Federal Communications Commission fcc 13-100 Before the Federal Communications Commission

1^ Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16754, para. 166.

1^ See Comments of SECA on the FY 2010 Draft Eligible Services List for the Schools and Libraries Service Mechanism at 10-16 (filed June 23, 2009), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6520223018 (last visited July 15, 2013).

2^ See 2011 PIA Funding Request Data.

1^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.5.

1^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.500(b); Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, CC Docket 02-6, Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 9202, 9208, para. 17 (2003) (Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order). 47 U.S.C. §254(h)(1)(B).

2^ Schools and Libraries Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 9208, Para. 17.

3^ See Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 18774, para. 22

1^ As mentioned in Section III, the Commission clarified educational purposes in the Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order by requiring that schools must primarily use services funded under the E-rate program, in the first instance, for educational purposes. Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 18774. This was generally to allow schools to open up their facilities for community use yet ensure that students “always get first priority in use of the schools’ resources.” Id.

2^ 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B), (2)(A).

3^ In setting up the conditions under which community use would be permitted, the Commission prohibited schools from requesting “funding for more services than are necessary for educational purposes to serve their current student population.” Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 18775, para. 22.  The Commission found this condition “necessary to ensure that E-rate funds remain targeted to educational needs of the institution and its students” and noted that this condition is “essential to preserve limited funds and to carry out Congress’s intent in establishing the E-rate program.”  Id.

1^ USAC Schools and Libraries website, Search Commitments, available at http://www.usac.org/sl/tools/commitments-search/Default.aspx (last visited July 15, 2013).

2^ See Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, A National Broadband Plan for our Future, CC Docket No. 02-6, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 6872, 6905, para. 80 (2010) (E-rate Broadband NPRM).

3^ See 47 C.F.R. § 54.502.

1^ For instance, 86 requests for wireless data service resulted in E-rate commitments of more than $1.7 million for funding year 2011. See 2011 PIA Funding Request Data.

1^ See Letter from Gary Rawson, State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 6 (filed Jun. 24, 2013) (attaching SECA’s “Recommendations for E-rate Reform 2.0”) (SECA June 2013 White Paper).

2^ Id. at 7.

3^ Id. at 8.

1^ See, e.g., id. at 6-7 (recommending that telecommunications services that are used only for voice communications should be phased out of E-rate support).

1^ 2011 PIA Funding Request Data.

2^ Id.

1^ SECA June 2013 White Paper at 6-7.  SECA asserts that this approach will incent applicants and service providers to migrate voice telecommunications services onto the data communications network platform wherever feasible and will encourage applicants to focus on augmenting their data network transmission capability to meet the anticipated needs for online testing in the near future. Id.

2^ Id. at 6. SECA’s phase out proposal for basic voice is as follows: Year One 80% of annual phone service would be funded at the applicant’s E-rate discount; Year Two 60% of annual phone service would be funded at the applicant’s E-rate discount; Year Three 40% of annual phone service would be funded at the applicant’s E-rate discount; Year Four 20% of annual phone service would be funded at the applicant’s E-rate discount; Year Five No funding available for phone service.

1^ E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6897, para. 59.

1^ We note that voice telephone service is the service supported by the Universal Service Fund’s high-cost and low-income programs. 47 C.F.R. § 54.101.

2^ 47 U.S.C. § 10.

1^ See supra paras. 63-64.

2^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.505(b)(1).

3^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.505(b)(2).

4^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.505(c).

5^ Id.; see also supra Figure 1 (School and Library Discount Matrix).

1^ 47 U.S.C. § 254(h)(1)(B).

1^ See USAC, Schools and Libraries, Search Commitments (as of June 13, 2013), available at http://www.universalservice.org/sl/tools/commitments-search/Default.aspx (last visited July 15, 2013).

2^ Some support a maximum priority two discount of 70%.  See, e.g., SECA Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 43 (filed July 8, 2010); California Dept. of Educ. Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 15 (filed July 9, 2010); Wisconsin Dept. of Public Instruction, Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 9 (filed July 9, 2010); Alaska Department of Education and Early Development, Alaska State Library, and Alaska E-rate Coordinator’s Office Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 9-10 (filed July 9, 2010); E-Rate Management Professionals Assoc. Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 18 (filed July 8, 2010)(or 80% maximum). See also infra n.171.

1^ See USAC, Recommendations of the Task Force on the Prevention of Waste, Fraud and Abuse, at 3-4 (Sept. 22, 2003) (submitted with letter from Cheryl Parrino, USAC, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed Nov. 26, 2003)) (2003 USAC Task Force).

2^ Id. Others also supported a reduction in the maximum 80% discount for priority two services in their responses to the 2010 E-rate Broadband NPRM. See, e.g., New York State Depart. Of Education Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 8-9 (filed July 9, 2010) (also supporting an 80% maximum for priority one services); Funds for Learning Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 6-9 (filed July 9, 2010) (also supporting a maximum 85% discount for priority one services); E-Rate Central Reply Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 7 (filed July 24, 2010) (also supporting a maximum 80% discount for priority one services); E-Rate Management Professionals Assoc. Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 18 (filed July 8, 2010) (70% maximum); Kellogg & Sovereign Comments in CC Docket No. 02-6 at 19-23 (filed July 9, 2012).

1^ See infra para. 139. See also, e.g., FFL Feb. 2013 Rep. at 16.

2^ John Harrington, E-Rate Myths, Funds for Learning (Jun. 10, 2013), available at http://www.fundsforlearning.com/blog/2013/06/e-rate-myths (last visited July 15, 2013).

1^ Id.

2^ See Healthcare Connect Fund Order 27 FCC Rcd at 16717-19, paras. 84, 91.

1^ We adopted a 65% discount for eligible health care providers in the Healthcare Connect Fund Order. See id.

2^ See infra paras. 183-189, discussing ways to expand the use of consortium purchasing in the E-rate program.

1^ SECA E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 43-44 (filed July 9, 2010) (SECA E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments).

1^ See 47 C.F.R. § 54.505(b)(4).

2^ Id.

3^ Id.

4^ Id.

5^ See Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Instructions for Completing the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (October 2010).

1^ See E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6887-88, paras. 34-36.

2^ Id.

3^ Id.

4^ Id.

5^ SECA June 2013 White Paper at 14.

1^ We note that a rulemaking change involving CEO could affect this proposed revision. See infra paras. 285-296.

1^ See infra paras. 279-284.

2^ See infra para. 280.

1^ See E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6905, para. 79. The Commission explained that schools that operate independently from a school district, such as private schools and some charter schools, should still apply for discounts individually. Id.

2^ Id.

3^ Id.

1^ See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC at 9040-45, paras. 501-07.

2^ See E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6873, paras. 5-6.

1^ See ALA E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 11 (filed July 9, 2010) (proposing to move all schools and libraries to the current rural discount rate for each respective NSLP range); see also Funds for Learning E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 7 (filed July 9, 2010); State Consortium Group E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 2 (filed July 9, 2010); New York State Education Department E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 8-9 (filed July 9, 2010); E-rate Provider Services E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 5 (filed July 1, 2010).

2^ See supra paras. 120-128.

1^ See 2003 USAC Task Force at 5.

2^ See Funds for Learning, USF for Schools and Libraries FY 2013 and Beyond: Growing to Meet the Needs of Students and Library Patrons at 15 (dated Feb. 8, 2013) (FFL Feb. 2013 Rep.) (filed by Miami Dade Public Schools, CC Docket No. 02-6 (Mar. 4, 2013)).

3^ See Funds for Learning, FY 2012 Per-student Per-Discount Funding Analysis at 10 (dated Mar. 1, 2013), available at http://www.fundsforlearning.com/docs/2013/03/COMM-WEB-PerStudentPreDiscount_2013.pdf) (last visited June 14, 2013).

4^ Id. at 11-12.

1^ See, e.g., Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9006-07, paras. 431-32 (citing differing priorities and approaches in comments from several states).

2^ See Funds for Learning, FY2013 E-rate Funding Requests, Telecommunications and Internet Access by Schools and School Districts, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 8, 9 (filed Jul. 3, 2013), available at http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7520927795 (last visited July 15, 2013) (note that this report did not include funding requests of libraries or consortia in its analysis).

3^ Id. at 17.

4^ Id.

1^ Id.

2^ E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6902, para. 71.

3^ See, e.g., SECA E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments at 41; Council of Great City Schools E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 9-10 (filed July 9, 2010); Funds For Learning LLC E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 8-9 (filed July 9, 2010); E-rate Central E-rate Broadband NPRM Reply to Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 7 (filed July 26, 2010).

1^ See Presentation from John Harrington, FFL, CC Docket No. 02-6 (filed June 14, 2013) (FFL 2.0 Proposal).

2^ See supra paras. 73-81.

1^ E-rate Broadband NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 6902, para. 69, n.167.

1^ See Comments of Funds for Learning Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 2 (filed Apr. 8, 2013) (arguing that priority two funding is needed to utilize broadband in a cost-effective manner); Supplemental Comments of Funds for Learning, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 3-4 (filed May 23, 2013) (proposing more E-rate support for internal connections to maximize broadband capacity).

1^ See Schools and Libraries Third Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 26916-17, paras. 9, 11.

1^ See SECA June 2013 White Paper at 9.

2^ Id. at 9, 11-13.

3^ Id.

1^ See, e.g., Funds for Learning, USF for Schools and Libraries: FY 2013 and Beyond, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 4, 5, 30 (filed Mar. 25, 2013) (favoring a per student cap on E-rate support).

1^ See supra paras. 138-145.

1^ In other words, rather than some services denoted priority one and others priority two, services would simply be eligible or ineligible for support.

1^ A floor would mean that if a school’s total funding fell below a given level (such as $10,000), its allocation would be increased to that level. A baseline funding amount would mean that each school receives some amount (such as $5,000) in addition to its per-student funding.

1^ See Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16717-19, paras. 84, 91.

1^ Wi-Fi (Wireless Fidelity) is a wireless technology that is based on the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers 802.11 standards to offer fixed wireless broadband services to compatible devices.

1^ See Letter from Alan Buzacott, Executive Director of Federal Regulatory Affairs, Verizon, to Marlene Dortch, Secretary, FCC, CC Docket No. 02-6 (filed July 11, 2013).

1^ USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17695, para. 86.

2^ Id. at 17700, para. 102; 47 C.F.R. § 54.5 (defining “community anchor institution”).

3^ 47 C.F.R. § 54.313(e)(3)(ii), (f)(1)(ii).

1^ USF/ICC Transformation Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17727, para. 166.

1^ By Commission rule, all schools and libraries participating in E-rate “must conduct a fair and open competitive bidding process.” 47 C.F.R. § 54.503. Connect America Phase II funding will be targeted to areas where there is no competing fixed broadband provider.

1^ See Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16792-93, paras. 266-267.

1^ See supra n.30.

2^ See generally supra paras. 99-100.

1^ Schools and Libraries Sixth Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 18780-81, para. 35. For example, some stakeholders have suggested that the Commission did not go far enough when it directed that the E-rate cap be indexed for inflation beginning in 2010. Those commenters suggest that the Commission should raise the cap on the E-rate program to fully index for inflation between 1998-2010 see, e.g., eChalk, Inc. E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 4 (filed July 9, 2010); Funds for Learning, LLC E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 12 (filed July 9, 2010). Other commenters suggest that the cap should be reset based on current program demand see, e.g., Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 6 (filed July 9, 2010); NATOA, NACo, New America Found E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 9 (filed July 9, 2010); Cisco Systems E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 18-19 (filed July 9, 2010); SECA June 2013 White Paper at 3-4.

2^ See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9056, para. 529.

3^ See, e.g., Funds for Learning, LLC E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 12 (filed July 9, 2010); Blackboard Inc. Funds for Learning, LLC E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 22-23 (filed July 9, 2010); SECA June 2013 White Paper at 3.

4^ See eChalk, Inc. E-rate Broadband NPRM Comments, CC Docket No. 02-6, at 4 (filed July 9, 2010).

1^ See infra paras. 221-222.

1^ The last recommendation from the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service regarding the E-rate Program was in 1996. See Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service, CC Docket No. 96-45, Recommended Decision, 12 FCC Rcd 87, 130–92 (Joint Bd. 1996).

1^ See Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8795, para. 33.

2^ Id. While school districts also function as consortia of individual schools, for this purpose, a consortium includes a group of schools and/or libraries.

3^ See National Broadband Plan at 238 (Recommendation 11.21).

1^ Universal Service First Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 8795, para. 33.

2^ Id. at 9027, para. 47.

3^ Letter from Melvin R. Blackwell, Vice President, Schools and Libraries Division, to Lisa Hone, Deputy Division Chief, TAPD, Wireline Competition Bureau, CC Docket No. 02-6 (June 28, 2013).

4^ Id.

1^ Id.

2^ See Healthcare Connect Fund Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 16702, para. 54. See also Wireline Competition Bureau Evaluation of Rural Health Care Pilot Program, WC Docket No. 02-60, Staff Report, 27 FCC Rcd 9387, 9435, paras. 77-78 (Wireline Comp. Bur. 2012).

1^ See also sura Section II.D., Streamlining the Administration of the E-rate Program.

1^ See, e.g., Arizona Dept. of Educ., Arizona State Master Contract available at http://www.azed.gov/educational-technology/e-rate/arizona-state-master-contract (last visited July 15, 2013).

2^ See, e.g., MCNC, Connecting North Carolina’s Future Today,

Download 1.15 Mb.

Share with your friends: