SLD Reminder on Obligation to Pay Non-Discount Portion
The SLD posted an announcement on its Web site this week reminding applicants that they are obligated to pay the non-discounted portion of any E-rate funded services. According to the SLD, funds for this portion must be secured (i.e., budgeted and approved) prior to the filing of the Form 471. The availability of these funds is considered in the Item 25 certification that states the applicant has "secured access to all of the resources ... necessary to make effective use of the services purchased as well as to pay the discounted charges for eligible services."
Under the strictest of interpretations, this may be an impossible requirement for many applicants. Many schools, for example, do not have formally approved budgets for the next year until after the c votes in the spring, long after the Form 471 filing date. From a more practical standpoint, we believe this requirement exists, and is being stressed at this time, to highlight two specific issues in the E-rate process.
- The SLD wants applicants to carefully consider and, if requested, document their ability to pay the non-discount portion of funded services. Applications requesting extensive E-rate funding (relative to the size and apparent resources of the applicant) are increasingly being subjected to an additional review step, the "Item 25 Review." In PY3, this Review was initiated with a 12-page fax of instructions and forms requesting detailed budget information on E-rate service implementation for the funding year (and, in most cases, the previous year). With the advent of Program Integrity Assurance ("PIA") reviews of PY4 applications, the recent SLD reminder is timely.
- We believe the reminder is also related to "questionable service provider practices," including rumored proposals to provide essentially "free" services to selected high discount applicants, that we have addressed on several earlier occasions. With internal connection funding in PY4 apparently restricted to 90% discount applicants, the SLD's reminder is again appropriate and timely.
Last fall we reported on an innovative E-rate reimbursement process introduced by AT&T that would permit customers to fill out an online AT&T Reimbursement Form ("ARF") and receive discount checks within two weeks. The normal BEAR reimbursement process, by way of comparison, typically requires at least two months.
We have since had an opportunity to use the ARF system and have found that it does indeed accelerate the discount reimbursement process. The system works as follows:
- Applicants can register on the ARF system using their Billed Entity Number and a PIN supplied by AT&T. Applicants without a valid PIN can request one via e-mail . Once in the system, the PIN can be changed.
- Registration also requires a funding request number ("FRN") from the applicant's Funding Commitment Decisions Letter ("FCDL"). The system can handle multiple FRNs. By entering one FRN, the system will bring up all related AT&T FRNs (e.g., one for AT&T long distance and one for AT&T cellular).
- During registration, the applicant is prompted to provide a name and address for check mailing purposes. The form also includes space to designate an E-rate contact but, in our experience, this name is not referenced when checks are mailed.
- For each FRN, the applicant can list one or more associated AT&T account numbers.
- To actually apply for reimbursements, the applicant completes a simple online form. For each account, there are three required entries: the beginning and ending dates of bills covered, and the total amount eligible for discounts. It is the applicant's responsibility to determine whether all, or only a portion, of the bill is eligible for discounts (e.g., service charges for ineligible cellular users should be excluded).
- Once information is entered for all FRNs and accounts, the information is submitted. A summary sheet and confirmation number are provided. In our case, the checks (one per FRN) were mailed nine days later.
- Reimbursements can be requested throughout the year at the applicant's convenience.
- AT&T's ARF system is an easy alternative to the BEAR process. Applicant's should recognize, however, that for a given funding year and FRN, both cannot be used. If you've already filed a BEAR for PY3, you can't use ARF for the rest of the year (and vice versa).
ALA and ACLU Lawsuits re. Internet Filtering
The Children's Internet Protection Act ("CIPA"), that will require E-rate recipients to certify compliance with Internet policy and filtering requirements, was formally attacked as unconstitutional this week by both the American Library Association ("ALA") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"). Both suits were filed in the U.S. District Court of Pennsylvania on March 20.
Both suits were filed on behalf of a number of specific plaintiffs including, from NYS, the New York Library Association the Westchester Library System , and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. in NYC.
Although the CIPA filtering requirements apply to both schools and libraries, the overwhelming thrust of both suits concerns libraries. Key points made in the suits include:
- Filtering software currently available to comply with the Act's requirements will inevitably block access to vast amounts of constitutionally protected speech.
- No matter how small a proportion of federal funds are used to purchase Internet access and internal connections services, the Act would require blocking on 100% of the facilities.
- The Act employs hopelessly vague terminology in defining the disabling process for "bona fide research."
Full copies of the ALA and ACLUcomplaints are available on the Web.