FCC Chairman Brendan Carr has proposed a new nationwide eligibility rule to tighten the Lifeline program, which provides subsidies for low-income Americans to access phone and internet services. The plan aims to prevent dead people from receiving benefits, but critics say it will also shut out eligible subscribers.
Carr's proposal includes stricter verification processes, such as collecting full Social Security numbers from applicants and using the Citizenship and Immigration Services' Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to verify eligibility. It also seeks to prevent states from using their own verification processes.
California officials argue that the current process is not flawed but rather a result of "lag time between a death and account closure." They claim that the majority of deceased subscribers were enrolled before they died, and that improper payments largely reflect this delay.
However, the FCC has found evidence of widespread abuse in the program. A recent Inspector General report found that nearly $5 million was disbursed to more than 116,000 dead people over five years, or about $1 million a year. The majority of these claims came from California, where Carr's proposal is being targeted.
Anna Gomez, the FCC's only Democrat, has criticized Carr's plan as "cruel and punitive eligibility standards" that will raise prices on many people who are still eligible for the program. She argues that the current system is already complex enough and that the new rules will lead to a lot of subscribers dropping out due to complexity.
The proposal is set to be voted on next month, with finalizing rules usually taking at least a few months after an NPRM. Carr claims that his plan will lower prices for people who pay Universal Service charges on their phone bills, arguing that the current system is "artificially inflating" prices due to dead people receiving benefits.
The move has been seen as a political attempt by the administration to target perceived enemies, particularly California, which is an opt-out state. Carr has fired back at Governor Gavin Newsom's office, accusing them of spreading misinformation about the issue.
As the Lifeline program provides essential services to millions of Americans, its integrity and effectiveness are crucial. The proposed rule changes will have significant implications for those who rely on the program, and it is essential that any reforms prioritize their needs rather than being used as a tool for political gain.
Carr's proposal includes stricter verification processes, such as collecting full Social Security numbers from applicants and using the Citizenship and Immigration Services' Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program to verify eligibility. It also seeks to prevent states from using their own verification processes.
California officials argue that the current process is not flawed but rather a result of "lag time between a death and account closure." They claim that the majority of deceased subscribers were enrolled before they died, and that improper payments largely reflect this delay.
However, the FCC has found evidence of widespread abuse in the program. A recent Inspector General report found that nearly $5 million was disbursed to more than 116,000 dead people over five years, or about $1 million a year. The majority of these claims came from California, where Carr's proposal is being targeted.
Anna Gomez, the FCC's only Democrat, has criticized Carr's plan as "cruel and punitive eligibility standards" that will raise prices on many people who are still eligible for the program. She argues that the current system is already complex enough and that the new rules will lead to a lot of subscribers dropping out due to complexity.
The proposal is set to be voted on next month, with finalizing rules usually taking at least a few months after an NPRM. Carr claims that his plan will lower prices for people who pay Universal Service charges on their phone bills, arguing that the current system is "artificially inflating" prices due to dead people receiving benefits.
The move has been seen as a political attempt by the administration to target perceived enemies, particularly California, which is an opt-out state. Carr has fired back at Governor Gavin Newsom's office, accusing them of spreading misinformation about the issue.
As the Lifeline program provides essential services to millions of Americans, its integrity and effectiveness are crucial. The proposed rule changes will have significant implications for those who rely on the program, and it is essential that any reforms prioritize their needs rather than being used as a tool for political gain.
I'm literally obsessed with this Lifeline program issue!!! So Carr's plan sounds legit but at the same time kinda harsh, right? 
Like, what if someone's family member died but they didn't know yet and it takes months to get an account closed?! 
That'd be super stressful. And Anna Gomez is like totally right about it being "cruel" lol, I mean, who wants to deal with all that complexity? 
But at the same time, $5 million went to dead people... that's crazy! 
Like, what was going on there?! 
Anyway, whatever happens next I hope it doesn't hurt people who need the program 
. Like, what's wrong with having some verification processes in place? But collecting full Social Security numbers from applicants? That's just too much 
It's not like they're receiving benefits willy-nilly - there's a system in place for that. This whole thing feels like the administration is trying to score points, rather than actually helping people 
. We should be focusing on improving the program, not making it more complex and expensive 
. The fact that we've got millions of Americans relying on this program means we need to prioritize their needs over politics 
.
I'm worried about this new proposal from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr. It's like they're playing both sides - they want to stop people from getting scammed out of Lifeline funds, but at the same time, it could cut off thousands of good people who are actually struggling to get by 
the fcc's new plan to tighten up the lifeline program is a double-edged sword 
. on one hand, preventing dead people from getting subsidies is super important 
. i think we should focus on making the system simpler and more efficient 
, not more complicated and expensive 
... for those who are trying to scam the system, but let's be real, most people just need help getting online and staying connected 
. I think Anna Gomez has a point about the complexity of the system already being a problem... we don't want to make it even harder for low-income folks to access the services they need 
.
It seems like a lot of people are getting caught in the middle here and it just doesn't feel fair to me 
I get that Anna Gomez thinks it's too complicated, but what about all those people who are just trying to scam the system and take advantage of others? 
I get that we gotta make sure nobody gets paid for dead bodies, but this new rule sounds way too strict 
what if it makes it hard for legit low-income folks to even sign up? 
Anna Gomez is totally right btw 
also, isn't California an opt-out state just because some people don't want the program? 
, this is gonna be a nightmare. If they implement these new rules, low-income people are gonna get screwed even harder. The idea that they're trying to prevent dead people from getting subsidies is nice, but it's just a way for the FCC to justify raising prices for everyone else. I mean, think about it - what's next? They'll be tracking your every move to make sure you're not wasting any money 
. It's just gonna lead to more complexity and less access for people who need it most. This is a disaster waiting to happen