Funding structure In addition to the incorporation scandal, E-Rate faced legal challenges from eleven states and six telecommunications companies. These were consolidated in Texas Office of Public Utility Counsel, et al. v. FCC. The chief state complaint was unrelated to E-Rate, but a company complaint about the method of contribution was relevant. Since the USF fee collection is mandated by the federal government, the CBO and OMB consider the fees collected to be federal revenues and the money disbursed for discounts to be federal outlays. The court found that the FCC's collection of USF fees did not violate the constitution. Some members of congress objected to the level and method of funding provided by the FCC to E-Rate. They viewed the inclusion of internal connections and $2.25 billion budget as excessive and a drain on resources needed to achieve other aspects of universal service. Two such members, Representative Tauzin and Senator Burns, proposed unsuccessful legislation in the
106th Congress to end E-Rate and replace it by a
block grant program administered by the Commerce Department. Several other pieces of legislation have been introduced that keep E-Rate but change the funding mechanism to avoid a direct impact on local phone service. In 2002, a report on
Universal Service Fund from the FCC's
Office of Inspector General found that E-Rate had a "lack of resources for effective oversight", "inadequate competitive bidding requirements", and "no suspension or disbarment process" for schools, libraries, or companies with a history of fraud. Random audits conducted by the OIG led to criminal investigations. In response, congress requested a
Government Accountability Office report on the health of E-Rate and planned hearings on the matter. The GAO found serious fault with the unusual
organizational structure of E-Rate. USAC was not operating under federal fiscal accountability standards. Also, the GAO decried the lack of performance measures for evaluating the impact of E-Rate funds. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce's Subcommittee on Oversights and Investigations held four hearings into misuse of E-Rate funds. The subcommittee found a multitude of irregularities: purchases were being made with fraudulent documentation and without competitive bidding; inadequate
strategic technology plans were accepted and led to unused, wasted resources; and no protections were in place to prevent
gold plating ("procurement of technology
goods and services far beyond reasonable school district needs and resources") and many other forms of abuse.
Fraud and waste Critics point to many cases of fraud and wastefulness in the E-Rate program. Examples include $101 million in equipment which was used for nine schools in Puerto Rico, a $73 million network in Atlanta which never went through a bidding process, and a $21 million settlement from the NEC for fraud and price rigging. In 2009, a division of
AT&T settled $8.2 million in lawsuits alleging violations of the bidding process, as well as using E-Rate to cover ineligible services. In September 2010, the FCC tightened restrictions on gifts given to school personnel by telecommunications companies for the E-Rate program. In November 2010,
Hewlett-Packard settled a lawsuit for $16.25 million concerning contractors illegally giving gifts to school officials in exchange for contracts on E-Rate funded equipment. The HP lawsuits were part of a larger investigation of the Texas E-Rate program by the
US Department of Justice which included smaller settlements from
Houston Independent School District,
Dallas Independent School District, and a businessman. In 2013, an investigation by a Jewish newspaper found that
Haredi Jewish schools in New York City received millions in E-Rate funding, despite their practice of rejecting modern technology.
Overcharging schools Under the E-Rate program rules, service providers are not allowed to charge schools more than the "Lowest Corresponding Price", meaning that companies cannot charge schools more than they charge other non-residential users for service. However, providers such as AT&T and Verizon sometimes charge 325% or 200% of the price charged to others in the same area. In order to enforce equal pricing, the Universal Service Administrative Company adopted the "Payment Quality Assurance" auditing program, to ensure the program's rules are followed. The fifth circuit ruled that E-Rate was outside the scope of the False Claims Act, forcing the Universal Service Administrative Company to find other legal justification for the pricing enforcement. ==References==