Lawmakers seek to overhaul e-Rate
New bill would fund broadband in students’ homes, eBooks, and would provide for inflation
From staff and wire reports
Read more by staff and wire services reports
The new bill would provide student vouchers for internet access.
A new House bill seeks to overhaul the e-Rate, which provides telecommunications discounts to eligible schools and libraries, to make it a more useful tool in the federal government’s National Broadband Plan.
Introduced Feb. 9 by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and co-sponsored by Reps. Lois Capps and Doris Matsui, both California Democrats, the “e-Rate 2.0 Act of 2010” (H.R. 4619) would allow the e-Rate to help bridge the digital divide in students’ homes, fund electronic books in schools, and adjust its coverage for inflation. Under Markey’s proposal, Head Start programs and even community colleges would be eligible for some funding.
“This critical bill will help narrow the digital divide by increasing the range of the latest telecommunication services and devices accessible to low-income students, including residential broadband services and eBooks incorporated into students’ classroom lessons,” said Markey in a statement. “The original e-Rate bill that I [co-] authored has largely fulfilled its mission of linking up schools to the web. The fact that only 14 percent of K-12 classrooms had internet access at the time the 1996 bill was enacted, compared to more than 95 percent today, is a testament to that success. Now, with the expansion of the scope of technology, students need more than just web access at school, and our e-Rate 2.0 bill is intended to reflect those expanded needs.”
Bridging the divide
The bill would create a pilot program that would allow funding in the form of vouchers to eligible students from low-income families. The vouchers would be used to offset monthly service fees for home broadband service.
To be eligible, students would need to qualify for free or reduced-price lunches, attend secondary schools that receive support under the e-Rate program, and already have a computer at home.
The program calls for up to $500 million per year in funding for this pilot program, which would be in effect for five years.
rhershman
February 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm
As someone who formerly chaired the EdLinc Coalition, I must say while I support elements of this bill like increasing the cap which was imposed by the FCC –not Congress, and has been needed for some time now, I am deeply troubled by the idea of moving beyond the current mission of the program of providing more affordable broadband access for schools and libraries in high need areas. This mission has not yet been accomplished. I say this as I remain a big fan of Congressman Markey who has been a tireless advocate and defender of e-rate and champion of education technology.
When I chaired the education and library community coalition it was at a time during which the new Bush administration had proposed to eliminate e-rate and replace it with highly uncertain discretionary funding through the US Department of Education. The education community fought vigorously against it and the proposal was eventually dropped. The whole premise and ability to preserve E-rate and universal service funding depends on keeping its focus. As we argued back then, E-rate is not an education program. It’s a telecommunications program with an educational benefit. It’s a good thing we succeeded back then because we have seen dedicated federal investment in education technology at the US Department of Education dwindle under two Presidents and several Congresses. The FY2011 budget proposes to eliminate the small remaining dedicated funding of what was a very robust set of technology programs in favor of imbedded uses within broader category funding streams.
Demand for e-rate funds continue to exceed supply as the funding mechanism which sits outside of the federal budget used to support universal service faces new challenges. Many states have also pulled back on supporting broadband during lean budget times. The process and system has made it difficult for some to secure the funds and discounts for needed services, though my understanding is its been much been improved in recent years. With the growth and demand for online assessment and data proposed by the administration and envisioned by No Child Left Behind, limited broadband has proved challenging for many states.
Pilot projects and studies like e-books are worthy of study and funding and a number of them are already underway, but I respectfully suggest they should not be funded through Universal Service.
Rich Hershman
rhershman
February 12, 2010 at 2:05 pm
As someone who formerly chaired the EdLinc Coalition, I must say while I support elements of this bill like increasing the cap which was imposed by the FCC –not Congress, and has been needed for some time now, I am deeply troubled by the idea of moving beyond the current mission of the program of providing more affordable broadband access for schools and libraries in high need areas. This mission has not yet been accomplished. I say this as I remain a big fan of Congressman Markey who has been a tireless advocate and defender of e-rate and champion of education technology.
When I chaired the education and library community coalition it was at a time during which the new Bush administration had proposed to eliminate e-rate and replace it with highly uncertain discretionary funding through the US Department of Education. The education community fought vigorously against it and the proposal was eventually dropped. The whole premise and ability to preserve E-rate and universal service funding depends on keeping its focus. As we argued back then, E-rate is not an education program. It’s a telecommunications program with an educational benefit. It’s a good thing we succeeded back then because we have seen dedicated federal investment in education technology at the US Department of Education dwindle under two Presidents and several Congresses. The FY2011 budget proposes to eliminate the small remaining dedicated funding of what was a very robust set of technology programs in favor of imbedded uses within broader category funding streams.
Demand for e-rate funds continue to exceed supply as the funding mechanism which sits outside of the federal budget used to support universal service faces new challenges. Many states have also pulled back on supporting broadband during lean budget times. The process and system has made it difficult for some to secure the funds and discounts for needed services, though my understanding is its been much been improved in recent years. With the growth and demand for online assessment and data proposed by the administration and envisioned by No Child Left Behind, limited broadband has proved challenging for many states.
Pilot projects and studies like e-books are worthy of study and funding and a number of them are already underway, but I respectfully suggest they should not be funded through Universal Service.
Rich Hershman
rryan063
February 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Multiple year contracts for priority 1 are already allowed. What is needed is to do away with the 2 in 5 rule for all schools and libraries and to allow a wider range of equipment to be purchased with eRate funds.
Ask some of the folks in the trenches what and where the changes need to be made are.
rryan063
February 12, 2010 at 2:44 pm
Multiple year contracts for priority 1 are already allowed. What is needed is to do away with the 2 in 5 rule for all schools and libraries and to allow a wider range of equipment to be purchased with eRate funds.
Ask some of the folks in the trenches what and where the changes need to be made are.
horning458
February 15, 2010 at 9:36 am
The two in five rule has allowed some of us with a discount percentage of 85% or 80% to finally get some Priority Two funding. The 90% schools can’t possible need to replace everything in less than three years. I think they are moving the stuff from their 90% schools to other places and re-ordering every year. The two in five rule addresses that in a small part.
horning458
February 15, 2010 at 9:36 am
The two in five rule has allowed some of us with a discount percentage of 85% or 80% to finally get some Priority Two funding. The 90% schools can’t possible need to replace everything in less than three years. I think they are moving the stuff from their 90% schools to other places and re-ordering every year. The two in five rule addresses that in a small part.
jmcwilliams581
February 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm
They also need to look at cost containment, and stop allowing districts to choose vendors with pricing that far exceeds the norms for the serivce. Their should be set pricing for many products/services, and anything above that needs special approval. There are such abuses in the program, because the people who are spending the money, don’t care, because it’s not out of their budgets.
jmcwilliams581
February 15, 2010 at 2:15 pm
They also need to look at cost containment, and stop allowing districts to choose vendors with pricing that far exceeds the norms for the serivce. Their should be set pricing for many products/services, and anything above that needs special approval. There are such abuses in the program, because the people who are spending the money, don’t care, because it’s not out of their budgets.
aclasen
February 15, 2010 at 7:19 pm
As an administrator responsible for erate in an Illinois k-12 school District, I see the benefit of receiving a 40% discount on connectivity charges. These funds allow our District to purchase services to implement in the schools. Along with a VERY judicious RFP and contracting process, our district is able to secure more bandwidth for less cost on a regular basis.
There also must be buy-in from school boards, superintendents and cabinets to place value on connectivity for the schools. For without that connectivity, the educational process won’t be able to extend into areas it can only be taken with technology.
I appreciate the evaluation process required for erate, and the checks and balances, although I feel as one other commenter, that most schools at the 90% funding rate can’t possibly use the equipment they are able to receive every 3 years. Our district is able to provide excellent service by purchasing top tier equipment for core connectivity, and then moving older equipment to the edges and the out of service after 5 or 6 years, sometime more!
All in all, erate is a plus for education, but who liked to pay their universal service fee…perhaps some of those dollars should be allocated to cabling infrastructure for schools and cities which could benefit by tapping into dark fiber for emergency or other purposes. Noone would lose, and the cities and school districts would win, because monthly carrier services are MUCH more expensive over the long run than an investment in fiber in the ground. Perhaps that area of erate funding could be addressed in this bill.
Allen Clasen
aclasen
February 15, 2010 at 7:19 pm
As an administrator responsible for erate in an Illinois k-12 school District, I see the benefit of receiving a 40% discount on connectivity charges. These funds allow our District to purchase services to implement in the schools. Along with a VERY judicious RFP and contracting process, our district is able to secure more bandwidth for less cost on a regular basis.
There also must be buy-in from school boards, superintendents and cabinets to place value on connectivity for the schools. For without that connectivity, the educational process won’t be able to extend into areas it can only be taken with technology.
I appreciate the evaluation process required for erate, and the checks and balances, although I feel as one other commenter, that most schools at the 90% funding rate can’t possibly use the equipment they are able to receive every 3 years. Our district is able to provide excellent service by purchasing top tier equipment for core connectivity, and then moving older equipment to the edges and the out of service after 5 or 6 years, sometime more!
All in all, erate is a plus for education, but who liked to pay their universal service fee…perhaps some of those dollars should be allocated to cabling infrastructure for schools and cities which could benefit by tapping into dark fiber for emergency or other purposes. Noone would lose, and the cities and school districts would win, because monthly carrier services are MUCH more expensive over the long run than an investment in fiber in the ground. Perhaps that area of erate funding could be addressed in this bill.
Allen Clasen
bravewarrior43
February 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Why won’t this be available at the elementary level as well?
bravewarrior43
February 16, 2010 at 1:43 pm
Why won’t this be available at the elementary level as well?