Overview
Title
To provide that certain local parks are eligible for E-Rate support, to provide that local parks are eligible for the loan, lease, or transfer of certain excess research equipment, and to direct the Secretary of Labor to carry out a program to make grants for conducting technology training programs in local parks, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 8494, called the Technology in the Parks Act of 2024, is a plan to help local parks get better internet and new computers by giving them special support and chances for technology training, like learning coding and cybersecurity.
Summary AI
H.R. 8494, known as the Technology in the Parks Act of 2024, aims to make local parks eligible for support under several programs. It proposes allowing local parks to qualify for E-Rate support, which helps provide internet access at discounted rates. The bill also enables local parks to receive transfers of excess research equipment and establishes a grant program through the Secretary of Labor. This grant program would fund technology training programs in parks, focusing on skills like coding, cybersecurity, and artificial intelligence.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, known as the "Technology in the Parks Act of 2024," aims to expand technological resources and training opportunities in local parks across the United States. The bill proposes to make certain local parks eligible for E-Rate support, which helps schools and libraries gain access to affordable telecommunications and internet services. Additionally, local parks could receive excess research equipment through an amendment to an existing technology innovation act, facilitating the transfer of unused federal equipment. The bill also directs the Secretary of Labor to offer competitive grants to non-profit organizations, creating technology training programs in parks that could train individuals in a variety of fields, such as coding and cybersecurity.
Summary of Significant Issues
Several key issues emerge from the bill's language. Firstly, the definition of "covered local park" is introduced in a context that references a new act within the bill itself, leading to potential ambiguity over which parks qualify for these benefits. Moreover, the quick 14-day timeline for the Federal Communications Commission to establish internet safety regulations for these parks may not allow for thoroughly considered and effective rules.
The eligibility for local parks to receive excess research equipment lacks constraints on usage, raising concerns over potential misuse or lack of oversight. Additionally, the financial structure of the grants, capped at covering only 10 percent of the total program costs, might not provide sufficient incentive for non-profits, particularly smaller ones, to apply.
Furthermore, the broad criteria for what constitutes a "qualified technology training program" could lead to inconsistent applications, potentially excluding worthwhile programs that don't fit neatly into the provided definitions. Lastly, the provision allowing for the construction of physical structures in parks might lead to significant costs that detract from the primary goal of training.
Impact on the Public
The bill's broader impact could see increased access to technology and training for individuals frequenting local parks, potentially enhancing digital literacy and job opportunities within local communities. Public parks could transform into community hubs for learning modern technological skills, aligning with growing trends towards digital inclusiveness. However, if the issues raised are not appropriately addressed, the benefits might not materialize as intended. Ambiguities and insufficient funding could hinder effective implementation, limiting access and reducing overall public utility.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
For local governments, the prospect of incorporating technology programs into park facilities could create new public service opportunities, fostering community engagement and educational advancement. However, they may face challenges due to undefined parameters regarding park eligibility and use of excess equipment, requiring careful navigation through new regulatory frameworks.
Non-profit organizations, as the centerpiece for administering grant programs, stand to play an essential role in executing the bill's vision. Nonetheless, the restrictively low federal funding share may deter many from participation, especially those without substantial alternative funding.
Technology companies could see a positive impact, as increased public knowledge and interest in technology may expand future markets for their products and services. Educational institutions might also benefit from partnerships with local parks, providing students with practical environments for applying technological concepts. However, if implementation is uneven or poorly managed, these stakeholders might encounter administrative hurdles and costs that outweigh potential gains.
In conclusion, while the "Technology in the Parks Act of 2024" holds promise for expanding technological outreach, the specific concerns outlined must be addressed to ensure it achieves its goals effectively.
Issues
The ambiguous definition of 'covered local park,' which references the Technology in the Parks Act of 2024 that may not yet exist or be accessible, creates uncertainty about eligibility and the scope of the parks included (Section 2).
The short 14-day timeline for the FCC to establish internet safety requirements for covered local parks may be unrealistic and could result in inadequate or rushed regulations (Section 2).
The eligibility expansion for excess research equipment to include 'local parks' lacks specificity on the intended use, opening possibilities for misuse or inadequate oversight (Section 3).
The Federal share of the grant is limited to 10 percent, potentially insufficient to incentivize smaller non-profits to undertake technology training programs (Section 4).
The broad definition of 'qualified technology training program' may lead to varied interpretations and does not provide clear criteria, potentially excluding effective programs that do not meet these criteria (Section 4).
The construction of physical structures within local parks as part of technology training programs may lead to significant expenditures that diverge from the primary goal of training (Section 4).
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill introduces the short title, officially naming it as the “Technology in the Parks Act of 2024”.
2. E-Rate support for covered local parks Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The amendment to Section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 includes "covered local parks" alongside libraries and health care providers in receiving E-Rate support, allowing them to transfer telecommunications services for technology training programs. It also requires the creation of internet safety rules for parks similar to those for schools and libraries, and defines "covered local park" as a park with a contract for such programs.
3. Loan, lease, or transfer of certain excess research equipment Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 to broaden the types of organizations that can receive excess research equipment to include local parks. It also defines a 'local park' as a park owned and maintained by a local government.
4. Grants for technology in the park Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The bill establishes a program where the Secretary of Labor provides competitive grants to non-profit organizations to cover 10% of the costs for running technology training programs in local parks. These programs aim to train individuals in subjects like coding, cybersecurity, and web development and are meant to complement existing funding sources, not replace them.