Slashdot Mirror

As a technology director for a public K-12 school, I'm very concerned about what I'm reading in the headline. But the "article" is an extremely biased report, citing just as equally biased an article, and neither article really gives me a clue as to what's going on here.

So, let's start at the source: Here is the actual FCC draft order specific to this change. Now, in the course of working on and completing E-Rate filings with the USAC to receive reimbursement for internet and network services for our school district, I've read a few 60-70 page FCC reports before. They're not fun, but they're necessary. That being said, I'm about 20 pages in, and already I'm disturbed. Here's why:

FCC reports that I've read in the past are boring, dry reads, but at least they're factual and unbiased. Not so with this one. Three sentences in, and we get this: "The FCC has historically subjected the provision of business data services by incumbent local exchange carriers (LECs) to price regulations." And the spin continues..."eases the regulatory burdens"; "spur entry, innovation and competition in the vibrant business data services market"; "competition is robust and vigorous in the markets." And this is still just the first page. The draft order is littered with biased political spin, something that has not been present in my reading of previous FCC draft orders. Because of this, I can't even depend on a government document to give me an unbiased report of the rationale behind the decision, nor can I depend on it to help me determine what the consequences of the decision will be. So, I'll have to create my own... here goes.

Local Exchange Carrier (LEC) price regulations have been there historically specifically to protect subscribers from LECs that had monopoly or near-monopoly controls over their service regions. Most regions throughout the United States historically were not served by competitive broadband providers. Recently, this has begun to change, where some communities now have competitive service providers come in, giving subscribers a choice. The FCC began to look into this issue back in 2012, before Trump. According to the report, "In December 2012, the Commission released the Data Collection Order FNPRM, to collect data, analyze how competition, “whether actual or potential, affects prices, controlling for all other factors that affect prices,” and “determine what barriers inhibit investment and delay competition, including regulatory barriers." By not controlling pricing, the FCC claims in its report that LECs will no longer be limited entry into a potential market, where capped rates would not allow for a sufficient recovery of the investment necessary to build into a new market area.

But, here's the flaw in their reasoning: trenching fiber costs a lot of money. A lot. If service provider A already has fiber, service provider B is not going to install fiber if it does not believe that it can earn back their investment in a reasonable amount of time. Even if prices are artificially inflated by provider A, just because they can, if provider B tries to compete and trenches their own fiber network, both A and B know that A can lower its rates to a competitive level to drive out provider B. So, B has no incentive to trench, leaving A with the monopoly.

The easiest solution: make internet a utility. It's silly to think that it's a smart idea to run multiple fiber lines to a building. (I should know; our school has two of them, and both are dark.) It would be just as silly to have multiple electric taps, or multiple water pipes. But, that's not happening anytime

Just because one solution is cheaper than others does not mean it will win the bid.

(Background note: technology director for a school district, and have been for ten years.)

For example, just today, I completed a competitive bid matrix for our district's eRate program. For the first year, the program is reimbursing school districts for wireless access points. In our district, we currently use Ruckus as our vendor of choice. They've done a good job, but a few software bugs have caused some glitches, plus the rollout hasn't been complete, so there's coverage holes in some areas of our buildings.

We have a new superintendent, and she's convinced that no one uses Ruckus. Cisco is the only true solution, and she has a vendor she's very cozy with that she has worked with before and trusts. She has refused to pay any more money for Ruckus and insists that Cisco replace it. But Cisco is more expensive, so how do we make the bid work? If we don't elect to go with the lowest bidder, we need to do a "competitive bid matrix" that lists our criteria that is used to choose our vendor. Price has to make up the "largest percentage of points awarded", but other criteria can be included. So, despite being 60% more expensive, Cisco won, because of "locality", i.e. the vendor supplying it was a closer distance from the school than the Ruckus vendor, even though both vendors were over an hour's drive away. And thank you, Joe Taxpayer, both for the taxes you pay to the school and the USAF fees you pay to the FCC to make it happen!

If a school leader has a preference, and he/she directs everyone in charge to make it happen, then a way is found to make it happen.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

It's not less expensive. Every single program is always justified as less expensive than some alternative. "We have to throw away $2 Billion on phone giveaways to save money, because otherwise we'd throw away $10 Billion on [insert random, vaguely plausible nonsense here]". Only fools believe this stuff.

So you've done a cost analysis on the comparative costs of life line subsidizes cost on wireline versus wireless systems then? Do you even know why we subsidize lifeline phone service? Here's a hint, because its cheaper than not doing it. Also, (since you've done your research) you know its funded by Universal Service Funds and not from taxation or the general appropriations fund. Since you know all of this I'll provide these links for the less informed following the conversation.

http://www.usac.org/li/
http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

The specific savings report of wireless over wireline:
http://www.fcc.gov/document/lifeline-year-end-savings-report-2012-savings-target-exceeded

Universal Service is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) http://www.usac.org/about/.

"To implement the 1996 Telecom Act, the FCC established four programs:
  - High Cost, for rural areas (transitioning into the Connect America Fund)
  - Lifeline (for low-income consumers), including initiatives to expand phone service for Native Americans
  - Rural Health Care
  - Schools and Libraries (commonly referred to as "E-rate")

Money to pay for universal service programs comes from the universal service fund (USF). The USF is paid for by contributions from telecommunications carriers, including wireline and wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol providers, including cable companies that provide voice service, based on an assessment of their interstate and international end-user revenues".
----------------
Kind of interesting how they don't explicitly state that "money to pay for universal service programs" comes from customers (it's a line item on phone bills). Actually, it used to be two line items, one for universal access (phones for the poor) and one for E-rate (Internet for schools, libraries and rural healthcare).

"Furthermore, we got phone service to these rural communities"

This occurred mainly because governments allowed/encouraged the creation of the nationwide AT&T monopoly, and AT&T used crosssubsidies derived from its monopoly control of the continental long distance network to price local access artificially low as a barrier to entry. Despite this, true geographical "Universal Service" in telephony did not arise in the US until the 1960's.

Today there is a legislated Universal Service Fund tax on all telephony.

Is tribal governance not handled by some kind of tribal government?

Government screws stuff up. Tribal government, local government, federal government, doesn't really matter. If there's government involved, something is probably being forced to work inefficiently.

True, but...
1. Native American Government is much much less transparent about their business than is normal in a 'Western' government, allowing shenanigans that even their own people would protest. We're not talking inefficiency here, we're talking about a (apparently/allegedly) broken bidding process.

2. The OP specifically singled out "some GS weenie".
GS = General Schedule = US Federal Government

This problem is of the Tribe's own making and as I pointed out,
the USAC is not the Federal Government.
http://www.usac.org/about/usac/

The Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) is an independent, not-for-profit corporation designated as the administrator of the federal Universal Service Fund by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

A lot of the Native American Tribes need to join the modern era and create some transparency in their governance. It's one thing when their malfeasance/corruption benefits a minority of members, it's another thing entirely when it publicly harms the entire Tribe. How hard is it to run a kosher bidding process? They could have hired a bonded and insured company that adheres to Federal Standards to do it for them.

If Congress really wanted to assure affordable internet access, they'd set about removing the "Universal Access Fee" (a/k/a "e-Rate" or the "Gore Tax") which has long since fulfilled it's stated purpose of subsidizing internet access to rural schools. (According to the FCC, 99% of public schools are connected to the Internet). And while they're at it, they can shut down the Universal Service Administrative Company, which is a bureaucracy set up to administer these funds.
It should be easy, right? A school asks for funds to help establish internet access, an application is reviewed and funds transferred... well, here's a little link to a flowchart showing how out-of-control a government agency can become in only a few years:
http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/sl/pdf/application-process-flow-chart.pdf