For those of you who didn't find my 6 blog posts (1 2 3 4 5 6) on the NPRMaFNPRM to be enough, or perhaps wanted a more reasoned take, check out what SHLB had to say. Of course, they said it to the Commissioners, while I just ranted into the ether.
For those of you who are applicants, check out the last page: it has a list of questions that SHLB thinks the FCC should be asking. When you send your comments to the FCC (and you should), those questions make a good outline for your comments.
Another record-setting contribution factor: 38.8%. No surprise, really. We're just going to keep hitting new records until Congress or the FCC changes the contribution base. Let's hope we get some action from Congress soon.
I'm guessing it's USAC's first step towards the bidding portal: they're "hosting an Industry Day ... to provide context on the E-Rate program, present an assessment of EPC’s current state, share USAC’s modernization direction, and hear from vendors with relevant expertise."
I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that meeting, just to watch the vendors' reaction when USAC says that they want a complete bidding portal integrated with EPC ready to go live in one year. I imagine heads nodding as USAC describes what they need to build and how it needs to connect to EPC, and how many bids it will have to handle, and then when they say, "...and it all needs to be ready to go in a year," vendors start looking at each other and holding whispered conversations.
I think it's good for applicants that USAC seems to be envisioning the bidding portal as a part of EPC, rather than a separate system, but it makes the development more complicated, which makes the timeline tighter.
As I've said before, I think we'll see USAC forced to take the option in footnote 67 of the Portal Order, and just require document submission for FY 2028-2029 rather than have the whole portal go live.
For my final post on the new NPRMaFNPRM, I'll shoot my mouth off about the "Further Streamlining E-Rate Administration" section.
Use of Existing Contracts: Oh no, don't take the Kalamazoo Reconsideration Order. Not only was it useful, it was fun to say. "What?! Another client who forgot to mention to us that they were signing a new ISP contract? Oh well, let's hope we can Kalamazoo that baby." (We could only hope that Kalamazooing would work because there was always the risk that the contract would not be the most cost-effective bid.)
But really, it's not terrible. Instead of going through the bidding treating the new contract as a bid, we'll have to go through the bidding process and ask the existing vendor to bid. On the plus side, we can make the new contract start July 1, so we won't run into this problem again.
It's hardly streamlining the process, though.
Service Substitutions: New requirements for applicants and USAC. How is this streamlining?
June 30th Deadline for SPAC Form: Oh, no. A lot of (most?) applicants file one BEAR per funding year, and since you can't file the BEAR until the final invoice is paid, that BEAR gets filed in July or August (later if the AP clerk drags their feet on collecting the invoices). And the filing of the BEAR is when applicants discover that the SPAC has not been filed. If the deadline to file the SPAC is set at June 30th, there will be BEARs that can't be paid. That seems unfair: the service provider fails to timely file the SPAC, and the applicant gets punished. And how will setting a deadline encourage service providers to file timely? Having had to beg for the SPAC, I can say that some service providers have a very lackadaisical attitude towards the SPAC. Can we set up some punishment for service providers that fail to file by the deadline? How about this: the FCC fines them double the amount of any BEARs submitted, and then uses half the fine to make applicants whole. Of course, the applicant would then have to find a new service provider, because that provider would leave the program right quick.
FCC Form 479 Revisions: OK, seems reasonable. But don't require that consortium members file online. Leave that option open, but allow consortium leads to collect them in any way they want. Adding some certifications doesn't add much administrative burden (it's not more forms or more signatures, just more certifications to check).
Other Form Revisions: The changes seem fine. I don't see how it's streamlining anything, though.
Cost-Effectiveness Requirements: Nope. I don't see how "the recently adopted competitive bidding portal will assist the Commission and USAC in providing transparency into whether there are patterns or characteristics of entities that receive one or no bids." I can tell you what characteristics are common to applicants that get one or no bids: they are generally 1) small and 2) remote. And if necessary, I could prove that using data already in OpenData.
The ideas for ensuring cost-effectiveness are terrible. If the FCC investigates the pricing of a service provider, that provider is more likely to withdraw their bid than go through an investigation. And if the FCC tries to apply pricing from one remote area to another remote area, the provider will withdraw their bid. And if the FCC tries to apply pricing from one client to another client who may not be the same size or the same distance from a NOC (or, for MIBS, from the engineers' home base), the provider will withdraw their bid. And none of these suggestions streamline anything.
You know what would work for Internet access at least? Reclassify Internet access as a Title II telecommunications service. Then you can regulate the hell out of the price. Otherwise, no amount of FCC interference is going to create a fair market for small remote applicants.
I really didn't see much streamlining in there. How about just calling this section "Further Changing E-Rate Administration"?
From the NPRMaFNPRM: "...does the Commission have any statutory obligation beyond CIPA or responsibility as a good steward of the limited E-Rate funds to assess how E-Rate-funded networks and services may be contributing to these potentially detrimental effects on children and minors?"
No. Just no.
For heaven's sake, leave those decisions to the professionals in the schools and libraries. The NPRM says, "experts have recommended limits on screen time for children and minors based on age," but the footnote points to a single review of studies by one expert, who recommended more research, not limits on screen time. Is the FCC thinking of making districts "demonstrate learning benefits through independent, replicated trials before" getting E-Rate funding? Or "requir[ing] public disclosure of evidence standards, conflicts of interest, and performance claims" on the Form 470? Because that's what the expert recommends.
Let's wait until the science is settled, and then trust educators to do what's best for children.
I read through the six-page "Re-examining the Children's Internet Protection Act" section of the new NPRMaFNPRM, and but alas, I did not see the re-examination that I had been hoping for: a reconsideration of the belief that the CIPA law says that the E-Rate cannot fund filtering for applicants.
The belief comes from a peculiar reading of § 1721(g) of the CIPA statute, which says: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds available under section 3134 or part A of title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, or under section 231 of the Library Services and Technology Act, may be used for the purchase or acquisition of technology protection measures that are necessary to meet the requirements of this title and the amendments made by this title. No other sources of funds for the purchase or acquisition of such measures are authorized by this title, or the amendments made by this title."
It seems pretty clear to me that Congress intended to allow applicants to use ESEA or LSTA funds to buy a filter, but they weren't authorizing any new sources of funds.
But it's clear to me that filtering is necessary to deliver broadband to classrooms, and should therefore be eligible for E-Rate funding.
You can read a longer rumination on the topic here.
I think it would be appropriate to suggest in response to this NPRM that filtering should be eligible for E-Rate funding....
Here's the worst sentence in the recent NPRM: "Given the substantial expansion of broadband access in schools and libraries over the last three decades, we seek comment on whether and to what extent the E-Rate program has fulfilled that mission and whether continued funding is consistent with Congress’s original objective." (It's in the middle of paragraph 12.)
It makes me think of the story of a man who jumps out of a plane and deploys his parachute, and then about halfway down decides "This parachute has slowed my descent quite well; now that it has fulfilled that mission, I think I'll cut it loose."
It's a problem of tense. I wouldn't say: "the E-Rate program has fulfilled that mission"; I'd say: "the E-Rate program is fulfilling that mission." Broadband access is not a one-time purchase.
