Cover image credit: Associated Press.
On February 18, the Federal Communications Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeking comment on reforms to the Lifeline program. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr argues the reforms are necessary to ensure that Lifeline support goes to eligible Americans and service providers comply with the Commission’s rules and regulations. Eleven organizations joined together to raise concerns that the proposed changes could make it harder to qualify, easier to lose service, and reduce provider/plan options—ostensibly to prevent fraud, but potentially at the cost of kicking eligible low-income people off the program.
“Everyone deserves affordable phone and internet service. We are concerned that FCC proposals to limit Lifeline eligibility, increase data collection about program users, and to phase out phone-only service will further widen the digital divide. We urge the FCC to reconsider these harmful proposals so that everyone can stay connected.”— Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union
“Lifeline benefits everyone by enabling connections with friends, families, commerce vendors, government services, and telemedicine. We need more, not less, Lifeline coverage.”—Andrew Jay Schwartzman, Senior Counselor, Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
“At a time when many families are increasingly strained to afford basic necessities, the changes proposed by Chair Carr to Lifeline – the last remaining federal assistance program for home internet and phone connectivity for families – would further restrict access to a benefit that is both chronically underutilized and inadequate relative to current connectivity costs. With only one in five eligible households enrolled, this important program is already not reaching all of the families it is designed to serve. And yet the proposed changes, if they are incorporated, will cause children in low-income households to face additional barriers to educational resources, will make parents and caregivers increasingly unable to communicate with their kids’ schools, and cause families to have less access to emergency services. These proposed changes risk leaving millions of kids even further behind in today’s economy.”—Brenna Leasor, Tech Policy Advisor at Common Sense Media.
“Any Lifeline reforms must protect program integrity without creating new barriers for the very people the program was designed to serve. Working families and seniors will pay the price if eligibility becomes harder to prove. Policymakers must ensure that efforts to prevent fraud do not disconnect eligible under-resourced communities from the internet access they rely on for work, healthcare, education, and financial stability.”—Diana Rodriguez, VP of Programs and Strategy, EveryoneOn
“Access to affordable communications services is not negotiable or a ‘nice to have’ in 2026. The ability to pick up a phone and call for help is a basic matter of public safety. FCC policy already restricts undocumented people from receiving Lifeline support. Instead of ensuring that the most marginalized in our country have a scrap of connectivity, Chairman Carr is engaging in a racist, deeply cynical and dangerous effort to further demonize immigrants,”—Heather Franklin, Sr. Campaign Director, Free Press
“Hispanic Tech & Telecommunications Partnerships continues to emphasize that affordable broadband is critical to ensure America’s digital empowerment, workforce participation, and future digital readiness. We agree that keeping the integrity of the Lifeline program’s mandate is important, which means that an examination of the program must center the experiences of low-income consumers. This includes examining any barriers to participation in the program and if the program is actually meeting eligible recipients’ modern-day communications needs. Significant changes that would create more obstacles to enrollment, including policy that limits Lifeline to one-per-residence, would eliminate those it was intended to serve, especially among Hispanic Americans, from participating in the program. This would adversely impact Lifeline’s intent to accelerate connectivity among low-income consumers while also creating more complex and costly burdens for all involved.”—JudeAnne Heath, Executive Director, HTTP
“It is increasingly difficult to determine whether this Administration’s approach to communications policy is driven by cruelty or incompetence. The changes Chairman Carr is advancing to the Lifeline program reflect both. Lifeline is a vital program that helps low-income households stay connected to work, school, healthcare, and emergency services. While the program faces challenges, the core issue is not widespread fraud but is ensuring that eligible families can access and benefit from the support Congress intended.”— Brandon Forester, National Organizer, MediaJustice
“The Lifeline benefit is the last remaining national broadband affordability tool for low-income households, and at $9.25 a month, it barely covers enough data for an enrollee to have one telehealth visit with their doctor. It is what it sounds like, a Lifeline – meant to support our most vulnerable neighbors. And yet, the Commission is on a path to make it harder for people who rely on this program to access it. NDIA continues to call on Congress to pass legislation to establish a true and sufficient national broadband affordability benefit. But until then, we ask the FCC to live up to its mandate – ensuring affordable, quality telecommunications services are available to all consumers.”—Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance
“At a time when our communities are worried about affordability, FCC Chair Brendan Carr seeks to render useless its long-standing, bipartisan Lifeline program, telling millions of Americans they no longer ‘deserve’ affordable internet or phone connection. Isolating the elderly, victims of domestic violence, and mixed status families (who are all otherwise legally eligible for Lifeline assistance) is a cruel abuse of FCC power in exchange for cheap political points. NHMC will continue to stand up for marginalized communities as this proceeding moves forward.”—Brenda Victoria Castillo, President & CEO of the National Hispanic Media Coalition
“For more than 40 years, Lifeline has been a program dedicated to meeting the communications needs of the nation’s most vulnerable consumers. Unfortunately, the item before the Commission fails to confront the central question of how the FCC can be more responsive to the growing affordability crisis. Too often, ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ rhetoric is used as a political shield to sidestep meaningful reform and instead revives debates about ‘deservingness’ to distract from what is truly at stake. The stakes are clear: the rising cost of broadband service and the steady erosion of consumer protections at the FCC. When policy is driven by an FCC Chair who has an audience of one, all consumers ultimately pay the price.”— Alisa Valentin, Ph.D., Broadband Policy Director, Public Knowledge
“The FCC’s new proposals hit the most economically vulnerable right in the pocketbook. While this FCC has been touting its goal of deleting rules and reducing red tape for large companies, these Lifeline proposals, in contrast, will bury ordinary people under burdensome, unnecessary paperwork and procedures. Eligible Lifeline recipients will be denied help with affordable communications, posing significant risks to our economy, health outcomes and public safety.”—Cheryl A. Leanza, Policy Advisor, United Church of Christ Media Justice Ministry
CONTACT:
Drew Garner
Director of Policy Engagement
Benton Institute for Broadband & Society
[email protected]
314-803-7187
