Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The Emergency Connectivity Fund: Getting Ready for the Application Window

By Jamie Troup on May 20, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The Universal Service Administrative Co. (“USAC”) will soon establish a deadline to file applications for funding from the $7.171 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund recently established by Congress and the FCC. These funds can be used to provide broadband Internet access services, Wi-Fi hotspots, and equipment to non-profit schools (elementary and secondary) and libraries to enable remote learning for students, school staff, and library patrons from their homes and other off-premises locations, such as community centers, churches, and school buses. This fund provides an opportunity for telephone companies, telehealth networks, and non-telephone company providers of services and products to partner with schools and libraries to build good will in their local communities or to market their services and products outside their existing service areas.

Any vendor or service provider can obtain funds from the Emergency Connectivity Fund, as participation is not restricted to eligible telecommunications carriers (“ETCs”). The FCC also did not impose any competitive bidding for this fund. In order to reduce their burden, schools and libraries can allow their service providers to invoice and receive payment directly from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Requests for reimbursement can be submitted before the school or library has paid the vendor for the service or equipment.

There are steps that can be taken now to get ready prior to the opening of the application window. Only applicants and service providers that are registered with the System for Award Management (“SAM”) will be able to receive payment from the Emergency Connectivity Fund. Because it can take more than a week to obtain SAM.gov registration approval, those interested in participating in the Emergency Connectivity Fund should consider starting the registration process now. Schools and libraries that intend to submit applications must also obtain an FCC Registration Number.

The first application window will fund broadband Internet access and equipment provided between July 1, 2021 and June 30, 2022. Broadband Internet access services eligible for funding include leased lit fiber, DSL, cable modem, wireless (fixed or mobile), and satellite. While the amount of the reimbursement for those services has not been capped, the FCC expects applications to price those services in the range between $10 and $25 per month per fixed broadband location. The Emergency Connectivity Fund will also reimburse up to $400 per connected device (such as laptops or tablet computers) and up to $250 per Wi-Fi hotspot equipment. Funding is also available for routers, modems (e.g. air cards), and devices that combine a router and modem. Funding for construction of a broadband network is only available where broadband service is not available to a student, school staff member, or library patron.

Should you have any questions concerning the Emergency Connectivity Fund or need assistance with the registration or application processes, please give us a call.

 

Photo of Jamie Troup Jamie Troup

Mr. Troup has more than 30 years of experience in representing corporations in complex commercial litigation, dispute resolution, and government investigations. He has tried cases in state and federal courts, before numerous state and federal regulatory agencies, and in arbitrations. Mr. Troup regularly…

Mr. Troup has more than 30 years of experience in representing corporations in complex commercial litigation, dispute resolution, and government investigations. He has tried cases in state and federal courts, before numerous state and federal regulatory agencies, and in arbitrations. Mr. Troup regularly litigates cases on a broad range of matters, including allegations of breach of contract, business torts, billing disputes, government audits and investigations, constitutional violations, federal preemption, non-payment of tariff rates, ratemaking, network interconnection, appeals of adverse regulatory state and federal agency action, spectrum auctions, and tower zoning.

Representative matters include:

  • Currently prosecuting claims exceeding $200 million against AT&T and Sprint for their failure to fully pay for services rendered. See Iowa Network Services, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 3:14-cv-03439-PGS-LHG (D. N.J.) and Iowa Network Services, Inc. v. Sprint Communications Co., Case No. 4:10-cv-00102-JEG-RAW (S.D. Iowa).
  • Obtained dismissal of all claims that the defendant had violated the state and federal antitrust laws by obtaining an exemption for the defendant under the Parker Doctrine. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 477 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 1991).
  • Secured dismissal of a multimillion dollar nationwide class action and established important precedent holding that a telecommunications carrier is not liable for violations by its customers of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Clark v. Avatar Technologies Phl, Inc., Case No. H-13-2777 (S.D. Texas 2014).
  • Successfully defended a telecommunications carrier during a federal government investigation and on-site audit. The defendant was found innocent and no refunds of any amounts were required. In re Sealed Case, No. 98-1474, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 11006 (D.C. Cir. 1999); see also, AT&T v. Jefferson Telephone Co., 16 FCC Rcd. 16130 (2001).
  • Represented a telecommunications carrier In a suit against the U.S. Government, and successfully obtained a stay of the FCC’s $10 billion auction of personal communications service (“PCS”) spectrum licenses from the U.S. Court of Appeals on the grounds that the government’s auction rules were discriminatory in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Telephone Electronics Corp. v. FCC, Case No. 95-1015 (D.C. Cir. 1995). This case is the first and only court stay of an FCC license auction.
  • Challenged a zoning decision under the federal civil rights laws that had prevented the plaintiff from constructing a tower to provide wireless telecommunications services. A settlement was reached permitting the tower’s construction. Epic Touch Co. v. City of Guymon, Case No. CIV-00-1685 (W.D. Okla. 2000).
  • Obtained for the defendant, the dismissal of a collection action in California federal district court, and following that dismissal, also successfully dismissed the identical complaint that was filed with the FCC. This case established important precedent regarding the respective jurisdictions of the federal courts and federal agencies. U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America, Case No. CV-03-8972GAF (CTX) (Cen. D. Cal. 2004); see also, In the Matter of U.S. TelePacific Corp. v. Tel-America of Salt Lake City, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd. 24552 (2004).
  • Prosecuted a lawsuit on behalf of a local telephone company against a long distance carrier for non-payment of telecommunications services that established important precedent regarding application of the Communications Act’s statute of limitations and issue preclusion. Central Scott Telephone Co. v. Teleconnect Long Distance Services and Systems Co., 832 F. Supp. 1317 (S.D. Iowa 1993).
  • Successfully litigated a complaint that resulted in an FCC order prohibiting Southwestern Bell Telephone Company from charging the plaintiff rather than meet point bill other carriers for the transport of SS7 signaling. Elkhart Telephone Co. v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 11 FCC Rcd. 1051 (1995).
  • Procured a jury verdict eliminating all refund claims. Northwest Iowa Telephone Co. v. Qwest, Case No. 04-cv-4053-DEO (N.D. Iowa 2006).
  • Obtained favorable settlements in several billing disputes. See e.g., RCC Holdings, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Case No. 04-2311-KHV-DJW (D. Kan. 2004); AT&T v. Reasnor Telephone Co., Case No. 4:07-cv-00117-JEG-RAW (S.D. Iowa 2007); McClure Telephone Co. v. AT&T Communications of Ohio, Inc. and Sprint Communications Co., Case No. 3:08-cv-2800 (N.D. Ohio 2010); Readlyn Telephone Co. v. AT&T Corp., Case No. 08-5449 (GEB) (D. N.J. 2009).
Read more about Jamie TroupEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Technology and AI
  • Blog:
    CommLawBlog
  • Organization:
    Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo