FCC Grants Hundreds of E-rate Appeals and Waivers
Message Posted April 5, 2007
In recent weeks, the FCC has granted hundreds of E-rate appeals, some pending for several years and many considered long-shots by most E-rate watchers. Below is a summary of the most recent decisions, a link to its FCC decision (which may be useful if you need to file a future appeal for the same reason), and which PA applicants are affected, if any. The first four are groundbreaking; below the * * * is a list of other decisions that have been released in the last year.
** Although these GROs were released to reduce the backlog of pending FCC appeals, the result of these appeal decisions must be that all applicants should appeal to the FCC every funding denial with a shred of merit.
** The decisions below are specific to the applicants cited in the appeal decisions and do NOT change any rules moving forward except for the 2 signature/2 date rule on contracts.
Contract Issue Denials
Released March 28, 2007 - 66 appeals granted.
PA applicants: Salisbury-Elk Lick School District, FY 2005; Weatherly Area School District, FY 2006.
Summary: The FCC granted approval for applications that were denied on the grounds that the applicant did not have a legally binding agreement be in place when the FCC Form 471 application was submitted. In doing so, they also shot down the SLD requirement that all contracts have 2 signatures/2 dates. The FCC also granted six appeals where funding commitments were reduced on the grounds that an existing contract expired without the applicant posting a new FCC Form 470 for services to be provided for the remainder of the funding year.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-35A1.doc
Technology Plan Issue Denials
Released March 28, 2007 - 32 appeals granted.
PA applicants: Milford E. Barnes Jr. School, FY 2003; The Pennsylvania School for the Deaf, FY 2005; St. Mary’s Public Library, FY 2006.
Summary: The FCC granted waivers or approvals of appeals where funding request were not supported by an approved technology plan. In some cases, Petitioners did not develop a technology plan because they sought discounts only for telecommunications services, or because they believed that a technology plan was not required for basic voice service provided over an ISDN/PRI line, a PBX system, or other similar technology. In other instances, Petitioners failed to show to USAC that they had an approved technology plan in place for the relevant funding year, or that the plan was in the process of being approved.
The FCC also directed USAC to enhance its outreach efforts to better inform applicants of the technology plan requirements and to provide applicants with a 15-day opportunity to provide correct technology plan documentation.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-37A1.doc
Lack of Response to PIA Requests Denials
Released March 28, 2007 - 78 appeals granted.
PA applicants: Beaver Area School District, FY 2006; Bethlehem Area School District, FY 2006; Devereux Foundation, FY 2006; Greater Johnstown AVTS, FY 2006; Pleasantville School District, FY 2005; Saint Martin de Porres Church, FY 2003; Scranton School District, FY 2006; Youthbuild Albuquerque, FY 2006.
Summary: The FCC granted approval of appeals where funding was denied or reduced on the grounds that applicants failed to respond to USAC’s requests for information within the USAC-specified time frame.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-36A1.doc
Missed Form 471 Deadline Denials
Released March 9, 2007 - 44 appeals granted.
PA applicants: Nativity School South Park, FY 2006; Philadelphia Youth Build Charter School, FY 2006
Summary: The FCC granted waivers for 44 applicants who had missed Form 471 filing deadlines from FY 2004 - 2007. The Order stated that it granted these waivers to entities who failed to file in a timely manner due to circumstances beyond their control, but several of the reasons provided by applicants in their appeals were:
- Personal staff emergencies such as illness of responsible individuals (or their relatives), staff misunderstandings or other inadvertent failures
- Vague and unclear rules and instructions
- School reorganizations
- Inclement weather
- Technical system problems
Although the FCC and USAC strongly maintain that no deadlines or existing rules have been eliminated with this Order, it does appear to provide any similarly situated applicant who missed an application window (and is still within their 60 appeal period) to seek a similar waiver from the FCC.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-1180A1.doc
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Discount Calculations
Released: September 21, 2006 - 91 appeals granted, all from Puerto Rico
Summary: All of the appeals were based on original denials or discount reductions on the ground that the applicants failed to correctly calculate their appropriate discount or did not provide sufficient information to USAC. The FCC found that the applicants did provide USAC with sufficient information pertaining to the discount justification, and/or were not given an opportunity by USAC to provide evidence to support the specified discount rate.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1907A1.doc
Competitive Bidding Violation Denials
Released August 15, 2006 - 29 appeals granted (no PA applicants).
Commonly referred to as: Academia Discipulos Order
Summary: All of the appeals involved the original denial of funding on the ground that the applications violated the Commission’s competitive bidding requirements by failing to use price as the primary factor in the vendor selection process. The Commission found that the Petitioners complied with the Commission’s competitive bidding requirements in place at the time of their applications.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-1642A1.doc
Competitive Bidding Pattern Analysis Denials
Released May 19, 2006 - 96 appeals granted.
PA applicants: Woods School, FY 2004; Family Charter School, FY 2003; Bethesda Childrens' Home, FY 2004.
Summary: The FCC found that USAC improperly denied the requests for funding without sufficiently examining whether the Commission’s rules were violated due to improper third-party participation in the applicants’ competitive bidding processes. The FCC also directed USAC to conduct further investigation and analysis prior to denying funding for future suspected competitive bidding violations of this type, and to provide applicants with an opportunity to demonstrate that they did not violate the Commission’s competitive bidding rules.
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-55A1.doc
Julie Tritt Schell
717-730-7133 - o
717-730-9060 - f
jtschell@comcast.net
www.e-ratepa.org
Penn*link
| 
Back to 2007 Archives Main