**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

)

In the Matter of )

)

Request for Review )

of the Decision of )

the Universal Service Administrator by )

)

Bresnan Communications Company ) File No. SLD-13014

White Plains, New York )

)

Federal-State Joint Board on Universal Service ) CC Docket No. 96-45

)

Changes to the Board of Directors of the ) CC Docket No. 97-21

National Exchange Carrier Association, Inc. )

**ORDER**

**Adopted: November 19, 1999 Released: November 19, 1999**

By the Common Carrier Bureau:

1\. The Common Carrier Bureau has under consideration a Letter of
Appeal, filed June 24, 1999, by Bresnan Communications Company (Bresnan)
seeking review of a decision issued by the Schools and Libraries
Division (SLD) of the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC or
Administrator) regarding two funding requests submitted by the
Marquette-Alger Intermediate School District, Marquette, Michigan
(MAISD). Bresnan seeks review of the SLD\'s denial of funding for
telecommunications services under the schools and libraries universal
service support mechanism.[^1] For the reasons set forth below, we deny
the Letter of Appeal and affirm the SLD\'s denial of MAISD\'s
application for discounts for telecommunications services.

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.[^2]

3\. By letter dated February 24, 1999, the SLD denied MAISD\'s funding
requests (Funding Request Numbers (FRNs) 60685 and 60693) for discounts
on telecommunications services provided by Bresnan because the proposed
service provider \"is not a common carrier provider of
telecommunications services, and therefore, is not eligible to receive
reimbursement for telecommunications services.\" MAISD appealed the
SLD\'s decision by letter dated March 17, 1999. On May 25, 1999, the SLD
affirmed its initial funding decision and denied MAISD\'s appeal.[^3]
Specifically, the Administrator\'s Decision on Appeal explained that the
services at issue are provided by an ineligible service provider for
MAISD, which is located in Marquette, Michigan, because \"\[t\]he
service provider, Bresnan Communications, was not an eligible
telecommunications provider outside the state of New York in 1998. They
are an eligible telecommunications provider as of March 1999 in New York
State only.\"[^4]

4\. In its June 24, 1999 Letter of Appeal to the Commission, Bresnan
contends that it is a telecommunications service provider eligible to
receive support for provision of telecommunications services to MAISD,
and that the basis for the confusion over its status stemmed from its
failure to classify itself correctly in its Service Provider Information
Form (Form 498).[^5] Specifically, Bresnan contends that, when it filed
its Form 498 in April of 1998, it incorrectly listed \"Toll Reseller\"
as the appropriate descriptive category. According to Bresnan, while it
was also \"offering and providing high-speed broadband multi-point
networks, point-to-point data, voice and video circuits and virtual
private networks, these services did not clearly conform to any of the
service provider category descriptions provided in the Form 498
instructions.\" Bresnan concedes that it should have indicated \"Other
Local\" as its service provider category on its initially filed Form 498
and that it filed an amended Form 498 indicating \"Other Local\" as its
service provider category in 1999. Because it was then providing these
same services, Bresnan claims that it was an eligible telecommunications
provider in 1998.

5\. We have reviewed MAISD\'s application as well as SLD\'s records
relating to this application, and we conclude that SLD properly denied
MAISD\'s application for the discounts at issue here. As described
above, and as acknowledged by Bresnan, whatever its status in 1998,
Bresnan incorrectly described itself as a \"Toll Reseller.\" Given this,
SLD determined that Bresnan was not a telecommunications service
provider eligible to receive support for provision of telecommunications
services at the time relevant to MAISD\'s application. Review of SLD\'s
records further reveals that SLD received no documentation from Bresnan
during the application processing period attempting to amend its Form
498. In the absence of appropriate identification on the Form 498, at
the appropriate time (during the application review process), MAISD\'s
application contravened the Communications Act's requirement that only
\"telecommunications carriers\" receive direct reimbursement under the
universal service program for the provision of discounted
telecommunications services. Given the clear proscription of the
*Universal Service Order* on funding for telecommunications services
provided by entities other than common carriers, it was MAISD\'s
responsibility to ensure that the service provider it had contracted
with was indeed a telecommunications provider whose status as a
telecommunications provider would be appropriately reflected in the Form
498. In light of these findings, we conclude that SLD correctly denied
funding for MAISD\'s request for telecommunications discounts.

6\. 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 appeal filed by Bresnan
Communications on June 24, 1999 IS DENIED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Yog R. Varma

Deputy Chief, Common Carrier Bureau

[^1]:     ^?^ 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]:     ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 54.402, 54.503.

[^3]:     ^?^ Administrators Decision on Appeal, dated May 25, 1999.

[^4]:     ^?^ Administrator\'s Decision at 2.

[^5]:     ^?^ June 24, 1999 Appeal Letter at 2-3.