Connected Nation

How proposed changes to E-rate could impact America's kids

• Jessica Denson • Season 6 • Episode 20

Share episode

On this episode of Connected Nation, we’re diving into proposed changes to the federal E-rate program — and what those changes could mean for schools, libraries, and the millions of students who rely on internet access to learn.

Our guest, Mark Colwell, Director of Broadband Operations at Mission Telecom, brings years of experience in federal and state broadband policy to the table. He explains how efforts to scale back E-Rate funding — particularly for Wi-Fi hotspots and off-campus access — could widen the “homework gap” and leave low-income families behind.

Learn why this issue matters right now, how it ties into national conversations about digital equity, and what Mission Telecom is doing to support schools and libraries as they brace for uncertainty.

Recommended Links:

Mission Telecom Website 

"Get Started" form 

Jessica Denson (00:08):

This is Connected Nation, an award-winning podcast focused on all things broadband from closing the digital divide to improving your internet speeds. We talk technology topics and impact all of us, our families, and our neighborhoods. On today's podcast, we talk with leadership from Mission Telecom about proposed changes to the federal E-Rate program. Find out what he believes it will mean for funding critical internet access, telecommunication services, and related equipment for schools and libraries. I'm Jessica Sen, and this is Connected Nation. I'm Jessica Denson, and today my guest is Mark Colwell, the director of Broadband operations at Mission Telecom. Welcome, mark. Mark Colwell (00:49):

Thanks so much, Jessica. It's great to be here. Jessica Denson (00:52):

Uh, I'm excited to talk to you today. Uh, something I do with every guest that we have, just so our audience knows your background and who you are <laugh>, um, rather than just a wa a voice in the ether, um, I like to talk about the background and, um, the company you represent. So let's start with some of, um, what you've done before you got to Mission Telecom. Talk about what you'd like to share, um, with your professional and your educational background. Mark Colwell (01:20):

Great. Well, I grew up in Kansas and I was a political science major in college. So naturally I moved to the Mecca, Washington, dc. Um, and I started my career working in Congress. So I spent about three years in the House of Representatives and another five years in the US Senate. Um, you know, I started as a staff assistant, which is a pretty common job, but one day I was approached and they said, Hey, we don't have anyone handling telecom. Would you like to do that? I said, sure. So that's how I got into it. Um, that's how a lot of people get into telecom policy. I think if you were to, you know, go ask a class of students, what do you want to be? Very few of them would say, like, telecom engineer or telecom policy advocate, <laugh>. Um, but that's how I got into it.
(02:02)
And I happened to be there at a really critical time. So the, the 96 Telecom Act was just about 10 years old. The iPhone had just come out. The app economy was just starting. Um, there were, you know, the Obama administration had just taken office and they were working on reforming the Universal Service Fund. Um, so it was a good time to learn all of these issues. Uh, I handled things like Universal Service, connect America Fund, wireless spectrum issues, iic procurement and so forth. Um, in the Senate, my boss was on both the Senate Commerce Committee, where I was his staffer on these issues and the Appropriations Committee. So we had things like the FCC and the FTC budget, for example. So I know, um, a lot of things about those agencies. Um, after about eight years, um, I had helped write a couple laws that were signed by President Obama and I, uh, uh, was engaged and my wife said, Hey, let's move to Colorado. And I said, that sounds like a good idea, <laugh>. So I did my civic duty, moved to Colorado. Um, and since I've been here, I worked for a year at Dish Network, um, on customer experience platforms, uh, related to things like, um, survey tools. So today I think we called it ai, but back then we called it, um, sentiment Analysis and Predictive Analytics. Um, but the technology I helped, uh, uh, the team purchase there won six straight JD Power Awards. So that was pretty cool. Oh, Jessica Denson (03:26):

Wow. That's cool. Um, Mark Colwell (03:28):

While at Dish, I applied for and was accepted into engineering school at the University of Colorado, so I joined the interdisciplinary telecom program. I figured if I'm writing laws about this stuff, I better figure out how it works. <laugh> <laugh>. So, so I spent a couple years there and I've been working really in the digital equity wireless space ever since. But I did my last gig right before joining Mission Telecom. Um, I worked at the Colorado Broadband office. Um, I was sort of the number two, uh, under Brandy writer. I was doing things like writing the bead and CPF rules. I was managing the community engagement. Um, and I was appointed by Governor Jared Polis to serve on the broadband deployment board. So we were distributing both state USF funds and federal funds. So that's my background. I've been at Mission Telecom now for the last about two years. Jessica Denson (04:19):

Um, it's quite a, it's quite a background as a pedigree for sure. <laugh>, uh, just, I just wanna roll it back just slightly since you have that experience, uh, in dc what are some things that you think that people get wrong or about, um, moving legislation through, you know, how politics works behind the scenes, that kind of thing. What do you think people, what was something that was surprising or that people just get wrong? Mark Colwell (04:44):

That's a really good question that occasionally I get. Um, I think number one, you know, there's a lot of 25 to 30 5-year-old young professionals running this country in Congress, right? <laugh>, like writing the laws, deciding who's gonna be on the panel, um, for a hearing and, and so on and so forth. And so I think, um, having a relationship with them is really important. A lot of people will contact their member of Congress and it'll go through, you know, a form and to an intern or to a staff assistant, and they'll get a form letter back. But really developing a relationship with the staffer, who, by the way, is getting emails from every major company all the time. Um, you know, if you're not in their inbox, uh, it's kind of like a marketing thing, and you need to be there to get their, um, attention and they're gonna care the most about the, the, on the ground in their district, in their state stories. So that's probably the best piece of advice I would give is, you know, build a relationship with, you know, both the member of Congress, but really the staffer who's gonna put things in front of them and help them make decisions. Jessica Denson (05:49):

Great piece of advice. And how does that compare when you're working with the state, uh, since you were on the Colorado, uh, or worked in the Colorado office, um, and worked with the governor, is it, are there similarities or is it a very different beast? Mark Colwell (06:04):

I think there are similarities. The, the person putting the piece of paper in front of the, uh, governor might be a little different than a member of Congress. A typical house of representative staff is like 10 to 15 people, right? And whereas the governor is gonna have a cabinet and a lot of different departments and agencies. So you gotta kind of find that person that is the telecom person. But most states have one we did, we did in Colorado, for sure. Um, and I think, um, the other thing to think about at the state level is, you know, they're trying to balance, uh, a lot of different issues. Members of Congress are too, but they also have primary committees they have to focus on. So they have a little bit more of a narrow focus, I think on, you know, you, you wanna, when you're talking to Congress, you want to find someone like the commerce committee member or the appropriations member, for example, um, on telecom issues, whereas, you know, off committee members have a little less influence, right? And by the time they get a vote on something on the floor of the Senate, let's say, you know, it is probably too late for that one person to make, uh, make a difference. Um, I hate to say it that way, but it's kind of the, um, kind of the reality that, that if it gets out a committee and the train is rolling down the track, it's really hard to potentially stop something or influence things. Um, Jessica Denson (07:19):

So it's important to know when as well as who. Mark Colwell (07:22):

Yeah, exactly. Jessica Denson (07:23):

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So let's turn now to what you're doing now. You mentioned that you've been with Mission Telecom for about two years, so talk about what the organization does its purpose and your role within that space. Mark Colwell (07:35):

Great. Yeah. Mission Telecom, um, is a 5 0 1 C four wireless broadband provider and grant making foundation. Um, and I serve as the director of broadband operations. So essentially, our founder was involved in the radio and public television space back in the seventies and eighties, and he came across an article about, uh, proceeding at the FCC related to wireless spectrum for educational tv. So he created a variety of nonprofits, and he applied for, and was awarded licenses in the 2.5 gigahertz band. Um, and so that's how we got our start. We were actually a educational television provider, so I don't know if you had this, uh, growing up, but, and growing up in Kansas, we had something called like Channel One News. Jessica Denson (08:25):

Yeah. Mark Colwell (08:25):

You know, broadcast, uh, different educational programming. And then the school would record it and then wheel carts around or distribute it to the classrooms. So that's what that spectrum was used for, um, you know, from the eighties, uh, really to the early two thousands. And then at that point in time, the FCC changed the rules, and they said, you can continue doing educational tv or you can do this wireless broadband thing. And so that's how we got our start into the wireless broadband world. So today, uh, we lease our spectrum to, uh, a company called clearwire, which is a subsidiary of T-Mobile. And in exchange we get, um, royalties including access to the network, and we distribute those to schools, libraries, and nonprofits at affordable rates, so they can get their library patrons, the students, uh, connected to the internet. Jessica Denson (09:15):

And is that just in Colorado, or is it all over? Mark Colwell (09:20):

We have, uh, the nationwide T-Mobile network is where we offer services. So we don't just, we don't build a network, uh, but we, we are essentially like an MVNO, so think like a Mint Mobile or a TracFone or somebody like that we ride on top of T-Mobile's network. Jessica Denson (09:35):

Gotcha. That makes sense. So, uh, let's talk now about E-Rate. Um, and before we get into what's going on with it and, uh, why you think it's important, can you define what E-Rate is for our audience? Mark Colwell (09:47):

Absolutely. So E-Rate is one of the four universal service fund programs. So back in 1996, Congress passed the Telecom Act of 1996, and they asked to create these programs. So there's essentially four programs as part of the USF. There's a high cost fund, which subsidizes rural network build out. Uh, there's the E-Rate fund, which is designed to support schools and libraries, connectivity. There's the Lifeline program, which offers subsidies to low income households so they can connect to the internet or, or to a phone. Um, and then there's the Rural Healthcare Program. So that's the full USF program. And E-Rate is a part of that. The high cost fund is about 53% of that USF spending. Uh, I should start by saying there's a $8.5 billion annual budget for these programs as of 2024. The high cost fund is a little over half of that E-Rate makes up about 30% of the spending, or about $2.6 billion annually.
(10:49)
Lifeline is a little under a million dollars, or 11, uh, sorry, a billion dollars or 11%. And the rural healthcare program is about 6% or about $530 million. So, E-Rate, which we're gonna talk about today is, is really the school and library fund. There's two parts to E-Rate, there's the external connection to the library, which is called Category one. That would be like a library leasing fiber from a company to bring a connection to the library. And then there's a category two, which is the internal connection, so like a wireless access point or router. So that's how the program works. Jessica Denson (11:27):

And so obviously we're talking about libraries and schools with schools, we're talking about, uh, K through 12 and kids, um, that are impacted by this need. Uh, how big is the service area? Is it all schools, like all public schools across the country? Is that all you know, who is really impacted by this? I don't wanna define it for you, <laugh>. Mark Colwell (11:52):

No, exactly. Yeah. K 12 K through 12 schools are the audience. And, and it's really open to all of them. I mean, there are some eligibility requirements, but, um, private schools can apply parochial schools and so forth. Consortia can apply. So if you have a group of schools, um, and, uh, you know, I was looking this up as I was preparing for this back in about 2013, you know, the connectivity rate at schools was, was fairly low. Uh, it was in, the 10% had been connected. Um, and by the end of that decade, uh, according to education Superhighway, we had reached about 99% of schools with an adequate connection. So this is one of those rare instances where a policy did what it was intended to do. Right. We got schools connected. And then last year, uh, recognizing that education and learning takes place outside of the campus classroom, right? This program, uh, was designed to be for education, uh, but specifically mentions classroom. But where is the classroom today, Jessica? Yeah, A lot of kids, it's on a school bus or it's at home, right? They're learning at home. Jessica Denson (13:01):

Mm-hmm Mark Colwell (13:01):

<affirmative>. Um, and so the FCC under the Biden administration expanded E-Rate to cover two years ago to cover wifi on buses. And then today we're talking a bit about the hotspot rulemaking. So last summer, the FCC, uh, decided to expand, uh, the program or allow for new eligible uses to include wifi hotspots so that kids could do their homework, uh, at home or wherever they're at outside of the campus. Jessica Denson (13:30):

And just, just to, uh, just to put a finer point on it too, it also affects libraries, correct? I know a lot of libraries help low income families and, um, not just, you know, it's not just the kids, although that's a very important piece of this, but it is libraries as well, correct? Mark Colwell (13:47):

Exactly. Yeah. Schools and libraries are, are both eligible. So I'd be remiss in not mentioning that. Jessica Denson (13:52):

Yeah. So, uh, as you mentioned that the, the, some of the issue, there's some, there's some discussion or, um, some back and forth regarding those two pieces, the wifi and the hotspots, wifi buses and hotspots. Why is, why is that even, why are they even questioning that? Why does that, why is that a big deal? Mark Colwell (14:13):

It's a good question. So there's a variety of arguments. Um, and so maybe we'll start now on the complaints about, uh, what the, the Biden FCC did. Um, and then we can focus a little bit on, on the, the reason why they did it in the first place. So, uh, the, the main arguments that I've, I've seen are, you know, one is around kids being safe online. And I think this is a, is not a great talking point from the detractors because there are requirements, uh, the Children's Internet Protection Act, for example, requires that students have filtering on the traffic. So they can't just go to any old website, but there's, there's some protection around where they're going on the internet. And this program, this E-Rate hotspot program required that, um, I think the second argument we hear is around the constitutionality, um, does the 96 law allow for the FCC to fund outside of the classroom on the campus? Um, and that's, um, you know, it's a debate, right? But again, where is learning taking place, Jessica? Jessica Denson (15:18):

Yeah. <laugh> Mark Colwell (15:18):

Typically, it's not always on campus, right? Jessica Denson (15:20):

Right. Mark Colwell (15:21):

Um, then I think there's just cost concerns. I think folks are concerned with, with the, you know, right now who contributes to the USF are phone users, right? Landline phone users mm-hmm <affirmative>. And, um, their con, as more and more people shift away from landline phones and to voiceover IP or cell phone only households, uh, the, the landline users have a higher and higher contribution factor. And so there's concerns that, you know, this potential program would, would expand the cost of E-Rate. Now, I will tell you, we can go through some of the numbers, but the cost of what was applied for was about $35 million, which in an $8.5 billion program, um, is not very much. It's less than half a percent. So that was another concern. That was the cost, right? Um, I think there's another concern around, you know, if we fund a thousand hotspots outta school and only 600 of 'em get used, is that wasteful?
(16:18)
And there's actually rules in that order to protect against that. Um, and then finally, just the general concept of expansion of government. You know, should the government be doing this or, or should we, um, we should we let the private industry do it? And I think there's a lot of stats that show there's a, there's a huge need, particularly among low income families that just simply can't afford connectivity. They have a connection that they could sign up for if they had the means to do it, but they choose not to. So those are the main arguments. Jessica Denson (16:48):

And, uh, you, you've mentioned it, you've kind of said it a couple times, um, that, you know, learning doesn't just happen in the classroom. It happens outside of that. Uh, there was a label for that at one point called the Homework Gap even before the pandemic. Uh, explain what that is so people understand when we're talking about this, that there's a, there's a, an issue regarding, um, e equity among who, who has access at home and who doesn't versus in school. Uh, can you talk about that issue a little bit? Mark Colwell (17:18):

Absolutely. So, you know, we're gonna focus now on why did the Biden FCC do this in the first place? Mm-hmm
(17:24)
<affirmative>. Uh, Jessica Rosenwald, the former chair, uh, actually coined the term the homework gap. And she always described it as about 70% of teachers are assigning homework that requires online access, but about a third of students don't have broadband access at home. So where those two, uh, circles intersect, uh, that's the homework gap, right? The folks who they have to do the homework and it requires online, but they don't have that at home. And so you may think to yourself, well, why does it really matter? What's the impact of it? Well, first of all, um, you know, again, if there's 55 million K through 12 students in the us, about 17 million of 'em don't have home internet access, right? So they're at a disadvantage to their peers in terms of, of being able to complete their homework. It doesn't mean they can't, they have to go find a connection somewhere else at, maybe at a library or a fast food restaurant or something like that. But when we break it down by, um, household income, the highest, if we break the, the economy into, or the households into five Quintiles, the highest earning quintile, $75,000 or more, they adopt broadband at about a 90 plus percent today. Right? Do you wanna take a guess at what the lowest quintile, uh, adoption rate is for broadband? This would be households $30,000 or less. Jessica Denson (18:46):

Um, um, I mean, probably it's not good, right? <laugh> are most people using their phones? Mark Colwell (18:51):

That's right. It's about 57%. And so this is also, you know, just on a side tangent, if you're a private company trying to make investments in broadband in a, in a high income neighborhood, you know that nine or 10 outta 10 homes are gonna sign up. But in a low income neighborhood, your best bet is somewhere between five and six homes. Where are you gonna make that investment? And so that's where you see some of these digital redlining issues is, you know, companies are making smart economic decisions based on what they think the signup rate will be. So that's where the government, I think, needs to play a role here. Um, and that impacts these, these kids, right? Kids that don't have home internet access. If you're in a low income family, there's a, there's a, a much lower likelihood that you have home internet access.
(19:36)
So how does that impact you? Well, there is a study done, uh, by the Michigan State University in a group called culo. Um, and they looked at GPAs and other factors. So students with home internet access had an average GPA of 3.18, while students that didn't have internet access had a GPA of 2.8. So that's about a 10% difference, right? Well, how's that gonna affect you? That's gonna affect your ability to sign up for college, get scholarships, and so on of another finding. In this study, 64% of students with no home internet access, sometimes just didn't finish their homework. Whereas 17% of students with a connection at home finish their homework, uh, didn't finish their homework, I should say. So, big gap there. If you have, have internet at home, you're more likely to be able to complete your assignments. And then I think this is a, a really interesting one as well.
(20:32)
Students with home internet access spend an average of about 30 minutes longer doing their homework. So they're learning for a longer period of time, which would justify, you know, why we considered this hotspot order in the first place, right? They have a connection, they're gonna spend more time learning. Um, and then the final stat I'll, I'll tell you is, um, the study showed that the expectations of students without broadband, in terms of their, uh, career path is, is quite a bit different. So, for example, 65% of students with a fast home broadband plan can they, they plan to pursue post-secondary education while only 47% of students that didn't have internet access had such a plan. So a big difference there, Jessica Denson (21:17):

A huge difference. And, uh, everyone at Connect Nation, you know, that's our, we, we believe in closing the digital divide, and kids are a huge piece of that. And the idea, I, I think after the pandemic, people realized, oh, we all need to be connected. This isn't a luxury, this is a, it's not a privilege. It's something we all need. Um, if things go forward, um, with this, with them, with the senator, our legislators cutting back on the E-Rate program, what do you think are some solutions? Are there things that we could do differently? Uh, should the program be reworked, uh, revisited? Um, are you hoping, what is it that you hope happens or doesn't happen? And then in the coming year, and five, you know, first year, five years down the road, because as you said, it is funded through landlines and, um, it's more and more those are gonna go away further and further. Should it things shift to cell phones or, or what is it that you think is the solution here? Mark Colwell (22:17):

How much time do you have Jessica Jessica Denson (22:19):

<laugh> as much time as you want, <laugh>? Well, we're pretty open ended. Mark Colwell (22:23):

The state of play, uh, right now, um, for the hotspot order particularly, I can, I can start there and then talk about USF generally. So the, the Senate has already passed what's known as a Congressional Review Act, uh, resolution, which would essentially erase this particular order that was passed in the last FCC from the, uh, federal Register. The house hasn't yet voted on that, but we would expect that to come in the coming weeks. And so all these groups that had applied for this program this year, um, just simply wouldn't be able to, to get funding for it. Um, the, the overall USF is also at jeopardy at this point in time. Uh, there's been a couple different court cases, um, and the Supreme Court this spring heard a case on the constitutionality of the entire USF program in terms of the FCC delegating authority to something called bussac, uh, the Universal Service Administration Company, which helps run these programs.
(23:25)
Um, that decision will actually come in June, and that could actually upend the entire USF, including EA and all the other programs I mentioned. So there's a couple risks here, um, that could be very, very damaging to, uh, the, the connectivity of Americans. Uh, but there's, there's things that could happen, uh, whether or not that court case, uh, ends up dismantling the program or, or keeping it Congress, even since the time I was there back in 2015, has been talking about rewriting the Telecom Act, right? And trying to, you know, there's not even the mention of the word broadband in the telecom Act, right? Mm-hmm Jessica Denson (24:01):

<affirmative>. Mark Colwell (24:02):

So there's probably time to look at this system. Um, I guess what I would like to see in the policy world is a, a couple things. First of all, we, we need to figure out what we wanna fund. Uh, I'll give you one example. So in the Lifeline Program, families at 130%, 5% of the poverty level can get a $9 and 25 cent subsidy for, for their phone or internet service, right? But we passed the a CP during COVID, and we gave a $30 subsidy to families, and there was a dramatic difference in the signup rate, right? So I think that's one, one, uh, decision we need to make is, are we gonna try to fund the a CP like program where it was 200% of the poverty level? Are we gonna fund Li Lifeline, which is 135%? How far do we want to go, right?
(24:52)
Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Number two, do we want to have something like a 9 25 subsidy for Lifeline, or do we wanna have a $30 subsidy for like a CCP or somewhere in between, right? All these variables would come up with at least a budget for the program. And then I think we, we, now that we know the dollar amount that we need to generate, we look at our options on how to fund it, we could keep the phone funding in there or eliminate it if we don't think that phone service should be funding. Uh, things like broadband service. Um, a lot of folks are talking today, uh, about the natural idea of why don't the, the broadband companies pay into the system. They're ultimately the recipients of these funds when people sign up for service. So that's another Jessica Denson (25:32):

Place to, let me pause you there just to make sure we have understanding, uh, and tell me if I've got this right or wrong, but for the audience sake, when a person signs up, and especially when the a CP, 'cause we've dealt a lot with the A CP and helping people get onto that, um, yes. Uh, the Affordable Connectivity Program, uh, which then had a different name at some point, but anyway, <laugh>, um, uh, people sign up and they get a discount through their provider, but that dis the provider was reimbursed for that through this program. So it's not as though the provider was giving the discount directly, right? Mark Colwell (26:09):

Correct. Yeah. Okay. But they benefit from a home that wouldn't have otherwise signed up, right? So they're, they're sort of a recipient in a way, correct, of this funding. So should, should all broadband users be contributing into the system to then fund those who can't afford it, would be a question I would ask. Um, and then there's a lot of discussion today about the other beneficiaries of internet connectivity, which would be the Edge providers, right? So Facebook, Netflix, apple, Google, they benefit when more people are connected because they sell ads, they sell products. Um, and so there's a debate about should they be chipping in to make sure that more people can be online. So I think, you know, some combination of that would make sense to explore. And then if we knew the number that we needed to get to, it would help, uh, maybe alleviate the concerns.
(27:00)
I would also want to tell you that mobile phones wire the wireless industry. There's about 400 million plus phones in the United States. They also benefit from more broadband infrastructure. When more fibers in the ground, they have more options to put towers up. Um, and so that might be another place to look to sort of even and spread among all the uses, both the internet platforms and the folks who provide the service. If we have more folks chipping in, the rate might be lower, but we might be able to get to the number we need to get to. Does that make Jessica Denson (27:32):

Sense? It does. It does. Uh, are you privy to, are there any conversations like that happening now, be behind the scenes or, or anything like that, that you're, you're hearing? Mark Colwell (27:44):

You know, I, I've followed it for a long time. I don't know exactly, uh, what's going on. There were a lot of groups focused on this, um, a couple years ago, you know? Mm-hmm <affirmative>. There was a working group with different industries associations. The Shelby, uh, coalition was involved in that, but there's a disagreement, right? Every industry kind of wants to, to get themselves not as part of the contribution factor. Um, I would tell you that sometimes good public policy is when everyone has a little bit of pain, but everyone gets a little bit of Jessica Denson (28:10):

Gain. <laugh>. Yeah, that makes sense. I think that's a fair, I think it's a fair assessment. Um, so if this were to be dismantled, uh, how do we brace ourselves? What do, what do you think we could do to pivot to help those in need right now? Or those who are disconnected? Uh, are, is Mission Telecom, uh, preparing for that possibility? Mark Colwell (28:31):

Absolutely. So, you know, we, we've been following this very closely. Um, I'll give you a couple stats around, um, the E-Rate program, the hotspot, particularly the hotspot portion of the E-Rate program, and tell you what we're doing to serve folks. So this year, which was the first year for, um, the hotspot program, there were about 887,000 lines of service that schools, uh, started the process of applying for. So there's two parts in E-Rate. There's something called a Form four 70, that's where folks put out for competitive bidding. Um, their interest in, um, seeking bids from folks. And so that was the number about 887,000 lines of service. But there were only about 213,000 lines of service that were actually, that finished that process and then applied for, uh, the funding through the program. And I think a lot of that has to do with the uncertainty.
(29:24)
A lot of schools started and then they saw what was happening in Congress and they said, this might not be a good use of my time. Right? Um, so when the house eventually, what I predict, the house will vote. And in this, we are gonna fight and try to prevent that. But, um, you know, based on what I'm seeing outta DC it's very likely that this order will be eliminated. Uh, you know, schools are gonna be looking for options, and we are one of the potential solutions here. So, mission Telecom, you know, we are, we have a, a page on our website for schools and libraries who are impacted. Um, and we wanna work with folks. We are looking at a sub $10 unlimited rate plan, um, that we wanna offer folks, uh, because we know that a lot of kids are just simply not gonna have, have internet connectivity without some kind of support.
(30:09)
Um, to give you an example, in the E-Rate program, you know, schools can get a 20 to 90% discount. So if I apply as a school for a, I'll use the, to make the math easy, a $12 a month rate plan, and I have a 90% discount, my out-of-pocket cost is about a dollar 20, right? Mm-hmm <affirmative>. Without E-Rate, it's $12 or more, right? So that's why Mission Telecom's coming up within a a sub $10 rate plan. We can't get all the way to a dollar 20, but we can get, you know, somewhere between what would be the normal cost and, um, and the cost that they would pay for E-Rate. Jessica Denson (30:45):

And how would somebody take advantage of that? Mark Colwell (30:49):

So you can visit mission telecom.org, um, and visit our website. We've got a couple different pages, um, um, and we can share the link with you, Jessica afterward. But, um, there's a form when you land on our page, it's called Get Started. That's the easiest way to, to fill it out and let us know you're interested, and then we can talk with you from there about your needs. Jessica Denson (31:08):

Yeah, I'll include a link to the, in the description of the podcast so people can go to it easily or share it with others easily. Um, before I let you go, is there anything that you would like people to really take away from today's conversation, um, as they think about this issue and, um, what's happening right now? Mark Colwell (31:27):

Yeah, so, you know, I left the Colorado Broadband Office. It was a great job, and I loved everyone I worked with, and I loved the program of BEAD and CPF, but if you look at the statistics, about 95% of homes are already connected or have the ability to connect to the internet. I think Bead and CPF are gonna finish that off and get really close to a hundred percent. And we need to shift our mindset then to how do we help people afford broadband? And that's one of the reasons I left and came to Mission Telecom, because there's a lot of dots on the map that are showing up as served that won't see a dime of these federal programs bead or CPF, and we have to have a solution for them. Today's Lifeline program, the $9 25 cents subsidy, that's not enough. We know that the signup rate was almost double, uh, when we had, uh, a CP at a $30 subsidy.
(32:21)
So there, there's obviously, uh, some work to be done in the public policy arena around can we use government funds to help support these families? But then in our world, as a, you know, we, we are not dependent upon the subsidy programs today. Uh, we're trying to do everything we can to work with nonprofits, schools, and libraries to give them affordable connections where they don't have to rely on federal funding. They don't have to be subject to red tape or uncertainty, uh, from these programs. So that's what I'd like to leave with the listeners is, you know, we wanna help and, and do our part to help close this gap. Um, and we know there's a lot of need out there. So if anyone's, uh, listening and interested, we'd love to talk to you. Jessica Denson (33:01):

Okay. Fantastic. Mark, I'd love to revisit the issue as things move forward or there are updates or things. If you've learned some new stuff, we, even if it's just a quick, Hey, this is what we're hearing right now, Jessica, I would love to, to revisit and, and, and talk again, if, if you're open to that, Mark Colwell (33:18):

We'd be happy to connect on that. Jessica Denson (33:20):

Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate your time, mark. Mark Colwell (33:23):

Thanks, Jessica, appreciate it. Jessica Denson (33:32):

Again, we've been talking with Mark Calwell, the director of broadband operations at Mission Telecom, and former senior manager of broadband programs for the Colorado Broadband Office. I'll include a link to his organization in the description of this podcast, including the get started form that he mentioned earlier. I'm Jessica Desen. Thanks for listening to Connected Nation. If you like our show, I wanna know more about us. Head to connected nation.org or look for the latest episodes on iTunes, iHeartRadio, Google Podcast, Pandora, or Spotify.

People on this episode

Head Shot

Jessica Denson

Host