FOLLOW US

Supporters of the federal Lifeline program are pressing the Federal Communications Commission to reconsider the program’s $9.25 monthly subsidy, arguing that the amount no longer meaningfully reduces broadband costs for low-income households.

In recent meetings with FCC officials, the National Lifeline Association called on the agency to seek public comment on whether the current benefit level should be increased. Lifeline, created by Congress in the 1990s, provides eligible households with a monthly discount on phone or broadband service through the Universal Service Fund.

The push comes after the expiration of temporary pandemic-era programs such as the Affordable Connectivity Program, which had offered more substantial broadband assistance. With those funds depleted, Lifeline remains the primary federal communications subsidy available to many low-income consumers.

According to the association, $9.25 per month is insufficient to cover even basic broadband plans that include voice, text and data services. The group said the current support level does not reflect the realities of today’s digital economy, where reliable internet access is necessary for work, education, healthcare and government services.

The FCC recently proposed updates aimed at improving eligibility verification and program oversight. In response, the association urged the agency to incorporate questions about the adequacy of the monthly benefit into its rulemaking process. While requesting public input does not obligate the FCC to raise the subsidy, the group argued that gathering feedback would position the agency to act more quickly if changes are warranted.

The association acknowledged that any adjustment to the Lifeline benefit must be evaluated within the broader framework of the Universal Service Fund, which supports not only low-income households but also rural broadband deployment, schools, libraries and healthcare facilities. Although Lifeline spending currently falls well below its annual budget cap, increasing the monthly support could have implications for the overall fund.

In addition to advocating for a higher benefit, the group expressed support for reforms aimed at strengthening program integrity. It said it intends to work with regulators to ensure that only eligible households receive discounts while avoiding excessive administrative burdens on providers and participants. Recommendations include streamlining audit procedures and appeals processes so that reviews are targeted, risk-based and resolved promptly.

The association told regulators that long-standing legal and regulatory uncertainty surrounding the program has created instability for providers and beneficiaries alike. Clarifying rules and evaluating the subsidy level, it said, would help address ongoing affordability challenges faced by low-income Americans.

The FCC did not immediately comment on the proposal.