Quiero saber acerca de...

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 28 / Friday, February 12, 2021 / Proposed Rules connectivity beyond school property.
Nevada proposes to install fixed wireless hotspots on the roofs of school buildings to extend their E-Rate-funded broadband internet connectivity to a two-to-three-mile radius around each school site for students and staffs use.
Nevada specifies that access to the schools networks would be restricted to students and staff through specific credentials or by their registered devices. According to Nevada, by leveraging existing fiber connections, fixed wireless hotspots could bridge 60% of the current connectivity gaps that exist due to geographic and economic limitations across the State.
The Bureau seeks comment on these and the other issues raised by the three above-referenced petitions as well as the other petitions. To focus our consideration of the requests, the Bureau offers some more specific areas of inquiry.
The Bureau seeks comment on the specific equipment and services that ERate should support to fund off-campus access to broadband services for students, staff and patrons who lack adequate home internet access. For example, the SHLB Petition requests ERate support for wired or wireless network equipment and services necessary for remote learning, including, but not limited to, wireless hotspot devices and fixed or mobile wireless towers. Do other commenters agree that these services and equipment are needed to support remote learning?
Are there other or different services or equipment that are needed to support remote learning? For example, should modems, routers, devices that combine a modem and router, or connected devices be eligible? With respect to broadband connectivity, what level of service is required to support remote learning? The Bureau also seeks comment on the cost of the services and equipment needed to support remote learning. The Bureau encourages schools, libraries and other stakeholders that have recent experience with these services and costs to provide specific information about the services they are purchasing, the costs they are paying and what they have done to ensure the services are sufficient and the costs are reasonable.
E-Rate program rules require applicants to select the most costeffective service offering, consistent with section 254h2A of the Act.
Competitive bidding is a cornerstone of the E-Rate program, ensuring that applicants are informed of their options and service providers have sufficient information to provide services, leading to cost-effective pricing, and protecting
VerDate Sep<11>2014

17:15 Feb 11, 2021

Jkt 253001

limited E-Rate funds from waste, fraud, and abuse. At the same time, due to the urgency with which schools have needed to adapt to remote learning, both the Colorado and SHLB Petitions seek waivers of competitive bidding rules. In the absence of such a safeguard, how can the Commission ensure that applicants are making cost-effective purchases? Is payment of the nondiscount share a sufficient incentive to prevent wasteful spending? Would the same be true if adjustments are made to the non-discount share? What steps have schools and libraries that are currently providing off-premises broadband services to students, staff and patrons taken to ensure that they are making cost effective purchases? What other limitations or guardrails exist or are necessary to prevent waste, fraud, or abuse of E-Rate program funds? Should, for example, the Commission subject recipients of E-rate funds for remote learning equipment and services to audits similar to those conducted in the regular E-Rate program? Should the Commission apply existing E-Rate program record keeping requirements to any funds it provides to enable remote learning? What other measures should the FCC use to safeguard these funds and ensure they are used to target students and teachers who lack sufficient internet access at home?
Publicly available information strongly suggests that substantially more funding might be needed than is potentially available through the E-Rate program. In the event that demand exceeds available funding, how should the off-campus requests be prioritized?
The Bureau seeks comment on the best approach to quickly and equitably make funding available to those with the most need.
How can the Commission ensure that available funds are efficiently targeted and focused on the needs of rural students; Native American, African American and LatinX students; students with disabilities; and other populations of students that are disproportionally affected by the Homework Gap or are more expensive or difficult to reach?
Does the E-Rate programs existing discount rate system adequately target students that fall into the Homework Gap, especially low-income students and those in rural or remote areas? How can the Commission prioritize limited E-Rate support to those students, staff, or patrons that still do not have adequate home internet access to fully engage in remote learning?
Colorado requests that the Commission waive its restrictions on off-campus use of E-Rate-supported services during the COVID19

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 4702

Sfmt 4702

9311

pandemic and asserts that remote learning will remain a significant, if not exclusive, mode of instruction through at least the 202021 school year. SHLB
requests that the Commission waive its restrictions on off-campus use for funding years 2020 and 2021, due to the uncertainties of whether students will be able to return to the classrooms during the upcoming 20212022 school year. If relief is granted to the Petitioners, should the relief provided apply on a prospective basis in order to target the students and staff that remain without adequate home internet access?
Or, recognizing that COVID19 has forced schools and libraries across the country to dramatically shift the way they operate and provide education and library services since the first closures began in March 2020, should the relief provided apply retroactively to services and equipment purchased during funding year 2020? If funding is allowed for prior purchases, how can the Commission ensure that limited E-Rate funds are not used to pay for services and equipment that were reimbursed with other federal funding, including funding made available through the CARES Act or through the Emergency Broadband Benefits Program?
Commenters should explain how the funding sought through the E-Rate program to address insufficient internet access at home would not be duplicative of funding available through the Emergency Broadband Benefits Program. What are the guardrails or other measures that should be used to avoid duplication of limited funds and ensure the funds are targeted to students and teachers lacking adequate internet access at home? Should the Commission prioritize prospective relief over reimbursements for prior purchases?
What should be the timeframe for this relief? Should it start when the COVID
19 pandemic was declared a national emergency? Should it end when the national emergency is rescinded, or should another marker be used to define this period?
According to SHLB and Colorado, allowing E-Rate-funded off-campus support for students with inadequate internet access at home during the pandemic is consistent with the Commissions authority to determine which services to support under the Communications Act. SHLB explains that the Commission can clarify that offcampus use of equipment to support remote learning during the pandemic constitutes an educational purpose under section 254h1B. Colorado asserts that the inaccessibility of physical classrooms during the
E:FRFM12FEP1.SGM

12FEP1