Advocates, Industry Groups Clash on ECF Funds, Standards

the decision earlier on to invest in connectivity for remote learning" should be reimbursed for purchases since the pandemic's onset, said Incompas. AT&T said retroactive payments would put schools that couldn't afford that at the "back of the line," a view echoed by the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. Prioritizing retroactive reimbursements would help "most likely more well-off schools and libraries," said ACA Connects (see 2104120052): It "should only be allowed for eligible purchases that have not been funded by any other source." USTelecom and NTCA agreed. Reject calls to allow ECF funding for self-provisioning, said Verizon: "Because self-provisioning requires large upfront expenditures, the schools receiving" that support "would consume a disproportionate share of the ECF and leave too little support for other schools." WTA agreed: This would lead to "substantial delays in the availability of eligible services that are needed immediately." Self-provisioned networks are the "most cost-effective" for students without residential broadband, said groups including New America’s Open Technology Institute, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, Center for Rural Strategies and Public Knowledge. Avoid minimum service standards because "there is no consensus on the appropriate capacity needed for remote learning," said the Wireless ISP Association: "To narrow the fund’s scope to include only those services offering certain broadband speeds could have the unintended consequence of penalizing students who live in areas" with slower speeds. NCTA and GCI Communication agreed. CTIA said questions about "adequacy of mobile broadband for remote learning are unsupported by the record and flatly contrary to the experience of millions of students during the pandemic." The Competitive Carriers Association, T-Mobile and UScellular said similar. Defining "connected device" should be done in a "flexible, technologically neutral way," said Apple.