US:PA-4: Q about FCC policy about libraries with multi-year contracts
Q about FCC policy about libraries with multi-year contracts
L Tynan, Montgomery Cty-Norristown Lib (ltynan@mclinc.org)
Thu, 9 Oct 1997 16:29:44 -0400
I'd like to pose a question to the seminar in the hopes that
someone either associated with the PUC/FCC or privy to
information about their rulemaking process can give a
definitive answer.
Evidently some further discussion is being held by
the FCC about the problem faced by libraries who entered
into multi-year contracts for telecommunications services
late in 1996 or early in 1997. As I understand it,
contracts signed after November 7, 1996 but before the USF
website is ready evidently may not qualify for discounts
under the present FCC rules. The problem arises from the
fact that very little information was available about the
Universal Service Fund process until late spring of 1997.
The MCLINC consortiuim in Mongomery County signed a 5-year
contract for SMDS service with Bell Atlantic on February 28,
1997. Several months later we learned for the first time
that we were going to have a problem qualifying for
discounts on this SMDS service because of the term of this
contract. I understand that the Delaware County Library
System may have a similar problem.
The information gap from November 7, 1996 through May 1997
when copies of the FCC regulatory decisions first began to
be widely communicated to the library community has caught
a number of libraries and consortia in a Catch-22. We
didn't know we shouldn't be entering into long term
contracts, so we did. Then we found out that the
prohibition against qualifying a long term contract for a
discount would be retroactive back to a date when nobody had
any reason to think there would be a problem.
MCLINC has discussed this with our vendor, Bell Atlantic.
They empathize with our predicament but (tort law being what
it is) a contract is a contract. What vendor in their right
mind would volunteer to release a customer from a long term
contract so that the customer can go out and re-open the
bidding process to the vendor and his competitors? If, on
the other hand, the customer walks away from a multi-year
contract in the interest of qualifying for a newly announced
Federally subsidised discount, the resulting lawsuit for
breach of contract is liable to be more costly than the
potential discount savings. It is in nobody's interest to
undercut the contract relationships between customers and
vendors in this fashion.
I understand the FCC has realized that its rule-making
created a problem for libraries whose multi-year contracts
were executed during this 6-7 month gap and that they are
re-visiting this matter. Can anyone report on where this
re-analysis stands?
Laurie Tynan, Executive Director
Montgomery County-Norristown Public Library
1001 Powell St., Norristown, PA. 19401-3817
voice tel: (610) 278-5100, x 37; fax: (610) 277-0344