U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., questioned Tues. whether USTA had ’stan...

attorney William Maher to submit affidavit explaining how USTA’s members were harmed by ICN’s ability to get e-rate reimbursements. That’ latest wrinkle in case that began in 1999 when FCC said ICN wasn’t eligible for e-rate funding because it wasn’t common carrier. ICN was established by state of Ia. to give schools and libraries high-speed communications. After ICN appealed, D.C. Appeals Court remanded case in Jan. 2000, saying FCC hadn’t properly considered ICN’s arguments that it fit definition of common carrier because it offered services to all customers it was permitted to serve under Ia. law. In response order in Dec. 2000, FCC reversed itself and ruled that ICN was eligible for e-rate reimbursements. USTA then appealed that decision. Judges spent most of oral argument Tues. trying to figure out how USTA’s members would be harmed if ICN gained e-rate reimbursements. They asked if there was competitive harm or any examples of members’ losing out on e-rate funding because ICN was funded first. “I have trouble grasping this and it’s crucial to your case that we grasp this,” Chief Judge Douglas Ginsburg told Maher. Maher and FCC attorney James Carr said e-rate program reimbursed schools and libraries for part of cost of connecting to Internet, with percent of reimbursement varying depending on whether institution was in needy or rural area, and whether project was for telecom services, Internet access or internal connections. They also said there never had been enough e-rate money to fund all requests for reimbursement so it was disbursed in priority system starting with telecom services. Carr told court that FCC’s position all along was that USTA “had not identified injury that establishes standing.”