Blog Hygiene

No E-Rate content in this post.

I just wanted to let you know that I've made a housekeeping change in this blog. When I'm reading something on the Web and come to a hyperlink, I almost always want the link to open in a new tab on my browser, so I can keep reading and look at the hyperlink later. And I write my blog assuming that readers are doing the same thing.

So I've finally figured out how to make my blog automatically open a new tab when you click on a link. Don't be alarmed when you click on a link and a new tab opens up. Click here to see how links work now. As an added bonus, when you click you'll get to see the Web site of the greatest E-Rate consulting firm on Earth. (And I don't want to hear any whining from other E-Rate consulting firms that think they're the greatest; my Mom says On-Tech is the best, and you'd better not disagree with my Mom.)

I wish I could make the new tab open behind the current window, to avoid interrupting the flow of my splendid prose, but that is beyond my poor HTML skills.

I've read that people hate sites that pop open new tabs, but that's just too bad. I like it, and since this blog exists to amuse me, new tabs it is.

Is Joe Barton Megamind?

Just yesterday as I drove along listening to the jibber-jabber about our government hurtling towards default, and what it would mean, I breathed a sigh of relief that the Universal Service Fund is not part of the budget. So I think even a complete government shutdown wouldn't stop the E-Rate. At least not for a while.

I've described before the plot to kill the E-Rate by bringing it into the US budget, then bleeding it dry. That plan died when the Republicans lost control of the government. Well, they're back. At first it looked like they would join the movement to expand the E-Rate, which I'm afraid may be the E-Rate's undoing. But I was feeling quite safe.

Then this morning I read this: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor has floated the idea of taking $1 billion from the USF to help pay down the debt. But wait, other Republicans are riding to the USF's defense, led by Rep. Joe Barton. Could you hear my jaw dropping? I've been dissing Joe "Bleed It Dry" Barton ever since he said that he wanted to kill the E-Rate by underfunding it. Now Barton is saying, "...while I think the fund needs to be reduced, I am against using the money collected for anything other than its intended purpose."

It's like the plot of Megamind come to life. Suddenly, the villain is a hero. Well, except for that "the fund needs to be reduced" part.

Equivalent <> identical

Today's shake of the head goes to Edline's comments on the ESL. Here's what got my head moving:

" Given the finding of functional equivalence in the Sixth Report and Order, e-mail service and web hosting service should not be separated in different sections of the ESL but should, instead, be contained in the same section, in one “function” category. Such a result will, to the greatest extent possible, ensure that disparate treatment of these functionally equivalent services does not occur now, or in the future."

Um, well, what the FCC said in paragraph 101 of the Sixth Report & Order was:

"We recognize that the transfer of messages across a school’s hosted website is functionally equivalent to other services that facilitate the ability to communicate such as e-mail, text messaging, voice mail, and paging."

So if Web hosting should be in the same "function" category as e-mail, shouldn't text messaging, voice mail and paging be lumped in there, too? Oh wait, they're all telecom services. So I guess "functionally equivalent" doesn't mean "functionally identical." And it doesn't mean that they should all be treated identically.

And looking more closely at the FCC's order, it doesn't say that Web hosting is functionally equivalent to e-mail. It says that activity like blogging is functionally equivalent. So only part of Web hosting is functionally equivalent.

I can understand why a Web hosting company would want to get lumped in with e-mail: many in the E-Rate community have come out in favor of dumping Web hosting from eligibility, and lashing themselves to a more popular service like e-mail is a good defense. And Edline was using the functionally equivalent argument to try to further stretch the definition of Web hosting.

FCC rocks

Man, I love it when lawyers submit appeals to the FCC.

When school and library employees post, they're basically saying, "We're really sorry, but in your great wisdom and mercy, please grant us our humble request. For the children."

But when the lawyers write appeals, they say things like, "An Order not based on substantial evidence and states mere conjecture … without substantial evidence is arbitrary, capricious, not in accordance with law, unwarranted by the facts. an abuse of discretion and is reversible." (Here's the whole appeal.)

I guess they don't teach the "get more flies with honey" philosophy in law school.

And in a nod to Dave Barry, I will note that "Abuse of Discretion" would be a great name for a rock band.

Hidden rule

So I was reading through the instructions for the Form 471 (looking in vain for definitions of the terms "district" and "consortium") when I came across this nugget:

"In addition, if you are a consortium that includes non-governmental entities ineligible for universal service support, you should note that you cannot negotiate pre-discount prices below tariff rates for interstate services from incumbent local telephone companies."

Huh?

OK, first off, I'm always whining about the secret rules, but this is a prime example of a hidden rule. I mean, you have a rule about when you're allowed to negotiate rates , and the best place to put it is the instructions for the Form 471 in the section on how to fill out Item 5a (where you say if you're a school, library, district or consortium)? Let's assume the ridiculous, and say that applicants could read all the rules. Even so, the Form 471 is completed after rates are negotiated, so it would be reasonable for applicants to read the instructions for that form after rates are negotiated.

Second, the rule is weird. So if my consortium has non-governmental entities eligible for support, or governmental entities not eligible for support, I'm still OK to negotiate a better rate, but if one of the entities is both non-governmental and not eligible for E-Rate, then I have to take the tariff rate? And if I go with a competitive local exchange carrier instead of an incumbent, I can negotiate a lower rate? For a rule to be so odd, there must be some hairy FCC politics behind it.

My ESL comments

The FCC has announced the comment period for the changes to the 2012 ESL (if you don't know that ESL stands for Eligible Services List, count your blessings and skip the rest of this post). The draft ESL is here.

OK, so here are the changes (in bold), and my initial reaction (not bold):

1. Funds are allocated according to rules of Priority: Yawn
2. Any telecommunications service is eligible, but all other services are eligible only if specifically listed: The second clause is good, but saying that "any telecommunications service" is going to cause confusion. Because for Joe Lunchbox, anything that appears on a phone bill is a "telecommunications service." Better to say "any service that meets the definition of 'telecommunications service' under 47 CFR blahblahblah."
3. Services funded under the “Learning on the Go” program satisfy the requirement that services must be used for an “educational purpose.”: Redundant clarification is OK with me, even if it only pertains to 20 out of the thousands of applicants. But I am sad that the "Education Deployed Ubiquitously" name for the program is gone. I loved that name.
4. Removed rationale for included Interconnected VoIP: Yawn
5. Moved everything out of "Other Eligible Telecommunications Services" into other areas: Seems fine to me.
6. Updated entry for dark and lit fiber: The clarification is pretty brief, given all the confusion, but it makes very clear that the E-Rate will pay for the construction of a lit fiber network, but not for the construction of a dark fiber network.
7. Replaced and updated the description of eligible Internet Access service: Boy, the new definition sure makes Web hosting stick out like a sore thumb. It does help to clarify the "basic conduit" concept. But they really need to clarify what they mean by "billing management, introductory information content, and navigational systems."
8. Moved "Distance Learning and Video Conferencing" eligibility info: OK, but no matter what the FCC does, some videoconferencing company is going to discover the E-Rate, skim the ESL, and come to the conclusion that their product is eligible, and stir up confusion with their advertising. It happens every year.
9. Deleted "Internet-based" from the "E-mail Service" description: OK, but I'd like to see a clear statement on whether electronic messaging needs to reach the Internet in order to be eligible. For example, does "e-mail" include closed messaging systems that only allows students to contact teachers?
10. Satellite Internet service can be eligible: Fine. Most new Internet access contracts I've been seeing are Internet over Ethernet, so why not have that on the list?
11. Firewall service can only be provided by ISP, and cannot be separately priced: I'd rather have them say that firewall service is not eligible, but can sometimes be included as an Ancillary Use.
12. Mobile hotspots only eligible if on-campus and not duplicative: Sounds OK to me.
13. Changed "Other Eligible Internet Access Services" to "Internet-Related Services": I like the new name better.
14. Lit or dark fiber can be requested as Internet access: I don't understand how lit fiber is not a telecommunications service, but I'm not an FCC lawyer.
15. Changed the Web hosting description: They just made it eligible for school districts to offer a panoply of services to students and parents: file storage, blogging, webmail, messaging. And the new definition does nothing to dissuade the vendors of Web-enabled applications (like student management or grading) from trying to say that some of their service is eligible.
16. Revised description of ineligible Web hosting services, moved it to "ineligible" section: Oh wait, here is some more clarification. I sure hope everyone else finds it, now that it's in a separate section. So they took away file storage, but providing webmail for parents is still eligible. And the rules here do make it more difficult for Web-enabled application vendors to shoehorn their products into Web hosting.
17. Password-protected pages for staff not eligible: OK, but it says that such password protection is ineligible if they give staff access "access ineligible tools." That implies two things: 1) pages that are only available to staff are eligible if they access eligible tools, and 2) password-protected pages that give access to ineligible tools are still eligible if they are available to students or parents.
18. Firewall components are eligible in "Data Protection" and "Servers": In my book, a firewall is not a server, but it doesn't matter.
19. Clarified which software is not eligible: Fine.
20. Moved info on ineligibility of antennas: OK, but I like the idea of keeping the info on ineligibility next to the info on eligibility, rather than putting them on different pages.
21. Restrictions on remote access: Inconsequential.
22. Smartphones and tablets not eligible: Good.
23. BMIC can be cost-allocated, and on-site service is eligible only if cost-effective: The change is fine, but the original language is a problem: when the FCC says "on-site service," they mean "paying for service provider staff to be on the client premises full time." Whereas the rest of the world thinks that "on-site services" means service that takes place on site, like a switch breaks and you call someone to come out and fix it, which the FCC calls "off-site." So in FCCspeak, "off-site service" is generally performed on site. I think the ESL should talk about "duty station" instead of "on-site"/"off-site."
24. BMIC reimbursed based on actual work performed: BMIC takes the crown for Most Unclear Eligibility, which is saying something, given how murky the eligibility is for Web hosting and dark fiber. The ESL is not better than the Sixth Report & Order and the subsequent clarifying orders and FAQs. It says you can only be reimbursed for actual work performed, but in fact you can get funding for CiscoBase, which is paid for whether work is done or not.
25. "clarified the entry for the Miscellaneous category that 'Miscellaneous' services and products related to services requested in the Telecommunications category should be requested (via FCC Form 471) in the Telecommunications Services or Internet Access category, depending upon the nature of the service provider": And there is my laugh for the day. Because I'm an E-Rate expert, and I have no idea what that clarification means. OK, looking at the draft ESL, I see what they're trying to say. "Nature of the service provider" really means "whether the Service Provider files a Form 499." I know some applicants will not know what a Form 499, but let's be honest that if they don't know whether their service provider is filing that form, they can't know the right way to apply. Let's not try to make the rules appear simpler than they actually are. (Instead, make the rules simpler. Why is there still a separate Internet Access category?)
26. Contingency fees will be reimbursed based on actual work performed: I don't understand how this will work. Does this mean that contingency fees will be approved for funding, and then applicants will have to do a service substitution to convert the contingency into an actual service? I'm thinking all my projects are going to have contingency fees from now on, so we can cover unforeseen expenses.
27. Dark fiber doesn't need a tech plan and is not duplicative if appropriate: Seems to be saying that it is not duplicative to have multiple T-1s and dark fiber linking two sites. I'm not sure that was the intention.
28. All special eligibility conditions for WANs in one entry: If only it were true. The rules for WANs, like the rules for everything else, are splattered across the ESL, the USAC Web site, FCC orders and USAC PowerPoint slides.
29. Added definitions for "failover" and "enhanced multimedia interface": Repeating the definition of "failover" in the definitions section is fine. I would have gone the other way and taken the jargon out, but there are reasons to keep it in. Adding a new definition for a technology on its way out, like ATM, seems unnecessary, so I wouldn't have added "enhanced multimedia interface," but it doesn't do any harm.

To Have or Not to Have

I'm feeling a little dissonance this morning. Back in October, the FCC released the Keyport Order, which said of Keyport's 2004 application:

"the Commission’s rules in effect at the time ... required each entity to maintain, for their purchases of telecommunications and other supported services, 'the kind of procurement records that they maintain for other purchases.' [The applicant], therefore, had no obligation to produce documentation that it would not normally maintain for other purchases."

In last week's Central Islip decision, the FCC said of Central Islip's 2002 application:

"...there is no documentation, i.e., a bid evaluation sheet or bid comparison, showing how the bids were evaluated, scored, or ranked. Thus, we are unable to determine whether Central Islip selected the most cost effective service offering. The absence of this information leads us to conclude that Central Islip failed to demonstrate that its competitive bidding process complied with program rules because it could not show that it conducted a competitive bidding process."

Why the difference? I suppose it could be that the FCC is saying that Central Islip was required by state law to maintain the records, whereas Keyport was not. That might be true, but I'm not so sure. It looks to me like maybe Central Islip bought off state contract, so it wouldn't be required to maintain the records that the FCC wanted to see.