Digital Literacy Funding Debated in Reply Comments
Several organizations supported the FCC’s proposal to allocate $50 million a year over four years for digital literacy training, they said in reply comments filed in WC docket 11-42. But some groups opposed the funding, arguing it could threaten the availability of E-rate funds for existing services.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The Schools, Health and Libraries Broadband Coalition supported the proposal, but urged the commission to do so under its Title I authority, not as part of the E-rate program, SHLB said (http://xrl.us/bm5zvt). By directly using its savings from reforms to the Lifeline program, and using its Title I authority, the FCC will have flexibility to accomplish its broadband adoption goals, SHLB said. “By authorizing digital literacy funding under Title I, the Commission is not obligated to award funding to eligible telecommunications carriers, as is suggested by section 254(e),” the group wrote. “Instead, the Commission has the flexibility to award funding to entities (such as libraries, schools, community media and other community anchor institutions) that are, in its view, best situated to accomplish the statutory purposes."
CFY, a national education nonprofit, said it “strongly supports” the proposal, and offered several recommendations: ensure the training takes place in libraries or schools but expand eligibility to include non-profits; allocate half the funding to libraries and half to schools; and do not provide funding to ETCs that apply for additional support for training (http://xrl.us/bm5zxk). “These entities do not have the proven expertise to conduct these trainings without partnerships with other entities (such as non-profits, schools or libraries),” CFY said.
The Washington State Council on Digital Inclusion and the city of Seattle (http://xrl.us/bm5zx3), Idaho Commission for Libraries (http://xrl.us/bm5zx7), and the Internet Keep Safe Coalition (http://xrl.us/bm5zx9) also supported the proposal.
The State E-rate Coordinators’ Alliance opposed the proposal, encouraging the FCC to focus on current universal service initiatives and not expand to digital training literacy (http://xrl.us/bm5zyj). It’s important, the group said, but the Schools and Libraries Division “just does not have the capacity to take on the processing of digital literacy applications, which is evidenced by the fact that Funding Year 2011 applications are still being processed -- 14 months after they were submitted. Adding to their burden will reduce their efficiency in the processing of all applications to the detriment of E-rate beneficiaries and service providers."
The Pennsylvania Association of Intermediate Units Network also opposed the proposal: “It is tempting in the current budget climate of having to do more with less to embrace a new funding source for digital literacy training. But such a position would be shortsighted because it could threaten the continued availability of E-rate funds for existing services. Funding new services will simply reduce available funding for existing services because E-rate demand always exceeds available funding. Adding digital literacy to E-rate will dilute, not help achieve, the core purpose of E-rate to facilitate classroom and library access to advanced telecommunications and broadband Internet service” (http://xrl.us/bm5zyq).