Federal Communications Commission fcc 13-100 Before the Federal Communications Commission
Download 1.15 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- A.Background
A.Data Collection54.Finally, we seek comment on a number of cross-cutting issues regarding the collection of accurate, relevant and timely data to track our progress in meeting these goals. We seek comment on the benefits and burdens of requiring E-rate recipients and service providers to provide data to USAC in open, machine-readable formats in order to enhance the accessibility and usefulness of the data. We also seek general comment on what data we collect during the application and disbursement process that should make public. Are there any barriers to making public any data we collect that helps measure our progress towards meeting our proposed goals?1 Will making such data public encourage the public to develop new and innovative methods to analyze E-rate data? If there are concerns about protecting the confidentiality of some of the data, are there ways to protect sensitive information while still making public the most relevant data or are there ways to aggregate the data to obviate confidentiality concerns? Finally, we seek comment on the extent to which we should apply the principles of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) Open Data Policy to our efforts to collect and share E-rate data?2 55.In addition to the specific revisions suggested above, should we revise any of the Commission’s E-rate forms, such as the FCC Form 471 application, Item 21,1 or the FCC Form 500,2 to collect new data, or to change the formats in which we collect data? For example, should we revise the Item 21 attachment to the FCC Form 471 to collect data more consistently from all applicants? Are there ways we can change the format of the Item 21 to collect more granular data in a way that will allow us to more easily identify what products and services applicants are purchasing and at what prices? Commenters who advocate changes in data collection should indicate which form(s) and what specific revisions we would need to make on those forms in order to ensure that we receive useful information. 56.We also seek comment on essential definitions for purposes of measurement. When considering different policy outcomes, what are the key concepts that require a formal common definition upfront to enable more desirable measurements (e.g., “per school,” “per-student,” “per patron”)? Unique persistent identifiers are important because they designate which entity is being dealt with and also are used to model relationships. Are there unique persistent identifiers for schools, school districts and libraries? For example, are locale codes used by the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), also known as urban-centric locale codes,1 good identifiers to use for schools and school districts? To the extent existing identifiers are missing or have problems, would there be value in creating persistent identifiers or supplementing existing identifiers for some or all such entities, or for other types of applicants? What would be the requirements of such persistent identifiers? 57.Finally, are there goals and measures that we should adopt that we have not already discussed? Commenters should be as specific as possible about their proposed goals and measures. 58.Ensuring Schools and Libraries Have Affordable Access to 21st Century Broadband that Supports Digital Learning59.In this section, we seek ways to further our proposed first goal for the E-rate program: ensuring schools and libraries have affordable access to high-capacity broadband services that support digital learning. We explore methods to focus E-rate funds on supporting high-capacity broadband to and within schools and libraries, to ensure equitable access to limited E-rate funds, and to lower new build costs and tap into other funding sources. A.Background60.The E-rate program currently provides eligible schools and libraries support for telecommunications services, telecommunications, Internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections.1 Within those broad categories, there are specific types of services and products including, but not limited to, digital transmission services, Internet access services, e-mail services, paging services and web hosting services that the Commission has found to be eligible for E-rate support. The Commission publishes an eligible services list (ESL) for each funding year for applicants to use as a tool in determining what services and products are eligible for E-rate support.2 61.In 1997, the Commission established an annual funding cap for the E-rate program of $2.25 billion at the recommendation of the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service.1 In adopting this cap at the start of the E-rate program, the Commission recognized that $2.25 billion was a projected amount of the cost of the needs of schools and libraries for eligible services, and that it might be necessary to adjust the cap to address changes in the program, technologies or the needs of the schools and libraries.2 62.Over the years, the Commission has made some minor adjustments to the cap. As discussed in more detail below, starting in 2003, the Commission directed USAC to identify unused funds from previous years and to carry forward those funds in order to issue funding commitment decision letters (FCDLs) in excess of the annual cap.1 Most recently, in the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, the Commission directed that the cap be indexed to inflation beginning in 2010.2 For funding year 2013 the E-rate fund is capped at just over $2.38 billion.3 63.Under the Commission’s rules, eligible schools and libraries may receive discounts ranging from 20 percent to 90 percent of the pre-discount price of eligible services, based on indicators of need.1 Schools and libraries in areas with higher percentages of students eligible for free or reduced price lunch through the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) or an alternative mechanism qualify for higher discounts for eligible services than applicants with low levels of eligibility for such programs.2 For example, the most disadvantaged schools and libraries, where at least 75 percent of students are eligible for free or reduced price school lunch, receive a 90 percent discount on eligible services, and thus pay only 10 percent of the cost of those services. At the other end of the spectrum, schools and libraries where less than 1 percent of students are eligible to receive free or reduced price school lunch receive a 20 percent discount and must pay 80 percent of the cost.3 Schools and libraries located in rural areas also may receive an additional 5 to 10 percent discount compared to urban areas.4
64.The Commission’s current rules provide that requests for all telecommunications, telecommunications services and Internet connections (priority one services) receive first priority for funding.1 The remaining funds are allocated to requests for support for internal connections and basic maintenance of internal connections (priority two services), beginning with the most economically disadvantaged schools and libraries, as determined by the schools and libraries discount matrix.2 Funding for all priority one services is committed first and all remaining funding is committed to priority two requests, beginning with schools and libraries eligible for a 90 percent discount. The remaining funds for priority two services are allocated to eligible applicants at each descending single discount percentage, e.g., 89 percent, 88 percent, and so on until the cap has been reached. 65.The E-rate program has traditionally been able to fund all priority one requests, but the total demand including priority two requests has exceeded the E-rate program’s almost every year since the program’s inception.1 In the early years, the E-rate program was able to fund a substantial percentage of the priority two requests that it received, but more recently, the vast majority of requests for priority two services have gone unfunded. Even with the Commission allowing USAC to carry forward unused funds from previous years in order to issue FCDLs in excess of the annual cap,2 since funding year 2000, with one exception,3 priority two funding has been available only for recipients where at least 50 percent of the students are eligible for free or reduced price school lunch.4 As a consequence, many schools and libraries do not know from one year to the next whether they will be eligible for priority two funds. In addition, this restriction on funding has also led to a disparity in commitments, with some of the largest urban school districts receiving as much as $190 per-student in any given funding year for priority two services, while smaller school districts across the country rarely receive such support. 66.Unlike the limited amount of funding that has been available for priority two requests, E-rate funding has always been sufficient to meet priority one requests at every discount level. However, for the first time in E-rate program history, in funding year 2012, estimated demand for priority one funding alone exceeded the funding cap.1 Trending upward, estimated demand for priority one funding for funding year 2013 is also above the cap at $2.709 billion, an increase of 10.8 percent from last year’s demand of $2.444 billion.2 We believe that the continued and growing demand for priority one funding is driven primarily by the need for higher bandwidth connections in schools and libraries especially as schools across the country move towards online assessments,3 and schools and libraries increasingly are purchasing mobile connectivity. On May 16, 2013, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) announced that according to USAC’s projections of demand and administrative expenses, $450 million in unused funds from previous funding years is available to carry forward to increase disbursements to schools and libraries.4 The Bureau determined that this amount will be carried forward to ensure funding is available for all eligible priority one funding requests received from schools and libraries in funding year 2013, in excess of the annual cap.5 While carry-forward funds may serve as a stopgap measure,6 the trend in priority one demand indicates that, absent reforms, perhaps as soon as funding year 2014,7 the ability to fund priority one request at all discount levels will be threatened. 67.Given that requests for E-rate support substantially exceeds available funding,1 in this section of the NPRM, we seek comment on various options for modernizing the E-rate program to achieve our proposed goal of ensuring that schools and libraries have affordable access to high-capacity broadband. To the extent stakeholders believe that these options, along with measures discussed in other sections of this NPRM to increase the efficiency of E-rate funding, are insufficient to meet connectivity needs of schools and libraries, we also seek comment on other options to achieve the proposed goal of ensuring that schools and libraries have affordable access to high-capacity broadband services. Directory: edocs public -> attachmatch attachmatch -> Commissioner ajit pai attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D attachmatch -> Federal Communications Commission fcc 15-77 Before the Federal Communications Commission attachmatch -> Statement of commissioner ajit pai Download 1.15 Mb. Share with your friends:
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||