FCC Internet Grant Decision Riles Congress

museumpeace writes "The FCC, with no advance notice to congress, effectively made substantial cuts in the funding for the program that subsidizes provision of internet connection to libraries and poorer school systems. This was not small potatoes: 2.5 billion buys a lot of connection. [confess your real identity to them and the ] NYTimes will tell you all about the uproar. The ostensible cause according to FCC officials, who annoyed congressfolk by dodging the inquiry, was an attemp to control possible fraudulent spending in the program but FCC actions then went far beyond fiscal oversight. FCC deference to phone companies by way of reducing the amount they were required to contribute to the program has compounded its financial woes according to Technology Review which also covered the story. [and which will also require a "free" registration]"

Comments

E-Rate was a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

The E-Rate Program was incredibly corrupt with lots of companies getting illegal kickbacks. They had to restrict it so they could at the very least clean it up. I don't see how allowing things to continue as they were was a good idea.

Re:E-Rate was a mess

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how allowing things to continue as they were was a good idea.

You know the expression "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"? Arbitrarily shutting the program down without notification, under the intent of stopping abuse (at the expense of a majority of programs that are not part of the abuse) is a great way to get new FCC commissioners.

I have E-Rate customers (mostly school districts). Last year, several had their paperwork rejected (clerical errors by the district staff rejected by E-Rate and the E-Rate administrators would not permit a "re-application" to correct the minor errors). We carried them at a loss of over $20K per district. We made sure to update our paperwork to prevent against having to carry the loss in the future - whether or not your mom and dad give you $10 to help buy lunch is not McDonald's responsibility.

Guess what? Several districts are now faced with being shut off. No Internet. They don't have the budget to make up the E-Rate difference - heck, they already had to reduce several teaching positions in several districts. They looked at us to absorb it again, but after $80K missing from last year on a customer who at their current rate is 60% of what I make on the same business broadband (and they use every bit of bandwidth I give them). Per the corruption issues, a subsidy for broadband provided at less than my cost is far from an issue (though I am aware of some incumbant LECs that have abused it). Want to shut down a corrupt broadband program? RUS grants and low interest loans - mostly used as ILEC political reward money. Many of the grants in our region are given to totally inept, unqualified but politically influencial incumbant phone monopolies. Oh well, it's just your tax money being given back to keep your phone company in position to monopolize the network for another 50 years.

So I would imagine the FCC's effect will be causing an Internet blackout for schools and libraries. Senators are already getting called by administrators, and Senators should have no problem removing a rather corrupt FCC (mind you, I'm of the same political party as the President, a licensed amateur radio operator, own commercial licenses and am highly disgusted with this cash & carry FCC).

Tit for Tat

[grunt107]

Since the FCC is worried about government overspending, they should be rewarded with an equal amount of reduction in funding for them.

The reduction can be used to then pay for the libraries (and underprivileged) to get internet access.

Re:Tit for Tat

[patches]

Although I think that Internet access in schools, and libraries are a good thing, why is it that it has to be the Federal Government's job to give them internet access.

If you as a constituant think that your local schools and libraries need internet access then you lobby your State or Local governments and let them fund it. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where the Federal Governement is required to fund Internet connections, and I do see where anything not specifically listed in the Constitution is reserved for the States. So I see this as really a non-issue. I don't feel that the FCC should be funding this anyway. Let the States or even Local governments handle this.

I will also give you my reasoning for why the Federal Government should stick to only doing what the Constitution says it should do and let the States do all the other things. The government, like anyone else, cannot do things for free. Everything that a government does requires money. The problem is that the Federal Government has accountability to EVERY American. So your voice of how you think your tax money should be spent is of less significance because you are in a sea of many millions of Americans. Now in the States level, the field of constituants is dramatically cut down, as only residents of that Stateare included. Going one step further to the Local level and the number is a lot less. So you can have more control over how your elected representatives handle your tax money, the further down the chain you go. That is why I feel that the Federal Government should stick to only A) Settling Inter-State disputes, B) Providing for the National Defense of the United States, and C) Handling diplomatic responsibilities for the States. I think the Federal Government should stop doing all the other things they have their sticky little fingers in like Health Care, Education, Social Security, Welfare, etc... The list is rather long...

Kicking kickbacks

[goneutt]

I remember hearing about how this program was providing funds to school districts that really didn't know what things cost. I think it was the El Paso school district that wound up being sold a few $million worth of Cisco gear that was never installed because it wasn't part of the IS architecture plans, drawn by the same people that sold the gear.

All in all, this is a program that should have started really big to make initial investments in hardware, but cut back a little to just maintain.

Ummm this is a legitimate executive branch power

[ShatteredDream]

The executive agencies have a responsibility to cut off public funds when they have a very good reason to believe they are being subject to fraud, waste and abuse. GSA, the General Services Administration, does this sort of thing all the time when it does internal criminal audits of how Congressionally-allocated funds are being used. One of their jobs is to bust up slush funds and take down those who were using them. Do you honestly think they let someone just spend all of those tax dollars all the way through the investigation?

The Congress desparately needs to have its spending and law-making powers curtailed by a few good constitutional amendments. The President needs the power of line-item veto, the Congress needs to have every bill address only one subject with all riders to the contrary automatically ruled unenforceable and deficit spending when the Congress has not issued a formal declaration of war should be unconstitutional.

I applaud the FCC, it's about damn time that an executive agency told Congress to take responsibility for where it spends tax dollars. The Congress spends our money, which it confiscates by threat of prison time, like a bunch of rich old white businessmen at a Vegas strip club. As long as the FCC just keeps the funds tied up, it shouldn't have any legal trouble. Since it is saying that it is merely tying up the funds to prevent them from going to what evidence shows is most likely an illegal use, it doesn't have to ask the Congress for permission. The Constitution doesn't say that the executive agencies have to actually spend money for purposes known to be illegal under federal law....

E-Rate is GOOD

[Omeganon]

When there is proper oversight. For the last 5 years I have been directly involved in wonderful education projects that would not be possible without E-Rate funding. Many, many schools in the state where I live would not even have Internet access were it not for E-Rate funds and most would be stuck at ISDN speeds for hundreds of students per school. I have seen first hand the power of distance learning in cooperation with Universities, use of web resources for students such as Atomic Learning and NetTrekker, online teacher recertification training to be compliant with NCLB, and the ability for districts and states to modernize a significant portion of their daily administrative tasks such as attendance reporting, Free and Reduced Lunch tracking and centralized student information systems by bringing them all online. The savings in administration overhead are significant by themselves. All of this is possible because of E-Rate.

What people don't seem to realize is that most school districts are poor. They have very restricted budgets with little lee-way. E-Rate allows them to bring modern technology into the hands of students who most likely don't get to utilize it at home and educational resources that they most certainly wouldn't be able to use or even access at home.

A properly managed E-Rate fund with proper accounting and oversight is essential to the education of our future. The sensationalist examples of waste given in response to this article are exceptions and not the general rule. NASA had the same types of problems years ago. NASA wasn't abolished or suspended. Instead, they were forced to get their act together and perform proper accounting and oversight. That's the right way and what needs to happen here.

Problem Beyond Funding

[Qboid]

As a former Director of Technology for a school district in Missouri, I had to deal very closely with the e-rate system. In concept, e-rate/universal service fund was supposed to level the playing field for poor districts whose tax base could not support the kind of technology enhancements that would allow students in those districts to compete with those in districts with a higher tax base that could afford the services if they wanted it.
The problem as I see it is the Administrators don't know when they are being taken for a ride by the "consulting companies" that they bring in to do the work. I was one of the few administrators who was a technology professional to begin with. Most districts I had contact with just add the technology planning and administration to the duties of a Math, Science, or Business teacher. They don't traditionally have the information technology background to form a plan of attack for the district to follow, and instead just let the "consultants" tell them what to do. That gives the consultants the needed loophole to overcharge and under-deliver.