Earlier last week, acting on the assumption that the bill would be signed, the SLD's board committee recommended to the FCC that the funding threshold for Internal Connections be lowered to 81%. FCC approval is expected. Internal Connections funding requests at 80% or below are still being processed on an "As Yet Unfunded" basis pending further reductions in the funding threshold (also expected).

The timing and size of the next funding wave for FY 2004 depends upon when (and if) the President signs the ADA exemption law. Most likely it will be issued in either late December or early January and will be, to quote the SLD, "sizeable."

The major changes to the Form 471 for FY 2005 are:

1. The data requested on the impact of services ordered has been simplified and split into two sections, Block 2 for schools and Block 3 for libraries.
2. The Block 4 discount rate calculation worksheet is a bit more complex because the same format is used for schools, libraries, and consortia (which used different worksheets in prior Form 471 versions). Please read the instructions carefully. Note that each worksheet entry requires NCES Codes for schools and FSCS Codes for libraries. Early users of the online Form 471 had problems entering codes for private schools and libraries, but these problems have apparently been corrected. Note also the boxes that must be checked if an alternative discount measure is used for any entity or if that entity serves pre-K, adult education (see the definition in our last newsletter), or juvenile justice students.
3. The individual Block 5 funding requests are similar to the previous version, but require a little more information. If the request duplicates a FRN still pending from a previous year, Item 10 must be checked and the earlier FRN number must be provided. Similarly, if the request is a continuation of a multi-year contract, Item 15d must be checked and the earlier FRN number must also be provided. There is a new check-off box for Internal Connections maintenance (which is excluded from the new 2/5 rule) and for state master contracts. A separate check box is provided for tariffed and month-to-month services which must be used in lieu of the "T" or "MTM" designations previously required in the Contract Number field.
4. The certifications have been reworded and/or expanded. We suggest you read them carefully. In particular, note that Item 25 now includes five data fields requiring Form 471 totals and a budget amount for supporting resources.
5. Item 42e requires the name of the signer's employer. This is particularly important if the signer does not work for the applicant (e.g., a consultant), but is required even if the signer is an applicant employee.

To facilitate requests for FCC RNs, the SLD has developed a new Web site facility to apply for individual FCC RNs or to upload a multi-entity data file in a comma-delimited format. If a data file is created in Excel, it must be saved in CSV format before it can be uploaded (see required field structure of the data file and the new Web site facility).

The SLD's current FCC RN request process has two anomalies (that may be corrected shortly), namely:

1. Contact names, fax numbers, and e-mail addresses are required fields in the data file. However, the FCC's own registration site (see FCC CORES) does not require this information.
2. The final data field in a FCC RN request record is labeled "BEN." Usually, this means "Billed Entity Number," the number associated with the applicant itself. In this case, however, the SLD is looking for the "Entity Number" of each site.

As a part of the settlement, SBC refunded the amounts collected in connection with the erroneous invoices, withdrew any outstanding invoices, and agreed to "…make a voluntary contribution to the United States Treasury in the amount of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000)…"

An important part of the Consent Decree, which may be of interest to other service providers as well, is an agreement by SBC to institute an E-rate "Compliance Plan" to include, at a minimum:

1. The establishment and maintenance of an E-rate compliance program including both training packages and training sessions for all "…employees responsible for sales, account management, and project management relating to E-Rate contracts and services."
2. The designation of a regional E-rate expert "…responsible for answering day-to-day E-Rate questions posed by employees in their business units and bringing potential violations of the E-Rate rules to the attention of the SBC Legal Department."
3. The establishment and maintenance of "…an E-Rate Oversight Team to provide training and act as a resource for SBC's business units regarding the rules and requirements of the E-Rate Program."
4. The establishment and maintenance of "E-Rate Oversight Team Subcommittees" with responsibilities for program requirements, training, marketing and communications, billings and collections, and process standardization.
5. The designation of "…an employee with appropriate background and experience in E-Rate matters to act as SBC's principal point of contact with the SLD for questions relating to interpretation of the E-Rate rules, requests for extensions of E-Rate deadlines, and appeals of adverse decisions by SLD."

A copy of the SBC Consent Decree, with more details on the program compliance agreement, is available on the FCC Web site (see SBC Consent Decree).

The biggest problem resulting from this situation arose because some of the service providers have been relying on the applicant address information in the BEAR Notification Letters to mail BEAR reimbursement checks. As a result, checks from such vendors as Arch Wireless, AT&T, and Nextel, were being sent to the wrong addresses.

Although the system problem has apparently been corrected on a going-forward basis, there may be some lingering fallout from incorrectly addressed applicant checks. For the next month at least, applicants receiving BEAR reimbursement checks from their suppliers should double check to make sure the checks are theirs. Recipients of incorrectly addressed checks should either forward them to the correct applicants (if known) or return them to the service providers.