P a g e|1 1101StadiumDrive,Ada,OK74820
p580.332.1444f580.332.2532
www.eͲmpa.org
Before
the
Federal
Communications
Commission
Washington,
D.C.
20554
IntheMatterof
SchoolsandLibrariesUniversalServiceSupportMechanism WCDocketNo.13Ͳ184
CCDocketNo.02Ͳ6
Wireline
Competition
Bureau
Seeks
Reply
Comment
on
FY2016
Draft
Eligible
Services
List
for
Schools
and
Libraries
Universal
Service
Program
(DA15Ͳ615ReleasedMay21st,2015)
COMMENTS
Submitted
July
6th,
2015
TheEͲRateManagementProfessionalsAssociation,Inc.(EͲmpa®)isa(501)(c)(6)tradeassociation
whosepurposeistopromoteexcellence andethicsin EͲrateprofessionalmanagement and
consulting through certification, education and professional resources. EͲmpa® serves as an
advocateforthecriticalroleservedbyEͲratemanagementprofessionalsandconsultants.The
organizationstrivestostrengthenandsupporttheEͲrateprogrambyactingasaselfͲgoverning
body of EͲrate management professionals and consultants. EͲmpa® provides assurance to
stakeholdersbymaintainingthehigheststandards,developingandpromotingbestpractices,and
requiringethicalconductforallmembers.
EͲmpa®membersprovideEͲRateProgramconsultationandmanagementservicestoprogram
participants.EͲmpa’scombinedclientlistrepresentsschoolsandlibrariesrangingfromsmallrural
remoteschoolsandlibrariestothoseinlargeurbanareas.EͲmpa®isuniquelyqualifiedtoprovide
theapplicant’sperspectiveofthecurrentandfutureBroadbandneedsofapplicantsalongwitha
broaddepthofunderstandingofthechallengesfacedbyapplicantsinapplyingforsupportfromthe
EͲrateprogram.ThisknowledgepositionsEͲmpa®toproviderealͲtimeinsightintothecurrent,and
P a g e|2 EͲmpaReplyComments–FY2016DraftESL July6,2015 www.eͲmpa.org
Introduction
TheEͲRateManagementProfessionalsAssociationissubmittingreplycommentsinresponsetothe
requestforcommentsoftheDraftEligibleServicesList(“ESL”)forFY2016.
Thefollowingcommentsarenotrepresentativeofeachmemberbutareanagreeduponconsensus
ofopinionregardingthematterspresentedinthesecomments.
E
Ͳ
mpa
Concerns
about
Duplicative
Services
EͲmpaisconcernedthatUSACandtheFCCmaybetakinganoverlyͲrigidapproachtothe duplicativeservicesruleconcerningInternetaccessservices.RecentlyEͲmpamembershave receivedPIAquestionsquestioningthevalidityofmultipleconnectionstotheInternet.
MultipleconnectionstotheInternethavebeenexplicitlyallowedbyUSACinthepast,and USAChasevenidentifiedthesetypesofconnectionsas“notduplicative”inpastversionsofthe EligibleServiceList. From2006through2014thelanguageintheEligibleServiceListabout multipleconnectionstotheinternethasbeenremarkablyconsistent,everyESLduringthat timeperiodstates:“Servicesthatprovidenecessarybandwidthrequirements,suchasmultiple TͲ1lines,whenappropriateforthepopulationservedandtheservicestobereceivedarenot duplicative1.”Olderversions(2006)oftheESLstatedthatthebandwidthrequestedshouldbe
consistent with the applicant’s technology plan.
Inthe2010EligibleServicesListUSAC,forthefirsttimeaddedthislanguageaboutredundant andbackupconnections:Failoverproductsorservicesarenoteligible.AnystandͲaloneproducts
orservicesthatareonlyutilizedwhentheprimaryfailsarenoteligible.2EͲmpaagreeswiththis standardandwebelieveitshouldcontinuetobeFCCpolicy.Applicantsshouldbeawarethatif aconnectionisnotnecessarytomeetitsbandwidthrequirements,andisonlynecessaryasa failover then that the connection is not eligible for funding.
AllowingmultipleconnectionstotheInternetthatisappropriatefortheapplicants’needsis alsoconsistentwithFCCOrders.IntheMacombOrdertheCommissionexplicitlyrecognized thatmultipleconnectionstotheInternetareallowable,providedtheymeettheapplicant’s needs.TheCommissionstated:“WedonotfindfaultwithMacomb’sISD’srequestformultiple
T3lines,providedthattheservicesareneeded.”3AspartoftheMacomborder,theFCCdirected USACtofundmultipleconnectionstotheInternet(albeitatlowerpricingthatwouldjustifya costͲeffectivepurchase):“Therefore,wefindthatinthisparticularcase,MacombISDshouldbe
1
2014EligibleServicesList,page21;2013ESLpage22;2012ESLpage24;2011ESLpage23;2010ESLpage23;
2009ESLpage22;2008ESLpage22;2007ESLpage20;2006ESLpage60
2
2010ESL,page23
3
RequestsforReviewbyMacombIntermediateSchoolDistrictTechnologyConsortium,FCC07Ͳ64,adopted
P a g e|3 EͲmpaReplyComments–FY2016DraftESL July6,2015 www.eͲmpa.org
entitledtoEͲratefundingforitsInternetconnections…4”Inthisinstance,theCommissiondid reducetheamountoffundingforthemultipleconnectionstoalevelthatwascostͲeffective baseduponthecompetitivebiddingprocessforMacomb,buttheCommissiondidnotrulethat multiple connections were ineligible and in fact ordered USAC to fund those multiple connections.
IftheFCCmakestheassumptionthatanysecondaryconnectiontotheInternetservingthe samepopulationandsamelocationasthefirstconnectionareduplicativeandthusnoteligible (regardlessofthebandwidthneedsoftheapplicant)thoseassumptionscanleadtoillogical decisionsfromUSAC.Takeahypotheticalneedforanincrementalincreaseinbandwidthforan applicant.Assumeanapplicanthas300MbpsofInternetaccessunderamultiͲyearcontract andwillneedatotalof500Mbpsforthenextyear.Iftheapplicantawardsacontracttothe mostcosteffectivebidderfora200Mbpsconnectiontosupplementtheirexisting300Mbps connectionandthatwinningserviceproviderisadifferentcompanythantheproviderofthe 300Mbpsconnection,USACwouldmaketheincorrectassumptionthatfundingforoneofthe connectionsisduplicativeandthusmustbedenied.
EͲMPAalsosupportsthepositiontakenbytheNYCDOEinitsJanuary2014RequestforReview andagaininitscommentsontheFY2015ESL.IntheNYCDOEcasetheInternetaccesswasin nowayduplicativebecausethemultipleInternetconnectionsneverservedthesamelocation atthesametime.Insteadnetworktrafficisroutedtotheleastcongestedcircuit.Thepolicies oftheFCCshouldnotincentschoolsandlibrariestomakenetworkdesigndecisionsthatmay notbeconsistentwiththeschoolorlibrariesgoals. Aschoolorlibraryshouldbeableto employ“Ring”networkarchitectureinsteadof“Star”networkarchitectureifitisacostͲ effective means of delivering reliable network connectivity to the eligible entities.
Weurgethe FCC andUSAC toprovide clear guidanceinthe2016 EligibleServicesList concerningmultiplefundingrequestsforInternetaccessprovidedinthethreebulletpoints below:
1. RedundantandfailoverconnectionstotheInternetarenoteligibleandwillnotbe funded.
2. MultipleconnectionstotheInternetservingthesamelocationareeligibleiftheyare activelyinuseduringthefundingyearandarebasedupontheneedsoftheapplicant. 3. Clarifythatthe EͲrateprogramwill explicitlysupport ring,rather thanstar,WAN
architecturesforneworupgradednetworksifsuchasolutioniscosteffective.
Comments
Concerning
Voice
Funding
ThefollowingcommentsareinresponsetotheWirelineCompetitionBureau'srequestfor commentsonthe2016ProposedEligibleServicesListfortheschoolsandlibrariesuniversal
P a g e|4 EͲmpaReplyComments–FY2016DraftESL July6,2015 www.eͲmpa.org
supportmechanism.ThesecommentsspecificallyaddressCategoryOneVoiceServices.Voice Servicesareimportanttotheoperationofschoolsandlibrariesandcontinuedsuccessof educatingournation'schildren.Theseservicesshouldnotbephaseddownnorshouldtheybe
eliminated from the program for the following reasons:
1) Continuation ofReliableCommunicationsin Schools and Libraries Impacting Safety of Students
AsstatedontheFCC'swebsite,"theTelecommunicationsActof1996expandedthetraditional goalofuniversalservicetoincludeincreasedaccesstobothtelecommunicationsandadvanced services–suchashighͲspeedInternet–forallconsumersatjust,reasonableandaffordable rates.TheActestablishedprinciplesforuniversalservicethatspecificallyfocusedonincreasing accesstoevolvingservicesforconsumerslivinginruralandinsularareas,andforconsumers withlowͲincomes."Itisimportanttomaintainthissolidprincipleofbringingvoiceservicesat reasonablecoststoallschoolsandlibraries,andespeciallytheruralstudentpopulation.Itisa commonproblemintheseschoolstolosetheirconnectiontointernetaccess,sovoiceservices, bothlandlinesandcellular,serveastheconnectiontotheworldbeyondtheschoolincaseof emergencies.OneTechnologyDirectorfromadistrictlocatedinaruralareamadethefollowing comment:"Fundingvoiceservices,especiallyiftheyaretiedtoE911servicesbecomesvery important.[A]Districtlikeoursinaruralareamaylosethatserviceifwelosefundingforvoice services."AnotherruraldistrictTechnologyDirectorobservedthatiffacedwithachoice,due tobudgetconstraints,betweenvoiceservicesandinternetaccess,hewoulddropinternet accessto fundvoicebecause ofsafetyconcerns. Reinstatingthefundingforthesebasic servicesneededtomaintainsafetyinournations'schoolsisofparamountimportance,and mostcertainlyinlightoftheavailablefundingtocoverbothCategoryOneandCategory Twoservicesfor2015.
2)HonoringPastCommitmentstoSchools,Libraries,andServiceProviders
TheUniversalServiceFundispaidforbycontributionsfromprovidersoftelecommunications basedonanassessmentontheirinterstateandinternationalendͲuserrevenues.Examplesof entitiesthatcontributetotheFundaretelecommunicationscarriers,includingwirelineand wireless companies, and interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) providers, includingcablecompaniesthatprovidevoiceservices.Additionallyitisimportantnotforget eachconsumerthatpaystheirmonthlybillswith"UniversalServiceFees"included.Asusersof theseservices,weallcontributetotheUSF,asdoourschoolsandlibraries.
SincetheEͲRateprogram'sinceptionvoiceserviceshavebeenfunded.Eachapplicanthas growndependentuponreceivingthosefundstohelppaytheirbills.Mostapplicantssharethe feelingthattherughasbeenpulledoutfromunderthem.Itseemsbyeliminatingvoice servicesfromtheeligibleserviceslist,thetrustlevelbetweentheFCCandstakeholderswill
P a g e|5 EͲmpaReplyComments–FY2016DraftESL July6,2015 www.eͲmpa.org
beeroded.Thisisanunintentionalconsequenceofphasingoutvoiceservices,anissuewhich wasnotanticipatedorwelcomedbymanystakeholders.
3)SchoolsandLibrariesBudgetsareDependentuponVoiceServicesDiscountstoSustain BroadbandandCategory2
Itisimportanttonotethatschoolsandlibrariesacrossthecountryhavecounteduponvoice discountstomaintainandsustaintechnologies,suchasequipmentandbroadbandexpansion for students.These discounts have served the students byallowing additional funds for networkbuildoutsanddeployingbroadband.ThevoiceservicesportionoftheEͲrateprogram hasbeenworkingwell;itenhancestheopportunityforbroadbandexpansiontohappeninall schoolsandlibraries.DuetothephaseͲdownofvoice,schoolsandlibrariesarealready droppingfromtheprogram.Inonescenario,averysmallschool,withlessthan$1500inC1 programdiscounts,willnolongerbeapplyingforEͲRate,eventhoughpastdiscountswerevery importanttotheirtechnologybudget.The$9200inC2fundswon'tbegintowireandsupport broadband for this school. Participating in the program withoutthe discounts for voice servicescreatesadifficultburdenforthemandcertainlyisnolongercosteffective.Thisisan exampleofanotherunintentionalconsequenceofeliminatingvoiceservicesthroughaphase outwhichisonlyinitsfirstyear.
4)AddedComplexity,ConfusionandWorkLoadforSchools,Libraries,ServiceProvidersand USAC
RegardingthecostallocationofISDNservices:
"In the Second EͲrate Modernization Order, the Commission clarified its cost allocation requirementsforcircuitsthatcarrybothvoiceanddataservices.Thefullcostofcircuits dedicatedsolelytovoiceservice,includingPRIs,SIPtrunks,andVoIPprovidercircuitsare subjecttothevoiceservicesphasedown,whilethecostsforbundledvoiceanddataservices providedoverasinglecircuit,mustbecostallocated.BecauseIntegratedServicesDigital Network(ISDN)istypicallyprovisionedasavoiceservice,andtheBureauhasreferredtoISDN synonymouslywithPRIcircuitsintheESL,theproposedESLaddsISDNtothelistofeligible voiceservices.However,forapplicantsthatmaybereceivingISDNasbundledvoiceanddata service,ISDNalsoremainslistedintheESLasaneligibledigitaltransmissionservicesothata costallocationcanbesoughtforthedataportionoftheservicethatisnotsubjecttothevoice phasedown.Weseekcommentonthisproposedclarification.5"
SonowyouhaveasingleservicethatyouhavetosomehowsplitandcreatetwoseparateFRNs forasinglelineitemonaninvoice.Inthepast,thatsinglelineitemcouldbeincludedinone FRNwithalloftheotherservicesonthatsameinvoice;hencetheworkloadforthatsingleline itemhasjustdoubled.Furthermore,whodeterminestheportionsoftheISDNthatisusedfor
P a g e|6 EͲmpaReplyComments–FY2016DraftESL July6,2015 www.eͲmpa.org
voiceanddata:theapplicant,theserviceprovider,orUSAC?Andwhatistheproperwayto costͲallocate?WhatonepersonconsidersareasonablecostͲallocationmaynotbeconsidered reasonablebyanother.Thesedecisionsareextremelysubjectiveanddifficulttomake,andyet clearguidanceislacking.
Costallocationforvoiceservicescircuitcapacityinthesituationstatedabovebecomesmind bogglingforapplicants.Imaginetheindirectcostsandadditionalworkloadforapplicants, serviceprovidersandUSACtoappropriatelydeterminethecostallocation,nottomentionthe frustration,delayedfundingandappeals.Thisisanotherunintendedconsequenceofphasing outvoiceservicespertheEͲrateModernizationOrder.Allstakeholdersareheldaccountable foraccuracy,butcostallocationforvoiceservicesandcircuitcapacitywillbeacauseformany unintendedmistakes.Muchofthiscomplexitycouldbeeliminatedbysimplyallowingthe eligibilityofvoiceservicestobeincludedinthe2016eligibleserviceslistandtotallyeliminating thephasedown.
5)2015FundingDemandMatchestheFundingCap
IftheFCCisnotwillingtoreinstatevoiceservicesascompletelyeligibleservices,weurgethe Commissiontofreezethephaseoutatthecurrent20%level.Giventhefactthat2015funding demandmatchesthe$3.9billioninfundingavailable,EͲmpabelievesafreezeatthe20% reductionisappropriateatthistime.
Forallofthereasonslistedabove,whichiscertainlynotanexhaustivelist,EMPAappealstothe FCCtoeliminatethevoicephasedown.Thecomplexityoftheapplicationsandthelossofvoice servicesmaymeanthatfewerschoolswillapplyforEͲRate,andthefirstschoolstooptoutare goingtobetheverysmall,ruralschools.
Conclusion
We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments in this proceeding and thank the CommissionstaffforthehourstheyhavededicatedtomodernizingEͲratewhichwillallowthe programtocontinuewithincreasedeffectivenessinmeetingtheCommission’sgoalsforthis programthathasbeensovaluableinconnectingstudentsandlibrarypatronsacrosstheU.S. forover18years.
Respectfullysubmitted,
EͲRateManagementProfessionalsAssociation
