Everybody into the pool

 Here's a good reason to write to your Senators and Congressperson.

There are bills (S. 1651in the Senate and apparently not yet numbered in the House) working their way through both houses that would expand the contributors to the Universal Service fund to include ISPs and "edge providers" (companies that use the Internet to provide services like search engines, e-commerce, videoconferencing, etc.)

This may be the only initiative in Project 2025 that I agree with, though I don't agree with the reason for it. I support the bills for two reasons: fairness and stability, while Project 2025 supports the idea for one reason: vengeance. 

Currently, it feels a little unfair that USF contributions are a percentage of interstate telecommunications, while ISPs and edge providers are principal beneficiaries of the program on the provider side. Having ISPs and edge providers kick in seems only fair.

I think it will give the fund more stability because it would lower the contribution factor. Because the pool of income from which contributions come, the FCC has been forced to hike the contribution factor just to keep the USF expenditures steady. (Well, USF expenditures have been increasing, but don't blame the E-Rate.) It doesn't really matter, because we're all paying the same amount in the end, but the size of the contribution factor is frequently used by those opposed to the E-Rate. And if the pool gets small enough, the contribution factor might have to go over 100%, which would look silly. Adding ISP and edge provider revenues to the pool will bring the contribution factor down to a nice-looking number, and ensure the pool doesn't keep shrinking.

What's this about vengeance? Well, as I've already pointed out, Chairman Carr, who wrote the Project 2025 chapter on telecommunications, wants to use the USF as a stick to beat Big Tech for "its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square." (p.847) 

Regardless of how you feel about Big Tech's effect on political discourse, this bill would be a positive for the E-Rate, so ask your Senators and Congressperson to co-sponsor the legislation.

Saved by the Supremes

 Did you know the Supreme Court was deliberating on whether to declare the Universal Service Fund unconstitutional? Yup, the current funding mechanism for the E-Rate (and the other 3 USF programs) was in danger of being swept away.

Well, today we can all breathe easier. The Supreme Court ruled: "The universal-service contribution scheme does not violate the nondelegation doctrine." So things go on as usual.

See, earlier, the Fifth Circuit Court had decided that the combination of Congress’s delegation to the FCC and the FCC’s “subdelegation” to the Administrator violated the Constitution, because Congress had delegated too much power to the FCC, violating the non-delegation doctrine. Fortunately, the Supreme Court did not agree.

So if you need a reason to celebrate this Friday afternoon, there you go. 

 

Save us, Big Tech!

 So I've been wondering what changes Commissioner Carr is likely to make when he becomes Chairperson Carr. I'm too lazy to go back and read his comments on all the E-Rate orders since 2017, and this is the first time he's made it into this blog, so I can't look back at earlier posts, but fortunately, he's laid out some priorities in the chapter on the FCC that he wrote for Project 2025.

Before we get to the paragraphs on the Universal Service Fund, I noticed one topic that was mentioned several times in this blog over the years: overbuilding. Commissioner O'Rielly may be gone, but the windmills at which he tilted are not forgotten. Soon-to-be-Chairman Carr says, "A new Administration should eliminate government-funded overbuilding of existing networks." (near the top of page 856)

To which I say: do what you want in other programs, but in the E-Rate, let's stick to the current rule: no funding for overbuilding unless building a new network is cheaper that using the existing network, which saves money for the school or library and for the Universal Service Fund, thus directly and immediately lowering the burden on taxpayers.

On to the Universal Service Fund (which starts on page 850). What little mention the USF gets is good news: soon-to-be-Chairman Carr wants to expand the contribution base to include Big Tech. Any expansion in the contribution base is good, because the existing base is shrinking, which makes the Contribution Factor look eye-poppingly large.  In this case, soon-to-be-Chairman Carr just wants to use the USF as a stick to beat Big Tech for "its attempts to drive diverse political viewpoints from the digital town square." (p.847) Yup, the E-Rate might get a more stable funding base because spreaders of misinformation are mad that private companies don't want to reprint their misinformation.

Of course, this won't go anywhere until the inevitable Trump-Musk falling out, because Elon's X is Big Tech by any definition, and he's not going to like having to pay into the USF. Even after Elon's fall from grace, it's going to be hard to force Big Tech to pay into the USF. I think Congress would have to amend the Telecommunications Act.

After two paragraphs about how to put the USF on surer footing, the soon-to-be-Chairman takes a hard turn and says that maybe USF funding should be controlled by Congress.  The old "bleed it dry" dream from 2005 still hasn't died.

Let's hope the desire to stick it to Big Tech wins out over the desire to kill the E-Rate.

If not us, who? If not now, when?

OK, I admit, when I heard about Funds for Learning's proposal to expand the E-Rate to provide Internet access to students' homes, I thought, "Oh no, don't try to make the E-Rate do that."  I mean, it already feels like the E-Rate program is held together with duct tape and bailing wire, and now we're going to branch into a whole new realm?  But I listened to John Harrington's presentation about it, and one of his ideas really struck me:  if not through the E-Rate, then how?

There's no question in my mind that something needs to be done about digital equity.  Home Internet access is no longer the Homework Gap; it's the School Gap.  When my local district closed, my first thought was, "How are the low-income kids going to access school?"  The federal government needs to do something.  In the past, my attitude has been, "Let the Lifeline [née Low Income] program handle home Internet access."  But that was before schools closed.  Now, home Internet access is essential to education.  We're not talking about getting Internet to every home; we're talking about getting Internet to every student's home.  So it fits in the E-Rate program nicely.

So is E-Rate the right vehicle to deliver the funding?  Perhaps I would say E-Rate is the "least wrong" vehicle to deliver the funding.  I have pointed out the problems I see.  And I do see some risk that the sudden addition to the program is going to make things (like EPC and PIA) crumple.  But as Mr. Harrington pointed out, there is no better way to deliver the funding.  And it needs to be done.

Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!

I didn't see this coming so quickly.  Just a day after SHLB requested it, the FCC has waived its gift rules.  Hoo boy!  Will this be the year when I can finally accept a bottle of scotch from each potential vendor, the way I hear they do over in the private sector?  [Not that I would ever do such a thing.  I couldn't take gifts from service providers while taking money from applicants; FCC rules aside, it wouldn't be right.  Also, I don't like scotch.]

But the FCC's not allowing it anyway: "We waive the E-Rate program gift rules  to enable service providers to offer, and E-Rate eligible schools and libraries to solicit or accept, broadband connections, devices networking equipment, or other things of value that could help students, teachers, and patrons affected by school and library closures during the coronavirus pandemic."  While I could argue that scotch fits into "other things of value" and that it would help teachers trying to figure out virtual classroom management on the fly, I wouldn't like my chances in a PQA.

But hey, at least we'll have common-sense rules through September 30, 2020.  Until then, applicants won't have to put a dollar figure on an item that's free and then add that hypothetical cost to the price of the bid when comparing prices.

Let's hope we see quick action on all the requests in SHLB's letter.  Commissioner Rosenworcel certainly favors more action.

A hotspot coming to you?

Some senators have asked the FCC "to temporarily allow schools to utilize E-Rate program funding to provide Wi-Fi hotspots or devices with Wi-Fi capability to students who lack internet access at home."

The senators point out that the E-Rate program is about $2 billion under cap, so why not spend it on hotspots?

I'm in favor, but I see four big problems:

1. Agility.  I just don't see the FCC moving quickly enough to get this in place this week, which is when schools need it.
2. Funding.  Yes, the E-Rate is $2 billion under cap.  But the FCC just set the contribution factor to meet existing demand.  A sudden increase in disbursements is going to require a sudden increase in the contribution factor. 
3. Provisioning.  How quickly is a school district going to be able to go from zero to hotspot?  Even if the FCC waived the 470, just getting the hotspots delivered and configuring everything seems like a tall order.  And are service providers prepared to ship all those hotspots?
4. Availability.  OK, you've configured the school's Chromebook to connect to the hotspot, and the student takes it home.  How does that hotspot get to the Internet?  A cell phone data plan?  Cost aside, not every home in the country has great cell phone service.

Still, it's worth trying.

Coming to a hotspot near you

As districts all over are going to virtual schooling, there is some good news from the FCC.  Chairman Pai has gotten lots of ISPs to sign the Keep Americans Connected Pledge.  While not designed to help schools, one of the provisions could be very helpful for urban/suburban districts where many students don't have home broadband.

The provision that could help those districts: each company "pledges for the next 60 days to:...(3) open its Wi-Fi hotspots to any American who needs them."

So districts may be able to take advantage of that for students who don't have broadband at home.

I've reached out to the providers that I know have a lot of hotspots near my clients.  So far, no word on how they are opening their hotspots.

Here's what I've heard so far:
Comcast: offering their Internet Essentials plan free for the next 60 days for low-income families.
AlticeUSA (Cablevision/Lightpath): offering their Altice Advantage plan free for the next 60 days for low-income families any student without Internet access.
No word yet from Verizon.

Of course, this doesn't help districts in areas where hotspot coverage is, well, spotty.