 Good morning, everyone. Welcome to New America Foundation. Really pleased to have you here. I'm Gene Kimmelman. I had a program on Internet Policy and Human Rights here with New America and with the sister organization Global Partners Digital in London. Really honored to have you here for this event, focused on the importance of the telephone lifeline program in this week when we're showing our appreciation for it with the support of state regulators and the FCC. We'll have the chair of the FCC speaking shortly. I just want to explain how the event will play out. We have a distinguished panel of experts here representing the communities who care passionately about lifeline who will follow the chairman. It dawned on me this morning that 31 years ago after the announcement of the breakup of Ma Bell, some of you may remember that, there was a push by local phone companies for $2 billion in rate increases and new substantial charges on people's phone bills. I wandered up to Capitol Hill and visited Congressman Mickey Leland's office to talk about the dangers these rate increases would have for consumers. I met with a staffer named Larry Irving who was passionate about the need to protect low income consumers and communities of color if phone rates were going to rise. He drafted a bill to create a telephone lifeline program, 1982. Took it to Congressman Leland who introduced it and then they pushed that forward and it was accepted by the Reagan administration's FCC as an important program to connect all Americans and to make sure those who were connected could afford to stay connected to our telephone network. It is that program today that has enlisted the support of more than 80 organizations who this morning sent a letter to all members of Congress starting with the leaders of the Commerce and Energy and Commerce Committee. Organizations representing veterans, civil rights, rural interests, civil rights, consumer groups, minority interests, nonprofit groups from all over the country asking Congress to preserve, protect and improve the lifeline program. So that's where we've come in those 31 years. So it's important today to reflect on why we have this program, what it does for our communities and what it does for our nation. So we will have Olivia Wine from National Consumer Law Center later on talking about this joined by Commissioner Kathy Sandoval from the California Commission reflecting on the importance of this from a state regulators position. Jessica Gonzalez, National Hispanic Media Coalition. This afternoon there will be a grassroots call sponsored by the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the Media Action Grassroots Network, Free Press, and others who also worked on this letter joined by Congresswoman Matsui who will be talking all about not just protecting and preserving lifeline but expanding it into the broadband realm. So this is a day packed with lifeline events. Our final panelist will be Chanel Hardy who in a moment will introduce Chairwoman of the FCC but I wanted to just say that Chanel, not only serving on the panel here but introducing, I met probably about a decade ago when she wandered into my office young, enthusiastic, and passionate about wanting to learn how to promote social and economic equality in America. And so I'm proud that she's now running public policy for the National Urban League and doing just that. So Chanel, I hand it over to you to introduce the Chairman. Thank you, Jean. Good morning. I wanted to first thank Jean and the New America Foundation as Jean said he was my introduction not only to telecommunications policy but to the policy world in general and it's been an exciting adventure ever since. I also wanted to recognize the other distinguished speakers today and it is my privilege this morning to introduce our keynote speaker, a great friend of my organization, Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn who will kick off our important and timely conversation on the Lifeline Program and the Communication Safety Net. First, I want to say that it's appropriate that today's conversation follows on the heels of the commemoration and call to action of the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington celebrated just weeks ago here in the National's Capitol. The marchers for jobs and justice then and now sounded an alarm to our fellow citizens without economic opportunity, freedom and justice are empty words. As Dr. Martin Luther King said in one of my favorite quotes in 1965, what good does it do to be able to eat at a lunch counter if you can't buy a hamburger? Fifty years after the passage of major civil rights legislation to democratize the voting booth, public accommodations and housing our country is still sharply divided by and wrestling with how and to what extent we will ensure that all of our citizens are able to fully participate in the opportunity we call the American Dream. At the heart of this conversation lies the question of communications. Is the ability to access basic communication services a critical means to ensuring that our most vulnerable citizens are able to obtain employment, maintain their dignity and independence in their later years and to main contact with loved ones during a natural disaster? At the National Urban League, the organization for which I serve with 95 affiliates across the country offering job training, education, healthcare and housing services to almost 3 million people a year, most of whom are low income, we know that the answer is yes, and that the ability to access this important but limited benefit is a key tool in the empowerment of our fellow citizens. Let's remember we're talking about a benefit providing less than $10 a month of support to families who are living at or very slightly above the poverty level. This is hardly a slush fund, and I look forward to participating in the panel discussion where I know we will be able to dig more into the current benefits and future promise of this program. So with that, I am extremely pleased to introduce Chairwoman Mignon Kleibern, the first African American woman to serve on the Federal Communications Commission and the first woman to lead the agency. During her tenure, the commissioner has become known for her passionate advocacy on behalf of consumers and the public interest, particularly for vulnerable citizens and smaller minority business owners. She has been a champion for affordable communications access, closing the digital divide through broadband adoption and deployment and promoting marketplace competition. We are particularly proud of her leadership just one month ago in ordering the steps necessary to end the corrupt and predatory practice of charging exorbitant rates to prisoners and their families for phone calls. We are also thrilled that she has taken such powerful action toward advancing long-awaited studies necessary to understand and evaluate the media ownership picture in America and to ensure that it more accurately reflects our nation's changing demographics. Chairwoman Kleibern has brought to the commission 11 years of experience as a public service commissioner and 14 years of experience as a manager, publisher, and co-owner of a family-founded weekly newspaper. Please join me in welcoming Chairwoman Kleibern. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Okay, you've forgotten me already. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Thank you. It's just that southern thing in me. It is such a pleasure to join you this morning to speak about an issue that I am passionate about. Ensuring all Americans, particularly low-income Americans, are connected. Thank you to the still, young, and enthusiastic Chanel for that warm introduction and for your partnership. Your devotion to empowering communities of color through education and economic development is an important part of consumer protection, and we are so grateful for your dedication to serving the public interest. And Gene of the New America Foundation. Thank you so much for hosting this event. Gene, for years, years. You've been a leading consumer advocate, especially in the areas of access to affordable communications, services, and your influence continues to inspire and uplift me, and many millions owe their ability to affordably communicate in this nation to you. So we are so grateful for all that you continue to do. Thank you. Please. Now, that deserves an applause. The New America Foundation, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, the National Hispanic Media Coalition, the National Consumer Law Center, Media Actions Grass Fruit Network, and the United Church of Christ OC Inc. are all doing amazing work representing the interests of consumers, especially low-income communities, bringing advocates and policymakers together to discuss the importance of the Lifeline Program to constituencies, highlight how those who are dependent on Lifeline use the program to stay connected to their families and engage with their communities. Finally, I could not sit down without recognizing Commissioner Sandoval. You've been a champion of consumer protection, pushing for fair practices in the telecommunications industry. Now you are lazing the trails of telecommunications and utility policies for the state of California, and of course, that means the nation, because you all own everything, right? As a commissioner, it is great as always seeing you. So a quick show of hands this morning. How many of you have a cell phone? I guess the easiest thing would be how many of you don't have a cell phone? So how many of you will admit right now to checking that since I began my remarks? The problem is one is a former staffer, and I'll talk to her later. Shame on you all. But anyway, my point is that in a country where there are more mobile connections than people, most of us take communications services for granted. We expect to be able to make a call or even get online pretty much anytime and anywhere. It is sometimes easy for us to forget that there are millions of low-income consumers who simply cannot afford phone service. And in 2011, the CDC delivered or published a report that in this nation, there are five million Americans without phone service. And if you take the Assella, you stop in Baltimore, or you stop in Newark, those are two of the five significant cities cited as being communities without connections, especially for the most vulnerable of these. Five million people in this country that's unbelievable in a nation with more phones than people. So it's easy for us to forget that there are those who simply cannot afford service, but they are here. They are among us. They are there sometimes when we visit hotels and restaurants. I visited a restaurant recently and a person was trying to get a job. And the lady said, how do we get in touch with you? And he said, I don't have a phone right now. It's very real. It's very much in front of us. And I know this room keeps that in front of their mind. As we celebrate and uplift what is so important this week, next week, and beyond. And the FCC's founding statute and our shared belief in equal opportunities requires that we too as regulators never ever forget them. And that is where Lifeline comes in. Of course, Congress affirmed with the establishment of my agency some 80 years ago that universal access to communications technologies is essential. This was asserted yet again, as was mentioned in 1996, when a Republican-controlled Congress and a Democratic president passed the 1996 Telecommunications Act which stated that our goals would be, quote, the preservation and advancement of universal service for both traditional phone service and advanced services, such as broadband communications. And Congress made it quite clear that access to these services is a priority for all Americans, including low-income Americans. During my tenure, we have not only embraced the core goal of enhancing and preserving the availability of voice servers, we also have been steadfast in reforming and modernizing the fund for the broadband reality of today, while remaining committed to eliminating inefficiencies as well as waste, fraud, and abuse. The Universal Service Fund's Lifeline program has been instrumental in increasing the number of low-income consumers with telephone access by providing a modest monthly subsidy of less than $10 a month to the most needy. Lifeline has significantly increased overall penetration rate for phone service in our country. And who gets Lifeline subsidies? People like the New Jersey man who uses service during Hurricane Sandy to contact fleeing family members and the elderly woman who was stranded in the storm and used her wireless service to call for help. People like that mother in the homeless shelter who contacted doctors for her sick child and that single father of two children, one with special needs who uses his Lifeline phone to communicate with his children's doctors and caregivers. But Lifeline has been under attack as of late. And what critics continually failed to mention is what one major provider made very clear to us that its most typical Lifeline customer is a middle-aged grandmother raising her grandchildren on only $12,000 per year. In light of some of the most recent criticism and I'll say a demagoguery of the Lifeline program, I think a brief history lesson to dispel myths for supporters and critics of the program deserves repeating. I'll start with the most common misperception about Lifeline which stems from this newly bestowed nickname the Obama phone program. Here's the truth. The Lifeline program long predates this administration. It was actually created during the Reagan Administration so let's give credit where credit is due. The Lifeline program is a legacy of President Ronald Reagan and he should be proud of that. For a 1984-80% of low-income households had telephone service compared with 95% of non-low-income households. With Lifeline, that 15% gap was narrowed to 4% by 2012. As a result, the overall telephone penetration rate in the U.S. has also written. So those most vocal in their attacks on Lifeline, they assert that the Universal Service Fund is providing support for free cell phones for people who really do not need the service. This is an urban myth. Let me once again set the record straight for the program does not support phones. It only supports phone service, a distinction that is important and something emphasized in a Lifeline Competition Bureau order released since I became acting chair. Second, this program is a significant benefit to about 14 million families who otherwise could not afford the service. It connects them to 9-1-1 social services, healthcare providers and job opportunities without this program. Millions of low-income families would have to choose between feeding their children or going without a dow tone that could potentially save their lives and put them on a better economic path. During the Bush Administration, Lifeline was expanded to include cell phone service, but today, some critics seem to want to relegate Lifeline subscribers to only a wired service. This does not make any sense. For starters, it is often Lifeline subscribers who are in the most need of a mobile connection. How is someone between several part-time low-skill jobs? How is that person able to communicate with their childcare provider without a mobile phone? How is someone seeking to pick up additional shifts on a work site? How is that person to be connected on short notice without a wireless connected? Connection, more than 50% of those more slightly, most likely to be eligible for the program have cut the cord and are wireless only subscribers. Once again, making Lifeline a wired only program is one of the most illogical things I've heard since my appointment here in D.C. And that's... The press is here. And even suggesting this is a major step backwards and ignores the critical telecommution needs of needy Americans is out of step with the communications evolution while it's true that reforms are necessary. It is counterproductive to eliminate support for one technology, thereby abandoning the FCC's commitment to a technology neutral and competitive landscape for low-income consumers due to some bad actors who didn't respect our rules. The rest of the American public benefits from mobile engagement, staying in contact, no matter their location, no matter who's speaking. So why should low-income consumers be any different? One fair criticism I will say of the Lifeline program in the past was that after the change to support mobile servers, the program was more susceptible to fraud and abuse. But in 2010, the FCC took corrective action and overhauled and reformed Lifeline to root out such waste, fraud and abuse. An effort referred to as, I quote, a model of entitlement reform by my friend and former colleague, Republican Commissioner Robert McDowell. The reforms that I proudly supported were developed in partnerships with the state and culminated with the Lifeline reform order in 2012. In that order, the Commission took action to make the program more effective, efficient and accountable. An important part of the reform order was ensuring that everyone knows the rules, both consumers and Lifeline providers. The FCC, along with the states, we've done significant outreach on our new rules. We've recorded public service announcements, distributed posters, hosted webinars and traveled to events to educate all stakeholders on the basics of the program. A consumer must be eligible to receive the benefit. Lifeline is limited to one per household and you must annually recertify your eligibility to remain in the program. I am proud to say that those reforms are working as intended. Overall, those reforms are on track to save the Universal Service Fund an incredible $2 billion by the end of next year. But now that we have reformed the program to bring out waste, fraud and abuse, it's important that we look ahead and remain mindful of the trends. Support for plain or voice service remains very necessary but it's not sufficient. Ensuring all Americans have affordable access to vital communications means ensuring all Americans have affordable access to broadband. As Congressman John Lewis, a civil rights icon, has said, access to the internet is a civil rights issue of the 21st century. Consistent with the language and purposes of the Communications Act, the Lifeline Reform Order establishes a core program goal ensuring the availability of broadband for low income Americans. The Commission currently has underway 14 broadband pilot projects to study broadband adoption and use by low income populations to test the potential for expanding lifeline support to cover broadband services. Representative Matsui, who will be here later today, must be commended for her proposal of the Broadband Affordability Act, which would effectively extend lifeline to broadband. So I also want to thank her for introducing House Resolution 1616, which announces the support for Lifeline Awareness Week. According to a new survey by Pew, 30% of U.S. households still have not adopted wireline broadband at home. By extending the Lifeline Program to cover support for broadband services, the digital divide should narrow, allowing for greater opportunities, better communications with loved ones, including the ability to actually see family members who live far away, expanded educational opportunities, giving children and adults more access to opportunities for online course taking and access to necessary medical care and advice, regardless of where you live. Consumer groups in civil rights and human rights organizations, I know you will, but you can continue to help to ensure that the Lifeline Program remains a viable, low-income consumer benefit program. Continuing to inform your constituents about the benefit and importance of lifeline, as well as the eligibility requirements on how to properly enroll them, will go a long way towards making sure that those who are eligible for Lifeline truly receive it. Continuing to work with the commission and with congressional members, that is also key for this program to survive those very significant attacks. Positive messaging and sharing the stories of your constituents who have been helped by Lifeline, sharing those stories with the public are also necessary to remind everyone of the wonderful, incredible benefits of the Lifeline Program. So thank you so much for inviting me to share my thoughts on what remains a key priority for both advancing voice and broadband service to all Americans, no matter their location or their life situation. And I want to thank you all for reasserting your commitment to closing communications device, to closing economic device, to closing all device during Lifeline Awareness Week 2013. Thank you so very much and Godspeed. Well, thank you so much, Chairman Clyburn. That was fabulous. A tremendous kickoff of our discussion of this important issue. Your leadership has been just amazing here in the way that you have done it. Just amazing here and the willingness to highlight the importance of a program for low-income Americans is really quite exceptional from my experience with the FCC. So it's been wonderful to have you kick this off for us. I know the Chairman needs to leave for other important events so we don't want to hold her up. We're going to go immediately into a discussion that she has really teed up that matters so much. Why would groups like the Office of Communication of the Church of Christ care about this, the ACLU, the entire human rights and civil rights community I look out in the audience and no offense, you all look like wonderful people. But you don't look like the kind of people I think of when I think of what this program is about. So I want to start us off you guys can help me a little bit who we're really talking about. If you're lucky enough to have a job and earning minimum wage in this country you're not making much more than what the Chairman said $12,000 a year could be up as high as maybe $15,000. The program's eligibility level maybe up to $17,000. If you're on Social Security which millions of elderly Americans are, you're earning less. So let's walk through a little bit. Olivia, Jessica, maybe you could lead off a little bit by telling us a little bit of the essentials what's housing usually cost? What are people's monthly foods cost? Let's back this out a little bit to understand why it would matter whether people have an extra $20, $30, $40 a month for phone service. Can you help us with that? Well, HUD reports on fair market values like the median rental cost. In a place like D.C. for example a two-bedroom is like $1,400 a month. An efficiency $1,100. If you assume that someone is able to manage to get some type of subsidized housing it may be $500 for rent, $350 for food and those costs are only going up maybe $160 a month for energy bills $200 for transportation we're already pushing $1,200 if you have a kid child care is one of the most expensive and variable costs. In D.C. alone it's like $1,300 for a child care facility but if you're low income and struggling you might work out an arrangement maybe $100 a week with somebody to watch your child so we're at $400 a month we've already pushed what you can make with your minimum wage job assuming you don't get sick so even if you're at the highest end eligibility for Lifeline you're talking about people whose monthly income has just been eaten up with all these other essential services so Jessica maybe you can jump in on what do people do? How do they manage? Well I think the Lifeline program is hugely helpful because not only is it not only is it taking away part of a portion of the phone bill that's very costly and sometimes not in people's budgets it also opens up opportunities to get out of the situation it opens up opportunities to seek out more education it opens up opportunities to seek out jobs it ensures that parents can get in touch with the children's schools child care providers it makes life a little bit easier for people who are very tightly squeezed very tight on the margins I know when I personally was on Lifeline which I know maybe I was one of those people you were referring to who were not benefited by Lifeline but I was about 10 years ago when I was laid off I had no money for a phone and I was looking to get back into school to look for a job and if you have any idea of what it feels like to look for a job without a telephone it's a very scary place to be and fortunately because of Lifeline I was able to put a number on my resume where people could reach me I can't imagine not having that I can't imagine what that would have meant because very quickly I was off Lifeline people here when we think about home number the numbers you're thinking about but that's a very different situation than someone who either doesn't have a phone or can afford one only one month but doesn't know if that number is going to be the same in the next month and having a consistent phone number and in this day and age this was 10 years ago and cell phones were pretty pervasive but not quite what they are today it's assumed that an employer can get an instant contact with you and if not especially when you're not applying to the types of jobs I might be applying for now I'm just a number and they can replace me with the next person in line if they don't get in touch with me and so having a wireless Lifeline phone service was essential would be essential today I remember you telling me way back that when you would go into inner city schools and deal with the difficulties of teaching young children who come from families that have limited means all the complexities of their lives did phone service ever enter into this or the whole issue being connected to the communications network well I think it goes to Jessica's point it's about being in communication with your school, your child's teacher so obviously a critical tool in promoting educational opportunity and attainment is a strong parent teacher collaboration and being able to reach a parent during the day especially if there's a crisis during the day is incredibly important most parents are juggling several jobs trying to make ends meet and so having that access to a mobile device is critical I think what becomes more important and maybe this is jumping a little bit ahead but the chairwoman raised this is broadband access and the ability of students to be able to be successful right now I think we're seeing families be very creative you know library lines are very long so that families can access broadband through the libraries but at home access broadband issue is still a challenge so I think being able to start to have that conversation as Congresswoman Matsui has done is going to be critical Kathy I remember way back California was one of the first states that actually jumped in once the Reagan administration had established this federal program I think they may even have been ahead of it in creating a state program what's been your experience and as an administrator of this kind of program as a public official where does this fit in the broad duties of public service commissioners so California has its own state lifeline program the compliments of federal program our program was established when Governor Brand was Governor the first time and originally established in 1982 so it did proceed the federal program so today California's program compliments federal program so we pay 55% of California's basic service rate so in addition to the $9.25 available through the federal lifeline fund California providers who are certified in California can get $11.85 so at this moment that is open to wire line services and I'm actually leading as the assigned commissioner to look at opening it up to wire list services because we do recognize that things are changing and in the process we've also encountered some interesting issues number one California several years ago starting in 2006 really focused on solid administration of the program and I believe that a lot of these problems that have been raised really can be addressed through good administration we have a third party administrator we do 100% verification on enrollment of eligibility looking at either income or program enrollment we've also been doing 100% verification for recertification so we are very very confident that the people who are eligible on the program have been certified as eligible and again when you talk about the dimension of the needs just looking at my state of California there are more low income people in the city of Los Angeles than there are residents of the city and county of San Francisco so it just gives you a sense of how big this group is and being able to get that group connected so that they can be a productive part of the economy so that they can also reach the schools but also right now our lifeline program with the wire line for example people get unlimited 800 number access which has been critical you often call about your utility bill an 800 number a lot of educational lines 800 numbers social services lines 800 numbers then there's a lines that we hope nobody ever has to call suicide prevention hotlines 800 numbers the prevention of violence against women act 800 numbers so one of the issues that's been highlighted we've had eight public participation hearings in our state going from north to south from the Mexican border to the Oregon border and to rural areas and urban areas one of the things that people said is with the federal program with wireless only that they're running out of minutes being on hold with social services and so this is one of the things where we'd really like to work with the wireless industry because wireless treats all 800 toll free numbers as minutes so it's just unimaginable when we have a 17% suicide rate with veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan that you literally could be on a suicide hotline and it could hang up on you because you've run out of minutes so we've heard from veterans organizations and others who are very interested in working with us and working with the industry to find a solution so that people are able to have those vital services in a technology neutral fashion so you're actually saying we need to expand this program we need to actually there are improvements that are necessary just to hit the basic minimum of what the needs are for the low income population and that it is and that California has been able to administer this and make it efficient and effective yes and very accountable so Olivia Chanel what does that mean to you where is this you have big agenda consumer agenda the Urban League has a broad agenda where does this fit I mean there's health care there's housing there's all these other things why care about this the if I could jump in the pipeline program actually enhances the ability of these other programs to work better as commissioner Sandoval pointed out a lot of brick and mortar type of intake sites have shut down and there's more reliance on the one eight eight hundred number customer for customer service and for applications for benefits for monitoring your benefits for the delivery of health care the ability to you know when your child is sick and get a quick ping back whether or not you need to take the kid into the emergency room or if you're you know too aspen will do it all of these things we take for granted we've got a program that is incredibly successful it is available in all of the states it has been substantially reformed recently it is you know on its way to robust health and we believe it can be the platform to move to where we need to go which is you know more sort of comprehensive connectivity the way you and I in this room and our children are communicating with each other at school yeah I would just add that I think it's a critical tool for empowerment I think that's what makes it so important I think unfortunately we have a lot of conversation about government benefits as though it's providing something to someone who's just a couch potato instead this is about arming people with the means as Jessica so eloquently referred to with her own personal story to be able to address for our community the most important crisis is the employment crisis you know 13% is the unemployment rate for the african-american community and we all know the limitations of that number these are people who are actively searching and then in addition those who are doing jobs and this is true for all Americans are under employed so they're having to work multiple jobs being able to maintain those jobs stay in contact with employers is critical so we think that this is a key part of the agenda in terms of arming people with the tools to help themselves so you've now just helped me understand much better why the National Association of American Veterans is on this letter to the Hill today to protect the program and the AFL-CIO as well so Jessica you may have shocked a few people in the audience by saying that you actually had to go on the lifeline program in order to keep yourself going I know you testified before congress and raised that was there a surprise there as well I mean why less than $10 a month why is it that this is even drawing why is it drawing this attention what do you think is going on here so yes there was a shock in the room I think the room fell silent in fact when I announced that I had been on the program like you said there's a misconception about who has who uses lifeline and frankly I know a lot of folks who've been on a service like lifeline or other government services in their lifetime and many of us don't want to talk about it it's something in the past it's something we're not particularly proud of we want to move on and continue on with our lives and so there a lot of press a lot of press have gotten it right but a lot of press have gotten it very wrong and they're painting this very ugly and inaccurate picture about who uses lifeline when in fact I know a lot of people who would never want to say they have because they've moved on and they're now very successful or they're very comfortable in their lives and so that's why this is an issue in this program because of misinformation and that's why I told my story which I had never told anyone before I think even my mom didn't know and I think it's shocking but I think it's sort of like one of those things if you went through the room maybe not this room but a lot of rooms you will find people who have relied and whose lives are so much better because at one really hard point in their lives they've relied on something like this and that's a safety net I remember when everyone used to talk about welfare stigma and all the people who were eligible for food stamps who would be totally uncomfortable or feel like they couldn't go into a grocery store and actually show the food stamps so there's a little bit of that it sounds like you're saying even if you've needed the program or whatnot you don't really want to talk about it I think stories like mine aren't being told because people don't want to go there I mean I'm an activist and I live my life and are just happy to be out of that place to be out of poverty to be able to go home and have dinner with their family around the table and talk to their children about their day at school they don't want to go to this place and so that's I think the reason that we aren't hearing as many stories and I think this group a lot of people here have done a good job of collecting stories about what people are going through I was just going to say I know we were highlighting what we've gathered from people who are willing to tell their stories and I know the Media Action Grassroots Network Center for Media Judges are sponsoring a kind of a postcard campaign that I think will be launched this afternoon with the Grassroots call so that others can feel more seeing other people's stories they can actually feel more comfortable telling their own story because it sounds like what you're saying is the members of Congress just really didn't see this as a constituent issue Every single member of Congress has constituents that are on lifeline so they weren't really connecting with what this program is all about it was some misinformation that's out there so these events are going to be important pieces of this Kathy what else do we need to do the chairman of the FCC sort of challenged us to look forward towards the broadband era what do you think that means the program that is not very expensive gives very limited benefits what does that mean as we think of connectivity in this country and the essentials in a broadband era of what we need to be doing policy-wise so again I think there are some interesting components here that we can look at that are both traditional telephone voice pieces as well as broadband and other data pieces so one other point I would mention is what has been highlighted for us in California through our lifeline process this summer we had over 8 public participation hearings we heard from over 325 consumers who are on lifeline many of whom are on disability on social security their veterans and they all test-divide about how important this was truly to them to be able to maintain their housing to be able to get social services and again one of the issues that has been a challenge is that wireless and wireless have different charging paradigms so things like 2-1-1 which the FCC established in many states like California now have where people can call 2-1-1 and be able to get connected with social services so if you're saying I need a student loan you can actually call 2-1-1 and they will connect you with the people who help you get student loans but wireless it charges 2-1-1 they count 2-1-1 like minutes and so they only count with the N-1-1 numbers 9-1-1 and 6-1-1s are not counted as minutes but 2-1-1 is counted as minutes and even though 2-1-1 often will have a relationship with 9-1-1 for emergency evacuation assistance in California we have 3 major wildfires raging right now you're in one of those areas and you are disabled and you need evacuation assistance and you call 9-1-1 they will tell you to call 2-1-1 and most 2-1-1 is run by the Red Cross or by the United Way and they will help you with evacuation assistance I fear people running out of minutes and therefore not being able to call 2-1-1 and then it's going to throw the burden back on 9-1-1 so it creates actually a shift burden to local government and to 9-1-1 that's why things like those suicide prevention hotlines are so important so I think that these are some paradigms that we need to address even just on the traditional voice side and then for the data side and the broadband side one of the things that we're looking at is that now the FCC order so my former student Michelle Schaefer who's an attorney advisor in the FCC's Lifeline Division their order did clarify that lifeline can be applied to bundled services although it only supports the voice component and so this has been very important in allowing people to be able to choose services that are not simply stand-alone voice but also offer other features so that's another thing that we are looking for in California is even though right now our rules for our state fund do require that lifeline has to be available on a stand-alone basis we are also looking at what we can do to make sure that people have access to bundles and therefore they could use the lifeline discount to help them make other services more affordable because it would help to deal with the voice component in California we also have separate funds that help to fund broadband services and particularly the infrastructure and we heard about that particularly in areas again people think about California Los Angeles, San Francisco these great cities but we have more rural people in California than there are people in the state of Maine our entire rural areas are bigger than the state of Kentucky and so there are a lot of places that really still have problems with service and when I was in Crescent City in the far north of California one of the things that they mentioned was often the difficulty of getting a hold of parents and that parents didn't have phone numbers because they're very low income up there and so we said well we can also send somebody up here and we have brochures in different languages what languages do you want and they wanted English Spanish and Hmong this is a place in the Oregon border so one doesn't often think of Hmong on the Oregon border so we have a very diverse state and so reaching out to the diversity of the population not just in our state of America is going to be really important to getting everybody participating and becoming productive citizens like Jessica always was but through Lifeline it helped you not only to get a job but to get an education and to become an attorney so congratulations Kathy just reminded me that when I've traveled across some of the most poor areas of Africa and seen people who are barely making it everyone's got a cell phone it's astounding few people have wire line service and upwards of 70% have some cell phone and when they talk about what they're doing with it with their texting it's a phenomenal connector not just to the services we've talked about in people but to banking to commerce to job opportunities so I think back of what you just said is it crazy to think that with our vibrant economy I keep hearing analysts talk about that we've saturated the wireless market and all these phones and we have all these people without broadband connections and we have all these unmet needs is it crazy to think that there actually could be a market for expanding these services is it crazy to think that there could be even smart phones, smartish phones that come down enough in price that they could be part of this ecosystem of connecting people would that make any sense I think it would definitely make sense and I think we all would like to see that happen I think that there's been some interesting studies recently that talk about so there's been a lot of conversation about adoption in communities of color of smart phones and how that compares to at home broadband access and certainly there's some clear indications about the limitations but there's also some good information about the opportunities that it provides and certainly it's an initial entry point to access broadband and all of the opportunities that we discussed with that from being able to access benefits to employment opportunities to education opportunities we all talk about the fact that it is critical as it is to have that consistent phone number for an employer to contact you in order to apply for the job you have to be able to get online so I think it's still I would say a basic critical entry point so I think we can start there absolutely not just get online but continue to have access to that email account on a regular basis because again if you don't reply to an email for two days the employer thinks you're a flake because that's where we are right now in this society essential services so we have a few minutes left I want to make all of our panelists as you can tell who are extremely knowledgeable available to all of you for some questions I want to start off by just acknowledging one thing the chairman of the FCC mentioned the statistics of there being fewer than 80% of low income people at the really at the time of the breakup of AT&T who had wireline phone service and then the explosion that's occurred and it reminded me that we have in the audience here Dr. Mark Cooper from the Consumer Federation of America is actually responsible for compiling those statistics and as I recall Mark those came from what was known as the Pearl study originally a study done by AT&T when it was trying to convince the government that it shouldn't be broken up that it was going to lead to higher rates and what was called drop off of the phone network that we were going to actually lose subscribership so it's I just want to highlight that the fact that we even had those numbers out there to start this conversation where a credit to Mark's research so any final comments from the panelists before we turn it to the audience I don't know if we have I have one just in terms of when we're talking about expanding the lifeline to meet the real needs of today's people in the US there was an interesting study that came out not so long ago that talked about how in the very near future 80% of jobs will require digital literacy and so what are we doing to our children and when I say our children our poor children we are not preparing them for tomorrow if we are not arming them with broadband access and so I think it's a really important conversation that needs to continue just a reminder to everyone the letter that went to congress I believe we'll have some copies available if anyone's interested more than 80 organizations calling for the preservation and expansion of the lifeline program and the final reminder is the 2 o'clock today there will be the activist call with congresswoman Matsui, the leadership conference of civil and human rights sponsoring it and a lot of activist organizations engaged on how they can continue to promote and expand the program so we have a microphone if you want to get it he always has questions Brooks Politico how would a broadband lifeline service work I mean would it be mobile most of the carriers have data caps it's really easy to blow through those data caps how would you restrict that program or would you restrict that program to people like trying to get jobs as opposed to somebody watching a movie over the internet before you get into all the details I'll turn it over to the panelists what we really heard of here when you heard about these type budgets and you heard about all the money for essentials these are people who are juggling necessities and so anything you do to cut the cost of one whether you just start on the telephone side or you can expand it somewhat more into broadband you are saving them money for food for essential health services transportation housing you name it so regardless of the level anything matters and helps I don't know if you wanted to anyone wants to jump into thoughts about how to I'm not going to get into the technical question but I am going to answer the question about toward the end about how do you prevent people from watching movies for example and I think it gets back to Jessica's point which is we have to focus on the fact that those of us who have continuous unending you see me tweeting up here connectivity even access to over the internet this is how the world is communicating and engaging with one another we don't want a portion of our citizenry not comfortable and fluent with that I mean I think we all have great examples of little kids I mean there's no I can't find a child young enough who cannot unlock my phone and start to purchase things my one year old you know call people so having even just at a very basic entertainment based level the ability to engage effectively with technology is critical and it's critical to the creativity and innovation that's going to lead to some of the opportunities that Jean mentioned and also as the chairwoman mentioned there are all these broadband pilots so they are starting to look at you know the right price points within the you know the 925 frame what types of services the applicants were encouraged to add on like the digital literacy component so all of these things are sort of in play and are being studied so this will inform you know this next phase of what it should look like and today both the the federal program and then our state program and I believe most state programs are voice only supporters and then we do have separate programs that have helped to support both broadband infrastructure and broadband training including our California emerging technology fund and one of the things I wanted to emphasize is that the studies that have also been done on low income people and communities of color looking at broadband behavior when we're online what do we do is that low income people and communities of color spend more time taking classes and also accessing social services and looking for a job they are not only watching videos and also have a much higher rate still of watching television on a television and so there's huge amounts of consumption of media through television and I see that even with my students I'm still a professor I'm teaching any trust law at Santa Clara University and taught communications law at UC Berkeley and increasingly see whether it's students or this is true all throughout the United States cord cutting where people are not subscribing to cable and thanks to the great work that the FCC did with the transition of digital television in places like Los Angeles you can get over 70 channels over the air so there's a huge explosion in the use of rabbit ears and through especially a combination of rabbit ears and then internet people are able to get access to video but again what people poor people are doing and people of color looking with the internet is looking for a job and taking classes which is exactly what we want when I was in that position I can't remember even watching TV I was like working two jobs going to school I mean there wasn't time for videos and I would just add also social networking which is something that we see hugely disproportionate involvement with in communities of color and it's critical to getting a job in the post a few months back that was just talking about one of the barriers to re-employment is the ability to access a network all of us know what that looks like practically and so being able to engage using LinkedIn and other types of career focus networking sites is critical I think we have to have one more question or comment that's the classic red herring and it's not his fault he hears it all the time from the other side and it's his job to repeat it we had this fight in the 1980's Jean loves to remind me how old I am so we fought very hard Lifeline is not second class service for second class citizens it is a simple subsidy to help people to afford what everybody else can afford and we've structured it in a way that and believe me one of the great fights was if you got Lifeline should you be prevented from having core weighting a four person second line and at that time middle class people were getting second lines we won that battle in the 1980's we won that battle in the 1996 act because if you look at universal services it says reasonably comparable services at reasonably comparable prices it includes information services advanced telecommunications we have won that battle this is a red herring if someone gets a subsidy and wants to blow through the cap if they want to look at their stream pictures of their grandkids that is their choice we've given them a subsidy it's X amount it's not a low income heating assistance program where some states will pay you more and more if you use more and more it's a simple subsidy this is an issue that's been dead for 30 years of course the other side will always like to bring it back to life we have run out of time talking about bringing it back to life I want to thank all of you for coming today thank our panelists they've been great thank you