On June 4, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) circulated a combined Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) that could fundamentally reshape the E-Rate program—the federal Universal Service Fund (USF) program that has subsidized telecommunications and internet access for schools and libraries since 1997. The document raises questions not previously on the E-Rate agenda: whether the program has fulfilled its mission and should be narrowed or ended, whether federally subsidized connectivity has contributed to excessive screen use by children, and whether the agency has authority to restrict how connected devices are used inside school buildings.

The affected parties are broad and include: the roughly 101,500 schools and 11,600 libraries currently receiving E-Rate funding; the students and library patrons they serve (including those in low-income and rural communities who depend most heavily on subsidized connectivity); parents and guardians seeking more control over their children's technology use; educational technology vendors; service providers; and the consultants who help institutions navigate the E-Rate application process.

The FCC will vote on launching this proceeding at its June 25 open meeting. Assuming the item is approved and after publication in the Federal Register, stakeholders will have 30 days to file comments and 60 days to file reply comments.

What Is E-Rate?

The E-Rate program—formally the "schools and libraries universal service support mechanism"—provides eligible schools, libraries, and consortia with discounts of 20% to 90% on two categories of services: "category one" services that provide broadband connectivity to a school or library building, and "category two" services that provide connectivity within buildings (such as Wi-Fi access points, routers, switches, and managed internal broadband). Higher discounts go to the most economically disadvantaged institutions, with eligibility and discount rates determined in part by participation in the National School Lunch Program (NSLP).

For funding year (FY) 2025 (July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026), applicants requested approximately $1.806 billion for category one services and $1.418 billion for category two services—both figures well below the FY 2026 program cap of $5.2 billion. 

The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA)—enacted in 2000 and codified at sections 254(h)(5)–(6) and (l) of the Communications Act—requires schools and libraries receiving E-Rate support to certify that they are enforcing an internet safety policy, operating content filters to block obscene material, child pornography, and content harmful to minors, and providing public notice before adopting internet safety policies. Schools (but not libraries) must also monitor the online activities of minors and educate them about appropriate online behavior.

What's the Problem Here?

The FCC does not offer a single, unified problem statement in this document. Instead, the document identifies four distinct concerns and bundles them into one proceeding. Understanding each separately matters because they point toward different remedies and affect different stakeholders.

1. Children may be using E-Rate-funded networks for purposes Congress never intended.

The FCC's threshold concern is whether E-Rate-funded connectivity is actually being used "for educational purposes," as section 254(h)(1)(B) of the Communications Act requires. The document cites research suggesting that children frequently use school-issued devices and school networks for non-educational activities—watching videos, using social media, playing games—sometimes for more than an hour per day during school hours. The document also cites a 2026 Surgeon General's advisory warning about the harms of excessive screen use among children and notes that, as screen use in classrooms has risen, reading and math scores have declined. The FCC frames this as both a child-safety concern and a program-compliance problem: if E-Rate-funded networks are used to deliver content that is not "integral, immediate, and proximate to the education of students," the program may be subsidizing harm rather than learning.

2. The program may have accomplished its original mission—and kept growing anyway.

When Congress established E-Rate in 1996, the explicit problem was that schools and libraries lacked basic access to the internet. The FCC now says that problem is largely solved: some data sources report that 99.3 percent of American schools have high-speed broadband, and demand for E-Rate funds has consistently fallen below the program's annual cap in recent years, even as that cap has grown. At the same time, the FCC notes that the program's eligible services, which the FCC itself determines, have expanded well beyond what Congress originally envisioned—most recently to include school bus Wi-Fi and off-premises hotspot lending, both of which were reversed by the FCC in 2025 as inconsistent with the statute. The FCC frames this as a question of statutory fidelity and fiscal responsibility: if the program's core connectivity objective has been achieved, and if recent expansions exceeded congressional authorization, is continued spending at current levels justified?

3. Existing child safety requirements may not reflect how schools and libraries actually operate today.

CIPA was enacted in 2000, when school-owned computers were the norm and personal devices were rare. Today, students routinely bring their own internet-capable devices to school and connect them to E-Rate-funded networks—devices that current FCC rules do not require to be filtered. The FCC also notes that its 2011 ruling that social media platforms are not categorically "harmful to minors" under CIPA predates what is now a substantial body of research on social media's effects on children.  The problem, as the FCC frames it, is that CIPA's requirements may have been interpreted too narrowly — and that the statute itself, read under the Supreme Court's 2024 Loper Bright decision requiring agencies to adopt only the "best reading" of statutory text, may require a different approach than the one currently in effect.

4. Consultants who help schools and libraries navigate E-Rate operate with almost no oversight.

A 2020 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report found that E-Rate consultants—non-employees who assist applicants and service providers with applications, competitive bidding, and audits—can "exert great influence" over the program while facing no direct oversight from either the FCC or the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), the nonprofit that administers E-Rate. The FCC cites multiple prosecutions of consultants who defrauded the program through kickbacks, overbilling, and conflicts of interest with service providers. The problem is structural: there is no formal definition of who counts as a consultant, no registration system for individual consultants, no mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest, and no prohibition on fee arrangements that give consultants a financial incentive to maximize an applicant's E-Rate commitment rather than serve the applicant's actual needs.

Three of the four problems (1, 2, and 3) point to narrowing, tightening, or reorienting the E-Rate program. The fourth (consultant oversight) is a program integrity concern that could apply regardless of the program's size or scope. The FCC treats all four as part of a single proceeding, but they rest on independent evidence and would justify independent remedies.

One tension runs through all four: the students most dependent on E-Rate subsidies are disproportionately from low-income families who have fewer alternatives for connectivity and fewer resources to absorb changes to program eligibility or structure. The document acknowledges this, but does not analyze how proposed remedies would affect those students. 

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Has E-Rate Accomplished Its Mission?

The FCC begins with a threshold question: given that virtually all schools now report having broadband connectivity and Wi-Fi, has E-Rate fulfilled the mission Congress set in 1996? The FCC notes that demand for E-Rate funds has consistently fallen below the program cap in recent years, even as that cap has grown. The FCC seeks comment on whether the program should be "limited or sunset," whether Congress intended E-Rate to operate indefinitely, and whether funding for specific services—including special construction, dark fiber, and self-provisioned networks—remains warranted given other federal broadband programs, particularly the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program.

The NPRM asks whether the legal presumption—established in 2003—that activities on school or library property serve an educational purpose should be reversed. The NPRM further seeks comment on whether E-Rate funding should be phased out for schools and libraries in areas with the lowest NSLP participation rates, limited to rural areas or areas served by a single broadband provider, and whether the discount rate structure should be modified to redirect funds away from large, well-resourced urban districts toward rural or higher-need institutions.

Children, Screen Time, and E-Rate

The NPRM addresses what the FCC calls growing concern about excessive screen use by children in school settings. The FCC cites research linking elevated screen time to declines in academic performance, language development, cognitive and social development, and mental health—while also acknowledging that screen time associated with high-quality educational content, supervised by an adult, can have benefits.

The FCC notes that more than half of children currently use a school computer for 1 to 4 hours per day, with a quarter using screens for more than 4 hours during the school day. Expert guidelines recommend no screen time for children under 18–24 months, no more than 1 hour per day for children ages 2–5, and a maximum of 2 hours per day for children 5 and older.

The FCC seeks comment on:

• Whether it should require, as a condition of E-Rate funding, that schools offer parents and guardians a meaningful opportunity to opt their children out of screen-based instruction during the school day.
• Whether it has statutory authority under section 254 of the Communications Act to impose such a requirement. 
• Whether Head Start and pre-kindergarten facilities and students should continue to be eligible for E-Rate support, given expert recommendations that children under 5 should have very limited internet access. In FY 2025, approximately $15.5 million was committed for Head Start and $43.9 million for pre-kindergarten services. The FCC asks whether those students should be excluded from E-Rate applications or whether eligibility should be limited to Head Start and pre-K facilities that are part of a public school district. 
• Whether the FCC has statutory authority beyond CIPA to limit screen time or mandate parental controls on E-Rate-funded networks. 

Re-Examining CIPA

The NPRM proposes to revisit the FCC's interpretation of CIPA. Several specific questions are raised:

• Scope of "its computers": CIPA currently requires filters and safety policies "with respect to any of its computers with Internet access." The FCC currently interprets this to mean only devices owned by the school or library. The FCC asks whether that interpretation remains valid in an era when students bring personal devices to school and connect them to E-Rate-funded networks, and whether CIPA protections should apply to any device accessing the internet through an E-Rate-funded network, regardless of ownership.
• Network-level filtering: The FCC asks whether technology protection measures should be applied at the network level—filtering all traffic on E-Rate-funded networks—rather than only at the device level. The FCC also asks whether network-level filters should include features for limiting screen time.
• Social media: In 2011, the FCC concluded that social networking websites are not per se "harmful to minors" under CIPA and do not have to be blocked to receive E-Rate funding. The FCC now asks whether it should revisit that conclusion in light of changes in the social media landscape since 2011 and more recent research on its impact on children.
• "Minor" definition: CIPA regulations currently define "minor" as any individual under age 17. The FCC asks whether it should also define "child" (potentially using the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) definition of under 13) and whether protections should be age-differentiated. 
• Internet safety policies: The FCC asks whether it should collect each school's and library's CIPA-required internet safety policy, whether those policies should be made publicly available, and whether the existing template policies widely used by schools actually satisfy the statutory requirements.
• Public hearing requirements: CIPA requires schools and libraries to hold at least one public hearing before adopting an internet safety policy. The FCC asks whether additional hearings should be required each time a policy is amended, and whether funding should be withheld or recovered if a school or library fails to provide the required public notice.

The Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

E-Rate Consultants

The FNPRM addresses the role of consultants in the E-Rate program and proposes to strengthen its oversight of them. As noted above, a 2020 GAO report found that consultants' potential to "exert great influence" on competitive bidding, combined with a lack of direct FCC or USAC oversight, creates opportunities for fraud. The FCC cites multiple prosecutions and debarments of consultants who engaged in fraud, kickbacks, and overbilling.

The FNPRM proposes:

1. A formal definition of "consultant": any non-employee who assists an applicant or service provider with any aspect of E-Rate participation, whether or not for a fee. 
2. An annual consultant certification and disclosure form (FCC Form 5654): each consultant would be required to certify compliance with E-Rate program rules and disclose any conflicts of interest, including associations with service providers. Applicants and service providers who do not use a consultant would also be required to certify that fact. 
3. A consultant registration database: modeled on the Lifeline program's Representative Accountability Database (RAD), it would assign every individual consultant a unique Consultant Registration Number (CRN). Currently, CRNs are assigned at the firm level; individual consultants have no unique identifier. The database would require each consultant to provide their full name, address, date of birth, and last four digits of their Social Security Number. Consultants unable to obtain a CRN could not access USAC systems. (Paras. 53–58.)
4. Prohibition on percentage-based fee arrangements: the FCC proposes to bar consultants from charging fees based on a percentage of the applicant's E-Rate commitment or disbursement, on the grounds that such arrangements incentivize over-requesting. (Para. 59.)
5. Mandatory anti-fraud training: required before a consultant can access USAC systems, and annually thereafter.

Streamlining E-Rate Administration

The FNPRM seeks comment on additional administrative proposals including: requiring service providers to file the annual FCC Form 473 (Service Provider Annual Certification) by June 30 or face suspension from the program; requiring consortium members to certify their own E-Rate rule compliance individually (rather than relying solely on the consortium lead); requiring written, perjury-certified service substitution requests; and exploring price caps on reimbursements based on USAC open data and market benchmarks.

Sunsetting Emergency Connectivity Fund Rules

The FCC proposes to delete most rules governing the Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF)—a $7.171 billion program created in 2021 to help schools and libraries provide devices and connectivity to students and library patrons during the COVID-19 pandemic—from the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The ECF program's purchasing deadline was June 30, 2024, and the applicable funding windows have closed. The FCC proposes deleting Subpart Q sections 54.1700–1710, 1712, and 1716, while delegating to the Wireline Competition Bureau (WCB) the authority to delete remaining rules as they become obsolete. The proposal explicitly preserves enforcement authority for the periods when the rules were active, and ECF participants would continue to be required to retain documentation.

What Happens Next

The FCC is scheduled to vote on whether to launch this proceeding at its open meeting on June 25, 2026. The document circulated on June 4 is a draft, not yet an official FCC action. The issues raised and questions asked above remain [theoretically] subject to change before the vote.

If the FCC adopts the NPRM and FNPRM at the June 25 meeting, the items will be published in the Federal Register [that could take 4 to 6 weeks], which triggers the formal comment clock. Under the deadlines set in the document, initial comments will be due 30 days after Federal Register publication, and reply comments—responses to what others have filed—will be due 60 days after publication. The FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) at fcc.gov/ecfs accepts public filings in all open proceedings; the relevant docket numbers are WC Docket No. 26-133 (children's screen time), WC Docket No. 13-184 (E-Rate modernization), WC Docket No. 21-93 (Emergency Connectivity Fund), and WC Docket No. 21-455 (competitive bidding).

There are many stakeholders in this proceeding: K–12 school districts; public library systems and state library agencies; state broadband and education technology offices; organizations focused on digital equity and the connectivity needs of low-income students; telecommunications service providers and educational technology vendors that participate in the E-Rate market; E-Rate consultants; and parent and guardian advocacy groups.

The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring that all people in the U.S. have access to competitive, High-Performance Broadband regardless of where they live or who they are. We believe communication policy - rooted in the values of access, equity, and diversity - has the power to deliver new opportunities and strengthen communities.

© Benton Institute for Broadband & Society 2026. Redistribution of this email publication - both internally and externally - is encouraged if it includes this copyright statement.

For subscribe/unsubscribe info, please email headlinesATbentonDOTorg

Kevin Taglang
Executive Editor, Communications-related Headlines
Benton Institute
for Broadband & Society
1041 Ridge Rd, Unit 214
Wilmette, IL 60091
847-220-4531
headlines AT benton DOT org

Share this edition:

Broadband Delivers Opportunities and Strengthens Communities