E-Rate Replies Urge Prudence, Flexibility, More Data Gathering

The FCC should refrain from setting one-size-fits-all requirements for the E-rate program, and use its limited E-rate funds responsibly instead of simply aiming to double the fund’s size, parties said in reply comments.

Everyone agrees on the need to modernize the E-rate program, but “meeting those needs cannot be reduced to setting arbitrary speed thresholds,” said TechFreedom and the International Center for Law and Economics. The record doesn’t support imposing any kind of speed requirement or even target because no one has demonstrated that such targets will benefit students more than other potential uses of limited resources, they said. “Essentially, school districts and systems across the country are singing the same tune, but in different octaves: ‘We aren’t sure that arbitrary broadband speed targets are going to fit our needs; instead, we need flexibility to direct funding to meet our particular telecommunications needs.’ The FCC should listen."

"Before rushing ahead to initiate significant reforms to the E-rate program, the Commission should gather data on the needs of schools and libraries as to their broadband connectivity needs,” said the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association and the Western Telecommunications Alliance (http://bit.ly/17k1hJ5). Such a data-driven approach is essential to getting the most “bang-for-the-buck,” they said. The commission should “resist calls to use limited E-rate funds for the construction and maintenance of duplicative” or “unnecessary community or education fiber networks,” they said. They pointed to the “unfortunate tendency” of some commenters to “prescribe an economically inefficient” solution to a “perceived lack of broadband service.” In reality, the private sector and other federal programs “stand ready to serve."

Proposals for schools and libraries using E-rate funds to become network operators --building, owning and maintaining their own fiber networks or wireless community hotspots -- are “both contrary to law and bad policy,” USTelecom said. Not only do they lack the technical expertise to perform the functions in a cost-effective manner, but E-rate as a matter of law cannot be used for this purpose, the association of ILECs said: Section 254 of the Communications Act authorizes E-rate support for telecom and additional “services,” but school-run networks designed to provide telecom “do not meet the definition of services eligible for support,” it said, quoting a 1997 report by the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service. Supporting wireless community hotspots would be costly, USTelecom said. It’s “very different than allowing schools to open their doors to offer community access to e-rate supported services when classes are not in session,” the association said. “Congress did not intend E-rate funding to be used for non-educational pursuits by the broader community."

"The Commission should collect data on school and library bandwidth usage before making major changes to the E-rate program,” CenturyLink said, urging the commission not to set arbitrary speed targets. “Enhancing connectivity is a fine goal, but the Commission should not dictate particular bandwidth, service technology, or target dates.” Windstream objected to the State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance proposal that Connect America Fund support be leveraged to defray broadband installation costs to schools and libraries. “E-Rate and CAF are distinct support mechanisms with different goals."

Simply “doubling the fund,” as many suggest (CD Sept 17 p5), is “irresponsible and avoids the policy debate and efficiency discussion the Commission intends,” said the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association. Before even considering that, the commission should “take a big-picture, analytical approach” that would see an overall reform of the USF, WISPA said. Simply increasing the fund would likely require an increased USF contribution rate, which “could disproportionately impact minorities and low-income communities because of their rate of consumption of mobile services.” WISPA also cautioned against granting preferential treatment to fiber over other technologies. “In many cases, fiber is not the most economical option for broadband."

The Fiber to the Home Council took a different view. “All-fiber optic connectivity is essential to achieve the goals of the E-rate modernization initiative,” it said (http://bit.ly/17k5mgd). It’s more scalable, cost-effective and future-proof than other technologies, said the association, whose stated purpose is to “accelerate deployment of all fiber” networks.