FCC Proposed. Rule Changes
The FCC Erate NPRM: What is at Stake and What You Can Do About It
By Jill Stone June 25, 2026
The Federal Communications Commission has opened a comment period on one of the most sweeping reviews of the E-Rate program in its nearly 30-year history. The proposals on the table — including potential program elimination, restrictions on consultant fee structures, and federal control over classroom technology use — could fundamentally change how schools and libraries access and use E-Rate funding.
This is not the time to leave the advocacy to others. The FCC needs to hear directly from the schools and libraries that depend on E-Rate every day. On June 23, 2026, I filed formal comments in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, and 21-455, urging the Commission to reject these proposals outright. Here is what's at stake — and how you can add your voice before the window closes.
What Is E-Rate, and Why Does It Matter?
Since its creation under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the E-Rate program has distributed approximately $4.94 billion annually to schools and libraries, providing broadband connectivity discounts of 20% to 90% — with the deepest discounts going to the highest-need, most rural communities.
Schools are connected today because E-Rate made it affordable. The FCC's suggestion that program success is grounds for elimination gets cause and effect exactly backward. The question is not whether schools are connected now — it is whether they could maintain that connectivity, sustain internal network infrastructure, and continue serving rural and low-income students without E-Rate funding. For thousands of districts, the answer is clearly no.
The Supreme Court upheld E-Rate's funding mechanism in June 2025, resolving years of constitutional uncertainty. This is a moment to build on that stability — not to squander it.
Three Proposals That Demand a Response
1. Program Elimination or Radical Restructuring
The NPRM asks whether E-Rate should be terminated or limited to certain geographic areas or types of recipients. I urge the Commission to reject both possibilities unequivocally.
E-Rate funding has been instrumental in ensuring school districts across the country can provide reliable, affordable, and equitable access to the technology infrastructure that supports teaching and learning. Without this support, districts will face impossible choices between maintaining critical technology infrastructure and funding classrooms, teachers, and students.
The statutory mandate under Section 254(h) of the Communications Act is clear: the Commission shall ensure ongoing, affordable access to advanced telecommunications services for schools and libraries. That mandate does not expire when connectivity reaches a threshold. Eliminating or gutting E-Rate would directly conflict with this statutory obligation — and would undo nearly three decades of progress.
What we're asking: Remove paragraphs 12 and 18 from the final order — the provisions that ask whether E-Rate should be terminated or geographically restricted. These questions exceed the Commission's statutory authority and do not belong in a rulemaking proceeding.
2. LIMITING CONSULTANT FEE STRUCTURES
The NPRM proposes to prohibit percentage-based fee arrangements between E-Rate applicants and their consultants. On its face, this sounds like a consumer protection measure. In practice, it would restrict the choices available to schools and libraries when accessing professional support — and would harm precisely the institutions the program is designed to serve.
E-Rate is a complex federal program. Navigating competitive bidding requirements, CIPA compliance, USAC coordination, Form 470/471 filings, BEAR reimbursements, and aggressive audit standards requires real expertise. The consequences of a mistake can be catastrophic: complete denial of funding, repayment demands, and potential debarment. Applicants working with professional consultants achieve approval rates of approximately 98%, compared to roughly 70% for those who go it alone.
Schools should have the freedom to evaluate and select consulting support based on their individual needs, resources, and operational circumstances. A single federally mandated approach to consultant compensation fails to account for differences among schools and libraries or for the various ways applicants access the expertise needed to participate successfully in E-Rate.
The Commission should focus on transparency, accountability, and targeting misconduct — not on restricting the flexibility of compliant schools and libraries. If there is documented evidence of fraud, the FCC should pursue targeted enforcement, not a blunt-instrument prohibition that punishes law-abiding applicants nationwide. And any final rule should make clear that licensed attorneys advising on E-Rate compliance are excluded from the definition of "consultant."
What we're asking: Reject the proposed ban. Limit any restrictions to documented fraudulent conduct addressed through targeted enforcement. Protect applicant flexibility and access to cost-effective professional support.
3. Federal Screen Time Mandates in the Classroom
Perhaps the most far-reaching proposal is the suggestion that the FCC might impose per-day screen time limits on students in schools receiving E-Rate funding. This proposal is legally unfounded, unsupported by the research, and a significant overreach into matters of state and local educational authority.
The FCC is a communications agency. Its authority under the Communications Act concerns interstate and international communications services — not curriculum, instruction, or student health. Decisions about how technology supports learning belong with educators, school leaders, and local communities. They do not belong with a federal telecommunications agency.
The research does not support categorical restrictions either. A 2024 systematic review in Computers & Education found that academic use of technology is associated with improved outcomes in language and math. A 2025 study confirms that the relationship between technology use and academic performance varies significantly by type of use, gender, and digital skill level. The American Academy of Pediatrics distinguishes educational screen use from passive or recreational use — and recognizes the former as academically beneficial. A one-size-fits-all federal limit cannot account for the diversity of instructional models, student needs, and educational goals across thousands of school districts.
The FCC already regulates child safety in schools through CIPA, which requires technology protection measures and internet safety policies as a condition of E-Rate funding. That framework is appropriate and sufficient. Layering new federal mandates on top of it — with no grounding in the FCC's statutory authority — is unnecessary, legally questionable, and administratively burdensome for schools.
What we're asking: Reject any proposal to condition or penalize school districts based on student screen time. Respect state and local educational authority and the existing CIPA framework.
Critical Procedural Issues: The Record Needs to Be Built Right
Beyond the substance, the policy and advocacy community should pay close attention to how this rulemaking is being conducted.
The comment period is too short — and the timing is unfair. The current 30-day window falls almost entirely during summer months, when school administrators, technology directors, and state E-Rate coordinators are on reduced schedules. A 30-day summer comment period is not a genuine opportunity for the education community to weigh in — it is a procedural formality that systematically advantages well-resourced national organizations over the small and rural districts that have the most at stake. I support the requests of SHLB and SECA for at least 90 days for initial comments, with reply comments due no fewer than 60 days thereafter.
The NPRM should be partially recategorized as a Notice of Inquiry. Paragraphs 1–42 of the draft ask broad, open-ended questions about the program's future without proposing specific rule changes. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, this is a Notice of Inquiry, not an NPRM. Mislabeling it creates legal risk for any final rules that emerge.
The Form 479 individual filing requirement should be dropped. The NPRM proposes requiring all consortium members to file their CIPA certifications individually through EPC — a severe burden for institutions that participate in E-Rate exclusively through a consortium. In four states alone, hundreds of consortium members have no independent EPC access. The sensible fix: allow consortium leads to file on behalf of members, as they do today.
Paragraph 33 contains a drafting error that must be corrected. The draft uses "E-Rate supported services" where it should say "Internet access, Internet service, or internal connections" — the actual statutory scope of CIPA. An overbroad description in an FCC rulemaking document could be cited in enforcement proceedings to extend CIPA obligations well beyond what Congress authorized.
What We're Asking the FCC to Do
My formal comments call on the Commission to:
Reject any proposal to terminate, sunset, or geographically restrict the E-Rate program, and remove paragraphs 12 and 18 from the final order.
Reject the proposed prohibition on percentage-based consultant fee arrangements, and limit any restrictions to documented fraudulent conduct addressed through targeted enforcement. Clarify that licensed attorneys are excluded from any new "consultant" definition.
Reject any proposal to regulate, condition, or penalize school districts based on student screen time or classroom technology use.
Recategorize paragraphs 1–42 of the draft order as a Notice of Inquiry, consistent with APA requirements and the FCC's own definitional standards.
Extend the initial comment period to at least 90 days following Federal Register publication, with reply comments due no fewer than 60 days thereafter.
Permit consortium leads to file Form 479 CIPA certifications on behalf of member institutions, with a 120-day grace period if individual filing requirements are retained.
Correct the drafting inconsistency between paragraphs 26 and 33 to accurately reflect the statutory scope of CIPA obligations.
The Bottom Line
E-Rate has worked. It has connected tens of millions of students and library patrons to the internet over nearly three decades, with the highest discounts flowing to the communities that need them most. The proposals in this NPRM would undermine what works, harm the stakeholders the program is designed to serve, and extend the FCC's reach far beyond its statutory mandate.
The advocacy community has both the standing and the responsibility to say so clearly — and so does every school, library, and community that has ever depended on E-Rate to keep the lights on in the classroom.
Please file your comments. Share this with your colleagues. Make sure your voice is part of the record.
Jill Stone filed formal comments with the FCC on June 23, 2026, in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, and 21-455. For questions or to access the comment template, contact jstone@aeserate.com.
