Jump to content

E-Rate: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 191199023 by 128.230.84.167 (talk)
Criticism: merge two items that are covering the same issue
 
(176 intermediate revisions by 68 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|American telecommunications support program}}
'''E-Rate''' is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the [[Universal Service Fund]], which is administered by the [[Universal Service Administrative Company]] (USAC) under the direction of the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC).
{{use mdy dates|date=August 2019}}
'''E-Rate''' is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the [[Universal Service Fund]], which is administered by the ''Universal Service Administrative Company'' (USAC) under the direction of the [[Federal Communications Commission]] (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and [[internet access]]. It is one of four support programs funded through a [[universal service]] fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.


==Function==
==Function==
The Schools and Libraries Program supports connectivity the conduit or pipeline for communications using telecommunications services and/or the internet. Funding is requested under four categories of service: telecommunications services, internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections. Discounts for support depend on the level of poverty and the urban/rural status of the population served and range from 20% to 90% of the costs of eligible services. Eligible schools, [[school district]]s and libraries may apply individually or as part of a consortium.
The program provides discounts to assist most schools and libraries in the United States (and [[United States territories|U.S. territories]]) to obtain affordable telecommunications and [[Internet access]]. It is one of four support programs funded through a [[Universal service|Universal Service]] fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

The Schools and Libraries Program supports connectivity - the conduit or pipeline for communications using telecommunications services and/or the Internet. Funding is requested under four categories of service: telecommunications services, Internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections. Discounts for support depend on the level of poverty and the urban/rural status of the population served and range from 20% to 90% of the costs of eligible services. Eligible schools, [[school district]]s and libraries may apply individually or as part of a consortium.


Applicants must provide additional resources including [[end-user]] equipment (e.g., computers, telephones, etc.), software, [[professional development]], and the other elements that are necessary to utilize the connectivity funded by the Schools and Libraries Program.
Applicants must provide additional resources including [[end-user]] equipment (e.g., computers, telephones, etc.), software, [[professional development]], and the other elements that are necessary to utilize the connectivity funded by the Schools and Libraries Program.


==Authorization==
===Impact===
Yearly requests for E-Rate funding almost triple the FCC's $2.25 billion limit.<ref name=CRS_2003 />{{rp|7}} At the beginning of 2005, over 100,000 schools had participated in the program.<ref name=GAO_2005 />{{rp|58}} In 2003, nearly half of the funding went to schools where more than half of the students receive reduced price lunches.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6068/m1/1/high_res_d/RL32018_2004Mar09.pdf|publisher=Congressional Research Service|title=The E-Rate Program: Universal Service Fund Telecommunications Discounts for Schools|volume=RL32018|author=Charmaine Jackson|date=March 9, 2004|access-date=October 26, 2017|archive-date=August 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170814110737/https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs6068/m1/1/high_res_d/RL32018_2004Mar09.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|5}}
The Schools and Libraries portion of the Universal Service Fund, more widely known as E-Rate, was authorized as part of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]]. Section 254 codified provisions for universal service, a principle that broadly means everyone should have access to advanced telecommunications services at reasonable rates regardless of their location. Two measures were included to advance this goal specifically for libraries and schools. Telecommunications providers were ordered to supply their services to schools and libraries at discounted rates determined by the FCC (S.652, Section 254(h) (1)(B)). More generally, the FCC was directed to establish rules “to enhance... access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, [[health care]] providers, and libraries” (Section 254(h) (2)(A)). The FCC was given the authority to establish and periodically evaluate what services qualified for support under both measures according to four broad criteria (Section 254(c) (1)). Funding was to be provided by contributions from telecommunications providers through an unspecified but “equitable and nondiscriminatory” mechanism (Section 254(b) (4)).

Broadly, US Department of Education's nationally representative surveys show that between 1994 and 1999, internet access in public schools rose from 35% to 95%, and access in classrooms rose from 3% to 63%.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1982/m1/1/high_res_d/98-604epw_2001Jan04.pdf|publisher=Congressional Research Service|title=E-Rate for Schools: Background on Telecommunications Discounts Through the Universal Service Fund|volume=98-604 EPW|author1=James B. Steadman|author2=Patricia Osorio-O'Dea|date=2001|access-date=October 26, 2017|archive-date=July 9, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709224159/https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs1982/m1/1/high_res_d/98-604epw_2001Jan04.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|5}}

Some studies have suggested that the E-rate program has had a positive impact on schools. A 2006 case study performed by the Benton Foundation found that E-Rate funding had a direct impact on classroom internet connectivity in four cities.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://cct.edc.org/sites/cct.edc.org/files/publications/erate_tfc00.pdf|title=The E-Rate in America: A Tale of Four Cities |publisher=Benton Foundation|author=Andy Carvin|date=February 2000|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref> An evaluation of E-Rate in California by Goolsbee and Guryan showed a 68% increase in classroom connectivity per teacher but could not identify any impact on student achievement.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED468062.pdf|title=The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools|publisher=Institute of Education Sciences|author1=Goolsbee, Austan |author2=Guryan, Jonathan |date=August 2002|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref> A study concluded in 2005 by a University of Texas student under the supervision of economics professor Mike Ward, using regression analysis, showed the E-Rate program in Texas school districts to have positive effect on factors like test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates.<ref>{{cite journal|ssrn=940092|title=The Effects of the E-Rate Internet Subsidies in Education|publisher=Social Science Research Network|author=Michael R. Ward|date=March 2006}}</ref>


==Structure==
==Structure==
The FCC adopted Order 97-157 in response to Section 254 on May 7, 1997. The FCC determined that “telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal connections, including “installation and maintenance, were eligible for discounted rates (FCC 1997a, 255). Internal connections were defined as “essential element[s] in the transmission of information within the school or library” (459). The level of discount that a school or library received would vary from 20% to 90% depending on the cost of services and level of poverty as measured by the percentage of students eligible for the [[National School Lunch Act|national school lunch program]] (498). The total amount of money to be disbursed was capped at 2.25 billion (425).


===Legal authorization===
The FCC designed the application process to promote [[Cost-effectiveness|cost effective]] and accountable solutions. As a part of their applications, schools and libraries were required to conduct an assessment of their current technology resources and explain how they utilize them for their educational mission. This assessment had to be certified by an outside organization, preferably the state government. Schools and libraries were required to select vendors through a competitive bidding process publicized through a national website. Record-keeping requirements were instituted to facilitate audits. (572-581).
{{main|Telecommunications Act of 1996}}
The Schools and Libraries portion of the Universal Service Fund, more widely known as E-Rate, was authorized as part of the [[Telecommunications Act of 1996]], section 254. The act called for [[universal service]], meaning that everyone should have access to advanced telecommunications services at reasonable rates regardless of their location. Two measures were included to advance this goal specifically for libraries and schools. Telecommunications providers were ordered to supply their services to schools and libraries at discounted rates determined by the FCC.<ref name=1996_Act>Section 254 of the {{cite web|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.pdf|title=Telecommunications Act of 1996|volume=S. 652, 104th Cong., 2nd Session|date=1996}}</ref> More generally, the FCC was directed to establish rules "to enhance... access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, [[health care]] providers, and libraries".<ref name=1996_Act /> The FCC was given the authority to establish and periodically evaluate what services qualified for support under both measures according to four broad criteria.<ref name=1996_Act /> Funding was to be provided by contributions from telecommunications providers through an unspecified but "equitable and nondiscriminatory" mechanism.<ref name=1996_Act />


The E-rate program was strongly supported by then vice-president [[Al Gore]] as a way to connect classrooms to the internet.<ref>{{cite web | last=Gore |author-link=Al Gore| first=Al | title=Al Gore: Should Schools Be Wired To The Internet? | website=TIME | date=1998-05-25 | url=https://time.com/archive/6732841/al-gore-should-schools-be-wired-to-the-internet/ | access-date=2024-10-06}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=The Gore Tax |website=The Wall Street Journal|date=1998-06-12|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB897599769529693500|access-date=2024-10-06}}</ref>
The FCC decided to fund E-Rate through the same pool of money collected for other Universal Service Fund, or USF, programs (584). The new language in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the pool of companies required to contribute. The expanded pool included all companies that provided interstate [[telecommunications service]] to the public for a fee (777). This raised the number of companies contributing to the USF from 65 to around 3500 (CBO, 1998, 19). A company's contribution to the USF is based on its interstate and intrastate revenues from sales to end users (FCC, 1997a, 843). Companies submit revenue projections, from which the contribution factor is determined and then assessed. This process takes place on a quarterly basis (How the USF Works). In order to preserve low-cost local phone service, companies are only permitted to increase interstate revenues to recoup their USF contribution costs (FCC, 1997a, 843).


===Implementation===
The [[National Exchange Carrier Association]] managed the existing universal service fund, and in their initial authorizing order the FCC directed the NECA to temporarily administer E-Rate as well (42). When the NECA was unable to agree on how to restructure its [[Board of directors|Board of Directors]] to reduce the influence of incumbent local exchange carriers, it instead proposed creation of a subsidiary, the Universal Service Administrative Company, with a board composed of representatives from telecommunications providers and the USF recipient groups (FCC, 1997b, 33). In Order 97-253 the FCC agreed to this proposal (12). The FCC also directed NECA to create to unaffiliated corporations to manage the schools and libraries and rural health care programs (26). However, Senator [[Ted Stevens]] and the [[United States Congressional committee|House Committee]] on Commerce soon inquired whether this violated the Government Corporation Control Act. The GAO concluded that it did, and an amendment was added to s.1768 that required the FCC to restructure USF administration (GAO, 1998a, 5). IN response, the two new corporations were terminated and their responsibilities shifted to two new divisions within USAC (FCC, 1998, 2).
On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted [http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97157.pdf Order 97-157] as its plan to implement section 254 of the [[1996 Telecommunications Act]]. The FCC determined that "telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections", including "installation and maintenance", were eligible for discounted rates.<ref name=FCC_1997a>{{cite web|publisher=Federal Communications Commission|title=Report & Order In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service|volume=FCC 97-157|date=May 7, 1997|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/fcc97157/97157.html}}</ref>{{rp|255}} Internal connections were defined as "essential element[s] in the transmission of information within the school or library".<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|459}} The level of discount that a school or library received would vary from 20% to 90% depending on the cost of services and level of poverty as measured by the percentage of students eligible for the [[National School Lunch Act|national school lunch program]].<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|498}} The total amount of money to be disbursed was capped at 2.25 billion or 15%.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|425}}

The FCC designed the application process to promote [[Cost-effectiveness|cost effective]] and accountable solutions. As a part of their applications, schools and libraries were required to conduct an assessment of their current technology resources and explain how they utilize them for their educational mission. This assessment had to be certified by an outside organization, preferably the state government. Schools and libraries were required to select vendors through a competitive bidding process publicized through a national website. Record-keeping requirements were instituted to facilitate audits.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|572–581}}

The FCC decided to fund E-Rate through the same pool of money collected for other Universal Service Fund, or USF, programs.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|584}} The new language in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the pool of companies required to contribute. The expanded pool included all companies that provided interstate [[telecommunications service]] to the public for a fee.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|777}} As of 1998, around 3500 companies contributed to the USF.<ref name=CBO>{{cite web|url=https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/3xx/doc314/advtcom.pdf|publisher=Congressional Budget Office|title=Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health Care Providers|author=Philip Webre|date=1998}}</ref>{{rp|19}} A company's contribution to the USF is based on its interstate and intrastate revenues from sales to end users.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|843}} Companies submit revenue projections, from which the contribution factor is determined and then assessed. This process takes place on a quarterly basis (How the USF Works). In order to preserve low-cost local phone service, companies are only permitted to increase interstate revenues to recoup their USF contribution costs.<ref name=FCC_1997a />{{rp|843}}

The [[National Exchange Carrier Association]] (NECA) managed the existing universal service fund, and in their initial authorizing order the FCC directed the NECA to temporarily administer E-Rate as well.<ref name=FCC_1997b />{{rp|42}} When the NECA was unable to agree on how to restructure its [[Board of directors|Board of Directors]] to reduce the influence of incumbent local exchange carriers, it instead proposed creation of a subsidiary, the Universal Service Administrative Company, with a board composed of representatives from telecommunications providers and the USF recipient groups.<ref name=FCC_1997b>{{cite web|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1997/fcc97253.txt|publisher=Federal Communications Commission|title=Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration|volume=FCC 97-253|date=July 17, 1997}}</ref>{{rp|33}} In Order 97-253 the FCC agreed to this proposal.<ref name=FCC_1997b />{{rp|12}} The FCC also directed NECA to create two unaffiliated corporations to manage the schools and libraries and rural health care programs.<ref name=FCC_1997b />{{rp|26}} However, Senator [[Ted Stevens]] and the [[United States Congressional committee|House Committee]] on Commerce soon inquired whether this violated the Government Corporation Control Act. The [[Government Accountability Office]] concluded that it did, and an amendment was added to s.1768 that required the FCC to restructure USF administration.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/r598084t.pdf|publisher=General Accounting Office|title=FCC lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs|date=March 31, 1998|volume=GAO/T-RCED/OGC-98-84|access-date=December 18, 2014|archive-date=January 6, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170106142458/http://www.gao.gov/archive/1998/r598084t.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|5}} In response, the two new corporations were terminated and their responsibilities shifted to two new divisions within USAC.<ref>Federal Communications Commission. Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 97-21. FCC 98-306. November 20, 1998.</ref>{{rp|2}}

===Filtering requirements===
{{main|Children's Internet Protection Act}}
The [[Children's Internet Protection Act]], passed in the year 2000, stipulates that in order to receive E-rate funding, schools and libraries are required to block or filter internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors).<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://www.fcc.gov/guides/childrens-internet-protection-act | title=Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)| date=2011-05-05}}</ref>

===Modernization===
On July 23, 2014, the FCC adopted a broad overhaul of the E-rate program, named the [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-99A1.pdf E-Rate Modernization order]. The order focused on expanding subsidies for [[Wi-Fi]] to a target of $1 billion a year.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.eschoolnews.com/2014/07/11/fcc-modernizing-erate-588/|title=FCC takes key step toward modernizing eRate|publisher=eSchool News|author=Dennis Pierce|date=July 11, 2014|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> The move followed a month after a request for reform by president [[Barack Obama]],<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/net-us-usa-fcc-erate-idUSBRE96I11T20130719|title=U.S. FCC moves to reform E-Rate subsidy for Internet at schools|work=Reuters|author=Alina Selyukh|date=July 19, 2013|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> who had advocated reform of the program during his presidential candidacy in 2007.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://techcrunch.com/2007/11/26/qa-with-senator-barack-obama-on-key-technology-issues/|title=Q&A With Senator Barack Obama On Key Technology Issues|publisher=Tech Crunch|author= Michael Arrington|date=November 26, 2007|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> The move was embraced by many in the telecommunications industry, including [[Comcast]], [[Cisco]], and [[PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.multichannel.com/news/broadband/comcast-applauds-fcc-e-rate-reform/375876|title=Comcast Applauds FCC E-Rate Reform|publisher=MultiChannelNews|author=John Eggerton|date=July 11, 2014|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref> The reform was also lauded by the American Library Association.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ala.org/news/press-releases/2014/12/fcc-e-rate-action-expands-broadband-opportunities-libraries|title=FCC E-rate action expands broadband opportunities for libraries|publisher=American Library Association|author=Press Release|date=December 11, 2014|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref>

In November 2014, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed the first increase in the E-rate budget, an increase of $1.5 billion.<ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/17/business/fcc-chief-aims-to-bolster-internet-for-schools.html?_r=0|title=F.C.C. Chief Aims to Bolster Internet for Schools |newspaper=The New York Times|author=Edward Wyatt |date=November 17, 2014|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref> In December 2014, the FCC approved the increase by a vote of 3–2, raising the total budget from 2.4 to 3.9 billion.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tn-fcc-erate-internet-school-20141211-story.html|title=FCC increases funding to boost Internet speeds at schools, libraries|newspaper=Los Angeles Times|author=Jim Puzzanghera|date=December 11, 2014|accessdate=December 22, 2014}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/12/business/fcc-lifts-financing-for-internet-programs.html|title=F.C.C. Increases Money for E-Rate Program for Internet in Schools and Libraries|newspaper=The New York Times|author=Edward Wyatt|date=December 11, 2014|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref>


==Criticism==
==Criticism==
In addition to the incorporation scandal, E-Rate faced legal challenges from eleven states and six telecommunications companies. These were consolidated in Texas Office of [[Public utility|Public Utility]] Counsel, et al. v. FCC before the [[United States Court of Appeals]] for the 5th District. The chief state complaint was unrelated to E-Rate, but a company complaint about the method of contribution was relevant (GAO, 1998B). Since the USF fee collection is mandated by the federal government, the CBO and OMB consider the fees collected to be federal revenues and the money disbursed for discounts to be federal outlays (CBO, viii). However, only the [[United States House of Representatives]] is constitutionally permitted to introduce revenue-generating measures. Also, the power to establish [[user fees]] may be delegated to [[Executive Agency|executive agencies]], but the power to tax may not ([[Joint committee|Joint Committee]], 1998). The court found that the FCC's collection of USF fees did not violate the constitution (Opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals, 1999, (III) (5)(a)(i)(a)).


===Funding structure===
Some members of Congress objected to the level and method of funding provided by the FCC to E-Rate. They viewed the inclusion of internal connections and $2.25 billion budget as excessive and a drain on resources needed to achieve other aspects of universal service. Two such members, Representative Tauzin and Senator Burns, proposed unsuccessful legislation in the [[106th United States Congress|106th Congress]] to end E-Rate and replace it by a [[block grant]] program administered by the Commerce Department. Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced that keep E-Rate but change the funding mechanism to avoid a direct impact on local phone service (CRS, 2003, 5-7).
In addition to the incorporation scandal, E-Rate faced legal challenges from eleven states and six telecommunications companies. These were consolidated in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC.<ref>[http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2001/00-60434.html before the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th District]</ref> The chief state complaint was unrelated to E-Rate, but a company complaint about the method of contribution was relevant.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://archive.gao.gov/paprpdf2/160411.pdf|publisher=General Accounting Office|title=Letter to Senator Ted Stevens|date=May 7, 1998|volume=B279833}}</ref> Since the USF fee collection is mandated by the federal government, the CBO and OMB consider the fees collected to be federal revenues and the money disbursed for discounts to be federal outlays.<ref name=CBO />{{rp|viii}} However, only the [[United States House of Representatives]] is constitutionally permitted to introduce revenue-generating measures. Also, the power to establish [[user fees]] may be delegated to [[executive agency|executive agencies]], but the power to tax may not.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.jct.gov/jct_html/x-59-98.htm|publisher=Joint Committee on Taxation|title=Background and Present Law Relating to Funding Mechanisms of the "E-Rate" Telecommunications Program|volume=JCX-59-98|date=July 31, 1998|access-date=December 18, 2014|archive-date=September 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200922002025/http://www.jct.gov/jct_html/x-59-98.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> The court found that the FCC's collection of USF fees did not violate the constitution.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://transition.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/1999/TexasPUC.html|title=Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC.|publisher=US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals|date=July 30, 1999|volume=No. 97-60421}}</ref>{{rp|III,5,a,i,a}}


Some members of congress objected to the level and method of funding provided by the FCC to E-Rate. They viewed the inclusion of internal connections and $2.25 billion budget as excessive and a drain on resources needed to achieve other aspects of universal service. Two such members, Representative Tauzin and Senator Burns, proposed unsuccessful legislation in the [[106th United States Congress|106th Congress]] to end E-Rate and replace it by a [[block grant]] program administered by the Commerce Department. Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced that keep E-Rate but change the funding mechanism to avoid a direct impact on local phone service.<ref name=CRS_2003>{{cite web|url=https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5526/m1/1/high_res_d/IB98040_2003Jun27.pdf|publisher=Congressional Research Service|title=Telecommunications Discounts for Schools and Libraries: The "E-Rate" Program and Controversies|volume=IB98040|author=Angela A. Gilroy|date=2003|access-date=October 26, 2017|archive-date=August 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170818122429/https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs5526/m1/1/high_res_d/IB98040_2003Jun27.pdf|url-status=dead}}</ref>{{rp|5–7}}
In 2002, a report on USF from the FCC's Office of [[Inspector General]] raised considerable alarm. With regards to E-Rate, the OIG identified a “lack of resources for effective oversight, “inadequate competitive bidding requirements, and “no suspension of disbarment process” for schools, libraries, or companies with a history of fraud. Random audits conducted by the OIG led to a number of criminal investigations (FCC, 2002, 3-6). In response, Congress requested a GAO report on the health of E-Rate and planned hearings on the matter.


In 2002, a report on [[Universal Service Fund]] from the FCC's [[Federal Communications Commission#Offices|Office of Inspector General]] found that E-Rate had a "lack of resources for effective oversight", "inadequate competitive bidding requirements", and "no suspension or disbarment process" for schools, libraries, or companies with a history of fraud. Random audits conducted by the OIG led to criminal investigations.<ref>Federal Communications Commission. Office of Inspector General Memorandum. October 31, 2002.</ref>{{rp|3–6}} In response, congress requested a [[Government Accountability Office]] report on the health of E-Rate and planned hearings on the matter.
The [[Government Accountability Office]] (GAO) found serious fault with the unusual [[organizational structure]] of E-Rate. USAC was not operating under federal fiscal accountability standards. Also, the GAO decried the lack of performance measures for evaluating the impact of E-Rate funds (GAO, 2005, 4-5). The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations held four hearings into misuse of E-Rate funds. The subcommittee found a multitude of irregularities: purchases were being made with fraudulent documentation and without competitive bidding; inadequate technology plans were accepted and led to unused, wasted resources; and no protections were in place to prevent [[gold plating]] (“procurement of technology [[goods and services]] far beyond reasonable school district needs and resources”) and many other forms of abuse (Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2005, 2-3).


The GAO found serious fault with the unusual [[organizational structure]] of E-Rate. USAC was not operating under federal fiscal accountability standards. Also, the GAO decried the lack of performance measures for evaluating the impact of E-Rate funds.<ref name=GAO_2005>{{cite web|url=http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05151.pdf|publisher=General Accounting Office|title=Greater Involvement Needed by the FCC in the management and Oversight of the E-Rate Program|date=February 2005|volume=GAO-05-151}}</ref>{{rp|4–5}} The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations held four hearings into misuse of E-Rate funds. The subcommittee found a multitude of irregularities: purchases were being made with fraudulent documentation and without competitive bidding; inadequate [[strategic technology plan]]s were accepted and led to unused, wasted resources; and no protections were in place to prevent [[gold plating]] ("procurement of technology [[goods and services]] far beyond reasonable school district needs and resources") and many other forms of abuse.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-109HPRT24466/pdf/CPRT-109HPRT24466.pdf|title=Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns with the E-Rate Program|publisher=House Committee on Energy and Commerce|date=November 2005}}</ref>{{rp|2–3}}
==Impact==
It is difficult to measure the effectiveness of a program that has broad goals and little oversight. Yearly requests for E-Rate funding almost triple the FCC's $2.25 billion limit (CRS, 2003, 7). At the beginning of 2005, over 100,000 schools had participated in the program (GAO, 2005, 58). In 2003, nearly half of the funding went to schools where more than half of the students receive reduced price lunches (CRS, 2004, 5). Department of Education Surveys show that between 1994 and 1999, Internet access in public schools rose from 35% to 95%, and access in classrooms rose from 3% to 63% (CRS, 2001, 5). This period coincides with growth in Internet access across society and only briefly coincides with the existence of E-Rate. It is thus impossible to causally link the two. However, other evidence does suggest a correlation. A 2006 Case study performed by the Benton Foundation found that E-Rate funding had a direct impact on classroom Internet connectivity in four cities. An evaluation of E-Rate in California by Goolsbee and Guryan showed a 68% increase in classroom connectivity per teacher but could not identify any impact on student achievement.


===Fraud and waste===
==References==
Critics point to many cases of fraud and wastefulness in the E-rate program. Examples include $101 million in equipment which was used for nine schools in Puerto Rico, a $73 million network in Atlanta which never went through a bidding process, and a $21 million settlement from the NEC for fraud and price rigging.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0617/p11s01-legn.html|title=Fraud charges cloud plan for 'wired' classrooms |newspaper=The Christian Science Monitor|author=Randy Dotinga|date=June 17, 2004|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref>
<div class="references-small">
*Austan Goolsbee and Jonathan Guryan. The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools. Review of Economics and Statistics, May 2006, Vol. 88, No. 2, Pages 336-347
*Congressional Budget Office. Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health Care Providers by Philip Webre. (1998).
*Congressional Research Service. E-Rate for Schools: Background on Telecommunications Discounts Through the Universal Service Fund (98-604 EPW) by James B. Steadman and Patricia Osorio-O'Dea. (2001).
*Congressional Research Service. The E-Rate Program: Universal Service Fund Telecommunications Discounts for Schools (RL32018) by Charmaine Jackson. (2004).
*Congressional Research Service. Telecommunications Discounts for Schools and Libraries: The “E-Rate” Program and Controversies (IB98040) by Angela A. Gilroy. (2003).
*Federal Communications Commission. Office of Inspector General Memorandum. October 31, 2002.
*Federal Communications Commission. Report and Order. FCC 97-157. May 7, 1997.
*Federal Communications Commission. Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration. FCC 97-253. July 17, 1997.
*Federal Communications Commission. Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 97-21. FCC 98-306. November 20, 1998.
*General Accounting Office. FCC lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs. Dated March 31, 1998. GAO/T-RCED/OGC-98-84.
*General Accounting Office. Greater Involvement Needed by the FCC in the management and Oversight of the E-Rate Program. Dated February 2005. GAO-05-151.
*General Accounting Office. Letter to Senator Ted Stevens. Dated May 7, 1998. B279833.
*How the Universal Service Fund Works. Retrieved from http://www.usac.org/fund-administration/about/how-universal-service-fund-works.aspx
*Joint Committee on Taxation, Background and Present Law Relating to Funding Mechanisms of the "E-Rate" Telecommunications Program (JCX-59-98), July 31, 1998.
*Study Finds E-Rate is Achieving Its Goals.
*Telecommunications Act of 1996, S. 652, 104th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1996).
*Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC., (5th Cir. 1999)
*Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns with the E-Rate Program: Bipartisan Staff Report for the Use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House, 108th Congress., 2nd Sess. (2005).
</div>


In 2009, a division of [[AT&T]] settled $8.2 million in lawsuits alleging violations of the bidding process, as well as using E-rate to cover ineligible services.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2009/02/16/atandt-pays-out-8-2-million-settlement-over-school-e-rate-program/|title=AT&T pays out $8.2 million settlement over school E-Rate program|publisher=Engadget|author= Donald Melanson|date=February 16, 2009|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> In September 2010, the FCC tightened restrictions on gifts given to school personnel by telecommunications companies for the E-rate program.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.eschoolnews.com/2011/11/03/how-to-make-sense-of-the-new-erate-gift-rules/|title=How to make sense of the new eRate gift rules|publisher=eSchool News|author=Nick Shipley|date=November 3, 2010|accessdate=November 24, 2014}}</ref> In November 2010, [[Hewlett-Packard]] settled a lawsuit for $16.25 million concerning contractors illegally giving gifts to school officials in exchange for contracts on E-rate funded equipment.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/11/technology/11hewlett.html?_r=0|title=H.P. to Pay $16 Million to Settle Suits|newspaper=The New York Times|author=Edward Wyatt|date=November 10, 2010|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> The HP lawsuits were part of a larger investigation of the Texas E-rate program by the [[US Department of Justice]] which included smaller settlements from [[Houston Independent School District]], [[Dallas Independent School District]], and a businessman.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.multichannel.com/news/policy/doj-gets-another-settlement-texas-e-rate-investigation/262845|title=DOJ Gets Another Settlement in Texas E-Rate Investigation|publisher=MultiChannel News|author=John Eggerton|date=August 6, 2013|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref>
==See also==

*[[Universal Service Fund]]
In 2013, an investigation by a Jewish newspaper found that [[Haredi Judaism|Haredi Jewish]] schools in New York City received millions in E-rate funding, despite their practice of rejecting modern technology.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national-news/e-rate-program-dogged-concerns-about-oversight|title=E-rate Program Dogged By Concerns|work=The Jewish Week|author1=Julie Wiener|author2=Hella Winston|date=February 22, 2013|accessdate=December 26, 2014|archive-date=December 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161223190159/http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/national-news/e-rate-program-dogged-concerns-about-oversight|url-status=dead}}</ref>
*[[Universal Service Administrative Company]]

===Overcharging schools===
Under the E-rate program rules, service providers are not allowed to charge schools more than the "Lowest Corresponding Price", meaning that companies cannot charge schools more than they charge other non-residential users for service.<ref name=bark>{{cite news |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-belkin/usacs-erate-bark-just-los_b_5599628.html|title=USAC's E-Rate Bark Just Lost Some of Its Bite|work=The Huffington Post|author=Jeff Belkin|date=July 29, 2014|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref> However, providers such as AT&T and Verizon sometimes charge 325% or 200% of the price charged to others in the same area.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.propublica.org/article/att-feds-ignore-low-price-mandate-designed-to-help-schools|title=AT&T, Feds Neglect Low-Price Mandate Designed to Help Schools|publisher=ProPublica|author=Jeff Gerth|date=May 1, 2012|accessdate=December 26, 2014}}</ref>

In order to enforce equal pricing, the Universal Service Administrative Company adopted the "Payment Quality Assurance" auditing program, to ensure the program's rules are followed.<ref name=bark /> Under the auditing program, false statements of the Lowest Corresponding Price were prosecuted under the False Claims Act. However, in July 2014 the [[United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit]] ruled that the [[False Claims Act]] could not be used to prosecute fraud in the E-rate program, because the program was not funded by federal money.<ref>{{cite magazine|url=http://www.natlawreview.com/article/fifth-circuit-false-claims-act-fca-inapplicable-to-claims-involving-private-funds-ad|title=Fifth Circuit: False Claims Act (FCA) Inapplicable to Claims Involving Private Funds Administered by Government-Created Programs|magazine=National Law Review|author1=Connie N Bertram |author2=Rachel S Fischer |date=July 14, 2014|accessdate=December 24, 2014}}</ref> The fifth circuit ruled that E-rate was outside the scope of the False Claims Act, forcing the Universal Service Administrative Company to find other legal justification for the pricing enforcement.<ref name=bark />

==References==
{{reflist}}


==External links==
==External links==
*[http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=E-Rate&search_crit=title&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding E-Rate]
*[https://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=E-Rate&search_crit=title&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding E-Rate] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070312180522/http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/search.tkl?q=E-Rate&search_crit=title&search=Search&date1=Anytime&date2=Anytime&type=form |date=March 12, 2007 }}
*[http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/2004.plinternet.study.pdf Public Libraries and the Internet 2004: Survey Results and Findings], 1 June 2005, pp.10-11
*[https://web.archive.org/web/20060930060919/http://www.nclis.gov/statsurv/2004.plinternet.study.pdf Public Libraries and the Internet 2004: Survey Results and Findings], June 1, 2005, pp.&nbsp;10–11
*How the Universal Service Fund Works. Retrieved from http://www.usac.org/fund-administration/about/how-universal-service-fund-works.aspx {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120206014600/http://www.usac.org/fund-administration/about/how-universal-service-fund-works.aspx |date=February 6, 2012 }}
*E-Rationalization: A Study of the Effectiveness of the E-Rate Program: http://www.uta.edu/faculty/mikeward/HonorsThesis.pdf {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161204122201/http://www.uta.edu/faculty/mikeward/HonorsThesis.pdf |date=December 4, 2016 }}
*{{cite journal |title=The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools |first1=Austan |last1=Goolsbee |authorlink1=Austan Goolsbee |first2=Jonathan |last2=Guryan |journal=[[Review of Economics and Statistics]] |year=2006 |volume=88 |issue=2 |pages=336–347 |doi=10.1162/rest.88.2.336 |citeseerx=10.1.1.489.3305 }}


[[Category:United States communications regulation]]
[[Category:United States communications regulation]]
[[Category:History of the Internet]]
[[Category:Internet in the United States]]
[[Category:Federal Communications Commission]]

Latest revision as of 19:10, 2 November 2024

E-Rate is the commonly used name for the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal Service Fund, which is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) under the direction of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The program provides discounts to assist schools and libraries in the United States to obtain affordable telecommunications and internet access. It is one of four support programs funded through a universal service fee charged to companies that provide interstate and/or international telecommunications services.

Function

[edit]

The Schools and Libraries Program supports connectivity – the conduit or pipeline for communications using telecommunications services and/or the internet. Funding is requested under four categories of service: telecommunications services, internet access, internal connections, and basic maintenance of internal connections. Discounts for support depend on the level of poverty and the urban/rural status of the population served and range from 20% to 90% of the costs of eligible services. Eligible schools, school districts and libraries may apply individually or as part of a consortium.

Applicants must provide additional resources including end-user equipment (e.g., computers, telephones, etc.), software, professional development, and the other elements that are necessary to utilize the connectivity funded by the Schools and Libraries Program.

Impact

[edit]

Yearly requests for E-Rate funding almost triple the FCC's $2.25 billion limit.[1]: 7  At the beginning of 2005, over 100,000 schools had participated in the program.[2]: 58  In 2003, nearly half of the funding went to schools where more than half of the students receive reduced price lunches.[3]: 5 

Broadly, US Department of Education's nationally representative surveys show that between 1994 and 1999, internet access in public schools rose from 35% to 95%, and access in classrooms rose from 3% to 63%.[4]: 5 

Some studies have suggested that the E-rate program has had a positive impact on schools. A 2006 case study performed by the Benton Foundation found that E-Rate funding had a direct impact on classroom internet connectivity in four cities.[5] An evaluation of E-Rate in California by Goolsbee and Guryan showed a 68% increase in classroom connectivity per teacher but could not identify any impact on student achievement.[6] A study concluded in 2005 by a University of Texas student under the supervision of economics professor Mike Ward, using regression analysis, showed the E-Rate program in Texas school districts to have positive effect on factors like test scores, graduation rates, and college admission rates.[7]

Structure

[edit]
[edit]

The Schools and Libraries portion of the Universal Service Fund, more widely known as E-Rate, was authorized as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, section 254. The act called for universal service, meaning that everyone should have access to advanced telecommunications services at reasonable rates regardless of their location. Two measures were included to advance this goal specifically for libraries and schools. Telecommunications providers were ordered to supply their services to schools and libraries at discounted rates determined by the FCC.[8] More generally, the FCC was directed to establish rules "to enhance... access to advanced telecommunications and information services for all public and nonprofit elementary and secondary school classrooms, health care providers, and libraries".[8] The FCC was given the authority to establish and periodically evaluate what services qualified for support under both measures according to four broad criteria.[8] Funding was to be provided by contributions from telecommunications providers through an unspecified but "equitable and nondiscriminatory" mechanism.[8]

The E-rate program was strongly supported by then vice-president Al Gore as a way to connect classrooms to the internet.[9][10]

Implementation

[edit]

On May 7, 1997, the FCC adopted Order 97-157 as its plan to implement section 254 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The FCC determined that "telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections", including "installation and maintenance", were eligible for discounted rates.[11]: 255  Internal connections were defined as "essential element[s] in the transmission of information within the school or library".[11]: 459  The level of discount that a school or library received would vary from 20% to 90% depending on the cost of services and level of poverty as measured by the percentage of students eligible for the national school lunch program.[11]: 498  The total amount of money to be disbursed was capped at 2.25 billion or 15%.[11]: 425 

The FCC designed the application process to promote cost effective and accountable solutions. As a part of their applications, schools and libraries were required to conduct an assessment of their current technology resources and explain how they utilize them for their educational mission. This assessment had to be certified by an outside organization, preferably the state government. Schools and libraries were required to select vendors through a competitive bidding process publicized through a national website. Record-keeping requirements were instituted to facilitate audits.[11]: 572–581 

The FCC decided to fund E-Rate through the same pool of money collected for other Universal Service Fund, or USF, programs.[11]: 584  The new language in the Telecommunications Act of 1996 expanded the pool of companies required to contribute. The expanded pool included all companies that provided interstate telecommunications service to the public for a fee.[11]: 777  As of 1998, around 3500 companies contributed to the USF.[12]: 19  A company's contribution to the USF is based on its interstate and intrastate revenues from sales to end users.[11]: 843  Companies submit revenue projections, from which the contribution factor is determined and then assessed. This process takes place on a quarterly basis (How the USF Works). In order to preserve low-cost local phone service, companies are only permitted to increase interstate revenues to recoup their USF contribution costs.[11]: 843 

The National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA) managed the existing universal service fund, and in their initial authorizing order the FCC directed the NECA to temporarily administer E-Rate as well.[13]: 42  When the NECA was unable to agree on how to restructure its Board of Directors to reduce the influence of incumbent local exchange carriers, it instead proposed creation of a subsidiary, the Universal Service Administrative Company, with a board composed of representatives from telecommunications providers and the USF recipient groups.[13]: 33  In Order 97-253 the FCC agreed to this proposal.[13]: 12  The FCC also directed NECA to create two unaffiliated corporations to manage the schools and libraries and rural health care programs.[13]: 26  However, Senator Ted Stevens and the House Committee on Commerce soon inquired whether this violated the Government Corporation Control Act. The Government Accountability Office concluded that it did, and an amendment was added to s.1768 that required the FCC to restructure USF administration.[14]: 5  In response, the two new corporations were terminated and their responsibilities shifted to two new divisions within USAC.[15]: 2 

Filtering requirements

[edit]

The Children's Internet Protection Act, passed in the year 2000, stipulates that in order to receive E-rate funding, schools and libraries are required to block or filter internet access to pictures that are: (a) obscene; (b) child pornography; or (c) harmful to minors (for computers that are accessed by minors).[16]

Modernization

[edit]

On July 23, 2014, the FCC adopted a broad overhaul of the E-rate program, named the E-Rate Modernization order. The order focused on expanding subsidies for Wi-Fi to a target of $1 billion a year.[17] The move followed a month after a request for reform by president Barack Obama,[18] who had advocated reform of the program during his presidential candidacy in 2007.[19] The move was embraced by many in the telecommunications industry, including Comcast, Cisco, and PCIA - The Wireless Infrastructure Association.[20] The reform was also lauded by the American Library Association.[21]

In November 2014, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler proposed the first increase in the E-rate budget, an increase of $1.5 billion.[22] In December 2014, the FCC approved the increase by a vote of 3–2, raising the total budget from 2.4 to 3.9 billion.[23][24]

Criticism

[edit]

Funding structure

[edit]

In addition to the incorporation scandal, E-Rate faced legal challenges from eleven states and six telecommunications companies. These were consolidated in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC.[25] The chief state complaint was unrelated to E-Rate, but a company complaint about the method of contribution was relevant.[26] Since the USF fee collection is mandated by the federal government, the CBO and OMB consider the fees collected to be federal revenues and the money disbursed for discounts to be federal outlays.[12]: viii  However, only the United States House of Representatives is constitutionally permitted to introduce revenue-generating measures. Also, the power to establish user fees may be delegated to executive agencies, but the power to tax may not.[27] The court found that the FCC's collection of USF fees did not violate the constitution.[28]: III, 5, a, i, a 

Some members of congress objected to the level and method of funding provided by the FCC to E-Rate. They viewed the inclusion of internal connections and $2.25 billion budget as excessive and a drain on resources needed to achieve other aspects of universal service. Two such members, Representative Tauzin and Senator Burns, proposed unsuccessful legislation in the 106th Congress to end E-Rate and replace it by a block grant program administered by the Commerce Department. Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced that keep E-Rate but change the funding mechanism to avoid a direct impact on local phone service.[1]: 5–7 

In 2002, a report on Universal Service Fund from the FCC's Office of Inspector General found that E-Rate had a "lack of resources for effective oversight", "inadequate competitive bidding requirements", and "no suspension or disbarment process" for schools, libraries, or companies with a history of fraud. Random audits conducted by the OIG led to criminal investigations.[29]: 3–6  In response, congress requested a Government Accountability Office report on the health of E-Rate and planned hearings on the matter.

The GAO found serious fault with the unusual organizational structure of E-Rate. USAC was not operating under federal fiscal accountability standards. Also, the GAO decried the lack of performance measures for evaluating the impact of E-Rate funds.[2]: 4–5  The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations held four hearings into misuse of E-Rate funds. The subcommittee found a multitude of irregularities: purchases were being made with fraudulent documentation and without competitive bidding; inadequate strategic technology plans were accepted and led to unused, wasted resources; and no protections were in place to prevent gold plating ("procurement of technology goods and services far beyond reasonable school district needs and resources") and many other forms of abuse.[30]: 2–3 

Fraud and waste

[edit]

Critics point to many cases of fraud and wastefulness in the E-rate program. Examples include $101 million in equipment which was used for nine schools in Puerto Rico, a $73 million network in Atlanta which never went through a bidding process, and a $21 million settlement from the NEC for fraud and price rigging.[31]

In 2009, a division of AT&T settled $8.2 million in lawsuits alleging violations of the bidding process, as well as using E-rate to cover ineligible services.[32] In September 2010, the FCC tightened restrictions on gifts given to school personnel by telecommunications companies for the E-rate program.[33] In November 2010, Hewlett-Packard settled a lawsuit for $16.25 million concerning contractors illegally giving gifts to school officials in exchange for contracts on E-rate funded equipment.[34] The HP lawsuits were part of a larger investigation of the Texas E-rate program by the US Department of Justice which included smaller settlements from Houston Independent School District, Dallas Independent School District, and a businessman.[35]

In 2013, an investigation by a Jewish newspaper found that Haredi Jewish schools in New York City received millions in E-rate funding, despite their practice of rejecting modern technology.[36]

Overcharging schools

[edit]

Under the E-rate program rules, service providers are not allowed to charge schools more than the "Lowest Corresponding Price", meaning that companies cannot charge schools more than they charge other non-residential users for service.[37] However, providers such as AT&T and Verizon sometimes charge 325% or 200% of the price charged to others in the same area.[38]

In order to enforce equal pricing, the Universal Service Administrative Company adopted the "Payment Quality Assurance" auditing program, to ensure the program's rules are followed.[37] Under the auditing program, false statements of the Lowest Corresponding Price were prosecuted under the False Claims Act. However, in July 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the False Claims Act could not be used to prosecute fraud in the E-rate program, because the program was not funded by federal money.[39] The fifth circuit ruled that E-rate was outside the scope of the False Claims Act, forcing the Universal Service Administrative Company to find other legal justification for the pricing enforcement.[37]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b Angela A. Gilroy (2003). "Telecommunications Discounts for Schools and Libraries: The "E-Rate" Program and Controversies" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 18, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  2. ^ a b "Greater Involvement Needed by the FCC in the management and Oversight of the E-Rate Program" (PDF). General Accounting Office. February 2005.
  3. ^ Charmaine Jackson (March 9, 2004). "The E-Rate Program: Universal Service Fund Telecommunications Discounts for Schools" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 14, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  4. ^ James B. Steadman; Patricia Osorio-O'Dea (2001). "E-Rate for Schools: Background on Telecommunications Discounts Through the Universal Service Fund" (PDF). Congressional Research Service. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 9, 2017. Retrieved October 26, 2017.
  5. ^ Andy Carvin (February 2000). "The E-Rate in America: A Tale of Four Cities" (PDF). Benton Foundation. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  6. ^ Goolsbee, Austan; Guryan, Jonathan (August 2002). "The Impact of Internet Subsidies in Public Schools" (PDF). Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  7. ^ Michael R. Ward (March 2006). "The Effects of the E-Rate Internet Subsidies in Education". Social Science Research Network. SSRN 940092. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  8. ^ a b c d Section 254 of the "Telecommunications Act of 1996" (PDF). 1996.
  9. ^ Gore, Al (May 25, 1998). "Al Gore: Should Schools Be Wired To The Internet?". TIME. Retrieved October 6, 2024.
  10. ^ "The Gore Tax". The Wall Street Journal. June 12, 1998. Retrieved October 6, 2024.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i "Report & Order In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service". Federal Communications Commission. May 7, 1997.
  12. ^ a b Philip Webre (1998). "Federal Subsidies of Advanced Telecommunications for Schools, Libraries, and Health Care Providers" (PDF). Congressional Budget Office.
  13. ^ a b c d "Report and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration". Federal Communications Commission. July 17, 1997.
  14. ^ "FCC lacked Authority to Create Corporations to Administer Universal Service Programs" (PDF). General Accounting Office. March 31, 1998. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 6, 2017. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
  15. ^ Federal Communications Commission. Third Report and Order in CC Docket No. 97-21. FCC 98-306. November 20, 1998.
  16. ^ "Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)". May 5, 2011.
  17. ^ Dennis Pierce (July 11, 2014). "FCC takes key step toward modernizing eRate". eSchool News. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  18. ^ Alina Selyukh (July 19, 2013). "U.S. FCC moves to reform E-Rate subsidy for Internet at schools". Reuters. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  19. ^ Michael Arrington (November 26, 2007). "Q&A With Senator Barack Obama On Key Technology Issues". Tech Crunch. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  20. ^ John Eggerton (July 11, 2014). "Comcast Applauds FCC E-Rate Reform". MultiChannelNews. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  21. ^ Press Release (December 11, 2014). "FCC E-rate action expands broadband opportunities for libraries". American Library Association. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  22. ^ Edward Wyatt (November 17, 2014). "F.C.C. Chief Aims to Bolster Internet for Schools". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  23. ^ Jim Puzzanghera (December 11, 2014). "FCC increases funding to boost Internet speeds at schools, libraries". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved December 22, 2014.
  24. ^ Edward Wyatt (December 11, 2014). "F.C.C. Increases Money for E-Rate Program for Internet in Schools and Libraries". The New York Times. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  25. ^ before the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th District
  26. ^ "Letter to Senator Ted Stevens" (PDF). General Accounting Office. May 7, 1998.
  27. ^ "Background and Present Law Relating to Funding Mechanisms of the "E-Rate" Telecommunications Program". Joint Committee on Taxation. July 31, 1998. Archived from the original on September 22, 2020. Retrieved December 18, 2014.
  28. ^ "Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC". US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. July 30, 1999.
  29. ^ Federal Communications Commission. Office of Inspector General Memorandum. October 31, 2002.
  30. ^ "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse Concerns with the E-Rate Program" (PDF). House Committee on Energy and Commerce. November 2005.
  31. ^ Randy Dotinga (June 17, 2004). "Fraud charges cloud plan for 'wired' classrooms". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  32. ^ Donald Melanson (February 16, 2009). "AT&T pays out $8.2 million settlement over school E-Rate program". Engadget. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  33. ^ Nick Shipley (November 3, 2010). "How to make sense of the new eRate gift rules". eSchool News. Retrieved November 24, 2014.
  34. ^ Edward Wyatt (November 10, 2010). "H.P. to Pay $16 Million to Settle Suits". The New York Times. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  35. ^ John Eggerton (August 6, 2013). "DOJ Gets Another Settlement in Texas E-Rate Investigation". MultiChannel News. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
  36. ^ Julie Wiener; Hella Winston (February 22, 2013). "E-rate Program Dogged By Concerns". The Jewish Week. Archived from the original on December 23, 2016. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  37. ^ a b c Jeff Belkin (July 29, 2014). "USAC's E-Rate Bark Just Lost Some of Its Bite". The Huffington Post. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  38. ^ Jeff Gerth (May 1, 2012). "AT&T, Feds Neglect Low-Price Mandate Designed to Help Schools". ProPublica. Retrieved December 26, 2014.
  39. ^ Connie N Bertram; Rachel S Fischer (July 14, 2014). "Fifth Circuit: False Claims Act (FCA) Inapplicable to Claims Involving Private Funds Administered by Government-Created Programs". National Law Review. Retrieved December 24, 2014.
[edit]