Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

There Could Have Been Internal Connections in 2013

All E-rate funding requests for internal connections were denied in funding year 2013. But if the FFL proposal, first presented to the FCC in 2012, had been adopted, every applicant would have had the choice to use FY2013 funding for their much needed internal connections projects.

The Funds For Learning E-rate 2.0 proposal eliminates technology-based funding caps and replaces them with maximum discounts tied to an applicant’s location, poverty level, and enrollment. See commentary. By allowing applicants to set their own priorities, E-rate dollars are focused on the goods and services that each applicant needs the most. With that in mind, let’s take a closer look at what would have happened in funding year 2013.

Rather than being denied internal connections funding in 2013, every applicant could have received discounts on any approved service or equipment, including internal connections. The maximum amount of discounts they could receive would have been calculated in one of two ways, either on a Per Student basis, or using a Per Applicant calculation designed to protect small schools.

Per Student Maximum

There were 21,406 school applicants for FY2013. The vast majority of them, 12,149 plus another 279 rural remote schools, would have used a per student calculation to arrive at their maximum discount request amount. Together, these schools could have requested up to $2,402,534,763 in E-rate discounts.

Per Applicant Maximum

For applicants with very low student enrollments, there is an alternative method to calculate their maximum discount amount. In 2013, 8,978 applicants would have used this method, with 2,095 of them coming from remote rural schools. Together, these schools could have requested up to $249,951,641.


In total, $2,652,486,403 of discounts could have been requested by schools in 2013. Each applicant would have requested funds for any eligible service, and they would not have had to wait a year to find out whether or not they would receive their discounts.

The tables below summarize the results of the FFL proposal for FY2013 by school location and maximum funding type (i.e. per student or per applicant).

The details of the FFL proposal can be found in Exhibit E of the Reform Coalition NPRM comments.

A more detailed analysis of the FY2013, breaking out the count of schools and maximum funding request amounts by shared discount rates is available here.

question icon

We’re here to help!

Our mission is to provide high-quality consulting and support services for the needs of E-rate program participants. We consult with applicants to help them understand, effectively utilize, and maintain compliance with E-rate rules and regulations. We help prepare and submit paperwork, and interact with program administrators on our clients’ behalf.

Request a Consultation