In the Matter of )
)
Federal-State Joint Board on ) CC Docket No. 96-45
Universal Service [FCC 96-93] )
)
To: The Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service
REPLY COMMENTS OF THE ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS
FOR EDUCATION [ACE] COALITION
Table of Contents
Topic(s) Page(s)
1. Responses to Comments by Others:
a. United States Telephone Association 3
(1) Against Establishing Barriers 3
(2) Against Conditional Definition of 3
"Bona Fide" Request
(3) Against Establishment of Slush Fund 4
or Intervening State Agency
b. National School Boards Association, et al 5
(1) Against Using Incremental Cost 5
(2) Against Requiring Competitive Bids 5
c. Netscape Communications, Inc. 6
(1) For Establishing Separate Definition 6
of Universal Services for Schools and
Libraries (i.e., Special Services)
(2) For Using Section 706 to Build 6
Internet Access
d. American Federation of Teachers and NAACP 7
(1) For "Lifeline" or "Equity" Discounts 7
(2) For Lifeline/Equity in "Empowerment 7
Zones"
e. American Association for Adult and 7
Continuing Education [For Applicability
of Discounts to All Educational Programs
Offered by Schools and Libraries --
Including Adult and Continuing Education
Programs Such as Those For High School
Completion]
2. Corrections/Clarifications: 8
a. New Members 8
b. Inter-State, Intra-State Cooperation 8
c. Errata: Table of Contents for "Comments" 9
3. Conclusions: 9
a. Point-of-Presence is Every School Office, 9
Classroom and Library in America
b. Universal Service To Include All Available 9
Telecommunications Services at
Appropriately Discounted Rates
c. Evolution of Universal Services Definition 10
Determined by the Individual and
Collective Purchases of Telecommunications
Services by Schools and Libraries
Appendix A. Organizations Represented In This Filing By The
Access To Communications For Education [ACE]
Coalition
Appendix B. Table-of-Contents for the 4-12-96 ACE Coalition
Comments
1. The Access to Communications for Education [ACE] Coalition[1] respectfully forwards the following responses to comments filed by others in respect to Universal Service rulemaking for school, classroom and library telecommunications access which is mandated in Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996[2]:
a. Response to United States Telephone Association. The Joint Board and Commission are requested to completely disregard comments and funding mechanisms proposed for the establishment and operation of universal services for schools and libraries by the USTA in their 4-12-96 filing on Docket No. 96-45. USTA comments in Section II, pages 6-10 are totally inconsistent with the most basic and explicit provisions of the Act as follows:
(1) Establishes Barriers. Section 254(h)(1)(B) requires "... All telecommunications carriers ..." to "... provide services to elementary schools, secondary schools, and libraries for educational purposes at rates less the amounts charged for similar services to other parties." It does NOT allow carriers to refuse to provide such services if they believe that the requesting schools/libraries haven't properly considered any arbitrary set of preconditions such as the "seven major items [that USTA suggests] must be considered and included in any effort to provide special telecommunications services to qualified schools and libraries...".[3]
(2) Conditional Definition of "Bona Fide" Request. The FCC and the public service commissions of the various States must not adopt any rule(s) which make provision of services to school and library consumers conditioned upon any arbitrary set of internal business operations as suggested by the USTA (i.e., "develop a comprehensive plan for funding, implementing and covering the ongoing costs of the seven..."[4] major items USTA believes must be considered).
Any school or library official authorized to obligate funds for telecommunications services must be deemed capable of making a "bona fide request" for such services; and, any such request must be treated as "bona fide" by all telecommunications carriers.[5]
(3) Establishment of Fund/State Agency. USTA's suggestion that the FCC establish a separate universal service fund based on the presumed service requirements of schools and libraries as identified by non-educators in the "KickStart Initiative" and administered by a "State agency" with presumed jurisdiction is totally unacceptable and inconsistent with the Act's provisions. The Act provides for "services at rates less than what is charged to any other parties" and for carriers to receive credits or reimbursement for providing discounts on such services as schools/library consumers might request. The Act includes NO PROVISIONS or CONDITIONS under which any Federal, State or local agency may receive and arbitrarily distribute universal service funds to schools/libraries based on anything such as the USTA suggested criteria that "... the individual [schools/libraries have] plans to ensure that all the components [e.i., the major seven suggested by USTA] are included and funding for each is determined."[6]
b. Response to National School Boards Association, et al. The ACE Coalition concurs in most of the comments that are included in the NSBA, et al filing. The Joint Board is encouraged to carefully consider and adopt the NSBA, et al's recommendation that special services be "broadly defined to include a full range of service options".[7] However, it is requested that the Joint Board and Commission NOT accept the following specific recommendations that are also included in the NSBA, et al filing:
(1) Incremental Cost. Incremental cost is a methodology which was considered and rejected by the United States Senate in its deliberations on education access provisions of S. 652 wherein "rates less than" and "discount" language was substituted in Section 254(h)(1)(B) of PL 104-104. Therefore, incremental cost in any form is unacceptable (i.e., Total Service Long Run Incremental Cost.)[8]
(2) Competitive Bids. The Act does not require or explicitly permit the FCC or State regulatory commissions to restrict local school or library requests for services to a competitive bidding process as suggested by the NSBA, et al on page 22 of their filing. Such a restriction is not included in the Act and would constitute an unnecessary unfunded mandate with administrative costs to some schools and libraries being more than the anticipated annual cost of the requested telecommunications services. Schools and libraries must be allowed to request telecommunications services in whatever manner they deem is appropriate and consistent with their own internal purchasing rules/regulations. This could be with a simple purchase order(s) or by a more formal request for bids. But, in any case, the requesting process should be at the discretion of the requesting agency.
c. Response to Netscape Communications, Inc. The Joint Board must create a separate definition of special services for schools and libraries to which lowest rates and discounts apply in accordance with Section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Act. And, the definition must include all available telecommunications services at appropriately discounted rates in order to accomplish the explicit and implicit intent of the Congress that "elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, health care providers, and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services" for educational purposes as described in Section 254(h)(1)(B) and 254(h)(2)(A).
The importance of affordable telecommunications access and nature of cost as the major factor limiting school access is eloquently described by US Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley; and, the intent of Congress on this matter is reinforced by Senator Olympia J. Snowe, et al in their comments on CC Docket No. 96-45.
In addition to establishing a separate definition of special services to which discounts would apply for schools and libraries, the Joint Board should also use Section 706 to further stimulate internet access for schools and libraries as suggested by Netscape Communications, Inc. in their filing.
d. Response to American Federation of Teachers and NAACP. The Ace Coalition supports NAACP's concern about minority access and AFT's suggestion that "lifeline" or "equity" discount rates be made available to schools and libraries in geographic areas where there are large numbers of low-income students. Lifeline or equity discount rates are recommended and supported by reference to Principle Three--ACCESS IN RURAL AND HIGH COST AREAS which states that "Consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income consumers and those in rural and high insular, and high cost areas, should have access to telecommunications and information services...". This principle should be applied here to ensure that essential services are provided to schools and libraries in low-income communities as well as to those in more affluent communities. In our own comment filing, the ACE Coalition suggests that this type of special consideration be extended to schools located in nationally recognized "empowerment zones"[9] rather than to funds being distributed in accordance with Title I-type formulas.
e. Response to American Association for Adult and Continuing Education (AAACE). The ACE Coalition supports comments by the AAACE with respect to the concept that discounted rates and affordable access provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 applied to schools and libraries should cover all educational programs offered by these eligible entities. More specifically, discounted rates and affordable access provisions must apply to all educational programs offered by eligible entities including those routinely provided by schools and/or libraries for under-educated adults in school, library, and/or other appropriate community settings (e.g., adult high school completion programs.)
2. Corrections/Clarifications. The following additional information is provided to update and clarify the ACE Coalition's initial Comments.
a. New Members. The following new members have joined the ACE Coalition, ascribe to comments provided in the initial filing, and are now represented in the revised membership list provided at Appendix A: Alaska Society for Technology in Education, Connecticut Educators Computer Association, National Association of Secondary School Principals, Northwest Council for Computer Education, and Quality Education Data, Inc. (A Division of Peterson's).
b. Interstate/Intrastate Cooperation[10]. In setting discounts, State regulatory commissions are clearly responsible for intra-state service discount rates; and, the Federal Communications Commission is clearly responsibility for inter-state service discount rates. However, it will probably be very difficult to determine which services are, in fact, exclusively intra- or inter- state services; and, State/Federal regulatory cooperation on setting discounts and managing universal service obligations will be needed to facilitate implementation of rules to achieve common universal service objectives.
Wherever possible -- and without diminishing State regulatory authority, Federal-State cooperation should take the form of a single set of telecommunications service discounts for schools and libraries with a single automated universal service support fund that could be maintained with separate accounts for each State. The universal service obligation of all telecommunications carriers should include a prorata contribution (i.e., based on gross annual revenues or telecommunications industry market share) to support administration of these universal service fund(s).
c. Table of Contents. As an amendment to our initial filing of comments on April 12, 1996, a "Table of Contents" for those comments is provided herewith as Appendix B.
3. Conclusions. The Coalition believes that the Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Services should make recommendations to the Commission that are consistent with these comments; and, in particular with respect to the following principles:
a. Basic telecommunications services must be provided under universal services for educational purposes with the "point-of-presence" (i.e., final point at which services are provided) being to every school office, classroom and library in America;
b. Universal service for educational purposes should support State and local decision-making about what services should
be provided by including all available telecommunications services at appropriately discounted rates; and that
c. The determination of how the definition of universal services should evolve must be made by school, classroom, and library consumers through their individual and collective purchases of telecommunications services offered to them at discounted rates by all telecommunications providers.
Respectfully submitted for the
ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS FOR
EDUCATION [ACE] COALITION by,
Dennis L. Bybee, Ph.D.
Associate Executive Officer
International Society for Technology in Education
USA National Office
P. O. Box 4437
Alexandria, VA 22303
Phone: (703) 351-5243
FAX: (703) 351-5254
EMAIL: ISTE@SEAS.GWU.EDU
May 8, 1996
Appendix A. Organizations Represented In This Filing By The
Access To Communications For Education [ACE] Coalition
Alaska Society for Technology in Education
American Association for Adult and Continuing Education
American Psychological Association
Association for Educational Communications & Technology
Center for Language Minority Education and Research (California
State University, Long Beach, California)
Connecticut Educators Computer Association
Council for American Private Education
Council of the Great City Schools
Douglass Policy Institute
Florida Association for Computers in Education
Half Hollow Hills School District (Dix Hills, New York)
Hawaii State Department of Education (Office of Information and
Telecommunications)
International Society for Technology in Education
Iowa Computer Using Educators
ISTE Special Interest Group on Telecommunications
National Association of Secondary School Principals
Northwest Council for Computer Education
Pacific Southwest Regional Technology Consortium
Pennsylvania Association of Educational Communications and
Technology
Public Service Telecommunications Corporation
Quality Education Data, Inc., (A Division of Peterson's)
South Central Regional Technology in Education Consortium
United States Distance Learning Association
West Virginia Computer Using Educators
Appendix B. Table-of-Contents for the 4-12-96 ACE Coalition Comments
COMMENTS OF THE ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS
FOR EDUCATION [ACE] COALITION
Table of Contents
Topic(s) Page(s)
1. Plain English Provisions for School, Classroom 1
and Library Telecommunications Access
a. Access to the National Information 1
Infrastructure
b. Rates that are Affordable 2
c. Support for Telecommunications Carriers 2
2. NPRM Question No. 4 -- Principles & Measures 2
a. Seven Principles: 2
(1) Principle Three--ACCESS IN RURAL 2 AND HIGH COST AREAS
(2) Principle Five--SPECIFIC AND 3
PREDICTABLE SUPPORT MECHANISMS
(3) Principle Six--ACCESS TO ADVANCED 3
TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FOR
SCHOOLS, HEALTH CARE, AND LIBRARIES
b. How to Measure Quality 3
c. How to Measure Affordability 4
3. NPRM Question 9 -- Criteria 4
a. Interpretation(s) 4
b. Features Essential to Education 5
4. NPRM Question 16 -- Core Services 6
5. NPRM Question 17 -- Additional Services 6
6. NPRM Question 46 -- Advertising Services 7
7. NPRM Question 71 -- Special Services 7
a. Special Services Definition 8
b. Support Mechanism(s) 9
(1) Discount(s) 9
(2) Obligation(s) 9
(3) Implementation 10
8. NPRM Section 72 Importance of Access to 11
Telecommunications Services for Schools,
Classrooms and Libraries.
9. NPRM Section IV.B -- What Services to Support, 11
How to Implement, and Who is Eligible for Support
a. What Services to Support
(1) Additional Services [NPRM Question 78] 11
(2) Study [NPRM Comment 79] 12
(3) Functionalities/Facilities[NPRM Question 80] 12
Topic(s) Page(s)
(4) Technical Standards [NPRM Question 80] 13
(5) Geographic Area [NPRM Question 80] 13
(6) Wireless Technologies/Advances in 14
Telecommunications and Information
Technologies and Services [NPRM Question 81]
b. How to Implement 14
(1) Establishment of the Interstate Discount 14
for Schools and Libraries [NPRM Question 83]
(a) Discount Methodology 14
(b) Tariffed Charges, Capital Investments, 15
and Recurring Expenses
(c) Incremental Cost 15
(d) Estimated Costs 15
(e) Specific, Predictable and Sufficient 16
Mechanisms
(f) Harmonizing Federal and State Discounts 16
(g) Advisory Board 16
(2) Terms and Conditions 16
(a) Certifications [NPRM Question 84] 16
(b) Bona Fide Requests [NPRM Question 85] 16
(c) Shared Network Capacity 17
[NPRM Question 86]
c. Who Is Eligible for Support 18
(1) Consortia, for-profit businesses, and 18
endowed libraries [NPRM Question 87]
(2) Support Mechanisms [NPRM Question 88] 18
(3) Determination of Amounts Charged for 19
Similar Services to Other Parties
[NPRM Question 88]
10. NPRM Section V -- Enhancing Access to Advanced 19
Services for Schools and Libraries
a. Goals and Principles [NPRM Comments 107 and 108] 19
b. How to Implement 20
(1) Identify Advanced Telecommunications 20
Services [NPRM Question 109]
(2) Incentives 21
(a) Professional Development
(b) Advanced Services Grants
(c) Product Development Grants
(d) Empowerment Zones
(e) Competitive Neutrality/Costs
(3) Define Circumstances/Connecting Networks 22
[NPRM Question 110]
11. CONCLUSIONS 22
a. "Point-of-presence" to every school office, 22
classroom and library in America
b. Universal service should include all available
23
telecommunications services at appropriately
discounted rates
c. Local Determination on Evolving Definition 23