The Emergency Broadband Benefit: Implementation and Future Policy Directions

The Emergency Broadband Benefit: Implementation and Future Policy Directions

INSIGHTi

The Emergency Broadband Benefit:
Implementation and Future Policy Directions
February 23, 2021
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the Act) created the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program
(EBB). It subsidizes broadband service for eligible households—defined as those households that suffered
income loss during the pandemic or meet other need-based criteria specified in the Act, such as eligibility
for school lunch programs. Any broadband provider that had an “established program” that was “widely
available” as of April 1, 2020, and maintains “verification processes that are sufficient to prevent fraud,
waste, and abuse” may apply to participate in the program. The Act requires the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) to promulgate implementing regulations within 60 days of passage (by February 25,
2021).
EBB is a temporary program funded by a congressional appropriation of $3.2 billion, available until
expended, or until six months after the current public health emergency declared by the Secretary of
Health and Human Services terminates. Even though the Appropriations Act construes EBB as a
temporary program, numerous advocacy organizations have used its passage to press for long-sought
policy reforms on behalf of low-income Americans via the FCC rulemaking process. Consumer advocates
have suggested that EBB might provide a template for a new approach to fulfilling the legislative mandate
for universal service—either through reform of the FCC’s existing low-income connectivity assistance
program (known as Lifeline) or creation of a new permanent program to supplement or replace it.
EBB as written in statute differs from Lifeline in its funding structure, benefits levels, and provider and
beneficiary eligibility requirements. The FCC funds Lifeline and other Universal Service Fund (USF)
programs through fees collected from telecommunication providers, rather than the congressional
appropriations process, as is the case with EBB. Therefore, the new program demonstrates an alternative
model of funding for these programs that some advocates support. For potential subscribers, EBB offers
broader eligibility provisions and significantly higher monthly subsidies to cover the cost of residential
broadband service—up to $50 in most cases, versus $9.25 under Lifeline, and provides discounts of up to
$100 for computing devices supplied by participating broadband providers. Finally, EBB expands
eligibility criteria for broadband providers and instructs the FCC to expedite review of new applications.
Eligible households may receive both Lifeline and EBB benefits simultaneously. (Participating providers
usually market Lifeline service as a free mobile data plan with usage caps rather than as a residential
broadband subsidy as envisioned under EBB.)
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11612
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
On January 4, 2021, the FCC sought comment on EBB implementation—specifically, eligibility
requirements and verification procedures for broadband providers and households, eligible services and
connected devices, auditing and enforcement procedures, reporting requirements, and best practices for
outreach. The FCC received hundreds of comment submissions from broadband providers, state
regulators, consumer advocates, community organizations, municipalities, and think tanks addressing
these and other issues. In addition, the FCC held a virtual roundtable on February 12 that included
numerous presentations from FCC commissioners and broadband stakeholders. Stakeholders adopted a
variety of positions on specific issues, with attention coalescing around several points:
 Broadband speed benchmarks: The FCC’s broadband speed benchmark, which was set
in 2015, is 25 megabits-per-second (Mbps) download and 3 Mbps upload. Some
advocates have called for a higher benchmark to enable a wider range of web-based
services. Others have voiced concerns that this would require broadband providers to
make infrastructure investments not justified by existing demand, or might price low-
income subscribers out of the market.
 Technology standards: Broadband providers use fiber-optic cables, existing copper wire
infrastructure, fixed wireless stations, and satellites to serve customers. Each has specific
technical characteristics for benchmark speeds, latency, availability, and deployment cost.
Commenters sought FCC eligibility rules for inclusion or exclusion of certain
technologies to support preferred business or policy goals.
 Eligible providers: Participating providers in USF programs, such as Lifeline, “must be
designated as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers (ETCs) by their state commission or
the FCC.” Some stakeholders have criticized certain designation requirements as
restrictive and anti-competitive. Commenters requested certain changes to designation
procedures and administration based upon the EBB statutory language, and pressed for
updates and improvements to existing automated eligibility verification systems and
databases.
 Participation incentives: Broadband provider participation in the existing low-income
(Lifeline) program has declined in recent years. Some commenters voiced concerns that
providers would not participate in EBB in sufficient numbers unless the FCC provided
adequate incentives. On the demand side, consumer advocates sought FCC support for
vigorous outreach and education and simplification of enrollment and eligibility
verification procedures.
 Program effectiveness and timelines: Commenters sought clarification of program
scope and goals, measures of effectiveness, and reporting requirements to guide
implementation and benchmark progress. Commenters also raised concerns on
sufficiency of available funding to cover the duration of the public health emergency.
 Waste, fraud, and abuse: In the past, some ETCs have improperly enrolled participants
in Lifeline in order to submit fraudulent reimbursement claims. Commenters provided
proposals to balance transparency and accountability in provider service offerings with
participation and enrollment objectives.
The February 25, 2021, deadline for the FCC to publish EBB program rules may serve to compel FCC
policy decisions in a number of key issue areas outlined above, which are broadly applicable to USF
programs as a whole. Depending on final rulemaking decisions by the FCC, EBB implementation may
further consumer advocates’ goals for increased competition and adoption in underserved communities,
more generous benefits for recipients, streamlined application and eligibility verification, wider
availability of fast broadband, and stricter requirements for transparent billing by broadband providers.
Conversely, it may operate more narrowly as temporary assistance without fundamentally altering current

Congressional Research Service
3
FCC programs. Therefore, EBB implementation may provide indication of the future direction of federal
broadband policy under the Biden Administration. Likewise, the short duration of the program provides a
potential opportunity for Congress to assess policy outcomes and consider longer-term changes to FCC
USF programs if desired.

Author Information

Brian E. Humphreys

Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11612 · VERSION 1 · NEW