E-rate

Citation

Fitzsimons, E. (1999), "E-rate", The Bottom Line, Vol. 12 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/bl.1999.17012dab.002

E-rate

E-rate

Keywords: Telecommunications, Schools, Federal government, Libraries, Children, Internet

The ever-newsworthy E-rate continues to be a hot issue. The latest issue is the linking of eligibility for E-rate funding to use of filtering software. The Juvenile Justice Bill (HR 1501) contains an amendment known as the Safe Schools Internet Act, similar to the Children's Internet Protection Act in the Senate. The amendment, sponsored by Reps. Bob Franks (R-NJ) and Chip Pickering (R-Miss.) was approved by voice vote in the House of Representatives. The amendment would require local school districts to filter material they deem "harmful to minors" or forgo E-rate funding. Franks claimed that local officials should "set their own standards" and that the amendment would allow children to use the Internet profitably "without being assaulted by materials that are not only inappropriate but dangerous for our children."

On June 23, 1999, the Senate Commerce Committee passed similar legislation by voice vote requiring schools and libraries receiving E-rate funds to provide blocking and screening software.

This was a substitute version of the Children's Internet Protections Act (S-97) introduced January 19 by Senate Commerce Committee Chairman McCain (R-Ariz.) and senior Commerce Committee Democrat Hollings (SC) overrode objections from education, library, and civil liberties groups, all of which opposed a filtering bill. The bill requires schools and libraries to block obscene material, child pornography, and any other material that local officials determine to be "inappropriate for minors" and to make certain that computers with that capability are being used. These are minimum requirements, and allow for local rulings to block hate speech, racist material, and information on bomb making or drugs. These requirements replace the mandate that schools and libraries block material "harmful to minors" that was in the original legislation and is in the version of the bill that the House passed. Schools and libraries would have to submit certification to the Federal Communications Commission that they have selected appropriate technology and have implemented a policy requiring that the filtering programs are in use when children are using the computers. Any school or libraries that "knowingly fail" to submit certification would be required to pay back to telecom carriers the amount of money they would have saved.

The American Library Association wrote to senators expressing "grave concerns"; the National Education Association called the bill "a serious encroachment on local decision making"; the Center for Democracy and Technology maintained that mandatory filtering is unconstitutional and that the bill would hinder research into new technologies, and the Internet Free Expression Alliance, representing 20 organizations, said that filtering is not the only choice: there are raining classes, adult supervision of Internet use, and the use of recommended Internet sites as preferable alternatives.

The Senate and House bills still have to be reconciled, but the upshot of them both is that schools and libraries may well have to choose between E-rate funds (and for many this means Internet access) and intellectual freedom issues.

The other bone of contention is the actual funding of the E-rate grants and the administration of the program. For example, the bill linking E-rate funding to filtering also allocates E-rate funds for filtering software. One of those objecting to this is Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), who maintains that this is an inappropriate use of E-rate dollars on the grounds that universal service funds are being depleted. Minority Republican FCC member Harold Fruchtgott-Roth also is outspoken about the administration of the program. He foresees higher costs for wireless customers, who are not covered by the plans, and continued neglect for rural, high-cost areas.

There will continue to be investigations into the fund allotments, as well as the funding that supports universal access, three percent of which comes from a fee (which the Republicans call the "Gore tax") added to consumer and business phone bills.

Meanwhile, over 8,400 public schools and libraries have been notified that they will receive funding in the program's third wave. According to the Schools and Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Co. (USAC), which runs the E-rate program, $137 million in subsidies have been pledged thus far. The SLD said that the latest commitments in the most recent wave included $4 million for libraries, $31 million for schools and school districts, and $500,000 for school consortia, for a total of $35.5 million. The SLD had already authorized $90 million for disbursement. Schools and libraries will save anywhere from 20 percent to 90 percent on Internet access components. The FCC has voted to allow the USAC to appropriate up to the full $2.25 billion allowed by the E-rate funding cap, but the program continues to be severely criticized by House and Senate Republicans who see it as a waste of taxpayers' dollars.

And although most libraries are eager to receive E-rate funding, librarian Jenny LaPerriere of the Foster (R.I.) Public Library and the Tyler Free Library has not been quite as enthusiastic. In fact, she stated that she would be better off without the money. The two libraries, which are open on alternate days, will receive a total of $900 in discounts for the coming year. For LaPerriere that is too little money for the chaotic paperwork and the numerous long distance telephone calls she has to make to get the funding. In fact, Foster libraries have only received half of their reimbursement for the first year of the program. LaPerriere does admit that larger libraries, such as that in Providence, which will receive $30,000, probably find that the red tape pays off.

In Maine, however, 67 school districts and ten libraries are delighted with the $667,637 that was allotted in the latest wave of funding. In one school district, two schools received discounts of 70 percent for telephone services, another a discount of 60 percent.

Other happy E-rate campers are in Kansas and Illinois. Illinois received $78.9 million, fourth highest in the country. Although schools and libraries did not receive all that they had hoped for, the feeling was optimistic, and many are applying for another grant to see them through. About half of the money received went to Chicago schools, and another $3.2 million went to the State Board of Education to expand its LincOn network, a free Internet server for over 700 school districts. There had been a great deal of skepticism about the program at first, but that dissipated when the money started to come in. In Kansas, 374 schools and libraries received a total of $5.5 million to get them active Internet users.

Eileen Fitzsimons is Development Editor, Neal-Schuman Publishers, New York, NY.