Not seeing the streamlining

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"?

For the children

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. 

Re-examine this

 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.... 

What color is your parachute?

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.

Want the name of my first-born child?

The new Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available online. I'll try to blog about all the new rules eventually, but of course I'm going to start with the proposed rules for consultants. And as usual, I'll be shooting from the hip.

Establishing a Definition of "Consultant":  “any non-employee working on behalf of a school, library, consortium that includes an eligible school or library, or service provider that participates in or is seeking to participate in the E-Rate program and who assists the school, library, consortium that includes an eligible school or library, or service provider, whether or not for a fee, with any aspect of participating in the E-Rate program, including, but not limited to, the application, competitive bidding, or disbursement processes.” OK. That seems general enough to encompass all sorts of consultants, but specific enough to give a clear idea what we're talking about. It's clear from their examples that they're thinking more about consultants who are helping applicants than consultants helping service providers, but the definition itself is OK. Except there are people (knowledgeable parents, for example) who informally assist with applications; would they have to get CRNs? What if an applicant hired an engineering firm to write up the specs for a 470?

Requiring an Annual Consultant Certification and Disclosure Form: Seems odd that the form already has a number, since this is just in the ruminating phase, but OK. 

"...there are documented instances of misconduct by consultants...." This gets my goat a little, since there are more documented instances of misconduct by applicants and service providers. Because every instance that I can think of where a consultant was involved, so was an applicant or a service provider. And there are instances of misconduct between applicants and service providers where no consultant was involved. Yet we're only focusing on individual consultants, not on applicant or service provider employees. 

"...we propose that the consultant certification form require consultants to certify to their compliance with and knowledge of all applicable E-Rate program rules...." If we're going to have to certify that we know all the rules, it seems like they should tell us what all the rules are. As I've suggested many times, USAC should compile all the rules into one rulebook (or more realistically, one rulesite), and the FCC should approve it annually. As it is now, some rules are only found in a footnote of some order or other. Other rules are found in places like the instructions for item 5a of the Form 471. (I wonder if those instructions will change now that the FCC has changed the rules for consortia with ineligible members.) Sometimes, a rule can be found in a years-old PowerPoint slide from USAC. And worst of all, the 700 pages of secret rules that we can only learn through years of dealing with PIA. It would take an absurd amount of reading to have knowledge of all rules. You can't expect me to certify that I know all the rules if you won't tell me what all the rules are. Sure, I know a lot of rules, but no one can have knowledge of all of them. And really, let's say I'm a consultant who aggregates 470 information and delivers it to service providers in a useful way; why should I have to know the rules about 486 deadlines? Or would the 486 rules not be part of "all applicable rules" for that consultant?

"we further propose requiring certain disclosures on the form by consultants, including: (1) the consulting firm(s) and/or company(ies) for whom the consultant is currently working and (2) any association and/or relationship the consultant may have that could potentially pose an actual conflict or an appearance of a conflict of interest." Well, I can already tell you every applicant that a particular consultant works with thanks to OpenData. But consultants that provide service to service providers are not similarly exposed, so I guess it would be good to make them share. And sure, ask consultants to share any conflicts of interest; maybe some dishonest consultant will be stupid enough to share that info.

I'm not sanguine about the form doing much good, because the problem with certifications is that they only catch the honest and the stupid. 

"...track potential bad actors across multiple consulting firms and/or multiple E-Rate applications...." Wait, are we talking about listing individuals on these certification forms? Like, all the employees in a consulting firm? That seems like a big sea of info to try to keep afloat in. And a lot of work for applicants and service providers. Make consulting firms file a list of their employees.

Should the form be submitted with the 470 or 471 or 472/474? Should applicants and service providers be required to submit updates when an individual consultant moves? I'd say for service providers, it should go on the SPAC. For applicants, it should be due every July 1st). If consulting firms are going to be required to file, that should be every July 1st, too.

"...what should the consequences be for failing to submit the consultant certification and disclosure form?" Suspend processing any form (PIA, invoice review) until the form is submitted. But make it like the SPAC, where each form covers a particular funding year. Since they'll be filed at the start of the funding year, everyone will have plenty of time to get the forms in before the suspensions kick in.

"Should the consultant be referred to the Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO) for potential suspension and debarment proceedings under the Commission’s rules?" So if an applicant or service provider fails to turn in a form, consultants who should be on the non-existent form get debarred? First of all, how are you going to determine which consultants would have been on the form? Second, why punish the consultant for an applicant/service provider failure to file?

"What consequence(s) should there be for submitting false statements on the form?" Well, debarment OK for consultants; they should know better. And if applicants and service providers knowingly submit false information, suspension for the first offense, debarment for the second. But cut applicants and service providers some slack if they make a mistake. Fines and imprisonment should be reserved for individuals who improperly profit from the program, not for people who fill out forms incorrectly. 

Creating a Consultant Registration Database:  "...assign every individual consultant a Consultant Registration Number (CRN)." Oy. My first reaction is "what a headache!" But thinking it over, all our employees already have an individual login; what do I care if USAC attaches a CRN to it? It kind of seems like a solution in search of a problem, though. Why track individuals? Are there really consultants out there who get caught being naughty at one firm, then jump to another? Or consultants working at two firms simultaneously? What misbehavior is this going to catch? Are applicants going to have to list every individual consultant who assisted with a form? What about a consultant who helped with planning or competitive bidding, but not with filling out any forms?

 "...consultants complete a mandatory E-Rate and anti-fraud training ... on an annual basis...." Sure. If they offered it now on a voluntary basis, I'd take it. I don't think I'd learn much, but that's true of USAC's annual training for applicants, and I always go to that. And as an E-mpa® Certified E-Rate Management Professional (CEMP), I'm required to do hours of continuing education, so I could use the course to satisfy part of that requirement.

"...we seek comment on the information to be collected as part of this database...." I don't really see the need to give up my home address and phone number or a personal email address, much less any part of my social security number. To what use would that info be put? Would it be available to someone who submitted a FOIA request? How would any of that information be used to verify my identity?

"Are there any benefits to making some of the data in the consultant database public...?" Yup. Name and consulting firm. So I could do a quick check to see who this person's working with. If I had suspicions about someone, I'd want that info (or lack of info) before reporting my suspicions to USAC. 

"...we propose to direct USAC, in the interim, to establish a process for consultants to receive an individual CRN using the existing CRN process...." Not worth the trouble. Let USAC take the time to do it right. 

Prohibiting Percentage-Based Fee Arrangements with Consultants and Clarifying the Type of Consultant-Related Documentation Applicants and Service Providers Should Retain: We have some clients that pay us a fee based on a percentage of the funding they receive. I'd be fine with moving them all to a flat fee. In fact, I suggest that any time we talk fees, but some clients just prefer to pay a contingency. It does create a perverse incentive for me to have them spend more on E-Rate-eligible goods and services, but it's a small incentive and I always point it out to clients if we're discussing what services they should order. But this "raise questions about whether E-Rate dollars are being used to pay for ineligible services" stuff is just nonsense. Of course E-Rate reimbursements will be spent on ineligible services; an applicant's eligible services are what they're getting the reimbursement for. If a small applicant gets, say, $5,000 reimbursement from their Internet service, do they have to spend that on more eligible services? Of course not. If they were planning to buy other eligible services, those services would have been on a 471.

In summary, not as terrible as I'd feared. I'm not convinced it will catch much waste, fraud or abuse, but with a couple of exceptions, the extra work is not too heinous. 

Buckle up; it's reform time!

This doesn't look good. In a press release and a blog post, Chairman Carr talked about an upcoming notice of proposed rulemaking and further notice taking a "top-to-bottom review" of the E-Rate program, and some of the options they'll consider are frightful. 

First, they're going to look at the E-Rate through the lens of excessive screen time. I was afraid that the Congressional USF Working Group might take this approach, but the FCC seems to be jumping on it now. Yes, excessive screen time can be bad, but the E-Rate doesn't fund screen time, it funds filtered Internet access, which is not a problem. If screen time is a problem for education, let's have professional educators fix it, not some lawyers at the FCC.

Second, they're going to look at "whether the FCC’s current interpretation of the Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is the best reading." If they were going to relax CIPA requirements, I'd be OK with that, but I don't think that's the direction they'll be going.

Third, they're going to consider "actions to further strengthen E-Rate program integrity...." Oh, brother. I'm all for strengthening program integrity, but every time they try, it just adds complexity to the program. I shouldn't complain, because every time they increase complexity, more applicants are driven into the arms of consultants.

Uh oh. The only action to strengthen integrity actually mentioned is "increasing oversight over consultants." I don't mind a little oversight, but I can't think of any really productive measures that can be taken, so I'm afraid we'll just get more bureaucratic tasks. I'll try to keep a wait-and-see attitude, but I have a bad feeling....

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Well, it happened. The FCC approved the E-Rate bidding portal. As with so many "improvements" to the program, it will make life more difficult for applicants and service providers, which will drive them into the waiting arms of the consultant community. Really, this is good for my business.

But it's bad for the program, so I don't like it. 

And here's the ugly: the FCC decided that the bidding portal should be ready for FY 2028-2029, which means it goes live July 2027. That leaves USAC just over a year to scope the project, find a vendor, develop the portal and get to a final version. I think the only hope is for USAC to find an existing bidding portal that can be modified to meet our needs and somehow kludge it together with EPC. Oh, it's going to be ugly.

Oh wait, there it is in footnote 67: "In the event that the competitive bidding portal is unavailable for use by funding year 2028, applicants will be required to submit their bids and competitive bidding documentation directly to USAC, and we direct the Bureau and USAC to provide guidance to program participants in advance of the beginning of the funding year 2028 procurement period regarding submission of the documentation." So USAC can develop the document repository first, since that's the easy part, and develop the portal with it's system for receiving bids, only letting 3 users see them and logging every time they look at them, and the communications system, where potential bidders can ask questions anonymously and the Q&A is published for all to see. Those seem like the much tougher parts of the project.

Gravy train revisited

I recently had reason to explore what percentage of libraries participate in the E-Rate. I found a stat from the ALA that "[a]bout 73% of all public libraries ... receive E-Rate discounts." I followed their link to see where that number came from: Funds for Learning. They're looking at how many library locations are included on E-Rate applications. I'm more interested in what percent of library organizations (library systems or single-site libraries) get funded, towit:

Using the Open Data tool, I found 2,629 unique BENs as applicants on a 471, and 2,343 unique BENs in consortia applications, for a total of 4,972 libraries as applicants. I found an ALA report that has 9,252 central locations (either single-site libraries or the main branch of a library system). So that means about 54% of library organizations apply for E-Rate. I discovered a few branch library locations (instead of the library system) that were consortia members, so 54% is too high. Still, it's over 50%; let's say 52%.

Last time I looked, it was close to 40%, so things are looking up for libraries. Still a long way to go to reach the 96% participation of school districts. Still, lots better than private schools, which FFL has lagging at 32%.

Competition on the wane

 How things have changed. Last time I checked in on the Internet in Alaska, Quintillion was asking for rule changes because they said GCI had an unfair advantage. Now, GCI is buying Quintillion. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, I guess.

Does GCI have any competitors left in Alaska? The amounts that they charge school districts for Internet access are truly astounding. 

Drafty summer

News from the congressional Universal Service Fund Working Group. A new aide has taken over the telecommunications portfolio for Sen. Fischer, one of the leaders of the Working Group. In his introductory email, he said: "Working Group co-chairs and members are continuing to refine a discussion draft that I hope to share with stakeholders for review in the summer timeframe."

So in a few months, we'll all have something to talk about. I'll be very curious to see what ideas they have for expanding the contribution base. And what they have to say about the E-Rate.

FCC the EPC

OK, on to Part IIIB of the recent Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration: Simplifying the E-Rate Program. I'll just go through the 8 simplifications in order. And for no good reason, I'm going to assign a score to each.

Transition of Services During a Funding Year: This is for the case where you're switching providers (or switching service with the same provider) and the cutover date changes from what you put on the 471. This happens a lot, and in the past, it always meant the applicant lost out on some funding. The FCC's change is kludgy, but it should work OK: 8 out of 10.

Guidance on Cost Allocation: A really minor clarification that if 90% of a telecommunications service is used for eligible purposes, the other 10% is "ancillary" and the whole service is eligible. That's good, but I don't have any clients that will be taking advantage of this. And now the bad news: all off-campus use has to be cost-allocated. So if your library has external wireless access points that extend the signal into the community a bit, that has to be cost-allocated out. Because of that pain in the allocation: 3 out of 10.

Mid-Year Bandwidth Increases: Now if you need to increase your bandwidth mid-year, you can do it with a Service Substitution, though you'll have to pay the full amount of any price increase. I need some clarification on this sentence: "Applicants that can demonstrate that the bandwidth and price increase were covered by an existing FCC Form 470 and competitive bidding process would not need to rebid the service." Are they saying that if the new bandwidth fits within the range of bandwidths requested on the last 470, I can just refer back to that 470 in subsequent funding years? That's nice, but most of the time, the new bandwidth is going to come with a new contract. So I can use the old 470 and create a new contract months later? Yeah, I don't see that sailing through PIA, so I'm going to post a Form 470 and "bless" the contract per the Kalamazoo Reconsideration Order. Not as generous as they could have been, but a good clarification: 8 out of 10.

Spam Bids: Basically, if you want to disqualify bids, you need to put the disqualification criteria on the Form 470. The Commission mentions, but doesn't say how to deal with, the spambids that are basically a price list of everything the vendor offers. The only bids you can just toss are bids with no pricing info ("call for pricing"). And you can't actually toss the bid: you have to retain it for 10 years with an explanation of why you disqualified it. A total PIA (and I don't mean Program Integrity Assurance): 3 our of 10.

Bids Received After 28-day Bid Period: Unless you set a bid deadline, you have to consider all bids that come in before you begin your bid evaluation. Fine. We generally have clients hold off a day or two on starting their bid evaluation to allow tardy bids. But the order tiptoes right up to an existing conundrum, but fails to address it: since the 28th day is the Allowable Contract Date (ACD), how can we consider bids that come in at, say, 9:00 pm on that 28th day, and still sign a contract on that day? The Commission shot down the reasonable suggestion that bids be cut off at 11:59 the day before, but they weren't really clear whether, if I start my bid evaluation at, say, 9:00 am on the 28th day, I can disregard bids that arrive after 9:00 am on the 28th day. It only really matters for applicants who file their 470 at the deadline, but still, it should be clarified. A good minor clarification, but they missed an opportunity to make an important clarification: 4 out of 10.

Bye-Bye Form 486: Yes! The 486 is going, going, not gone until FY 2028. Why the delay? Some minor edits on forms and we have to wait two years, but the whole bidding portal can go live in 15 months? That delay keeps this reform from getting a perfect score: 9 out of 10.

Invoicing Rules: Forgot to file an Invoice Deadline Extension Request before the Invoice Deadline? Now you have an extra 15-day grace period to file that request. Good. And USAC has to warn you if it's close to the deadline and you have an FRN with no invoices. Better. You still only get one 120-day extension unless you can show "extraordinary circumstances," but that's fair. Filed an invoice and it was denied after the Invoice Deadline? Now you've got a 60-day grace period to file again. [I probably shouldn't point this out, but that creates an ability to get infinite deadline extensions; just file a BEAR with an error, and when it gets rejected, you have 60 days to file another invoice with an error, giving you another 60 days, and so on.] Finally, if you file a Form 500 to reduce an FRN, the subsequent RFCDL does not reset the Invoice Deadline. Fair enough. No complaints: 10 out of 10.

Updating Definitions and Rules: "Internal connections": Clarifies that connections between buildings on a single campus are Category 2. "Consortium": Gets rid of the weird private-entities-if-all-services-are-tariffed exception, adopting the ECF definition of "consortium." Sections 54.503(b) and 54.513(d): Just cleaning up some changes that should have been made when previous rule changes were made. The changes aren't really good news, but they're reasonable: 7 out of 10.

And last, a little grammar curmudgeoning about the use of "the EPC" in paragraph 58 and footnote 118. As I have said before, acronyms are anarthrous, while initialisms require an article. So someone at the FCC (an initialism, though some late-night wag made it an acronym rhyming with "duck") pronounces EPC as "E-P-C" instead of "epic." Since USAC says it's pronounced "epic," and EPC is anarthrous in most of this order, the Commission should change all uses to be anarthrous.

The Cake is a Lie

Thanks to SHLB, I got the Bidding Portal Report and Order that I posted about on Saturday. So let's take a look, shall we? Today's post will only look at the competitive bidding portal. We'll talk streamlining tomorrow.

First issue: timing. Requiring use of the portal starting in FY 2028 seemed reasonable, until I realized that meant applicants would start using it in July 2027. That's too soon. Why not use FY 2028 as a beta test, and go live in FY 2029? Rushing the portal out the door is going to make it kludgy, especially in the first couple of years. I mean, the Commission has taken nine years to respond to the IG's suggestion that they collect all bids, so what's another two or three years? I think it's going to take a year just making sure the portal's process doesn't violate any state or local procurement rules.

Next, the portal requirements: "(1) prospective service providers to respond to applicants’ FCC Forms 470 by submitting their bids into the USAC-managed portal; and (2) applicants to upload their bid evaluation and vendor selection documentation, including contract(s), after selecting their service provider(s)." 

The first requirement will save applicants from having to send bids in later if they go into a Selective Review, but the second requirement will require applicants to upload documents that normally only need to be uploaded in case of a Selective Review. So in total, these requirements do not simplify the application process. It's nice that applicants no longer need to keep copies of those documents for 10 years, since USAC will have all those documents already, but it's easier to keep local copies.

The FCC posits that "a competitive bidding portal will help ensure a more fair and open competitive bidding process by increasing visibility and transparency into bidding information received during the E-Rate competitive bidding process...." But since the FCC "we will treat bids and other pricing data submitted to the bidding portal as presumptively confidential and will not make the non-winning bids and submitted pricing data routinely available for public inspection," the process is only transparent to USAC and the FCC, so I don't see it making the process much more open and fair. Unless USAC is going to hire more selective reviewers to go through all the information.

The FCC claims that "this increased transparency will give USAC and the Commission direct and instant insight into the competitive bidding process to reduce opportunities for potential bid collusion and the submission of sham or altered bids...." USAC and the Commission currently have easy access to all that information and more through Selective Reviews. Are they going to increase the number of Selective Reviews? If not, I don't see how they're going to catch collusion, etc. Again, they need to give applicants and especially service providers access to the bids, etc. Service providers have a strong incentive to check up on any bids they lost, and alert USAC to any irregularities. Of course, service providers would have no incentive to show restraint in alerting USAC to possible irregularities, so I predict an explosion of Selective Reviews, most of them pointless.

Check out footnotes 75 to 78 to see the E-Rate heavy hitters who think this portal is unlikely to reduce fraud, and will create an administrative burden.  To see who's in favor of the bid portal, check out footnote ... uh .... Did any commenters think this was a good idea? The IG and GAO said "the Commission’s ability to detect and deter fraud has historically been limited by its lack of direct access to underlying competitive bidding documentation...," but there's no specifics on how collecting all that info is going to help, instead of just collecting info on cases that USAC intends to investigate. As Socrates might have said: Unexamined information is not worth collecting.

The FCC finds no problem with complying with state and local laws and using the portal. If state law requires a hard copy of the bid, perhaps notarized, or some kind of bidder's security, they can just submit that in addition to what gets submitted to the portal. But service providers who are required by state law to submit paper bids can just ignore the E-Rate portal; the applicant will be forced to award the contract based on the paper bids, and will have to forego E-Rate funding, since there's no corresponding bid in the portal. The Commission says that in such cases, applicants can request a waiver. And if the Commission doesn't grant the waiver promptly, the applicant is out of luck.

I like the idea of all questions going through the portal; we waste a lot of time fending of service providers who say they have a question, but are really just looking for an opportunity to work their sales magic. Walkthroughs and bidders' conferences will still be allowed. There may be unforeseen problems here, but it seems to me that this won't be a problem in most cases. 

Uh oh. "We also direct that access to the competitive bidding portal and repository be limited to the applicant’s Account Administrator and up to two other authorized users (including consultants)...." If the Account Administrator changes, will the new one automatically get access? What about the other two users? Can they be changed? This restriction is going to create headaches for applicants and especially for consultants.

That's all for now.

Another portal, another fiasco?

 This could be good news, but I'm afraid it won't be. In the agenda for the next meeting, the FCC says it "will consider a Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration that would strengthen the integrity of the E-Rate program by establishing a competitive bidding portal and adopt several proposals aimed at streamlining and simplifying E-Rate program procedures."

First, let's talk about "streamlining and simplifying." I'm all for that, even if the complexity of the program is what keeps consultants like me employed. But when I hear "simplify," I remember the last time the Commission acted to simplify the program. We were at an E-mpa™ conference, and we were all a little worried about our jobs, but when the Order came out and we read it, the reaction was: "Full employment for consultants!" Still, hope springs eternal in my heart, so here's hoping that they really do simplify the program.

But let's go back to the "competitive bidding portal." Again, it could be an improvement, but I'm not confident it will be. Here's the first step I'd like to see in the creation of the portal: compile all state and local procurement rules into one document, so that the portal can be developed to comply with all those rules. Will that happen? No. Instead, we'll end up with a kludgy portal that gets bits pasted onto it as the developers try to shoehorn in all state rules after the fact. Just like EPC, which took years to get right, and is still an amalgam of kludges.

I'll withhold judgement until I see the Order and the eventual portal, but my hope is strained. 

It only took 6 years

 The FCC has announced that they're planning to make some new rules around suspensions and debarments at their next meeting. Oh, goody, more rules. These rules are in response to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that was released late in 2019.

I generally like the new rules. Mostly, they're just changing the rules to follow the OMB guidelines. And creating a Suspension and Disbarment Officer (SDO) who would be responsible for dishing out suspensions and debarments. The SDO would have more flexibility in dealing out consequences than the FCC has currently. They're also making some common-sense changes like allowing debarments when there is sufficient evidence of wrongdoing, rather than having to wait for criminal convictions.

The order also has an NPRM. Ugh, the first proposed rule is to put a new certification on one of the forms, demanding applicants certify that they have read this Report and Order and complied with the rules. As the FCC points out, applicants are already required to certify that they are in compliance with program rules. And the rules in this Order are not actions that applicants have to take; it's all stuff that will happen to them if they commit fraud. So out of all the rules in the program, why make us double-certify on this Order? Also, if you want applicants to follow all the rules, create a rulebook. As I've said before,  aside from the obvious benefit of making it easier for applicants to access program rules, the creation of a rulebook would: 1) show just how massive and complex the rules are for this program; and 2) show how quickly the rules shift in this program.

New tool (well, new to me)

I wonder how long that tool's been hiding in plain sight in a quiet corner of EPC?

OK, you're in EPC, what's the most useless menu in the top navbar? If you answered "all of them," you're not far off. "News" is pretty useless because you get a wide mishmash of stuff. "Tasks" and "Records" I use all the time. The last one, "Actions," doesn't have any actions I want to do (though the "Related Actions" link in the lower row of links can be useful).

That leaves the "Report" link, which is even more useless than "Actions" and "News." The only reason I ever use it is to navigate back to My Consultant Landing Page, but I almost never do that. Today I accidentally clicked on "Report" while trying to get to the "Records" page. I'm not sure what made me glance up at the first report today, but I saw "Invoice Line Summary Status" and I was intrigued. At first, it looked like a lot of search tools: a clumsy way to search for info that you can get more easily somewhere else (usually OpenData), but I discovered a reason that I'll be back to this tool.

If I put in an "Invoice Line Number" and click "Apply Filters" then scroll down, I get a one-line result. It looked useless until I scrolled all the way to the right and noticed the "Customer Billed Date" field. That's going to save me some work. See, if I get a Service Certification request, it gives me the invoice line number, but not the billed date. If it's a ServCert for a phone bill, how am I supposed to guess which month it's for? I had to write to the service provider and ask them, and that can be a frustrating experience.

But now I'll just take the invoice line number and head over to my friend the Invoice Line Summary Status report, put in the invoice line number et voila, I get the billed month. 

A tool useful for a very narrow circumstance, but quite useful in that circumstance.

What other useful tools lurk unnoticed in EPC? 

Thank you for your contribution

The latest Contribution Factor (for the second quarter of 2026) is out: 37.0%. Nothing surprising, but at least it's lower than the high-water mark we hit in November. But I haven't heard any rumblings from Congress lately about fixed the revenue base for the USF, which has me worried that Congress won't do anything.

Whistle While You Work

 Lowest Corresponding Price (LCP) has grown some teeth. For those who don't know, LCP is a requirement of E-Rate where vendors have to supply services at the lowest price that any similarly situated customer has gotten. Well, years and years ago, a whistleblower pointed out that Wisconsin AT&T was not giving E-Rate participants the LCP. Now the case has been settled, and Wisconsin AT&T will be paying the government $55 million. Much bigger than past settlements.

What's this now? The whistleblower will get somewhere between $8.25 and $16.5 million?! Where did I put that whistle? Gotta go. 

An old friend

It's baaaack! Looks like Appian still hasn't fixed the "Midnight Save & Share" problem. It's only been 9 years since I first reported on it. It's much less annoying than it used to be, because since they fixed Save & Share, you can just reclaim it directly. (9 years ago, someone else with permissions to that form had to snag the form and then Save & Share it so that you could see it and Accept it.) Still, it is a problem.

I wish I had time to figure out what the conditions are exactly that makes this happen, but it only happens during 471 season, so I can't spend time researching. 

Those librarians have some good ideas

The ALA has created a nice sheet about what should be Delete!Delete!Deleted! from the E-Rate program. Let's see if I agree with their suggestions. 

Here's what they'd like to see deleted: 

1. FCC rules on competitive bidding
2. Form 486
3. Annual NSLP checks
4. Application window for C2
5. Inability to make service substitutions

To which I say:

1.  Oh, hell yes! I've been saying for years that the FCC should not be regulating the purchasing decisions of local governments. The arcane rules confuse applicants and conflict with local rules.
2. A solid yes. C'mon, FCC, you already did it for the Cybersecurity Pilot Program: move the CIPA questions to the 471 and scrap the 486.
3. The ALA is suggesting that NSLP percentages get checked once every 5 years, to coincide with the 5-year cycle for Category 2 budgets. I'm all for that. Treat it like the C2 budgets: fixed for 5 years, unless the district wants to change it (if the enrollment and/or NSLP percentage changes to the district's advantage).
4. Why only for C2? We never come close to the program cap these days, so why do we need a filing window? There's plenty of money to go around, and the filing window was created to deal with funding requests exceeding the program cap. Ban the filing window! Want to change your Internet bandwidth in December? No problem, just file a new application. One of your switches starting smoking in January? File an application right then. (Combine this with #1, and you don't even have to wait 28 to make the purchase.)
5. If #4 would come true, there would be no need for service substitutions. Just file a new application. It seems like it would be worse to have to do a 471 for the new service and a Form 500 for the old funding, but it only seems that way if you've never had to do a service substitution; those things are a real PitA. But assuming that we're stuck with the filing window, then yes, applicants should totally be able to increase bandwidth or whatever. Service subs are way too restrictive.

You know what would make service substitutions better? Get rid of FRN line items. Why does the request have to be broken down into a bunch of little buckets? Because whoever made the online form decided to handle things that way; from 5,000 feet up, it looks more efficient. But let me tell you, down here in the trenches, those line items are a major hassle. Just make one big bucket of money, and if you must, list all the equipment or services paid for by that bucket. Then just change the list of items, and don't bother with the size of the bucket of money. Because if the change in items makes the price go up, no prob: E-Rate online funds the original size of the bucket. And if the change makes the price go down, then that gets cleaned up by a Form 500. FRN line items add complexity to the process for no good reason, just because whoever created the online 471 thought they were elegant and cool. They aren't.

Take the win, you fool

Hey, here's a little good news buried in USAC's Federal Universal Service Support Mechanisms Fund Size Projections for Second Quarter 2026. Tucked into page 6, there's a table showing the percentage of improper payments in the USF programs.  For E-Rate, it 1.27%. Huzzah! Why the celebration? Well, in general, it shows how little waste, fraud and abuse there is in the program, which helps the program's prospects for the future.

But it's also good news for applicants this year. Why? Because if that percentage is above 2.5%, that triggers an expansion of auditing in the program. Back in 2008, when I first looked into this number, it was 12.9%. Look at us with a 10-fold decrease! The only other data point I think I've blogged about this was in 2019, when we were at 2.59%. So we've been improving for a while.

I felt like we were getting fewer audits lately; I guess that's real.

I probably shouldn't bring this up (again), but I've pointed out a way they could get that percentage up. See, improper payments should include underpayments. So instead of looking only at payments that were made looking for ones that should have been denied, auditors should also look at payments that were denied, to see if any of the denials were incorrect.  Applicant error is, according to the auditors, a major cause of improper payments. Imagine if they included in their improper payment total every denied funding request or invoice where, if not for applicant error, the applicant would have gotten funded.

Short term, that's a disaster, triggering more audits. But long term, it would provide a strong incentive to make the application process more fool-proof, so we fools wouldn't lose funding that we should get. Imagine if the FCC and USAC got dinged every time an applicant made a mistake that cost them funding. Eventually, the application process would get simpler and simpler. Of course, it's a bit self-destructive for an E-Rate consultant to wish for a simpler process, because no one would need me, but what can I say, I long for a more just world. 

T-LEAPing into the future

Great idea. Now why not make it universal. Over at the Tribal Library E-Rate Advocacy Program (T-LEAP), one of the initiatives they've taken is to accept applications year-round. You heard that right: no filing window for applicants in the T-LEAP program. The increased flexibility has, of course, increased applicant participation. 

Wouldn't it be great to increase applicant participation across the board? So why don't we allow year-round applications for all applicants? The application window was originally created because the E-Rate program always hit its cap, so not all applications could be funded. To keep the application process from turning into a race to apply, the FCC nicely set up a filing window, and said all applications filed in the window would be treated as simultaneous. Well, the program never hits its cap these days. So the filing window is unnecessary. 

The T-LEAP program shows us that we'd get more participation if we had no filing window. Applicants wouldn't be forced to sign illegal contracts. PIA's workload would be more spread out. Changing service mid-year wouldn't be a nightmare. 

As I pointed out 10 years ago, the rules as currently written, in fact, say that applications should be accepted after the close of the filing window if there's still money left. So USAC should be accepting applications year-round already. 

You may say I'm crazy, but I'm not the only one. The American Library Association (ALA) has asked the FCC to allow rolling applications for C2. But why allow year-round applications only for C2? Let C1 apps be year-round, too.

Going one step further, why do we still have C1 and C2? The two Categories (nee Priorities) of funding were only created because the program never had enough money to fund all funding requests. Now that the program has plenty of money to cover all requests....

Cybersecurity Pilot update

I'm listening to the quarterly meeting of the USAC Schools & Libraries Committee of the USAC Board, and I learned some new things about the Cybersecurity Pilot Program (CSPP). 

First, USAC expects to open invoicing by March. Also, they're running an invoicing webinar tomorrow. 

Second, all CSPP applications should get FCDLs by the end of June. For those who didn't know, 172 FCDLs were issued on December 17th. Another wave should be coming out soon. But knowing when the last FCDL will be issued is good news for those of us who have applications languishing in "Certified" status.

GAO: USAC FTW

It's a clean bill of health for the E-Rate! The GAO (Governement Accountability Office) evaluted five programs for their adherence to "nine requirements and leading practices to oversee and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in awards...." Alone among the five programs, the E-Rate had procedures for all nine.

The GAO has taken a dimmer view of the E-Rate program in 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2017. So it's a nice change to see the program getting a clean bill of health.

A step in the right direction

 Time for the annual table to see if the FCC stuck to their rule of 60 days between the release of the ESL and the opening of the window and if the window length stayed at 70 days, the recent standard.

 As is typical since 2019, the FCC missed the 60-day mark, giving us only 35 days, but the government-wide shutdown gives them a good excuse. 

And they pushed the window back a week to give us more time with the ESL before we have to file. Of course, that makes me happy, since I think the window should close in May. 

FY	ESL release	Window open	60 days?	Window close	Window days
2026	12/17/2025	1/21/2026	35	4/1/2026	70
2025	10/25/2024	1/15/2025	82	3/26/2025	70
2024	12/18/2023	1/17/2024	30	3/27/2024	70
2023	12/14/2022	1/18/2023	35	3/28/2023	69
2022	12/17/2021	1/12/2022	26	3/22/2022	69
2021	11/30/2020	1/15/2021	46	3/25/2021	69
2020	12/9/2019	1/15/2020	37	3/25/2020	70
2019	11/15/2018	1/16/2019	62	3/27/2019	70
2018	10/5/2017	1/11/2018	98	3/22/2018	70
2017	9/12/2016	2/27/2017	168	5/11/2017	73
2016	9/11/2015	2/3/2016	145	4/29/2016	86
2015	10/28/2014	1/14/2015	78	3/26/2015	71
2014	10/22/2013	1/9/2014	79	3/26/2014	76
2013	9/27/2012	12/12/2012	76	3/14/2013	92
2012	9/28/2011	1/9/2012	103	3/20/2012	71
2011	12/6/2010	1/11/2011	36	3/24/2011	72
2010	12/2/2009	12/3/2009	1	2/11/2010	70
2009	11/21/2008	12/2/2008	11	2/12/2009	72
2008	10/19/2007	11/7/2007	19	2/7/2008	92
2007	10/19/2006	11/14/2006	26	2/7/2007	85
2006	11/22/2005	12/6/2005	14	2/16/2006	72
2005	10/14/2004	12/14/2004	61	2/17/2005	65

E-Rate, baby!

The E-Rate got mentioned several times in a Senate hearing at which there seemed to be universal agreement that student screen time should be limited. That can't be good.

Not surprisingly, the first mention came from Sen. Cruz, chair of the subcommittee, who decried that "the Biden FCC sought to bankroll kids unsupervised internet access and undermine parental rights by expanding the E-Rate program to install Wi-Fi hotspots off-campus, including in school buses and students homes" and touted the legislation he created to revoke the eligibility of home hotspots. (20:08)

Senator Cantwell countered that "rather focusing on threatening E-Rate, connectivity for school, I think we should be passing meaningful protections for kids online privacy regardless of whether they're accessing the internet from home orschool." (24:31)

Senator Luhan also came to the defense of the E-Rate, pointing out that Internet access facilitated by the E-Rate must be filtered under CIPA and cannot be unsupervised. He also asked a witness to discuss the harm if the E-Rate ended. (1:48:19)

Finally, Senator Markey talked up the E-Rate, repeating that CIPA rules prevented unsupervised access, and saying that, "The E-Rate hotspots program was a responsible, carefully crafted effort to ensure that low-income students had the same opportunities as their wealthier classmates." (

So not bad, one criticism and three senators in support. Typically, it fell along party lines.

Still, as I look on the horizon for threats to the E-Rate, this one looks like the most threatening currently (though it has a lot of growing to do before it's a realistic threat). In the '90s and '00s, the pendulum swung fully to the "technology good" end of the spectrum, and it's now swinging to "technology bad." Currently, the agreement is "social media bad," with a growing "cell phone bad" sentiment. So far no one's saying "E-Rate bad," but I'm afraid the E-Rate could be the baby thrown out with the social media bathwater. It's already happened to home hotspot and bus WiFi.

E-Rate sneaks in around the Kimmelspeak

Unlike the recent Senate hearing, this week's House FCC oversight session did mention the E-Rate. It felt like the Senate version back in December was all about the Fairness Doctrine and Jimmy Kimmel. The House hearing didn't neglect Jimmy K, but they found time to mention the E-Rate twice.

Commissioner Gomez led us off (timestamp 39:55) with a mention in her opening remarks about how the removal of WiFi hotspots and bus WiFi "removed one of the most effective tools we had to help people participate in the digital economy and to avoid being left behind."

Representative Cantor brought up hotspots and buses again (2:27:45). Basically, she just asked Commissioner Gomez to confirm that stripping them out of the program was bad. Representative Tonko brought them up (3:23:23) one more time, and again Commissioner Gomez said their removal was bad.

So E-Rate was only mentioned to complain about buses and hotspots getting the boot from the program.

Actually, Chairman Carr took a swipe at hotspots (50:01) without actually saying "E-Rate" or "hotspot" by saying "we're ending any unlawful expenditures that were taking place."

Everyone made nice noises about the Universal Service Fund and how important it is, but when given the chance to tell Congress how to improve the program (50:44), Chairmain Carr pretty much punted, with some vague promises to work with Congress. 

Still, a hearing where the E-Rate only gets one swipe is good hearing.