Another funding solution

There is general (though not universal) consensus that the E-Rate is underfunded, especially if it's going to fund ConnectED.  But so far, I haven't heard how we're going to pay for it.  Some have proposed raiding the Low Income program.  Others have mentioned charging cell phone users an extra $12.  Neither of those solutions generates the pile of cash we need.

But maybe there is another solution.  Today everyone who put their email address on a Form 470 for FY 2013-2014 got an email from a gentleman named Barrett (who has an Italian email address), that if they would contact "Dr.fred," whose name is "Dr.frank yago," at either his French email address or Benin telephone number, they can pick up a package worth $1.2 million at the local airport.

So an international coalition has solved the E-Rate funding crunch.  $1.2 million for every applicant!

Or could it be that the email addresses from those forms has reached the phishers already?  It took a year for the 2012 Form 470 info to be put into a phishing attack, but this year it took only 5 months.  This program is getting more efficient all the time.


[Tip for spammers: "Yago" is a bad name choice.  For those of us over 40, Iago is perhaps Shakespeare's vilest villain.  For the younger, Iago is that parrot from Aladdin with Gilbert Gottfried's voice, which is the second most annoying voice in cartoons (Martin Short single-handedly almost ruins Treasure Planet).  Those of us over 40 with children have both of those negative associations.  No way am I going to contact someone named Yago.]

Docket in my pocket

For those of you who, like me, have been submitting comments and/or appeals to the FCC for years, but don't read FCC orders too carefully, take note: the new NPRM has its own Docket Number.  Since time immemorial (OK, since 2002) all appeals, NPRM comments, and anything else related to the E-Rate have been submitted to Docket No. 02-6.  Not so this NPRM: comments should be submitted to Docket No. 13-184.  I'm all for that, as long as they still review comments mistakenly submitted under the familiar docket.

Of course this sent me off on a useless tangent.  Just how many docket numbers have there been in the history of the FCC?  I couldn't find a listing, and the Search for Proceedings tool chokes at 10,000, but I dug a little deeper and found there are currently 2,611 dockets open, and about 12,400 closed dockets.

Sure seems like the E-Rate isn't getting its share of dockets.  OK, so we got Docket No. 10-222 when the application for the LOGO (née EDU2011) program was announced, and that 96-45 docket sometimes shows up on E-Rate documents, but even counting those, the E-Rate has less than 0.12% of all open dockets, and less than 0.02% of all dockets.  At least the FCC has finally taken the first step to remedy that deficiency.

The Life of O'Rielly

Well, it's official: we have a new nominee for the last remaining empty slot on the Commission: Mike O'Rielly.  I can't find any writings by O'Rielly or his employers about the E-Rate, so I don't have an opinion about him yet.  He's a former Senate staffer, so his confirmation should be easy, which is good, because for some reason, Chairman Wheeler's confirmation won't happen until a Republican can be confirmed.  Maybe in September?

One positive note: I would posit that E-rate⇒O'rielly, therefore O'Rielly⇒E-Rate.  I think we can count on another vote for the Big R.

Today's NPRM chuckle

Are they channeling Yogi Berra over at the FCC now?  Check out this phrase from paragraph 33 of the NPRM:
"schools that use broadband connections less because the speeds available are too slow for use of educational software"
They've basically paraphrased the great Yogi:
"Nobody goes there anymore. It's too crowded."

If there is only one user, 1.5 Mbps is plenty to run any educational software.  The only reason not to use the software is if the Internet pipe is congested by other users.  (OK, maybe if you're running aDSL and it's oversubscribed or really far from the CO and the software needs a big upstream pipe....)

Unless the FCC is actually talking about latency, which is the amount of time it takes a packets to reach it's goal (and maybe bounce back).  I wouldn't bet on it, though.  While that section of the NPRM does mention latency, the FCC, like most people, consistently uses "speed" and "bandwidth" as synonyms for "throughput."  While "bandwidth" has lately come to mean "data rate" (and many people use it to mean "maximum data rate" in order to contrast it with throughput, which is the actual data rate), you would think that the FCC, which auctions off actual bandwidth (radio frequencies), would use a different term.

And don't get me started on using "broadband" to mean "high-speed," instead of it's real meaning.  I still can't stand to see "broadband Ethernet," because the BASE in your 1000BASE-TX connection means it's a baseband connection, not broadband.  Yeah, yeah, of course the packets hit a broadband circuit eventually, but by then they're not Ethernet packets.

OK, I'm a language curmudgeon, but in the case of technical language, shouldn't we be precise?

WTF happened to WFA?

I was looking at the 2003 recommendations of the Waste, Fraud and Abuse Task Force, and I got to wondering if any of the recommendations had been approved, so I thought I'd like the recommendations and their status.  And, of course, since I'm so opinionated, I'll give my view on whether each recommendation is a good idea.

Recommendation	Good idea?	Status
Lower top discount for Priority Two to 80%	Yes, but it doesn’t go far enough.	Dead? It isn’t mentioned in the Fact Sheet for the current NPRM. I don’t think it’s been part of any reform NPRM since 2004.
Impose a funding ceiling	Yes.	The current NPRM includes a proposal to allocate funding on a per-student basis. Not quite the same as a ceiling, but close.
Simplify forms for small funding requests	Yes.	Dead. The forms just get bigger and bigger.
Require applicants to list services on the Form 470 even if they have a separate RFP	Yes.	Dead.
Align tech plan requirements with other federal agencies	Tech plan requirements are a bad idea.	Pretty much done.
Provide clear policy, procedures, eligible services list, etc. before start of training cycle	Yes. Let’s have a rule book.	Partially done. The ESL has come out before training the past couple of years, but policy changes whenever, and application processing procedures are secret.
Develop guidelines on generally reasonable cost and functionality	Develop and publish guidelines.	Dead. Well, USAC has developed secret bright lines for reasonable cost and functionality, but the Task Force clearly wasn’t thinking of Cost-Effectiveness denials.
Disallow transfer of equipment during its service life.	Yes, with one exception.	Implemented, sort of.
Establish and publicize reasonable standards for warranties and other maintenance	Yes.	Established, but not publicized. The standards are part of the kafkaesque Cost-Effectiveness Review process.
Publicize the eligible services information that is provided to PIA reviewers	Yes.	Dead.
Create an “eligible services team” within PIA	Yes.	Who knows? PIA is a black box. We don’t know who works there or what they do.
Give specific guidance on service provider assistance with technology planning and procurement	Yes.	Nope. The guidance has gotten better, but just last month the FCC overruled its own decision on service provider involvement, so the rules are not clear.
Deny only FRNs with procurement or contract problems, not an entire 471.	Yes.	Implemented.
Standardize Item 21 attachments	Yes.	The online Item 21 Attachments kind of comes close, but it's so kludgy that a lot of applicants don't use it.
Increase resources to provide info and guidance: More workshops National webcast  Email alerts Make a FAQ Provide more info using the web	Yes to all.	This kind of communication has gotten better.  USAC even opened a division for it. Implemented Nope The weekly News Brief The News Brief kind of addresses this Implemented
Publicize best practices, bad practices and success stories	Yes.	The HATS program was pretty good for the positive aspects.  The problem is that no one can keep track of all the ways to screw up.
Consultant registration and disclosure	Yes.	Consultants are required to register, but are not required to disclose conflicts of interest or co-sign forms.
Strengthen review process for SPIN and ETP registrations	Yes.	Dead.
Allow applicants to see service provider invoices for Internal Connections	Yes.	Implemented, though I'll bet most applicants don't know they have this option.  Most IC invoices trigger a Service Certification, so applicants are forced to review invoices.
Prevent applicants from filing without authorization of central authority	I guess.	Dead.  I don't see this as much a problem any more.
Audit based on rules as they existed at the time of funding	Yes.	Not really the practice, because we often don't know if FCC decisions are rule changes, or rule clarifications.
Tiered audit results	Yes.	Audits are much milder now, but there were a couple of tiers.
Simplify service substitutions; create safe harbor, allow applicants to spend more	Yes.	Service substitutions have been very quick for the most part, and applicants are allowed to increase the cost of a project (but can't increase funding).
Streamline process for combined SPIN change/service substitution	Yes.	This is going to be a rarity thanks to the heinous change in SPIN change rules.  But it used to go pretty smoothly.
Reduce application review for small requests	Yes.	Dead.
Publicize criteria for invoice review	Yes.	No chance.  Another secret.
Reduce invoice review for small amounts	Yes.	Dead.
Notify applicants of systemic errors at USAC and expedite appeals	Yes.	I can't think of a recent systemic error, but USAC has been very good about quickly correcting their errors on appeal.  The FCC has been good, but not quick.
Give applicants and service providers more info on application status	Yes.	The Application Status tool is a big step forward.  It would be nice to get more info on what is snagging specific 471s.
Exempt Good Samaritans from COMADs	Yes.	Implemented.  Since Good Samaritan disbursements are always going to be BEARs, USAC is always going to COMAD the applicant.
Give automatic service delivery extensions for FCDLS after Jan. 1, not March 1	Yes.	Dead.

Boy, that WFA Task Force had some good ideas.  My rough count has 14 out of 32 recommendations implemented.  That's also better than I expected.

Three little dots

I didn't see anything striking in the comments that Commissioners Pai and Rosenworcel made on the occasion of the new NPRM.  And Commissioner Clyburn's comments didn't get into the specifics of the NPRM at all.  But one thing in Commissioner Pai's statement did prompt a sardonic laugh.

In his argument supporting the idea of funding internal connections instead of voice services, he says:

Congress itself demanded as much when it instructed that the E-Rate program be focused on providing “advanced . . . services” to schools and libraries.

That ellipsis made me laugh.  You may be thinking, "What clause could be in there that is so long-winded that it would force the Commissioner to use an ellipsis?"  But I knew the law well enough to know that the Commissioner used the ellipsis not for brevity, but to obscure a troublesome word.

What Congress actually said in 47 U.S.C. § 254(b)(6) was:

Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services as described in subsection (h) of this section.

See, it's that troublesome word "telecommunications" that Commissioner Pai didn't want you to see.  Wireless access points are great tools for connecting you to the Internet, but the Internet is not a "telecommunications service."

Let's see what subsection (h) says:

All telecommunications carriers serving a geographic area shall, upon a bona fide request for any of its services that are within the definition of universal service under subsection (c)(3) of this section, provide such services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties. The discount shall be an amount that the Commission, with respect to interstate services, and the States, with respect to intrastate services, determine is appropriate and necessary to ensure affordable access to and use of such services by such entities. A telecommunications carrier providing service under this paragraph shall—

(i) have an amount equal to the amount of the discount treated as an offset to its obligation to contribute to the mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service, or

(ii) notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (e) of this section, receive reimbursement utilizing the support mechanisms to preserve and advance universal service.

 Since the purpose of the program is to provide access to telecommunications services, not information services, it seems to me to be a little tough to say that wireless access points should have a higher priority than voice services.  So in Commissioner Pai's place, I would use the ellipsis, too.

Three NPRMs in one

We still don't have the NPRM, but the FCC's fact sheet about it is better than me commenting based on my teleconference notes, so let's take a stroll through it.

The first thing I notice: there is nothing about increasing the size of the fund.  I think everybody was expecting to see something about how we need more money.  But I guess the FCC can jack up the contribution factor without public comment.

The document is broken down into three goals: broadband capacity, cost-effective purchasing and streamlined administration.  I don't see why the 3 should be rolled into one NPRM, but fine.  The program hasn't been roiled since the Sixth Report and Order, so it's high time the FCC confused applicants again.

I know you're dying to hear my opinion, so I'll go point by point.

Broadband capacity
This is the only one mandated by President Obama, and the only one that is an actual initiative.  There are five suggestions listed here:

1. Simplifying fiber deployments.  Cool.  Does this mean getting rid of the weird rules that say you can get funding for fiber on the pole, and fiber on school property, but the cost to pull fiber from the pole to school property is only eligible for lit fiber, not dark fiber?  Also, the administration seems to be thinking that ConnectED can be paid for with a temporary funding surge.  If so, they should allow applicants to pay installation costs without amortizing.  And in the interest of enhancing competition, allow applicants to consider building out dark fiber (currently, you can pay to build out lit fiber, but the dark fiber already has to be lying there).
2. Prioritizing fiber is OK, but are they saying that for remote areas, more cost-effective microwave circuits are to be deprecated?  I don't know of anywhere that broadband over power lines is offered, but should we really being prioritizing one transport medium?
3. Phasing out support for paging and directory assistance.  Wait, we're not talking about phasing out voice entirely?  Commissioner Pai specifically calls for eliminating voice, and Commissioner Rosenworcel calls for phasing down $600 million in "outdated services," which must mean voice.  If we're really just talking pagers and 411, don't bother; schools are already phasing out pagers, and directory assistance is so tiny that phasing it out is not worth the cost of figuring out the cost allocation.  I've already said that voice and video should get the heave-ho.
4. Ensuring Wi-Fi networks for all schools and libraries.  That's OK with me, but are we saying that schools that prefer gigabit to each device are wrong?  1 Gbps requires cabling.  (Yeah, yeah, 802.11ac will get you 1.3 Gbps, but unless the architecture is dramatically different that the rest of 802.11, we're talking well under a gig in actual throughput, and that's going to be shared among all the devices hitting that access points; put 20 chromebooks in a classroom, and they're each getting maybe 40 Mbps.  And all the chromebooks and iPads already out there don't have 802.11ac capability, and so access points are going to have to step down to pokey old 802.11n.)
5. Per-student funding.  What is this doing under broadband capability?  How is funding allocation tied to bandwidth?  Anyway, I've already given my opinion on per-student funding.

Cost-effective purchasing

The FCC had to rush out this NPRM on ConnectED, so why muddle it up with this dreck?  Again, five proposals:

1. Increase consortium purchasing.  Don't bother.  Consortia are a mess, and I don't see a way to clean them up under E-Rate rules.  I'm in favor of simplifying consortium rules, but I don't see a way to do it without scrapping the current competitive bidding rules (which would be a good idea).  One tip to encourage consortia, don't limit conortia's ability to negotiate telecom rates.  And every attempt by the FCC to improve the purchasing process just makes things worse.
2. More bulk buying and price transparency.  How are they going to encourage bulk buying?  I'm in favor of purchasing cooperatives, but coops are more about administrative convenience than cost-effectiveness.  And, of course, every attempt by the FCC to improve the purchasing process just makes things worse.  What is "price transparency"?  Is that where the service provider says, "Here is the price I'm offering you, and here is my Lowest Corresponding Price"?  That would be good.
3. Increased transparency on spending.  Yes!  Free the Item 21 Attachments!
4. Improve competitive bidding.  Uh oh.  Every attempt by the FCC to improve the purchasing process just makes things worse.  The FCC could improve competitive bidding by getting their noses out of local purchasing decisions.
5. "[A] pilot program to incentivize and test more cost-effective purchasing practices." Since the FCC doesn't seem to have realized that every attempt they make to improve the purchasing process just makes things worse, I am not sanguine about their ability to properly evaluate the outcomes of a pilot program.  If they want to pilot the FCC butting out of the purchasing process, I'd be for that, but otherwise, please stop having people who are not experts in purchasing technology in charge of making up rules for purchasing technology, or we'll end up with more crap like the 2-in-5 Rule, On-Premise Priority One Equipment, bundling rules, unbundled warranty rules, etc.

Streamlined administration

Again, nothing to do with ConnectED, but at least I kind of like these suggestions.  Did someone decide that each area had to have 5 suggestions?

1. Speeding application review.  Great.  How about starting application review?  This year has been abysmally slow on applications going into review, except for slam-dunk apps, which sailed through with no visible review (which is good).  The typical funding request involves $3,000 being transferred from the feds to a local government body.  How much review do we really need?
2. Streamline online application and require online application.  Don't require, just streamline.  If you build a good enough online app, no one will want to file on paper.  Oh, here's a suggestion: don't take the online BEAR offline just as BEAR season starts.
3. Increase transparency of USAC process.  Oh, I'm all for that.  Start with the 700 pages of secret rules.  Follow up with a video showing us what a PIA reviewer does all day.  Give us access to the screens that PIA is looking at for our applications.
4. Simplify the Eligible Services List; make disbursements more efficient.  Why are these in the same bullet point, much less the same sentence?  I'm all for a simpler ESL, but let's do it by simplifying eligibility rules, not obscuring eligibility rules.  All the rules concerning eligibility should be in the ESL, including rules on WANs and On-Premise Priority One Equipment and cost allocation and the whole mess.  If it's not in the ESL, it's not a rule.  Once it's a 200-page compendium, the impetus to simplify rules will be quite strong.  Removing a rule from the ESL is not simplifying; removing a rule from the program is simplifying.  By "more efficient ways to disburse E-rate funds," I hope they mean BEAR checks directly from USAC to applicants.  Everyone wants that, except USAC, who will be stuck sending out tens of thousands of checks instead of thousands of electronic payments.  Or maybe applicants could take electronic payments?
5. Streamline appeals process.  That should be "accelerate processing of appeals."  I don't know what goes on inside the FCC when an appeal is filed, but I've always had the perception that it gets assigned to someone, and that person tries to find time to deal with it among a sea of other responsibilities.  I think the FCC should adopt my "appeals decided in 90 days, or your appeal is granted" plan.  Complex problems demand bold and irresponsible action!

Other

Some other stuff that the FCC is thinking about, but didn't want to cram into one of the above categories.

1. Does CIPA apply to devices not owned by the applicant which connect to the applicant network?  What about applicant devices connected to other networks?  Worthy questions which should be answered.  The answers could be concise and clear.  Unfortunately, the right answers are not consistent with the way the CIPA law was written.
2. Adjusting to new NSLP rules.  The USDA created the Community Eligibility Option (CEO), which allows schools with at least 40% of kids "Identified" to agree to provide free breakfast and lunch to all students, and not distribute NSLP vouchers for 4 years.  The problem is that the criteria for  "Identified Student" included non-income-based criteria.  I say allow schools to use either Identified Students or students who meet income eligibility standards.
3. Additional measure to prevent WFA.  I'm all for preventing WFA.  Top on my list of preventative measures: lower the top discount rate to 65%.
4. Wireless community hotspots.  99% of libraries already provide this.  That's enough.  And if a school wants to have outdoor Wi-Fi, there is no rule against it.  Let's not create a new rule to make eligible something that's already eligible.  If the FCC is talking about putting hotspots somewhere not on school property, I say, "Hell, no!"  What would stop towns from having municipal Wi-Fi funded by the E-Rate?  I think municipal Wi-Fi is wonderful, but it is well outside what E-Rate should fund.

I'm eager to see the actual NPRM, but I'm not holding my breath.