For you and the party as you observe this process unfold . Guest is a crucial time in the history of the country so it is very important to actually have a unified or unifying convention so there is a nominee somebody who gets above the majority of votes people need to rally around that person. If it is a contested convention so nobody is going into the convention with a majority of delegates the moment you showed gerald ford calling Ronald Reagan down to the stage as to signal the unity of the party party is absolutely crucial. It can be a positive for the party to have democracy flourishing in public but you do have to unify things in the end. Host veteran of the and george w. Bush campaign, ben ginsburg former counsel for the Republican National committee, thank you for explaining all of this. Guest thank you. Here on cspan2 tonight the communicators is next with a look at the fccs Lifeline Program which provides nearly 12 million households access to phone service in the u. S. Host this week on the communicators a discussion of the federal government Lifeline Program which is administered by the federal communications commission. Federal communications commission. Joining us our two guests to discuss this, Amina Fazlullah is policy director and Daniel Daniel lyons is with American EnterpriseInstitutes Center for internet indications and technology. He is a visiting scholar there from boston college. Amina fazlullah what is this Lifeline Program and how to come about . Guest the Lifeline Program actually came about during the Reagan Administration in order to provide a subsidy to make sure that low income persons that have access to Voice Service, Telephone Service and this comes from the notion that having everyone on the network and having access to public safety, having access to each other in commerce is incredibly important and for low income persons making sure that they have Additional Support to do that is necessary so thats where the program began. Host and how many people participate in this program . Guest as of this past year about 13 million. Host and whats the cost . Guest so the cost of the program is for household. Host 9. 25. Guest thats right and so its a relatively minimal subsidy and the cost has gone down over the past few years in terms of the overall cost for the Lifeline Program and the total universal service. Host is it specifically for wire funds or is it wireless as well . Guest currently, during the Reagan Administration to telephone wired Service Began and then after the bush administration, they introduced wireless, so as it stands today there is wired and Wireless Voice available within the program. Host daniel lyons has it been successful in your view . Guest its not clear that what the success rate of lifeline is played as one of the problems with the program that exists now so lifeline was more or less a political compromise between the carriers and the fcc when the government broke up the at t monopoly. Part of the concern was while we would establish this amount to low income consumers the goal making sure that low income consumers can get access to Telephone Service. No one has really done a study to figure out whether the amount we are giving is actually going towards people who would otherwise not fall off the grid. So the gao issued just last year that criticized the fcc for this purpose so i think there is a bipartisan support for the idea that a low income households should have some service to make sure they are not falling off the grid to make sure they can manage the latest communication system. The concern is whether or lifeline is actually achieving that. When the gao asked its gao asked fcc for evidence that lifeline is successful the fcc pointed to a thirdparty report an academic report that suggested it might he as much as 80 of lifeline dollars of households that would have Telephone Service even without the subsidy. Host how is abundant . Guest is funded by the universal service charge, the monthly tax on your wireless bill or your landline phone bills. In the way they calculate is the fcc estimates how much is going to need per year and then divides it over interstate talk medications so its longdistance revenue largely. A percentage is charge of the carrier thats passed along to me and you the consumer. Host Amina Fazlullah hasnt been successful in your view . Yes go i think a prored has been successful and i agree that it would be better for the fcc to take steps to understand the population better and understand the impact of the program and not have to rely on thirdparty reports, but i do think the program is successful and id like to step back just for a moment to understand who we are talking about in terms of who the users are. So, the Lifeline Program is restricted to full who earn about 135 of the poverty line or lower so for a family of four in the contiguous 48 thats about 32,000 a year. If you live in a city like des moines, since San Francisco is not new york to cost about 53,000 a year for you to meet your average expenses for a family of four. So they are suffering. They are differently well below below they have well below what they need per year in terms of income and so there are times when they are going to make decisions like should i pay the phone bills or should i get food . Should i get food or should i get medicine . So folks do fall on and off. I think every everybody understands today low income or high income, the broadband and Cell Phone Services vitally important. And so people try to make that work because its a necessary tool for their lives. When you are looking at the numbers, its really really difficult to even conceive of how these families are going to be able to meet their needs and stay on highcost Subscriber Program like broadband or Telephone Service without the support. So i think that understanding the struggles that these families are facing, lifeline is done a great job of providing the support thats going to be there for them continuously. Host the fcc in their marketing will be talking about the Lifeline Program and to get more perspective on that lets bring in Brendan Sasso of the the National Journal into the conversation as well. Guest thanks peter. To provide context and latest updates the fcc is set to vote later this month on the changes to the Lifeline Program, the biggest change being there are going to include Broadband Internet service so people can use that 9dollar subsidy not just for cell phone or landline but for Internet Access either at home or data package for their cell phone. My question is whether you think the 9. 25 is enough. I know that most people, cost a lot more than that to get Home Broadband connection or a data plan for a family so is that enough to encourage people to adopt broadband otherwise . Guest i think its a good first step. I think that the fcc is going to be making a lot of changes to this program and moving in its elaborate fashion make sense. There are programs that are out currently that are not part of the dash that are available to lowincome families that are coming in around the 10dollar mark. There are a lot of other costs that are required to access the internet. They will have to have a device potentially training and support , and there are prorants out there to support lowincome families so they have access to all the pieces. 9. 25 is a good place to start but i think its yet to be seen whether or not that will be enough going forward. Guest were where the 9. 25 comes for is extending that out but i think the fcc is putting the cart before the horse because they havent done a real study to suggest these are the drivers that are keeping lowincome people from adopting Broadband Service and this is the amount we are going to need. We dont know if we need 9 a month for 10 Million People are 45 a month keen notably. We have to be sure where to play in the money effectively. The fcc simply hasnt done that level of analysis. We have a series of broadband trials that the fcc adopted in 22,000 ultimate 12 and the goal was to try to provide data but unfortunately they were not designed in a way that had measurable output results and the sample sizes on that being too small. One thing we did learn from those trials is that the higher the subsidy the more the uptake rate to suggest that in fact my dollars a month is probably too low and the broad ban prices are 50, 60, 70 a month. It wont be enough to incentivize people who use broadband. Guest one thing thats interesting about the proposal is would phase out support for mobile voice only. There are some people may be elderly especially who just dont want to get broadband at maybe they like Free Cell Phone Service right now. Is it a concern that those people wont be potentially supported and the program any more . Guest there is as of right now it looks like a phaseout and theres definitely concern, how this Consumer Population is going to shift from having a product that was focused on voice and now a product that they are used to using a product that might have some component of voice as well as a component of data or different device completely so for my feature phone to a smartphone. Its going to take a careful approach by the fcc to transition those folks. I think we all understand the benefits of making sure that everyone has access to broadband thats it i think its a difficult world for the fcc to play. They want to encourage the modernization of the program are they differently dont want anybody to be left behind because they are not quite ready for that step. Host in a sense is this a backdoor reform of the universal service fund . Guest is one step among many that the fcc has taken over the years to Transition Service from a telephonebased program to a broadbandbased program. There is Additional Support that the fcc provides for rural areas that they call the highcost fund to help cover carriers that provide service in places where there are not a lot of people in the fcc transition back into broadband as well. Part of the problem with taking the old telephone system and simply moving it to broadband as we replicate some of the errors and difficult as we had and what makes more sense is the fcc to rethink this from ground zero rather than have an evolutionary change of a lifeline or universal service. Starting at zero in designing a system today to provide broadband support, how would i do it . S. Go and how would you do it . Guest with regard to a lifeline in particular what makes sense some sort of system that is direct to the language that president obama used to disconnect all and i think it makes a lot of sense for the fcc to figure out first evolved what are the drivers of broadband adoption. Its not just the monthly fee that is a problem. You could have rock band on the computer for example. Thats problematic so a holistic approach would involve not not just a subsidy for Monthly Service but also some type of equipment subsidy for the computer eligible recipient also a digital outreach. We did a survey about why people who are not on broadband have chosen not to. We just dont think we need to be on the internet. There will be a group of people for example that are never going to adopt it but for those that simply dont appreciate everything you can get from broadband subscriptions, those are the sorts of things i would group together and funded in a different way as well. And he would fund at how . Rather than using a universal universal service Fund Mechanism which is problematic a map to until recently there wasnt a budget on the program and b is growing exponentially so the u. S. Charge was 3 in 1998 and now its at 18 which is close to that tax if they put on hotels for people coming from out of town. Rather than fund it that way what makes sense is a line item in the federal budget just like any other Subsidy Program something that is subject to congressional oversight that has a hard cap that forces the program to figure out how to use these most efficiently to get people on the grid and may be moved out of the fcc had Something Like hhs or another agency that has a better understanding of poverty issues. One of the critiques of the universal fund over the past 2020 years has been its focus more on the needs of carriers than the needs of consumers. Thats not a surprise given we carry such a large constituency. Host Amina Fazlullah hasnt worked in your view . The funding mechanism . Guest i think the uss program has worked for many years now. I think its at a crossroads where we are going to have to consider how we can choubey to that program as more consumers migrate from traditional Telephone Service and Voice Service to the traditional base of where the dollars come from and go to broadband and voice ip and migrate to other types of services. Thats going to be considered and i think that is sort of the next step for the fcc. So as you said we have seen each piece of the usf fund get upgraded and modernized so it began with high costs which turned into the tech america fun to be focused on broadband. They think that was the right step to take. I think the laws that are written around usf are flexible enough so they are actually taking the initiative to make that happen. We saw the upgrade of ee rates. I think thats a really exciting moment and we saw the president come out with connected to support the steps the fcc was taking. But they also pushed for steps from the department of education as well as the fcc so wasnt a one step process where we hope that ebay could do it all. We understand limitations and now we are looking at lifeline. Lifeline you know i think is very focused on cost subsidy for service. Its not going to be the program thats going to provide us with equipment or additional training and while these aspects are really important the fcc might not be the place to do all of those things in one setting and lifeline is definitely not the program thats going to be able to handle all the pieces as well i think what we have seen with the connect Call Initiative from the white house is acknowledgment. Its going to take many aspects of government working together to be able to actually close the Digital Divide and close these gaps. Host Brendan Sasso. Guest you mention potentially whether to expand broadband are whats contributing to the program. The goal is to encourage adoption by certain elements that is counterproductive in that you are increasing the cost of the to get broadband. If you could make with at least those issues and confuse the viewers that the attacks on the internet and that i would have that might be something the fcc would be a little gun shy about doing. Guest i mean i think our tradition reform is overdue. I know the fcc is argued looking into that and there is a report that is supposed to be released on the assessment of this particular issue. So i think everyone who works on universal service is aware that this is coming. I think of it will be tricky. Theres no doubt its going to be a big shift and, or its going to be big shift for what the program can do if it doesnt change much. So i think it will be a tricky issue for the fcc to tackle. Guest to add a little bit of meat to that skeleton the primary issue with the service on contribution mechanism right now is that the only base that the usf can be attached to is currently interstate and International Telephone charges. The problem is not only are people making a lot of longdistance calls, the tax is shrinking and at the same time lifeline and the high cost of funding these programs are growing and ending up with a larger fraction. One solution might be ultimately to increase the face base by saying we are going to at the tax and not just phone revenue but your monthly internet charge. Thats something that potentially is on the table now that the fcc has reclassified Internet Access as telecommunication but a politically difficult a because the fcc base some of the controversial move to reclassified internet has made a promise that we are not going to tax the internet and even a specific congressional statute out there that says that to preempt any type of attempt to attack Internet Access. If the fcc has to thread a needle to argue that universal Service Reform coming universal charges are not a tack said okay under the statute. And face the political consequences. Host why is this happening now . Guest it is happening now because more and more of our lives are migrating on line. I think the industry itself is looking at sun setting the traditional Telephone Network over the next five to 10 years and the programs that use to support telephone access probably need to be updated as well. We are moving to a world where you dont have a dedicated Telephone Network but rather Voice Service is one of many things that are carried over the internet now. Thats the network of the 21st century we will need to worry about the same issues of access to that network as we did back in the 20 century with regard to access to telephone. Host are the isps and telecom supporting this proposal . Guest yes, there is an interesting combination of folks that support wifi modernization. Public rights and civil civil rights advocates lowincome applicants but also industry and that has been heartening to see. I think everyone acrosstheboard understands the importance of broadband and supports the modernization of the program. I think differences are in the details and how you approach it. But i do want to step back for a moment to sort of think about what it means to dismantle the usf program completely or to start a new instead of trying to modernize lifeline, going a congressional route. I think low income consumers need access to broadband now. It is unclear to me that congress would be able to pass a support that is directly aimed at low income users. This congress has not been particularly supportive of folks who are in poverty. The conversations that have been on the hill have been hard to decipher. Sometimes it appears that they are supporters of initiatives like rock band for low income folks but then simultaneously if there is ever a conversation about support like the traditional support like snap or like any other subsidy that the federal government provides, theres a lot of pushback. Award entitlement i think is really on the hill so i think the idea that we would develop a brandnew program that would be able to combine elements of equipment, support as well as the cost i think is helpful and Wishful Thinking but i dont know that we have actually got the votes in congress to do Something Like that. Low income folks need access now lifeline is a step towards that and gets us closer to that whole today. Guest a law professor suggests that if the problem with the universal service fund is it came before congress, congress would have voted down. That may suggest a problem with the broque im as far as the american people. The critique for the universal service fund for years has been the hidden tax because its off legit. Selfsustaining and arguments by people like me that we need to move it on budget are inevitably met with but if we actually acknowledge the cost of this on the budget people are voted down and i think that says something about the existence of the program itself. That said this is one of the issues you to get bipartisan approval for her. Maybe too far up any ivory tower but it seems to me it makes more sense, if we are going to do this and the fcc and the president said we need to make sure we do this if we are simply going to have rock band reform and bring Broadband Service to lowincome consumers we need to do it the right way or the wrong way and it seems to me a comprehensive approach encompasses all the drivers that are causing lowincome people they get onto the grid is much more intelligence to take in the 9dollar will dont have broadband providers. Im wondering if you could talk about the importance of getting the Cable Companies to participate in this click seems like a big question whether comcast and charter in a lot of areas in the country, they might reveal me real highspeed Broadband Home option available so it seems unclear at this point whether they are going to actually participate in do you think a proposal is crafted ike chairman wheeler would get them involved . Right now the proposal is to introduce new providers into the program. Providers who are currently not Eligible Telecommunications carriers. They are looking into streamlining that process and making the program more open to traditional broadband carriers like cable. I think thats a really great step forward. If you are going to focus lifeline on broadband are going to need to providers who are primarily providing broadband and i think there has been a lot of attention paid to how to bring in these providers into the Lifeline Program in a way that ensures that consumers are still getting treated fairly and have access to a substantial service. At lease one Cable Provider is a a second condition of the merger comcast offers the Internet Essentials Program which is a basic right than service for families i believe that children in school. Conditions on the program and there is debate in academia. Its out there and at least one of the countries of supporting it so provides a model to figure out how successful, how we might roll this out to cable broadband as well. Host daniel lyons whats the pushback at the fcc from and republicans . Guess i think part of it is simply justifying the figures where throwing out now so as i understand it the proposal at that the fcc is to add a budget to lifeline but to increase that by 50 above what the lifeline currently as i think its 1. 5 or 1. 6 billion now and they are proposing 2. 1 or 2. 2 going forward. It makes sense if you are expanding to broadband you want to increase the amount of the subsidy but its not clear what number is driving driving that 50 greater than 75 had not clear what happens if the fcc hit that goal. Its a hard budget are a service to aspire aspire to . Guest does that mean a potential increase to the usf . Guess who it does. Unless we have contribution reform it means universal service fund and writer will grow so the usf surcharge is likely to grow as well. Guest im wondering if we could talk about the program has been criticized i think by people in both parties were a lot of waste and fraud in the fcc has taken some steps to rein that in. Its also for a reason i dont understand has been called the Obama Phone Program some sort of quickly charge as you sense from the Reagan Administration. I wondered if you could talk about whether you think the steps the fcc has taken are not to combat the waste in the proposal also has some new measures to clamp down on fraud. Guest the program, we are a part of the reform a few years ago. That was very focused on fraud waste and abuse and tighten the program up since the inclusion of Wireless Voice. I think that was probably one of the biggest drivers. Part of it was consumer usage, the popularity to Wireless Voice theres also a usefulness to Wireless Voice within the lowincome population. Having that mobility is critical so i think there is an