I feel like I already gave my opinions about the NPRMaFNPRM draft in 6 blog posts (1 2 3 4 5 6); I'm not going to rehash all that for the final version. I'll just shoot my mouth off about the differences. And I'm too lazy to read through the final version looking for changes, so I'm leaving it up to Claude. Here are the differences Claude found that I think are interesting, and my ill-considered opinion of them.
The first change is small in size, big in consequence: the comment period was doubled from 30 to 60 days; the reply comment period remained 30 days. 60/30 is pretty standard, and should give advocates enough time to get the word out in hopes of a comment tsunami moving the Commission away from some of the more damaging ideas in the doc.
In the final, the Commission asks, "Does the Commission have the authority to limit or sunset the E-Rate program?" (paragraph 12). That's what I wondered when I read the draft. I'm no lawyer, but my common sense (aka evidence-free gut feeling) says that if Congress created the program, only Congress can sunset it. The FCC can grow or shrink the program, and has done so repeatedly. (The overall program cap, for example, would keep the program small, if the FCC hadn't implemented stingy C2 budgets and kicked voice out of the program. More recently, the FCC added bus Wi-Fi and home hotspots, only to yank them away.) So limit yes, sunset no. A more considered opinion from an ex parte by an ad hoc group called E-Rate Advocates follows in paragraph 13.
Then the Commission asks about the arguments made ex parte by former Commissioner Furchtgott-Roth. Yikes! This guy wants to outlaw the BEAR and only allow payments to "eligible telecommunications carriers." Goodbye, C2. He's right that the program has morphed in some unexpected ways, but I hope his ideas don't get any traction.
Some of Mr. Furchtgott-Roth's ideas get more traction because of the Supreme Court's recent overruling of Chevron deference; now courts can supplant an agency's reasoning with the court's at will. I hope we're not going to start seeing more lawsuits trying to hem in the E-Rate.
Can the "evolving level of telecommunications" statement in the law allow the FCC to shrink the eligible services list in addition to expanding it? Sure. I mean, they actually kicked voice services off the eligible services list, even though only voice services pay into the fund.
Paragraph 27 brings up §254(b)(3), which says that "consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services ... that are reasonably comparable to those services provided in urban areas and .. at rates that are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in urban areas." Hey! That's the High Cost program's problem! The E-Rate is in §254(b)(6). If you want to improve service and lower costs to remote areas, start encouraging leased fiber with special construction and self-provisioned fiber in rural, insular, and high cost areas; build competition. (The Commission asked if they should limit competition in paragraph 22.)
AI rears its head in paragraph 24: "Does the E-Rate program advance or otherwise impact that policy goal" (of teaching and using AI in the classroom). Yes, it does. Schools will need ever fatter pipes to reach the data centers where AI lives.
Paragraph 29: "...some suggest that screen time may be used in the classroom to calm or reward students.112 Should these uses be considered 'educational purposes' as contemplated by the Communications Act?" I would say that calming and motivating students certainly serves an educational purpose. I'm not an educator, but if I were, I'd want a classroom full of calm, motivated students.
Paragraph 30 asks "whether E-Rate funding should be conditioned on the imposition of screen time limits in schools and libraries...." What?! No. Just another example of lawyers trying to put controls on how educators educate. Leave decisions on whether and how much to limit screen time to parents, districts and teachers.
Paragraph 31 proposes requiring that parents be given an opportunity to opt their kids out of screen time. Again, let districts handle this. Parents can bring their concerns to their elected local representatives on the school board and policy can be made at that level rather than some one-size-fits-all requirement developed by some lawyers in DC.
Paragraph 58 asks if resellers and the like should be excluded from the definition of "consultant." In my experience, the reseller (or channel partner or whatever) is the service provider. I can't think of a time when I dealt with a reseller who was not the service provider.
LCP suddenly appeared (paragraphs 85-88). I'm happy to see LCP appear every now and then, hoping that service providers will pay attention to the rule. I'd love to see the rule enforced somehow, but I don't have a practical solution for that. Here's a weird sentence in the middle of paragraph 86: "Should we require that the LCP be the median of all available rates for functionally similar services?" Uh, would that be the "Median Comparable Price"? Let's strive for lowest.
