------=_Part_1318_27306022.1230061885244-- ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:02:49 -0500 Reply-To: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> Sender: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> From: David Curtis <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Untangle gateway In-Reply-To: A<[log in to unmask]> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't think we will switch off of Dansguardian, but if you have an Untangle rep coming up I would be interested in getting some hands on experience. Thanks, Dave -----Original Message----- From: School Information Technology Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryant Patten Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:50 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Untangle gateway {Since the discussion seems to be continuing on-list, I will respond=20=20 that way} Hey Vince - I haven't had done any setups with differentiated filtering that=20=20 wasn't by IP. I believe it is designed to work relatively easily if=20=20 you have an active directory server. You can set up several different=20= =20 virtual racks - one for each group but I haven't checked that with the=20= =20 new 6.0 version or whether it is included with the new Educational=20=20 Discount Pack. I would recommend that you post your question to the Untangle=20=20 forums. They are free and have been quite responsive to my questions. Finally, I am setting up a webinar training for Vermont educators=20=20 with some Untangle personnel for January. Let me know if you would=20=20 like to participate and ask your question directly. There has been=20=20 some discussion of having an Untangle training session the afternoon=20=20 before FOSSVT (which is April 10th) where people could set up and=20=20 configure an Untangle server. Any interest? Bryant On Dec 20, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: > Bryant, > > A couple of months ago, I posted a message looking for info on=20=20 > Untangle. You seem to have been the one recommended as most=20=20 > knowledgeable. We were, at that time, just getting an Untangle=20=20 > server up and running and were having some success with it, but we=20=20 > needed more granular filtering than the free version would allow.=20=20 > For the last month or so, we've been running an evaluation of 8e6's=20=20 > product: IR3000. It looked extremely promising but has, in=20=20 > practice, been clumsy in handling Mac filtering. > > Anyway, my short-version question is this: can Untangle - in any=20=20 > version - filter by authentication? > > Elaboration: We cannot effectively filter by IP address because=20=20 > many of our computers are shared by faculty and students. What we=20=20 > had hoped to do was have the filter identify people via LDAP and=20=20 > have their filter level be based on their status (e.g., student,=20=20 > staff, faculty). 8e6 was able to do this, but - on the Macs - only=20=20 > with an annoying separate login routine each time they opened a=20=20 > browser. The Mac folks haven't been happy with this - though we=20=20 > might be able to continue with this aggravation if necessary, but I=20=20 > can't see paying big (for us) bucks to 8e6 when perhaps we could=20=20 > achieve the same annoyance level for much less money. :-) > > Back to the shorter question: can Untangle meet our needs? > > Thanks for any help you can offer. > > -Vince > > > > > --=20 > > Vincent Rossano > Information Technology Director > Montpelier Public Schools > Montpelier, VT 05602 > > (802) 225-8690 >>>> On 10/7/2008 at 6:52 AM, Bryant Patten=20=20 >>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> Vince - >> >> I have installed several of these Untangle gateways. Feel free to >> ping me with any questions and I will track down the answers for you. >> >> Bryant Patten >> White Nitro, LLC >> [log in to unmask] >> >> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: >> >>> Folks, >>> >>> Anyone out there have any experience with, or know much about, the >>> open source gateway from Untangle? >>> >>> -Vince ______________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________ This email may contain information protected under the Family=20 Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Health Insurance=20 Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). If this email contains=20 confidential and/or privileged health or student information and you=20 are not entitled to access such information under FERPA or HIPAA,=20 federal regulations require that you destroy this email without=20 reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, ClamAV and Bitdefender and is believed to be clean. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:10:01 -0500 Reply-To: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> Sender: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> From: Bryant Patten <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Untangle AND Dansguardian In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v929.2) Dave - I am a big Dansguardian fan and work with a couple of schools that use both Untangle and Dansguardian as a kind of belt-and-suspenders web filter for schools that want to have a high level of web content protection. Bryant On Dec 23, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Curtis wrote: > I don't think we will switch off of Dansguardian, but if you have an > Untangle rep coming up I would be interested in getting some hands on > experience. > > Thanks, > Dave > > -----Original Message----- > From: School Information Technology Discussion > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryant Patten > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:50 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Untangle gateway > > {Since the discussion seems to be continuing on-list, I will respond > that way} > > Hey Vince - > > I haven't had done any setups with differentiated filtering that > wasn't by IP. I believe it is designed to work relatively easily if > you have an active directory server. You can set up several different > virtual racks - one for each group but I haven't checked that with the > new 6.0 version or whether it is included with the new Educational > Discount Pack. > > I would recommend that you post your question to the Untangle > forums. They are free and have been quite responsive to my questions. > > Finally, I am setting up a webinar training for Vermont educators > with some Untangle personnel for January. Let me know if you would > like to participate and ask your question directly. There has been > some discussion of having an Untangle training session the afternoon > before FOSSVT (which is April 10th) where people could set up and > configure an Untangle server. Any interest? > > Bryant > > > > On Dec 20, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: > >> Bryant, >> >> A couple of months ago, I posted a message looking for info on >> Untangle. You seem to have been the one recommended as most >> knowledgeable. We were, at that time, just getting an Untangle >> server up and running and were having some success with it, but we >> needed more granular filtering than the free version would allow. >> For the last month or so, we've been running an evaluation of 8e6's >> product: IR3000. It looked extremely promising but has, in >> practice, been clumsy in handling Mac filtering. >> >> Anyway, my short-version question is this: can Untangle - in any >> version - filter by authentication? >> >> Elaboration: We cannot effectively filter by IP address because >> many of our computers are shared by faculty and students. What we >> had hoped to do was have the filter identify people via LDAP and >> have their filter level be based on their status (e.g., student, >> staff, faculty). 8e6 was able to do this, but - on the Macs - only >> with an annoying separate login routine each time they opened a >> browser. The Mac folks haven't been happy with this - though we >> might be able to continue with this aggravation if necessary, but I >> can't see paying big (for us) bucks to 8e6 when perhaps we could >> achieve the same annoyance level for much less money. :-) >> >> Back to the shorter question: can Untangle meet our needs? >> >> Thanks for any help you can offer. >> >> -Vince >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Vincent Rossano >> Information Technology Director >> Montpelier Public Schools >> Montpelier, VT 05602 >> >> (802) 225-8690 >>>>> On 10/7/2008 at 6:52 AM, Bryant Patten >>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> Vince - >>> >>> I have installed several of these Untangle gateways. Feel free to >>> ping me with any questions and I will track down the answers for >>> you. >>> >>> Bryant Patten >>> White Nitro, LLC >>> [log in to unmask] >>> >>> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: >>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> Anyone out there have any experience with, or know much about, the >>>> open source gateway from Untangle? >>>> >>>> -Vince > > ______________________________________________________________ > ______________________________________________________________ > This email may contain information protected under the Family > Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Health Insurance > Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). If this email contains > confidential and/or privileged health or student information and you > are not entitled to access such information under FERPA or HIPAA, > federal regulations require that you destroy this email without > reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone. > > > -- > This message has been scanned for viruses and > dangerous content by MailScanner, ClamAV and Bitdefender and is > believed to be clean. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Dec 2008 15:38:59 -0500 Reply-To: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> Sender: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> From: Vincent Rossano <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Untangle AND Dansguardian In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Thank you - again - Bryant, Bjorn and others who've chimed in on this. It = sounds like Untangle would work for us (on the PC side, anyway) if we were = running AD, but we're not. We're still using Novell's eDirectory (nee = NDS) for our directory services on the PC side. 8e6 does a pretty good = job with eDir authentication, so that's a plus for us, but it doesn't have = anyway to automatically authenticate a Mac user - and thats a very BIG = minus. Mac users are very unhappy. As I think I mentioned earlier, it = will read Apple's Open LDAP database, but not automatically. It's that = additional (and, sometimes, multiple) login that makes it so annoying. =20 Other schools must have this situation, i.e., computers shared with both = faculty and students. How do you differentiate in order to provide the = freedom the faculty wants vs. the restriction that CIPA requires for = students?=20 -Vince --=20 Vincent Rossano Information Technology Director Montpelier Public Schools Montpelier, VT 05602 =20 (802) 225-8690 >>> On 12/23/2008 at 3:10 PM, Bryant Patten <[log in to unmask]> = wrote: > Dave - >=20 > I am a big Dansguardian fan and work with a couple of schools that =20 > use both Untangle and Dansguardian as a kind of belt-and-suspenders =20 > web filter for schools that want to have a high level of web content =20 > protection. >=20 > Bryant > On Dec 23, 2008, at 3:02 PM, David Curtis wrote: >=20 >> I don't think we will switch off of Dansguardian, but if you have an >> Untangle rep coming up I would be interested in getting some hands on >> experience. >> >> Thanks, >> Dave >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: School Information Technology Discussion >> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bryant Patten >> Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2008 2:50 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: Untangle gateway >> >> {Since the discussion seems to be continuing on-list, I will respond >> that way} >> >> Hey Vince - >> >> I haven't had done any setups with differentiated filtering that >> wasn't by IP. I believe it is designed to work relatively easily if >> you have an active directory server. You can set up several different >> virtual racks - one for each group but I haven't checked that with the >> new 6.0 version or whether it is included with the new Educational >> Discount Pack. >> >> I would recommend that you post your question to the Untangle >> forums. They are free and have been quite responsive to my questions. >> >> Finally, I am setting up a webinar training for Vermont educators >> with some Untangle personnel for January. Let me know if you would >> like to participate and ask your question directly. There has been >> some discussion of having an Untangle training session the afternoon >> before FOSSVT (which is April 10th) where people could set up and >> configure an Untangle server. Any interest? >> >> Bryant >> >> >> >> On Dec 20, 2008, at 4:48 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: >> >>> Bryant, >>> >>> A couple of months ago, I posted a message looking for info on >>> Untangle. You seem to have been the one recommended as most >>> knowledgeable. We were, at that time, just getting an Untangle >>> server up and running and were having some success with it, but we >>> needed more granular filtering than the free version would allow. >>> For the last month or so, we've been running an evaluation of 8e6's >>> product: IR3000. It looked extremely promising but has, in >>> practice, been clumsy in handling Mac filtering. >>> >>> Anyway, my short-version question is this: can Untangle - in any >>> version - filter by authentication? >>> >>> Elaboration: We cannot effectively filter by IP address because >>> many of our computers are shared by faculty and students. What we >>> had hoped to do was have the filter identify people via LDAP and >>> have their filter level be based on their status (e.g., student, >>> staff, faculty). 8e6 was able to do this, but - on the Macs - only >>> with an annoying separate login routine each time they opened a >>> browser. The Mac folks haven't been happy with this - though we >>> might be able to continue with this aggravation if necessary, but I >>> can't see paying big (for us) bucks to 8e6 when perhaps we could >>> achieve the same annoyance level for much less money. :-) >>> >>> Back to the shorter question: can Untangle meet our needs? >>> >>> Thanks for any help you can offer. >>> >>> -Vince >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> --=20 >>> >>> Vincent Rossano >>> Information Technology Director >>> Montpelier Public Schools >>> Montpelier, VT 05602 >>> >>> (802) 225-8690 >>>>>> On 10/7/2008 at 6:52 AM, Bryant Patten >>>>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> Vince - >>>> >>>> I have installed several of these Untangle gateways. Feel free to >>>> ping me with any questions and I will track down the answers for =20 >>>> you. >>>> >>>> Bryant Patten >>>> White Nitro, LLC >>>> [log in to unmask] >>>> >>>> On Oct 6, 2008, at 9:30 PM, Vincent Rossano wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> Anyone out there have any experience with, or know much about, the >>>>> open source gateway from Untangle? >>>>> >>>>> -Vince >> >> ______________________________________________________________ >> ______________________________________________________________ >> This email may contain information protected under the Family >> Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) or the Health Insurance >> Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). If this email contains >> confidential and/or privileged health or student information and you >> are not entitled to access such information under FERPA or HIPAA, >> federal regulations require that you destroy this email without >> reviewing it and you may not forward it to anyone. >> >> >> -- >> This message has been scanned for viruses and >> dangerous content by MailScanner, ClamAV and Bitdefender and is >> believed to be clean. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 09:42:52 -0500 Reply-To: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> Sender: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> From: "Drescher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Information around new Internet Safety ruling Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_E14E49366166894A9E7CB8A58EF36CB9011B07675DC2ENTMAILBOX0_" MIME-Version: 1.0 --_000_E14E49366166894A9E7CB8A58EF36CB9011B07675DC2ENTMAILBOX0_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello all: I'll repost this in January as well as today... Some questions have arisen concerning the ruling in October on the Broadban= d Data Improvement Act (S. 1492). This ruling contains an online safety man= date for all schools. I want folks to be aware of it and to understand the= implications on schools. I belong to an organization called SETDA, State = Education Technology Directors Association and they have been trying to cla= rify for us in the field the overall language and implications of the bill.= I received this missive just before Christmas.... SETDA has reached out to clarify some of your questions related to the new = internet safety legislation which made changes to the Children's Internet P= rotection Act (CIPA) and applies to districts receiving funding for E-rate = and EETT. This law only applies to schools/district receiving EETT or eRa= te funding. The bullet below identifies the new requirement and additional = information is also available at this link: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumer= facts/cipa.html * Schools and libraries must also certify that, as part of their Interne= t safety policy, they are educating minors about appropriate online behavio= r, including cyber bullying awareness and response and interacting with oth= er individuals on social networking sites and in chat rooms. This following statement is the piece that cuts to the chase... Note that y= ou have a requirement, but districts are allowed to decide how they meet th= at requirement. This could be something tied to your AUP, and also could b= e some language in your new technology plan which you'll be seeing guidelin= es for in early January. "As you have mentioned, the requirement is very broad and this new law was = intended NOT to burden districts. The intention is to leave the decisions = up to the district on how to meet the requirement. Districts can meet it i= n just about any way e.g., putting materials on a website, distributing fli= ers, having an Internet Safety handbook, etc. The only real requirement is= that they have an internet safety education policy and certify that they m= eet it. The FCC nor USAC, the E-rate governing board, has yet to issue any= kind of guidance on the policy and it seems both bodies are unlikely to do= so in the near future." Please share this information with your school leadership and pass along to= any other parties in your district that may have a stake in this arena.... Thanks... Peter Drescher Education Technology Coordinator Vermont Department of Education 120 State St. Montpelier, VT 05620-2501 802.828.5149 (ph) 802.828.6563 (fax) [log in to unmask] --_000_E14E49366166894A9E7CB8A58EF36CB9011B07675DC2ENTMAILBOX0_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello=20 all:
 
I'll repo= st this in=20 January as well as today...
 
Some ques= tions have=20 arisen concerning the ruling in October on the Broadband Data Improvement A= ct=20 (S. 1492). This ruling contains an online safety mandate for all schools.&n= bsp;=20 I want folks to be aware of it and to understand the implications on=20 schools.  I belong to an organization called SETDA, State Education=20 Technology Directors Association and they have been trying to clarify for u= s in=20 the field the overall language and implications of the bill.  I receiv= ed=20 this missive just before Christmas....
 
SETDA has reached out to clarify some of = your=20 questions related to the new internet safety legislation which made changes= to=20 the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and applies to districts rece= iving=20 funding for E-rate and EETT.   This law only applies to=20 schools/district receiving EETT or eRate funding. The bullet below identifi= es=20 the new requirement and additional information is also available at this li= nk:=20 http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html= =20

This following statement is the piece that cuts to= the=20 chase... Note that you have a requirement, but districts are allowed to= =20 decide how they meet that requirement.  This could be something t= ied=20 to your AUP, and also could be some language in your new technology plan wh= ich=20 you'll be seeing guidelines for in early January. =20
 
"As yo= u have=20 mentioned, the requirement is very broad and this new law was intended NOT = to=20 burden districts.  The intention is to leave the decisions up to the=20 district on how to meet the requirement.  Districts can meet it in jus= t=20 about any way e.g., putting materials on a website, distributing fliers, ha= ving=20 an Internet Safety handbook, etc.  The only real requirement is that t= hey=20 have an internet safety education policy and certify that they meet it.=20  The FCC nor USAC, the E-rate governing board, has yet to issue any ki= nd of=20 guidance on the policy and it seems both bodies are unlikely to do so in th= e=20 near future."
 
 
Please share this in= formation=20 with your school leadership and pass along to any other parties in your dis= trict=20 that may have a stake in this arena....
 
Thanks...
 
Peter Drescher
Education Technology=20 Coordinator
Vermont Department of=20 Education
120 State St.=
Montpelier, VT =20 05620-2501
802.828.5149 (ph)<= /EM>
802.828.6563 (fax)=
[log in to unmask]
 
--_000_E14E49366166894A9E7CB8A58EF36CB9011B07675DC2ENTMAILBOX0_-- ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:23:09 -0500 Reply-To: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> Sender: School Information Technology Discussion <[log in to unmask]> From: Ellen Thompson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Information around new Internet Safety ruling In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=__PartDFF7C34D.0__=" This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to properly handle MIME multipart messages. --=__PartDFF7C34D.0__= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks Peter, I'll keep this close at hand! Ellen =20 Ellen A. Thompson, Ed.D. Director of Instruction and Information Services Essex Town School District 58 Founders Road Essex Jct., VT 05452 802-878-8168 >>> "Drescher, Peter" <[log in to unmask]> 12/29/2008 9:42 AM >>> Hello all: =20 I'll repost this in January as well as today... =20 Some questions have arisen concerning the ruling in October on the = Broadband Data Improvement Act (S. 1492). This ruling contains an online = safety mandate for all schools. I want folks to be aware of it and to = understand the implications on schools. I belong to an organization = called SETDA, State Education Technology Directors Association and they = have been trying to clarify for us in the field the overall language and = implications of the bill. I received this missive just before Christmas...= . =20 SETDA has reached out to clarify some of your questions related to the new = internet safety legislation which made changes to the Children's Internet = Protection Act (CIPA) and applies to districts receiving funding for = E-rate and EETT. This law only applies to schools/district receiving = EETT or eRate funding. The bullet below identifies the new requirement and = additional information is also available at this link: http://www.fcc.gov/c= gb/consumerfacts/cipa.html=20 Schools and libraries must also certify that, as part of their Internet = safety policy, they are educating minors about appropriate online = behavior, including cyber bullying awareness and response and interacting = with other individuals on social networking sites and in chat rooms.=20 This following statement is the piece that cuts to the chase... Note that = you have a requirement, but districts are allowed to decide how they meet = that requirement. This could be something tied to your AUP, and also = could be some language in your new technology plan which you'll be seeing = guidelines for in early January. =20 =20 "As you have mentioned, the requirement is very broad and this new law was = intended NOT to burden districts. The intention is to leave the decisions = up to the district on how to meet the requirement. Districts can meet it = in just about any way e.g., putting materials on a website, distributing = fliers, having an Internet Safety handbook, etc. The only real requirement= is that they have an internet safety education policy and certify that = they meet it. The FCC nor USAC, the E-rate governing board, has yet to = issue any kind of guidance on the policy and it seems both bodies are = unlikely to do so in the near future."=20 =20 =20 Please share this information with your school leadership and pass along = to any other parties in your district that may have a stake in this = arena.... =20 Thanks... =20 Peter Drescher Education Technology Coordinator Vermont Department of Education 120 State St. Montpelier, VT 05620-2501 802.828.5149 (ph) 802.828.6563 (fax) [log in to unmask] =20 --=__PartDFF7C34D.0__= Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: HTML
Thanks Peter,
I'll keep this close at hand!
Ellen
 
Ellen A. Thompson, Ed.D.
Director of Instruction and Information = Services
Essex Town School District
58 Founders Road
Essex Jct., = VT 05452
802-878-8168


>>> "Drescher, Peter" = <[log in to unmask]> 12/29/2008 9:42 AM >>>
Hello = all:
 
I'll = repost this in January as well as today...
 
Some = questions have arisen concerning the ruling in October on the Broadband = Data Improvement Act (S. 1492). This ruling contains an online safety = mandate for all schools.  I want folks to be aware of it and to = understand the implications on schools.  I belong to an organization = called SETDA, State Education Technology Directors Association and they = have been trying to clarify for us in the field the overall language and = implications of the bill.  I received this missive just before = Christmas....
 
SETDA has reached out to clarify some of = your questions related to the new internet safety legislation which made = changes to the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) and applies to = districts receiving funding for E-rate and EETT.   This law = only applies to schools/district receiving EETT or eRate funding. = The bullet below identifies the new requirement and additional information = is also available at this link: http://www.fcc.gov= /cgb/consumerfacts/cipa.html

  • Schools = and libraries must also certify that, as part of their Internet safety = policy, they are educating minors about appropriate online behavior, = including cyber bullying awareness and response and interacting with other = individuals on social networking sites and in chat rooms.
This following statement is the piece that cuts = to the chase... Note that you have a requirement, but districts are = allowed to decide how they meet that requirement.  This could be = something tied to your AUP, and also could be some language in your new = technology plan which you'll be seeing guidelines for in early January.&nbs= p;
=  
"As = you have mentioned, the requirement is very broad and this new law was = intended NOT to burden districts.  The intention is to leave the = decisions up to the district on how to meet the requirement.  District= s can meet it in just about any way e.g., putting materials on a website, = distributing fliers, having an Internet Safety handbook, etc.  The = only real requirement is that they have an internet safety education = policy and certify that they meet it.  The FCC nor USAC, the E-rate = governing board, has yet to issue any kind of guidance on the policy and = it seems both bodies are unlikely to do so in the near future."
=  
 
Please share this = information with your school leadership and pass along to any other = parties in your district that may have a stake in this arena....
 
Thanks...
 
Peter Drescher
Education Technology = Coordinator
Vermont Department of = Education
120 State St.=
Montpelier, VT  = 05620-2501
802.828.5149 (ph)<= /EM>
802.828.6563 (fax)=
 
--=__PartDFF7C34D.0__=--