I. ENSURING AFFORDABLE ACCESS TO 21st CENTURY BROADBAND . Focusing E-rate Funds on Supporting Broadband to and within Schools and Libraries 2. Funding for Broadband Connections 3. Phasing Down Support for Certain Services . Ensuring Equitable Access to Limited E-rate Funds 1. Modifying the Discount Matrix 2. Support Based on District-Wide Eligibility and Application by School District 3. More Equitable Funding for Rural Schools and Libraries 4. Setting Budgets or Limits 5. More Equitable Access to Funding for Internal Broadband Connections 6. Simplified Allocation of Funds to All Schools and Libraries . Lowering New Build Costs and Identifying Additional Funding to Support Broadband II. MAXIMIZING THE COST EFFECTIVENESS OF E-RATE FUNDS • Increasing Consortium Purchasing • Encouraging Other Types of Bulk Buying Opportunities • Increasing Transparency • Improving the Competitive Bidding Process • Efficient Use of Funding • Broadband Planning and Use • Innovative Approaches to Encouraging Maximum Efficiency III. STREAMLINING THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE E-RATE PROGRAM • Electronic Filing of FCC Forms and Correspondence • Increasing the Transparency of USAC’s Processes • Speeding Review of Applications, Commitment Decisions, and Funding Disbursement • Simplifying the Eligible Services List • Funding Recovery Considerations • Effective Disbursement of Unused Funding • Invoicing and Disbursement Process • Streamlining E-rate Appeal Process IV. OTHER OUTSTANDING ISSUES • The Children’s Internet Protection Act • Identifying Rural Schools and Libraries • Addressing Changes to the National School Lunch Program • Additional Measures to Prevent Waste, Fraud and Abuse • Extending the E-rate Document Retention Requirements • Documentation of Competitive Bidding • E-rate FCC Form Certification Requirements • Post-Commitment Compliance and Enforcement • Wireless Community Hotspots • Procedures for National Emergencies Over the next few newsletters we plan to address many of these issues in greater detail. As a starting point, however, it will be useful to outline the actual proposals contained in the NPRM. Such proposals suggest that the FCC has preliminarily decided to make these changes and, absent strong comments to the contrary, are likely to be adopted earlier in the E-rate modernization process. These proposals, together with NPRM paragraph references, are discussed below. Eligible Services: Para. 90-91: The FCC proposes “to phase out support for a number of specific services, including outdated services currently on the ESL, for components of voice service,” and seeks comments on the phasing out of other services “not used primarily for educational purposes.” This is the one proposal which could begin as early as FY 2014. The services targeted to be phased out include paging, wireless text messaging, and the following voice services: • Directory assistance • Custom calling features • Inside wiring maintenance plans • Call blocking • 800 number services Para. 248: The FCC proposes “to simplify the ESL and the FCC Form 471 application process by adopting a definition of eligible services that provides funding for eligible services regardless of regulatory classification.” Specifically, it proposes “to amend section 54.502 and the ESL to remove the regulatory classifications of telecommunications services and Internet access to allow applicants to seek eligible services from any entity.” Presumably, this would mean that all Telecommunications services, not just fiber optics, could be offered by any type of service provider, not just by eligible carriers (i.e., Form 499 filers). Para. 71: The FCC proposes to make its “treatment of lit and dark fiber more consistent” by providing Priority 1 support for modulating electronics (e.g. GBICs) and for special construction charges for dark fiber (as it now does for lit fiber). Funds Distribution: Para. 116: Most broadly, the FCC is seeking comment on “six options for revising the structure for distributing funds under the E-rate program by: (1) revising the discount matrix to increase certain applicants’ matching requirements; (2) providing support on a district-wide basis; (3) revising our approach to supporting rural schools and libraries; (4) incorporating a per-student or per-building cap on funding into the discount matrix; (5) providing more equitable access to priority two funding; and (6) allocating funds to all eligible schools and libraries up front.” But within those options, the FCC makes the following concrete proposals: • Para. 123: For any changes it makes to applicant discounts, the FCC proposes “to phase in such changes over some period of time, such as three years.” • Para. 129: The FCC proposes to change the way school district discount rates are calculated so as to use a single discount rate percentage for the entire district based on total student NSLP eligibility. “This single discount percentage rate shall then be applied to the discount matrix to set a discount rate for the supported services purchased by all schools within the school district.” In other words, a district would have a “matrix” discount (e.g., 20%, 25%, 40%...90%) rather than some intermediate aggregate discount (e.g., 67%). Note that this would be consistent with the way a library calculates its discount based on total district NSLP data. • Para. 130 and 276: The FCC proposes “to change our definition of “rural” for purposes of the E-rate program to ensure greater funding to truly rural areas by using the U.S. Department of Education’s NCES definitions.” Increased Transparency: Para. 191: The FCC proposes “to increase the transparency of E-rate spending and…the prices E-rate applicants pay for service.” More specifically, it plans to provide “options for informing schools and libraries about the prices at which service providers are willing to offer for E-rate supported services.” This proposal would appear to raise all sorts of red flags about vendor proprietary data and the real role of USAC in the competitive bidding process. We suspect that this is one “proposal” that will be subject to considerable debate. Streamlining Program Administration: Para. 226: The FCC proposes “several options for streamlining the administration of the E-rate program while preserving critical safeguards. These options include: moving to electronic filing of all FCC forms and correspondence with USAC; increasing transparency throughout the application process; speeding review of applications and issuance of commitment decisions; simplifying the eligible services list (ESL) to focus on the service provided rather than the regulatory classification of the service; recovery considerations when seeking reimbursement of previously disbursed E-rate funding; more effective disbursement of unused funds; improve invoicing and disbursement; and streamlining the E-rate appeals review process.” Para. 229-230: After first referencing a previous SECA proposal that “all of an applicant’s forms and correspondence with USAC should be available from a centralized portal,” the FCC directs — not merely proposes — “USAC to incorporate into its consideration this proposal as it adopts measures to improve operational efficiencies.” Multi-Year Contracts: Para. 241: The FCC proposes, “absent a change in the contract, service provider or recipients of service,” to “allow E-rate applicants with multi-year contracts that are no more than three years in length (including any voluntary extensions) to file a single FCC Form 471 application for the funding year in which the contract commences and go through the full review process just one time for each such multi-year contract.” Comments were sought “on what additional steps E-rate applicants should have to take in the second and third year of such contracts to confirm their request for E-rate support for the subsequent years.” Invoicing and Disbursement Process: Para. 259: Finally, after many years of consideration, the FCC proposes “to modify our process to permit schools and libraries to receive disbursements directly from USAC.” If adopted, BEAR payments could be made to the applicants rather than having to be forwarded through the service providers. The proposal also adopts “specific invoice deadline and invoice deadline extension rules.” Document Retention: Para. 295: The FCC proposes “to extend the E-rate program document retention requirements from five to at least ten years.” Note that since the current five year requirement is based on the last date to receive service, and many documents subject to retention are created two years or more before that date, this change would require documents to be kept for twelve years or more. Form Signatures and Certifications: Para. 300: The FCC proposes “to require that an officer of the service provider sign certain forms submitted to USAC in support of an application for eligible services and any requests for payment,” “to codify the current certifications,” and “require service providers to certify their compliance with the lowest corresponding price rule and with state and local procurement laws.” Note that the LCP certification was originally included in the draft revision of this year’s Form 473, but was removed from the version as finally approved. Para. 306: Similarly, the FCC proposes to “require all E-rate forms submitted by E-rate applicants be signed by someone with authority equivalent to that of a corporate officer.” Such a provision would presumably prevent consultants from signing applicant forms on behalf of their clients. National Emergency Procedures: Para. 324-328: The FCC proposes “to adopt rules requiring USAC to follow specific procedures in the aftermath of a natural disaster or other emergency in order to ensure that USAC can efficiently assist affected schools and libraries in obtaining immediate relief.”
Posted on: Sun, 11 Aug 2013 02:10:54 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015