SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Reported at The Register
Under the e-rate program run by the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC, schools that do not have access to a fiber network supplied by the main cable companies can apply for federal funds to build or lease such a network, and so supply much faster internet access to their students.
[...] However, an analysis of the more than 800 applications for "special construction" by a company that provides e-rate consulting services, Funds for Learning, has shown an extraordinarily high failure rate of requests for funding, often for very minor reasons. As one example, 25 applications were denied by USAC because additional details requested by the company were not submitted by the applicants within a 28-day time limit – a rule that schools were almost certainly not aware of.
[...] But schools are always short of funds and so this year, more schools applied and more of them hired specialist consultants to dot the i's and cross the t's in the applications process, learning from previous rejections. The result has been an extraordinary increase in the number of "pending" applications. In fact, of 401 applications this year for special construction, just one per cent have been approved so far, five per cent have been denied, and a staggering 94 per cent remain in limbo.
[...] What seasoned FCC observers suspect however is that the schools' effort to get fast and stable internet access has hits the rocks of Pai's extraordinary subservience to large cable companies. For years, the large cable companies have responded extremely aggressively to any efforts by others to build fiber networks, even drafting and passing legislation in multiple state capitals that have shut down efforts for municipal broadband networks.
[...] The rules allowing schools to apply for funding for new fiber networks was introduced by the FCC under Pai's predecessor as a way to force the issue. But as with many of the Obama-era rules, Pai has set about either scrapping them or, if getting rid of them would be politically difficult, undermining them through bureaucratic changes.
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Sunday October 29 2017, @01:59PM (2 children)
Sounds rubbish. The very first thing one needs to know when applying for funding is what rules are applicable, saying that schools were unaware of a 28-day limit for replying puts the onus on the schools, not the FCC.
And, at any rate, if details are requested and a reply hasn’t been filed in 28 days, well, it’s clear no one is paying much attention to the process.
Now, if the rules are changed after the application is accepted, that is grounds for a lawsuit against the agency because accepted applications should be processed under the then current rules.
Are cable companies working hard against the program? Very likely, but unless they own the FCC and have a complete disregard for the law, schools that comply with the rules should get funding.
(Score: 2) by leftover on Sunday October 29 2017, @04:16PM (1 child)
From TFS it appears the submitter(s) were not the schools themselves but the consulting firm, Funds for Learning. They either had marvelous market penetration but no knowledge of the rules OR they were filing applications with no supporting information from the schools. That makes me wonder whether the schools even knew this was going on.
Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
(Score: 3, Informative) by BK on Sunday October 29 2017, @09:17PM
You're probably close to the mark on this.
Disclosure: I work in K-12 and have submitted and received e-rate grants in the past.
E-rate is intended to help urban and rural and especially poor school districts and libraries get connected. It works great for the big urban districts. Big districts have potentially millions of dollars in grants available and typically employ one (or more) person(s) who do nothing but file the applications, respond to requests, and ensure compliance.
Rural districts typically lack the economy of scale and can't justify an employee to do just these things. They will either add it to the stack of someone who is already busy or hire an 'e-rate consultant' to assist. 'Funds for Learning' appears to be such a consultant.
Having done it both ways, the thing to realize is that these consultants aren't magic. They may know what forms are needed and how describe projects to ensure they fit into the grant parameters... but if more information is needed, school accounting offices and others still have to get involved... and may not be prepared to do so. Because they aren't regular district employees, communication can be iffy. An emailed request for data from an unknown party can look an awful lot like a phishing attack...
Ajit Pai may eat babies, but I'd be hard pressed to blame him for this. This program was fraught long before the current shit show at FCC started.
...but you HAVE heard of me.