craig j. nichols, secretary. e-rate 2.0: reforming e-rate for a new digital era bridget duff state...
TRANSCRIPT
Craig J. Nichols, Secretary
E-Rate 2.0: Reforming E-Rate for a New Digital Era
Bridget DuffState E-Rate Coordinator
Division of Telecommunications, DMS
Overview of E-Rate Program
Began January 1998
Eligible K-12 schools and libraries receive discounts of 20% - 90% on eligible:
• Priority 1: ConnectivityTelecommunicationsInternet Access
• Priority 2: Internal Infrastructure Internal Connections IC Maintenance
Overview of E-Rate Program
Funding Year: July 1- June 30Annual Process
• Procurement: Form 470 - Competitive Bidding, Eligible Services & Vendors, Vendor Selection, Contracts• Application: Form 471 – Category of Service, Discount
Calculation, Cost Allocation, P1 vs. P2• Review: Response to PIA, Documentation • Invoicing: SPI vs. BEAR
Procurement Application Review Decision Invoicing $$$
History of E-rate Reform
March 2010: National
Broadband Plan
Released
December 2010: FCC Adopts
Significant E-rate
Reforms
June 2013: President Obama
Announces ConnectED
July 2013: FCC releases
E-rate 2.0 NPRM
5
National Broadband Plan
March 2010, the National Broadband Plan (NBBP) was released by the FCC.
http://www.broadband.gov/plan
376 pages: set broad national broadband goals for education, government, consumers, homeland security, health care, and energy.
Education section Twelve E-rate recommendations, most of which are in E-
rate 2.0 NPRM.
6
September 2010: FCC released Sixth Report & Order
Allowed applicants to lease fiber from any provider (not just telecommunications carriers)
Allowed applicants to lease existing dark fiber
Allowed community to use E-rate eligible services after hours – on school campus
Allowed E-rate funded services to be provided to most K-12 dorms
Created one year pilot program that provided funding for off-campus wireless connectivity through mobile devices
Allowed for annual inflation adjustment to E-rate funding cap (FY 2013: $2.25B + $130M=$2.38B)
Eliminated tech plan requirement for Priority 1 services
Interim E-rate Reforms
7
ConnectED
June 2013: President Obama introduced the ConnectED initiative: Within 5 years, connect 99% of schools to 100 mbps, with a target of 1
Gbps Provide high-speed wireless connectivity within all schools and
libraries
Called on the FCC to make this happen. FCC can change E-rate without Congressional approval
8
E-rate 2.0 NPRM July 2013: FCC released E-rate 2.0 Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) Massive document containing 175 pages 616 questions and 357 ideas on which comments were requested
NPRM divided into six categoriesI. Introduction II. Goals and Measures III. Ensuring schools and libraries have affordable access to 21st century broadband that supports digital learning IV. Maximizing the cost-effectiveness of E-rate funds V. Streamlining the administration of the program VI. Other outstanding issues
9
E-rate 2.0 NPRM General Seventeen major issues/topics being considered.
FCC seeking feedback from the applicant/vendor community
Some of the topics are actual proposals; others are issues for which they are seeking comments– Requests for data
Initial comments were due September 16; reply comments due October 16
FCC reads all comments; especially fond of real world school and library submissions
10
Treat Lit and Dark Fiber Equally FCC proposes to treat lit and dark fiber more consistently by
making modulating electronics and special construction charges eligible as part of dark fiber (as it now does for lit fiber)Asks many questions related to fiber deployment:
What are barriers to fiber deployment? Should E-rate support the purchase of WANs if it’s more cost
effective than leasing? Should one-time installation costs receive a higher discount? Can the FCC do anything to reduce recurring costs over time by
altering any of its policies? Should Eligible Services List be amended to include additional
equipment that is needed for broadband connectivity within buildings?
11
Make Broadband Priority One
2011 FCC survey data indicates that 80% of applicants surveyed said they did not have sufficient bandwidth
FCC proposes to update E-rate priorities so that high-capacity broadband and the associated equipment needed to disseminate that broadband to and within buildings becomes Priority One
All other services would become Priority Two or phased out altogether What different or additional services should be considered eligible such
as filtering, caching and network security services, etc?
12
Revise Eligible Services List
FCC proposes to phase out support for a number of specific services including: • Paging• wireless text messaging• directory assistance• custom calling features• inside wiring maintenance plans• call blocking• 800 number services.
When should such changes be made? FY 2014?
13
CIPAFCC seeks comment on several CIPA related questions,
including:
• Are laptops, netbooks with Internet access, smartphones, and Internet enabled e-readers considered computers that must comply with CIPA?
• Are personally owned devices that are not owned by schools and libraries required to be CIPA compliant when used on-campus?
• Are school-owned devices used off campus and used with outside networks required to be CIPA compliant?
14
Establish Connectivity Goals
The State Education Technology Directors Association (SETDA) has set the following goals:• INTERNET connectivity goal of 100 Mb per 1000 users by
2014 (increasing to 1 Gb per 1000 users by 2017)• WAN connectivity goal of 10 Gb per 1000 users by 2017
Should the FCC adopt these goals? Are these targets appropriate for all schools? How are schools’ bandwidth needs changing, particularly in those
schools that have one-to-one initiatives? What should the goals be for schools that have very few students? How should the FCC measure and monitor progress to such goals? Should applicants have to install monitoring equipment to identify
how much bandwidth they are actually using?
15
Streamline E-rate
FCC proposes several options for streamlining the administration of the E-rate program, including: • Requiring all forms and USAC correspondence to be
submitted/sent electronically • Providing more detailed and comprehensive funding statuses
throughout the application process • Speeding review of applications and issuance of commitment
decisions (asks commenters to explain problems they have had during PIA review process)
• Removing distinction between telecommunications services and Internet access
• More effectively identifying and capturing unused funds (why do funds go unused and how can USAC identify and de-obligate those funds more quickly?)
• Streamlining the E-rate appeals review process 16
Change Funding Distribution
FCC seeks comment on four major options for revising the distribution of E-rate funds:
I. Revising the discount matrix to increase certain applicants’ matching requirements through a phase-in process
What should the maximum E-rate discount be? 70%? 75%? Should all of the discount bands be adjusted downward by a certain
percentage? Should the discount matrix be abandoned in lieu of a discount
calculated as NSLP percentage plus 20% (urban) or 25% (rural)?
17
Change Funding Distribution
FCC seeks comment on four major options for revising the distribution of E-rate funds:
II. Incorporating a per-student or per-building cap on funding into the discount matrix.
What would those caps be? Should they apply to both Priority 1 and Priority 2 funding? Should installation fees be excluded from the calculation? Should there be a di minimus amount funding available? How would consortia apply using a per-student cap?
18
Change Funding Distribution
FCC seeks comment on four major options for revising the distribution of E-rate funds:
III. Providing more equitable access to Priority 2 funding How can the FCC ensure more applicants have access to P2
funding Should the 2/5 rule be replaced with another rule, such as a
1/5 rule? Should P2 be funded on a rolling-funding cycle? Should there be different priorities established, such as a
broadband/Internet P1 category and other service (such as voice) become Priority 2 (or some other priority)?
19
Change Funding Distribution
FCC seeks comment on four major options for revising the distribution of E-rate funds:
IV. Allocating funds through a fixed dollar amount before the funding year begins
How would this amount be calculated for libraries? How would it be calculated for schools? How would this work with consortia? What would the reporting requirements be?
20
Change Funding Distribution
FCC proposes two major revisions to E-rate discount calculations:
Change E-rate discount calculations to be based on a simple average of District’s NSLP enrollment Current formula is a weighted average approach that uses each
school building’s discount as part of the calculation
Change definition of rural to ensure greater funding to truly rural areas by using NCES codes Should the definition be based on ‘rural’ or ‘remote-rural’ areas? Should the rural schools and libraries receive a greater discount
than they currently receive and should the rural factor also be incorporated into the highest discount bands?
21
Increase Funding Cap FCC seeks comment on whether to increase the
annual $2.25B funding cap (temporarily or permanently) to ensure high capacity broadband connectivity to and within schools and libraries
22
Reform Competitive Bidding The FCC seeks comments on how to reform the competitive
bidding process:
• What are reasons that applicants do not receive multiple bids? • How can they reduce the number of applicants that don’t receive
multiple bids?• Does the Lowest Corresponding Price Rule help ensure that applicants
receive cost-effective prices?• Should applicants be exempted from the Form 470 bidding process if
they have complied with state procurement rules or if their total E-rate funding is below a certain amount?
• Should applicants be required to submit all competitive bidding documentation with their Form 471s or should they be required to submit a bid evaluation sheet?
23
Reform Competitive Bidding (CONT)
Does the current system provide enough information to vendors to formulate bids?
Should all state master contracts automatically be deemed E-rate eligible even if they were not procured under the E-rate competitive bidding system?
Should the deadline for signing contracts with vendors be revised to make it easier to comply with E-rate deadlines?
Should technical assistance be offered by USAC to help applicants figure out cost effective pricing options and/or planning and procuring cost effective networks?
24
Increase Consortia/Bulk Buying
The FCC seeks comment on ways to increase consortium purchasing Does consortia purchasing reduce costs? How should the FCC encourage more consortia and other types of bulk
buying opportunities? Should applicants be required to buy from state or regional master
contracts Should the FCC or USAC establish a bulk buying program?
25
Increase Transparency FCC proposes to increase the transparency and seeks
comments on the following:Transparency of E-rate spending
◦ How can the FCC increase transparency with respect to how E-rate funds are allocated and spent?
Transparency of prices available for E-rate supported services ◦ How can the FCC best increase the transparency of prices for E-rate
supported services?Transparency of prices being bid for E-rate supported services
◦ Should the FCC consider making bid responses public or at least accessible to other E-rate applicants?
Transparency of actual purchase prices ◦ As an alternative to requiring public disclosure of all bids to provide E-rate
services, should the FCC make available the prices applicants are paying for E-rate supported services?
26
Direct Payments to Applicants
FCC proposes to permit schools and libraries to receive BEAR reimbursement checks directly from USAC and not have to pass through the respective service providers
Should invoicing deadlines be more rigid in order to recapture and reuse unspent funds?
27
Permit Multi-year 471s
FCC proposes to have PIA only review the first year of a three year contract, provided there was no changes to the contract or recipients of service in the second and third years of contract. In the second and third years, applicants would still have to request E-
rate funding via the Form 471, but their contracts would not be subject to PIA review. Should FCC also consider multi-year funding commitments? Should applicants only be permitted to sign contracts up to three years in
length?
28
Expand Document Retention FCC proposes to extend the E-rate program
document retention requirements from five to at least ten years and seeks comments on the benefits and burdens of doing so
Should applicants and vendors be required to keep records of all communications relating to bids for and purchases of E-rate services/equipment?
Should the additional retention period only be required on an “as-notified” basis?
29
Permit Community Wireless Hotspots
Should E-rate support be available for off-site Internet access for students and the general public through “community wireless hot spots?”
30
Restrict Authorized Signatories
The FCC proposes to require E-rate applications to be signed by a person with authority equivalent to that of a corporate officer (presumably this is to eliminate E-rate consultants from signing forms)
The FCC proposes to require a corporate officer of the service provider sign certain forms submitted to USAC
31
Filing Comments with the FCC
Comments should:• Include your organization’s name and date on each
page• Use a table of contents, regardless of the length of the
submission • Track the organization set forth in the NPRM in order to
facilitate or internal review process (i.e., refer to paragraph numbers from the NPRM) • Begin with a short and concise summary of your
argument• Be submitted in .PDF format
32
Filing Comments w/the FCC
To submit your comments, go to: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=xj9g5
Click ‘Submit a Filing’ at the top left under ECFS Main Links.
That will take you to an input page, asking for contact information. ◦ Proceeding # is 13-184
Helpful filing guide available at:http://e-ratepa.org/erate_2oh.htm
33
Questions?
DMS E-Rate Assistance Team
Bridget [email protected]
Adolfo [email protected]
Lauren [email protected]