Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Focused Comment on E-Rate Modernization, 13599-13607 [2014-05433]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
comment on the proposed rule. EPA has
considered these requests and has
decided to extend the comment period
for an additional 60 days. The comment
period now closes on May 16, 2014.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 28, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014–05222 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Regina Brown at (202) 418–0792 or
James Bachtell at (202) 4182694,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau
or TTY (202) 418–0484.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks
Focused Comment on E-Rate
Modernization
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau seeks
focused comment on three issues raised
in the E-rate Modernization NPRM that
merit further inquiry as the Commission
moves towards the goal of meeting
schools’ and libraries’ broadband
connectivity needs. The E-rate
Modernization NPRM sought broad
comment on modernizing the E-rate
program and proposed three goals for
the program: ensuring that schools and
libraries have affordable access to 21st
Century broadband that supports digital
learning; maximizing the costeffectiveness of E-rate funds; and
streamlining the administration of the
program.
SUMMARY:
Comments are due on or before
April 7, 2014 and reply comments are
due on or before April 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments on or before April 7, 2014
and reply comments on or before April
21, 2014. All pleadings are to reference
WC Docket No. 13–184. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies, by any
of the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
DATES:
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
This is a
summary of the Commission’s
document in WC Docket No. 13–184;
DA 14–308, released March 6, 2014. The
full text of this document is available for
inspection during regular business
hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington DC 20554.
This document may also be purchased
from the Commission’s duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202–488–5300, facsimile
202–488–5563, or via email at FCC@
BCPIWEB.com. It is also available via
the Internet in the Commission’s
Electronic Document System (EDOCS)
at https://www.fcc.gov/documents under
WC Docket No. 13–184.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[WC Docket No. 13–184; DA 14–308]
VerDate Mar<15>2010
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
Jkt 232001
Synopsis
1. The Wireline Competition Bureau
(Bureau) seeks focused comment on
three issues raised in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, 78 FR 51597,
August 20, 2013, that merit further
inquiry as the Commission moves
towards modernizing the E-rate program
to meet schools’ and libraries’
broadband connectivity needs. The Erate Modernization NPRM sought broad
comment on and proposed three goals
for the program: (1) Ensuring that
schools and libraries have affordable
access to 21st Century broadband that
supports digital learning; (2)
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of Erate funds; and (3) streamlining the
administration of the program. The
Commission has received more than
1,500 comments and ex parte filings in
response to the E-rate Modernization
NPRM including numerous comments
from individual educators and school
administrators; school districts and
consortia; librarians and library systems;
E-rate vendors and educational content
providers; and other interested public
and private organizations.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13599
2. The record in this proceeding
demonstrates overwhelming agreement
among stakeholders that the E-rate
program has been a crucial part of
helping our nation’s schools and
libraries connect to the Internet. The
record also shows a strong commitment
to ensuring that the E-rate program
quickly evolve to meet the ever-growing
need for high-capacity broadband so our
students and communities have access
to 21st Century educational tools. The
record is replete with support and
suggestions for how to meet the goals for
the E-rate program proposed in the Erate Modernization NPRM.
3. Based on the extensive input the
Commission has received, it appears
that meeting the Commission’s
proposed goals for the E-rate program
will require that, in the near term, the
program focus on providing the support
necessary to ensure schools and
libraries can afford high-speed
connectivity to and within schools and
libraries, even as the Commission
develops a long-term approach that
allows applicants to scale up capacity
while driving down costs. More
specifically, the record underscores the
importance of providing consistent and
broadly available support for the
equipment and services needed to
enable high-capacity wireless
broadband within schools and libraries;
greater support, at least in the short
term, for last-mile deployments needed
to connect schools and libraries that do
not currently have access to high-speed
connections; a support methodology
that allows applicants to capture the
long-term cost-efficiencies associated
with access to scalable, high-speed
connections; less support for voice
services, as the cost of voice services
transition in the long run to the
marginal cost of packet-based voice
services provided over high-capacity
broadband connections; incentives for
making cost-effective purchasing
decisions, including incentives and
opportunities for schools and libraries
to benefit from economies of scale in
purchasing supported services; and as
much administrative simplicity as
possible, while protecting against waste,
fraud and abuse.
4. In light of these themes that emerge
from the record, as the Commission
seeks to modernize the E-rate program,
there are three issues raised in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM that merit further
focused inquiry at this time: (1) How
best to focus E-rate funds on highcapacity broadband, especially highspeed Wi-Fi and internal connections;
(2) whether and how the Commission
should begin to phase down or phase
out support for traditional voice services
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
13600
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
in order to focus more funding on
broadband; and (3) whether there are
demonstration projects or experiments
that the Commission should authorize
as part of the E-rate program that would
help the Commission test new,
innovative ways to maximize costeffective purchasing in the E-rate
program. We seek further comment on
how the issues below relate to the goals
for the E-rate program that the
Commission proposed in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM and how they
comport with relevant statutory
requirements.
5. At the same time, the Commission
continues to evaluate all of the input
received in response to the E-rate
Modernization NPRM. The issues we
raise in this document do not define the
full universe of possible changes the
Commission could make in an order
modernizing the E-rate program.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Focused Funding for High-Capacity
Broadband
6. Commenters to this proceeding
have made clear the importance of
focusing E-rate support on high-speed
connectivity to and within schools and
libraries. As educational technology has
improved in recent years, equipment
and cabling used to deploy the interior
pieces of broadband networks have
become increasingly important, yet the
E-rate program has provided less
support and funded fewer applicants
seeking support for such internal
connections. Numerous commenters
have identified support for internal
connections as one of the program areas
where modernization is most urgent and
most important. Accordingly, in this
section we ask about methods to
improve this funding going forward. We
also take this opportunity to ask about
improvements to the existing priority
one funding system for last-mile
deployments for high-capacity
broadband.
7. In seeking further comment on how
best to focus E-rate funding on highcapacity broadband, we note that an
initial review by Commission staff has
found that the Commission can free up
an additional $2 billion over the next
two years to help support broadband
networks in our nation’s schools and
libraries, offering an opportunity to
assess better ways to prioritize and
distribute program funding at support
levels higher than the current program
cap. We seek comment on how best to
use such additional funds to support the
Commission’s efforts to provide highcapacity broadband within and to
schools and libraries, as described in
more detail below.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
A. Broadband Deployment Within
Schools and Libraries
8. Stakeholders in this proceeding
contend that the deployment of
equipment inside school and library
facilities is as essential to
comprehensive broadband service at a
given location as the high-speed
connectivity to that facility. For
example, Wi-Fi has transformed
computing and education, creating the
possibility of one-to-one learning in
classrooms and libraries, and freeing
desks and work stations from wired
connections. A survey of school district
leaders conducted by the Consortium
for School Networking (CoSN) and
Market Data Retrieval in 2013, however,
showed that 57 percent of district
leaders do not believe that their schools’
wireless networks have the capacity to
handle a one-to-one student-to-device
deployment.
9. Internal connections essential to
extend broadband throughout schools
and libraries are currently eligible for
support in the E-rate program as priority
two services. However, some
commenters have expressed concern
because, in most funding years, there
have only been sufficient funds to
provide priority two support to schools
and libraries in the highest bands of the
discount matrix. Commenters generally
agree that the rule that the Commission
adopted limiting any school or library to
two years of priority two support in
every five year period (the two-in-five
rule) does not appear to have achieved
its intended goal of substantially
spreading the available funds.
Moreover, as demand for priority one
funding continues to grow, the ability to
provide any priority two support is an
increasing challenge.
10. Therefore, to address the need for
funding for the services and equipment
necessary to ensure high-capacity
broadband within schools and libraries,
we seek comment on whether the
Commission should change the current
priority two funding category (including
no longer supporting legacy services
that are currently eligible for priority
two funding), by allocating annually a
set amount of E-rate funds to provide
schools and libraries with funding for
LANs and Wi-Fi networks, which are
essential to ensuring high-capacity
broadband reaches students and library
patrons.
1. Scope of Services To Be Funded
11. Under this approach, only
equipment and supporting software that
is essential to getting high-capacity
broadband from the building’s front
door to the computer, tablet, or other
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
learning devices in schools and libraries
would be eligible for internal
connection support. We seek comment
on what equipment is essential for such
purposes. Some commenters have
suggested that such equipment includes
internal wiring, switches and routers,
wireless access points, and the software
supporting these components. We seek
comment on whether these are the right
categories of equipment and software to
fund for this purpose.
12. Other commenters have suggested
other technology that improves the
efficiency of the broadband networks
and should therefore also receive E-rate
support. For example, several
commenters have argued that E-rate
should support caching through content
servers because caching can allow
schools to reduce their broadband
demand by as much as half. Another
commenter noted that slow firewall
processing, outdated content filtering,
and other similar internal network
problems create significant speed
bottlenecks on school and library
networks. We now seek further focused
comment on what services, software, or
equipment are necessary to enable high
quality, high-capacity networks inside
schools and libraries, and whether such
services, software and equipment
should qualify for support?
2. Access to Funding
13. The Commission has
acknowledged that under the current
system only a small percentage of E-rate
recipients receive the bulk of the
internal connection funding. We seek
comment on ways to provide more
widespread access to funding for
internal connections in order to enable
schools and libraries nationwide to take
advantage of high-capacity broadband to
their buildings with robust internal
networks. We seek particular comment
on three potential ways to prioritize
applications for deployment costs in the
event that the demand for internal
connection funds exceeds availability.
a. Five-Year Upgrade Cycle
14. Consistent with the method used
to prioritize priority two funding today,
the Commission could prioritize
funding by discount level, with rotating
eligibility to provide as many schools
and libraries as possible access to
funding over a five-year upgrade cycle.
Information in the record demonstrates
that basic Wi-Fi and LAN equipment
has a useable lifespan of five to seven
years. Given this information, we seek
comment on limiting an applicant’s
ability to receive internal connections
funding to once every five years while
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
b. Rotating Eligibility
17. Alternatively, we seek comment
on limiting an applicant’s ability to
receive funding for internal connections
that support high-capacity broadband to
a single funding year until all other
applicants have received support or
declined the opportunity to seek
funding in at least one funding year,
starting in funding year 2015. This
approach is consistent with one
proposed by the State E-rate
Coordinators Alliance (SECA) and
supported by other commenters. This
approach would ensure that all
applicants are able to receive funding
By identifying available funds and
estimating the total pre-discount
requests that could be supported with
those funds, the Commission would
arrive at an amount to be allocated to
each applicant. Applicants would be
entitled to receive funds, applying their
usual discounts, towards the purchase
of eligible internal connections up to the
pre-discount allocation. Under this
approach if, in order to ensure that
small schools and libraries would
receive sufficient funding, the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
over time, but once they receive
funding, applicants could not be certain
about when they might next be eligible
for internal connections funding. We
seek comment on this tradeoff. If the
Commission were to adopt this
approach, applicants could have an
incentive to inflate their original
requests in their first year of eligibility.
What safeguards should we adopt to
address this problem?
18. If the Commission were to use
available funds to front-load support for
eligible internal connections in funding
years 2015 and 2016, would this obviate
some of the drawbacks to this approach?
If so, how much support should the
Commission provide in funding years
2015 and 2016, and how much should
it provide annually after that to ensure
all schools and libraries have robust
internal connections? If the Commission
were to adopt this approach, should the
rotating eligibility limitation apply at
the level of applicants or, as the two-infive rule does today, at the level of
individual schools and library
buildings?
19. If the Commission were to adopt
this rotating eligibility approach, how
should it prioritize funding for internal
connections? Should it continue to fund
eligible applications at the highest
discount level first? If funding is
insufficient to fund all eligible
applications at a particular discount
level in a given funding year, should the
Commission give preference to the
applicants with the highest percentage
of students receiving free and reduced
school lunches?
c. Annual Allocation for Internal
Connections
20. As a third option, we seek
comment on adopting a funding method
that would provide some support for
Commission were to adopt a perapplicant or per-building minimum
allocation as part of the formula, what
should that minimum per-building or
per-applicant support level be? If the
Commission adopts such an approach
for school applicants, how should it
calculate the annual allocation for
libraries?
22. In addition to ensuring that all
applicants have the opportunity to
receive at least some internal
connection funding each year, adopting
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
internal connections that support highcapacity broadband to all eligible
applicants in each funding year, as
opposed to the cyclical funding
methods discussed above. By making at
least some funding available annually
for each applicant, this approach would
prevent a small number of applicants
from disproportionately using available
funding and give all schools and
libraries an opportunity to upgrade at
least some of their facilities each year.
In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on a
similar allocation of funds that would
apply for the entire E-rate program.
Many commenters were supportive, but
many others expressed concern that this
funding approach would not fully
capture the diversity of costs faced by
applicants across the country. Are these
concerns mitigated in the context of
internal connections, and particularly
LAN and Wi-Fi deployments? In
particular, unlike the costs of broadband
connectivity to schools, we expect that
the prices of many parts of LAN and WiFi deployments (e.g., switches, routers,
and wireless access points) should vary
little based on the geographic location of
schools and should generally scale
proportionally with the size of the
student body. We seek comment on
these expectations.
21. More specifically, we seek
comment on using the following
simplified version of the formula
proposed by Funds for Learning and a
coalition of schools and school groups
to set available funding levels for each
applicant.
this annual allotment could have the
benefit of providing applicants certainty
about the amount of funding that would
be available to them each year. We seek
comment on this consideration. Would
funding certainty over a multi-year
period create new opportunities for upfront financing to cover equipment
upgrades in a given year? We also seek
comment on how to best utilize any
remaining funding if some applicants
request less than their allocated amount.
Should such funding be made available
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
EP11MR14.012
retaining the existing prioritization
method.
15. If the Commission were to adopt
a one-in-five rule to replace the current
two-in-five rule, how much funding
would be needed to ensure that funds
were available to meet the needs of all
eligible schools and libraries? Would
the Commission need to front-load
support for eligible internal connections
in the first funding years to meet the
existing needs of schools and libraries?
Is five years the right amount of time for
such a funding cycle? If the Commission
were to adopt this approach, should the
one-in-five limitation apply at the level
of applicants or, as it does today, at the
level of individual school and library
buildings?
16. If available funding is insufficient
to fund all applicants at a particular
discount level in a given funding year,
how should the Commission decide
which applicants to fund? Should it for
example, prioritize funding for
applicants within a discount level by
giving preference to the applicants with
the highest percentage of students
receiving free and reduced school
lunches?
13601
13602
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
to increase the allocation to other
applicants in the same funding year?
Should it be held over to subsequent
funding years? Or should we adopt
another approach? Finally, how should
the Commission allow these funds to be
spent by the applicants? Should district
or library systems be required to spend
those funds at specific schools or
libraries in certain proportions? Or
should each applicant have the
flexibility to spend the funds as it
decides across its district or library
system?
d. Other Methods To Prioritize Internal
Connections Funding
23. Are there variations on the options
described above or other methods the
Commission should consider employing
to prioritize funding for high-capacity
internal connections? Should it, for
example, prioritize projects by the
number of students impacted per dollar
of funding? Should the Commission
prioritize consortia applications?
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Broadband Deployment to Schools
and Libraries
24. The record reflects that some
schools and libraries do not have access
to high-capacity broadband connections
to their buildings, and commenters have
suggested that the Commission
undertake a targeted effort to help
support deployment of high-capacity,
scalable last-mile connections to eligible
schools and libraries that do not
currently have access to connections
that meet the connectivity goals laid out
in the E-rate Modernization NPRM.
25. As explained in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, the E-rate
program currently offers support for
broadband construction to schools and
libraries. However, commenters have
explained that even with the current
levels of E-rate support, some schools
and libraries cannot afford to pay their
share of the cost of deploying last-mile
high-capacity broadband.
1. Scope of Services To Be Funded
26. In light of the record
demonstrating that the costs of one-time
construction projects, even though
already supported by the E-rate
program, can be cost-prohibitive, we
seek comment on whether the
Commission should undertake a limited
initiative, within the existing priority
one system, to incent the deployment of
high-capacity broadband connections to
schools and libraries. We invite
stakeholders to offer examples of
projects for which they would seek
funding if the Commission adopts such
an approach. Exactly what services
should the Commission fund as part of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
this deployment effort? For instance,
what types of fiber deployment or other
high-capacity, scalable broadband
technologies that meet the connectivity
goals in the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, should be eligible for funding?
27. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on how to ensure that
broadband deployment to schools and
libraries is done in a way that
minimizes the recurring costs for both
applicants and the E-rate program once
deployment is complete. While the
record indicates that new broadband
deployments, once paid for, can
dramatically lower recurring costs over
time, it also reveals situations where
monthly charges have remained high
even after new deployments are
complete and costs have been fully
recovered. If the Commission does
decide to provide some additional
support for the capital costs associated
with high-capacity deployment, how
can it best ensure that the recurring
costs associated with providing
broadband over new connections is
affordable for the applicants on a goingforward basis?
28. Should the Commission change
the program’s funding methodology as
part of this deployment initiative?
Would it be sufficient for the
Commission to simply raise the
discount rate for all applicants seeking
deployment support by 10 percent or
some other percentage? Or would it be
better for the Commission to adopt a flat
discount rate for all applicants? If so,
what should this flat rate be? Are there
some schools and libraries on Tribal
lands, or in remote rural areas that
cannot afford high-capacity broadband
build-out without full support? Should
the Commission consider full support
for all applicants seeking support for
broadband connectivity? While such an
approach could encourage applicants to
participate in the program and greatly
increase broadband deployment to
schools and libraries, how would the
Commission ensure that applicants do
not enter into agreements requiring
excessive funding for broadband
deployment?
29. Some commenters have explained
that vendors often limit up-front
deployment costs and instead collect
the costs over several years as part of the
cost of recurring services. Are there
instances in which the Commission
should authorize increased support for
the recurring costs of broadband
services over a period of time instead of,
or in addition to, increased support for
up-front costs, to the extent those
recurring costs reflect time-limited
recovery for capital investment? If so,
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
over how long a period of time and
under what circumstances?
2. Ensuring Equitable Distribution
30. We also seek comment on how
best to distribute support among the
applicants for high-speed connections to
schools and libraries. In particular, if
the Commission makes some additional
deployment support available to eligible
schools and libraries that do not already
have access to high-speed scalable
connections available at reasonable
prices, how do we identify those
schools and libraries? Should we rely on
the broadband speed targets identified
by the Commission in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM and require
applicants for this deployment funding
to demonstrate their current Internet
access service does not meet that
metric? Should we consider future
scalability of existing connections and/
or available pricing when identifying
eligible schools and libraries? Are there
other methods the Commission should
consider to determine the best projects
to fund?
31. We also seek comment on ways to
prioritize applications for deployment
costs in the event that the demand for
such funds exceeds availability. In the
current E-rate program, when available
funds do not meet demand, the
applicants with the greatest economic
need (i.e., those with the highest
percentage of students that qualify for
free and reduced school lunches) are
funded first at the 90 percent discount
rate, then funding goes to those
applicants eligible for 89 percent
discount levels, and so on, until the
available funds are exhausted. Eligible
libraries receive the discount rate of the
school district in which they are
located. Should the Commission adopt
a similar mechanism for distributing
funding for deployment of high-capacity
broadband to eligible schools and
libraries?
32. As an alternative, we seek
comment on adopting one or more
objective impact and/or efficiency
metrics to prioritize applications. For
example, school applicants could be
required to calculate the total number of
students currently in buildings without
infrastructure capable of meeting
Commission-adopted speed goals. Those
schools would then be upgraded to
scalable, high-speed connections with
E-rate support and applications could be
scored based on the total cost perstudent served. Should the Commission
also consider prioritizing upgrades that
do not increase the speed available to
applicants, but dramatically reduce
recurring costs following new
investment (for example, if applicants
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
sought to upgrade from Internet access
using two T3s to a single 100 Mbps
metro Ethernet circuit, or to purchase
WAN upgrades that allowed them to
buy Internet access at a lower-priced
point-of-presence)? If so, how much
weight should be given to particular
levels of reductions in recurring costs?
If the Commission adopted multiple
objective impact and/or efficiency
metrics, how should they be evaluated
together? For example, how should
applications that reduce recurring costs
be scored against those that include
speed upgrades? Are there other
methods the Commission could employ
to prioritize funding for up-front
deployment costs in the event demand
exceeds availability?
33. Within the existing priority one
system, applicants can receive E-rate
support for some installation and
special construction charges, but the
cost of large projects must be prorated
over three years or more. This limit may
disproportionately harm rural and other
applicants that face the largest
deployment costs, especially because
there are no exceptions for rural
deployments or other unique
circumstances. Would adopting one of
the prioritization approaches above for
deployment funding allow the
Commission to relax this limit?
C. Encouraging Cost-Effective
Purchasing
34. As the Commission considers how
to focus E-rate funding on high-capacity
connections to and within schools and
libraries, are there additional steps the
Commission can take to help ensure
efficient use of E-rate funds spent on
broadband projects? Below we seek
comment on three possible ways to
encourage cost-effective purchasing. We
also invite commenters to offer other
methods to encourage cost-effective Erate purchasing.
35. Consortium purchasing and bulk
buying. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on encouraging consortia and
other bulk purchasing programs. If the
Commission moves to support a more
limited set of equipment and services
for high-capacity internal connections,
is there an opportunity for E-rate
applicants to drive down prices of the
products necessary for Wi-Fi and LAN
connectivity through consortium
purchasing or other forms of bulk
buying? If so, what steps can the
Commission take to encourage costeffective consortia or other bulk
purchasing of such products? Likewise,
if the Commission focuses some
additional funding on high-capacity
broadband deployment to schools and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
libraries currently unserved by
broadband services, should the
Commission encourage the formation of
consortia to encourage providers to offer
affordable services to groups of schools
and/or libraries? If so, what steps can
the Commission take to encourage the
formation of consortia that have the
tools to engage in cost-effective
purchasing? Are there steps the
Commission can take to encourage
currently successful consortia to add
members, particularly eligible entities
that currently lack the kind of
purchasing power enjoyed by consortia?
How can the Commission help ensure
that the formation of such consortia
does not unfairly disadvantage smaller
providers that may be efficient local
providers of high-capacity services?
36. Technology planning. Another
possible approach to ensuring costeffective purchasing of broadband
services is to require technology
planning. The Commission eliminated
technology plan requirements for E-rate
applicants seeking only support for
priority one services in order to simplify
the application process for schools and
libraries. The E-rate Modernization
NPRM sought comment on whether
there were lessons learned from current
and previous technology plan
requirements and whether these
requirements should be re-instituted.
We now ask more specifically whether
the Commission should require
applicants that are seeking E-rate
support for upgrading high-capacity
connections to school buildings or
libraries to demonstrate that they have
a plan and the capacity to use those
services within their buildings.
37. Data collection and transparency.
In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on how
best to collect data on the speed and
quality of school and library
connections. The Commission also
sought comment on what data to collect
to support the proposed goal of
maximizing cost-effective purchasing.
As the Commission considers how best
to provide support for broadband
deployment within and to schools and
libraries, we renew our request for
comment on those data issues and on
whether price transparency for E-rate
supported services will help drive down
those prices.
D. Streamlining the Administrative
Process
38. As the Commission considers how
best to support high-capacity broadband
connections to and within schools and
libraries, consistent with the
Commission’s proposed third goal of
streamlining the administration of the E-
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13603
rate program, we seek additional
comment on how best to minimize the
administrative burdens and overhead
associated with applying for and
receiving such support. Are there for
example, simple changes the
Commission can make to the E-rate
information collections that will ease
the administrative burdens on E-rate
applicants and vendors that take
advantage of a modernized E-rate
program?
39. Are there changes to the invoicing
deadlines the Commission should adopt
to take into account a focus on
broadband deployment? Under the
current program, all recurring services
must be completed during the funding
year and invoices must be submitted no
later than 120 days after the last day to
receive service or 120 days after the FCC
Form 486 Notification Letter date,
whichever is later. Non-recurring
charges for broadband projects, such as
build-outs and special construction,
must be completed by September 30
following the close of the funding year,
with some exceptions. Because of the
possibility that complex projects could
take additional time beyond the funding
year, should new deployment be given
18 months to be completed and
invoiced from the date the funds are
committed? Should complex internal
connections projects be given 18 months
to be completed and invoiced from the
date the funds are committed? Could
invoicing deadlines be synchronized
with other federal funding programs to
reduce complexity for applicants?
Should applicants be allowed any
extension of their project deadlines? If
so, under what circumstances?
Currently, special construction or buildouts can commence six months before
the start of the funding year. Should the
Commission give applicants additional
time before the funding year to begin
special construction to schools and
libraries, or to begin internal
infrastructure projects?
II. Reduced Support for Voice Services
40. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the Commission proposed to
refocus the E-rate program on
supporting high-capacity broadband
connectivity to and within schools and
libraries and recognized that it needed
to confront the prospect of eliminating
or reducing support for voice and other
legacy services that do not advance the
deployment of broadband. As schools
and libraries increasingly transition to
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
services, we expect the price they pay
for voice services to decrease. While
many commenters expressed support for
a transition from funding voice
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
13604
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
telephony services, many such
commenters also stressed the
importance of phasing out support for
voice services over a number of years,
with several specifically endorsing a
three- to five-year phase-out period.
Below we seek comment on several
specific ways for the Commission to
transition away from support for voice
services, and we invite commenters to
offer other suggestions for how best to
redirect E-rate support from voice to
broadband services.
A. Reduced E-Rate Support for Voice
Services
41. One way for the Commission to
phase out support for voice services
would be to gradually reduce the
discount rate applicants receive for
voice services. For example, the
Commission could phase out support
for voice services by 15 percentage
points per year, beginning in funding
year 2015, and continue to reduce
support for such services by the same
amount each year until funding for
voice services is fully phased out in
funding year 2020. We seek comment on
this approach, as well as any other
options for reducing E-rate spending on
voice services. A gradual approach to
reducing support for voice services
should give schools and libraries time
and the incentive to find lower priced
solutions, and could also provide the
Commission a period to evaluate
whether it should adjust the phase out
schedule. Although such an approach
will result in some applicants receiving
no support for voice services prior to
funding year 2020, the most
economically disadvantaged
applicants—i.e. those that are currently
eligible for a 90 percent discount rate
—would be eligible for a 75 percent
discount on voice telephony in funding
year 2015, a 60 percent discount in
funding year 2016, a 45 percent
discount in 2017, a 30 percent discount
in funding year 2018, and a 15 percent
discount in funding year 2019.
42. We expect that the diminished
availability of E-rate funding for voice
services will be ameliorated by the fact
that many applicants have transitioned
or will transition to VoIP, which is
generally considered to be more costefficient than traditional voice services.
Although some commenters have
suggested that the initial costs,
including the cost of new handsets, to
transition to VoIP is cost prohibitive for
them, others indicate that they are
embracing this trend. Our approach also
takes into consideration that the growth
of competitive options for voice
services, such as VoIP, should drive
down costs for voice services.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
43. If the Commission elects to phase
out support for voice beginning in
funding year 2015, will schools and
libraries have adequate time and
resources to make needed adjustments?
Commenters should consider that as the
E-rate program increasingly supports
high-capacity broadband, applicants
may be eligible for increased levels of
support for broadband services to and
within schools and libraries. Will
increased funding for these other types
of services assist schools and libraries
adjusting to decreasing levels of E-rate
support for voice telephony services?
Will increased support for high-capacity
broadband networks to and within
schools and libraries put applicants in
a better position to transition to VoIP,
and would E-rate still be supporting
voice services, albeit indirectly, by
supporting the infrastructure and
services over which VoIP will ride?
Would it be appropriate, therefore, to
phase out support for voice services
only once a school or library has gained
access to high-capacity broadband? If so,
we seek comment on whether we
should adopt different voice phase-out
dates on a case-by-case basis for
individual schools or libraries, such as
within one year after they have
broadband that meets the goals for highcapacity broadband established in this
proceeding.
44. We also seek comment on whether
the entries for telephone services,
telephone components, and
interconnected VoIP in the Eligible
Services List (ESL) include all of the
types of voice services and components
that should be covered by the five year
phase out. Are there any services in
these entries that should be excluded
from the phase out? Are there other
types of telephone services that are not
specifically listed in the current ESL
that should be subject to the phase out?
Commenters should provide details on
the specific voice services for which
support should be phased out and
provide detailed reasons for why certain
services should be included or excluded
from the list of targeted voice services.
B. Alternatives
45. The Commission may also decide
to eliminate voice more quickly or to
modify in some other way the current
approach to supporting voice services.
Therefore, we also seek comment on a
number of alternative ways to approach
funding for voice services, and we invite
comment on the approaches we identify
below, as well as variations on or
alternatives to any such options.
46. Elimination of voice support. As
an alternative to a phase down of voice
support, should the Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
consider eliminating all support for
voice services starting in funding year
2015? Such an approach would more
quickly accomplish the Commission’s
goal of transitioning the E-rate program
to supporting high-capacity broadband,
but would also result in a more stark
loss of support for applicants. Would it
be more appropriate to provide
additional time for applicants to make
necessary budgetary changes by
eliminating all support for voice
services, but in a later funding year?
47. Lower priority for voice services.
In the alternative, we also seek comment
on retaining support for voice services
under a lower priority. For example,
SECA recommends that the Commission
establish a new priority category for
particular services, including voice
services, to be funded at a flat 50
percent discount and that all applicants
have equal access to the services in this
category. Would it be more manageable
for applicants to adjust to a larger
reduction in funding the first year we
implement a discount reduction for
voice services because they know they
will continue to receive such funding in
future years? If we were to take such an
approach, would it encourage
applicants to move to more costeffective solutions or would we need to
take additional steps to encourage such
transitions?
48. Benchmark for VoIP support. As
voice communications technologies
migrate from traditional TDM to IP
should the Commission encourage this
transition for schools and libraries using
the E-rate program? Some commenters
suggested that rather than phasing out
E-rate support for all voice services, the
Commission should continue to provide
support for VoIP solutions. A possible
middle ground would be for the
Commission to identify inexpensive
VoIP solutions for schools and libraries
and use such services as a benchmark
for how much support the E-rate
program will provide for voice services.
49. If the Commission establishes a
benchmark support amount, should the
benchmark be on a per-user basis or
some other basis? If the Commission
establishes a per-user benchmark, how
would applicants establish the number
of users they have that provide the basis
for the amount of their requested
support? If the Commission establishes
a benchmark support amount, should
the E-rate program use this benchmark
to support all voice services, regardless
of the technology used? Or should the
Commission use the benchmark derived
support amount only to fund VoIP
service and phase down support for all
other voice services? Does the transition
to VoIP services offer applicants an
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
opportunity to use consortium
purchasing or other forms of bulk
buying to drive down the cost of
services while ensuring service quality?
If so, what steps can the Commission
take to encourage such purchasing?
C. Other Issues Related to Voice
Services
50. As the Commission considers how
to treat voice services as part of a
modernized E-rate program, we seek
comment on several specific issues
relating to the funding of voice services
and invite commenters to raise other
issues.
51. Internal connections. We also seek
comment on whether the Commission
should end support for internal
connections used for the delivery of
voice services which are currently
supported as priority two eligible
services. Will discontinuing support for
the internal connections used to deliver
voice discourage applicants that had
been considering a transition to VoIP? If
VoIP is the most cost-effective option for
voice services, we seek comment on
whether the E-rate program should offer
some short term incentive to applicants
to transition to VoIP. Some commenters
have already explained in this
proceeding that they are reluctant to
switch to VoIP for a variety of reasons.
Would it be a sufficient incentive for
applicants to transition to VoIP if the Erate program provided an additional,
one-time discount, such as 10 percent to
20 percent, to applicants in order to
help defray the up-front costs necessary
for the first year of a transition to VoIP?
52. Rural areas or areas that lack
access to broadband. If the Commission
decides to decrease support for voice
services, some commenters have
suggested that it continue to provide
support for traditional voice services for
those schools and libraries in remote
rural areas, on Tribal lands, or
elsewhere that lack access to highcapacity broadband and therefore will
find it more challenging to adopt
affordable VoIP options. For example,
Alaska EED and Alaska State Library ask
the Commission to consider extending
the eligibility of voice services for
locations that rely on satellite Internet
service. We seek further comment on
such an approach, and specific
comment on how, if the Commission
adopts such an exemption, it should
determine which applicants should
qualify? Would it be sufficient, for
example, to simply require applicants to
certify that there are no alternatives to
POTS service in their geographic
location?
53. Above we ask whether we should
adopt different voice phase-out dates for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
individual schools or libraries, such as
within one year after they have the highcapacity broadband that meets the goals
established in this proceeding. Should
we adopt this approach for rural schools
and libraries, and require that for rural
entities to qualify for an exemption from
phase-out, they do not have the highcapacity broadband meeting the goals
laid out in this proceeding? Should
waivers or exemptions for those
applicants in areas where VoIP is not
available also be available for those
applicants that can upgrade to VoIP but
choose not to for financial or other
reasons? Are there other types of
schools and libraries that have unique
needs meriting continued E-rate support
for voice services at current levels? How
should we define the areas or
circumstances where support for voice
service would continue to be supported
under an alternative like this?
D. Easing Administrative Burdens
54. We seek comment on how best to
reduce the administrative burden on Erate applicants, regardless of which
approach to supporting voice services
the Commission takes in modernizing
the E-rate program. If, for example, the
Commission decides to phase down or
phase out support for voice services,
will calculating the correct amount of
support due to applicants be
administratively challenging? If so, what
can the Commission do to ease the
administrative burdens? Commenters
have generally supported easing the
burdens for multi-year contracts for
recurring services, is that something that
would be particularly useful in this
context? Likewise, if the Commission
moves to supporting voice using a peruser cost for VoIP services as a
benchmark, are there administrative
challenges the Commission should take
into account, and are there things the
Commission can do to ease the
administrative burden of such an
approach on schools and libraries?
III. Demonstration Projects
55. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on innovative approaches to
encouraging efficiency in the E-rate
program. Many commenters offered
examples for how new approaches to
planning and procuring services might
be either (or both) more cost effective or
more administratively efficient. At the
same time, many commenters argued
that local needs vary and local decision
making has been one of the hallmarks of
the E-rate program. As the Commission
considers how best to meet the highcapacity connectivity needs of schools
and libraries cost effectively,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13605
commenters supported the use of E-rate
funds for projects of broad relevance to
help identify and accelerate the
development of best practices for
achieving cost savings and innovation
within E-rate.
56. We therefore now seek further
comment on providing limited funding
for well-defined, time-limited
demonstration projects aimed at
identifying and testing different
approaches to meeting schools’ and
libraries’ connectivity needs. Like the
recently adopted Technology
Transitions Order that solicited a broad
set of experiments in order to develop
facts and data, such projects would be
set up as proof of concept experiments
on innovative approaches to
maximizing cost-efficient use of E-rate
funding. These projects, although
experimental, would provide needed
services and equipment to E-rate eligible
participants. We seek comment on
funding a number of different types of
demonstration projects based on
Commission and stakeholder proposals.
We also invite suggestions of other types
of projects the Commission should
conduct, the amount that should spend
on any individual project, and the total
budget for such projects.
57. As one example, the Commission
sought comment on whether to allow
experimentation in bulk purchasing of
E-rate eligible services and equipment.
We received a mixed reaction in
response to the E-rate Modernization
NPRM on whether the Commission
should create a formal bulk buying
program. While commenters expressed
concern about the potential rigidity of
requiring applicants to use such a
program, they supported promoting the
use of statewide or consortia bulk
purchasing. We therefore seek further
comment and proposals on how to
conduct one or more initial experiments
with bulk purchasing. A structured bulk
buying demonstration project could test
the cost-effectiveness and flexibility of
such a program using just a small
number of services or products, and
would have the benefit of providing
applicants with products and services
they need as part of their broadband
networks. For example, stakeholders
could propose a project to gather data
on bulk purchasing by a state, consortia,
or regional research and education
network for certain internal connection
components, commercial internet
access, or a VoIP solution that would
replace traditional voice service. We
seek comment on these types of projects
and how to foster innovative and
scalable practices.
58. A demonstration project could
also provide an opportunity to gather
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
13606
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
information and test proposals for
implementation of a technical assistance
program. For example, a demonstration
project could test the effectiveness of
hiring technical assistance experts to
assist in network design or technical
planning in a small number of districts,
schools, and/or libraries whose costs fall
outside a standard range for E-rate
applicants. Another could test the use of
consultants who are experts on
connectivity costs and are un-affiliated
with broadband providers.
59. We also seek comment on other
proposals in the record. The American
Library Association, for example,
suggested a pilot program aimed at
temporarily increasing the discount
level for targeted libraries, prioritizing
based on public-private partnerships,
and providing technical assistance in
order to ‘‘catalyze innovation’’ in
advancing library services. If we were to
fund such a project, how much funding
should we provide and over what
period of time? What sort of support
could we expect the private sector to
bring to such a project? Are there
particular needs of libraries that we
should focus on? What types of
technical assistance would be
particularly valuable, and to what end?
What data should the Commission
collect, as part of such a pilot program,
and how should we use that data to
measure progress towards success? Are
there ways in which libraries’
connectivity needs differ from those of
schools? Are there other types of
demonstration projects aimed at
addressing the unique needs of libraries
that the Commission should fund? With
respect to all proposed demonstration
projects, we request commenters be as
specific as possible about the goals, the
amount of funding, the process for
selecting participants, the data to be
collected and the timeline for any
projects they propose or support.
60. Commenters also contributed
other ideas, such as a pilot program to
link last-mile infrastructure to BTOP
funded networks, experiments on the
use of consortia efforts, or projects that
target rural areas. Another proposed a
project to implement bulk purchasing of
a platform to facilitate affordable access
to advanced information services. We
seek comment on these proposals and
how such projects could be structured
to gather data and evaluate success.
These examples are not meant to be
exhaustive. We welcome further ideas
from stakeholders on the types of
demonstration projects that can help
identify cost efficiencies and drive
down the cost of E-rate supported
services. Are there other approaches
used by enterprise customers to drive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
down their broadband costs that the
Commission should experiment with in
the E-rate program?
61. We seek specific comment on the
process for selecting such proposals. In
determining projects, should the
Commission focus on experiments that
examine cost impacts or consider other
types of criteria, such as
innovativeness? How should the
Commission prioritize project funding?
Should the length of any given
demonstration project be limited to a
single year? Should they be tied to
specific E-rate funding years? Should
the Commission select different kinds of
projects to evaluate the different
models’ effects on driving down costs of
E-rate eligible services? These projects
should be designed to help the
Commission gather data needed to
inform decision-making and make
future reforms. Therefore, we seek
detailed comment on the data goals and
how to evaluate the projects during and
after selection. We also seek further
ideas on how to share information and
empower applicants to replicate project
successes across the country.
62. Numerous commenters have
confirmed the importance of
streamlining the administration of the Erate program. Therefore, as we consider
demonstration projects, we also invite
experiments that find ways to reduce
the administrative burden on E-rate
applicants.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
63. The E-rate Modernization NPRM
included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to
5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential
impact on small entities of the
Commission’s proposals. We invite
parties to file comments on the IRFA in
light of this additional document.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
64. This document seeks comment on
a potential new or revised information
collection requirement. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirement, the
Commission will publish a separate
document in the Federal Register
inviting the public to comment on the
requirement, as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
‘‘further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
concerns with fewer than 25
employees.’’
C. Ex Parte Presentations
65. This matter shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule § 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
66. Comments and Replies. We invite
comment on the issues and questions
set forth in this document and IRFA
contained herein. Pursuant to §§ 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may
file comments on this document by
April 7, 2014 and may file reply
comments by April 21, 2014. All filings
related to this document shall refer to
WC Docket No. 13–184. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 47 / Tuesday, March 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the Internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings can be sent by hand or
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300
East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights,
MD 20743.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554.
67. People with Disabilities. To
request materials in accessible formats
for people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
68. In addition, one copy of each
paper filing must be sent to each of the
following: (1) the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 20554;
Web site: www.bcpiweb.com; phone:
(800) 378–3160; (2) Lisa Hone,
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau,
445 12th Street SW., Room 6–A326,
Washington, DC 20554; email:
Lisa.Hone@fcc.gov; and (3) Charles
Tyler, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 5–
A452, Washington, DC 20554; email:
Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
69. Filing and comments are also
available for public inspection and
copying during regular business hours
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:13 Mar 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
at the FCC Reference Information
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission’s duplicating contractor,
BCPI, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY–
B402, Washington, DC 20554.
Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: www.bcpi.com, by email at
fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at (202)
488–5300 or (800) 378–3160 or by
facsimile at (202) 488–5563.
70. Comments and reply comments
must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments
raised in the pleading. Comments and
reply comments must also comply with
§ 1.49 and all other applicable sections
of the Commission’s rules. We direct all
interested parties to include the name of
the filing party and the date of the filing
on each page of their comments and
reply comments. All parties are
encouraged to utilize a table of contents,
regardless of the length of their
submission. We also strongly encourage
parties to track the organization set forth
in this document in order to facilitate
our internal review process.
71. For additional information on this
proceeding, contact James Bachtell at
(202) 418–2694 or Regina Brown at
(202) 418–0792 in the
Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2014–05433 Filed 3–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 140106010–4010–01]
RIN 0648–XD069
Fisheries of the Northeastern United
States; Atlantic Deep-Sea Red Crab
Fishery; 2014–2016 Atlantic Deep-Sea
Red Crab Specifications
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed specifications; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
13607
intent of this action is to establish the
allowable 2014–2016 harvest levels and
other management measures to achieve
the target fishing mortality rate,
consistent with the Atlantic Deep-Sea
Red Crab Fishery Management Plan.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 26, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2014–0004,
by any one of the following methods:
• Electronic Submissions: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20140004, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
John Bullard, Regional Administrator,
NMFS, Greater Atlantic Regional
Fisheries Office, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publically accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/
A’’ in the required fields if you wish to
remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
Copies of the specifications
document, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
and other supporting documents for the
specifications, are available from
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director,
New England Fishery Management
Council, 50 Water Street, Mill 2,
Newburyport, MA 01950. The
specifications document is also
accessible via the Internet at: https://
www.nero.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Carly Bari, Fishery Management
Specialist, (978) 281–9224.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Atlantic deep-sea red crab fishery
is managed by the New England Fishery
SUMMARY: NMFS proposes specifications Management Council (Council).
for the 2014–2016 Atlantic deep-sea red Regulations implementing the Atlantic
crab fishery, including an annual catch
Deep-Sea Red Crab Fishery Management
limit and total allowable landings. The
Plan (FMP) appear at 50 CFR part 648,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\11MRP1.SGM
11MRP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 47 (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13599-13607]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05433]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 13-184; DA 14-308]
Wireline Competition Bureau Seeks Focused Comment on E-Rate
Modernization
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Wireline Competition Bureau seeks
focused comment on three issues raised in the E-rate Modernization NPRM
that merit further inquiry as the Commission moves towards the goal of
meeting schools' and libraries' broadband connectivity needs. The E-
rate Modernization NPRM sought broad comment on modernizing the E-rate
program and proposed three goals for the program: ensuring that schools
and libraries have affordable access to 21st Century broadband that
supports digital learning; maximizing the cost-effectiveness of E-rate
funds; and streamlining the administration of the program.
DATES: Comments are due on or before April 7, 2014 and reply comments
are due on or before April 21, 2014.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file comments on or before April 7,
2014 and reply comments on or before April 21, 2014. All pleadings are
to reference WC Docket No. 13-184. Comments may be filed using the
Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regina Brown at (202) 418-0792 or
James Bachtell at (202) 4182694, Telecommunications Access Policy
Division, Wireline Competition Bureau or TTY (202) 418-0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document in WC Docket No. 13-184; DA 14-308, released March 6, 2014.
The full text of this document is available for inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals
II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington DC 20554. This
document may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-5300,
facsimile 202-488-5563, or via email at FCC@BCPIWEB.com. It is also
available via the Internet in the Commission's Electronic Document
System (EDOCS) at https://www.fcc.gov/documents under WC Docket No. 13-
184.
Synopsis
1. The Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) seeks focused comment
on three issues raised in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, 78 FR 51597,
August 20, 2013, that merit further inquiry as the Commission moves
towards modernizing the E-rate program to meet schools' and libraries'
broadband connectivity needs. The E-rate Modernization NPRM sought
broad comment on and proposed three goals for the program: (1) Ensuring
that schools and libraries have affordable access to 21st Century
broadband that supports digital learning; (2) maximizing the cost-
effectiveness of E-rate funds; and (3) streamlining the administration
of the program. The Commission has received more than 1,500 comments
and ex parte filings in response to the E-rate Modernization NPRM
including numerous comments from individual educators and school
administrators; school districts and consortia; librarians and library
systems; E-rate vendors and educational content providers; and other
interested public and private organizations.
2. The record in this proceeding demonstrates overwhelming
agreement among stakeholders that the E-rate program has been a crucial
part of helping our nation's schools and libraries connect to the
Internet. The record also shows a strong commitment to ensuring that
the E-rate program quickly evolve to meet the ever-growing need for
high-capacity broadband so our students and communities have access to
21st Century educational tools. The record is replete with support and
suggestions for how to meet the goals for the E-rate program proposed
in the E-rate Modernization NPRM.
3. Based on the extensive input the Commission has received, it
appears that meeting the Commission's proposed goals for the E-rate
program will require that, in the near term, the program focus on
providing the support necessary to ensure schools and libraries can
afford high-speed connectivity to and within schools and libraries,
even as the Commission develops a long-term approach that allows
applicants to scale up capacity while driving down costs. More
specifically, the record underscores the importance of providing
consistent and broadly available support for the equipment and services
needed to enable high-capacity wireless broadband within schools and
libraries; greater support, at least in the short term, for last-mile
deployments needed to connect schools and libraries that do not
currently have access to high-speed connections; a support methodology
that allows applicants to capture the long-term cost-efficiencies
associated with access to scalable, high-speed connections; less
support for voice services, as the cost of voice services transition in
the long run to the marginal cost of packet-based voice services
provided over high-capacity broadband connections; incentives for
making cost-effective purchasing decisions, including incentives and
opportunities for schools and libraries to benefit from economies of
scale in purchasing supported services; and as much administrative
simplicity as possible, while protecting against waste, fraud and
abuse.
4. In light of these themes that emerge from the record, as the
Commission seeks to modernize the E-rate program, there are three
issues raised in the E-rate Modernization NPRM that merit further
focused inquiry at this time: (1) How best to focus E-rate funds on
high-capacity broadband, especially high-speed Wi-Fi and internal
connections; (2) whether and how the Commission should begin to phase
down or phase out support for traditional voice services
[[Page 13600]]
in order to focus more funding on broadband; and (3) whether there are
demonstration projects or experiments that the Commission should
authorize as part of the E-rate program that would help the Commission
test new, innovative ways to maximize cost-effective purchasing in the
E-rate program. We seek further comment on how the issues below relate
to the goals for the E-rate program that the Commission proposed in the
E-rate Modernization NPRM and how they comport with relevant statutory
requirements.
5. At the same time, the Commission continues to evaluate all of
the input received in response to the E-rate Modernization NPRM. The
issues we raise in this document do not define the full universe of
possible changes the Commission could make in an order modernizing the
E-rate program.
I. Focused Funding for High-Capacity Broadband
6. Commenters to this proceeding have made clear the importance of
focusing E-rate support on high-speed connectivity to and within
schools and libraries. As educational technology has improved in recent
years, equipment and cabling used to deploy the interior pieces of
broadband networks have become increasingly important, yet the E-rate
program has provided less support and funded fewer applicants seeking
support for such internal connections. Numerous commenters have
identified support for internal connections as one of the program areas
where modernization is most urgent and most important. Accordingly, in
this section we ask about methods to improve this funding going
forward. We also take this opportunity to ask about improvements to the
existing priority one funding system for last-mile deployments for
high-capacity broadband.
7. In seeking further comment on how best to focus E-rate funding
on high-capacity broadband, we note that an initial review by
Commission staff has found that the Commission can free up an
additional $2 billion over the next two years to help support broadband
networks in our nation's schools and libraries, offering an opportunity
to assess better ways to prioritize and distribute program funding at
support levels higher than the current program cap. We seek comment on
how best to use such additional funds to support the Commission's
efforts to provide high-capacity broadband within and to schools and
libraries, as described in more detail below.
A. Broadband Deployment Within Schools and Libraries
8. Stakeholders in this proceeding contend that the deployment of
equipment inside school and library facilities is as essential to
comprehensive broadband service at a given location as the high-speed
connectivity to that facility. For example, Wi-Fi has transformed
computing and education, creating the possibility of one-to-one
learning in classrooms and libraries, and freeing desks and work
stations from wired connections. A survey of school district leaders
conducted by the Consortium for School Networking (CoSN) and Market
Data Retrieval in 2013, however, showed that 57 percent of district
leaders do not believe that their schools' wireless networks have the
capacity to handle a one-to-one student-to-device deployment.
9. Internal connections essential to extend broadband throughout
schools and libraries are currently eligible for support in the E-rate
program as priority two services. However, some commenters have
expressed concern because, in most funding years, there have only been
sufficient funds to provide priority two support to schools and
libraries in the highest bands of the discount matrix. Commenters
generally agree that the rule that the Commission adopted limiting any
school or library to two years of priority two support in every five
year period (the two-in-five rule) does not appear to have achieved its
intended goal of substantially spreading the available funds. Moreover,
as demand for priority one funding continues to grow, the ability to
provide any priority two support is an increasing challenge.
10. Therefore, to address the need for funding for the services and
equipment necessary to ensure high-capacity broadband within schools
and libraries, we seek comment on whether the Commission should change
the current priority two funding category (including no longer
supporting legacy services that are currently eligible for priority two
funding), by allocating annually a set amount of E-rate funds to
provide schools and libraries with funding for LANs and Wi-Fi networks,
which are essential to ensuring high-capacity broadband reaches
students and library patrons.
1. Scope of Services To Be Funded
11. Under this approach, only equipment and supporting software
that is essential to getting high-capacity broadband from the
building's front door to the computer, tablet, or other learning
devices in schools and libraries would be eligible for internal
connection support. We seek comment on what equipment is essential for
such purposes. Some commenters have suggested that such equipment
includes internal wiring, switches and routers, wireless access points,
and the software supporting these components. We seek comment on
whether these are the right categories of equipment and software to
fund for this purpose.
12. Other commenters have suggested other technology that improves
the efficiency of the broadband networks and should therefore also
receive E-rate support. For example, several commenters have argued
that E-rate should support caching through content servers because
caching can allow schools to reduce their broadband demand by as much
as half. Another commenter noted that slow firewall processing,
outdated content filtering, and other similar internal network problems
create significant speed bottlenecks on school and library networks. We
now seek further focused comment on what services, software, or
equipment are necessary to enable high quality, high-capacity networks
inside schools and libraries, and whether such services, software and
equipment should qualify for support?
2. Access to Funding
13. The Commission has acknowledged that under the current system
only a small percentage of E-rate recipients receive the bulk of the
internal connection funding. We seek comment on ways to provide more
widespread access to funding for internal connections in order to
enable schools and libraries nationwide to take advantage of high-
capacity broadband to their buildings with robust internal networks. We
seek particular comment on three potential ways to prioritize
applications for deployment costs in the event that the demand for
internal connection funds exceeds availability.
a. Five-Year Upgrade Cycle
14. Consistent with the method used to prioritize priority two
funding today, the Commission could prioritize funding by discount
level, with rotating eligibility to provide as many schools and
libraries as possible access to funding over a five-year upgrade cycle.
Information in the record demonstrates that basic Wi-Fi and LAN
equipment has a useable lifespan of five to seven years. Given this
information, we seek comment on limiting an applicant's ability to
receive internal connections funding to once every five years while
[[Page 13601]]
retaining the existing prioritization method.
15. If the Commission were to adopt a one-in-five rule to replace
the current two-in-five rule, how much funding would be needed to
ensure that funds were available to meet the needs of all eligible
schools and libraries? Would the Commission need to front-load support
for eligible internal connections in the first funding years to meet
the existing needs of schools and libraries? Is five years the right
amount of time for such a funding cycle? If the Commission were to
adopt this approach, should the one-in-five limitation apply at the
level of applicants or, as it does today, at the level of individual
school and library buildings?
16. If available funding is insufficient to fund all applicants at
a particular discount level in a given funding year, how should the
Commission decide which applicants to fund? Should it for example,
prioritize funding for applicants within a discount level by giving
preference to the applicants with the highest percentage of students
receiving free and reduced school lunches?
b. Rotating Eligibility
17. Alternatively, we seek comment on limiting an applicant's
ability to receive funding for internal connections that support high-
capacity broadband to a single funding year until all other applicants
have received support or declined the opportunity to seek funding in at
least one funding year, starting in funding year 2015. This approach is
consistent with one proposed by the State E-rate Coordinators Alliance
(SECA) and supported by other commenters. This approach would ensure
that all applicants are able to receive funding over time, but once
they receive funding, applicants could not be certain about when they
might next be eligible for internal connections funding. We seek
comment on this tradeoff. If the Commission were to adopt this
approach, applicants could have an incentive to inflate their original
requests in their first year of eligibility. What safeguards should we
adopt to address this problem?
18. If the Commission were to use available funds to front-load
support for eligible internal connections in funding years 2015 and
2016, would this obviate some of the drawbacks to this approach? If so,
how much support should the Commission provide in funding years 2015
and 2016, and how much should it provide annually after that to ensure
all schools and libraries have robust internal connections? If the
Commission were to adopt this approach, should the rotating eligibility
limitation apply at the level of applicants or, as the two-in-five rule
does today, at the level of individual schools and library buildings?
19. If the Commission were to adopt this rotating eligibility
approach, how should it prioritize funding for internal connections?
Should it continue to fund eligible applications at the highest
discount level first? If funding is insufficient to fund all eligible
applications at a particular discount level in a given funding year,
should the Commission give preference to the applicants with the
highest percentage of students receiving free and reduced school
lunches?
c. Annual Allocation for Internal Connections
20. As a third option, we seek comment on adopting a funding method
that would provide some support for internal connections that support
high-capacity broadband to all eligible applicants in each funding
year, as opposed to the cyclical funding methods discussed above. By
making at least some funding available annually for each applicant,
this approach would prevent a small number of applicants from
disproportionately using available funding and give all schools and
libraries an opportunity to upgrade at least some of their facilities
each year. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on a similar allocation of funds that would apply for the
entire E-rate program. Many commenters were supportive, but many others
expressed concern that this funding approach would not fully capture
the diversity of costs faced by applicants across the country. Are
these concerns mitigated in the context of internal connections, and
particularly LAN and Wi-Fi deployments? In particular, unlike the costs
of broadband connectivity to schools, we expect that the prices of many
parts of LAN and Wi-Fi deployments (e.g., switches, routers, and
wireless access points) should vary little based on the geographic
location of schools and should generally scale proportionally with the
size of the student body. We seek comment on these expectations.
21. More specifically, we seek comment on using the following
simplified version of the formula proposed by Funds for Learning and a
coalition of schools and school groups to set available funding levels
for each applicant.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP11MR14.012
By identifying available funds and estimating the total pre-
discount requests that could be supported with those funds, the
Commission would arrive at an amount to be allocated to each applicant.
Applicants would be entitled to receive funds, applying their usual
discounts, towards the purchase of eligible internal connections up to
the pre-discount allocation. Under this approach if, in order to ensure
that small schools and libraries would receive sufficient funding, the
Commission were to adopt a per-applicant or per-building minimum
allocation as part of the formula, what should that minimum per-
building or per-applicant support level be? If the Commission adopts
such an approach for school applicants, how should it calculate the
annual allocation for libraries?
22. In addition to ensuring that all applicants have the
opportunity to receive at least some internal connection funding each
year, adopting this annual allotment could have the benefit of
providing applicants certainty about the amount of funding that would
be available to them each year. We seek comment on this consideration.
Would funding certainty over a multi-year period create new
opportunities for up-front financing to cover equipment upgrades in a
given year? We also seek comment on how to best utilize any remaining
funding if some applicants request less than their allocated amount.
Should such funding be made available
[[Page 13602]]
to increase the allocation to other applicants in the same funding
year? Should it be held over to subsequent funding years? Or should we
adopt another approach? Finally, how should the Commission allow these
funds to be spent by the applicants? Should district or library systems
be required to spend those funds at specific schools or libraries in
certain proportions? Or should each applicant have the flexibility to
spend the funds as it decides across its district or library system?
d. Other Methods To Prioritize Internal Connections Funding
23. Are there variations on the options described above or other
methods the Commission should consider employing to prioritize funding
for high-capacity internal connections? Should it, for example,
prioritize projects by the number of students impacted per dollar of
funding? Should the Commission prioritize consortia applications?
B. Broadband Deployment to Schools and Libraries
24. The record reflects that some schools and libraries do not have
access to high-capacity broadband connections to their buildings, and
commenters have suggested that the Commission undertake a targeted
effort to help support deployment of high-capacity, scalable last-mile
connections to eligible schools and libraries that do not currently
have access to connections that meet the connectivity goals laid out in
the E-rate Modernization NPRM.
25. As explained in the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the E-rate
program currently offers support for broadband construction to schools
and libraries. However, commenters have explained that even with the
current levels of E-rate support, some schools and libraries cannot
afford to pay their share of the cost of deploying last-mile high-
capacity broadband.
1. Scope of Services To Be Funded
26. In light of the record demonstrating that the costs of one-time
construction projects, even though already supported by the E-rate
program, can be cost-prohibitive, we seek comment on whether the
Commission should undertake a limited initiative, within the existing
priority one system, to incent the deployment of high-capacity
broadband connections to schools and libraries. We invite stakeholders
to offer examples of projects for which they would seek funding if the
Commission adopts such an approach. Exactly what services should the
Commission fund as part of this deployment effort? For instance, what
types of fiber deployment or other high-capacity, scalable broadband
technologies that meet the connectivity goals in the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, should be eligible for funding?
27. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission sought comment
on how to ensure that broadband deployment to schools and libraries is
done in a way that minimizes the recurring costs for both applicants
and the E-rate program once deployment is complete. While the record
indicates that new broadband deployments, once paid for, can
dramatically lower recurring costs over time, it also reveals
situations where monthly charges have remained high even after new
deployments are complete and costs have been fully recovered. If the
Commission does decide to provide some additional support for the
capital costs associated with high-capacity deployment, how can it best
ensure that the recurring costs associated with providing broadband
over new connections is affordable for the applicants on a going-
forward basis?
28. Should the Commission change the program's funding methodology
as part of this deployment initiative? Would it be sufficient for the
Commission to simply raise the discount rate for all applicants seeking
deployment support by 10 percent or some other percentage? Or would it
be better for the Commission to adopt a flat discount rate for all
applicants? If so, what should this flat rate be? Are there some
schools and libraries on Tribal lands, or in remote rural areas that
cannot afford high-capacity broadband build-out without full support?
Should the Commission consider full support for all applicants seeking
support for broadband connectivity? While such an approach could
encourage applicants to participate in the program and greatly increase
broadband deployment to schools and libraries, how would the Commission
ensure that applicants do not enter into agreements requiring excessive
funding for broadband deployment?
29. Some commenters have explained that vendors often limit up-
front deployment costs and instead collect the costs over several years
as part of the cost of recurring services. Are there instances in which
the Commission should authorize increased support for the recurring
costs of broadband services over a period of time instead of, or in
addition to, increased support for up-front costs, to the extent those
recurring costs reflect time-limited recovery for capital investment?
If so, over how long a period of time and under what circumstances?
2. Ensuring Equitable Distribution
30. We also seek comment on how best to distribute support among
the applicants for high-speed connections to schools and libraries. In
particular, if the Commission makes some additional deployment support
available to eligible schools and libraries that do not already have
access to high-speed scalable connections available at reasonable
prices, how do we identify those schools and libraries? Should we rely
on the broadband speed targets identified by the Commission in the E-
rate Modernization NPRM and require applicants for this deployment
funding to demonstrate their current Internet access service does not
meet that metric? Should we consider future scalability of existing
connections and/or available pricing when identifying eligible schools
and libraries? Are there other methods the Commission should consider
to determine the best projects to fund?
31. We also seek comment on ways to prioritize applications for
deployment costs in the event that the demand for such funds exceeds
availability. In the current E-rate program, when available funds do
not meet demand, the applicants with the greatest economic need (i.e.,
those with the highest percentage of students that qualify for free and
reduced school lunches) are funded first at the 90 percent discount
rate, then funding goes to those applicants eligible for 89 percent
discount levels, and so on, until the available funds are exhausted.
Eligible libraries receive the discount rate of the school district in
which they are located. Should the Commission adopt a similar mechanism
for distributing funding for deployment of high-capacity broadband to
eligible schools and libraries?
32. As an alternative, we seek comment on adopting one or more
objective impact and/or efficiency metrics to prioritize applications.
For example, school applicants could be required to calculate the total
number of students currently in buildings without infrastructure
capable of meeting Commission-adopted speed goals. Those schools would
then be upgraded to scalable, high-speed connections with E-rate
support and applications could be scored based on the total cost per-
student served. Should the Commission also consider prioritizing
upgrades that do not increase the speed available to applicants, but
dramatically reduce recurring costs following new investment (for
example, if applicants
[[Page 13603]]
sought to upgrade from Internet access using two T3s to a single 100
Mbps metro Ethernet circuit, or to purchase WAN upgrades that allowed
them to buy Internet access at a lower-priced point-of-presence)? If
so, how much weight should be given to particular levels of reductions
in recurring costs? If the Commission adopted multiple objective impact
and/or efficiency metrics, how should they be evaluated together? For
example, how should applications that reduce recurring costs be scored
against those that include speed upgrades? Are there other methods the
Commission could employ to prioritize funding for up-front deployment
costs in the event demand exceeds availability?
33. Within the existing priority one system, applicants can receive
E-rate support for some installation and special construction charges,
but the cost of large projects must be prorated over three years or
more. This limit may disproportionately harm rural and other applicants
that face the largest deployment costs, especially because there are no
exceptions for rural deployments or other unique circumstances. Would
adopting one of the prioritization approaches above for deployment
funding allow the Commission to relax this limit?
C. Encouraging Cost-Effective Purchasing
34. As the Commission considers how to focus E-rate funding on
high-capacity connections to and within schools and libraries, are
there additional steps the Commission can take to help ensure efficient
use of E-rate funds spent on broadband projects? Below we seek comment
on three possible ways to encourage cost-effective purchasing. We also
invite commenters to offer other methods to encourage cost-effective E-
rate purchasing.
35. Consortium purchasing and bulk buying. In the E-rate
Modernization NPRM, the Commission sought comment on encouraging
consortia and other bulk purchasing programs. If the Commission moves
to support a more limited set of equipment and services for high-
capacity internal connections, is there an opportunity for E-rate
applicants to drive down prices of the products necessary for Wi-Fi and
LAN connectivity through consortium purchasing or other forms of bulk
buying? If so, what steps can the Commission take to encourage cost-
effective consortia or other bulk purchasing of such products?
Likewise, if the Commission focuses some additional funding on high-
capacity broadband deployment to schools and libraries currently
unserved by broadband services, should the Commission encourage the
formation of consortia to encourage providers to offer affordable
services to groups of schools and/or libraries? If so, what steps can
the Commission take to encourage the formation of consortia that have
the tools to engage in cost-effective purchasing? Are there steps the
Commission can take to encourage currently successful consortia to add
members, particularly eligible entities that currently lack the kind of
purchasing power enjoyed by consortia? How can the Commission help
ensure that the formation of such consortia does not unfairly
disadvantage smaller providers that may be efficient local providers of
high-capacity services?
36. Technology planning. Another possible approach to ensuring
cost-effective purchasing of broadband services is to require
technology planning. The Commission eliminated technology plan
requirements for E-rate applicants seeking only support for priority
one services in order to simplify the application process for schools
and libraries. The E-rate Modernization NPRM sought comment on whether
there were lessons learned from current and previous technology plan
requirements and whether these requirements should be re-instituted. We
now ask more specifically whether the Commission should require
applicants that are seeking E-rate support for upgrading high-capacity
connections to school buildings or libraries to demonstrate that they
have a plan and the capacity to use those services within their
buildings.
37. Data collection and transparency. In the E-rate Modernization
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on how best to collect data on the
speed and quality of school and library connections. The Commission
also sought comment on what data to collect to support the proposed
goal of maximizing cost-effective purchasing. As the Commission
considers how best to provide support for broadband deployment within
and to schools and libraries, we renew our request for comment on those
data issues and on whether price transparency for E-rate supported
services will help drive down those prices.
D. Streamlining the Administrative Process
38. As the Commission considers how best to support high-capacity
broadband connections to and within schools and libraries, consistent
with the Commission's proposed third goal of streamlining the
administration of the E-rate program, we seek additional comment on how
best to minimize the administrative burdens and overhead associated
with applying for and receiving such support. Are there for example,
simple changes the Commission can make to the E-rate information
collections that will ease the administrative burdens on E-rate
applicants and vendors that take advantage of a modernized E-rate
program?
39. Are there changes to the invoicing deadlines the Commission
should adopt to take into account a focus on broadband deployment?
Under the current program, all recurring services must be completed
during the funding year and invoices must be submitted no later than
120 days after the last day to receive service or 120 days after the
FCC Form 486 Notification Letter date, whichever is later. Non-
recurring charges for broadband projects, such as build-outs and
special construction, must be completed by September 30 following the
close of the funding year, with some exceptions. Because of the
possibility that complex projects could take additional time beyond the
funding year, should new deployment be given 18 months to be completed
and invoiced from the date the funds are committed? Should complex
internal connections projects be given 18 months to be completed and
invoiced from the date the funds are committed? Could invoicing
deadlines be synchronized with other federal funding programs to reduce
complexity for applicants? Should applicants be allowed any extension
of their project deadlines? If so, under what circumstances? Currently,
special construction or build-outs can commence six months before the
start of the funding year. Should the Commission give applicants
additional time before the funding year to begin special construction
to schools and libraries, or to begin internal infrastructure projects?
II. Reduced Support for Voice Services
40. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission proposed to
refocus the E-rate program on supporting high-capacity broadband
connectivity to and within schools and libraries and recognized that it
needed to confront the prospect of eliminating or reducing support for
voice and other legacy services that do not advance the deployment of
broadband. As schools and libraries increasingly transition to voice
over Internet protocol (VoIP) services, we expect the price they pay
for voice services to decrease. While many commenters expressed support
for a transition from funding voice
[[Page 13604]]
telephony services, many such commenters also stressed the importance
of phasing out support for voice services over a number of years, with
several specifically endorsing a three- to five-year phase-out period.
Below we seek comment on several specific ways for the Commission to
transition away from support for voice services, and we invite
commenters to offer other suggestions for how best to redirect E-rate
support from voice to broadband services.
A. Reduced E-Rate Support for Voice Services
41. One way for the Commission to phase out support for voice
services would be to gradually reduce the discount rate applicants
receive for voice services. For example, the Commission could phase out
support for voice services by 15 percentage points per year, beginning
in funding year 2015, and continue to reduce support for such services
by the same amount each year until funding for voice services is fully
phased out in funding year 2020. We seek comment on this approach, as
well as any other options for reducing E-rate spending on voice
services. A gradual approach to reducing support for voice services
should give schools and libraries time and the incentive to find lower
priced solutions, and could also provide the Commission a period to
evaluate whether it should adjust the phase out schedule. Although such
an approach will result in some applicants receiving no support for
voice services prior to funding year 2020, the most economically
disadvantaged applicants--i.e. those that are currently eligible for a
90 percent discount rate --would be eligible for a 75 percent discount
on voice telephony in funding year 2015, a 60 percent discount in
funding year 2016, a 45 percent discount in 2017, a 30 percent discount
in funding year 2018, and a 15 percent discount in funding year 2019.
42. We expect that the diminished availability of E-rate funding
for voice services will be ameliorated by the fact that many applicants
have transitioned or will transition to VoIP, which is generally
considered to be more cost-efficient than traditional voice services.
Although some commenters have suggested that the initial costs,
including the cost of new handsets, to transition to VoIP is cost
prohibitive for them, others indicate that they are embracing this
trend. Our approach also takes into consideration that the growth of
competitive options for voice services, such as VoIP, should drive down
costs for voice services.
43. If the Commission elects to phase out support for voice
beginning in funding year 2015, will schools and libraries have
adequate time and resources to make needed adjustments? Commenters
should consider that as the E-rate program increasingly supports high-
capacity broadband, applicants may be eligible for increased levels of
support for broadband services to and within schools and libraries.
Will increased funding for these other types of services assist schools
and libraries adjusting to decreasing levels of E-rate support for
voice telephony services? Will increased support for high-capacity
broadband networks to and within schools and libraries put applicants
in a better position to transition to VoIP, and would E-rate still be
supporting voice services, albeit indirectly, by supporting the
infrastructure and services over which VoIP will ride? Would it be
appropriate, therefore, to phase out support for voice services only
once a school or library has gained access to high-capacity broadband?
If so, we seek comment on whether we should adopt different voice
phase-out dates on a case-by-case basis for individual schools or
libraries, such as within one year after they have broadband that meets
the goals for high-capacity broadband established in this proceeding.
44. We also seek comment on whether the entries for telephone
services, telephone components, and interconnected VoIP in the Eligible
Services List (ESL) include all of the types of voice services and
components that should be covered by the five year phase out. Are there
any services in these entries that should be excluded from the phase
out? Are there other types of telephone services that are not
specifically listed in the current ESL that should be subject to the
phase out? Commenters should provide details on the specific voice
services for which support should be phased out and provide detailed
reasons for why certain services should be included or excluded from
the list of targeted voice services.
B. Alternatives
45. The Commission may also decide to eliminate voice more quickly
or to modify in some other way the current approach to supporting voice
services. Therefore, we also seek comment on a number of alternative
ways to approach funding for voice services, and we invite comment on
the approaches we identify below, as well as variations on or
alternatives to any such options.
46. Elimination of voice support. As an alternative to a phase down
of voice support, should the Commission consider eliminating all
support for voice services starting in funding year 2015? Such an
approach would more quickly accomplish the Commission's goal of
transitioning the E-rate program to supporting high-capacity broadband,
but would also result in a more stark loss of support for applicants.
Would it be more appropriate to provide additional time for applicants
to make necessary budgetary changes by eliminating all support for
voice services, but in a later funding year?
47. Lower priority for voice services. In the alternative, we also
seek comment on retaining support for voice services under a lower
priority. For example, SECA recommends that the Commission establish a
new priority category for particular services, including voice
services, to be funded at a flat 50 percent discount and that all
applicants have equal access to the services in this category. Would it
be more manageable for applicants to adjust to a larger reduction in
funding the first year we implement a discount reduction for voice
services because they know they will continue to receive such funding
in future years? If we were to take such an approach, would it
encourage applicants to move to more cost-effective solutions or would
we need to take additional steps to encourage such transitions?
48. Benchmark for VoIP support. As voice communications
technologies migrate from traditional TDM to IP should the Commission
encourage this transition for schools and libraries using the E-rate
program? Some commenters suggested that rather than phasing out E-rate
support for all voice services, the Commission should continue to
provide support for VoIP solutions. A possible middle ground would be
for the Commission to identify inexpensive VoIP solutions for schools
and libraries and use such services as a benchmark for how much support
the E-rate program will provide for voice services.
49. If the Commission establishes a benchmark support amount,
should the benchmark be on a per-user basis or some other basis? If the
Commission establishes a per-user benchmark, how would applicants
establish the number of users they have that provide the basis for the
amount of their requested support? If the Commission establishes a
benchmark support amount, should the E-rate program use this benchmark
to support all voice services, regardless of the technology used? Or
should the Commission use the benchmark derived support amount only to
fund VoIP service and phase down support for all other voice services?
Does the transition to VoIP services offer applicants an
[[Page 13605]]
opportunity to use consortium purchasing or other forms of bulk buying
to drive down the cost of services while ensuring service quality? If
so, what steps can the Commission take to encourage such purchasing?
C. Other Issues Related to Voice Services
50. As the Commission considers how to treat voice services as part
of a modernized E-rate program, we seek comment on several specific
issues relating to the funding of voice services and invite commenters
to raise other issues.
51. Internal connections. We also seek comment on whether the
Commission should end support for internal connections used for the
delivery of voice services which are currently supported as priority
two eligible services. Will discontinuing support for the internal
connections used to deliver voice discourage applicants that had been
considering a transition to VoIP? If VoIP is the most cost-effective
option for voice services, we seek comment on whether the E-rate
program should offer some short term incentive to applicants to
transition to VoIP. Some commenters have already explained in this
proceeding that they are reluctant to switch to VoIP for a variety of
reasons. Would it be a sufficient incentive for applicants to
transition to VoIP if the E-rate program provided an additional, one-
time discount, such as 10 percent to 20 percent, to applicants in order
to help defray the up-front costs necessary for the first year of a
transition to VoIP?
52. Rural areas or areas that lack access to broadband. If the
Commission decides to decrease support for voice services, some
commenters have suggested that it continue to provide support for
traditional voice services for those schools and libraries in remote
rural areas, on Tribal lands, or elsewhere that lack access to high-
capacity broadband and therefore will find it more challenging to adopt
affordable VoIP options. For example, Alaska EED and Alaska State
Library ask the Commission to consider extending the eligibility of
voice services for locations that rely on satellite Internet service.
We seek further comment on such an approach, and specific comment on
how, if the Commission adopts such an exemption, it should determine
which applicants should qualify? Would it be sufficient, for example,
to simply require applicants to certify that there are no alternatives
to POTS service in their geographic location?
53. Above we ask whether we should adopt different voice phase-out
dates for individual schools or libraries, such as within one year
after they have the high-capacity broadband that meets the goals
established in this proceeding. Should we adopt this approach for rural
schools and libraries, and require that for rural entities to qualify
for an exemption from phase-out, they do not have the high-capacity
broadband meeting the goals laid out in this proceeding? Should waivers
or exemptions for those applicants in areas where VoIP is not available
also be available for those applicants that can upgrade to VoIP but
choose not to for financial or other reasons? Are there other types of
schools and libraries that have unique needs meriting continued E-rate
support for voice services at current levels? How should we define the
areas or circumstances where support for voice service would continue
to be supported under an alternative like this?
D. Easing Administrative Burdens
54. We seek comment on how best to reduce the administrative burden
on E-rate applicants, regardless of which approach to supporting voice
services the Commission takes in modernizing the E-rate program. If,
for example, the Commission decides to phase down or phase out support
for voice services, will calculating the correct amount of support due
to applicants be administratively challenging? If so, what can the
Commission do to ease the administrative burdens? Commenters have
generally supported easing the burdens for multi-year contracts for
recurring services, is that something that would be particularly useful
in this context? Likewise, if the Commission moves to supporting voice
using a per-user cost for VoIP services as a benchmark, are there
administrative challenges the Commission should take into account, and
are there things the Commission can do to ease the administrative
burden of such an approach on schools and libraries?
III. Demonstration Projects
55. In the E-rate Modernization NPRM, the Commission sought comment
on innovative approaches to encouraging efficiency in the E-rate
program. Many commenters offered examples for how new approaches to
planning and procuring services might be either (or both) more cost
effective or more administratively efficient. At the same time, many
commenters argued that local needs vary and local decision making has
been one of the hallmarks of the E-rate program. As the Commission
considers how best to meet the high-capacity connectivity needs of
schools and libraries cost effectively, commenters supported the use of
E-rate funds for projects of broad relevance to help identify and
accelerate the development of best practices for achieving cost savings
and innovation within E-rate.
56. We therefore now seek further comment on providing limited
funding for well-defined, time-limited demonstration projects aimed at
identifying and testing different approaches to meeting schools' and
libraries' connectivity needs. Like the recently adopted Technology
Transitions Order that solicited a broad set of experiments in order to
develop facts and data, such projects would be set up as proof of
concept experiments on innovative approaches to maximizing cost-
efficient use of E-rate funding. These projects, although experimental,
would provide needed services and equipment to E-rate eligible
participants. We seek comment on funding a number of different types of
demonstration projects based on Commission and stakeholder proposals.
We also invite suggestions of other types of projects the Commission
should conduct, the amount that should spend on any individual project,
and the total budget for such projects.
57. As one example, the Commission sought comment on whether to
allow experimentation in bulk purchasing of E-rate eligible services
and equipment. We received a mixed reaction in response to the E-rate
Modernization NPRM on whether the Commission should create a formal
bulk buying program. While commenters expressed concern about the
potential rigidity of requiring applicants to use such a program, they
supported promoting the use of statewide or consortia bulk purchasing.
We therefore seek further comment and proposals on how to conduct one
or more initial experiments with bulk purchasing. A structured bulk
buying demonstration project could test the cost-effectiveness and
flexibility of such a program using just a small number of services or
products, and would have the benefit of providing applicants with
products and services they need as part of their broadband networks.
For example, stakeholders could propose a project to gather data on
bulk purchasing by a state, consortia, or regional research and
education network for certain internal connection components,
commercial internet access, or a VoIP solution that would replace
traditional voice service. We seek comment on these types of projects
and how to foster innovative and scalable practices.
58. A demonstration project could also provide an opportunity to
gather
[[Page 13606]]
information and test proposals for implementation of a technical
assistance program. For example, a demonstration project could test the
effectiveness of hiring technical assistance experts to assist in
network design or technical planning in a small number of districts,
schools, and/or libraries whose costs fall outside a standard range for
E-rate applicants. Another could test the use of consultants who are
experts on connectivity costs and are un-affiliated with broadband
providers.
59. We also seek comment on other proposals in the record. The
American Library Association, for example, suggested a pilot program
aimed at temporarily increasing the discount level for targeted
libraries, prioritizing based on public-private partnerships, and
providing technical assistance in order to ``catalyze innovation'' in
advancing library services. If we were to fund such a project, how much
funding should we provide and over what period of time? What sort of
support could we expect the private sector to bring to such a project?
Are there particular needs of libraries that we should focus on? What
types of technical assistance would be particularly valuable, and to
what end? What data should the Commission collect, as part of such a
pilot program, and how should we use that data to measure progress
towards success? Are there ways in which libraries' connectivity needs
differ from those of schools? Are there other types of demonstration
projects aimed at addressing the unique needs of libraries that the
Commission should fund? With respect to all proposed demonstration
projects, we request commenters be as specific as possible about the
goals, the amount of funding, the process for selecting participants,
the data to be collected and the timeline for any projects they propose
or support.
60. Commenters also contributed other ideas, such as a pilot
program to link last-mile infrastructure to BTOP funded networks,
experiments on the use of consortia efforts, or projects that target
rural areas. Another proposed a project to implement bulk purchasing of
a platform to facilitate affordable access to advanced information
services. We seek comment on these proposals and how such projects
could be structured to gather data and evaluate success. These examples
are not meant to be exhaustive. We welcome further ideas from
stakeholders on the types of demonstration projects that can help
identify cost efficiencies and drive down the cost of E-rate supported
services. Are there other approaches used by enterprise customers to
drive down their broadband costs that the Commission should experiment
with in the E-rate program?
61. We seek specific comment on the process for selecting such
proposals. In determining projects, should the Commission focus on
experiments that examine cost impacts or consider other types of
criteria, such as innovativeness? How should the Commission prioritize
project funding? Should the length of any given demonstration project
be limited to a single year? Should they be tied to specific E-rate
funding years? Should the Commission select different kinds of projects
to evaluate the different models' effects on driving down costs of E-
rate eligible services? These projects should be designed to help the
Commission gather data needed to inform decision-making and make future
reforms. Therefore, we seek detailed comment on the data goals and how
to evaluate the projects during and after selection. We also seek
further ideas on how to share information and empower applicants to
replicate project successes across the country.
62. Numerous commenters have confirmed the importance of
streamlining the administration of the E-rate program. Therefore, as we
consider demonstration projects, we also invite experiments that find
ways to reduce the administrative burden on E-rate applicants.
IV. Procedural Matters
A. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
63. The E-rate Modernization NPRM included an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the
potential impact on small entities of the Commission's proposals. We
invite parties to file comments on the IRFA in light of this additional
document.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
64. This document seeks comment on a potential new or revised
information collection requirement. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirement, the Commission will publish
a separate document in the Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on the requirement, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104-13 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). In addition, pursuant
to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it
might ``further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.''
C. Ex Parte Presentations
65. This matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose''
proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within
two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must
be filed consistent with rule Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed
by rule Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
D. Comment Filing Procedures
66. Comments and Replies. We invite comment on the issues and
questions set forth in this document and IRFA contained herein.
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on this document
by April 7, 2014 and may file reply comments by April 21, 2014. All
filings related to this document shall refer to WC Docket No. 13-184.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's
[[Page 13607]]
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See
Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121,
May 1, 1998.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
67. People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
68. In addition, one copy of each paper filing must be sent to each
of the following: (1) the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington,
DC 20554; Web site: www.bcpiweb.com; phone: (800) 378-3160; (2) Lisa
Hone, Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition
Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room 6-A326, Washington, DC 20554; email:
Lisa.Hone@fcc.gov; and (3) Charles Tyler, Telecommunications Access
Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, 445 12th Street SW., Room
5-A452, Washington, DC 20554; email: Charles.Tyler@fcc.gov.
69. Filing and comments are also available for public inspection
and copying during regular business hours at the FCC Reference
Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257,
Washington, DC 20554. Copies may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, BCPI, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. Customers may contact BCPI through its
Web site: www.bcpi.com, by email at fcc@bcpiweb.com, by telephone at
(202) 488-5300 or (800) 378-3160 or by facsimile at (202) 488-5563.
70. Comments and reply comments must include a short and concise
summary of the substantive arguments raised in the pleading. Comments
and reply comments must also comply with Sec. 1.49 and all other
applicable sections of the Commission's rules. We direct all interested
parties to include the name of the filing party and the date of the
filing on each page of their comments and reply comments. All parties
are encouraged to utilize a table of contents, regardless of the length
of their submission. We also strongly encourage parties to track the
organization set forth in this document in order to facilitate our
internal review process.
71. For additional information on this proceeding, contact James
Bachtell at (202) 418-2694 or Regina Brown at (202) 418-0792 in the
Telecommunications Access Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau.
Federal Communications Commission.
Trent B. Harkrader,
Associate Bureau Chief, Wireline Competition Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2014-05433 Filed 3-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P