# Emergency Broadband Benefit Program > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-07456 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** April 13, 2021 - **Citation:** 86 FR 19532 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 54 [WC Docket No. 20-445; FCC 21-29; FRS 19812] Emergency Broadband Benefit Program AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) established the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB Program) to support broadband services and devices to help low-income households. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) established an Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund of $3.2 billion in the Treasury of the United States for the fiscal year 2021, to remain available until expended. The CAA directed the Commission to use the fund to establish the EBB Program, under which eligible low-income households may receive a discount off the cost of broadband service and certain connected devices during an emergency period related to the COVID-19 pandemic. DATES: Effective April 13, 2021. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jodie Griffin, Wireline Competition Bureau, 202-418-7400 or by email at jodie.griffin@fcc.gov. We ask that requests for accommodations be made as soon as possible in order to allow the agency to satisfy such requests whenever possible. Send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Report and Order (RO) in WC Docket No. 20-445; FCC No. 21-29, adopted February 25, 2021 and released February 26, 2021. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Commission's headquarters will be closed to the general public until further notice. The full text of this document is available at the following internet address: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-29A1.pdf I. Introduction 1. In the RO, the Commission establishes the EBB Program to support broadband services and devices to help low-income households stay connected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19 have resulted in the dramatic disruption of many aspects of Americans' lives, including social distancing measures to prevent person-to-person transmission which have required the closure of businesses and schools across the country for indefinite periods of times, and in turn has caused millions of Americans to become newly unemployed or unable to find work. These closures have also led people to turn to virtual learning, telemedicine, and telework to enable social distancing measures, which has only increased every household's need for access to broadband services. The cost of broadband services, however, can be difficult to overcome for low-income families and for families that have been struggling during the pandemic. 2. On December 27, 2020, the CAA became law. Among other actions intended to provide relief during the pandemic, the CAA established an Emergency Broadband Connectivity Fund of $3.2 billion in the Treasury of the United States for the fiscal year 2021, to remain available until expended. The CAA directed the Commission to use the funds to establish the EBB Program, under which eligible low-income households may receive a discount off the cost of broadband service and certain connected devices during an emergency period relating to the COVID-19 pandemic, and participating providers can receive a reimbursement for such discounts. 3. In creating the EBB Program, the CAA does not preclude the Commission from utilizing in whole or in part any of the Commission's part 54 rules or amending them to suit the EBB Program. Moreover, Congress directed the Commission to utilize existing regulatory tools in support of the EBB Program, such as the National Verifier and the National Lifeline Accountability Database—originally designed to support the existing Lifeline program—which helps ensure low-income consumers have access to affordable voice or broadband internet access service. The EBB Program, however, is funded through a separate appropriation from the Universal Service Fund. Consistent with Congress's direction in the CAA, the Commission establishes the EBB Program. II. Discussion 4. The Commission establishes the requirements and processes of the EBB Program, pursuant to the CAA. The Commission sets forth the providers that may participate in the EBB Program, the household eligibility requirements for the program, benefits for covered services and devices, the program's budget and reimbursement, and other administrative aspects of the program. 5. Participating Providers. In the CAA, Congress required that in order to participate in the EBB Program a carrier must have provided broadband internet access service to households as of December 1, 2020. To meet these requirements, Congress defined “participating provider” as either an existing eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) or providers approved by the Commission under an “expedited approval process.” Congress directed the Commission to create an “expedited approval process” to approve providers to participate EBB Program where the provider is not an existing ETC. This expedited approval process requires that providers with an “established program as of April 1, 2020” offering broadband services to eligible households with verification process sufficient to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse “shall be automatically approve[d].” The Commission seeks to encourage as many providers as possible to participate in the EBB Program. Consistent with the CAA and the proposal in the Public Notice, DA 21-6, the Commission also adopts a carrier election process administered by USAC applicable to all providers participating in the EBB Program. Providers that are not designated as an ETC by a state or the Commission must also file for automatic approval or seek expedited approval from the Commission. In the CAA, Congress recognized the pressing need to quickly deliver much-needed support to Americans by providing the Commission with the authority to streamline and expedite the provider participation process. At the same time, the Commission must also safeguard the EBB Program's funding to ensure it provides help to those in need and is not wasted by providers unable to quickly deliver broadband services. Accordingly, the election and approval process the Commission adopts provides assurances that providers can promptly deliver broadband services to low-income households. 6. The Commission directed the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB), within seven days of the adoption of the RO, to announce a timeline for the submission of information by providers required by the CAA, such as applications from non-ETCs to participate in the EBB Program, requests by all providers for approval of alternative verification processes, and the submission by ETCs and non-ETCs of election notices. By Public Notice, DA 21-265, the WCB set a priority application deadline of March 22, 2021, by which providers must submit these filings to receive approval prior to the beginning of the EBB Program. The Commission also directs the WCB to announce at a later date other administrative deadlines or milestones, such as when the EBB Program will begin and when providers may begin enrolling subscribers in the program. The Commission expects that the EBB Program and the enrollment process will begin in less than 60 days after the adoption of the RO. 7. Providers Eligible to Participate. In the CAA, a “participating provider” for the EBB Program shall be a “broadband provider” that is either “designated as an eligible telecommunications carrier” or seeks approval from the Commission for participation in the EBB Program. The Commission agrees with commenters that the Commission should establish a broad, technologically neutral approach to provider participation in the EBB Program. This interpretation of provider eligibility aligned with the plain language of the CAA, which defined “broadband provider” as any “provider of broadband internet access service.” Further, the CAA defined “broadband internet access service” broadly by referencing the definition in § 8.1 of the Commission's rules. Section 8.1 of the Commission's rules defines “broadband internet access service” as: a mass-market retail service by wire or radio that provides the capability to transmit data to and receive data from all or substantially all internet endpoints, including any capabilities that are incidental to and enable the operation of the communications service, but excluding dial-up internet access service. This term also encompasses any service that the Commission finds to be providing a functional equivalent of the service described in the previous sentence or that is used to evade the protections set forth in this part. Accordingly, ETCs and non-ETCs seeking to participate in the EBB Program must establish they provide broadband services. the Commission declines to further narrow provider eligibility among those providers that offer broadband services as defined by the CAA. This interpretation allows participation by not only ETCs or non-ETCs like traditional internet Service Providers (ISPs) including cable providers and wireless internet service providers, but also non-traditional broadband providers like community-owned networks, electric cooperatives, or municipal governments. 8. In the CAA, Congress established that participating providers would be eligible to receive reimbursement for “internet service offering[s]” offered in the “same manner, and on the same terms, as described in any of such provider's offerings for broadband internet access service to [an eligible] household[s], as on December 1, 2020.” The Commission interprets this provision to require participating providers to have offered retail broadband internet access service to eligible households as of December 1, 2020. Consistent with the Commission's broadband data reporting rules, participating providers will be able to establish through certification that they provided broadband internet access service and reimbursable internet service offerings on December 1, 2020, through reference to timely filing of FCC Form 477. For providers that do not file FCC Form 477, participating providers must certify that they provided retail broadband internet access service to end-users as of December 1, 2020. The Commission further clarifies that the retail broadband internet access service must be provisioned to end users, meaning the provider of retail broadband internet access service maintains a direct relationship with the customer, is responsible for dealing with customer complaints, handles customer billing, and provides quality of service guarantees to the end user. The Commission finds these provider certifications, in addition to the submission of broadband plan and rate information described in the following, appropriately satisfied the CAA's eligibility requirements. As described further in the following, ETCs must make a showing that they offer qualifying broadband service in the election notice filed with USAC. Non-ETCs must make a threshold showing in the approval process to the WCB. 9. Election to Participate in Emergency Broadband Benefit Program by Existing ETCs and Bureau-Approved Providers. The CAA directed the Commission to establish an expedited process where existing ETCs and other approved providers could “elect” to participate in the EBB Program and gain access to the necessary USAC databases used to administer the Program. The Commission adopts the proposal to require all participating providers to file an election notice to participate in the EBB Program. This election will be filed with USAC to facilitate the administration of the EBB Program and provide USAC the necessary information to incorporate providers into its systems for eligibility determination, enrollment, and reimbursement. 10. Existing ETCs will need to only file an election with USAC, while non-ETCs will need to first apply and then obtain WCB approval prior to filing their election with USAC. Accordingly, the Commission directs the WCB to establish a priority application window during which non-ETC providers seeking approval to participate in the EBB Program will have the opportunity to obtain approval prior to commencement of consumer enrollments. Non-ETCs that file complete applications for approval meeting the necessary criteria by the priority application deadline will know their status prior to the start date for the EBB Program. The Commission believes establishing this priority application deadline provides adequate time for prospective providers to evaluate the rules of the EBB Program adopted and to prepare applications, while also encouraging prospective providers to accelerate their consideration consistent with the need to quickly begin providing these supported broadband services. The Commission directs the WCB and USAC to work expeditiously to review provider applications and elections, respectively, and the Commission directs the WCB to issue additional guidance and instruction as necessary for providers seeking to participate in the EBB Program. Further, the Commission expects the WCB and USAC to prioritize their reviews to limit excessive delay in issuing approvals of the applications and elections once properly submitted by the providers. 11. The Commission agrees with commenters that providers and, more importantly, their subscribers should have equal opportunity and access to the Emergency Broadband Benefit. By allowing non-ETC providers to obtain the necessary administrative approvals prior to the commencement of the EBB Program, eligible households will have more choices in the provider they can select to obtain supported broadband service and devices. Following the close of this priority application window, the WCB, in coordination with USAC, will establish and announce a uniform start date on which providers can begin to enroll qualifying subscribers in the EBB Program. This start date must allow for processing of elections and applications of both existing ETCs and non-ETCs to enable a consistent start date for all providers. 12. By establishing a priority application window and uniform start date, the Commission intends to afford providers the necessary time to update their systems and enrollment processes to effectively participate in the EBB Program. Furthermore, preparation and modification to both Commission and USAC systems is necessary to administer the EBB Program. While leveraging the existing Lifeline processes provides some efficiencies, USAC needs to modify the Lifeline systems to accommodate workflows associated with the EBB Program, including updates to the National Verifier, NLAD, RAD, and the Lifeline Claims System (LCS). These updates require development, security assessments, and privacy assessments and approvals required by the Privacy Act, such as System of Records Notices (SORNs), Computer Matching Agreements (CMAs), and systems testing to ensure an effective launch. These measures comply with Congressional and government-wide directives designed to protect the privacy and security of members of the public who submit their information to the government, including households who choose to participate in the EBB Program. While the Commission can launch the EBB Program with manual review processes that do not require all of these approvals, automated eligibility, and administrative processes greatly improve functionality. The Commission remains committed to expeditiously and successfully launching the EBB Program. 13. Obligations of Existing ETCs to Participate in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. The CAA provides that an existing ETC is a “participating provider” for the purposes of the EBB Program. The CAA does not require existing ETCs to seek approval to participate in the EBB Program. Instead, existing ETCs must only “elect” to participate in the EBB Program to be eligible for reimbursement for broadband services. Existing ETCs will be able to file these elections to participate in the EBB Program in the states or territories where they have already received an existing ETC designation. To ease administrative burdens, the Commission allows an ETC to file an election for itself and its affiliates who provided broadband service as of December 1, 2020, within the states or territories (collectively “jurisdictions”) where the provider was designated as an ETC. In other jurisdictions where neither the provider nor its affiliate has an existing ETC designation, the provider must seek either automatic or expedited approval from the WCB prior to submitting the election notice to USAC. 14. The Commission finds extending elections to ETC affiliates consistent with the Commission's practices in Lifeline and High Cost that ETCs can satisfy their statutory obligations to “offer” reimbursable and supported services through affiliated entities. Similarly, commenters supported the ability of ETCs and affiliates to elect to participate in jurisdictions where the ETC is designated. Allowing elections to be filed for both ETCs and affiliates without seeking additional approval for the affiliated entities will also ease administrative burdens and more quickly allow providers access to the EBB Program. Further, ETCs and affiliated entities are more familiar with the obligations and requirements within a particular jurisdiction to safeguard funds similar to the EBB Program. The Commission finds permitting this election to be consistent with the CAA's provisions regarding ETC elections and the Commission past treatment of ETC requirements. 15. The Commission declines to adopt the proposals in the record that would allow an existing ETC to offer service supported by the EBB Program in any jurisdiction, or even nationwide, regardless of where the ETC has been designated or where it had previously provided broadband service. First, ETC designations are inherently geographically limited due to the unique authority states have to designate ETCs. Thus, the Commission believes the provision in the CAA that relies on existing ETC designations and automatically qualifies ETCs to participate in the EBB Program supports the proposition that ETCs should be limited in the EBB Program to the jurisdictions in which they have already been designated. Moreover, had the CAA intended to allow ETCs to offer supported service everywhere regardless of the designation, Congress would not have needed to provide a path for non-ETC providers to participate in the EBB program. As identified in the record, providers with existing ETC designations or affiliated with ETCs have significant relevant experience with the policies and procedures needed to carry out the EBB Program obligations. However, in states where a provider is not designated as an ETC, the Commission has less confidence that the provider has established procedures and compliance processes necessary for EBB Program participation in that state. This decision is further bolstered by the CAA's requirement that participating providers would be eligible to receive reimbursement for “internet service offerings” offered in the “same manner, and on the same terms, as described in any of such provider's offerings for broadband internet access service to [eligible] household, as on December 1, 2020.” Approving a provider to participate in a jurisdiction where it previously did not offer service would render this statutory provision moot. 16. Provider Election Process to Participate in the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program. The Commission directs USAC, under the supervision of and in coordination with the WCB, to establish and administer a process to enable all participating EBB Program providers to file election notices containing information sufficient to effectively administer the program. The Commission directs USAC to collect information in such notices that includes: (1) The states in which the provider plans to participate in the EBB Program; (2) a statement that, in each such state, the provider was a “broadband provider” as of December 1, 2020; (3) a list of states where the provider is an existing ETC, if any; (4) a list of states where the provider received FCC approval, whether automatic or expedited, to participate, if any; (5) whether the provider intends to distribute connected devices under the EBB Program; (6) a description of the internet service offerings for which the provider plans to seek reimbursement from the EBB Program in each state; (7) documentation demonstrating the standard rates for those services; and (8) any other administrative information necessary for USAC to establish participating providers in the EBB Program. In addition to these criteria, participating providers must certify under penalty of perjury that the information set forth in the election notice is true, accurate, and complete; they understand and will comply with all statutory and regulatory obligations described within the RO, including the public interest conditions of offering EBB Program services throughout the provider's designated service area; and all terms and conditions and other requirements applicable to using the National Verifier, NLAD, RAD, and other USAC systems. Providing materially false information in the election notice will disqualify a provider from participation in the EBB Program. The Commission finds support in the record for adopting these requirements and certifications. These requirements also align with the CAA's requirements for provider participation and eligibility. 17. Provider elections must include the following information to establish that the provider has met the criteria and can provide enough information to allow USAC to administer the EBB Program. The Commission directs USAC, under the supervision of and in coordination with the WCB, to establish and administer this election process consistent with the RO. (a) List of states in which the provider plans to participate in the EBB Program. A provider must list each state in which it will offer EBB Program services. Consistent with USAC's existing processes, providers should be prepared to identify to USAC the postal ZIP code(s) or Census Block(s) where the provider will offer EBB Program service to obtain Service Provider Identification Number(s) (SPINs) or Study Area Codes (SACs) to the extent necessary. (b) A statement that, in each such state, the provider was a “broadband provider” as of December 1, 2020. Consistent with the Commission's broadband data reporting rules, participating providers will be able to establish that they provided broadband internet access service and reimbursable internet service offerings on December 1, 2020 through reference to previous FCC Form 477 filings. Providers are required to submit data as of December 31, 2020, and reference to an FCC Form 477 filing for the December data submission will demonstrate the provider offered broadband services. Providers that are not required to file FCC Form 477 must certify that they provided retail broadband internet access service to end users as of December 1, 2020 and identify the underlying carrier providing the network facilities. (c) A statement identifying where the provider is an existing ETC. A provider who is an ETC or is affiliated with an ETC seeking to begin offering the Emergency Broadband Benefit must submit to USAC documentation demonstrating that it is a participating provider in specific states. While ETCs are automatically eligible to participate and likely have already obtained administrative numbers from USAC, such as SPINs or SACs, requiring demonstration of ETC status, filing this statement with USAC will allow for better processing of elections. (d) A statement identifying where the provider received FCC approval to participate in the EBB Program. Providers seeking approvals outside of states where they are existing ETCs or are affiliated with existing ETCs will need to identify those states and submit to the WCB approval to participate in the EBB Program. (e) A statement confirming whether the provider intends to distribute connected devices under the EBB Program. Providers seeking reimbursement for connected devices must submit a statement of intent to distribute connected devices as part of their election notice. These providers should also include documentation detailing the equipment, rates, and applicable costs of the laptop, desktop or tablet. Connected devices should be accessible to and usable by users with disabilities. To the extent the provider will offer connected devices that are also generally available to the public, it may provide summary information regarding the devices, rates, and costs, such as a link to a public website or screenshots. (f) Description and documentation of the internet service offerings for which the provider plans to seek reimbursement from the EBB Program in each state. Providers must submit documentation for the internet service offerings they will offer through the EBB Program. The participating provider should provide information detailing each service offering for which it plans to seek reimbursement from the EBB Program. This information and documentation should identify the service plan, details about the service such as speed and data caps, the service offering standard rate, equipment costs, jurisdiction where it is offered, and documentation establishing the rate was available on December 1, 2020. The provider can provide this information and documentation through the submission of price lists, rack rates, rate cards, or similar documentation. For service offerings that are publicly available a website or screenshot can be provided. For offerings that cannot be publicly viewed the provider should submit documentation demonstrating the offering was available on December 1, 2020, such as customer bills or publicly available advertisements. The provider can provide aggregated summaries of service offerings and standard rates made available to eligible households, if those offerings and rates are the same for multiple jurisdictions. This will reduce the administrative burden for both participating providers and the Commission in producing and reviewing voluminous service offering descriptions that are substantially similar. 18. In addition, providers must also be able to provide or otherwise obtain the necessary administrative registrations to utilize Commission and USAC processes. These processes include the Commission Registration System (CORES), FCC Registration Number (FRN), Service Provider Identification Number(s) (SPINs), Study Area Codes (SACs), System for Award Management (SAM), and/or Dun & Bradstreet DUNS number for all entities the provider anticipates seeking reimbursement. Providers should be prepared to provide this administrative information during the election process to USAC. 19. Processing of Elections. The Commission directs USAC in coordination with the WCB to expeditiously process election notices. USAC should establish necessary systems and processes to systematically review election notices as quickly as possible, and at least ensure all elections filed by existing ETCs and elections from providers seeking approvals in the priority application window are processed prior to the commencement of the EBB Program. USAC should notify a provider promptly if its election notice is incomplete or otherwise contains errors that prevent USAC from processing the election notice. USAC shall process election notices received during the priority application window prior to the uniform reimbursement start date. USAC will only reject election notices that are materially incomplete, and that the provider fails to update. 20. Non-ETC Provider Application and Approval Process. The CAA established that providers not already designated as an ETC that wish to participate in the EBB Program can seek either an automatic or expedited approval from the Commission based on certain criteria. Specifically, the CAA required the Commission to establish an expedited process for such approval and “to automatically approve as a participating provider a broadband provider that has an established program as of April 1, 2020, that is widely available and offers internet service offerings to eligible households and maintains verification processes that are sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse.” Consistent with this Congressional directive, the Commission establishes both an automatic approval and an expedited approval process for non-ETC providers seeking to participate in the EBB Program. The Commission delegates to the WCB the authority to establish the process by which providers seek these approvals, including through appropriate direction to USAC. Eligible providers that have submitted complete applications by the priority application deadline will know prior to the start date of the EBB Program if they are eligible to participate. Applications from providers filed after priority application deadline will be reviewed on an expedited, rolling basis. 21. Some commenters suggested the Commission provide an opportunity for states to assist in the decisions to approve non-ETC providers for the EBB Program. After due consideration, the Commission declines to provide a formal role in the approval process to state public utilities commissions (PUCs). First, the Commission acknowledges the states' traditional and essential role in designating ETCs as provided in section 214 of the Communications Act of 1934. It is well-established that states have the primary responsibility for designating ETCs, and the Commission is only to designate an ETC where a state lacks jurisdiction over the carrier applying for designation. In fact, in the CAA, Congress recognized the importance of states' roles in the selection of providers for the EBB Program by permitting ETCs designated by states automatic entry. However, the CAA also specifically requires that non-ETC providers be approved for participation by the Commission and does not provide a role for the states. The Commission also recognizes this is a temporary, emergency program with limited funding and it is essential the Commission moves quickly in establishing the EBB Program and approving the participating providers. While the Commission declines to establish a formal role for states in the approval of those non-ETC providers, the Commission recognizes the states' interest in knowing the providers who are or will be providing the supported broadband service in their jurisdiction and thus will make publicly available the names of approved providers in each state, along with other information related to the Commission approvals. 22. Automatic Approval Process for Providers with Existing Support Programs. The Commission adopts an automatic approval process consistent with the CAA to enable non-ETC broadband providers with “an established program as of April 1, 2020, that is widely available and offers internet service offerings to eligible households and maintains verification processes that are sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse” to be automatically approved upon the filing of information meeting the criteria. Any non-ETC broadband provider seeking to qualify for such automatic approval must file an application describing: (1) The jurisdiction in which it plans to participate, (2) the service areas in which the provider has the authority, if needed, to operate in each state, but has not been designated an eligible telecommunications carrier, and (3) a description, supported by documentation, of the established EBB Program with which the provider seeks to qualify for automatic admission to the EBB Program. 23. Established Program as of April 1, 2020. To facilitate provider participation in the EBB Program, the Commission adopts a broad interpretation of what constitutes an “established program” that is “widely available.” The Commission finds that this requirement encompasses any eligible broadband provider that maintains an existing program that was made available by April 1, 2020 to subscribers meeting at least one of the criteria in the CAA's definition of an eligible household. Specifically, providers offering broadband subscribers discounted rates based on criteria such as low-income, loss of income, participation in Federal, state, or local assistance programs, or other means-tested eligibility criteria qualify for this automatic approval process. Additionally, providers that made commitments to keep subscribers connected during the pandemic and offered widely available bill forbearance or forgiveness programs beginning no later than April 1, 2020, and continuing through the end of this EBB Program, will be eligible for automatic approval. The Commission finds that providing automatic approval for providers that actively offer targeted low-income programs or programs in which providers otherwise engaged in systematic and ongoing billing practices, like forbearance or forgiveness, that actively reduced costs for struggling subscribers is consistent with the CAA's requirements. These actions reduced the financial burden on struggling households consistent with the Congressional intent of the EBB Program. The principal consideration in determining an “established program” for automatic approval is whether subscribers receive or were eligible to receive a financial benefit through either reduced rates or rate forbearance. 24. Consistent with such a broad interpretation, the Commission finds that a program is “widely established” when it was offered to subscribers in a substantial portion of the service provider's service area in a particular state. The Commission declines to adopt an interpretation that a program must be offered throughout the provider's national or multi-state service territory to be widely available. The Commission finds support in the record that many considerations factor into offering such programs that are not consistent across jurisdictions, such as state and local privacy laws, access to eligibility information, broadband carrier requirements, or the lack of consistent assistance programs. The Commission believes Congress's use of “widely available” in lieu of more sweeping alternatives expresses the intent to have this term apply to service offerings made publicly available even if the existing program was not available throughout a provider's entire service area. Further, the public interest favors an interpretation of this requirement that broadly defines the type of qualifying programs, supports expeditious entry where possible and in turn makes EBB Program support available as quickly as possible. 25. Required Verification Processes. The CAA also requires that providers seeking automatic approval to participate in the EBB Program have established programs that maintain verification processes that are “sufficient to avoid fraud, waste, and abuse.” The Commission finds that applying this requirement in a forward-looking manner strikes the appropriate balance between responsible stewardship of the funds and ensuring broad provider participation. Providers that have been offering a broadband program for eligible households have generally foregone collecting revenue they might otherwise have assessed from participating subscribers. Those providers therefore already have incentive to prevent enrollment in their programs by ineligible households. Providers submitting applications for automatic approval must describe only the established program and participation requirements to meet the approval criteria. 26. Providers that receive automatic approval to participate in the EBB Program will use the Lifeline National Verifier and NLAD to verify household eligibility or their own alternative household eligibility verification processes, or the combination of both before seeking reimbursement. Even if a provider has its own existing broadband program for determining eligible households, it may decide to use the National Verifier for some or all applications to the EBB Program, although it is not required to do so. The Commission finds that permitting automatically approved providers to use USAC's eligibility determination systems in a manner consistent with the CAA as described in the following further bolsters program protections against waste, fraud, and abuse. 27. Timing of Approvals. Providers that file applications certifying to and making necessary demonstrations for the criteria outlined in the document will receive approval automatically upon filing once the WCB confirms all required information was submitted. The Commission agrees with commenters in the record who argue the intent of Congress was to create an automatic presumption of approval for providers with existing support programs. Thus, the Commission delegates to the WCB the authority to create and administer an application process that will automatically approve provider applications meeting the criteria described in the document. Additionally, once approved, all providers must file with USAC an election to participate in the EBB Program to gain access to USAC systems. 28. Expedited Review Process for Non-ETC Providers. The Commission adopts an expedited review process for non-ETC providers that do not qualify for automatic application processing and are not affiliated with an ETC in the same jurisdiction. Such providers must file an application for expedited review to receive approval from the WCB to participate in the EBB Program. As proposed in the Public Notice, DA 21-6, each non-ETC broadband provider seeking to participate must file an application describing: (1) The state(s) in which it plans to participate, (2) the service areas in which the provider has the authority, if needed, to operate in each state but has not been designated an eligible telecommunications carrier, and (3) documentation of the provider's plan to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. These requirements align with the CAA's requirements for provider participation and eligibility. 29. Provider applications for review must establish a sufficient showing that the provider has met the criteria for expedited review and approval, as outlined in the following. The Commission directs the WCB to establish and administer this expedited application review process consistent with the RO. (a) A list of states or territories where the provider will offer EBB Program services. A provider seeking approval must list each jurisdiction in which it seeks to be approved to offer EBB Program services. While the provider need only identify the state or territory where it plans to offer qualifying services for purposes of its submission to the WCB, providers should be prepared to identify to USAC in their election the postal ZIP code(s) or Census Block(s) where EBB Program service will be offered to obtain Service Provider Identification Number(s) (SPINs) or Study Area Codes (SACs), as necessary. (b) A statement identifying the jurisdiction in which the provider requires FCC approval and jurisdictions in which the provider is an existing ETC. Providers that are designated as an ETC or affiliated with an ETC in some states or territories must submit an application and obtain WCB approval to participate in the EBB Program in states or territories where the provider is not designated as an ETC. Providers, even if already designated as an ETC in some states or territories, must seek WCB approval to offer EBB Program services in states or territories in which the provider is not designated as an ETC. Because such applications will be reviewed on either an automatic or expedited basis, the Commission does not expect such a requirement to impose a significant burden on providers. Providers without an ETC designation or unaffiliated with an ETC must certify that they are authorized to provide broadband services as of December 1, 2020. (c) Documentation of the provider's plan to combat waste, fraud, and abuse. Participating provider applications must include a certification that the provider understands and complies with all statutory and regulatory obligations, including those described within the RO, as public interest conditions of offering EBB Program services. Specifically, a provider must certify that it will: (i) Confirm a household's eligibility for the EBB Program through either the National Verifier or a Commission-approved eligibility verification process prior to seeking reimbursement for the respective subscriber; (ii) follow all enrollment requirements and obtain all certifications as required by the EBB Program, including providing eligible households with information describing the Program's eligibility requirements, one-per-household rule, and enrollment procedures; (iii) interact with the necessary USAC systems, including the National Verifier, NLAD, and RAD, before submitting claims for reimbursement, including performing the necessary checks to ensure the household is not receiving duplicative benefits within the EBB Program; (iv) de-enroll from the EBB Program any household it has a reasonable basis to believe is no longer eligible to receive the benefit consistent with Program requirements; (v) comply with the EBB Program's document retention requirements and agree to make such documentation available to the Commission or USAC, upon request or any entities (for example, auditors) operating on their behalf; and (vi) agree to the Commission's enforcement and forfeiture authority. 30. Timing of Approvals. Providers that have filed an application satisfying the criteria outlined in the document will receive expedited review. The Commission declines to adopt a deemed granted date or other specific application review deadlines for the expedited review process. Providers submitting applications by the priority application deadline will receive a determination prior to the start of the EBB Program. Accordingly, the Commission believes specific application review deadlines are unnecessary. The Commission delegates to the WCB the authority to create and administer an application review process that will expeditiously consider provider applications meeting the criteria described in the document. Additionally, all approved providers must file an election with USAC to participate in the EBB Program. 31. Conditions and Requirements for Participating Providers. The Commission finds there is authority within the CAA to require participating providers to offer the EBB Program benefit throughout the provider's approved service area. Additionally, the Commission finds that use of existing USAC databases is the most efficient way to begin the program quickly while ensuring adequate safeguards to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. Accordingly, the Commission authorizes USAC to make available the appropriate databases to administer the EBB Program including the National Verifier, NLAD, RAD, and LCS. The Commission directs USAC to take the appropriate actions to update, modify, or create the necessary USAC systems to administer the EBB Program in line with the Commission's direction in the RO. The Commission further delegates authority to the WCB and the Office of Managing Director () to supervise and coordinate with USAC all actions necessary to make USAC databases and systems available for the EBB Program. 32. Public Interest Conditions of Approvals. The Commission adopts its proposal to require providers to offer the EBB Program discount on at least one service offering across all of its approved service areas in each of the states in which it is approved to participate. The Commission finds that such an approach is consistent with the CAA's requirements regarding the establishment of the EBB Program to reimburse providers for discounts provided to subscribers and supports the public interest in ensuring subscribers have access to the EBB Program. Further, the CAA grants the authority to the Commission to determine whether a provider meets the requirements to participate in the EBB Program. The Commission agrees with commenters that providers should not have to extend service offerings into areas where they currently do not exist and should not be mandated to offer a certain quality of service for the reasons further explained in the following. Requiring providers to expand or otherwise deploy service offerings or existing programs into areas where they currently do not exist increases provider burdens and delays implementation for providers seeking to quickly offer EBB Program services. Approved providers must offer at least one EBB Program-reimbursed service to each of its eligible households within its service area. However, the Commission also encourages participating providers to make EBB Program support available for all its service offerings for eligible households. Additionally, pursuant to the CAA, participating providers must not deny an eligible household the ability to participate in the EBB Program based on any past or present arrearages with that provider, may not require an eligible household to pay an early termination fee if the household enters into a contract for its EBB Program-supported service and later terminates that contract, and may not subject EBB Program-supported service to a mandatory waiting period based on a household having previously received service from that provider. 33. Notice to Consumers. Providers also play an important role in ensuring that their customers are informed about the EBB Program at the point of application and enrollment. Providers will have a direct relationship with their customers, and as such, have a responsibility to ensure that these customers have the information they need to make an informed decision about the broadband service product they subscribe to supported by the EBB Program. Accordingly, the Commission requires participating providers to collect and retain documentation demonstrating that, prior to enrolling an existing subscriber in the EBB Program, the provider clearly disclosed to the household that the EBB Program is a government program that reduces the customer's broadband internet access service bill, is temporary in nature, that the household will be subject to the provider's undiscounted rates and general terms and conditions at the end of the program if they continue to receive service, that the household may obtain broadband service supported by the EBB Program from any participating provider of their choosing, and that the household may transfer their EBB Program benefit to another provider at any time. The provider must also retain documentation demonstrating that, having received such disclosures, the household provided affirmative consent to applying their EBB Program benefit to the service received from the EBB Program provider. The Commission believes that this disclosure and consent process will help ensure that low-income households are aware of their choices in the EBB Program without creating overly burdensome application requirements for those households. 34. Use of the National Verifier, NLAD, RAD and other USAC databases. The Commission finds that, consistent with the CAA's provision allowing the Commission to use USAC's systems and services to implement the EBB Program, participating providers will be required to use certain USAC systems, such as the Lifeline NLAD and RAD, for program administration and will be permitted to use the National Verifier to determine household eligibility. The Commission adopts its proposal to rely on the USAC-administered National Verifier, NLAD, RAD, LCS, and other established processes for the EBB Program, including the provider reimbursement process, call centers for program support, provider and consumer outreach, and conducting program integrity reviews. Accordingly, the Commission adopts the applicable part 54 rules that currently govern Lifeline provider interactions with these USAC systems. Specifically, the Commission applies the requirements of § 54.400(i) and (o) of the Commission's rules defining the NLAD and National Verifier; § 54.404 of the Commission's rules outlining carrier interactions with the NLAD; § 54.406 of the Commission's rules outlining enrollment agent activities and requiring registration with the RAD; § 54.410 of the Commission's rules where appropriate in requiring the use of the National Verifier for eligibility determinations; and § 54.419 of the Commission's rules allowing the use of electronic signatures. The Commission directs the WCB, and USAC as directed by the WCB, to issue any further guidance or instruction necessary to clarify the obligations of EBB Program providers when using USAC databases and the administrative process established for the EBB Program. 35. Safe harbor for participating providers. The CAA provides a safe harbor provision stating that the Commission may not enforce a violation of the CAA using sections 501, 502, or 503 of the Communications Act, or any rules of the Commission promulgated under such sections, if a participating provider demonstrates that it relied in good faith on information provided to such provider to make any verification required by subsection 904(b)(2) of the CAA. Section 904(b)(2) of the CAA imposes a duty on participating providers to verify whether a household is eligible to receive the service and connected devices supported by the EBB Program. The Commission establishes that this safe harbor will apply to providers who utilize the National Verifier for eligibility determinations or any alternative eligibility verification process that has received approval from the Commission consistent with the RO. The safe harbor applies to providers who act in “good faith” with respect to these eligibility verification processes. The Commission has extensive experience in evaluating good faith actions of regulated entities in both negotiation and cost reimbursement. In line with this experience, this safe harbor applies to participating providers for eligibility determinations who act in good faith based on information provided to them in the household eligibility and enrollment process. Good faith will be determined on the totality of circumstances surrounding the participating providers actions or statements. Participating providers that reasonably rely upon the documentation regarding eligibility determinations provided by eligible households or eligibility determinations from the National Verifier will be able to avail themselves of this statutory safe harbor for purposes of their compliance with the EBB Program rules. 36. Application and Election Procedures. A provider application to participate in the EBB Program will provide information used to determine whether the applicant has the legal and technical qualifications to participate in the EBB Program. An applicant must certify, under penalty of perjury, its qualifications. Non-ETC providers must certify under penalty of perjury that the information set forth in their application is true, accurate, and complete; they understand and will comply with all statutory and regulatory obligations described within the RO; and all terms and conditions and other requirements applicable to using the National Verifier, NLAD, RAD, and other USAC systems. Providing materially false information in the application will disqualify a provider from participation in the EBB Program. Eligibility to participate in the EBB Program is based on an applicant's submission of required information and certifications. A potential applicant must take seriously its compliance duties and responsibilities and carefully determine before filing an application that it is able to meet the obligations associated with EBB Program support. An applicant's filing and subsequent approval does not guarantee the applicant will receive EBB Program reimbursement. Each participating provider must file all required forms, information, and certifications with the Commission and USAC to receive reimbursement. 37. A non-ETC provider seeking to participate in the EBB Program must file the appropriate application, whether it is eligible for expedited or automatic approval, electronically, whether filing for automated or expedited approval, through the process announced by the WCB following the adoption of the RO. An applicant provider bears full responsibility for submitting an accurate, complete, and timely application, and should thoroughly review the EBB Program participating provider requirements, in addition to any subsequent guidance, to ensure all required information is included in its application. An applicant provider should be cognizant that submitting an application (and any amendments thereto) constitutes a representation by the certifying official that he or she is an authorized representative of the applicant, that he or she has read the appropriate instructions and certifications, and that the contents of the application, its certifications, and any attachments are true and correct. Submitting a false certification to the Commission may result in penalties, including monetary forfeitures, license forfeitures, and ineligibility to participate in future Commission auctions or competitions, as well as criminal prosecution and/or liability under the False Claims Act. 38. Household Eligibility—Emergency Broadband Benefit Program Eligible Households. The CAA directs that a household will qualify for the EBB Program if at least one member of the household: (1) Meets the qualifications for participation in the Lifeline program; (2) has applied for and been approved to receive benefits under the free and reduced price lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966; (3) has experienced a substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020 that is documented by layoff or furlough notice, application for unemployment insurance benefits, or similar documentation or that is otherwise verifiable through the National Verifier or the NLAD; (4) has received a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the current award year; or (5) meets the eligibility criteria for a participating provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program, subject to approval by the Commission and any other requirements deemed by the Commission to be necessary in the public interest. A household is eligible for the EBB Program regardless of whether any member of the household already receives a Lifeline benefit. Further, a household is eligible for the EBB Program “regardless of whether any member of the household has any past or present arrearages with a broadband provider.” 39. While the CAA provides a definition for “eligible household,” it does not define “household” itself, and the Public Notice, DA 21-6, sought comment on using the definition of “household” provided in [the] Lifeline rules for purposes of administering the EBB Program. The Lifeline rules define “household” as: any individual or group of individuals who are living together at the same address as one economic unit. A household may include related and unrelated persons. An “economic unit” consists of all adult individuals contributing to and sharing in the income and expenses of a household. An adult is any person eighteen years or older. If an adult has no or minimal income, and lives with someone who provides financial support to him/her, both people shall be considered part of the same household. Children under the age of eighteen living with their parents or guardians are considered to be part of the same household as their parents or guardians. The record contains broad consensus supporting the proposal to use Lifeline's definition of household, and the Commission adopts this proposal. Other commenters agreed, generally, without reference to the Lifeline definition, that multiple people should be able to receive the EBB Program benefit at a single address, so long as the people were part of different households, similar to Lifeline's definition of a household. Some commenters disagree with the Commission proposal to permit one benefit per household, noting that often times households will have multiple people requiring access to quality broadband and devices, and each may need a benefit even though they are part of the same household. While the Commission is cognizant of the varying needs of households, it read the CAA to allow only a single benefit per household. As a result, the Commission will use the Lifeline program's definition of household and limit to each economic unit a single monthly Emergency Broadband Benefit and single connected device reimbursement. To help applicants determine if there is more than one household at an address, the Commission made available for the EBB Program a Household Worksheet to confirm whether an applicant is part of an independent economic household from other existing EBB Program subscribers. For providers conducting eligibility determinations pursuant to an approved alternative verification process, the Commission requires that such processes include measures to confirm that a household, under the definition the Commission adopts within, is not receiving more than one EBB Program benefit. The Commission also directs USAC to conduct periodic program integrity reviews to confirm that EBB Program subscribers located at the same address are in compliance with these requirements. 40. Commenters also argue the EBB Program should support broadband provided to multiple dwelling units at a single address, such as senior and student living, mobile home parks, apartment buildings, and Federal housing units, that receive service as part of a bulk billing arrangement where the households “are not directly billed for services by their internet service provider, but instead pay a monthly fee for broadband services to their landlord.” Similarly, there may be “entities such as school districts, health care providers, assisted living or nursing facilities, and local governments who purchase service `in bulk' for eligible households.” The Commission concludes on balance to make available the Emergency Broadband Benefit available in these arrangements as long as the provider is approved in the EBB Program and the household is eligible under the statute. These eligible households are otherwise at risk of missing out on broadband services supported by the EBB Program because they may not be directly billed by the participating provider and may not have a typical relationship with the participating provider. As a result, the Commission believes that including support in the EBB Program for these eligible households will increase the number of struggling households that are able to benefit from the EBB Program. In situations where the support is passed through as a discount off of the monthly price paid by the eligible household, the eligible household must provide consent to the bulk purchaser/aggregator or participating provider to apply their EBB Program benefit to that service, and the participating provider must retain documentation of such consent. The participating provider claiming reimbursement for the service provided under the bulk arrangement must retain documentation demonstrating that the amount claimed by the provider from the EBB Program is fully passed through to the eligible household as a discount off of the monthly price that the eligible household otherwise would have paid directly to the bulk purchaser. To ensure compliance with these requirements, the Commission requires participating providers offering service through such bulk billing arrangements to retain documentation demonstrating the identity of the entity or entities through which the discount was passed and the eligible households who received the subsidized service. As an example, if a bulk purchaser typically provides eligible households broadband service for $30 a month, each eligible household that receives such service must provide consent to the bulk purchaser or participating provider that the participating provider can seek reimbursement from the EBB Program for the $30 a month service. The participating provider would need to retain documentation of such consent, as well as documentation that the $30 that the participating provider is seeking reimbursement for will be fully passed through to the eligible household. As a result of the discount, the bulk purchaser would be paying $30 less to the participating provider, and the eligible household would be receiving free broadband service and not paying anything to the bulk purchaser. In cases where the household does not pay a fee for the service, either to the provider or a bulk purchaser/aggregator, but the fee is paid by another entity, the service cannot be claimed for EBB Program support. 41. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, sought comment on whether there should be a limitation on the number of benefits per address regardless of the number of households. The Commission concludes that the Commission will not impose any limitations inconsistent with the Lifeline definition of a “household.” The Commission also sought comments on whether additional enrollments at a single address require a separate, more rigorous verification process. Some commenters cautioned against using a separate process, and the Commission finds that the Household Worksheet as used in Lifeline will help protect against duplicate benefits, while not being overly burdensome to applicants. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, also sought comment on whether an applicant should certify that no other person in the economic household is receiving a benefit. The Commission finds that the Household Worksheet requires an applicant to confirm their understanding of the one-per-household rule and that the person will lose their benefit if they break the rule, and the Commission will not need any further certification from an EBB Program subscriber regarding more than one benefit at a household. The Commission further directs USAC to apply its existing periodic Lifeline program integrity reviews for addresses with an unusually high number of subscribers to addresses enrolled in the EBB Program as well. 42. The WCB also sought comment on whether the EBB Program should adopt the same NLAD processes used for Lifeline. After consideration of the record, the Commission concludes that the Commission should use the NLAD for a variety of functions for the EBB Program. The CAA, for example, contemplates the use of the NLAD by participating providers for purposes of determining whether a household is an eligible household. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, sought comment on a proposal to require all participating providers to track enrollments of eligible households in the EBB Program in the NLAD to prevent duplicative support. There was broad support in the record supporting the proposal, and the Commission adopts it. Further, the Commission finds that all providers, including those that use an approved alternative verification process or verify eligibility via a school as discussed in the following, must enroll their subscribers in the NLAD prior to claiming reimbursement for those subscribers, to prevent duplicative support between providers. 43. Finally, the Commission observes that households are eligible to participate in both the EBB Program and the Lifeline program, either on the same or different services, and the Commission directs USAC to enable the NLAD to allow an eligible household to have separate subscriber IDs for the EBB Program and Lifeline and to associate such subscriber IDs with a respective Lifeline provider or Emergency Broadband Benefit provider, as applicable. If a household is enrolled only in the Lifeline program, then it will only have a Lifeline subscriber ID and be associated with a Lifeline provider. If a household is enrolled only in the EBB Program, then it will only have an EBB Program subscriber ID and be associated with an EBB Program provider. If a household is enrolled in both the Lifeline program and the EBB program, then it will have separate Lifeline and EBB Program subscriber IDs, and each of those subscriber IDs will be associated with their respective Lifeline or EBB Program provider (in some cases, a household may choose the same provider for both the Lifeline program and the EBB Program). 44. National Verifier and NLAD Eligibility Determination. The CAA provides that participating providers can use one of three methods to verify eligibility for the EBB Program. In the following, the Commission discusses the first method of verification, use of the National Verifier and NLAD. The CAA allows a participating provider to use the National Verifier and NLAD to confirm applicants' eligibility. The Commission finds that allowing participating providers to use the National Verifier will help to stand up the EBB Program quickly and provide administrative efficiency, while also serving as an effective tool to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. The Commission directs USAC to make available an EBB Program consumer portal and application form leveraging the existing National Verifier infrastructure. Commenters also requested that the Commission enables a service provider portal or eligibility check application programming interface (API) so that providers can help consumers with the application process. The Commission agrees that these additional application methods would enable providers to help enroll consumers, and the Commission directs USAC to make available these other application methods as well if feasible within the overall timeframe of the EBB Program. 45. Generally, the National Verifier is a system of systems, with computer connections to state and Federal eligibility databases that can automatically check and confirm a household's eligibility electronically, followed by manual review of eligibility documentation for any applicants whose eligibility cannot be verified using an automated data source. To assist those participating providers that want the National Verifier to be a one-stop shop for determining eligibility for the EBB Program and do not to conduct their own verification processes, the Commission directs USAC to enable the National Verifier to verify three additional eligibility bases that are required by the CAA for the EBB Program: (1) Participation in free and reduced lunch program under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act or the school breakfast program under section 4 of the Child Nutrition Act; (2) a substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020; and (3) receipt of a Federal Pell Grant under section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the current award year. The CAA contemplates substantial loss of income and Federal Pell Grant participation would be verified by the National Verifier where possible, and commenters agreed with adding those eligibility bases to the National Verifier. Commenters also suggested that participation in school breakfast or lunch should also be added to the National Verifier, and the Commission agrees. Where possible, the Commission directs USAC to enable database connections through computer matching agreements with the respective government entities for those programs. Where not possible, the Commission directs USAC, under the direction of the WCB, to allow eligible households to submit documentation so that USAC can manually process the eligibility information for inclusion in the National Verifier. The Commission delegates authority to the WCB to direct USAC in these efforts and to provide any additional interpretations of section 904 necessary for implementing use of the National Verifier for the EBB Program. Unless and until such database connections have been enabled, USAC will verify program eligibility based on manual documentation review, consistent with the guidelines discussed in the following. 46. Where the National Verifier cannot verify eligibility through any automated data sources, the Commission delegates to the WCB to direct USAC to establish documentation criteria for the three added eligibility programs. While the Consolidated Appropriations Act identified a few types of documentation to demonstrate income loss, such as “layoff or furlough notice, application for unemployment benefits, or similar documentation,” the Commission sought comment on other types of documentation. Some commenters argued that other documentation for substantial loss of income should be construed broadly, or that the Commission has kept in mind the widespread loss of income. Consistent with the Commission's clarification of “substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020,” discussed in the following, any documentation must clearly show loss of a job, including due to a furlough, that began after February 29, 2020, however documented, as well as the household's annual income for 2020. In addition, many commenters suggested acceptable documentation for receipt of a Pell Grant under section 904(a)(6)(D) of the CAA, including: (1) Written or electronic confirmation from a student's Institution of Higher Education that the student has received a Pell Grant for the current award year; (2) a student's official financial aid award letter documenting the amount of a student's Pell Grant award received for the current year; (3) a copy of a student's paid invoice that clearly documents the student's receipt of a Pell Grant during the current award year; and (4) a copy of a student's Student Aid Report that clearly documents the student's receipt of a Pell Grant during the current award year. USAC should consider these documents when establishing documentation criteria for receipt of a Pell Grant. 47. The CAA allows that current Lifeline enrollees are automatically eligible for the EBB Program based on their Lifeline eligibility. Many commenters suggested that customers already enrolled in Lifeline should not have to also apply for the EBB Program. The Commission finds that current Lifeline households will not need to apply for the EBB Program or submit new eligibility documentation if they are already enrolled in NLAD. Current Lifeline enrollees, however, must still opt-in or affirmatively request enrollment in the EBB Program. As explained in the document, providers must collect and retain documentation demonstrating that, prior to enrolling an existing Lifeline household in the EBB Program, the provider made clear disclosures regarding the EBB Program benefit and the consumer's choices within the EBB Program, and the household provided affirmative consent to applying their Emergency Broadband Benefit to the service received from the EBB Program provider. 48. In the Lifeline program, potential households are required to provide the last four digits of a Social Security Number to enroll in National Verifier and NLAD to verify subscriber identity. Some commenters, however, argue that the CAA does not require a Social Security Number for enrollment in the EBB Program, and that if the Commission imposes a Social Security Number requirement, many of the neediest households may not be able to enroll because they may not have a Social Security Number, may have difficulty accessing data, or fear providing a Social Security Number. Commenters suggested alternative forms of identification instead of a Social Security Number, such as an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN), Government ID, current utility bill, or current employment photo identification badge. While the Commission permits a consumer to use the last four digits of a Social Security Number during enrollment, the Commission was persuaded that accepting only a Social Security Number may prevent eligible households from enrolling in the EBB Program. Applicants who choose not to provide the last four digits of their Social Security Number or cannot be verified using a Social Security Number may verify their identity using a variety of other types of identity documentation, including a government-issued ID, passport, driver's license, or Individual Taxpayer Identification Number documentation. The Commission directs USAC to work with the WCB to establish approval criteria for acceptable identity documentation. In developing that criteria, USAC should consider the methods used to verify identity by providers with existing low-income programs. 49. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, proposed that eligible households will be required to interact directly with National Verifier as is currently required for the Lifeline benefit, and many commenters supported this proposal. The Commission adopts this proposal and will require households to interact directly with National Verifier. Some commenters suggested that the Commission permit service providers to submit verification requests through the National Verifier on behalf of households even if the households consumers are not physically present with the service provider, while others were concerned that consumers may not be able to access National Verifier as they do not have broadband access, and places such as libraries or community centers that typically offer broadband access are closed or operating in a limited capacity due to the pandemic. Although allowing service providers to remotely submit information on behalf of consumers may benefit some consumers, the Commission finds that the risk to program integrity and potential for waste, fraud, and abuse outweighs the benefit. Further, households that do not have internet access to apply electronically through the National Verifier may still apply for the EBB Program using a paper application. In addition, verification through the National Verifier is not the only way for households to get verified in the EBB Program, as service providers may have their own approved alternative verification processes to enroll households, while other households may be qualified by a provider through verification with a school. Given these alternatives, the Commission thought that permitting providers to sign up consumers remotely was necessary. 50. The CAA permits households with members who qualify for free and reduced-price school lunch or the school breakfast program to enroll in the EBB Program. As a result, the Commission permits qualifying households to apply for the EBB Program and will have USAC enable the National Verifier to approve the household based on participation in free and reduced lunch program or the school breakfast program. In the Public Notice, DA 21-6, the WCB sought comment on the reduced or free school breakfast or lunch eligibility from section 904(a)(6)(B) of the CAA and how to treat households with students enrolled in the EBB Program in schools or school districts that participate in the USDA Community Eligibility Provision. Participation in the Community Eligibility Provision allows the nation's highest-poverty schools and school districts to serve breakfast and lunch at no cost to all enrolled students without needing to collect individual household applications. Thus, households with a student enrolled in a school or school district participating in the Community Eligibility Provision will not have “applied for and been approved to receive” school lunch or breakfast programs but are still beneficiaries of these programs. Many commenters support that households with children enrolled in largely low-income schools or school districts that participate in the Community Eligibility Provision should be eligible for the emergency broadband benefit under section 904(a)(6)(B) of the CAA despite not individually applying for assistance. The Commission agrees with these commenters. 51. Some commenters argue that accepting participation in the Community Eligibility Provision would be overinclusive. On balance, the Commission finds that the risk of including otherwise ineligible households is outweighed by the importance of making the EBB Program accessible and removing barriers to participation. Indeed, because the schools that participate in the Community Eligibility Provision are the among the highest-poverty schools in the nation, the Commission believes that including households with students that attend those schools efficiently targets low-income households and excluding such schools would counterintuitively effectively remove the National School Lunch Program as a qualifying program for households in largely low-income schools and school districts. The Commission also recognizes that allowing use of the Community Eligibility Provision as a qualifying program limits disclosure to less sensitive information of households. While the CAA does not provide a specific time frame for when the member of the household should have been approved for benefits under the free and reduced price lunch or breakfast programs, the California Emerging Technology Fund proposed that the Commission should allow proof of enrollment in these programs for either the 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 school year, given that many schools have been closed since mid-March 2020 due to the pandemic and students may not be enrolled in the programs in the current school year. The Commission agrees with this proposal. The Commission therefore accepts for eligibility determination purposes a household's confirmation that the household has dependent children who participated or are participating in the Community Eligibility Provision school breakfast or free and reduced-price school lunch program in the 2019-2020 or 2020-2021 school year. The Commission directs USAC to develop a process for such eligibility determinations that has the capability to, after a household provides the name of a dependent child's school, automatically check for CEP participation against the nationwide lists maintained by U.S. Department of Agriculture and/or the Food Research & Action Center. The Commission also directs USAC to conduct program integrity reviews of a sample of households who enrolled in the EBB Program using this eligibility criteria to confirm EBB Program compliance. 52. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, also sought comment on whether a school's participation in the E-Rate program would facilitate any needed verification. The Commission receives some comments supporting the idea that a school participating in E-Rate should be sufficient to confirm household eligibility for its students' households. However, schools can participate in E-Rate even if less than 1% of its students are eligible for the National School Lunch Program. As such, the Commission did not find that a school's participation in E-Rate alone would provide any help as to the eligibility of households that have students enrolled in that school, and the Commission declines to use participation in E-Rate as a basis of eligibility for qualifying for school lunch or breakfast. 53. Households with members who have experienced a substantial loss of income are also qualified to enroll in the EBB Program according to the CAA. The WCB sought comment on how to define a “substantial loss of income since February 29, 2020” in section 904(a)(6)(C) of the CAA, and whether households with an income above a certain level should be excluded from the EBB Program. Although the Commission receives comments that the Commission should clearly define “substantial loss of income,” only a few commenters provided criteria for the Commission to consider. Consistent with the requirements of the CAA, the Commission clarifies that a “substantial loss of income” includes the loss of a job, including a furlough, that is documented by a layoff or furlough notice, application for unemployment insurance benefits, or similar documentation. The Commission permits households with such members to enroll in the EBB Program through the National Verifier. To target eligibility to households most in need, the Commission agrees with commenters that the Commission imposes a household income limitation, and consistent with the criteria established by the Centers for Disease Control to halt evictions, a household that has suffered a job loss must not have had an income in 2020 greater than $99,000 for single-filers and $198,000 for joint filers to be eligible for the EBB Program. 54. The CAA also permits eligibility into the EBB Program if a member of a household has received a Federal Pell Grant under Section 401 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 in the current award year. Commenters supported and welcomed the inclusion of receipt a Pell Grant as an eligibility basis for the EBB Program. USTelecom has asked for clarification on what constitutes a household for purposes of a Pell Grant, given that students that are awarded Pell Grants are typically living away from parents, yet that student may be dependent on parental support. The Commission clarifies that consistent with the EBB Program's adoption of the Lifeline definition of “household,” people are part of the same household if they share income and expenses and live at the same address. If the recipient of a Pell Grant lives at a separate address from the recipient's parents, the recipient and the family are separate households, and only the recipient of the Pell Grant would be eligible for the EBB Program using Pell Grant eligibility. 55. The CAA also allows into the EBB Program a household where at least one member meets the eligibility criteria for a participating provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program. For eligibility under this provision, commenters suggested that providers should be able to continue to operate the EBB Program with the existing eligibility requirements. Although this provision of the CAA suggests the Commission could impose other eligibility requirements on these existing programs that the Commission considers necessary for the public interest, given the emergency nature of the EBB Program, the Commission declines to modify the programmatic or income eligibility requirements of any provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program for purposes of eligibility in the EBB Program. Some commenters suggested that the Commission work with providers to set a baseline eligibility for the provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program. The Commission similarly believes imposing baseline criteria on all existing low-income or COVID-19 programs would be disruptive to those programs and cause undue burden on the providers at a time when it is essential those programs continue to operate efficiently. Finally, consistent with the CAA's allowance that a broadband provider that had an established a low-income or COVID-19 program as of April 1, 2020 shall be automatically approved as a participating provider, and to ensure that such eligibility determinations are made pursuant to well-established verification mechanisms, the Commission finds that a participating provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program must have been available as of April 1, 2020, and any eligibility criteria for such programs must have been established as of April 1, 2020, for use of that program as a qualifying program under section 904(a)(6)(E) of the CAA. 56. Some commenters suggested that although the Commission does not allow Lifeline applicants to self-certify, the Commission should allow EBB Program applicants to self-certify given the emergency nature of the EBB Program. While the Commission recognizes that self-certification could in some circumstances lessen the burden on some households, the Commission declines to allow self-certification. Self-certification presents a sizable risk of waste fraud and abuse in the EBB Program. Further, the Commission finds the CAA contemplates documentation and verification to confirm eligibility and permitting a household to enroll in the EBB Program while only self-certifying to eligibility would run contrary to these statutory requirements. And given the many bases of eligibility through which a household is able to enroll in the EBB Program and different avenues for verification, the Commission finds that these ample opportunities make self-certification far less urgent. 57. Participating Provider Alternative Verification Process. The CAA also allows a participating provider to “rely upon an alternative verification process of the participating provider,” subject to certain conditions. As set out by the CAA, the “participating provider submits information as required by the Commission regarding the alternative verification process prior to seeking reimbursement,” and the Commission has seven days after receipt of the information to notify the participating provider if the participating provider's “alternative verification process will be sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse.” 58. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, sought comment on what information should be provided to the Commission concerning the alternative verification process, and the criteria the Commission should consider in determining whether a provider's alternative verification process is sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse. Some commenters suggested that the Commission create a model “alternative verification process” for participating providers to choose, while others suggested that the Commission automatically approve the verification processes for providers that have low-income programs that are not provided with government assistance and instead subsidized by the provider, as those providers already have strong incentives to ensure that only qualified customers take advantage of those programs. Other commenters proposed that local governments may act as the alternative verification process for providers. The Navajo Nation Telecommunications Regulatory Commission suggested that the Commission should work with providers who have worked in Indian Country to get their input as to verification, given the challenge that Lifeline has in verifying consumers in Indian Country. The Commission also received comments that any alternative verification process should be allowed to have different household eligibility definitions, but the Commission finds that it cannot expand eligibility beyond what the Consolidated Appropriations Act authorizes. The Commission notes, however, that under section 904(a)(6)(E) of the CAA, a broadband provider's eligibility criteria for their existing low-income or COVID-19 program may provide eligibility bases other than those explicitly listed in sections 904(a)(6)(A)-(D) of the CAA. 59. Regardless of how a provider seeks or receives authorization to participate in the EBB Program (as an ETC, as a non-ETC with expedited approval, or as a non-ETC with automatic approval), a provider must submit and receive WCB approval of its alternative verification process prior to using such a process to enroll consumers in the EBB Program. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, proposes that the Commission delegates to the WCB authority to review and approve (or deny) alternative verification processes, and the Commission adopts this proposal. The Commission directs the WCB to develop a process for submitting proposed alternative verification processes and to review and approve or reject such submissions within the seven days required by the CAA. For ETCs, the Commission directs such providers to submit to the WCB requests for approval describing their alternative verification process after submitting their notice of election to USAC. The ETC's request for approval of its alternative verification process must still go through the approval process required by section 904(b)(2)(B) of the CAA and be approved by the WCB before the ETC can begin providing EBB Program service. For providers seeking a non-ETC approval from the WCB, the Commission directed such providers to submit requests for approval describing their alternative verification process along with their application to participate in the EBB Program, where possible. Although the provider application to participate may be granted automatically if the provider qualifies for such a grant, the provider's request for approval of its alternative verification process must still go through the approval process required by section 904(b)(2)(B) of the CAA and be approved by the WCB before the provider can begin providing EBB Program service. 60. The Commission also agrees with commenters that non-ETCs that are automatically approved as a participating provider based on having an established low-income or COVID-19 program as of April 1, 2020 pursuant to section 904(d)(2)(B) of the CAA should also have the alternative verification processes for those programs automatically approved. The CAA not only provides an automatic approval for such providers but also deems as eligible for the EBB Program households with at least one member that meets the eligibility criteria for a participating provider's existing low-income or COVID-19 program. The Commission finds Congress' heavy reliance on these existing aid programs instructive. The Commission is persuaded that such providers have strong incentives to ensure that only qualified customers take advantage of a provider's own low-income or COVID-19 program, as these programs are currently subsidized by the provider. Any such automatically approved provider must still submit a description of their alternative verification process to the WCB. 61. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, proposed to allow alternative verification methods that are at least as stringent as methods used by the National Verifier, and the Commission received comment agreeing with this proposal. To be at least as stringent as the National Verifier, information collected by participating providers in the alternative verification process should at least include the applicant's: (1) Full name, (2) phone number, (3) date of birth, (4) email address, (5) home and mailing addresses, (6) name and date of birth of the benefit qualifying person if different than applicant, (7) basis for inclusion in program ( e.g., SNAP, SSI, Medicaid, school lunch, Pell Grant, income, provider's existing program, etc.) and documentation supporting verification of eligibility, and (8) certifications from the household that the information included in the application is true. The provider must describe the processes it (or a third-party) uses to verify the requested preceding information, including the applicant's identity and eligibility, and as required by the CAA, the provider must explain why the provider's alternative process will be sufficient to avoid waste, fraud, and abuse. For example, Comcast requires consumers to submit an application to obtain proof of identification and establish eligibility for its internet Essentials program, which is open to individuals in a high poverty area or through participation in a government assistance program. Comcast cross-references information from the application against internal databases populated with publicly available data from government sources to confirm participation in National School Lunch Program, residence at a public housing address, or residence in high poverty area, and if eligibility cannot be verified through internal databases or based on participation in a different government program, Comcast requires documentation of proof of participation and the documentation is reviewed by a vendor. The provider must also explain how it trains its employees and agents to prevent ineligible enrollments, including enrollments based on fabricated documents. If the alternative verification process fails to include any of the preceding information in the document, the provider should explain why it thinks such information is not necessary to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. If a provider without an established low-income program seeks approval of an alternative verification process, it must explain why it proposes to use an alternative verification process instead of the National Verifier eligibility determinations. The Commission declines to issue a model alternative verification process, and the Commission further declines to approve any of the other alternative verification processes submitted by commenters. 62. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, also sought comment on documentation and records providers should be required to keep complying with audit requirements. Commenters suggested that the providers should at least collect and retain documentation of the applicant's identity and eligibility criteria. The Commission requires that providers keep all documentation provided to them from the applicant used to make eligibility determinations, for as long as the applicant receives the Emergency Broadband Benefit, and also for no less than the six full calendar years following the termination of the EBB Program. For example, if a subscriber enrolls in the EBB Program through participation in the school breakfast or lunch program or the Pell Grant, retained documentation should include the name of the school and school year for which the subscriber has claimed eligibility. This requirement is similar to the document retention requirement used in the Lifeline program but is long enough to cover the statute of limitations under the False Claims Act laws for Federal wire fraud and ensures that documentation is available to confirm program compliance. Commenters also agree with the proposal in the Public Notice, DA 21-6, that providers identify the alternative verification process used when enrolling a household in the NLAD, and the Commission adopts that proposal. The Commission also directs USAC to conduct periodic program integrity reviews to ensure that subscribers enrolled through a provider's alternative verification process are eligible for the emergency broadband benefit. 63. School-Based Eligibility Verification. The CAA also allows a participating provider to rely on a school to verify eligibility under the free and reduced price school lunch or school breakfast program. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, proposed that a provider identify the school it relied on when enrolling a household in NLAD, and commenters agreed. The Commission also sought comment on what other information a participating provider should be required to submit or maintain. Commenters were concerned about the ability of schools to provide information about households and individuals enrolled in the EBB Program without violating data privacy and confidentiality laws. The Commission also received a comment suggesting that the Commission create a standard protective order or consent form that providers can use. One commenter was also concerned that there may be significant administrative burdens and staffing requirements placed on schools if they are required to verify students, particularly if schools have a large number of students that qualify. One commenter estimated that it could take a school district 192 hours a month to process income verification requests from service providers. The Commission shares those concerns and was sympathetic to the burdens this method could impose on schools, especially during the pandemic when so many school administrators and teachers are struggling with the challenges of safe, in-person education, supporting students in need, and distance learning. The Commission concludes that, to comply with the requirements of the CAA, for a participating provider to rely on information provided by a school when enrolling a household in the EBB Program, the participating provider must certify in NLAD that it relied on information provided by a school for eligibility verification and that it retains documentation indicating: (1) The school providing the information, (2) the program(s) that the school participates in, (3) the household that qualifies (and qualifying student(s)), (4) and the program(s) the household participates in. The Commission believes this permits access to the EBB Program for student households through the school and also minimizes the burden on the school, especially in light of the relevant privacy and consent requirements. At the same time, households with students can also verify eligibility for and enroll in the EBB Program without relying upon schools, and will be able to use on any of the qualifying criteria for eligible households set forth in the CAA. And while the Commission declines to create a standard protective order or consent form, it recognized that it may be a beneficial tool for consumers and providers, and delegate to the WCB the authority to create such a form if it is needed for the National Verifier's processes. 64. Covered Services and Devices. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to challenge Americans' access to and reliance on broadband connections as households try to adapt and ensure that they have the tools to succeed in their everyday tasks, including telework, telehealth, telemedicine, and virtual learning. The CAA permits, in the EBB Program, eligible households to receive a discount off the cost of broadband service and certain connected devices, and participating providers can receive a reimbursement for such discounts during the emergency period. 65. Services. In describing the services eligible for EBB Program support, the CAA defines “internet service offering” as a broadband internet access service provided to a household, and defines “broadband internet access service” with the meaning given to that term in § 8.1(b) of the Commission's rules. The Consolidated Appropriations Act further requires that an internet service offering must have a “standard rate” in order to receive the emergency broadband benefit, and that standard rate equals the “the monthly retail rate for the applicable tier of broadband internet access service as of December 1, 2020, excluding any taxes or other governmental fees.” The Commission interprets this requirement to mean that an internet service offering eligible for EBB Program support must have a retail rate that was on offer as of December 1, 2020 and that, but for the application of the EBB Program discount, would have been charged to the customer on a monthly basis. The Commission interprets the CAA's reference to a “monthly retail rate” to exclude broadband service products that are priced based primarily on the data allowance of the product (for example, a purchase 1 GB of data for $5.00) and are sold separate from a monthly recurring service plan). This requirement also helps to focus limited funding toward more robust broadband service offerings to maximize the EBB Program's benefits for enrolled households. Additionally, the Commission clarifies that the CAA's application of the emergency broadband benefit as a discount off of the monthly retail rate charged to the subscriber means that service plans that are already offered with no fee to the end user—for example, as a result of Lifeline program support or other benefit programs—are not eligible for additional or duplicative support from the EBB Program. At the same time, the CAA does permit plans where the end result is no fee being assessed on the household after the application of the monthly benefit. 66. Some parties asked that the Commission require participating providers to make the emergency broadband benefit available on all of their service offerings. On balance, the Commission believes that dictating the required offerings in a temporary program will discourage participation and result in less consumer choice than would otherwise be available if it provided participating providers with more flexibility. However, the Commission notes that participating providers may apply the emergency broadband benefit to any of their eligible offerings, including promotional offerings that were available as of December 1, 2020. Specifically, pursuant to the CAA, participating providers are required to make available to eligible households a monthly discount off the standard rate for an internet service offering and associated equipment, up to $50.00 per month. For households residing on Tribal lands, the monthly discount may be up to $75.00 per month. Participating providers will receive reimbursement from the EBB Program for the discounts provided. 67. The Commission provides further clarity on the internet service offerings and associated equipment eligible for reimbursement. Internet service offering is defined as “broadband internet access service provided by such provider to a household, offered in the same manner, and on the same terms, as described in any of such provider's offerings for broadband internet access service to such household, as on December 1, 2020.” Accordingly, providers who participate in the EBB Program are only eligible to receive reimbursement for offerings that were available on and include the same terms as those available as of December 1, 2020. The majority of commenters do not oppose the service offering date of December 1, 2020, but some commenters explain that the December 1, 2020 date should not limit the ability of providers to offer upgrades on top of such existing service offerings to consumers. The Commission agrees and finds that participating providers may offer free enhancements of service quality elements of a discount-eligible internet service offerings but may not increase the price charged for that offering. The Commission believes the December 1, 2020 restriction is best understood as a method of avoiding arbitrage opportunities and waste in the EBB Program by allowing unscrupulous providers to take advantage of the increased subsidy available. By referring to offerings that were available prior to the enactment of the law, the CAA prevents participating providers from increasing prices above the usual market rate for their services for the purpose of claiming the maximum reimbursement amount. Interpreting that restriction to also restrict the ability of participating providers to offer free upgrades to the quality of the broadband services provided to eligible households, however, such as speed, data caps, and other non-price elements, would be contrary to the law's purpose of supporting robust modern broadband service during an unprecedented pandemic. The Commission therefore permits provider offerings that were available on and include the same terms as those available as of December 1, 2020 to include free enhancements in quality with respect to such non-price elements. 68. Minimum Service Standards. The Commission declines to apply minimum service standards to covered services for the EBB Program. The Commission finds that qualifying internet service offerings must include a broadband connection (as defined in section 904(a)(9) of the CAA)—fixed or mobile—that permits households to rely on these connections for the purposes essential to participating in society during the pandemic, such as telework, remote learning, and telehealth. A majority of commenters supported this approach, explaining that broadband speeds should be sufficient for telework and distance learning, and discount-eligible internet service offerings should feature speeds comparable to those offered to market-rate customers. The Commission also recognizes that Congress did not limit the discount to lower-cost broadband plans. Consumers purchasing discounted services under the EBB Program qualify for the same protections as those purchasing services at standard rates. Thus, providers that offer discounted broadband services pursuant to the EBB Program rules, either on a standalone or bundled basis, must comply with the same consumer-protection requirements that apply to the corresponding services that they offered on or before December 1, 2020. Thus, providers must disclose accurate information regarding the performance characteristics, commercial terms, and other features of their discounted broadband services to enable consumers to make informed choices regarding the purchase and use of such services. 69. Some commenters also suggested that participating providers should offer services that meet the Commission's definition of broadband at 25/3 Mbps or encourage the Commission to require high-capacity, affordable broadband service. Given the emergency nature of the EBB Program and the vital need to maximize consumer choice and benefits in a short timeframe, the Commission was not persuaded by such arguments. By administering the program within the definition of “internet service offering,” and permitting non-ETCs to participate, the Commission obviates the need for lengthy service obligations and the risk of slow speeds and maintain consumer choice—allowing consumers to select offerings that work best for their household—as well as permit participating providers to serve eligible households as quickly as possible during the emergency period. The Commission further declines to apply the Lifeline program's minimum service standards to covered services for the EBB Program. The Commission recognizes that some commenters encouraged it to use Lifeline's minimum service standards or the Lifeline program itself as a starting point. Indeed, the Commission understands that low-income consumers must have access to reliable broadband connections vital for basic education, health care, remote work, disability access and public safety, but the CAA does not indicate Congressional intent that the Commission applies Lifeline's minimum service standards for the EBB Program. The Commission is supported in this decision by the measures adopted that clarify that participation in the EBB Program does not preclude the same household from participating in the Lifeline program or other aid programs offered at the state and local level as long as participants meet the requirements for such programs. Even though the EBB Program is an emergency, temporary program, it will operate concurrently with Universal Service Fund programs and other existing programs at the state and local levels so eligible consumers can choose a broadband connection that meets their connectivity needs. 70. The Commission, however, anticipates that providers that elect to participate in the EBB Program that are already designated as ETCs through their participation in other Universal Service Fund programs, particularly the Lifeline program, will draw from that experience and offer similar or upgraded broadband services. In the EBB Program, the Commission anticipates that existing ETCs will continue to offer quality and innovative services, and encouraged other broadband providers (non-ETCs) to offer service standards that promote robust broadband access to vital services. 71. Bundled Service Offerings. The Commission also recognizes that participating providers in the EBB Program may offer qualifying broadband service combined with other services, otherwise known as bundled service offerings ( e.g., voice, data, texting, associated equipment). While the CAA does not explicitly direct the Commission regarding how to handle bundled broadband service offerings, the Commission finds if such bundled service options were offered “in the same manner, and on the same terms” on December 1, 2020, participating providers should be able to apply the monthly discount of up to $50 per month, or up to $75 for Tribal lands, to the entire bundled service. The Commission draws this conclusion from record support that viewed such offerings as enhancing flexibility between participating providers and consumers. Also, the Commission draws from its experience with the Lifeline program that participating providers in the EBB Program, including ETCs that are already adept at applying such a discount in the Lifeline program to bundled services, offer bundled service offerings to address consumer demands outside of any Commission regulation. In contrast to the record support for permitting EBB Program reimbursement for broadband bundled services that include voice and/or text messaging, there was not similar support for permitting reimbursement for the full price of broadband bundled services that include video service. The Commission finds that permitting EBB Program reimbursement for the full price of a bundle that includes video service is not contemplated by the statute and was not necessary to ensure that consumers in the EBB Program have robust service choices, and the Commission therefore does not permit support for such bundles with video service. 72. The Commission finds that the CAA's requirement that the service offerings be offered “in the same manner” as they were on December 1, 2020, authorized the Commission to support both standalone broadband service offerings and broadband service offerings bundled with voice, text messaging, and/or associated equipment. For many fixed and mobile internet service offerings, it is common to offer broadband service as part of a bundle without separating out the price of the broadband component and its associated equipment. By permitting participating providers to offer broadband in those same bundles in the EBB Program, the Commission permits providers to make available internet service offerings “in the same manner” as they were on December 1, 2020. 73. Associated Equipment and Other Customer Premises Equipment. The CAA requires participating providers to make available to eligible households a monthly discount off the rate for an internet service offering and associated equipment, up to $50.00 per month, and on Tribal lands, the monthly discount may be up to $75 per month. In the Public Notice, DA 21-6, the WCB also sought comment on how to define associated equipment and whether that undefined term should include, for example, the monthly rental costs for modems and/or routers that are offered as part and parcel of an internet service offering. The record overwhelmingly supported including modems, routers, and hotspot devices and antennas, if offered as monthly rental costs or part and parcel of an internet service offering as eligible for the EBB Program monthly discount as of December 1, 2020. Combined with record support and recognizing that the CAA does not specifically define or identify any associated equipment as it relates to any particular broadband service, the Commission finds that associated equipment includes equipment necessary for the transmission functions of internet service offerings supported through the EBB Program which households may choose to receive. Commenters support the Commission's conclusion by encouraging the Commission to define the scope of eligible associated equipment “in a technology-neutral manner” to accommodate household choice and the different types of broadband networks. The Commission agrees that a technology-neutral approach is appropriate as long as it meets the requirements of the CAA. However, the Commission declines to include Wi-Fi extenders or repeaters as associated equipment or any other customer premises equipment that enhances or extends a broadband signal beyond a participating provider's internet service offering. First, any associated equipment that enhances or extends a broadband signal from its existing coverage area as outlined in the participating provider's internet service offering would not be offered “in the same manner, and on the same terms” as defined in the CAA. Second, these types of devices are typically sold as add-on options to a broadband connection or sold separately through major manufacturers and are therefore not offered as part and parcel of an internet service offering. Accordingly, Congress does not clearly allow the Commission to include these devices, and if it had intended to do so, it would have included such devices in its definition of “connected devices.” The Commission also notes that the “associated equipment” discussed in this paragraph must be billed monthly on the same terms and same manner as it would have been in an offering available on December 1, 2020. The price for such associated equipment cannot be frontloaded. For example, if a provider has a $30 monthly service offering and would have offered a modem for a monthly rental of $5 for a total monthly fee of $35, the provider cannot front-load the monthly rental fee and charge $20 for four months of a modem rental in the first month in order to maximize reimbursement up to the $50 monthly discount allowed. 74. Connected Devices. The CAA clearly and narrowly defines a “connected device” eligible for a separate, one-time reimbursement as “a laptop or desktop computer or tablet.” In the Public Notice, DA 21-6, the Commission sought comment on whether the Commission should provide any further clarity regarding connected devices that are eligible for reimbursement. The CAA does not leave room for a broad interpretation of “connected device.” Congress explicitly declined to include mobile phones in its definition, and thus the Commission finds that the definition of a tablet does not include devices that can independently make cellular calls such as large phones or phablets. 75. Various commenters urge the Commission to fund additional end-user devices outside the scope of the CAA, including mobile phones ( i.e., smartphones) and portable Wi-Fi hot spots arguing that these devices are capable of supporting video conferencing platforms and other software, and limiting such devices could “impose more financial burdens to a student.” CTIA, for example, explained that “mobile devices from the 4G era or later should qualify as `tablets' under the definition” while “mobile phones, including feature phones and smartphones from the 3G era or earlier, should not qualify as “tablets.” T-Mobile explained “that certain mobile phones that provide similar functionality as a basic tablet” should be considered a “connected device.” TDI et al. proposed that devices that enable Video Relay Service or internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service should be eligible for reimbursement. Conversely, other commenters supported the exclusion of mobile phones, with one commenter opposing the inclusion of tablets, as a connected device. Common Sense Media, in its comments, excludes cell phones from its research-based list of requirements for a robust learning experience, explaining that “students and teachers need laptops or tablets capable of meeting the distance learning requirements of their curriculum.” The record also indicated that, while tablets are capable of supporting video conferencing platforms and other software, commenters expressed caution that tablets may require more specific service standards or a broad interpretation. Taking into consideration the record, and the narrow and specific language in the CAA's definition of a connected device, the Commission is unable to expand the definition of connected device and concluded that the EBB Program will provide reimbursement for any connected device, defined as “a laptop or desktop computer or tablet.” 76. The Commission next clarifies that participating providers may only receive a single reimbursement of up to $100 for one connected device per household, and the eligible household must contribute towards the cost of the connected device at least $10 but no more than $50. The Public Notice, DA 21-6, sought comment on whether eligible households should be able to receive more than one connected device through the EBB Program, for example, if the household changes providers. The Consolidated Appropriations Act provides that a participating provider may receive reimbursement for no more than one connected device per eligible household, but it is silent as to whether households may receive the connected device reimbursement benefit from more than one provider. Although some commenters suggested that eligible households should receive more than one connected device, the Commission finds no legal basis to do so. In order to preserve limited funds, ensure that benefits reach the greatest number of eligible households, and avoid wasteful spending, the Commission finds that households are limited to a single connected device during the EBB Program for which a provider seeks reimbursement. The Commission takes this position in order to maintain the integrity of the EBB Program—ensuring that reimbursements, and the subsequent disbursements, for a connected device are only processed for valid claims that comply with the CAA. 77. Minimum System Requirements for Connected Devices. In the Public Notice, DA 21-6, the WCB sought comment on whether the Commission should impose minimum system requirements for connected devices supported by the EBB Program. The Commission adopts its proposal that a connected device supported by the EBB Program should be expected to support video conferencing platforms and other software essential to ensure full participation in online learning, should be Wi-Fi enabled, and have video and camera functions. The record overwhelmingly supported that, at a minimum, connected devices must be able to support video conferencing and camera functionality and online learning software. Recognizing however that the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has compounded challenges for numerous households to maintain broadband services, the Commission finds that setting minimum system requirements for connected devices could limit consumer choice and exacerbate barriers to broadband service that may have existed prior to COVID-19. While some commenters suggested specific standards the Commission should adopt for connected devices, the Commission declines to adopt such standards and instead encourage participating providers and interested stakeholders to explore other opportunities, including partnering with school districts and state and local programs that may provide funding or other avenues for access to end-user devices and equipment due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Commission also expects that connected devices be accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. 78. Benefits for Households on Tribal Lands. The CAA also provides a discount up to $75 for internet service offerings to eligible households on Tribal Lands. The Commission finds that it was vital to utilize the EBB Program in an efficient way to help provide more households on Tribal lands with affordable, reliable connectivity. The Commission adopts its proposal in the Public Notice, DA 21-6, to use the same definition of Tribal lands as used in the Lifeline program, including certain lands near the Navajo Nation treated as Tribal lands. The Commission also allows members of households on Tribal lands to use their participation in the same Tribal programs permitted under the Lifeline program to qualify for the EBB Program, in addition to other permitted means of qualifying. The Commission also adopts its proposal to use the processes USAC has in place for identifying the location of a household residence. 79. Many commenters supported the Commission's proposal to use the Lifeline program's definition of Tribal lands as well as existing USAC processes for verifying eligibility of households on Tribal lands. The Commission finds this to be the best and most efficient approach for households and participating providers in the EBB Program because it will continue to help the Commission quickly address existing impediments to connectivity on Tribal lands and allow providers to offer EBB Program benefits to a wide-range of households that will, in turn, increase the number of subscribers of broadband internet access service. The Commission therefore declines to use any other definitions suggested by commenters that would expand upon the established definitions in the Commission Lifeline rules and would accordingly prevent USAC from using the existing Lifeline informational tools to identify whether an applicant resides on [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2021-07456. Public record. Not legal advice.