Bill Overview
Title: Safe Connections Act of 2021
Description: This bill establishes requirements concerning access to communication services for survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and related harms. At a survivor's request, a mobile service provider must separate from a shared mobile service contract the survivor's line (and the line of any individual in the survivor's care) from the abuser's line unless separation is operationally or technologically infeasible. A survivor requesting this must (1) verify through appropriate documentation that an individual under the contract committed or allegedly committed an act of domestic violence, trafficking, or a related criminal act against the survivor; and (2) assume financial responsibility for services after a line separation. A provider may not charge fees or impose other requirements on such requests. Additionally, a provider must separate the line within two business days of receiving a request; allow requests to be made remotely (if feasible); meet conditions related to confidentiality of, disposal of, and other matters concerning communications about requests; and make information about the process for requests available through consumer-facing communications (e.g., websites). The bill (1) provides liability protection for providers' acts or omissions undertaken to comply with such requests, and (2) requires the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules for these requests. Additionally, the FCC must (1) expand access to federally subsidized communication services for survivors facing financial hardship, and (2) evaluate this expanded access. The FCC must also consider rules requiring communication service providers to omit from consumer-facing logs calls and texts to hotlines for domestic violence and similar issues while retaining internal records.
Sponsors: Sen. Schatz, Brian [D-HI]
Target Audience
Population: Survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and related harms
Estimated Size: 25000000
- The Safe Connections Act primarily targets survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and related offenses, aiming to provide them with independent access to communication services.
- This group includes individuals who are currently in shared mobile service contracts with their abusers, thereby directly benefiting from the ability to separate their lines.
- The act indirectly impacts children and dependents in the care of survivors who also require independent lines.
- Globally, it is estimated there are around 1 billion survivors of domestic abuse and other related offenses at any given time, considering the widespread prevalence of these issues.
- While not every survivor may be in a situation where this service is applicable (e.g., not all have shared mobile plans with abusers), it is likely a substantial subset are potential beneficiaries of this legislation.
Reasoning
- The targeted population is survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking. The main beneficiaries are those currently on shared mobile plans with their abusers.
- A significant subset of the American population experiencing such abuses, estimated around 25 million potential beneficiaries, though only a fraction may currently benefit due to specific conditions like shared mobile plans.
- The policy offers a direct impact by enabling independent communication lines, crucial for personal safety and increasing wellbeing.
- The budget constraints suggest the program must prioritize efficiently, possibly limiting maximum assistance per person and focusing resources where they impact safety most.
Simulated Interviews
Admin Assistant (New York, NY)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is a relief as it offers a way out without confronting my abuser about the phone bill and new line costs.
- It is concerning how documentation is verified, but protecting my communication is crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Retail Worker (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It seems beneficial for those on shared plans, but it doesn’t address my issues with affording communication.
- I'd appreciate more focus on subsidized services mentioned in the policy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 1 |
Freelancer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 2
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ability to separate a phone plan privately is transformative for someone like me.
- However, financial responsibility post-separation is a stress point without financial aid.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 2 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 2 |
Homemaker (Dallas, TX)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives me hope to protect my children by separating lines without legal hassle.
- Fees safekeeping is beneficial, though assuming new costs might be challenging.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Software Engineer (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am not directly impacted, but supporting survivors is a vital social endeavor.
- Resource allocation might be better handled with wider program awareness to connect more survivors.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired (Tallahassee, FL)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The FCC's role in subsidized communication services is ideal for someone in my financial bracket.
- Expanded access is needed for broader outreach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Truck Driver (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The line separation positively alters safety and mental health aspects.
- Managing separate billing might demand additional financial support in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 2 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 1 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 1 |
Student (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel more secure knowing there are policies to help vulnerable community members.
- The policy seems to cater specifically to those currently suffering, which is excellent.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Social Worker (Portland, OR)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy gives practical support to my clients, boosting their confidence and safety.
- Education about these options greatly relies on communication outreach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Bartender (Miami, FL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Awareness around such policies is crucial, not everyone knows about these opportunities.
- For those affected, being financially capable post-separation is equally as important as getting away. Funds should be allocated accordingly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $5000000 (Low: $3000000, High: $8000000)
Year 2: $5100000 (Low: $3050000, High: $8150000)
Year 3: $5202000 (Low: $3120000, High: $8320000)
Year 5: $5311000 (Low: $3180000, High: $8490000)
Year 10: $5550000 (Low: $3320000, High: $8870000)
Year 100: $8000000 (Low: $3500000, High: $12000000)
Key Considerations
- The size and reach of the federal communication subsidies program greatly influence the cost.
- Administrative burden and technological changes required for telecommunication providers could offset costs of the federal implementation.
- The paucity of quantitative data relating to possible insurance costs savings or liabilities avoided by providers needs further examination.