WPCa 2B J Z Courier TimesCG Times BoldX@`7X@HP LaserJet 5Si LPT2:HPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\w&UX@26F 3|x CourierCG TimesHPLAS5SI.PRSx  @\&DX@CourierCourier Boldimes BoldCG Times ItalicX@8wC;,WXw PE37XP.7zC;,*Xz_ pi7XV"G($,lhG PE37hPSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN;xxxX`=x H@B @>1dddX`&d H@B X@>Z<<<X`]DJ< H@B h@  "i~'^"(22TN"""28"2222222222888,\HBBH>8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""2"2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""\4  pG;\5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XXWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW(WWW(WWW(WWW(WWWWWWWWWWWWWWHLCHCP5L/N5Y\4  pG;\H5hC:,:rXh*f9 xr G;XX<R&HHH,~!,H6X@`7h@xxxxxxxxxxdo]d]oJoAoJA.Jo]]xJoSJxddSdSSoJxJodx]dddxoASxxdJdddd88SSSSxJ222HHH<!92,!ddhrZz.lZrrvvnFFZ8?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P"G;ɒP# Í Tennessee 1999 Opposition at 12 (showing that a bid of $75 could have a bid cost factor of 4.2, while a bid of $65 could have a bid cost factor of 4.5. Thus, under the formula, the $65 bid would receive the most points for the cost factor category.). Although the formula used to evaluate cost may have awarded the highest points for cost to bids maximizing federal support, this is not prohibited by our rules.  Xy' B. Eligibility for Discounts on Services Related to Existing ConnecTEN Components   XK' 1. Administrator's Decision "K^"0*&&qq*"Ԍ X4ԙ15. Before the Administrator, ISIS 2000 argued generally that a transaction underlying Tennessee's requests for discounts on its Form 471 application rendered some amount of the  X4requests ineligible.#?c OK4ԍ#X\  P6G;ɒP# Schools filing Form 471 applications were required to list each request for discounted services on a separate line on the application. The relevant portion of Tennessee's Form 471 divided its Internet access service into 10 different requests. The first few requests refer to "basic Internet access service," with the remaining referring to different service levels of Internet access service. According to ENA and Tennessee, these  {O{'different service levels correspond to faster and better Internet access. See ENA Request for Review at Attachment 2 (Tennessee FCC Form 471 Application). Specifically, in its bid to provide Internet access to Tennessee, ENA proposed to buy software and the right to use certain components of the existing wide area  X4network$R?c yO '#X\  P6G;ɒP# I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) The components to be used were routers located on school premises. ENA has described the routers, both those in the existing ConnecTEN network and those to be purchased by ENA to be used in its provision of an upgraded Internet access service to Tennessee, as allowing the Internet service provider to provide specific Internet addressing and monitoring functions related to telecommunications connection quality and traffic service levels. ENA Request for Review at 23. owned and used by the schools of Tennessee, the ConnecTEN network, in its (ENA's) provision of Internet access service during a transitional period. ISIS 2000 argued that payment by Tennessee to ENA for Internet access service provided over components of a wide area network and any associated internal connections (the ConnecTEN network), formerly owned by Tennessee, but sold to ENA, should not be considered as part of a service eligible for discounts because the wide area network and internal connections were delivered to, and paid for by, Tennessee before January 1, 1998. ISIS 2000 argued that these components corresponded to the first few request lines on Tennessee's Form 471 application.  X 416. The Commission's rules do not provide for discounts on services provided to  X 4schools before January 1, 1998.%  ?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P$G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.507(f). The Administrator denied discounts on costs related to the ConnecTEN network, finding that: X[f]irst, the purchase and installation of the facilities in question were made prior to January 1, 1998. Second, the purchase of components of a wide area network is not eligible for discounts under the Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism. Both of these principles would have precluded the funding of discounts for these costs had [Tennessee] retained ownership of these facilities. Third, the rules which restrict discounts from being approved on services delivered or equipment purchased prior to January 1, 1998 cannot be avoided by virtue of transferring ownership of the facilities in question to ENA and providing for ENA's charging of these costs back to [Tennessee] as  X4part of the costs of Internet access.& ?c yO%' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P%G;ɒP# Í Administrator's Decision Letter at 34.  " 9 &0*&&qq"ԌBoth Tennessee and ENA seek review of this aspect of the Administrator's decision.  X' 2. Discussion  X417. We deny Tennessee's request that we find the use of existing ConnecTEN components to be part of ENA's eligible Internet access service because we conclude that  Xv4such components were part of an ineligible wide area network when owned by Tennessee.'v?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P&G;ɒP# Í See 47 C.F.R.  54.518. Although we believe the components at issue are part of an ineligible wide area network based on the description in the record, we note that, it is conceivable they could be internal connections. If they are internal connections, they do not meet the requirement that services  X 4eligible for discounts must be received by a school after January 1, 1998.( Z?c yO% ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P'G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.507(f). Specifically, we find that the transfer of some components of the ConnecTEN system from Tennessee to ENA does not change the eligibility status of those components.  X 418. As described in the record, the ConnecTEN network is a network that connects all  X 4Tennessee K12 public schools to each other and to the Internet.) ?c {OB' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P(G;ɒP# Í ENA 1998 Opposition at 15. See also ISIS 2000 1998 Objection at 4 (describing ConnecTEN as "a  yO 'wide area network connecting all public schools in the State").  Section 54.500 of our rules defines a wide area network as "a voice or data network that provides connections from one or more computers within an eligible school . . . to one or more computers or networks that  Xb4are external to such eligible school."*bD?c yOW' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P)G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.500 (l). Section 54.518 of our rules states that "[t]o the extent that states [or] schools . . . build or purchase a wide area network to provide telecommunications services, the cost of such wide area networks shall not be eligible for  X4universal service discounts." +?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P*G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R  54.518.  Although we believe the record supports a finding that the components at issue are part of a wide area network, we note that the record is not as precise as we would like for determining where the ConnecTEN network ended and internal connections may have begun. Thus, it is conceivable that some of the components purchased by ENA could have been internal connections used by the schools to connect to the  X4ConnecTEN network.,$d ?c {O"' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P+G;ɒP# Í See Letter from William K. Coulter, Coudert Brothers to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated June 17, 1999, at Attachment (describing ConnecTEN network both outside  {OQ$'and inside school buildings). See also 47 C.F.R.  54.506 (defining internal connections as "service . . . necessary to transport information within one or more instructional buildings of a single school campus."). The Commission allows discounts on internal connections, which have been described as a "service [that] is eligible for support as a component of the" P ,0*&&qq9" institution's internal connections only if it is necessary to transport information all the way to  X4individual classrooms."Y-?c {Ob' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P,G;ɒP# Í Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9021, para. 459. See also 47 C.F.R.  54.506.Y Section 54.507(f) of the Commission's rules, however, limits funding any discounts for eligible services to services received after January 1, 1998."  X419. Based on the record before us, we find that the ConnecTEN network was a wide area network that, if Tennessee had retained ownership, would have been ineligible for federal  Xv4universal service discounts..vZ?c yO ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P-G;ɒP# Í Tennessee appears to recognize this in its 1998 Opposition when it states that the ISIS 2000 proposal, which has been described by Tennessee as requiring the "State to continue owning, operating and funding ConnecTEN, or [] 'scrap it and purchase a new ConnecTEN II, which would require an investment to be owned by the State," "could not recover the costs [] 'because . . the components would be state purchased." Tennessee 1998 Opposition at 4 and 15.  Moreover, although we believe that the ConnecTEN network is a wide area network, to the extent that there is the possibility that any of the software or use of routers purchased by ENA could have been internal connections when owned by Tennessee, these internal connections to the ConnecTEN network were installed before January 1, 1998, thereby disqualifying them from eligibility pursuant to section 54.507(f), unless the change in ownership affects such eligibility.  X 420. We note at the outset that there is some dispute in the record regarding what ENA actually purchased from Tennessee. Even if we assume the facts as presented by ENA and Tennessee, that ENA purchased software and the right to use routers to deliver Internet access  X4service,/" ?c {OK' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P.G;ɒP# Í See ENA 1999 Reply at 7. We note that, although we believe the record supports a finding that these components are part of a wide area network, the record is not as precise as we would like on this point. For this issue, however, the distinction is unimportant because whether they are part of a wide area network or internal connections, as described below, we would not find them eligible for discounts. we think that the fact that these components would not be eligible for discounts if the state continued to own them is determinative of how they should be treated upon transfer  Xb4of their ownership to ENA.0b ?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P/G;ɒP# Í In so finding, we do not imply that the transfer here evidences an intent to circumvent our rules. Nor do we imply that Tennessee's determination that this approach was the most costeffective approach to gaining Internet access service is incorrect. A finding that this was the most costeffective approach to receiving Internet access service is a separate question from whether some part of such a transaction is eligible for discounts from the Federal Universal Service Fund. Given that the rules that would apply to Tennessee were part of the Commission's attempt to define eligibility parameters, we are concerned that, were we to allow transfers such as the one made by Tennessee to ENA to receive funding, the effect of these rules would be severely undermined. In particular, if we were to allow schools to transfer their statebuilt wide area networks to private parties, who then used that network to provide service and included in the charges to the school some portion of the cost of that network, our rule prohibiting the funding of wide area networks built or purchased by schools" 00*&&qqT" would very likely be vitiated. Contrary to the intent of the rule, there would be a significant incentive to have some portion of that network, previously paid for completely by the state or school, subsequently funded by the federal universal service fund.  X421. We also find that, to the extent that these components could be internal connections, rather than wide area network components, charges to Tennessee related to these internal connections would not be eligible for discounts. Since any internal connections that might have been purchased were installed prior to January 1, 1998, they would not generally be eligible for discounts. Consistent with the Administrator's decision, we believe that, were we to allow Tennessee discounts on services that it purchased prior to the start date of the federal schools and libraries program merely because it transferred its ownership to another entity, we would undercut section 54.507(f). We note that this is analogous to the lease/purchase arrangement discussed in the Administrator's Clients' Commonly Asked  X 4Questions Set III.@1 ?c {ON' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P1G;ɒP# Í See http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/FAQ/CCAQSetIII.asp@ There the Administrator correctly explained that "if an eligible school . . . originally purchased internal connections prior to January 1, 1998, and later refinanced the purchase sometime after January 1, 1998, the date of service delivery will be the original  X4purchase or acquisition date, which in this example, is prior to January 1, 1998."i2Z?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P2G;ɒP# Í See http://www.sl.universalservice.org/reference/FAQ/CCAQSetIII.asp at "Eligible Services Lease Purchase."i  Xb422. We understand Tennessee's and ENA's argument that Tennessee requested support from the universal service fund for the provision of basic Internet access and no  X44Internet access service was provided prior to January 1, 1998.G34?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P3G;ɒP# Í See Tennessee Request for Review at 2324 and ENA Request for Review at 23.G Moreover, we recognize the appeal of their argument that the ConnecTEN components are "necessary for the efficient  X4transmission of information to students and teachers,"4F?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P4G;ɒP# Í ENA Request for Review at 23. and thus, should be considered a part of the provision of Internet access service. We think, however, that, in order to ensure that schools do not transfer otherwise ineligible components or services to third parties so that they may receive discounts that they would not otherwise be entitled to, we must apply sections 54.518 and 54.507(F) to these circumstances. Moreover, although a state network may be eligible to receive discounts in the provision of internet access service under certain  X|4circumstances,Z5"|?c {O#' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P5G;ɒP# Í Fourth Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 5429, para. 191. But see id. at 54305431, para. 193 ("[t]hird, wide area networks built and purchased by schools and libraries do not appear to fall within the narrow provision that allows support for access to the Internet because wide area networks provide broadbased telecommunications.").Z we have no basis on the record to determine if that would be the case here. "| 50*&&qq" As we explained above, the fact that a component of a network is used in the provision of  X4Internet access service is not the sole determinant of its eligibility. Therefore, we deny funding requests by Tennessee for charges including costs associated with the ConnecTEN network.  X423. We also agree with ENA that section 54.507(f), prohibiting the funding of services prior to January 1, 1998, cannot be interpreted to mean that Internet access service  X_4providers must use equipment in their networks that was purchased after January 1, 1998.6_?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P6G;ɒP# Í See ENA's Request for Review at 25. The basis of our decision here, however, is not whether the service provider owned equipment purchased prior to January 1, 1998 and used thereafter to provide Internet access service. Rather, the basis of our decision, as explained above, is grounded in the highly, factspecific  X 4nature of this case, i.e., that the facilities that Tennessee sold to ENA were part of a wide area network that would have been ineligible for discounts when owned by Tennessee or, to the extent such facilities could conceivably be existing internal connections, that they would be ineligible for discounts.  X424. Both ENA and Tennessee argue that the ConnecTEN transaction was the most costeffective method for providing Internet access service to the schools of Tennessee, and  Xd4that any other approach would have burdened the federal universal service fund more.I7dZ?c {Oo' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P8G;ɒP# Í See ENA Request for Review at 2425; Tennessee Request for Review at 24.I Costeffectiveness with regard to one particular request, however, misses the broader, more significant issue. Costeffectiveness cannot transform an ineligible service into an eligible service, and as described above, our rules are designed to ensure costeffective administration of the schools and libraries support mechanism as a whole. Accepting Tennessee's argument here could lead to circumvention of these rules, which ultimately could lead to costly funding for ineligible services overall.  X' C. Eligibility for Discounts on Services Related to ENA Network Upgrades   X~' 1. Administrator's Decision  XP425. The Administrator denied Tennessee's request for discounts on the charges ENA  X94will assess Tennessee for the construction of "Education Hub sites"189?c yO!' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P9G;ɒP# Í ENA described the hub sites as five points of presence to be used to provide, among other things, "more efficient routing of Internet access traffic and more secure, webbased email capabilities." ENA 1998  yOf#'Opposition at 1718. ENA describes the components of these hub sites as "two large routers, one facing the Internet and the other facing the ENA/BellSouth Connectionless Data Service "cloud." Sandwiched in between each router are a firewall, caching server, mail server and K12 domain name service servers. ENA 1998 Opposition at 18. 1 and purchase of caching"9 d 80*&&qq"  X4servers 9Z?c yOy' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P:G;ɒP# Í These caching servers are used to collect, update and store the Internet information, such as web sites  {OA'most frequently accessed by users on a network. See Administrator's Decision Letter at 5. See also Tennessee Request for Review at 2021.  to be used in ENA's provision of Internet access service. In addition, this decision is  X4applicable to new router facilities to be purchased by ENA:?c yO'#X\  P6G;ɒP# These will be router facilities purchased and owned by ENA and not those for which it purchased a "right to use" from Tennessee. and located at individual  X4schools.;"B?c yO ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P;G;ɒP# Í The Administrator's Decision Letter denied funding for several individual amounts requested by Tennessee on its FCC Form 471 Application, the application upon which the Administrator bases discount  {OU 'decisions, see 47 C.F.R.  54.504(c). Some of these amounts related to both the five hub sites described above  yO 'in n. 56 as well as the routers to be added by ENA at individual school sites. Because we discuss the router facilities and hub sites together, we will refer to them collectively as hub sites. Although ENA and Tennessee argued that the hub sites were an integral part of ENA's provision of Internet access service, the Administrator reasoned that the related costs for which discounts were requested were for the purchase and installation of facilities. Under the schools and libraries program, these facilities are generally viewed as either internal connections or wide area network components. If these facilities are viewed as internal connections, Tennessee would receive no support because funding for internal connections in the first year of this program was insufficient to provide discounts at  X 4the level for which Tennessee was qualified.< , ?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P<G;ɒP# Í In the Fifth Reconsideration Order, the Commission established new rules to govern how discounts will  {O'be allocated when available funding is less than total demand. See FederalState Joint Board on Universal  {O'Service, Fifth Reconsideration Order, 13 FCC Rcd 14915, 14934 at para. 31 (1998) (Fifth Reconsideration  {OU'Order ). These rules provide that requests for telecommunications and Internet access services for all discount categories shall receive first priority for available funds. When sufficient funds are not available to fund all requests for discounts on internal connections, the Administrator shall allocate funds for discounts to schools beginning with those applicants eligible for a ninety percent discount level and, to the extent funds remain,  {Ow'continue to allocate funds for discounts to applicants at each descending single discount percentage, e.g., eighty yOA'nine percent, eightyeight percent, and so on.  For this first funding year, the Administrator allocated funds to cover discounts down to the seventy percent level. Tennessee fell below the seventy percent level, and thus, did not qualify for discounts on internal connections. If these facilities are wide area network components, the Administrator found that, "[t]hese wide area network components are ineligible for discounts because purchased wide area network components are not eligible for  X 4support."= ?c yO3 ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P=G;ɒP# Í Administrator's Decision Letter at 5. With regard to the caching servers, although ENA made an alternative argument that they were expressly authorized by the Commission as eligible internal connections, the Administrator concluded that the caching servers were not eligible internal connections because they "are not necessary to transport information all the way to individual  Xy4classrooms.">y=?c yOg%' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P>G;ɒP# Í Administrator's Decision Letter at 6."y>0*&&qqp"Ԍ X'ԙ 2. Discussion  X426. The issue before us devolves to whether Tennessee essentially requested discounts for the purchase of ineligible facilities or eligible services. Based on the specific facts in the record before us, we conclude that the service offered by ENA is Internet access service that is fully supportable, with the exception of charges related to the purchase of existing ConnecTEN components. Therefore, we find that costs related to ENA's purchase of hub sites and caching servers made to provide Internet access service to Tennessee may be properly characterized as part of its Internet access service and instruct the Administrator to work with the Bureau and Tennessee to determine the exact amount of funds necessary to cover the discounts for Tennessee's Internet access service except as expressly disallowed in  X 4section B above. Thus, where we refer to ENA's network in this section of our decision, our  X 4analysis is only applicable to the upgrades made by ENA to provide Internet access service to Tennessee.? ?c Oe 4 #X\  P6G;ɒP# We note that, but for the fact that the ConnecTEN components were previously owned by Tennessee or purchased prior to January 1, 1998, there would be some tension between our discussion here and our discussion in section B above. However, as we explained above, we are concerned that allowing charges associated with those components to receive discounts would allow indirectly what is not allowed directly by sections 54.518 and 54.507(f), and thus significantly undermine the effect of those rules. Therefore, we believe any perceived tension has been explained.  X 427. At the outset, we find, contrary to ENA's and Tennessee's position, that we can, where appropriate, look behind transactions underlying requests for discounts to ensure that  X4they comply with our rules.D@P?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P?G;ɒP# Í See Tennessee Request for Review at 57; ENA Request for Review at 1418.D Indeed, although our de novo review in this instance leads to a  X{4finding that is contrary to the Administrator's finding, A{?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P@G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.723.  we applaud the Administrator's efforts and diligence in examining this particular request for discounts, as well as all such requests. In order to reach our goal of ensuring that as many schools receive discounts for eligible services as possible, we believe the Administrator must be as diligent in examining transactions underlying requests as it was here. We believe that the Administrator must undertake this type of examination when it has reason to believe further examination of an application is necessary, and therefore, find that the Administrator undertook the correct course in its diligent examination of this application.  X428. As stated above, however, the question to be answered here is whether ENA will provide Internet access services or another service to Tennessee, or whether Tennessee is actually purchasing ineligible facilities. To determine the answer to this question, we must  Xg4look to our relevant eligibility rules, which are: (1) the definition of eligible services,Bgr ?c yO%' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PAG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.506 and 54.517(b). and"g B0*&&qq~"  X4(2) the rule excluding support for wide area networks. C?c yOy' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PBG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.518.  With regard to eligible services, our rules allow nontelecommunications carriers to be eligible for universal service support for  X4providing Internet access service and installation and maintenance of internal connections. DX?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PCG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.517.  Section 54.5 of our rules defines Internet access as "[t]he transmission of information as part of a gateway to an information service, [and] may include data transmission, address translation, protocol conversion, billing management, introductory information content, and  Xv4navigational systems that enable users to access information services." Ev?c yO ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PDG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.5.  Section 54.506 states that a service is eligible for support as internal connections if "such service is necessary to  XH4transport information within one or more instructional buildings of a single school campus." FHx?c yOq' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PEG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.506.  Moreover, as previously stated, section 54.518 of rules states that "[t]o the extent that states, schools, or libraries build or purchase a wide area network to provide telecommunications services, the cost of such wide area networks shall not be eligible for universal service  X 4discounts provided under this subpart." G ?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PFG;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  54.518   X 429. We note at the outset that no one questions that ENA will provide Internet access service to Tennessee. Rather, the issue that ISIS 2000 raises is whether the fact that ENA will use universal service support to build the underlying facilities to provide Internet access  Xy4service makes a difference for support eligibility.Hy?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PGG;ɒP# Í See ISIS 2000 1999 Opposition at 12 ("the USF program is not now and never was designed to fund publiclyowned regional [wide area network] infrastructure costs, let alone privatelyowned facilities."). We find that, under the narrow circumstances presented, this fact does not affect support eligibility. We recognize that all service providers include within their prices to customers some amount of the cost of building facilities to provide the service. Indeed, by way of analogy, we have allowed common carriers to include within their rates to customers, some amount of the cost of the facilities  X4used to provide such services to customers.I ?c {O ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PHG;ɒP# Í See generally 47 C.F.R. Parts 32, 36, 65, and 69. See also Charles F. Phillips, Jr., The Regulation of  {Os!'Public Utilities (1993). Similarly, we would expect ENA to include at least some portion of the cost of the facilities used to provide Internet access service in its rates to Tennessee. Therefore, because we expect Internet access service providers to include some portion of the cost of facilities used to provide Internet access service within the charges for providing Internet access service, and because our rules do not otherwise specifically prohibit support to Internet access service as provided by ENA (as explained below), we"N I0*&&qq`" cannot, at this time, find that the costs of the underlying facilities to be built by ENA to provide Internet access service to Tennessee should be excluded from ENA's charges for providing Internet access service.  X430. Looking first at whether this is a wide area network ineligible for discounts pursuant to section 54.518, we conclude that the hub sites and caching servers described above that are specifically related to ENA's upgrades made to provide Internet access service to Tennessee, are not part of an ineligible wide area network that was built or purchased by a state, school, or library to provide telecommunications services. As described in the record, Tennessee will have no ownership of the ENA network, including the hub sites and caching  X 4servers.J ?c {O ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PIG;ɒP# Í See ISIS 2000 1998 Reply to Oppositions at Appendix Q, p.13 (Stapleton Report describing the end result of the ENA contract as "ENA will own a network asset," and "Tennessee .. . will own no part of ENA.").  {O% 'See also Tennessee Request for Review at 1819 and ENA 1998 Opposition at 19 ("ENA's network is privately owned and operated; this is not a case of a state seeking direct reimbursement for a [wide area network] that it has built or purchased from another party."). Moreover, we note that Tennessee asserts, without dispute from other parties, that the ENA network, including the hub sites and caching servers, will not be used by Tennessee  X 4for telecommunications services, but only will provide Internet access services.K |?c yO' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PJG;ɒP# Í Tennessee Request for Review at 16. Thus, it would appear that, even if this were a wide area network built for Tennessee, it was not built to provide telecommunications services, and thus falls outside the reach of section 54.518. We note, however, that this is not the sole determinative factor here. We would hesitate to rely on this factor alone without further investigation, out of concern that a wide area network such as this could be used to provide telecommunications services.  XK431. Consistent with our decision supra, with regard to the ConnecTEN components, we must consider whether the arrangement between Tennessee and ENA reaches essentially the same result as that which is prohibited by section 54.518; namely whether, through the contract between Tennessee and ENA, Tennessee has in essence built or purchased a wide area network to provide telecommunications services. We believe relevant indicia for making this determination include, but are not limited to, the service provided over the network,  X4exclusivity arrangements, lease purchase arrangements, and the structure of the contract (e.g., substantial payment for upfront capital costs). None of these factors alone is necessarily  X4determinative, but they must be considered in light of facts presented.L  ?c yOT!' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PKG;ɒP# Í We note that this issue is separate and distinct from the issue with respect to the ConnecTEN network. There, evidence clearly showed that ConnecTEN was a wide area network built and/or purchased by Tennessee to provide telecommunications services. Thus, the only question there was whether an ownership transfer should change its status. Here, the issue is whether we should impute ownership in the first instance.   Xi432. As previously stated, Tennessee asserts that the ENA network, including hub sites"i L0*&&qq~" and caching servers, will only be used to provide Internet access service, not telecommunications service. Moreover, on the whole, the record does not provide a basis for finding that Tennessee and ENA have an exclusivity arrangement limiting the use of the ENA network to Tennessee. As ISIS 2000 notes, the ENA network could "ultimately serve many  X4users."M?c yO4' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PLG;ɒP# Í ISIS 2000 1998 Supplement to Reply at 3. We note that ISIS 2000's contention in this regard is that ENA is constructing a private network solely through the use of federal and state funds. Indeed, ISIS 2000 cites to an ENA Investment proposal to show that ENA "expects  X4to add more users such as private schools [and] health care providers."N7?c yOu' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PMG;ɒP# Í ISIS 2000 1998 Supplement to Reply at 3. Although Tennessee has suggested that it would "utilize the full capacity of the ENA network [for the duration of  X_4the contract],""O_?c yO ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PNG;ɒP# Í Tennessee 1998 Consolidated Response at 20. " ENA later claims that "ENA and its team in fact are providing Internet access today to over 100,000 computers located in the State's K12 schools as well as access to  X14thousands of other customers." P1W?c yO9' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  POG;ɒP# Í ENA 1999 Reply at 6.  Although it would be difficult to determine whether Tennessee is ENA's only customer because ENA is comprised of a number of entities, including ISDNNET, a large Internet service provider in Tennessee, we note that, even if Tennessee were ENA's only customer, that fact alone does not prove that Tennessee has an exclusive right to use the network. In addition, with regard to any leasepurchase arrangement, ENA states that "there is no provision for the State to own any part of the  X 4system that ENA will own and use during or after the contract period."QX ?c yO?' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PPG;ɒP# Í ENA 1998 Opposition at 17 (emphasis added). Although ENA makes this statement with regard to the ConnecTEN components, the statement would seem to include the ENA hub sites and caching servers at issue here.  X{4 33. There is significant dispute on the record with regard to the structure of this contract. Some evidence suggests that ENA sought a significant upfront payment that would  XM4be used to finance its capital investment,*RM ?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PQG;ɒP# Í See ISIS 2000 1998 Supplement to Reply at 23.* including the hub sites and caching servers, but other evidence shows that Tennessee will actually pay both recurring and nonrecurring  X4charges to ENA.S ?c {Oi ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PRG;ɒP# Í See ENA Request for Review at Attachment 2 (Tennessee's FCC form 471 Application). The Form 471  {O3!'is the application upon which the Administrator bases discount decisions. See 47 C.F.R.  54.504(c).  Moreover, ENA and Tennessee present evidence showing that some Internet service providers regularly structure charges to customers using both upfront,  X4nonrecurring and recurring charges.T ?c {O$' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PSG;ɒP# Í See ENA Request for Review at 14 and n. 36. See also Tennessee 1999 Reply at Attachment A (Letter  yOa%'from Bob Collie, Vice President/Chief Technical Officer, TelaLink Internet).  Tennessee's actual application, as submitted to the"OT0*&&qq" Administrator, shows that for each Internet access service level above basic Internet access service, the nonrecurring charges to be paid by Tennessee to ENA are greater than the  X4recurring charges.UZ?c {OK' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PTG;ɒP# Í See ENA Request for Review at Attachment 2 (Tennessee FCC Form 471 Application). For example, the line on the application corresponding to service level four shows that the nonrecurring charge is $1,691,151 and the recurring charges are $868,712.  Tennessee avows, however, that the nonrecurring charges cannot be considered evidence of a "purchase" of facilities, but rather were accepted as a way to reduce  X4the total cost of Internet access service.V?c {O? '#X\  P6G;ɒP# See Tennessee Request for Review at 12. See also Letter from William K. Coulter, Coudert Brothers, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, dated July 22, 1999. Although we are somewhat concerned about the level of the nonrecurring charges, because high nonrecurring charges weigh more in favor of an appearance of "purchase" of facilities by Tennessee, we believe other factors, as discussed above and Tennessee's statement with regard to its payment structure, tilt the balance toward not imputing a finding that ENA built a wide area network for Tennessee. Thus, we find that the hub sites and caching servers are not ineligible facilities pursuant to section 54.518.  X 4!34. We must now consider whether these hub sites and caching servers are within the definition of eligible services. As previously stated, the relevant eligible services to consider here are internal connections and Internet access service. Moreover, although internal connections are generally eligible for discounts, in this first year of our program, discounts for internal connections were provided only to schools with discounts levels of seventy percent or above, and Tennessee's discount level fell below the seventy percent level. Thus, if these facilities are internal connections, they will be ineligible for this first program year.  XK4"35. In light of the funding constraints on internal connections, we note that there may be some incentive for schools to claim that facilities used in reaching the Internet are part of the endtoend Internet access service, rather than internal connections. Moreover, as a practical matter, we believe that there are instances where it is difficult to draw a line between endtoend Internet access service and internal connections because Internet service providers configure their networks and services differently. For example, ENA maintains that these facilities fall within the definition of Internet access because they are used in the "transmission of information as part of a gateway to an information service," and (for the hub sites) are "navigational systems that enable users to access information services." Indeed, ENA explains that the hub sites are used "to route Internet access traffic and provide access to webbased e Xe4mail capabilities, virtual reserve desks, and custom security."WeD?c yOZ"' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PUG;ɒP# Í ENA Request for Review at 20. Moreover, ENA points out that the caching servers will allow storage of the "most frequently visited sites [on the Internet]," and will thus, allow for the "most efficient possible transmission of information as"7W0*&&qq8"  X4part of a gateway to an information service."X?c yOy' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PVG;ɒP# Í ENA Request for Review at 64.  X4#36. There is no dispute that these facilities will function in the way described by ENA. Indeed, ENA and Tennessee present evidence that many Internet service providers  X4operate their Internet networks in a similar fashion.0YX?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PWG;ɒP# Í See e.g., ENA Request for Review at 19. 0 Thus, if we find that these upgrades are not internal connections, we believe there is a sufficient basis for finding them to be part of an endtoend Internet access service. But, as the Administrator found, certain components in the ENA network, such as the routers located at the schools, may be considered, at least in  XH4some circumstances, internal connections.hZH?c {O ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PXG;ɒP# Í Administrator's Decision Letter at 5. See also Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9021, para. 460.h Thus, we must decide where to draw the line in these particular circumstances. In drawing this line, we will, consistent with the definition of internal connections, also take into account practical considerations, such as administrative ease and expediency in evaluating applications for discounts and how our priority rules with  X 4regard to eligible services may be affected by our decision herein.V[Z |?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PYG;ɒP# Í See supra at n. 60 (explaining that, for this first schools and libraries program year, telecommunications and Internet access services for all discount categories receive first priority, and internal connections are to receive discounts only after support is provided for those priority services to all eligible requests for discounts.).V  X 4$37. Under the definition of internal connections, a service is considered a component of internal connections if it is necessary "to transport information within one or more  X4instructional buildings of a single school campus." In interpreting this definition visavis Internet access services, we believe it reasonable to establish a rebuttable presumption that, if a service includes facilities that are located on the school premises and are used to transport information, they are internal connections. It seems reasonable to presume that, if the facilities used in providing a service are located on the school premises, they are generally necessary to transport information within one or more buildings of the school campus, and are not part of an endtoend Internet access service. Thus, in evaluating applications for discounts, the Administrator may generally presume that facilities located on a single school campus are internal connections. We believe this provides clearer guidance to the Administrator in evaluating applications for discounts, and reaches the right balance in regard to burdens on schools to show that certain facilities used in providing a service are truly part of an endtoend Internet access service, and not mislabeled internal connections to the detriment of other schools' abilities to receive telecommunications services or Internet access service.  X94 %38. We believe, however, that schools may rebut this presumption in the application evaluation process. To rebut this presumption, we believe it reasonable to consider evidence""[0*&&qq<" of where the Internet access service begins and/or ends. As described in detail in the record, the hub sites located at the schools (excluding for the purpose of this discussion those related  X4to the ConnecTEN network as described supra) are ENA's point of presence.\?c {OK' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PZG;ɒP# Í See Letter from William K. Coulter, Coudert Brothers, to Magalie Roman Salas, Secretary, Federal  {O'Communications Commission, dated July 7, 1999 at Attachment A, p. 1 (July 7,1999 Ex Parte Letter). In essence, the hub sites located on the school premises do not "function solely to transmit information  X4over the distance from the classroom to the Internet service provider,"]$?c {O{' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P[G;ɒP# Í Universal Service Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 9021, para. 460 (explaining why such items as routers, hubs,  yOE 'and network file servers meet the definition of internal connections).Ŀ rather they act as the point where ENA, the Internet access service provider, begins to provide Internet access service. Indeed, according to ENA and Tennessee, the schools' internal networks will function without connection to the ENA hub site located on the schools' premises, thus,  XJ4indicating that these hub sites are not necessary to transport information within the schools'  X54instructional buildings on a single campus,I^"5~?c {Od' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P\G;ɒP# Í See July 7, 1999 Ex Parte Letter at Attachment A, p. 1 ("If[the connection between the school local area network and ENA's router] is unplugged, the [local area network] operates independently and there is no connection to the Internet via the ISP, nor is there any interruption in communications between and among classrooms.")I and are thus, not internal connections. As described in the record, Tennessee's schools have routers and hubs within the schools that act  X 4to transmit the information from the classroom to the hub sites at issue here._ h ?c {O '#X\  P6G;ɒP# See July 7, 1999 Ex Parte Letter. ENA has located its point of presence for Internet access service at the schools. Moreover, we note that ENA and Tennessee avow that the facilities at issue operate solely for the purpose of providing Internet access service, which we believe, because they serve no other purpose, provides some indication that they are part of an Internet access service.  X}4&39. We note, however, that our inquiry cannot end here because, when the rules of priority are in effect, there is an incentive to characterize certain facilities used in the provision of internal connections that may also be provided by the Internet access service provider as Internet access service. For example, the Internet service provider may end its service at a regional office, but provide a school with internal connections such as routers used to aggregate traffic within the school. To minimize the potential for mischaracterization, where warranted, we will also look at other indicia to determine if a component of a service is indeed part of the specified service. Relevant indicia include, but are not limited to, ownership of the facility used to provide the service, any leasepurchase arrangements regarding such facility, exclusivity arrangements regarding such facility, maintenance agreements regarding such facility and upfront capital costs.  Xi4'40. Using these indicia, we find that the hub sites at issue here are not internal"i _0*&&qq" connections. First, there is no evidence that the hub sites at issue here are, or will be, owned by Tennessee. Nor, is there evidence of a leasepurchase agreement between ENA and Tennessee for Tennessee to purchase the hub sites at the end of the contract term. In addition, although the service provided by ENA to Tennessee has been described as  X4"dedicated access,"z`?c {O'#X\  P6G;ɒP# See ENA Request for Review at 13.z the hub sites located on school premises have "other ports for access  X4from other customers[;] the point of presence router is not dedicated to Tennessee."3aZ?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P]G;ɒP# Í July 7, 1999 Ex Parte Letter at Attachment A, p.1.3 Finally, although the nonrecurring charges related to ENA's upgrades are large, thus providing some indication that this seems more like a purchase of a facility that could be used for internal connections, we believe all factors taken together weigh against a finding of internal  X14connections and in favor of a finding of Internet access service.b1?c {O ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P^G;ɒP# Í Note in para. 36 supra, we have already concluded that, if these facilities are not internal connections, they are sufficiently related to the provision of Internet access service to be considered part of such service.  X 4(41. With regard to the caching servers, we note that the Administrator concluded that they do not meet the definition of internal connections because, as described on the record,  X 4they are not "necessary to transport information within one or more instructional buildings of a single school campus." Even if Tennessee owned these facilities and they resided on school premises, we would not find them to be internal connections because, based on the record, they seem to provide levels of efficiency in the delivery of information, but are not necessary to transporting such information. We note, however, that when used by an Internet service provider in its provision of Internet access service, caching servers may be included as part of the cost of that service, as described above.  X4)42. Although we find that the hub sites and caching servers here are part of the underlying facilities used to provide Internet access service, and thus, may be properly included as part of the cost of providing such service, we are troubled by the effect of this decision. When we started this program, we did not envision providing support to fund significantly the backbone of a provider's network. At the same time, we obviously did not wish to foreclose competition by funding only established service providers. Indeed, if we concluded that ENA were prohibited from support in this instance, we could very well start down the path of excluding significant competition. We believe we need to consider in the very near future a way to reach a balance between ensuring that schools receive supported services and significantly funding a new company's network.  X"' D. Public Interest Issue  X4*43. We do not find it in the public interest to waive our rules to allow Tennessee to"Fb0*&&qq" receive discounts on charges related to the ConnecTEN network. Although Tennessee has requested that the Commission find it in the "public interest" to ensure Internet access service with support from the universal service fund for Tennessee's public schools to avoid a "digitaldivide," we cannot conclude that Tennessee has made the requisite showing to support a waiver of our rules with regard to the ConnecTEN network. Moreover, we note that our  X4decision with regard to the ENA upgrades discussed supra in section C, should mitigate any concerns with regard to a "digital divide."  XJ4+44. Since we have found that Tennessee's request for discounts on charges related to the ConnecTEN network should be denied support under our rules, we presume Tennessee seeks a waiver of sections 54.507(f) and 54.518 to allow for funding of discounts on its requested services. Section 1.3 of the Commission's rules provides that "[a]ny provision of  X 4the rules may be waived by the Commission . . . if good cause therefor is shown."c ?c yOg ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P_G;ɒP# Í 47 C.F.R.  1.3. As interpreted by the courts, this requires that a petitioner demonstrate that "special circumstances warrant a deviation from the general rule and that such a deviation will serve the public  X 4interest.d X?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  P`G;ɒP# Í Northeast Cellular Telephone Co. v. FCC, 897 F.2d 1164 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (citing Wait Radio v. FCC,  {O'418 F.2d 1153, 1158 (D.C. Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972)). Tennessee has failed to show that special circumstances warrant deviation from applicable rules.  Xd4,45. Specifically, although we applaud Tennessee's laudable goal of providing high quality Internet access to all of its public schoolchildren to avoid a "digital divide" among them, we will not waive our rules solely because Tennessee made a good faith attempt, but failed, to follow such rules. In other words, the fact that Tennessee was not able to meet its goal of providing high quality Internet access to all of its public school children in this first year of our schools and libraries program does not establish "special circumstances" warranting deviation from our rules. Given our competing goals of providing universal service support to enhance "access to advanced telecommunications and information services" for classrooms and keeping telephone rates affordable throughout the country, we will not waive our universal service support rules affecting discounts for schools for "good faith" attempts to comply with the rules. Moreover, we also are concerned that the neediest schools  Xg4receive eligible service first, as indicated by our priority rules,eg?c {O' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PaG;ɒP# Í See supra n. 60 . and a waiver in this instance would likely adversely affect a needier school. Therefore, while we have reason to believe that Tennessee followed its procurement rules and awarded a contract for what it terms "Internet access service" to a service provider in such a way as to guarantee the most costeffective service, such actions do not constitute "special circumstances" sufficient to waive applicable rules. "]e0*&&qq"Ԍ X4 E. Other Issues   X4-46. Although ISIS 2000's request for review states that it seeks "partial" review of the Administrator's decision as it relates to the competitive bid requirements, it also states in a footnote that: X[i]n addition, currently pending before the Commission is ISIS 2000's Request for Expedited Declaratory Ruling, filed April 3, 1998, and subsequent pleadings requesting a declaratory ruling from the Commission with respect to the issues raised by the Department's competitive bidding process and subsequent application for funding. ISIS 2000 requests that these issues be resolved in  X 4conjunction with this appeal.f ?c yO| ' I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)#X\  PbG;ɒP# Í ISIS 2000 Request for Review at 2, n. 1.   ISIS 2000's initial pleadings, to which this footnote makes reference, raises broader issues than those for which it ultimately seeks review here. As such, it is not entirely clear if this limited reference is intended as a request for broader review. Regardless of that answer, however, we believe that, through Tennessee's and ENA's requests for review, we have essentially addressed all issues raised by ISIS 2000's initial pleadings; namely, whether Tennessee should receive support for costs related to the ConnecTEN network and ENA's upgraded network. Therefore, we find that, because we have addressed these issues herein, ISIS 2000 1998 Objection, and subsequentlyfiled related pleadings, is rendered moot. We note that ISIS 2000 also originally objected to requests for discounts on technical support for the facilities at issue here. Although not specifically raised in its request for review, we note that the Administrator correctly explained that this technical support will be part of an eligible service to the extent the underlying service is eligible.  X4CN IV. Conclusion  X|4 .47. We therefore deny ISIS 2000's request for review regarding Tennessee's compliance with our competitive bidding processes because we conclude that Tennessee indeed complied with those requirements. Moreover, we grant in part, and deny in part, ENA's and Tennessee's requests for review. Specifically, we find that, because Tennessee owned the ConnecTEN network, and subsequently sold it to ENA, who then used it to provide Internet access service to Tennessee, we will not allow discounts with regard to such transaction for the reasons discussed above. In addition, we find that, because ENA has shown that it is providing an endtoend Internet access service, we will allow discounts on charges for the provision of its Internet access service, including the cost of facilities used to provide such service, except with regard to charges related to the ConnecTEN network.  X#4/48. We require the Bureau, through its oversight role, to work with the Administrator"#Xf0*&&qq!" and Tennessee to implement this decision. We expect that Tennessee will provide, to the extent necessary, any relevant information to the Administrator regarding charges related to the ConnecTEN network that will allow those charges to be removed from its discount requests. We expect the Bureau to actively monitor these activities to ensure that our decision is implemented expeditiously, and in no case should implementation, by way of an Administrator's Decision Letter, be delayed longer than 10 working days from receipt of the information necessary to be provided by Tennessee to implement our decision. In addition, we wish to make clear that the Bureau may waive any rules if, and, to the extent necessary, to effectuate our decision herein.  X14 ` `   X 46% V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă  X 4049. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 14, and 254 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  151154 and 254, and sections 1.3, 54.504, 54.507(f), 54.511, 54.518, and 54.719, 47 C.F.R.  1.3, 54.504, 54.507(f), 54.511, 54.518, and 54.719, the requests for review filed by the Department of Education of the State of Tennessee and Education Networks of America ARE DENIED IN PART and GRANTED  Xy4IN PART as described supra, and the request for review filed by Integrated Systems and  Xd4Internet Solutions, Inc, IS DENIED as described supra. "8f0*&&qqQ"  X4150. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Objection to Application/Request for Expedited Declaratory Ruling filed by Integrated Systems and Internet Solutions, Inc., IS DISMISSED as moot.  X4251. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Bureau, through its oversight role, work  X4with the Administrator and Tennessee to implement this decision.  * ` `  hhCqFEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  hhCqMagalie Roman Salas ` ` hhCqSecretary