Collapse All

April 21, 2003

Introduction

The E-Rate Central News for the Week is prepared by E-Rate Central. E-Rate Central specializes in providing consulting, compliance, and forms processing services to E-rate applicants. To learn more about our services, please contact us by phone (516) 801-7804 or by e-mail. Additional E-rate information is located on the E-Rate Central Web site.

Wave 1 Funding for FY 2003

The first Wave for Funding Year 2003 is scheduled to be released on Thursday, May 1, 2003. Total funding is approximately $181 million for almost 14,000 applications. This is $8 million under last year's first wave, but represents decisions on almost 4,900 more applications.

Funding in Wave 1 involved only applications - and generally smaller applications - for Priority 1 services. The SLD has not yet made a decision on the discount levels at which Internal Connections can or cannot be funded for FY 2003. An initial decision on this matter is not expected for a month or two.

FCC Order on E-rate Program Rules

The FCC adopted several new E-rate rules this week, and indicated that further comments are being requested on additional issues. Although the formal Order is not expected to be released until next week, a press release highlighted the following changes:

(1) "Persons convicted of criminal violations or held civilly liable for misconduct arising from participation in the program will be debarred from participation for three years and where circumstances warrant, for a longer period."

Comment: Presumably this provision would apply to both applicant and vendor personnel. We suspect that the FCC will be very careful in not barring schools themselves from E-rate participation based on the actions of certain school administrators, but it will be interesting to see if the Order addresses corporate penalties for the vendors.

(2) "Clarified that requests for duplicative services - services that deliver the same functionality to the same people during the same period of time - will not be funded."

Comment: This provision will probably require additional rules to deal with such issues as services listed on both consortium and individual applications.

(3) "Voice mail will be included as a service eligible for support, thereby reducing administrative costs since the service will no longer have to be broken out from the bundled price for telecommunications service."

Comment: We suspect this change in eligibility will apply only to voice mail offered as a telecommunications service, not as applied to voice mail equipment included in Internal Connection PBX equipment. It is not yet clear whether this eligibility decision (and the wireless decision discussed below) will apply only to new applications filed for FY 2004, or will apply retroactively to expenses occurred during earlier funding years.

(4) "Wireless services are eligible for support in the same manner as wireline services, which will make the application process more predictable for applicants."

Comment: The FCC has long had a policy that the rules affecting wireless and wireline services should be technically neutral, but, as a practical matter, cellular telephone and paging services have been deemed ineligible for certain classes of school personnel. The new Order will apparently eliminate many of these mobile user distinctions. Details of the Order, and subsequent regulations, will be critical.

(5) "The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) will develop a pilot program to create an online list of eligible equipment to wire schools, which will facilitate expedited processing of many funding requests."

Comment: The idea for an online list has been under discussion for over a year. Given the complexity of the SLD's rules, under which few products and services are absolutely eligible, it is not clear how such a list would function. This should be an interesting experiment.

(6) "Applicants can elect to pay their service provider the full discounted cost of services received."

Comment: Under current rules, awarded funds can be utilized either through discounts on vendor bills or through retroactive BEAR payments. The choice of invoicing methods was left to the applicants and vendors to resolve, not always to the applicants' satisfaction. As summarized in the press release, this provision is somewhat vague, but appears to give applicants the right to insist on discounted bills.

A copy of the FCC's press release, and comments of the Commissioners, are posted as an April 23rd Bulletin on the SETA Web site. A more detailed analysis of these rule changes will be provided once the full FCC Order is released.

Selective Reviews on FY 2003 Applications

Although still early in the FY 2003 application process, anecdotal reports support statements by the SLD that it will make greater use of Selective Reviews this year. In many cases, it appears that Selective Reviews are being triggered when applications request large amounts of funding (relative to the sizes of the applicants) or involve services to be procured from certain questionable vendors. Applicants subject to Selected Reviews will be required to submit detailed information on technology plans, procurement procedures, budgets and other resources.

A sample copy of a Selective Review inquiry can be found on the SLD Web site at Mega Fax. Note that the URL for this 16-page document minces no words when it refers to it as a "MegaFax."

Special New Funding Status Indicator for FCDLs

The SLD announced this week that certain Funding Commitment Decision Letters ("FCDLs"), beginning with Wave 27 of FY 2002, may indicate that certain FRNs were "Under Review." In the past, FRNs were designated as "Funded," "Not Funded," or "As Yet Not Funded" (in the latter case meaning that a FRN had been reviewed and would be funded if sufficient funds were available for that level discount). "Under Review" is a new designation. It will permit the SLD, in special circumstances, to issue final funding decisions on a portion of an application's FRNs while other FRNs are being subjected to further investigation (perhaps for procurement issues involving questionable vendors).