And they're off!

Probably anyone who reads this blog has enough E-Rate Geek Factor that this is old news, but the application filing window for 2010-2011 opened today at noon EST. Here's the official announcement.

The window closes February 11. USAC says that's 71 days, I say 70.5, but in any case, it's enough.

What is scandalous is this:
In the Third Report and Order, the FCC created a laudable rule of allowing at least 60 days between the release of the Eligible Services List (ESL) and the opening of the window. That makes a lot of sense: how can districts adjust their tech plans and craft a Form 470 without knowing what is eligible. Ever since then, the FCC has waived the rule, and given us less (much less) time.

But this year takes the cake. The FCC released the ESL last night, and the window opened today at noon. Instead of 60 days, we got about 18 hours.
Maybe this is the last year we'll be faced with this problem. Along with the ESL, the FCC released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which would require USAC to submit the proposed ESL to the FCC three months earlier each year, with the goal of moving the release of the ESL back to September, where it's supposed to be. I'm all for that.

Small blessing

Check it out: I was using the Billed Entity Number Search Tool today, and forgot to put the % wildcard at the end, and discovered that the % is no longer necessary!

Today's ray of sunshine for the usac.org-addicted.

Don't Doubt Mel

Back in September, when Mel Blackwell predicted that the Priority Two denial threshold would get down to 70%, I doubted him. Now that USAC has announced they'll be funding down to 80%, my doubt is gone.

How was I so wrong? Something is making the FCC and USAC confident that the percentage of FRNs approved will be lower than in the recent past. Could it be there were a huge number of requests from 2008-2009 at 87%, and applicants filed contingent FRNs for 2009-2010, and now that 08-09 is approved at 87%, all those contingent requests go away?

Whatever the reason, now that the funding is over the 80% hump, we could see funding run the table, since there is only about $100 million in requests below 80%. Applicants below 80% gave up on applying for Priority Two funding years ago. Or in some cases, districts dropped some schools from their request in order to get the discount above 80%.

Why did I ever doubt Mel?

CIPA update coming, but when?

eSchoolNews has an article about the new CIPA requirements. For those who don't know already, Congress passed a law a ways back requiring student Internet safety training. (How could you not know about it? For months, some companies selling such training have been implying that districts which aren't doing such training now are going to lose funding.)

Well, the FCC finally released an NPRM about it. The NPRM says that the new certification will be on the Form 486 for 2010. I don't think the FCC is being realistic about the timing of this.

First of all, the NPRM says, "the next opportunity for applicants to certify CIPA requirements, including this certification, would be on the FCC Form 486 for funding year 2009." Huh? That deadline was a couple of weeks ago.

Next, let's take a look at the timeline. OK, the NPRM has been released, but I did a quick search of the Federal Register, and couldn't find it published there. So let's say it's published today. The FCC has to wait 45 days for comments. That's January 1, 2010. Now the FCC has to review all the comments, finalize the rules, and approve them. I don't think that's going to happen in a month, but let's be optimistic and say it's released in February. Now the Form 486 has to be amended. Let's be optimistic and say that USAC has already made the changes, and has the form ready in February. Doesn't a change in a federal form have to be approved by the OMB? I know the last change to the 486 was, and I know it took several months. Let's be optimistic and say it only takes 3 months. That's June.

So with my wildly optimistic timeline, the FCC manages to slide the form in by July. Now they're going to have to give districts some time to implement this change, so we'll get another weird multiple choice thing like the current CIPA certification where you can just intend to comply for a couple of years before you comply.

Why not just have the new certification start July 2011?

My Comeuppance

I have in the past complained about the use "eRate" instead of "E-Rate." But today it was pointed out to me by some E-mpa® colleagues the the FCC uses "E-rate."

My first reaction: that's just wrong. It's a proper name and should be capitalized. We don't say "Universal service fund Schools & libraries program."

Second reaction: surely it hasn't always been this way. Well, I've looked back, and it seems it always was this way. (Actually, I found a 1999 announcement from Chairman Kennard that uses "e-rate," which is just aberrant.)

How unpleasant to be be corrected after my self-righteous correction of others.

I'm still not sure I can bring myself to write "E-rate." It may be time for me to consider moving to a new profession. Or maybe I can start using the catchy USFS&LP.

Bloody Wednesday

Well, for a while there I thought it was going to be nothing but denials. The FCC released 9 appeals decisions today, and I read 5 denials before I came to an appeal granted. Final score: 6 denied (covering 15 applicants), 3 granted (covering 3 applicants).

Most of it was fairly run of the mill: don't post a Form 470, you're denied; when the Eligible Services list says dark fiber is ineligible, it means dark fiber is ineligible.

Some decisions that at least clarified things:

1. Eagle Hill: Dormitories are not eligible locations, even if some instruction takes place there.
2. Eagle Hill: Head Start is not eligible unless state law says it's elementary education.
3. Keyport: Prior to 2005, the FCC didn't have document retention requirements, so applicants "had no obligation to produce documentation that it would not normally maintain for other purchases, particularly where the state law did not require Keyport to seek competitive bids."

No time for a detailed reading: it's BEAR season.

Mel’s palantir

OK, so I’m done with a full day of USAC training, and I’m ashamed to admit it was kind of fun. Kind of.

SPOILER ALERT: If you’re going to attend one of the trainings, there will be fewer surprises if you read further. And without surprises, it is harder to remain conscious through some of the sessions.

I found the nuts & bolts sessions somewhat informative, though I heard “case by case” too often. For a long time, I bought the argument that USAC can approve more funding if they have more wiggle room by not locking down the rules. But now I’d rather have more specific rules. Because it’s a drag for applicants when they can’t get funding because of some rule that they can see, but the bigger bummer is having funding denied because of some unknown rule or procedure. Even worse is having funding granted, then taken back, and that almost always happens because the rules are unclear. (Oh, wait, no, the rules are clear, but applicants disregard them.)

The most interesting session, as usual, was Mel Blackwell’s, mostly because he gets to make predictions.

The only prediction that had a guaranteed timeline was that the Round 4 audits will not until the filing window is closed. I asked in a different session if the Announcement Letters (which start the clock for supplying documents) will come out before the end of the window, and the answer was “no comment.” So I guess we can assume that Round 4 will start right after the window, with some Announcement Letters coming out before the end of the window.

Perhaps even better news (which came from Mel, but during the “Audit Response” session) is that the Round 4 audits will not be attestation audits. Mel promised that the audits will be less painful, and more proportional to the amount of funding involved.

Mel also talked about shortening the window. He had a great graph showing that almost all 471s are filed in the last 7 days. So why keep a 50-day window? I’m OK with that if they want to start the window in mid-March and end it in May. But if we’re talking moving the end of the window earlier, I’m against that.

Mel also talked about the upgrade in USAC’s computer systems. He promised several improvements, but said we’ll see “a few for 2010, more for 2011.” Among the improvements he said he expected:

1. Online Item 21 Attachments will be available to service providers.
2. Applicants will have a “copy my app” tool, allowing us to copy and revise previous year’s 471, instead of having to start from scratch.
3. Online applications will do more data validation, making it harder for us to make mistakes.
4. USAC will set up a data portal to improve our access to USAC data.

Mel’s last big prediction: The denial threshold for 2009 will be below 80%, “in the 70% area.” I think he’s wrong, but I think just having him say it creates downward pressure on the denial threshold. Yesterday I heard another E-Rate veteran predict that we’ll never see 80% again, and I’d have to say that I think that’s more likely. (For the jargon-impaired, the “denial threshold” is the discount level below which Priority 2 funding will not be available.)