCs provision Lifeline supported service to the same potential customer base.257 We seek additional comment on whether the Commission should relieve ETCs of the obligation to provide Lifeline supported service, pursuant to their ETC designation,258in specific areas where there is a sufficient number of Lifeline providers. In considering this approach, we seek comment on what constitutes a sufficient number of providers and any other appropriate conditions to protect the public interest.259 We also seek comment on how to define an appropriate geographic area. We ask that any party supporting such an opt-out mechanism comment on the process, transition, and other issues associated with permitting ETCs to opt-out of providing Lifeline supported service in areas served by a sufficient number of ETCs offering Lifeline support.
126. We note that these proposals are similar to those currently under consideration in two other Commission proceedings—the USTelecom forbearance proceeding, and the Connect America Fund proceeding.260 In both of those proceedings, AT&T and others have argued that the Commission should separate or “de-link” carriers’ Lifeline obligations from their ETC status.261 To facilitate our
consideration of relevant arguments previously raised in the Connect America Fund and USTelecom forbearance proceedings, we hereby incorporate by reference the pleadings in those proceedings.
127. Other Measures to Increase Competition. We seek comment on other ways to ease
market entry. We recognize that there are many other requirements for new companies wishing to offer Lifeline service.262 For example, non-facilities-based wireless providers must file and receive approval of a compliance plan prior to entering the market.263 We appreciate that these requirements may pose challenges for companies. We thus seek comment on other measures that can be taken to enhance competition and innovation in the market generally. Are there specific state or federal regulatory barriers
255See, e.g., Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 11-42 et al., CC Docket No. 96-45, at 19 (filed Apr. 2, 2012) (AT&T 2012 Comments).
25647 C.F.R. § 54.405.
257See AT&T 2012 Comments at 19.
25847 C.F.R. § 54.405. See Lifeline Reform Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6856-57, paras. 502-504.
259We note that we seek to maintain a technology-neutral approach when defining competition. See Lifeline Reform Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6765, para. 250.
260See, e.g., Petition for Forbearance of the United States Telecom Association, WC Docket 14-192, at 66–67 (filed Oct. 6, 2014) (USTelecom Forbearance Petition) (arguing that “there is no reason to continue compelling price cap carriers to offer Lifeline service . . . in areas where they do not receive [Connect America Fund] support”); Comments of AT&T, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 29-33 (filed Aug. 8, 2014) (AT&T 2014 Comments) (presenting arguments in support of separating Lifeline obligations from ETC status); Comments of the United States Telecom Association, WC Docket No. 10-90 et al., at 24 (filed Aug. 8, 2014) (USTelecom 2014 Comments) (“Lifeline ETC status should be de-linked from status regarding other programs such as CAF Phase II, frozen support, or the Mobility Fund.”).
261See supra n.260. In the December 2014 Connect America Order, we did not act to alter carriers’ existing Lifeline obligations, deferring a decision on commenters’ arguments regarding the proposal to entirely separate carriers’ Lifeline obligations from their ETC status—including with respect to three specific types of census blocks in which the order granted partial forbearance from carriers’ ETC obligations more generally. See December 2014 Connect America Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 15671, para. 70, n.158.
262See 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.400 et seq.
that make it difficult for companies to participate and remain in the Lifeline program? Are there
economic barriers? We seek comment generally on such barriers and recommendations to address them. 128. State Lifeline Support. We also seek specific comment on ways that we can increase
competition and the quality of service by encouraging states to provide an additional subsidy for Lifeline service. Combined state and federal contributions to Lifeline have long been a critical part of the Lifeline program.264 We note that in states that provide a significant separate subsidy, service is more affordable for a given level of service and ETCs generally offer a higher level of service.265 Are there other ways that we can incent states to provide an increased level of support? Are there ways that we can reduce state Lifeline costs so that the savings can be used for an increased state subsidy? Does the establishment of minimum service levels encourage states to provide a separate subsidy because they understand that their subsidy will go towards robust, quality service? We specifically seek feedback from the states on ways in which we can increase competition and the quality of service among service providers providing service to low-income consumers under the Lifeline program.
129. Innovative Services for Low-Income Consumers. We also seek comment on how best to
utilize unlicensed bands,266such as television white space267or licensed bands, such as EBS,268for the purpose of providing broadband service to low-income consumers. Unlicensed spectrum allows providers to deliver a variety of unlicensed offerings, such as Wi-Fi hotspots, without having to comply with numerous regulations that apply to licensed services.269 While there is unlicensed spectrum at other frequencies, TV white spaces are uniquely important in that they are lower in frequency than other
264For example, California provides up to an additional $12.65 in subsidy per line, for a total of $21.90, to ETCs serving qualifying low-income consumers. See California Lifeline Program, Discounts Comparison,
https://www.californialifeline.com/en/discounts_comparison(last visited June 18, 2015). Kansas’s additional discount results in a total discount of up to $17.02 per line. See Kansas Corporation Commission, Kansas Lifeline Program, http://www.kcc.state.ks.us/pi/lifeline.htm(last visited June 18, 2015).
265For example, several providers offer unlimited texting and talk plans in California. See, e.g., Assurance Wireless, California Program Description, https://www.assurancewireless.com/public/MorePrograms_CA.aspx, (last visited June 18, 2015; Budget Mobile, Budget Mobile Lifeline, http://www.budgetmobile.com/california/, (last visited June 18, 2015).
266See Federal Communication Commission, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Accessing Spectrum, https://www.fcc.gov/encyclopedia/accessing-spectrum(last visited June 18, 2015).
267TV white spaces are frequencies allocated to broadcasting services but that are left unused in particular areas of the country. Lyndsey Gilpin, White Space, The Next Internet Disruption: 10 Things to Know (Mar. 12, 2014), http://www.techrepublic.com/article/white-space-the-next-internet-disruption-10-things-to-know/.
268See supra n.111.
269For example, the Gigabit Libraries Network has helped communities across the country (and, most recently, internationally) deploy TV white space networks supporting remote public library Wi-Fi access points in parks, community centers, shelters, kiosks, underserved library branches, and other publicly accessible places. See Gigabit Libraries Network, http://www.giglibraries.net/(last visited June 18, 2015); Lyndsey Gilpin, White Space
Broadband: 10 Communities Doing Big Projects (Mar. 19, 2014), http://www.techrepublic.com/article/white-space- broadband-10-communities-doing-big-projects/(last visited June 18, 2015) (Gilpin White Space Article).
Additionally, there are a number of communities currently experimenting with television white space broadband for innovative uses within the United States and internationally, especially for those consumers living in rural areas where there is free, available, unlicensed television white space spectrum to utilize. See Gilpin White Space Article (for example, Wilmington, North Carolina is using the network to connect to two local parks and several public gardens, monitor water levels, water quality, etc.; Pascagoula, Mississippi wanted to have the White Space technology available as a disaster recovery resource; Limpopo and Cape Town, South Africa implemented a White Space project to connect schools in rural areas using solar powered base stations to power the system.). See also Gilpin White Space Article.
unlicensed bands, which enables signals to better penetrate walls and trees and may enable a better consumer experience.270
130. Recognizing the value of both unlicensed and licensed spectrum as a community and educational asset that can be utilized to improve broadband access and provide for innovative uses among low-income Americans, we seek comment on how we can augment the Lifeline program through the use of wireless spectrum to extend the Lifeline program’s reach to as many low-income consumers as possible. What, if any, additional costs may providers incur as part of employing unlicensed technology for the benefit of low-income consumers? How can we best support the use of these more unconventional ways of providing broadband access to the low-income community?
131. We also seek comment on other innovative wired or wireless technologies that may be similarly or better suited to provide low-income consumers with affordable broadband access than unlicensed or licensed spectrum or other, more traditional means of providing broadband. In proposing an alternative solution, commenters should describe how the alternative solution will complement the other programmatic changes and approaches we discuss within this item.