Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of )
)
Federal-State Joint Board ) CC Docket No. 96-45
on Universal Service )
)
To the Commission:
JOINT COMMENTS OF
EDUCATION AND LIBRARY NETWORKS COALITION
Summary
The Education and Library Networks Coalition ("EDLINC"),
a coalition of groups representing public and private schools
and libraries, urges the Commission to establish a standard of
service and a discount methodology for schools and libraries that
will fulfill the intent of Congress by delivering the full benefit
of advanced telecommunications to schools and libraries everywhere
in the country at affordable prices. The recommendations of the
Federal/State Joint Board on Universal Service establish an excellent
framework for meeting that goal, and the Commission should seek
to build on the Joint Board's success.
In particular, we strongly support the key elements of the Joint
Board's recommendations, including the following points. First,
we concur with the Joint Board's recognition that the level of
pre-discount prices is critical to achieving affordability. Second,
we believe that adopting the recommendation for a stepped discount
of between 20% and 90% is also critical to meeting the goal of
affordability. Third, inclusion of internal connections is vital
to ensuring that schools and libraries are able to take full advantage
of the discounts on other telecommunications services. Fourth,
Internet access should be eligible for discounts because we believe
that all telecommunications services should be available to schools
and libraries at discounted rates. And finally, flexibility in
the services and functionalities available to schools and libraries
and provisions encouraging the establishment of consortia will
ensure that all schools and libraries will have the opportunity
to obtain the full range of services they need at the best possible
prices. We believe that these recommendations will be of enormous
benefit in ensuring that schools and libraries in every part of
the nation are able to accomplish their educational missions into
the next century.
Some outstanding details, however, must still be addressed to
ensure that the recommended framework is truly effective. EDLINC
believes that these details can be addressed in a minimally burdensome
manner. For instance, EDLINC believes that the Commission must
clarify and further develop a number of the Joint Board's recommendations.
The concept of the "lowest corresponding price" -- meaning
the lowest price charged to similarly-situated customers -- may
establish affordable rates for schools and libraries, but it is
currently only vaguely defined. For example, it is not clear what
is meant by a "similarly situated customer." EDLINC
believes that the term should be defined broadly, to ensure that
the pre-discount price is low enough to guarantee affordable rates.
EDLINC also generally supports the method recommended by the
Joint Board for determining the discounted price, but notes that
additional clarification of the details of the proposal will be
required. For example, school lunch program participation data
may need to be adjusted or supplemented to account for entities
that do not participate in the program, undercounting in rural
areas, and other factors. The high cost discount also appears
to be inadequate in its present form.
We also urge the Commission to ensure that the standards for
determining whether a bona fide request has been made are not
unduly burdensome, to permit the granting of waivers of the prohibition
on resale when the end user will use the services for educational
purposes, and to clarify that discounts may be taken off negotiated
contract rates if those rates are lower than the lowest corresponding
price. EDLINC believes that the fund administrator should be a
neutral third party, but one that has been informed on the needs
of schools and libraries. Therefore, we recommend that the fund
administrator include representatives of the school and library
community.
Finally, the Commission should take into account the possibility
that anomalous cases -- such as states with extremely high average
costs or populous states that form state-wide consortia -- may
absorb disproportionately large amounts of funding, leaving little
left under the $2.25 billion cap for schools and libraries in
other states.
The Joint Board has made an excellent start, and we urge the
Commission to build on that success.
Table of Contents
Summary
Introduction
I. THE JOINT BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLY WITH THE
MANDATE OF SECTION 254 AND IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED WILL SUPPORT
THE PROVISION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TO SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES
ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY.
II. TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS OF SECTION 254 ARE
ULTIMATELY MET, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CLARIFY AND FURTHER DEVELOP
A NUMBER OF THE JOINT BOARD'S SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
Conclusion.
Before the
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20554
)
In the Matter of )
)
Federal-State Joint Board ) CC Docket No. 96-45
on Universal Service )
)
To the Commission:
Introduction
The Education and Library Network Coalition ("EDLINC")
is a coalition of groups representing public and private schools
and libraries, whose members are identified at Exhibit A.1
EDLINC hereby submits comments in response to the Commission's
Public Notice released November 18, 1996 (the "Request for
Comments"), which requested additional information and comments
on a number of points raised in the Recommended Decision of the
Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service released on November
8, 1996 (the "Joint Board Recommendations").
The Joint Board Recommendations represent a broad, comprehensive
approach to supporting the use of telecommunications services
by schools and libraries and accurately reflect the goals of the
bipartisan Congressional support behind Section 254 of the Communications
Act. The soundness of the Joint Board's work is emphasized by
the fact that its recommendations regarding schools and libraries
were unanimous, despite the complexity of the issues. The Joint
Board is to be commended for its efforts to adhere to the principle
of affordable access established in the law, and congratulated
on its success in implementing Congressional intent in the face
of a maze of competing interests and proposals.
EDLINC strongly endorses the Joint Board Recommendations. We
wish to identify several general points on which we particularly
agree with the Joint Board and to address some of the issues raised
in the Request for Comments. There are also a number of areas
in which we believe further clarification, elaboration or definition
may be required if the Commission is to meet the goals of the
legislation. Failure to address certain points properly may undercut
the Joint Board's excellent work.
I. THE JOINT BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE OF
SECTION 254 AND IF PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED WILL SUPPORT THE PROVISION
OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES TO SCHOOLS AND LIBRARIES ALL ACROSS
THE COUNTRY.
The Joint Board Recommendations accurately reflect the goals
of the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey Amendment. The Joint Board
has provided a mechanism that promises to open access to affordable
telecommunications services to schools and library throughout
the nation. We urge the Commission to retain both the broad framework
of the Joint Board's recommendations, as well as most of the particular
proposals.
For example, the Joint Board has recognized that the level of
pre-discount prices is critical to schools and libraries, because
even very generous discounts may prove inadequate if pre-discount
prices are too high. Basing pre-discount rates on prices charged
to similarly-situated customers can be an effective means of avoiding
this problem, and we support this approach, with some modifications.2
In addition, the Joint Board Recommendations propose a series
of stepped discounts, ranging from 20%-90% below the pre-discount
price. Although EDLINC had proposed a sliding scale for determining
discounts, we support the Joint Board's approach. We also believe
that the wide range of the proposed discounts is essential if
final discounted rates are to be affordable for all schools and
libraries.
We also strongly support the Joint Board's recommendation that
internal connections be eligible for discounts. The Joint Board
correctly notes that installation and maintenance of internal
connections is a service, and, therefore, within the parameters
of Section 254(h)(1)(B) 3. Furthermore,
as we argued before the Joint Board, providing discounts for internal
connections is critical to ensuring the affordability and availability
of services in general. 4
Without internal connections, services cannot be delivered to
classrooms, as contemplated by the legislation, making it impossible
to fully integrate telecommunications into the curriculum. Finally,
including internal connections would advance the principle of
competitive neutrality, by not favoring wireless technologies
over wireline systems.
EDLINC recommended that all commercially available services be
eligible for discounts. 5 Consequently,
we strongly support the Joint Board's recommendation that basic
non-content access to the Internet be eligible for discounts.
Access to electronic mail and the World Wide Web has quickly become
a basic means of transmitting and gathering information and will
only grow in importance. If schools and libraries are not eligible
for discounts on what is fast-becoming a basic element in the
communications network, the purpose of Section 254 will not have
been met. In addition to providing discounts for Internet access,
the Joint Board recommends that the Commission allow schools and
libraries "maximum flexibility to purchase whatever package
of telecommunications services they believe will meet their telecommunications
service needs most effectively and efficiently."6
This is exactly what EDLINC proposed to the Joint Board. Schools
and libraries are in the best position to determine what services
they need and allowing flexibility is the best means of encouraging
schools and libraries to determine the level and type of service
that best suits their requirements. Allowing maximum flexibility
also advances the goal of competitive neutrality because it does
not force users to request inappropriate or unwanted services
in an effort to take advantage of whatever discount might be available.
EDLINC also strongly supports the Joint Boards' proposal to harmonize
the dual federal/state regulatory structure with the legislation's
goal of assuring affordable access to schools and libraries. The
Joint Board has recommended that only states that adopt discount
mechanisms on intrastate services that are at least equal to discounts
on interstate services will be eligible for federal universal
service support for schools and libraries in that state. This
approach strikes an appropriate balance between federal and state
prerogatives: It preserves the regulatory authority of the states
over intrastate services, while offering an attractive incentive
to provide a minimum discount.
Finally, we support the Joint Board Recommendations' treatment
of consortia. EDLINC had called for a broad definition of which
entities would be eligible for discounts, which the Joint Board
did not accept. Nevertheless, the Joint Board Recommendations
do permit schools and libraries to join in consortia with other
customers in their communities subject to certain safeguards.
As the Joint Board noted, to do otherwise "would not be in
the public interest because it would serve to impede schools and
libraries from becoming attractive customers or from benefitting
from efficiencies."7
In short, the Joint Board has carefully considered the needs
of schools and libraries and developed a proposed regulatory structure
that may provide such institutions enormous benefits.8
The Commission should adopt the Joint Board's approach, subject
to the specific comments discussed below.
II. TO ENSURE THAT THE GOALS OF SECTION 254
ARE ULTIMATELY MET, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CLARIFY AND FURTHER
DEVELOP A NUMBER OF THE JOINT BOARD'S SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS.
A. Setting the Pre-discount Price.
In its various filings, EDLINC proposed several methods of setting
what the Joint Board calls the "pre-discount price."9
In particular, we advocated the use of a nationally-based pre-discount
price for two reasons. First, a national benchmark based on rates
in competitive markets would advance the goal of affordability
by offering all schools and libraries the lowest rates possible.
This would ensure that rates are not computed from an artificially
high base and help ensure that the final discounted rate is as
low as possible. Second, a national benchmark would allow establishment
of uniform rates for the same service, thus putting all schools
and libraries on a more equal footing. Although we also called
for additional support for disadvantaged schools and libraries
and for institutions in high cost areas, a national benchmark
would have reduced the need for those additional discounts.
As alternatives to a national benchmark, EDLINC also suggested
using the lowest commercial rate or TSLRIC to set rates. The Joint
Board chose not to rely on TSLRIC, but modified the lowest commercial
rate proposal by recommending that the Commission establish as
the pre-discount price "the lowest price charged to similarly
situated non-residential customers for similar services"
(referred to as the "lowest corresponding price") offered
by a particular carrier. We continue to believe that a national
pre-discount price best meets the needs of schools and libraries
because it offers a means of ensuring that rural areas have access
to services comparable to those available in urban areas, at reasonably
comparable rates, as required by Section 253(b)(3). Although the
Joint Board's "lowest corresponding price" mechanism
may ultimately reach the goal of Section 253(b)(3), in its present
form that approach has several limitations and will require further
clarification and modification to meet our concerns.
The fundamental problem with the lowest corresponding price approach
is that it bases prices on the rates set by individual carriers
in particular geographic regions. This means that prices are likely
to vary significantly from place to place throughout the country.
Aside from concerns about equity, this approach will result in
schools and libraries in rural and other high cost areas paying
higher rates. This point can be addressed through the Joint Board's
proposed high cost subsidy, but the Commission will need to pay
particular attention to that issue to ensure that the resulting
rates are truly affordable for rural schools and libraries.
Our second concern is that the Commission will have to define
more clearly what is meant by "the lowest price charged to
similarly situated nonresidential customers." This term could
be defined very narrowly -- so narrowly, in fact, that it refers
only to rates charged to other schools and libraries. Under such
a narrow definition, providers might be free to establish excessively
high pre-discount rates. Therefore, it must be clear that similarly
situated customers includes eligible and non-eligible entities
alike.
We believe that the pre-discount rates should be set based on
broad criteria, to give schools and libraries the opportunity
to take advantage of the lowest possible rates. This is why we
suggested, and did not qualify, the term "lowest commercially-available"
rates. We understand that the prices ordinarily charged by service
providers may be based on a number of different factors, designed
to ensure a profit after costs are taken into account. A service
provider may, for instance, consider the volume of usage, the
length of a contract, proximity to switching facilities, and other
factors in setting prices. Those considerations should not be
allowed to control prices in the present context, however, because
the purpose of Section 254 is to ensure affordable service for
eligible entities. Instead, the Commission should presume that
if a service provider is willing to offer a rate to any customer,
then that rate is profitable.
If the Commission is not prepared to adopt such a mechanism,
then it must define the term "similarly situated" broadly,
and should still ignore most of the factors used by service providers
in setting rates. For example, because school and library districts
usually include a number of buildings scattered around a geographic
area, the Commission should presume that geographic factors such
as proximity to certain facilities are not relevant. In addition,
because eligible entities will be users over the long term and
do not go out of business, terminate service, or reduce the number
of their installations abruptly, they should be presumed to be
long-term customers. Indeed, we believe that the only valid criterion
for making any distinctions among users is the total volume of
usage of the entity, including all schools or libraries in a district,
or members of a consortium. Thus, the lowest price charged to
a similarly situated non-residential customer should be simply
the lowest price charged to a user of roughly equivalent volume.
Furthermore, if no other such customer is available for comparison,
then the next lowest rate charged to any customer should apply.
Third, we believe that the Joint Board's proposal for addressing
areas in which there is no competition imposes an unreasonable
burden on schools and libraries. Rather than requiring schools
and libraries to seek recourse from the Commission or a state
commission, which is a time-consuming and costly process areas
in which there is no competition should be treated as high cost
areas. If there is no competition in an area, even the price offered
to similarly-situated customers is likely to reflect the lack
of competition and therefore result in a higher discounted price
than would be available to schools and libraries in areas where
there is competition. Just as a service provider's higher costs
may render a rate unaffordable to schools and libraries, so may
a service provider's recovery of monopoly rents.
Finally, we support the Joint Board's conclusion that all telecommunications
carriers serving a geographic area should be required to provide
service at the lowest corresponding price. We also understand
the Joint Board's concern with the possibility of requiring service
providers to serve areas outside their markets. We note, however,
that we anticipate that in most instances schools and libraries
will receive multiple bids in response to requests for proposals,
and will select the lowest qualified bidder.10
Reference to the lowest corresponding price should only be necessary
in two instances: (1) to verify that the offered price is at least
as low as the lowest corresponding price; and (2) in those cases
in which no bids were received, and a provider has been compelled
to provide service at the lowest corresponding price. The definition
of geographic area, on the other hand, is only relevant in the
second case, since in the first instance the service provider
voluntarily submitted a bid.
The definition of geographic area may also be relevant in the
case of a consortium whose geographic extent is large enough that
its members are served by providers in different areas. If the
consortium does not receive any responses to a request for proposals,
some provision must be made for establishing a price and for ensuring
that all members of the consortium are served.
B. Determining the Discount Level.
The Request for Comments requests additional information regarding
methods for identifying high cost areas, and the measures of economic
advantage that may be used for identifying economically disadvantaged
schools and libraries. The measures the Joint Board has suggested
using (unseparated loop costs, and school lunch program participation,
respectively) may prove workable, but we do have a number of concerns
regarding how those criteria are applied.
In addition, the Joint Board Recommendations are unclear in an
important respect. The matrix appearing at paragraph 555 of the
Recommendations establishes a stepped discount based on school
lunch program participation and cost of service. The Recommendations
then proceed, in two separate sections, to discuss "schools
located in high cost areas" (paras. 557-560) and "economically
disadvantaged schools" (paras. 567-570), and suggest that
the Commission request comments on how to define these two types
of discounts. We believe that the Joint Board intended to establish
a single stepped discount that could be based on the school lunch
program and the cost of service, but the document could also be
read as suggesting the same stepped discount, plus separate, additional
discounts for schools and libraries that are in high cost areas
or are economically disadvantaged. The Commission should clarify
whether the discussions at paras. 557-560 and 561-570 are intended
to refer to separate discounts over and above those provided by
applying the matrix in paragraph 555.
- School Lunch Program Participation as General Model for
all Schools.
In the recommendations, school lunch is the criterion upon
which discounts are based. EdLiNC concurs that this can be a
reasonable proxy for affordability in many instances. It is
utilized by a majority of public schools, thereby making it
no more administratively burdensome for those schools to utilize.
We also concur that it is important to ensure that all schools
and libraries should receive a discount that makes services
affordable and that the stepped approach accomplishes this goal.
However, we recognize that there are some circumstances in
which school lunch is not the best indicator of poverty or an
institution's ability to afford services, and that these instances
will need to be addressed. Specifically, some public schools
do not participate, particularly in rural areas where parents
are reluctant to define themselves as impoverished. In addition,
high school students have been historically undercounted and
there may also be undercounting of transient populations. Furthermore,
there are special concerns surrounding the use of school lunch
data in connection with private schools, where almost 80% do
not participate in the program, and libraries.
- Public Schools
With respect to public schools, we believe that these circumstances
can be addressed in the following ways:
- As is stated in the recommendations, we concur with the
Joint Board's proposal that schools or districts that do
not participate in the school lunch program need only certify
the percentage of their students who would be eligible for
the program if the school district did participate. We further
believe that this certification process should be non-burdensome.
We recommend that schools or districts should be allowed
to utilize proxy models in order to determine the number
of students eligible. Many states and schools have already
developed workable and acceptable proxies for extrapolating
a school lunch count, including the proxies currently available
under the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (IASA)11
and the corresponding regulations.12
In addition, another simple proxy could include an examination
of family income by census data, by either county school
district, library service area, or zip code to identify
a count that mirrors school lunch data.
- Public institutions should also be able to extrapolate
from elementary school data (such as sibling count or a
"feeder pattern" count) to rectify undercounting
of high school students.
- Undercounting in rural areas is a known factor. Use of
proxies should take this into consideration. Formulas to
correct for this discrepancy may already be in place in
many states and should be allowed for counting purposes
under the FCC's discount rules.
- Private Schools and Libraries
The school lunch program faces a number of unique difficulties
when applied to private schools and libraries. Specifically,
school lunch does not always adequately measure the issue
of an institution's ability to afford services. However, in
most cases, adequate proxies can be established for private
schools and libraries. While no solution is perfect, we believe
that the following mechanisms offer a minimally burdensome
approximation of affordability.
- If the community served by a private school is similar
to the community served by the public schools in whose district
or attendance area they are located, then the private school
or library should be able to use the same discount as the
public school or district. "Similar to the community
served by the public schools in whose district or attendance
area they are located" means that a private school
draws 60% or more of its students from the public school
district or the public school attendance area in which the
private school is located. This may also be applicable for
some libraries, however, as ALA has noted in its filing,
the poverty factor included in LSTA would be less burdensome
and may provide a more accurate proxy for calculating low
income discounts.
- If the community served by the private school is not similar
to the community served by the public schools in whose district
or attendance area they are located or they do not wish
to use the public schools as a proxy, then a private school
or library could use any of the proxies currently allowable
under IASA [PL 103-382, Title I, Section 1113 (a)(5)] and
the corresponding regulations [CFR, Volume 60, #127, p.
34809, Section 200.21] or a proxy that examines family income
by using current census data by either county, school or
library service area, or zip code to identify a count that
mirrors school lunch data. As noted above, libraries would
be expected to use data derived from that used to calculate
the LSTA poverty factor.
- While schools and libraries would not have to submit the
verification data directly to the FCC, this data should
be available for audit.
- Hardship Appeals Process.
We recognize that no formula will be absolutely perfect and
that there may be circumstances in which a school or library
in great need does not receive an adequate discount. We therefore
recommend that a hardship appeals process be established to
allow eligible entities to request additional discounts (ranging
upwards to the maximum discount of 90%).
- Equalization of High Cost Areas.
We believe that prices in high cost areas should be supported
so that the cost of purchasing telecommunications services in
low cost areas is reasonably comparable to the cost in high
cost areas. Indeed, we believe that Section 253(b)(3) requires
that high cost areas have access and rates reasonably comparable
to those in low cost areas. The incumbent LEC's unbundled loop
costs may be a reasonable proxy for high cost areas, but the
critical issues are the threshold for qualifying for a high
cost discount, and the difference between the amounts of the
discounts for high and low cost areas.
For example, the Joint Board does not explain why it decided
to recommend that areas whose costs are in the top 7% qualify
as high cost, or why it established only three cost categories.
In addition, the maximum difference in the discounts between
high and low-cost areas is only 10%; in other cases, the difference
is only 5% or zero. This implies that prices in high cost areas
are typically no more than 10% higher than in low cost areas.
We doubt that this is the case, and believe that rates vary
by much more. For example, schools in Vancouver, Washington,
pay about $125 per month for a T-1 line, while schools in White
Salmon, Washington, pay $2100 per month for the same service
-- a difference of over 1600%.14
The Joint Board's general approach may be satisfactory, but
the Commission must examine the high cost discount in much more
detail to ensure that rural schools and libraries are able to
obtain rates and services comparable to their urban counterparts.
This also requires considering the question of support for Internet
access in areas that require a toll call. Such Distance-sensitive
charges have been and could continue to be berriers to Internet
access for many schools and libraries.
C. Standards for Bona Fide Requests.
EDLINC has always argued that the standards for determining whether
a bona fide request has been made should be de minimis. School
and library districts, as well as regional and state authorities,
all have procurement procedures to ensure that public funds are
expended only by authorized personnel. The procurement of telecommunications
services is subject to these procedures, and no additional procedures
are really necessary.
Nevertheless, we understand that both the Joint Board and the
telecommunications industry are concerned with the potential for
waste and fraud. These are legitimate concerns, and modest provisions
addressing them may be appropriate. The Commission should ensure,
however, that any requirements that it does adopt are not so burdensome
as to discourage schools and libraries from requesting discounted
services, or susceptible to abuse by entities seeking, for whatever
reason, to interfere with a school or library's procurement of
such services. For example, requiring that schools and libraries
certify that they have a technology plan in place, should not
be a complicated process and service providers and other third
parties should not be involved in the certification or review
processes.
In addition, the Commission should streamline the administrative
procedure and paperwork burden required of schools and libraries
to: (i) place a bona fide request; (i) design and manage a competitive
bid process; (iii) report to the universal service fund administrator;
and develop and maintain accountability records for audit. Such
processes should in no way serve as disincentives for schools
and libraries to gain access to the full discounts for which they
are lawfully eligible, nor should they increase institutional
costs, which would reduce affordability.
Finally, to ensure simplicity and uniformity, we urge the Commission
to develop a short, simple self-certification form addressing
eligibility.
D. Prohibition on Resale.
As noted in the Joint Board Recommendations, EDLINC is among
the parties that have recommended that the statutory prohibition
on resale be limited to resale for profit. We understand the reasons
for which the Joint Board rejected this proposal. Nevertheless,
we believe it would be beneficial for the Commission to make exceptions
for cases in which a user is using discounted services for an
educational purpose. We suggest that eligible entities be permitted
to apply to the Commission or to the fund administrator for waivers
in certain cases. For example, an eligible entity may be engaged
in a joint conducting program or project with an ineligible entity,
although the overall purpose of the program or project is clearly
part of the mission of the eligible entity. In such cases, requiring
accurate proration of use or unbundling of costs may not be practical
or even possible. Furthermore, denying a discount even if proration
or unbundling were possible would essentially limit the scope
of an eligible entity's activities. Waiving the prohibition on
resale in such cases would advance the same goals as the Joint
Board endorsed in its discussion of the importance of encouraging
the growth of consortia.15 Waivers
may also be appropriate even if there is no joint program involved,
if the purchaser of the services is using them for a clearly defined
and segregable educational purpose.
E. Private Contract Rates.
Paragraph 572 of the Joint Board Recommendations appears to state
that schools and libraries that have negotiated rates for service
should be allowed to use those rates as the pre-discount price:
If the Commission permits schools and libraries to use the
best negotiated contract rate for which they can bargain in
the market as the pre-discount price to which a discount would
apply, it would seem reasonable that such discounts would also
apply to contracts negotiated prior to the adoption of rules
under Section 254(h). In both cases, schools and libraries with
budgetary constraints have strong incentives to secure the lowest
rates that they can as the pre-discount price, and the proposed
discount methodology would apply a discount on that pre-discount
rate.
We strongly support this position.16
The sentence immediately following the language quoted above,
however, could be interpreted as implying the opposite when it
recommends that "the Commission not require any schools or
libraries that had secured a low price on service to relinquish
that rate simply to secure a slightly lower price produced by
including a large amount of federal support." We believe
that this sentence means that a school or library should not be
expected to abandon negotiated contract rates to obtain discounted
rates based on prevailing pre-discount rates; instead, schools
and libraries should be able to obtain the larger discounts that
would result from basing the discounted rate on the negotiated
contract rate. The Commission should clarify this point to eliminate
any ambiguity.
F. Fund Administration.
The Joint Board has recommended that the universal service fund
be administered by a neutral third party, and that the National
Exchange Carrier Association ("NECA") be designated
as the temporary administrator. We concur that a neutral third
party should be appointed to administer the fund, but we also
believe that schools and libraries should be fairly represented
in the membership of any body that is appointed as the administrator.
It is critical that schools and libraries have a voice in the
implementation of the Commission's final rules even during the
interim period before a permanent administrator is named. In fact,
such representation during the interim period is particularly
important, since many issues will be addressed that may have lasting
effects. Therefore, we urge the Commission to ensure thatany permanent
or temporary Fund Administrator include equitable representation
from the school and library communities in any matter that relates
to universal service for schools and libraries.
We also believe that the concerns of schools and libraries must
be fairly considered as part of the recommended review process.
We concur that a Joint Board should be appointed no later than
January 1, 2001, to revisit the definition of universal service.
We also believe, however, that the fund administrator or the Joint
Board should conduct periodic reviews at least every four years
to ensure that the purposes of Section 254 regarding access to
and affordability of telecommunications for schools and libraries
continue to be met.
Finally, we urge the Commission to ensure that its final rules
adequately take into account the effects of possible anomalies
that may arise in the administration and distribution of universal
service funding for schools and libraries. For example, it is
conceivable that certain states, through various circumstances,
could be entitled to such large contributions from the universal
service fund that the $2.25 billion cap could be inadequate to
fairly meet the requirements of schools and libraries in other
states. For example, if a populous state, such as New York, were
to aggregate all the demand in the state and certify itself as
a single eligible entity, it might draw off a disproportionately
large amount of support every year. Likewise, Alaska, and perhaps
some other states with large high cost areas, could draw off disproportionately
large sums because of the large difference between their average
costs and those of other states. The Commission should determine
whether other anomalous situations exist, and consider special
methods of ensuring that schools and libraries in such states
receive discounts without harming the interests of schools and
libraries in other parts of the country.
Conclusion
EDLINC urges the Commission to adopt rules ensuring that all
eligible schools and libraries have access to the broadest permissible
range of services, at prices that will deliver the benefits of
advanced telecommunications technology nationwide. The Joint Board's
unanimous recommendations consider the issues of concern to schools
and libraries in great detail and establish a strong and workable
framework for implementing Section 254. Once again, the Joint
Board has performed its task superbly, and the Commission should
seek to build on that success.
Respectfully submitted,
Nicholas P. Miller
William Malone
Matthew C. Ames
MILLER & VAN EATON, P.L.L.C.
1225 Nineteenth Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20036-2420
Telephone: (202) 785-0600
Fax: (202) 785-1234
Attorneys for the Education and Library Network Coalition
December 19, 1996
APPENDIX A -- DESCRIPTION OF EDLINC MEMBERS
EDLINC is a coalition of educational and library groups that
have been working together to provide schools and libraries with
affordable access to telecommunications and to ensure the effective
implementation of the Snowe-Rockefeller-Exon-Kerrey Amendment.
They include the National School Boards Association ("NSBA"),
the American Library Association ("ALA"), including
the American Association of School Librarians, a Division of ALA,
the National Education Association ("NEA"), the Consortium
for School Networking ("CoSN"), the Council of Chief
State School Officers ("CCSSO"), Education Legislative
Services, Inc. ("ELS"), the National Association of
Independent Schools ("NAIS"), the National Association
of Secondary School Principals, the Alliance for Community Media,
the American Association for Adult and Continuing Education, the
Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education, the
National Association of Elementary School Principals, the American
Association of School Administrators, the American Psychological
Association, the Council for American Private Education, the Council
for Educational Development and Research, the Center for Media
Education, the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological and Cognitive
Sciences, the Global Village Schools Institute, the International
Society for Technology in Education, the National Association
of Student Financial Aid Administrators, the National Rural Electric
Cooperative Association, the United States Catholic Conference
and the United States Distance Learning Association.
Footnotes
- Under the name of National School Boards
Assocation et al., this coalition filed comments on April
10, 1996 ("NSBA comments"),
and reply comments on May 7, 1996 ("NSBA
Reply"), in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
and Order Establishing the Joint Board (the "NPRM").
On August 2, 1996, EDLINC also submitted answers to some of
the questions put by the Joint Board in its Public Notice of
July 3, 1996 ("EDLINC Comments").
- Joint
Board Recommendations at para. 535.
- Id.
at para. 474.
- NSBA Comments
at 7-8.
- NSBA Reply
at 18-20; EDLINC Comments
at 8-10.
- Joint
Board Recommendations at para. 458.
- Joint
Board Recommendations at para. 596.
- We urge the Commission to take special care
to ensure that its rules apply to the correct definitions of
"elementary school," "secondary school,"
and "library." As noted in the separate comments
of the American Library Association, the Library Services
and Technology Act (the "LSTA") amends the Communications
Act to revise the definition of "library" and to make
certain other changes. The Joint Board Recommendations, however,
refer to the prior definition, which has now been superseded.
The Commission should also clarify that the definitions of "elementary
school" and "secondary school," which are imported
from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 ("ESEA"),
incorporate any amendments to those definitions contained in
amendments to the ESEA or the Improving America's Schools Act
of 1994. These definitions should be conformed to any subsequent
legislation as well.
- NSBA Comments
at 19-21; NSBA Reply at 118-22;
EDLINC Comments at 26-34.
- As we stated in the NSBA Reply
at 23, schools and libraries should be free to reject low bidders
on grounds permitted by local procurement rules, such as past
record of poor performance.
- Pub. L. 103-382, Title I, Section 1113(a)(5)
.
- 34 C.F.R. sec. 200.21.
- Id..
- Survey conducted by the American Association
of School Administrators, August 1996.
- See Joint
Board Recommendations at para. 596.
- NSBA Comments
at 19-20; EDLINC Comments
at 34-35.
- See NSBA
Comments at 17.
