E-Rate

Last updated

E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and internet access. It is one of four support programs funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

Contents

Function

The Schools and Libraries Program supports connectivity – the conduit or pipeline for communications using telecommunications services and/or the internet. Funding is requested under four categories of service: telecommunications services, internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections. Discounts for support depend on the level of poverty and the urban/rural status of the population served and range from 20% to 90% of the costs of eligible services. Eligible schools, school districts and libraries may apply individually or as part of a consortium.

Applicants must provide additional resources including end-user equipment (e.g., computers, telephones, etc.), software, professional development, and the other elements that are necessary to utilize the connectivity funded by the Schools and Libraries Program.

Impact

Yearly requests for E-Rate funding almost triple the FCC's $2.25 billion limit. [1] : 7  At the beginning of 2005, over 100,000 schools had participated in the program. [2] : 58  In 2003, nearly half of the funding went to schools where more than half of the students receive reduced price lunches. [3] : 5 

Broadly, US Department of Education's nationally representative surveys show that between 1994 and 1999, internet access in public schools rose from 35% to 95%, and access in classrooms rose from 3% to 63%. [4] : 5 

Some studies have suggested that the E-rate program has had a positive impact on schools. A 2006 case study performed by the Benton Foundation found that E-Rate funding had a direct impact on classroom internet connectivity in four cities. [5] An evaluation of E-Rate in California by Goolsbee and Guryan showed a 68% increase in classroom connectivity per teacher but could not identify any impact on student achievement. [6] A study concluded in 2005 by a University of Texas student under the supervision of economics professor Mike Ward, using regression analysis, showed the E-Rate program in Texas school districts to have positive effect on factors like test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates. [7]

Structure

The Schools and Libraries portion of the Universal Service Fund, more widely known as E-Rate, was authorized as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 254. The act called for universal service, meaning that everyone should have access to advanced telecommunications services at reasonable rates regardless of their location. Two measures were included to advance this goal specifically for libraries and schools. Telecommunications providers were ordered to supply their services to schools and libraries at discounted rates determined by the FCC. [8] More generally, the FCC was directed to establish rules "to enhance... access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers, and libraries". [8] The FCC was given the authority to establish and periodically evaluate what services qualified for support under both measures according to four broad criteria. [8] Funding was to be provided by contributions from telecommunications providers through an unspecified but "equitable and nondiscriminatory" mechanism. [8]

Implementation

On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted Order 97-157 as its plan to implement section 254 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The FCC determined that "telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections", including "installation and maintenance", were eligible for discounted rates. [9] : 255  Internal connections were defined as "essential element[s] in the transmission of information within the school or library". [9] : 459  The level of discount that a school or library received would vary from 20% to 90% depending on the cost of services and level of poverty as measured by the percentage of students eligible for the national school lunch program. [9] : 498  The total amount of money to be disbursed was capped at 2.25 billion or 15%. [9] : 425 

The FCC designed the application process to promote cost effective and accountable solutions. As a part of their applications, schools and libraries were required to conduct an assessment of their current technology resources and explain how they utilize them for their educational mission. This assessment had to be certified by an outside organization, preferably the state government. Schools and libraries were required to select vendors through a competitive bidding process publicized through a national website. Record-keeping requirements were instituted to facilitate audits. [9] : 572–581 

The FCC decided to fund E-Rate through the same pool of money collected for other Universal Service Fund, or USF, programs. [9] : 584  The new language in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the pool of companies required to contribute. The expanded pool included all companies that provided interstate telecommunications service to the public for a fee. [9] : 777  As of 1998, around 3500 companies contributed to the USF. [10] : 19  A company's contribution to the USF is based on its interstate and intrastate revenues from sales to end users. [9] : 843  Companies submit revenue projections, from which the contribution factor is determined and then assessed. This process takes place on a quarterly basis (How the USF Works). In order to preserve low-cost local phone service, companies are only permitted to increase interstate revenues to recoup their USF contribution costs. [9] : 843 

The National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) managed the existing universal service fund, and in their initial authorizing order the FCC directed the NECA to temporarily administer E-Rate as well. [11] : 42  When the NECA was unable to agree on how to restructure its Board of Directors to reduce the influence of incumbent local exchange carriers, it instead proposed creation of a subsidiary, the Universal Service Administrative Company, with a board composed of representatives from telecommunications providers and the USF recipient groups. [11] : 33  In Order 97-253 the FCC agreed to this proposal. [11] : 12  The FCC also directed NECA to create two unaffiliated corporations to manage the schools and libraries and rural health care programs. [11] : 26  However, Senator Ted Stevens and the House Committee on Commerce soon inquired whether this violated the Government Corporation Control Act. The Government Accountability Office concluded that it did, and an amendment was added to s.1768 that required the FCC to restructure USF administration. [12] : 5  In response, the two new corporations were terminated and their responsibilities shifted to two new divisions within USAC. [13] : 2 

Modernization

On July 23, 2014, the FCC adopted a broad overhaul of the E-rate program, named the E-Rate Modernization order. The order focused on expanding subsidies for Wi-Fi to a target of $1 billion a year. [14] The move followed a month after a request for reform by president Barack Obama, [15] who had advocated reform of the program during his presidential candidacy in 2007. [16] The move was embraced by many in the telecommunications industry, including Comcast, Cisco, and PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association. [17] The reform was also lauded by the American Library Association. [18]

In November 2014, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed the first increase in the E-rate budget, an increase of $1.5 billion. [19] In December 2014, the FCC approved the increase by a vote of 3–2, raising the total budget from 2.4 to 3.9 billion. [20] [21]

Criticism

Funding structure

In addition to the incorporation scandal, E-Rate faced legal challenges from eleven states and six telecommunications companies. These were consolidated in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC. [22] The chief state complaint was unrelated to E-Rate, but a company complaint about the method of contribution was relevant. [23] Since the USF fee collection is mandated by the federal government, the CBO and OMB consider the fees collected to be federal revenues and the money disbursed for discounts to be federal outlays. [10] : viii  However, only the United States House of Representatives is constitutionally permitted to introduce revenue-generating measures. Also, the power to establish user fees may be delegated to executive agencies, but the power to tax may not. [24] The court found that the FCC's collection of USF fees did not violate the constitution. [25] : III, 5, a, i, a 

Some members of congress objected to the level and method of funding provided by the FCC to E-Rate. They viewed the inclusion of internal connections and $2.25 billion budget as excessive and a drain on resources needed to achieve other aspects of universal service. Two such members, Representative Tauzin and Senator Burns, proposed unsuccessful legislation in the 106th Congress to end E-Rate and replace it by a block grant program administered by the Commerce Department. Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced that keep E-Rate but change the funding mechanism to avoid a direct impact on local phone service. [1] : 5–7 

In 2002, a report on Universal Service Fund from the FCC's Office of Inspector General found that E-Rate had a "lack of resources for effective oversight", "inadequate competitive bidding requirements", and "no suspension or disbarment process" for schools, libraries, or companies with a history of fraud. Random audits conducted by the OIG led to criminal investigations. [26] : 3–6  In response, congress requested a Government Accountability Office report on the health of E-Rate and planned hearings on the matter.

The GAO found serious fault with the unusual organizational structure of E-Rate. USAC was not operating under federal fiscal accountability standards. Also, the GAO decried the lack of performance measures for evaluating the impact of E-Rate funds. [2] : 4–5  The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations held four hearings into misuse of E-Rate funds. The subcommittee found a multitude of irregularities: purchases were being made with fraudulent documentation and without competitive bidding; inadequate strategic technology plans were accepted and led to unused, wasted resources; and no protections were in place to prevent gold plating ("procurement of technology goods and services far beyond reasonable school district needs and resources") and many other forms of abuse. [27] : 2–3 

Fraud and waste

Critics point to many cases of fraud and wastefulness in the E-rate program. Examples include $101 million in equipment which was used for nine schools in Puerto Rico, a $73 million network in Atlanta which never went through a bidding process, and a $21 million settlement from the NEC for fraud and price rigging. [28]

In 2009, a division of AT&T settled $8.2 million in lawsuits alleging violations of the bidding process, as well as using E-rate to cover ineligible services. [29] In September 2010, the FCC tightened restrictions on gifts given to school personnel by telecommunications companies for the E-rate program. [30] In November 2010, Hewlett-Packard settled a lawsuit for $16.25 million concerning contractors illegally giving gifts to school officials in exchange for contracts on E-rate funded equipment. [31] The HP lawsuits were part of a larger investigation of the Texas E-rate program by the US Department of Justice which included smaller settlements from Houston Independent School District, Dallas Independent School District, and a businessman. [32]

In 2013, an investigation by a Jewish newspaper found that Haredi Jewish schools in New York City received millions in E-rate funding, despite their practice of rejecting modern technology. [33]

In July 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the False Claims Act could not be used to prosecute fraud in the E-rate program, because the program was not funded by federal money. [34]

Overcharging schools

Under the E-rate program rules, service providers are not allowed to charge schools more than the "Lowest Corresponding Price", meaning that companies cannot charge schools more than they charge other non-residential users for service. [35] However, providers such as AT&T and Verizon sometimes charge 325% or 200% of the price charged to others in the same area. [36]

In order to enforce equal pricing, the Universal Service Administrative Company adopted the "Payment Quality Assurance" auditing program, to ensure the program's rules are followed. [35] Under the auditing program, false statements of the Lowest Corresponding Price were prosecuted under the False Claims Act. However, the fifth circuit ruled that E-rate was outside the scope of the False Claims Act, forcing the Universal Service Administrative Company to find other legal justification for the pricing enforcement. [35]

Filtering requirements

The Children's Internet Protection Act, passed in the year 2000, stipulates that in order to receive E-rate funding, schools and libraries are required to block or filter internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors). [37]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet service provider</span> Organization that provides access to the Internet

An Internet service provider (ISP) is an organization that provides services for accessing, using, managing, or participating in the Internet. ISPs can be organized in various forms, such as commercial, community-owned, non-profit, or otherwise privately owned.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Telecommunications Act of 1996</span> 1996 U.S. legislation overhauling telecommunications regulations and laws

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a United States federal law enacted by the 104th United States Congress on January 3, 1996, and signed into law on February 8, 1996 by President Bill Clinton. It primarily amended Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code. The act was the first significant overhaul of United States telecommunications law in more than sixty years, amending the Communications Act of 1934, and represented a major change in that law, because it was the first time that the Internet was added to American regulation of broadcasting and telephony.

Universal service is an economic, legal and business term used mostly in regulated industries, referring to the practice of providing a baseline level of services to every resident of a country. An example of this concept is found in the US Telecommunications Act of 1996, whose goals are:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Children's Internet Protection Act</span> United States federal law

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) is one of a number of bills that the United States Congress proposed to limit children's exposure to pornography and explicit content online.

Municipal broadband is broadband Internet access offered by public entities. Services are often provided either fully or partially by local governments to residents within certain areas or jurisdictions. Common connection technologies include unlicensed wireless, licensed wireless, and fiber-optic cable. Many cities that previously deployed Wi-Fi based solutions, like Comcast and Charter Spectrum, are switching to municipal broadband. Municipal fiber-to-the-home networks are becoming more prominent because of increased demand for modern audio and video applications, which are increasing bandwidth requirements by 40% per year. The purpose of municipal broadband is to provide internet access to those who cannot afford internet from internet service providers and local governments are increasingly investing in said services for their communities.

The Universal Service Fund (USF) is a system of telecommunications subsidies and fees managed by the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) intended to promote universal access to telecommunications services in the United States. The FCC established the fund in 1997 in compliance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The FCC is a government agency that implements and enforces telecommunications regulations across the U.S. and its territories. The Universal Service Fund's budget ranges from $5–8 billion per year depending on the needs of the telecommunications providers. These needs include the cost to maintain the hardware needed for their services and the services themselves. The total 2019 proposed budget for the USF was $8.4 billion. The budget is revised quarterly allowing the service providers to accurately estimate their costs. As of 2019, roughly 60% of the USF budget was put towards “high-cost” areas, 19% went to libraries and schools, 13% was for low income areas, and 8% was for rural health care. In 2019 the rate for the USF budget was 24.4% of a telecom company's interstate and international end-user revenues.

In the United States, net neutrality, the principle that Internet service providers (ISPs) treat all data on the Internet the same, and not discriminate, has been an issue of contention between network users and access providers since the 1990s. With net neutrality, ISPs may not intentionally block, slow down, or charge money for specific online content. Without net neutrality, ISPs may prioritize certain types of traffic, meter others, or potentially block traffic from specific services, while charging consumers for various tiers of service.

In the United States, internet censorship is the suppression of information published or viewed on the Internet in the United States. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech and expression against federal, state, and local government censorship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Internet in the United States</span> Overview of the Internet in the United States of America

The Internet in the United States grew out of the ARPANET, a network sponsored by the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the U.S. Department of Defense during the 1960s. The Internet in the United States in turn provided the foundation for the worldwide Internet of today.

Rural Internet describes the characteristics of Internet service in rural areas, which are settled places outside towns and cities. Inhabitants live in villages, hamlets, on farms and in other isolated houses. Mountains and other terrain can impede rural Internet access.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Julius Genachowski</span> American lawyer and businessman

Julius Genachowski is an American lawyer and businessman. He became the Federal Communications Commission Chairman on June 29, 2009. On March 22, 2013, he announced he would be leaving the FCC in the coming weeks. On January 6, 2014, it was announced that Genachowski had joined The Carlyle Group.

Traffic pumping, also known as access stimulation, is a controversial practice by which some local exchange telephone carriers in rural areas of the United States inflate the volume of incoming calls to their networks, and profit from the greatly increased intercarrier compensation fees to which they are entitled by the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan is a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plan to improve Internet access in the United States. The FCC was directed to create the plan by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and unveiled its plan on March 16, 2010.

Broadband universal service, also known as "universal service obligation" (USO) or "universal broadband service", refers to government efforts to ensure all citizens have access to the internet. Universal voice service obligations have been expanded to include broadband service obligations in Switzerland, Finland, Spain and the UK.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ajit Pai</span> American attorney and former FCC chairman (born 1973)

Ajit Varadaraj Pai is an American lawyer who served as chairman of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) from 2017 to 2021. He has been a partner at the private-equity firm Searchlight Capital since April 2021.

<i>Verizon Communications Inc. v. FCC</i> (2014)

Verizon Communications Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, 740 F.3d 623, was a case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacating portions of the FCC Open Internet Order of 2010, which the court determined could only be applied to common carriers and not to Internet service providers. The case was initiated by Verizon, which would have been subjected to the proposed FCC rules, though they had not yet gone into effect. The case has been regarded as an important precedent on whether the FCC can regulate network neutrality.

ConnectEd is a United States Federal Government Initiative that aims to increase internet connectivity and technology in all public schools to enhance learning. The ConnectEd initiative is funded through Title IV Part A of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which designates specific monies for the effective use of technology in schools. The 2016 National Education Technology Plan aligns with ConnectEd as a published action plan to meet these goals of technology integration and connectivity.

Lifeline is the Federal Communications Commission's program, established in 1985, intended to make communications services more affordable for low-income consumers. Lifeline provides subscribers a discount on monthly telephone service purchased from participating providers in the marketplace. Subscribers can also purchase discounted broadband internet from participating providers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Affordable Connectivity Program</span> United States government-sponsored program

The Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is a United States government-sponsored program that aims to provide wireless internet for low-income households. Several companies have signed on to participate in the program, including Verizon Communications, Frontier Communications, T-Mobile, Spectrum, Cox, AT&T, Xfinity, Optimum and Comcast. The program is administered by the Federal Communications Commission. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provides $14.2 billion in funding for $30 subsidies for those with low incomes, and $75 subsidies on tribal lands.

<i>Consumers Research v. Federal Communications Commission</i> Court case

Consumers' Research v. Federal Communications Commission, No. 21-3886 (2023), was a court ruling at the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, on a challenge by consumer advocates against the Federal Communications Commission's Universal Service Fund program. The ruling was one of several at various American courts brought by the same litigants; the Sixth Circuit was the first to rule that the funding program does not violate the United States Constitution.

References

  1. 1 2 Angela A. Gilroy (2003). "Telecommunications Discounts for Schools and Libraries: The "E-Rate" Program and Controversies" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 18, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  2. 1 2 "Greater Involvement Needed by the FCC in the management and Oversight of the E-Rate Program" (PDF). General Accounting Office. February 2005.
  3. ↑ Charmaine Jackson (March 9, 2004). "The E-Rate Program: Universal Service Fund Telecommunications Discounts for Schools" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 14, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  4. ↑ James B. Steadman; Patricia Osorio-O'Dea (2001). "E-Rate for Schools: Background on Telecommunications Discounts Through the Universal Service Fund" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 9, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  5. ↑ Andy Carvin (February 2000). "The E-Rate in America: A Tale of Four Cities" (PDF). Benton Foundation. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  6. ↑ Goolsbee, Austan; Guryan, Jonathan (August 2002). "The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools" (PDF). Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  7. ↑ Michael R. Ward (March 2006). "The Effects of the E-Rate Internet Subsidies in Education". Social Science Research Network. SSRN   940092.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. 1 2 3 4 Section 254 of the "Telecommunications Act of 1996" (PDF). 1996.
  9. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 "Report & Order In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service". Federal Communications Commission. May 7, 1997.
  10. 1 2 Philip Webre (1998). "Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health Care Providers" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office.
  11. 1 2 3 4 "Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration". Federal Communications Commission. July 17, 1997.
  12. ↑ "FCC lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs" (PDF). General Accounting Office. March 31, 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
  13. ↑ Federal Communications Commission. Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 97-21. FCC 98-306. November 20, 1998.
  14. ↑ Dennis Pierce (July 11, 2014). "FCC takes key step toward modernizing eRate". eSchool News. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  15. ↑ Alina Selyukh (July 19, 2013). "U.S. FCC moves to reform E-Rate subsidy for Internet at schools". Reuters. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  16. ↑ Michael Arrington (November 26, 2007). "Q&A With Senator Barack Obama On Key Technology Issues". Tech Crunch. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  17. ↑ John Eggerton (July 11, 2014). "Comcast Applauds FCC E-Rate Reform". MultiChannelNews. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  18. ↑ Press Release (December 11, 2014). "FCC E-rate action expands broadband opportunities for libraries". American Library Association. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  19. ↑ Edward Wyatt (November 17, 2014). "F.C.C. Chief Aims to Bolster Internet for Schools". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  20. ↑ Jim Puzzanghera (December 11, 2014). "FCC increases funding to boost Internet speeds at schools, libraries". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 22, 2014.
  21. ↑ Edward Wyatt (December 11, 2014). "F.C.C. Increases Money for E-Rate Program for Internet in Schools and Libraries". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  22. ↑ before the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th District
  23. ↑ "Letter to Senator Ted Stevens" (PDF). General Accounting Office. May 7, 1998.
  24. ↑ "Background and Present Law Relating to Funding Mechanisms of the "E-Rate" Telecommunications Program". Joint Committee on Taxation. July 31, 1998. Archived from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
  25. ↑ "Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC". US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. July 30, 1999.
  26. ↑ Federal Communications Commission. Office of Inspector General Memorandum. October 31, 2002.
  27. ↑ "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns with the E-Rate Program" (PDF). House Committee on Energy and Commerce. November 2005.
  28. ↑ Randy Dotinga (June 17, 2004). "Fraud charges cloud plan for 'wired' classrooms". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  29. ↑ Donald Melanson (February 16, 2009). "AT&T pays out $8.2 million settlement over school E-Rate program". Engadget. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  30. ↑ Nick Shipley (November 3, 2010). "How to make sense of the new eRate gift rules". eSchool News. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  31. ↑ Edward Wyatt (November 10, 2010). "H.P. to Pay $16 Million to Settle Suits". The New York Times. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  32. ↑ John Eggerton (August 6, 2013). "DOJ Gets Another Settlement in Texas E-Rate Investigation". MultiChannel News. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  33. ↑ Julie Wiener; Hella Winston (February 22, 2013). "E-rate Program Dogged By Concerns". The Jewish Week. Archived from the original on December 23, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  34. ↑ Connie N Bertram; Rachel S Fischer (July 14, 2014). "Fifth Circuit: False Claims Act (FCA) Inapplicable to Claims Involving Private Funds Administered by Government-Created Programs". National Law Review. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  35. 1 2 3 Jeff Belkin (July 29, 2014). "USAC's E-Rate Bark Just Lost Some of Its Bite". The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  36. ↑ Jeff Gerth (May 1, 2012). "AT&T, Feds Neglect Low-Price Mandate Designed to Help Schools". ProPublica. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  37. ↑ "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)". May 5, 2011.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.