DOCSLIB.ORG

The Universal Service Fund and Healthcare Connect Fund

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Universal Service Fund and Healthcare Connect Fund THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND HEALTHCARE CONNECT FUND THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND HEALTHCARE CONNECT FUND Summary The Healthcare Connect Fund ("HCF") was established by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") to expand health care provider ("HCP") access to broadband, especially in rural areas, and encourage the creation of state and regional broadband health care networks. Through the establishment of the HCF, the FCC has reserved $150 million to fund the design, development and acquisition of eligible services. Background The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (the "Act") established the Universal Service Fund ("USF") to ensure access to telecommunication services for all. One of the charges of the USF is to provide communications services to public and nonprofit health care providers that serve persons who reside in rural areas. Consistent with this Congressional directive, the FCC established the "Telecommunications Program" in 1997 to ensure that rural HCPs pay no more than their urban counterparts for telecommunications services. The Telecommunications Program enables eligible rural HCPs to obtain a rate for each supported service that is no higher than the highest tariffed or publicly available commercial rate for a similar service in the closest urban center – in effect, providing a discount to the HCP in the amount of the “rural‐urban differential.” Next, in 2003, the FCC created the RHC Internet Access Program which provides a twenty‐five percent (25%) discount off the cost of monthly Internet access for eligible rural HCPs. Together the Telecommunications and Internet Access Programs are commonly referred to as the “Primary Program,” to distinguish them from the RHC Pilot Program (discussed below). In September 2006, the Commission established the RHC Pilot Program ("Pilot Program") to provide funding to support state or regional broadband networks designed to bring the benefits of innovative telehealth and telemedicine services to areas of the country where the need for those benefits is most acute. The Pilot Program is providing funding for a limited period of time for up to eighty‐five percent (85%) of the costs associated with: (1) the construction of state or regional health care broadband networks, and the advanced telecommunications and information services provided over those networks; (2) connecting to nationwide backbone providers Internet2 or National LambdaRail (NLR); and (3) connecting to the public Internet. Additionally, the Pilot Program allowed participants to use funding to purchase items that are not eligible for support under the Primary Program such as equipment (e.g. servers, routers, firewalls, switches, and other devices or equipment necessary for the broadband connection), or to upgrade their existing equipment and increase bandwidth. Today there are 50 active Pilot projects covering 38 states; many of these projects are state‐wide or regional networks of HCPs. They range in size from 4 HCPs to 477 HCPs. As of November 15, 2012, USAC had committed $364.4 million in funds to approximately 3,822 individual HCP sites. Healthcare Connect Fund Drawing on these lessons, the Healthcare Connect Fund provides support for high‐capacity broadband services and the formation of state and regional health care networks. The Healthcare Connect Fund will permit HCPs to purchase services and construct their own broadband infrastructure where it is the most cost‐effective option. The Healthcare Connect Program will match two‐for‐one (65% funding) the cost of broadband services or facilities, requiring a thirty‐five percent (35%) HCP contribution. Both rural and non‐rural HCPs will be allowed to participate in the new program, but non‐rural providers may join only as THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND HEALTHCARE CONNECT FUND part of consortia. A more detailed outline of the HCF is included below. Recipients of HCF funding are obligated to participate in the FCC’s data gathering activities. The FCC has expressed the goals of the HCF to be (1) increasing access to broadband for HCPs, particularly those serving rural areas; (2) fostering the development and deployment of broadband health care networks; and (3) maximizing the cost‐effectiveness of the USF program. The FCC will collect information from participants to evaluate the success of the HCF against each of these goals. The FCC also created a new Pilot Program to test whether it is technically feasible and economically reasonable to include broadband connectivity for skilled nursing facilities within the Healthcare Connect Program. The Pilot will make available up to $50 million to be committed over a three‐year period for pilot applicants that propose to use broadband to improve the quality and efficiency of health care delivery for skilled nursing facility patients, who stand to benefit greatly from telemedicine and other telehealth applications. How Hall Render Can Assist Hall Render works with a broad array of clients to assist them with participation in the USF programs as well as other FCC and rural health care grant and loan programs. Annually, Hall Render works with hospitals, health systems, rural health associations and their telecommunications billing agents to identify and pursue savings opportunities under the Primary Program. In addition, Hall Render assisted or advised clients in forming, applying for and managing Pilot Projects in multiple states. Hall Render has also worked with health systems and other governmental and tribal entities in the development, construction and contracting for regional and multi‐state fiber networks. If you have any questions regarding the USF programs, the HCF or feasibility of an HCF project in your area, we would be happy to discuss these items with you. Michael T. Batt, Esq. Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, P.C. One American Square, Suite 2000 Indianapolis, IN 46282 Phone: (317) 977‐1417 Mobile: (317) 440‐8104 THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND HEALTHCARE CONNECT FUND Detailed Summary of the Healthcare Connect Fund I) HCF Participants. A) Individual HCP 1) Eligibility criteria applies to healthcare providers on a per physical address basis, designated by the FCC to be a "HCP." (a) A HCP must be a governmental; not‐for‐profit; or ER department of a for‐profit entity that is: (i) Post‐secondary educational institution offering health care instruction, including a teaching hospital or medical school; (ii) Community health center or health center providing health care to migrants; (iii) Local health department or agency; (iv) Community mental health center; (v) Not‐for‐profit hospital; (vi) Rural health clinic; or (vii) Consortium of health care providers consisting of one or more entities described in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of this section. (b) For purposes of determining whether an HCP qualifies as rural, a “rural area” is an area that is entirely outside of a Core Based Statistical Area; is within a Core Based Statistical Area that does not have any Urban Area with a population of 25,000 or greater; or is in a Core Based Statistical Area that contains an Urban Area with a population of 25,000 or greater, but is within a specific census tract that itself does not contain any part of a Place or Urban Area with a population of greater than 25,000. For purposes of this rule, “Core Based Statistical Area,” “Urban Area,” and “Place” are as identified by the Census Bureau. B) Consortium. 1) Composition. A consortium may be comprised of HCPs, schools, libraries, public sector and ineligible health care providers. 2) Majority Rural. In order for an HCP to be eligible for Healthcare Connect Fund, a majority of HCP sites (over 50 percent) within the Consortium must be rural HCPs. 3) Large HCP. Large (400+ beds) urban HCP are limited to (1) $30,000 per year for recurring charges and (2) $70,000 in non‐recurring charges over a 5 year period. The limitation excludes costs shared by the network. 4) Consortium Leader. Each Consortim must identify a leader that will be the lead entity. The Consortium Leader may be the consortium itself (if it is a distinct legal entity); an eligible health care provider, or a public or tribal entity or a non‐profit entity that is ineligible for the Healthcare Connect Fund support (such as a hospital association). A Consortium Leader may not participate as a potential vendor and must pass on the full value of any funding to secure benefits to the Consortium members that are eligible HCPs. The Consortium Leader is the legally and financially responsible entity for the activities supported by the HCF, and is therefore the entity responsible if audits or other investigations reveal violations of the Act or FCC rules (individual members are jointly and severally liable only if the Consortium Leader dissolves, files for bankruptcy, or otherwise fails to meet its obligations). II) Scope of Funding A) Eligible Services and Equipment. Subject to various limitations, the HCF is available for any advanced THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND HEALTHCARE CONNECT FUND telecommunications or information service that enables HCPs to post their own data, interact with stored data, generate new data, or communicate, by providing connectivity over private dedicated networks or the public Internet for the provision of health information technology. 1) Reasonable and customary installation charges less than $5,000. 2) Lit fiber lease. 3) Dark fiber recurring charges for all and upfront IRU, lease and equipment only for a consortium. 4) Upfront charges for new or upgraded facilities (Consortia only). 5) Construction of Facilities (Consortia only). 6) Network management equipment (Consortia only). 7) All components (e.g. last mile, middle mile, backbone) and all types (e.g. copper, fiber, cloud, wireless or satellite) of networks are eligible. B) Ineligible Expenses. The following expenses are not eligible 1) equipment or services that are not necessary to make an eligible service functional, or to manage, control, or maintain an eligible service or a dedicated health care broadband network; 2) inside wiring and internal connections; and 3) administrative expenses.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • First Wave of Funding Through Second E-Rate Application Window Announced
    Media Contact: Anne Veigle, (202) 418-2156 [email protected] For Immediate Release FIRST WAVE OF FUNDING THROUGH SECOND E-RATE APPLICATION WINDOW ANNOUNCED 291 Schools in 32 States and Puerto Rico to Receive Funding to Support 220,584 Students with Additional On-Campus Bandwidth Needs Due to COVID-19 -- WASHINGTON, October 13, 2020—The Federal Communications Commission today announced that $1,366,378 in E-Rate funding for 291 schools serving 220,584 students in 32 states and Puerto Rico has been committed so far during the Commission’s second application window for funding year 2020. The FCC announced the opening of the second E-Rate application window on September 16, 2020, recognizing that schools across the United States are facing an increased demand for connectivity during the COVID-19 pandemic. The E-Rate program, which is part of the Universal Service Fund, provides discounts to schools and libraries for broadband services. “The enthusiastic response to this second opportunity to apply for funding speaks to the tremendous demand schools across the country are facing as teachers and students adapt to challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic,” said FCC Chairman Ajit Pai. “I’m pleased funds are being distributed to help schools meet this demand all across America and that we can help more students connect with their schools during the pandemic.” During the second filing window, schools can purchase additional bandwidth for this academic year to address needs resulting from the increasing shift to 1:1 student-to-device ratios in classrooms, live streaming of classroom instruction to students at home, and expanding use of cloud-based educational tools and platforms—all of which can significantly increase on- campus bandwidth requirements.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. the Universal Service Fund Must Remain Competitively Neutral and Must Not Be Used to Subsidize Rural Ilecs' "Stranded Costs"
    While universal service policy should avoid impeding investment in advanced services, ultimately consumer demand, not regulatory fiat, must be the main impetus behind investment in technologically advanced services in rural areas. And in the meantime, the Commission should take care to avoid sending a mixed message about its established ETC designation criteria. 4. The Universal Service Fund Must Remain Competitively Neutral and Must Not Be Used to Subsidize Rural ILECs' "Stranded Costs" The RTF properly recommends adhering to the current Commission policy that "[u]nder any circumstances ..., ILECs and CETCs serving the same area would receive the same amount of support per loop." 44/ Some ILECs, however, also seek compensation from the high-cost fund for so-called "stranded investment." 45/ But the RTF did "not reach agreement on the 'stranded cost' issue." 46/ Assuming that a revenue flow from the high-cost fund for "stranded costs" would not be portable to competitive ETCs, it would not be competitively 44/ RTF Recommendation at 27-29; Accord Comments of the California Public Utilities Commission ("California PUC") at 4-5; Joint Comments of the New York Department of Public Service, Connecticut Department of Public Utility Control, Illinois Commerce Commission and Maryland Public Service Commission (New York et ai.") at 2-4; Joint Comments of the Maine Public Utilities Commission, Vermont Department of Public Service and Vermont Public Service Board ("Maine and Vermont") at 1-2; National Ass'n of State Utility Consumer Advocates ("NASUCA") at 3. 45/ See, e.g., Bristol Bay Tel. Coop. et. al at 2-3; Iowa Telecom. Services, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-11 Before the Federal
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-11 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Lifeline and Link Up Reform and ) WC Docket No. 11-42 Modernization ) ) Lifeline and Link Up ) WC Docket No. 03-109 ) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45 ) Advancing Broadband Availability Through ) WC Docket No. 12-23 Digital Literacy Training ) ) REPORT AND ORDER AND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: January 31, 2012 Released: February 6, 2012 Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) By the Commission: Chairman Genachowski issuing a statement; Commissioner Clyburn approving in part, concurring in part and issuing a statement; Commissioner McDowell approving in part, concurring in part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 5 III. PERFORMANCE GOALS AND MEASURES .................................................................................. 24 A. Ensure the Availability of Voice Service for Low-Income Americans ......................................... 27 B. Ensure the Availability of Broadband Service for Low-Income
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 ANNUAL REPORT MISSION Ensuring That All People in the United States Have Access to Quality, Affordable Connectivity Services
    AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC USE 2020 ANNUAL REPORT MISSION Ensuring that all people in the United States have access to quality, affordable connectivity services. TABLE OF CONTENTS Message from Board Chair ....................................................... 1 2020 Year in Review .................................................................. 2 2021 Vision ................................................................................ 4 USF Programs and Disbursements ......................................... 5 Statement of Operations and Expense Trends ...................... 6 Combating Waste, Fraud, and Abuse ...................................... 7 2020 in Numbers....................................................................... 8 E-rate Program .......................................................................... 9 High Cost Program ................................................................ 11 Lifeline Program .....................................................................13 Rural Health Care Program ....................................................15 USAC Contractors Receiving Greater Than $1 Million .........17 Report of Independent Auditors ...........................................18 USAC Board of Directors ........................................................19 Quarterly Receipts and Outlays ............................................20 700 12th Street NW | Suite 900 | Washington, DC 20005 | www.usac.org Monthly Receipts and Outlays ..............................................21 The Universal Service
    [Show full text]
  • Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) Program Overview TABLE of CONTENTS
    Schools and Libraries (E-rate) Program Program Overview 1 Universal Service Administrative Company | Schools and Libraries (E-rate) Program Overview TABLE OF CONTENTS Program Overview ........................................................................................................................................ 3 Set Up an Organization Account in the E-rate Productivity Center (EPC) .............................................. 3 Certify FCC Form 470 to Open Competitive Bidding for Desired Services .............................................. 4 Certify FCC Form 471 to Seek Funding for Eligible Services.................................................................... 5 Receive Funding Commitment Decision Letter (USAC’s Decision on Funding Requests) ..................... 5 Certify FCC Form 486 to Report the Delivery of Services ........................................................................ 6 Complete Invoicing (FCC Form 472 or FCC Form 474) to Request Reimbursement............................... 6 Appeals ...................................................................................................................................................... 7 Retention of Records and Audits .............................................................................................................. 7 How to Get More Information .................................................................................................................. 7 E- rate Program Timetable and List of Deadlines....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • TELRIC Vs. Universal Service: a Takings Violation?
    Federal Communications Law Journal Volume 56 Issue 1 Article 2 12-2003 TELRIC vs. Universal Service: A Takings Violation? Stuart Buck Hughes & Luce Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, Communications Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Buck, Stuart (2003) "TELRIC vs. Universal Service: A Takings Violation?," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 56 : Iss. 1 , Article 2. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol56/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Federal Communications Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUCK-FINAL 12/22/2003 6:48 AM TELRIC vs. Universal Service: A Takings Violation? Stuart Buck* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 2 II. TELRIC........................................................................................... 8 A. Unbundling under Federal Law ............................................... 8 B. The Definition of TELRIC....................................................... 11 III. UNIVERSAL SERVICE ..................................................................... 16 A. Federal and State Law...........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Has Reformed the High-Cost Program, but Oversight and Management Could Be Improved
    United States Government Accountability Office Repor t to Congressional Requesters GAO July 2012 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FCC Has Reformed the High-Cost Program, but Oversight and Management Could be Improved GAO-12-738 July 2012 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FCC Has Reformed the High-Cost Program, but Oversight and Management Could be Improved Highlights of GAO-12-738, a report to congressional requesters Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The high-cost program within the Under the USF Transformation Order, FCC adopted new rules to fundamentally Universal Service Fund (USF) provides change the high-cost program by extending the program to support broadband subsidies to telecommunications capable networks. For example, FCC established a $4.5-billion annual program carriers that serve rural and other budget for the next 6 years, created new funds—called the Connect America remote areas with high costs of Fund and the Mobility Fund—that will support broadband deployment, and providing telephone service. The established public interest obligations for the carriers as a condition of receiving annual program cost has grown from funds. Specifically, FCC will require carriers to offer broadband services in their $2.6 billion in 2001 to over $4 billion in supported service areas, meet certain broadband performance requirements, 2011, primarily funded through fees and report regularly on associated broadband performance measures. FCC also added to consumers’ phone bills. The changed its method for distributing funds to carriers to address some of the program is managed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), recognized inefficiencies with the program. According to FCC, these changes will which noted that providing universal allow it to reduce high-cost support for carriers providing only voice services and access to broadband is “the universal make funds available to carriers to offer both voice and broadband services.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Service Fund Reform: Expanding Broadband Internet Access in the United States Jeffrey Rosen
    Number 8 April 2011 Universal Service Fund Reform: Expanding Broadband Internet Access in the United States Jeffrey Rosen EXECUTIVE SUMMARY wo-thirds of Americans have T broadband Internet access in their homes.1 But Issues in Technology Innovation because of poor infrastructure or high prices, the remaining The Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings has third of Americans do not. In launched its inaugural some areas, broadband paper series to seek and analyze public policy Internet is plainly unavailable developments in technology because of inadequate innovation. infrastructure: More than 14 million Americans – approximately 5 percent of the total population – live in areas © Donald Carroll The Center for Technology where terrestrial (as opposed to Innovation 2 mobile) fixed broadband connectivity is unavailable. The effects of insufficient Founded in 2010, the infrastructure development have contributed to racial and cultural disparities in Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings is broadband access; for example, terrestrial broadband is available to only 10 percent of at the forefront of shaping residents on tribal lands.3 public debate on technology innovation and developing Even where terrestrial broadband connectivity is available, however, the high data-driven scholarship to price of broadband service can be prohibitive, especially to lower income Americans. enhance understanding of technology’s legal, While 93 percent of adults earning more than $75,000 per year are wired for economic, social, and broadband at home, the terrestrial broadband adoption rate is only 40 percent among governance ramifications. 1FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, CONNECTING AMERICA: THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN 23 (2010) [hereinafter NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN]. 2Id. at 10. 3Id.
    [Show full text]
  • FCC Should Evaluate the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Lifeline Program
    United States Government Accountability Office T estimony Before the Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, Innovation and the Internet, Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, U.S. S enate For Release on Delivery Expected at 9:30 a.m. ET Tuesday, June 2, 2015 TELECOMMUNICATIONS FCC Should Evaluate the Efficiency and Effectiveness of the Lifeline Program Statement of Michael Clements, Acting Director Physical Infrastructure Issues ACCESSIBLE VERSION GAO-15-638T Letter Letter Chairman Wicker, Ranking Member Schatz, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today as you discuss the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) efforts to promote telephone subscribership among low-income households. Through the Lifeline program, companies provide discounts to eligible low-income households for telephone service. The Lifeline program supports these companies through the Universal Service Fund, which is funded through mandatory fees that are usually passed along to consumers through a charge applied to their monthly telephone bills. The Lifeline program was created in the mid-1980s and has traditionally centered on wireline residential telephone service. However, FCC actions in 2005 and 2008 paved the way for prepaid wireless companies to begin offering Lifeline service in 2008; at the time, FCC did not quantify or estimate the potential increases in participation from its decision. Subsequently, Lifeline experienced rapid growth in participation and disbursements. In particular, from mid-2008 to mid-2012, Lifeline
    [Show full text]
  • NASUCA Comments on the Role of the Universal Service Fund And
    Before the FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) A National Broadband Plan for Our Future ) GN Docket No. 09-51 International Comparison and Consumer ) Survey Requirements in the Broadband Data ) GN Docket No. 09-47 Improvement Act ) Inquiry Concerning the Deployment of ) Advanced Telecommunications Capability to ) All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely ) Fashion, and Possible Steps to Accelerate ) GN Docket No. 09-137 Such Deployment Pursuant to Section 706 of ) the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as ) Amended by the Broadband Data ) Improvement Act ) COMMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE UTILITY CONSUMER ADVOCATES ON NBP PUBLIC NOTICE NO. 19: THE ROLE OF THE UNIVERSAL SERVICE FUND AND INTERCARRIER COMPENSATION IN THE NATIONAL BROADBAND PLAN David C. Bergmann Assistant Consumers’ Counsel Chair, NASUCA Telecommunications Committee Office of the Ohio Consumers’ Counsel 10 West Broad Street, Suite 1800 Columbus, OH 43215-3485 Phone (614) 466-8574 Fax (614) 466-9475 [email protected] NASUCA 8380 Colesville Road, Suite 101 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Phone (301) 589-6313 Fax (301) 589-6380 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 1. Size of the Universal Service Fund..................................................2 2. Contribution Methodology...............................................................5 3. Transitioning the Current Universal Service High-Cost Support Mechanism to Support Advanced
    [Show full text]
  • FCC-08-4A1.Pdf
    Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-4 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) High-Cost Universal Service Support ) WC Docket No. 05-337 ) Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: January 9, 2008 Released: January 29, 2008 Comment Date: (30 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) Reply Comment Date: (60 days after date of publication in the Federal Register) By the Commission: Chairman Martin and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein, Tate and McDowell issuing separate statements. TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 2 III. DISCUSSION......................................................................................................................................... 5 A. Basis of Support for Competitive ETCs........................................................................................... 5 B. Determination of Costs for Competitive ETCs.............................................................................. 13 1. Methods for Examining Competitive ETC Costs.................................................................... 14 2. Cost Reporting Requirements.................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Read the E-Rate Quick Reference Guide
    QUICK REFERENCE GUIDE YOUR E-RATE QUESTIONS ANSWERED HAVE YOU RECEIVED YOUR E-RATE FUNDING? WHAT ELSE CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT THE E-RATE Did you know that all applicants who submitted an eligible MODERNIZATION ORDER? and timely E-rate application in 2015 through 2019 will The FCC released two modernization orders in 2014 to update receive their funding? Many schools have yet to take the E-rate program. The overall E-rate budget was increased advantage of the over $4 billion dollars in available E-rate to $3.9 billion, indexed to inflation. Previously eligible services funding. What are you waiting for? were removed from Category One (eg. voice services are being phased out) and from Category Two (refocuses on WHAT IS E-RATE? services that support Wi-Fi). A 5-year Category Two maximum The Universal Service Schools and Libraries Program – budget was set. commonly known as the E-rate program – provides discounts on telecom, internet access, and internal connections to WHY SHOULD I APPLY FOR E-RATE FUNDING eligible schools and libraries. THIS YEAR? On December 3, the FCC released new Category Two E-rate HOW IS E-RATE FUNDED? regulations that directly impact your purchasing power for E-rate is funded through the Universal Service Fund (USF). Funding Year 2020. Under the new rules, schools will not be able to roll over any unused Category Two funds to FY WHO LEADS/ADMINISTRATES THE E-RATE PROGRAM? 2021, making this year truly a “use it or lose it” situation. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) writes the rules You can view a summary of the FCC Order here.
    [Show full text]