Latest news with #E-rate
Yahoo
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Holyoke's Devin Sheehan will lead National School Boards Association
HOLYOKE — Devin M. Sheehan, an advocate for public education and a long-serving member of the Holyoke School Committee, will lead the National School Boards Association next year. The association lobbies on behalf of students in public schools nationwide, working to make sure they get a fair and high-quality education. Having attended public schools and advocated for students, Sheehan said he knows the transformative power of public education. 'In this role, I remain deeply committed to advancing and protecting our nation's public schools — standing up for equitable resources, supporting our educators, and ensuring every child has the opportunity to succeed,' he said. 'Together, we will continue to be strong voices for the future of public education." His one-year term as the association's president will run for the 2025-26 school year. The association represents school board members across the United States and the Virgin Islands, according to a statement issued Monday by Holyoke Public Schools. Sheehan, who works for state Sen. Jake Oliveira, D-Ludlow, holds a bachelor's degree from Franklin Pierce University and a master's in public policy from the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Sheehan served on the Holyoke School Committee from 2010 to 2022 and was appointed as an at-large representative in June 2024. Over the years, Sheehan took on leadership responsibilities within the Massachusetts Association of School Committees leading to his role as president in 2019. That year, he ran for a position on the board of the National School Boards Association. He takes the president's post in the association at a time of significant upheaval in the federal government. 'To be here now is a challenge, but I have been fighting for so many years I am ready for the challenge to keep federal legislators on their toes to get the resources that students need,' he said. Sheehan will be involved in advocacy and outreach at the federal level, while also helping to train school board members. Sheehan said the board is focusing on ensuring that all students have broadband access through E-rate and on reauthorizing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He takes the post at a time when the Trump administration is seeking to dismantle the Department of Education. Sheehan said he sees his role as addressing national issues and working with federal legislators. 'Policy changes can occur rapidly,' he said, 'making it crucial to watch and advocate for federal funding.' Sheehan said the board focuses on advocating, securing and monitoring federal funds for supplemental programs provided through the Department of Education, such as universal free school lunch, student protections and educator training. 'Dismantling the federal Department of Education requires congressional action,' he said. '[A] party cannot simply close the department because the federal government provides for students with disabilities and safeguards are needed to ensure every student receives a quality education.' Holyoke Mayor Joshua A. Garcia notes Sheehan's advocacy and roots in the community. 'As schools across the country navigate significant federal changes and evolving challenges, we need steady, experienced leadership more than ever,' Garcia said. 'His proven commitment to students make him the leader we need right now. We're proud to see him representing our community on the national stage.' Sheehan concedes that the association lost credibility in 2021 when it wrote to the Biden administration asking that the Justice Department use the Patriot Act to investigate parents who harassed school board members. Incidents from 2021 are mostly behind the group now, he said. Sheehan brings a deep commitment to public education, a vision for student success and a history of service, the association's executive director and CEO, Verjeana McCotter-Jacobs, said in a statement. Holyoke Public Schools Superintendent Anthony Soto praised Sheehan's commitment to equity and inclusivity. Mildred Lefebvre, an at-large representative of the Holyoke School Committee, is also on the association's board. Sheehan said having two Holyoke committee members on the board is rare. 17 'crucial' AmeriCorps programs in Mass. on the chopping block amid DOGE cuts Holyoke Landing, location of Popeyes and Starbucks, sold Howdy Awards honor 10 for hospitality excellence in Springfield area Mass. tenant union to hold training for disabled Chicopee Housing Authority residents Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up $8 billion phone and internet subsidy for rural and low-income areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas, in a new test of federal regulatory power. The justices are reviewing an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the tax that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. Tens of millions of Americans have benefited from the programs that receive money from the fund and eliminating it 'would cause severe disruptions,' lawyers for associations of telecommunications companies wrote. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by the Biden administration. 'Neither Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC, the FCC's reliance on advice from the administrator, nor the combination of the two violates the Constitution,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a Supreme Court brief. Consumer Research calls the situation a 'nightmare scenario' in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program. 'Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,' lawyers for the group wrote. They said there's an easy fix: Congress can appropriate money for the program, or at least set a maximum rate. But last year, Congress let funding lapse for an internet subsidy program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and the FCC moved to fill the gap by providing money from the E-rate program, one of several funded by the Universal Service Fund. Congress created the Universal Service Fund as part of its overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996, aimed at promoting competition and eliminating monopolies. The subsidies for rural and low-income areas were meant to ensure that phone and internet services would remain affordable. A decision is expected by late June. Mark Sherman, The Associated Press Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court takes up $8 billion phone and internet subsidy for rural and low-income areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas, in a new test of federal regulatory power. The justices are reviewing an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the tax that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. Tens of millions of Americans have benefited from the programs that receive money from the fund and eliminating it 'would cause severe disruptions,' lawyers for associations of telecommunications companies wrote. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by the Biden administration. 'Neither Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC, the FCC's reliance on advice from the administrator, nor the combination of the two violates the Constitution,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a Supreme Court brief. Consumer Research calls the situation a 'nightmare scenario' in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program. 'Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,' lawyers for the group wrote. They said there's an easy fix: Congress can appropriate money for the program, or at least set a maximum rate. But last year, Congress let funding lapse for an internet subsidy program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and the FCC moved to fill the gap by providing money from the E-rate program, one of several funded by the Universal Service Fund. Congress created the Universal Service Fund as part of its overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996, aimed at promoting competition and eliminating monopolies. The subsidies for rural and low-income areas were meant to ensure that phone and internet services would remain affordable. A decision is expected by late June.
The Hill
26-03-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Supreme Court takes up $8 billion phone and internet subsidy for rural and low-income areas
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday in a major legal fight over the $8 billion a year the federal government spends to subsidize phone and internet services in schools, libraries and rural areas, in a new test of federal regulatory power. The justices are reviewing an appellate ruling that struck down as unconstitutional the Universal Service Fund, the tax that has been added to phone bills for nearly 30 years. Tens of millions of Americans have benefited from the programs that receive money from the fund and eliminating it 'would cause severe disruptions,' lawyers for associations of telecommunications companies wrote. The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. The 5th Circuit held that Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by the Biden administration. 'Neither Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC, the FCC's reliance on advice from the administrator, nor the combination of the two violates the Constitution,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a Supreme Court brief. Consumer Research calls the situation a 'nightmare scenario' in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program. 'Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,' lawyers for the group wrote. They said there's an easy fix: Congress can appropriate money for the program, or at least set a maximum rate. But last year, Congress let funding lapse for an internet subsidy program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and the FCC moved to fill the gap by providing money from the E-rate program, one of several funded by the Universal Service Fund. Congress created the Universal Service Fund as part of its overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996, aimed at promoting competition and eliminating monopolies. The subsidies for rural and low-income areas were meant to ensure that phone and internet services would remain affordable.
Boston Globe
26-03-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
Supreme Court takes up $8 billion phone and internet subsidy for rural and low-income areas
The Federal Communications Commission collects the money from telecommunications providers, who then pass the cost on to their customers. A conservative advocacy group, Consumer Research, challenged the practice. The justices had previously denied two appeals from Consumer Research after federal appeals courts upheld the program. But the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, among the nation's most conservative, ruled 9-7 that the method of funding is unconstitutional. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The 5th Circuit held that Congress has given too much authority to the FCC and the agency in turn has ceded too much power to a private entity, or administrator. Advertisement The last time the Supreme Court invoked what is known as the non-delegation doctrine to strike down a federal law was in 1935. But several conservative justices have suggested they are open to breathing new life into the legal doctrine. The conservative-led court also has reined in federal agencies in high-profile rulings in recent years. Last year, the court reversed a 40-year-old case that had been used thousands of times to uphold federal regulations. In 2022, the court ruled Congress has to act with specificity before agencies can address 'major questions,' in a ruling that limited the Environmental Protection Agency's ability to combat climate change. The Trump administration, which has moved aggressively to curtail administrative agencies in other areas, is defending the FCC program. The appeal was initially filed by the Biden administration. 'Neither Congress's conferral of authority on the FCC, the FCC's reliance on advice from the administrator, nor the combination of the two violates the Constitution,' acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a Supreme Court brief. Advertisement Consumer Research calls the situation a 'nightmare scenario' in which Congress has set no limits on how much the FCC can raise to fund the program. 'Predictably, the USF tax rate has skyrocketed. It was under 4% in 1998 but now approaches 37%,' lawyers for the group wrote. They said there's an easy fix: Congress can appropriate money for the program, or at least set a maximum rate. But last year, Congress let funding lapse for an internet subsidy program, the Affordable Connectivity Program, and the FCC moved to fill the gap by providing money from the E-rate program, one of several funded by the Universal Service Fund. Congress created the Universal Service Fund as part of its overhaul of the telecommunications industry in 1996, aimed at promoting competition and eliminating monopolies. The subsidies for rural and low-income areas were meant to ensure that phone and internet services would remain affordable. A decision is expected by late June.
