Print 18 comment(s) - last by room200.. on Jul 27 at 9:04 AM

Critics say plan adds to the already onerous paperwork, spends too much, and is biased towards urban schools

Look out Wi-Fi fearing denizens, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is looking to greatly expand access to the latest and greatest high-speed Wi-Fi in classrooms across the country.

I. The USF -- a Modest Success

The additional $1B USD in annual funding for the effort will come on top of the current $2.3B USD allocated annually to the E-Rate ("Education Rate") program.  Current funding goes towards providing anywhere from 20 to 90 percent of the cost of hardware and services to provide internet access -- mostly wired broadband internet.  Funding is doled out based on how rural or impoverished a school is.

The E-Rate program is part of the "Universal Services Fund" (USF).  While you could argue the pool is an effective "tax" on Americans, it's implemented somewhat differently.  The FCC collects fees from from telephone carriers -- typically a dollar or two offer your monthly phone bill -- to fund the service.  The fee is taken based on a percentage of revenue that a carrier makes on interstate traffic (such as long distance phone calls).

The fund was established when President Bill Clinton (D) signed into law the The Telecommunications Act of 1996, a bill which modernized the The Communications Act of 1934 [PDF] (47 U.S.C. § 151).  At the time of its inception, the biggest purpose of the USF was to fund landlines to poor, rural underserved parts of America.  But in recent years emphasis has grown on improving wireless phone access for poor or rural Americans and to improve internet access at libraries and schools.

Fiber optic cable
The FCC's authorities were modernized in 1996. [Image Source: Guardian UK]

While at times it's been abused, the USF has generally been a modest success.  According to a report from two years ago, in its 15 budget years (1998 through 2012) the program disbursed $90B USD  [PDF] (roughly $6B USD per year).  This year it should top $100B USD in disbursements for the lifetime of the program.

The program has helped to stoke the rural service market to grow to include over 1,000 rural carriers, half of which have fewer than 10 customers per square mile (versus an urban carrier that has 10,000 customers per square mile).

According to the FCC over 22,000 schools and libaries [PDF] receive annual funding to expand their internet quality and access, under the USF's "E-RATE" program.  With roughly 99,000 public schools (according to the U.S. Department of Education) and almost 9,000 public libraries [source], that indicates roughly 1 in 5 public schools and libraries in the U.S. benefit on a yearly basis from the program.  

E-Rate kids
Today roughly 1 in 5 libraries and schools receives discounted internet service via the FCC's E-Rate program. [Image Source: Cabinet Report]

The FCC writes:

When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, only 14% of classrooms had Internet and most schools with Internet access (74%) used dial-up Internet access.

By 2005, the E-rate program had successfully connected 94% of U.S. classrooms to the Internet, and by 2006, nearly all public libraries were connected to the Internet (98%).

The EdLinc library coalition adds:

In 1996, only 28 percent of public library systems offered public Internet access. Today, thanks to increased resources and the E-Rate, nearly all library buildings offer public access computing, and 14 million Americans regularly use these computers at no fee. 

Both Republican and Democrat commissioners agree on one thing -- that the E-RATE program has delivered some positive results, in spite of its flaws.

II. New Plan Stirs Controversy

In spite of that success, the USF now faces an uncertain future.  With land line -- its original primary target fading in relevance -- and broadband access now widely available the FCC is looking to morph its campaign into new targets -- namely improving Wi-Fi access.

Not everyone is happy about this shift.

The plan to bump funding only passed 3-2 along party lines, with both Republican appointed commissioners voting against the plan.  Thomas "Tom" E. Wheeler, the lobbyist-turned Chairman of the FCC defended the plan, pointing to an accompanying effort called the "USF Strike Force".

Tom Wheeler
FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler

Chairman Wheeler claims that in the next five years the plan would bump rural school Wi-Fi funding by 75 percent and urban funding by 60 percent.  And he says that the FCC can do that without increasing costs.  But the Republican commissioners were unconvinced.

Republican Commissioner Michael O'Rielly summarized the opposing viewpoint, stating:

Under the current structure, the programs are scheduled to grow to $10 billion in 2015 and steadily increase thereafter to reach $11 billion in 2024.  Most of that growth will continue to be attributable to USF.   This means that in 2024, the funds will be over 21% larger than they were in 2013 and, in those 11 years, the funds will spend a remarkable $13 billion more than they would have if funding had been kept at 2013 levels.  Importantly, this trajectory just represents present circumstances.  In other words, it does not assume that the Commission will make any programmatic changes that would further increase spending.
So what do CBO’s USF projections mean for the average American?  They represent an ever growing strain on their pocketbook.  That is because the FCC—through an entity called the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC)—simply estimates what will be needed to cover the planned expenditures for the USF programs, assesses telecom providers, and this cost is inevitably passed on to consumers in the form of a fee on their phone bills.   Given the fund’s projected growth, we must be increasingly sensitive to the burdens that this fee creates and strive to limit the amount of any increase.   

That is why I am concerned about the budget aspect of the upcoming reforms to the E-Rate program.  To be clear, I fully support modernizing E-Rate to reflect the current needs of students in the 21st Century.  For too long, the Commission has funded functions that no longer make sense (e.g., long distance phone service and paging) which has detracted from funding the broadband needs of schools and libraries.  Meanwhile, many educational entities seeking needed E-Rate dollars are often deterred by unnecessary hurdles in the current system, which should be streamlined.  Finally, we should greatly improve transparency and do far more to prevent waste, fraud and abuse so that all E-Rate dollars go toward benefitting students and library patrons. 

The other Republican commissioner, Ajit Pai, echoed these comments, focusing his criticism on at least three major points.  
Ajit Pai
Commissioner Ajit Pai (R) [Image Source:]
First he criticizes that the program doesn't go far enough to streamline the onerous applications process...

So what does the Order do to streamline the bureaucracy? Very little. There is the token stab at trimming a few pages from the initial application for applicants with multi-year contracts—but only for five-year contracts that give applicants little flexibility to adjust terms to changing needs. There is some scaling back of E-Rate’s procurement rules—but only for a subset of services that are subject to change every year or two. And there’s the elimination of the technology planning requirement—but no one has had to comply with that requirement for the last two years.

In fact, the Order adds to the paperwork. Applicants will now be required to keep records for ten years. So if the applicant cannot prove that its initial application passed the 28-day-rule, the price-is-the-primary-factor rule, the 30-percent-ineligibility rule, the brand new....

He also complains that the applications process favors poor city schools over poor rural ones.  This echoes criticism recently voiced by Commissioner Pai and Sen. Gerald W. "Jerry" Moran (R-Kans.) in an editorial in The Wichita Eagle.  Even the National Education Association (NEA) -- a traditionally Democrat-leaning teacher's organization -- opposed the plan for giving rural schools the short end of the bargain.  Commissioner Pai writes...

Moreover, the Order keeps in place for priority one services E-Rate’s inequitable funding approach that gives many large, urban districts 90 percent discounts without limit. The more you spend, the more you get. It’s no wonder that, as the current program stands, a handful of urban schools walk away with the lion’s share of funding while students attending other schools that need funding are deprived year after year. Indeed, the District of Columbia gets the second-most E-Rate funding each year on a per student basis ($139.97)—about three times the national average ($44.28)—yet not one school or library in our nation’s capital can credibly be called rural. Once again, those inside the Beltway win while rural America is left behind.

Lastly, he too points to the possibility for budget overruns, stating:

As congressional leaders in the House and Senate recognized, the numbers for the Wi-Fi plan just didn’t add up and would have blown a $2.7 billion hole in E-Rate’s budget, slashing funds for Internet connectivity. I thank Chairman Rockefeller, Chairman Upton, Chairman Walden, Senator Thune, and Senator Markey for their leadership on this issue. I also thank Commissioner Rosenworcel for her efforts. While we have good-faith disagreement on some issues related to E-Rate, we have a common understanding of arithmetic.

Rural school busCritics complan the plan favors rural schools over urban ones. [Image Source: Ed. Dept.]

On the latter point Chairman Wheeler emphatically disagrees.  He says that the funding can be pulled from less crucial current E-RATE programs, freeing up $1.2B USD for school Wi-Fi.  He writes:

First, we would phase down support for non-broadband services, like pagers, email and, over a multi-year period, voice service. Those funds – nearly $1.2 billion in the E-rate program today – would be repurposed to support Wi-Fi.

But the idea of cutting out such services has some Democrats questioning the plan as well.  Representative Anna Georges Eshoo (D-Calif.) says that it'd be better to raise taxes and have a well funded program than to cut current expenditures in lieu of new efforts like Wi-Fi.

Either way, the program is only a stop-gap measure anyhow, as in 2018 the FCC will complete a 6-year transition process and go from the USF High-Cost Program to the "Connect America" fund.  While the Connect America fund is expected to have similar funding goals as the current reshaping of the USF towards wireless and broadband (and away from the original goal of rural landline telephone service), it will offer a new time to debate who should receive what funding.

Also, the Wi-Fi effort overlaps the executive branch's ConnectED program, which aims to give every school in the U.S. a 100 Mbps cable internet connection by 2017.  As for the USF's fate in its finally few years, many questions remain.  But while Chairman Wheeler has faced some resistance and hesitance to his plan, arguably his E-RATE proposal has gone over more smoothly than his current net neutrality plan, which proposes allowing corporations to create "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" on the internet, double-dipping by charging both internet content providers and inter service user duplicate fees for delivering content from the provider to the end user.

Sources: FCC [1], [2], [3], The Verge

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

We Love You, Minorities
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 4:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
This has been the Democrat gameplan for decades. Create a permanent underclass of citizens who will vote for you, no matter how much you've devastated their communities or who little their lives improve, by creating feel good slush-funds for "urban" areas.

Under the current structure, the programs are scheduled to grow to $10 billion in 2015 and steadily increase thereafter to reach $11 billion in 2024. Most of that growth will continue to be attributable to USF. This means that in 2024, the funds will be over 21% larger than they were in 2013 and, in those 11 years, the funds will spend a remarkable $13 billion more than they would have if funding had been kept at 2013 levels. Importantly, this trajectory just represents present circumstances. In other words, it does not assume that the Commission will make any programmatic changes that would further increase spending.

The TLDR version of this is that this is yet another Liberal slush-fund aimed at the "urban" community schools, that is designed to funnel the money OUT of the urban community into who-knows-where.

And the beauty of it is, anyone looking to fix it will be labeled a "racist" who wants to take money away from poor black kids and give it to "rich" people.

But by all means, keep voting Democrat. They totally love you...

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By umrdyldo on 7/14/2014 4:52:31 PM , Rating: 3
I live in a 98% or more white rural area of the country. You obviously have no sense of what rural America looks like. It's not black people farming the great plains. They got that out of their system in the 19th century. I know tons of locals that live too far out to get fast internet. This will be an issue for awhile.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By MrBlastman on 7/15/2014 12:05:30 PM , Rating: 3
It isn't just that--it is a matter of both color, class and party being misunderstood. While it is true, at least, where I live (Atlanta), the minority population is enormous (40+ % of the city is minority... I'd almost say it feels like half at times), these ploys being "used" by the "democrats" aren't restricted to just the democratic party. The Republicans are equally guilty.

In fact, if you peel back the facade, it isn't the Democrats -or- the Republicans. Instead, it is the upper-class elite that are using it to control the populace.

They subscribe to an age-old philosophy, going far, far back in time. If you look at Medieval Europe, you'll see it there. If you go way farther back to the time before Christ, you'll see it too.

What is going on is simple business philosophy. Many Americans buy into the notion that they are paid what they are worth and nothing more, nothing less. This couldn't be further from the truth, depending on how you look at it. The misconception lies in whos eyes you observe this from.

If you are looking at it from the vantage of the company owner/founder/executive staff--then yes, the workers are paid what they are "worth" to achieve their bottom-line numbers to secury lofty bonuses and incentive compensation. When they do, their workers receive a pat on the back.

If you are looking at it from the perspective of the line worker--it isn't the case at all. They work long hours, receive restricted benefits and have limited control over their destiny. They depend on their job to support their families while realizing simultaneously (hopefully) their job gives no care at all about them.

See, what is happening is this: (from here on out we'll use Employers to represent CEO/Executives/Companies/Dictator/Despot/Royalty/Lo rds/etc.) Employers realize that if they pay their workforce too much, they'll prosper. They are afraid that if they do prosper, they'll lose their incentive to work hard--or better yet, eventually realize they can go into business for themselves and do the same thing--and because they have been paid so well, they will actually have the money saved up to be able to afford to do so.

This is a scary thought for any Employer. That their workforce could become self-empowered. If this were to happen, the people could reverse the tide and all of a sudden, the "Employer" might be the one seeking to be employed. So what do they do about it?

They give the employees just enough money to get by but little enough that they will spend it quickly and become dependent on their Employeer. They want their workers to be hungry and stay hungry. There used to even be "Company Stores" years and years ago, dreamed up by the Robber Barons to "help" their workers. Of course, there are those that figure this out and work extra hard and try and get ahead. They can and do. They also realize that anyone below them is expendable. As long as they get promoted out, who cares, right?

So, I guess, the best way to describe this notion is most eloquently expressed as thus:

"You are either the one getting fekked or the one doing the fekking."

That's life in a nutshell, folks.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By sgw2n5 on 7/15/2014 4:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
It's depressing how accurate this post is.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By room200 on 7/14/2014 5:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
You never think before typing do you?

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By room200 on 7/14/14, Rating: -1
RE: We Love You, Minorities
By atechfan on 7/14/2014 5:49:02 PM , Rating: 4
I challenge you to find me a post where reclaimer says that black people or any other minority should not be allowed to vote. I assume he is in favour of only US citizens or legitimate immigrants being allowed to vote, but that is hardly racist. But that is the typical Leftist play. Call everyone who disagrees with you either homophobic or racist.

Whenever someone brings up the topic of voter ID cards anywhere in the US, they automatically get labelled racist. Why the hell would you not have to prove your eligibility to vote? In Canada, the idea that you can vote with so little ID baffles us. You need a valid SIN (SSN equivalent) and a photo ID to be allowed to vote.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By Reclaimer77 on 7/14/2014 6:21:12 PM , Rating: 1
Meh don't pay him any attention.

I know I don't.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 8:32:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am not quite understanding this issue as it is... I was born here, and to vote, I have to register. To register, I had to prove who I am with the usual bevy of official ID's. Do we really have an issue with undocumented people voting? If there is one thing undocumented people don't want to do is call attention to themselves by going in and trying to fake thier way through voting. Seems like a non-issue to me.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By Felthis on 7/15/2014 9:03:32 AM , Rating: 2
Just as an example of an issue with the current system:
My wife and I bought her grandmother's house and after she passed away we received her voter registration card, and still do even after we contacted the state. Given how I've been able to show up at the voting booth with nothing but this card I could easily vote twice.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 4:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
OK, but that sounds like an issue with your local govt not updating records or paying attention. In general, as a solution to the local govt. not updating records on voter reg cards, the answer is to give them yet another task to mis-manage? Sounds backwards to me.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By Reclaimer77 on 7/15/2014 4:49:52 PM , Rating: 2

It's easier than you think. Per federal law, first-time voters who registered by mail must present a photo ID or copy of a current bill or bank statement. Some states generally advise voters bring some form of photo ID. But prior to the 2006 election, no state ever required a voter to produce a government-issued photo ID as a condition to voting.

Non-issue?? It's a HUGE issue.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
By retrospooty on 7/15/2014 5:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know, I have always had to prove who I am to register to vote. I suppose it can be cheated like anything, but I just don't imagine alot of illegals would take that kind of risk to expose themselves just to go and vote. Illegals stay the hell away from anything like that to avoid detection. They are extremely reluctant to even call the authorities in the event of an emergency or even crime for fear of being detected.

RE: We Love You, Minorities
RE: We Love You, Minorities
By Lerianis on 7/18/2014 7:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Hardly. The Democrats are simply one of the groups of people who push for people to have living wages and not have to worry about feeding their families when they are working 60 hours+ a week.

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki