Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. SLD-152562          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Request for Review of the        | ) | CC Docket No. 96-45          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Decision of the                  | * | CC Docket No. 97-21          |
|                                  |   |                              |
| Universal Service Administrator  | * |                              |
| by                               | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Pinellas County Schools          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Largo, Florida                   |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Federal-State Joint Board on     | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Universal Service                | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Changes to the Board of          |   |                              |
| Directors of the                 | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| National Exchange Carrier        | ) |                              |
| Association, Inc.                | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | \ |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**ORDER**

**Adopted:** August 22, 2001 **Released:** August 23, 2001

By the Accounting Policy Division, Common Carrier Bureau:

1.  The Accounting Policy Division has under consideration a Request for
    Review filed by the Pinellas County Schools, of Largo, Florida
    (Pinellas), seeking review of a decision issued by the Schools and
    Libraries Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative
    Company (Administrator).[^1] Pinellas seeks review of a funding
    commitment decision issued by SLD, pursuant to a funding request
    that included a particular type of router.[^2] For the reasons set
    forth below, we remand Pinellas' funding application to SLD for
    further determination in accordance with this Order.

2.  Under the schools and libraries universal service support mechanism,
    eligible schools, libraries, and consortia that include eligible
    schools and libraries, may apply for discounts for eligible
    telecommunications services, Internet access, and internal
    connections.[^3] The Commission's rules require that the applicant
    make a bona fide request for services by filing with the
    Administrator an FCC Form 470,[^4] which is posted to the
    Administrator's website for all potential competing service
    providers to review.[^5] After the FCC Form 470 is posted, the
    applicant must wait at least 28 days before entering an agreement
    for services and submitting an FCC Form 471, which requests support
    for eligible services.[^6] SLD reviews the FCC Forms 471 that it
    receives and issues funding commitment decisions in accordance with
    the Commission's rules.

3.  By a letter dated October 12, 1999, SLD denied funding request
    number (FRN) 294914 of Pinellas' application for discount
    funding.[^7] FRN 294914 included a request for Cisco 2514
    routers.[^8] SLD explained that the request was denied because more
    than 30 percent of the components of the request included support
    for ineligible remote access routers.[^9] Pinellas filed an appeal
    with SLD claiming that the schools and libraries eligibility list
    identifies routers as eligible services.[^10] SLD denied Pinellas'
    appeal, stating that Cisco 2500 series routers are remote access
    routers, which are ineligible.[^11] On appeal to the Commission,
    Pinellas asserts that based on the *White Suphur Springs* decision,
    the routers in question should be considered eligible.[^12]

4.  Consistent with our decision in *White Sulphur Springs*, we remand
    Pinellas' application to SLD for further review to determine whether
    the remote access routers will be used to support remote access
    connections.[^13] In *White Sulphur Springs*, the Common Carrier
    Bureau (Bureau) found that, although White Sulphur Springs' remote
    access router was capable of supporting wide area network (WAN)
    connections, White Sulphur Springs was not using the router to
    connect to any facilities other than to its Internet service
    provider in order to receive Internet access.[^14] Accordingly, the
    Bureau granted White Sulphur Springs' appeal and remanded White
    Sulphur Springs' funding application to SLD for further
    determination. Subsequent to the Bureau's decision in *White Sulphur
    Springs*, the eligible services list was revised to reflect that
    remote access routers may be considered for discounts if they are
    not being used to provide remote access.[^15] In the appeal before
    us, Pinellas asserts that the Cisco 2514 routers are to be used to
    provide a district-based router for communication between all
    schools and centers.[^16] In light of our decision in *White Sulphur
    Springs* and the revised eligible services list, we conclude that it
    is appropriate to remand Pinellas' application to SLD for further
    review.[^17] We direct SLD to review Pinellas' use of its remote
    access routers to determine whether such use is eligible for
    discounts.

5.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to authority delegated under
    sections 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a) of the Commission's rules, 47
    C.F.R. §§ 0.91, 0.291, and 54.722(a), that the Request for Review
    filed by Pinellas County Schools on June 1, 2000, IS GRANTED to the
    extent provided herein. We direct the Administrator to review
    Pinellas' funding application and, if warranted, issue a revised
    Funding Commitment Decision Letter in accordance with the
    above-stated decision.

    FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Mark G. Seifert

Deputy Chief, Accounting Policy Division

Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]: Letter from Bob Liles, Pinellas County Schools, Largo, Florida, to
    Federal Communications Commission, filed June 1, 2000 (Request for
    Review). Section 54.719(c) of the Commission's rules provides that
    any person aggrieved by an action taken by a division of the
    Administrator may seek review from the Commission. 47 C.F.R. §
    54.719(c).

[^2]: *See* Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal
    Service Administrative Company to Candy Mancuso, Pinellas County
    Schools, dated October 12, 1999 (Funding Commitment Decision
    Letter); Letter from Schools and Libraries Division, Universal
    Service Administrative Company, to Bob Liles, Pinellas County
    Schools, dated May 16, 2000 (Administrator's Decision on Appeal).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.502, 54.503.

[^4]: Schools and Libraries Universal Service, Description of Services
    Requested and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806 (December 1998) (FCC
    Form 470).

[^5]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b); *Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, CC Docket No. 96-45, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 8776,
    9078, para. 575 (1997) (*Universal Service Order*), as corrected by
    *Federal‑State Joint Board on Universal Service*, CC Docket No.
    96‑45, Errata, FCC 97‑157 (rel. June 4, 1997), *affirmed in part*,
    *Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel v. FCC*, 183 F.3d 393 (5th
    Cir. 1999) (affirming *Universal Service First Report and Order* in
    part and reversing and remanding on unrelated grounds), *cert.
    denied, Celpage, Inc. v. FCC*, 120 S. Ct. 2212 (May 30, 2000),
    *cert. denied,* *AT&T Corp. v. Cincinnati Bell Tel. Co*., 120 S. Ct.
    2237 (June 5, 2000*), cert. dismissed,* *GTE Service Corp. v. FCC*,
    121 S. Ct. 423 (November 2, 2000).

[^6]: 47 C.F.R. § 54.504(b), (c); Schools and Libraries Universal
    Service, Services Ordered and Certification Form, OMB 3060-0806
    (December 1998) (FCC Form 471).

[^7]: *See* Funding Commitment Decision Letter at 5.

[^8]: FCC Form 471, Pinellas County Schools, filed April 6, 1999.

[^9]: The \"30 percent policy\" is not a Commission rule, but rather is
    an SLD operating procedure established pursuant to FCC policy. *See
    Changes to the Board of Directors of the National Exchange Carrier
    Association, Inc., Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service*,
    CC Docket Nos. 97-21 and 96-45, Third Report and Order in CC Docket
    No. 97-21 and Fourth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 97-21
    and Eighth Order on Reconsideration in CC Docket No. 96-45, 13 FCC
    Rcd 25058 (1998). This operating procedure, used during SLD\'s
    application review process, enables SLD to efficiently process
    requests for funding for services that are eligible for discounts
    but that also include some ineligible components. If less than 30
    percent of the request is for funding of ineligible services, SLD
    normally will consider the application and issue a funding
    commitment for the eligible services. If 30 percent or more of the
    request is for funding of ineligible services, SLD will deny the
    funding request in its entirety. The 30 percent policy allows SLD to
    efficiently process requests for funding that contain only a small
    amount of ineligible services without expending significant fund
    resources working with applicants that are requesting funding of
    ineligible services.

[^10]: *See* Letter from Bob Liles, Pinellas County Schools, to Schools
    and Libraries Division, Universal Service Administrative Company,
    filed November 10, 1999.

[^11]: *See* Administrator's Decision on Appeal. Remote access routers
    allow access to the Internet from any location by any individual
    knowing the dial-in telephone number. Access routers, with no remote
    capabilities, cannot provide dial-in access to the Internet from
    remote locations.

[^12]: Request for Review. *See Request for Review of the Decision by
    the Universal Service Fund Administrator by White Sulphur Springs
    School District, White Sulphur Springs, Montana,* CC Docket Nos.
    96-45 and 97-21, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 3396 (1999) (*White Sulphur
    Springs*).

[^13]: *See White Sulphur Springs,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3398, para. 7. Under
    section 54.500 of the Commission's rules, a wide area network is
    defined as "a voice or data network that provides connections from
    one or more computers within an eligible school . . . to one or more
    computers or networks that are external to such eligible school." 47
    C.F.R. § 54.500(l). Section 54.518 of the Commission's rules states
    that "\[t\]o the extent that states \[or\] schools . . . build or
    purchase a wide area network to provide telecommunications services,
    the cost of such wide area networks shall not be eligible for
    universal service discounts." 47 C.F.R. § 54.518. *See also Request
    for Review by the Department of Education of the State of Tennessee
    of the Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, Request for
    Review by Integrated Systems and Internet Solutions, Inc., of the
    Decision of the Universal Service Administrator, Request for Review
    by Education Networks of America of the Decision of the Universal
    Service Administrator, Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
    Service*, *Changes to the Board of Directors of the National
    Exchange Carrier Association, Inc*., CC Docket Nos. 96-45 and 97-21,
    Order, 14 FCC Rcd 13734, para. 28 (1999) (discussing the
    Commission's rules regarding the eligibility of internal connections
    for discount funding, and the ineligibility of wide area network
    facilities for discount funding).

[^14]: *See White Sulphur Springs,* 15 FCC Rcd at 3398, para. 7.

[^15]: *See* SLD website,
    \<[http://www.sl.universalservice.org/whatsnew/052000.asp#052500_2]{.underline}\>,
    clarifying SLD's policy regarding the eligibility of remote access
    routers. Applicants must certify that the requested remote access
    routers will not be used to provide remote access in the funding
    year or, if the product is to be used remotely, applicants must
    ensure that only entities eligible for support under the Schools and
    Libraries program have the capability to access it. If a router is
    to be used for remote access, such access must only be from sites
    for which services would be eligible for discount under the program.

[^16]: *See* Request for Review.

[^17]: Pinellas submitted its FCC Form 471 before SLD changed its remote
    access router eligibility policy. Thus, Pinellas' application did
    not include information or certifications regarding the use of the
    Cisco 2500 series routers on which SLD could have relied to
    determine whether the applicant's request for discount on the
    purchase and installation of Cisco 2500 series routers was
    consistent with its new policy.