We don’t know which side to take in this dispute between the Federal Communications Commission and three Lifeline Assistance free government cell phone companies.
The three companies want the FCC to limit Lifeline regulation and focus instead on increasing competition in the industry.
One one hand, we agree that increased competition will drive Lifeline companies to provide more and better service for their customers. On the other hand, there is so much fraud and abuse in the industry, that it seems foolhardy for the government watchdog to back off on stricter regulations.
The Lifeline Connect Coalition — comprised of current service providers i-wireless, Telrite, and Blue Jay Wireless — held four meeting with FCC commissioners and staff members to express its point of view. The Coalition believes consumers will be better served if the FCC declines to set minimum service standards and, instead, approves the many companies that have already applied to enter the free government cell phone business.
The Coalition said, “Shifting the FCC’s focus to promoting competition and minimizing regulation will result in better service offerings and more innovation for consumers.”
Please allow us to explain:
The FCC wants to establish minimum service standards that must be followed by all service providers. Those standards would prohibit Lifeline companies from offering stripped-down packages that do not meet FCC-established standards.
The Coalition says that many Lifeline customers do not want to pay (and, indeed, cannot afford to pay) for fully-featured packages that include text and broadband. They say consumers will not purchase these packages in sufficient numbers even if they are offered at low, subsidized rates. Instead, the Coalition urged the FCC to approve simpler services like voice-only service. Setting the minimum service bar too high, the Coalition believes, will result in fewer customers receiving more services when the goal should be to provide fewer services to more customers.
The Coalition strongly encouraged the FCC to get off its duff (it didn’t use those words to describe its desired outcome, but we aren’t required to be as diplomatic as the Coalition is in government filings) and approve the 53 Lifeline compliance plans that are awaiting action. Some of them have been in the approval queue for years.
If you’re a basketball fan, you’re probably aware of the 24-second shot clock in the National Basketball Association. It requires a team to take a shot within 24-seconds or lose the ball. The Coalition used a 24-second clock analogy to address the backlog of Lifeline Assistance applications. The Coalition’s “90-day shot clock” proposal would automatically approve new Lifeline providers’ applications if the FCC sits on them for more than 90 days
A summary of the Coalition’s summary called out the FCC’s inaction by saying, “The FCC and certain state commissions inhibit competition by failing to act promptly on applications from would-be competitors and by imposing onerous regulatory burdens with no cost benefit analysis and, in some cases, no authority.”
So what’s your opinion of this dispute?
Would you rather see more services for few customers? Or fewer services for more customers?
h/t: Law360.com
Harry Collins says
I think that people and families should be able to get the phones . I am moving from Safelink. This year they drop my lifeline phone for no reason. I have fillede out the app. for a new one they are just giving me the run around. I have done everything they ask me to do when it was time to renew my app.
I am fed up with Saelink. I told them to send me the papers to send their phone back to them.
I had proplem with cheap phone they sent me, it took me a year and half to get the phone replaced.
Lynda says
It’s all a sham. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Bet you endorse Trump too!
Baa Humbug!!!!
tim says
companies are advertising and giving so little while other lifeline companies offer unlimited everything free and some only 250 minutes or text is not fair should be the same for everyone in every state,if one state can give all unlimited free this all states should be able do same for those that meet all fcc requirements to apply.
Free Government Cell Phones says
We respectfully disagree, Tim. Competition is what makes the world go round. Let market forces determine what a company is willing to give for the money.
Should every car from every manufacturer be the same? Every personal computer? Every article of clothing in every store?
Erin says
I’d love to see more competition but it should be for more services. I use texting more than talking; and your Lifeline minutes go further that way since you can get more info in a text than 1 minute of talking.
I get text messages from the DHS as well as Nixel-a service police use in my area to alert people to things such as traffic alerts, crimes alerts, and missing people.I can get text messages from drs too if I signed up , letting me get appointment reminders. Texting isn’t just for teens to talk to each other, it’s useful for everyone. It’s ridiousle for these companies to try and say people don’t want it. Sure there may be some who never text, but for many it is more useful than not and every phone service should offer it, and Lifeline should continue offering it for free. In this age, it’s a basic service like voice calling.
Minimum requirements help protect the consumer, though I applaud companies that go above and beyond them-that shows they really care about their customers. I’m with the FCC on this one.
Free Government Cell Phones says
We agree with your position, Erin. You would think that companies would address competitive issues by offering different levels of service. That is, they should offer some plans that offer more minutes and fewer texts, and others that offer fewer minutes and more texts.
kentuckywoman2 says
I’m for compromise. I believe it is possible to set minimum standards, which I strongly support, as well as encourage competition. In fact, there is already competition between these companies. I would encourage the FDC to get on the ball and vet those companies who have already applied to provide service. Whatever they need to do to make that happen, should be done. It sounds like the FDC needs to hire some more people to vet companies, so perhaps they need to lobby for more funding so they can do that, if they haven’t already done so.
But we should absolutely NOT back off on regulations and a minimum standard of service. And if fines/penalties are involved, they should absolutely be enforced. Otherwise, corruption abounds and even though technically more companies might be offering more services, that in no way ensures that delivery of those services are getting to the people who need them, or that they are offering what they promised or are required to provide by law.
No, I’m firmly in the camp of regulation and minimum standard of service. Companies can compete by offering more than the minimum standard, as they already are. If one has a choice of a particular cell phone, a certain number of minutes/texts, and perks such as Internet access, as is already the case, than companies are competing in the marketplace.
GERARD F. GAUDIN says
Given the current state of technology, I would like to see Free Phone service that offers a fair amount of talk and text time with charges only against “Originating” call and texts. Incoming should not be charged against monthly limits.
Internet (data) should be sufficient for E-mail, Shopping, Banking and other basic services and priced at a low and reasonable fee, traveling at non-tiered speeds. If the phone uses VOIP; there should never be additional phone charges.
Most importantly there should be one central and authoritative presence whereby one can complain and have difficulties settled quickly and justly, no matter whom the ISP/Carrier. ALL fraud should be swiftly dealt with!!
I hope that I have contributed to the thought process(s).
Erin says
Everything you said is very reasonable. I like your idea of having one authority to deal with issues from all the Lifeline services. I agree too, inbound charges are unfair. I’m happy to pay (via minutes) for my own outbound calls and texts, but how is it reasonable to make me pay for someone else’s (to me)? I mean if they are going to do that just tack on a low monthly maintenance fee. But I guess it wouldn’t be free Lifeline then, so I guess inbound charges are just how some of the companies stay in the game.
Steve says
So let me try and read between the lines here, giving my due as why Lifeline needs better, stronger and more government watchdogs, yes everyone of you Lifeline users are a watchdog and should be to ensure it’s success.
1.limit Lifeline regulation and focus instead on increasing competition in the industry.
*So they want to add more companies? maybe even to allow Lifeline companies to branch out with sister companies to get more of the fat government cow in their bellies?
**I say make increased competition a regulation of all the already now Lifeline companies in the governments pockets today. Customer support being #1 issue to address by a report or score card system quarterly by every Lifeline users.
#2 would be to require these Lifeline companies to become NOT FOR PROFIT organizations where any monies would be put back into these companies to spur this competition, with the likes of upgraded Phone models as technology advances and the cost savings services those technology advances would yield. NOT TO LINE THE POCKETS of the companies owners, executives, shareholders, agents and such.
***Any company that receives government money for low-income people should be required to have a Not For Profit status, or a division set aside from the normal company to NOT PROFIT from the government in helping it’s low-income people. [Really defeats the whole purpose otherwise].
2. is so much fraud and abuse in the industry, that it seems foolhardy for the government watchdog to back off on stricter regulations.
*Simplest suggestion here would be to impose a life time band for any user or company caught, (I don’t know if a three strikes your out rule) for consumers but, for companies with each strike a heaver fine till they reach a life time band. A consumer would be banned for a year, then three, then ten years to get their attention and proper attitude for a entitlement program with their bad deeds.
3.better served if the FCC declines to set minimum service standards.
*Like the fox guarding the hen house – all over again ! No I think service standards should be set higher than they are now, to weed out poor preforming Lifeline companies, (based on a report or score card by current Lifeline users). To ensure that every cent spent by the FCC on the Lifeline program is accounted for and wisely invested with preforming Lifeline leaders.
Set a standard maximum number of Lifeline companies that each state may have by population or low-income residents. Then the states and the FCC will always have a pool to draw from should a Lifeline company be found operating subpar.
Restrict Lifeline companies from any profits by a upsell of services or device. Then if any profits should be found and not reinvested within the Lifeline company in a timed window for it to limited too – then it must be surrendered back to the FCC fund it was pulled from.
Bottom-line no Lifeline company (or any company) receiving government funds in supplying a service to low-income people – should profit from the act…
Doreen Mcgill says
every time I order a free government cell phone the UPS workers steal it and because its ordered via telephone I dont have a tracking number; please advise – Im so sick of this!
Free Government Cell Phones says
How many times has this happened, Doreen? Have you reported it to your local UPS management?
Lonnie Newsome Clifton 111 says
I Have Been A Government Mobil Phone User For A Few Years Now. The Only Single I Can Get From Home Is From A Tower That Has A Verivon Feed. Can I Get A Phone That Will Work Off A Verizon Tower?
Free Government Cell Phones says
To get an accurate answer to that question, you must contact your service provider’s customer service team by phone or online.
Carol Hrdlichka says
I’d rather see more services for few customers.
Free Government Cell Phones says
The other side of the argument comes from people who would rather see fewer services for more customers. Everyone in this industry tries to strike a balance that will satisfy the most consumers.