The FCC has opened a proceeding that could dismantle one of the most successful federal education programs ever created. Benton filed comments telling the Commission exactly what is at stake—and why it must not proceed.

The Save Our E-Rate campaign—led by the American Library Association (ALA) and the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition—has the right name for this moment. On June 25, 2026, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) raising fundamental questions about the future of the Universal Service Fund's Schools and Libraries program. Known as E-Rate, this program has connected more than 96 percent of America's public schools and nearly three-quarters of its public libraries to high-speed internet. Now, for the first time in the program's nearly 30-year history, the FCC is asking whether E-Rate has "fulfilled its mission"—and whether it should be sunset, restructured, or made conditional on new federal mandates governing how children use technology in schools.

Yesterday, Benton filed comments in this proceeding. Our answer is unambiguous: the FCC cannot legally sunset the E-Rate, and the Commission lacks the authority to transform a connectivity program into a federal school technology policy. Here is why this matters—and what we told the FCC.

E-Rate by the numbers

• More than $69 billion invested in school and library connectivity since 1996
• 54 million students served; 106,000 schools and 12,500 libraries connected
• 96.3% of public schools currently receive E-Rate support
• Nearly 60% of students in E-Rate-supported schools qualify for the National School Lunch Program
• Almost half of school districts still do not meet the FCC's own 1 Mbps-per-student bandwidth goal

A Program That Works

When Congress created E-Rate as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, only 3 percent of classrooms had internet access. The transformation since then did not happen because markets solved the problem. It happened because Congress created a permanent, sustained affordability program—and because schools, libraries, and advocates spent three decades making it work.

The FCC's NPRM does not claim E-Rate is wasteful or inefficient. That is because it isn't. E-Rate is subject to rigorous audits and falls well below the statutory threshold that identifies programs susceptible to improper payment risk. By any measure of public investment, E-Rate works.

The Mission Is Not Complete

The FCC asks whether E-Rate has "fulfilled its mission." Yes, schools are connected. But connectivity demands are accelerating faster than infrastructure investment. Many school districts still do not meet the FCC's bandwidth targets. Eighteen percent of high school students and 16 percent of middle school students report they sometimes cannot complete schoolwork because they lack internet access outside of school. More than 40 percent of Title I teachers avoid assigning internet-dependent work because they fear it will deepen inequalities.

Benton agrees with a new "consensus-driven roadmap" that argues that universal service should be understood as an ongoing responsibility, not a goal to achieve.

Sunsetting E-Rate Is Not Permitted

The FCC's suggestion that it might sunset or constrain the E-Rate program rests on a legal premise that does not hold. Section 254 of the Telecommunications Act is a congressional mandate, not a discretionary program the FCC can terminate when it decides the mission is complete. The statute uses the word "shall" throughout. It defines universal service as "an evolving level of telecommunications services"—language that is inherently forward-looking and incompatible with elimination. The word "evolve" does not mean "go extinct."

The 1996 Conference Report accompanying the legislation makes Congress's intent plain: the program was designed to ensure "no one is barred from benefiting from the power of the Information Age." That is a mandate with no expiration date. The FCC cannot read a sunset into language that contains none.

The FCC Cannot Mandate Screen-Time Limits

The most novel—and most troubling—aspect of this proceeding is the FCC's proposal to condition E-Rate funding on new requirements related to children's screen time: per-day limits on E-Rate network use, restrictions on screen-based instruction, and opt-out requirements for parents. The Benton Institute for Broadband & Society shares the FCC's commitment to child safety. But these proposals exceed the Commission's statutory authority.

Section 254 is a funding mechanism, not a curriculum standard. The Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) explicitly reserves to local school boards—not the FCC—the authority to determine what content is inappropriate for minors. CIPA expressly prohibits any federal agency from establishing criteria for such determinations. The FCC cannot transform a broadband subsidy program into an instrument of federal control over classroom instruction.

Notably, the Department of Health and Human Services' screen use advisory—cited repeatedly in the NPRM—explicitly states that it "does not set any specific policy mandates or restrictions on screen use in schools." Even the National Education Association (NEA), whose members overwhelmingly support school-level device policies, found in a 2024 survey of nearly 3,000 educators that members "show little support for the federal government developing such policy."

Parents, educators, and local communities should make these decisions.

Where Benton Agrees with the Commission

Our comments are not simply oppositional. We strongly support expanding E-Rate's eligible services to include cybersecurity technologies. The program's $200 million cybersecurity pilot was oversubscribed by a factor of 18(!)—demand that reflects the real and growing threat that AI-enabled cyberattacks pose to school systems and the sensitive data of millions of children. We support clarifying CIPA's monitoring provision to prevent the invasive surveillance of students that an overbroad reading of the statute has produced. We support reducing administrative burdens on smaller applicants, particularly libraries. And we support updating the FCC's school connectivity targets to reflect the growing bandwidth demands of AI and other evolving technologies.

What We Are Asking the FCC to Do

Benton's comments ask the FCC to reject proposals to sunset, geographically limit, or fundamentally restructure E-Rate. We ask the FCC to reject federal per-day screen-time limits on E-Rate-funded networks. We ask the FCC to maintain Head Start and pre-kindergarten eligibility. And we ask the FCC to stop using child safety concerns as a vehicle for restricting constitutionally protected speech in schools and libraries.

The FCC's path forward is clear: modernize and strengthen E-Rate to meet the demands of an AI-driven economy, expand cybersecurity protections, and trust parents, educators, and local communities to make the instructional decisions that the law reserves to them.

The Save Our E-Rate campaign has the right name. This is a program worth saving—and a fight worth having.

Revati Prasad is Executive Director of the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society. 

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