Congress shouldn’t cut the lifeline for rural America

You might assume that urban America is where the broadband gap is most severe.  But the truth is that rural America is much worse off when it comes to broadband or, more precisely, the lack thereof.  The FCC’s 2015 Broadband Progress Report found that more than half (53 percent) of rural Americans lack access to high-speed broadband.  And much of our rural communities may lack such access for many years to come.  In fact, if you look at a map of the portion of rural America west of the Mississippi River that is served by broadband, you will see what is a high-tech wasteland.
 
That’s why those of us who advocate for rural America are so concerned about H.R. 4884, the so-called “CURB Lifeline Abuse Act,” which is being marked up in the House this week and next.   For low-income rural Americans, the bill is a double-barreled problem:  It would take away some of what the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) just did on broadband affordability and would phase out subsidies for voice-only service for mobile, ultimately killing wireless Lifeline cellphone access.
 
{mosads}No one opposes fiscal responsibility in the Lifeline program, and efforts to reduce fraud.   But it is misleading and unfair to trade on anecdotal illustrations of past problems that have long since been addressed. Not only has the FCC in recent years enacted sweeping reforms tackling concerns about the Lifeline program, but it also took additional steps last month to make sure that cellphone and broadband services would be even more efficient.
 
The bill now pending in the House would undo much of the good that the FCC has done in Lifeline.  Here are some of the chief concerns:
 

1. It would wipe out access to wireless Lifeline cellphone service.   The House bill would kill the federal cellphone program with a two-year phase out.  Many of the 12 million Americans using wireless Lifeline today are in rural areas and these struggling individuals – including the elderly, disabled and veterans – would simply be hung up on.
2.  It ignores the fact that eligible broadband services are not available in much of rural America.  If Congress cuts off wireless Lifeline cellphone service and there is no broadband service available in huge swathes of rural America, then much of rural America is effectively denied access to any cellphone or broadband service under Lifeline.   This is such a severe step that it is hard to imagine anyone truly in touch with and concerned about rural issues would even contemplate it, much less attempt to impose it on millions of vulnerable low-income people.
3.  It imposes a low budget on a program that is already falling short of serving millions of poor Americans.  Only a small fraction of those eligible to participate in Lifeline do so today.  The lower hard budget cap in the House bill would simply kick to the curb millions of low-income Americans, sending a clear signal to rural America that, for us, Congress is abandoning the goal of universal access to telecommunications services.

 
The House bill to cut off wireless Lifeline cellphone service and limit broadband affordability is a solution in search of a problem.  Rural Americans would be relieved if the House chose to leave well enough alone.

Huber is president of The National Grange.