ICYMI Technology Channel Sales Professionals (TCSP), the nonprofit trade association representing the interests of technology advisors, has formally submitted comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), urging the agency to protect the role of independent TAs in the federal E-Rate program. The filing addresses an important question raised by the FCC in its current rulemaking: Should independent sales agents and channel partners be excluded from the regulatory definition of an E-Rate “consultant”? TCSP argues that legitimate TAs acting on behalf of service providers should not be classified as E-Rate consultants simply because they are independent contractors rather than direct employees of those providers. We’ve seen this before, argues TCSP, and the industry paid a price. In 2019, FCC regulations effectively shut commission-compensated TAs out of the Rural Health Care (RHC) program. TCSP believes those rules failed to recognize the substantial value TAs bring to healthcare organizations, particularly rural facilities that often lack the resources and expertise to navigate an increasingly complex technology marketplace. The regulations treated sales agents as potential sources of conflicts of interest without adequately distinguishing legitimate provider-side sales activity from consulting activities that influence federally funded procurement decisions, said the group. The result, TCSP argues, was an unnecessary restriction on an established channel that helps healthcare organizations identify technology solutions, understand their options and connect with competing service providers. “We saw what happened in the Rural Health Care program when regulations failed to distinguish between independent technology advisors and consultants who manage the federal funding process,” said Darcee Nelan, Chairwoman of TCSP. “The underlying assumption seemed to be that independent sales agents added little value and represented a potential problem rather than a resource. Anyone who understands our industry knows how far that is from reality.” In its October 13 filing, TCSP explained that independent TAs frequently maintain relationships with multiple service providers and serve as an alternative sales channel for those companies. Their compensation typically comes from the providers whose services they sell, not from the E-Rate program or the amount of federal funding awarded to a school or library. TCSP argues that this is fundamentally different from a consultant hired by an E-Rate applicant to manage its federally regulated procurement and funding process, emphasizing that the FCC should evaluate an individual’s actual activities and responsibilities rather than simply whether that person receives a commission. The FCC’s E-Rate proceeding is one example of why TCSP was formed: to give technology advisors an organized, credible voice in matters that affect their businesses and the customers they serve. Cybersecurity provider Sophos announced the general availability of Sophos AI Defense, which finds the AI tools employees and applications are using, including the ones security teams never approved, and enforces policy wherever they run. Delivered through Sophos Fusion, the AI-native cybersecurity defense system, Sophos AI Defense connects controls on the device, across the network, at sign-in and in the browser into one line of defense, so teams can safely adopt AI faster without adding another disconnected tool to manage. Most organizations already have AI running that they never approved. Sixtynine percent suspect or have evidence that employees are using unsanctioned Agents and AI tools, according to research from Gartner, while a study from the Cloud Security Alliance found that 82 percent have discovered shadow AI agents in their environments in the past year. A full 90 percent of IT leaders surveyed by Komprise are concerned about shadow AI risks, and the problem is about to scale, with IDC projecting 1.3 billion AI agents by 2028. Each of those agents and tools is both a new attack surface and a new way for sensitive data to leave the business. Sophos AI Defense pulls signals from the device, network, identity and browser layers to map AI activity across an environment, then weighs who is acting, how they’re behaving, and what data is involved to separate routine use from activity that warrants action, said the company. Real-time guardrails, designed to help prevent sensitive data exposure, inspect prompts, uploads and other AI interactions as they happen. That activity also flows into the Sophos Fusion system, so security teams using Sophos XDR, along with Sophos MDR analysts, can investigate and respond through the workflows they already know. “Organizations are adopting AI faster than they can secure it, and most security teams can’t answer three basic questions: which AI tools are running, what data is going into them, and whether that activity lines up with policy,” said Kyle Falkenhagen, senior vice president of product management, Sophos. “Sophos AI Defense gives security teams that visibility and the control to act on it, so they can say yes to AI and know exactly what they’re saying yes to.” TCSP Urges FCC to Protect TAs on E-Rate Classification Sophos Defends Against Shadow AI 56 CHANNELVISION | FALL 2026
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4Njc=