E-Rate Changes 2026: The 17 Updates Service Providers Need to Know

The E-Rate rules you sell under are changing more this cycle than they have in a decade. Seven of the changes are already adopted, law rather than proposal, and they take effect for funding year 2028. The other ten are proposals, and every one of them still has a live path for your input. This guide covers all 17, what each one means for your business, and what to do about it.

How to read this: adopted vs. proposed

Three different documents drive these 17 changes, and they carry completely different legal weight.

FCC 26-30 is the adopted competitive bidding portal order. Changes 1 through 7 come from it. These are rules, not proposals, and they take effect for funding year 2028. That gives you two funding cycles to get your bid process, invoicing calendar, and portal workflow ready, and it means the time to redesign is now, not the spring the portal goes live.

FCC-CIRC2608-02 is the USAC reform NPRM (WC Docket No. 26-173), and the FNPRM in the E-Rate program review (FCC 26-41, WC Docket No. 26-133) carries additional proposals. Changes 8 through 16 come from these, and change 17 comes from a third, narrower proceeding: the Bureau's FY2027 Eligible Services List public notice (DA 26-647, WC Docket No. 13-184), whose own window has closed but whose questions remain live through 26-133. These are proposals and questions, not rules. Nothing in Section B binds you yet, and every one of them is a comment opportunity. If a proposal in Section B would hurt your business, the comment window is where you say so, on the record, before it hardens into a rule.

And the clock is running. The program review was published in the Federal Register on August 14, 2026: comments on the 26-133 items are due October 13, 2026, and reply comments are due November 12, 2026. The USAC reform deadlines follow that item's own Federal Register publication.

One more disambiguation, because these dockets get conflated constantly: WC Docket 26-173 is the USAC reform proceeding, and WC Docket 26-133 is the E-Rate program review. Both feed Section B, and each change below names its source.

The 17 changes at a glance

Section A: Adopted rules, effective FY2028 (FCC 26-30)

These seven changes are adopted. They govern starting in funding year 2028, so treat the time between now and then as your implementation runway, not a grace period.

1. The competitive bidding portal is the new front door Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 53.

The FCC adopted a USAC-managed competitive bidding portal. Once it is fully implemented, you will be "required to use the portal to respond" to an applicant's Form 470, and the applicant "will not be permitted to consider bids received outside of the portal" (para. 53).

What it means for vendors. Every bid you submit will flow through one federal system. Your bid response process, your templates, your timing, and your team's habits all need to work inside that workflow. The portal is also the anchor for changes 2 through 5 below: the spam crackdown, the matching requirement, the audit log, and the document repository all live inside it.

Action item: assign an owner now for your portal workflow, before the first funding year it governs. The vendors who treat this as an IT ticket in year one will lose bids to the vendors who treated it as a sales-process redesign in year zero.

2. The spam and AI-bid crackdown: no pricing, no bid Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraphs 53 and 55.

This is the change that most directly reshapes bid-desk behavior. Last season brought a clear uptick in spam and AI-generated bid responses, the generic "here is our whole catalog, call us for pricing" emails that flood applicants the moment a Form 470 posts. Worth saying plainly: this is not how most service providers operate. The typical vendor reads the 470, prices the request, and bids it. The crackdown is aimed at the minority whose automation sprays catalog responses at every posting. The order is blunt about what applicants can do with those.

Bid responses that do not include pricing, or that require the applicant to contact you to get pricing, "can be disqualified as non-responsive even if the applicant does not state in the FCC Form 470 that pricing information is specifically required" (para. 55). The applicant still retains the bid and notes why it was disqualified. Multiple copies of the same spam bid only need to be disqualified once. The Commission also encouraged the Bureau and USAC to build spam controls directly into the portal.

What it means for vendors. If your shop already prices every bid, this change costs you nothing and thins out the noise you compete against. If any part of your motion wins on volume, that play is over: a templated response with no numbers in it is, by rule, an invitation to be disqualified without discussion. And note the timing wrinkle: while the portal itself arrives with FY2028, the order also addresses how applicants should treat spam bids in the interim, "until the portal is fully implemented" (para. 53), so the disqualification guidance is not something to ignore until 2028.

Action item: put real pricing for the requested services and the requested time period in every single bid response, starting now. Audit whatever automation your sales team uses against a Form 470 feed; if it fires catalog blasts, it is generating disqualifiable paper.

3. Identical bids across state and federal portals Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 25; new 47 CFR 54.503(b) (Appendix A).

The federal portal does not replace state or local bidding portals. The new rule text says the federal requirements "apply in addition to state and local competitive bid requirements and are not intended to preempt" them (54.503(b)). Where a state portal applies, you submit to both.

Here is where vendors get burned. The Commission clarified that "if a service provider or applicant is submitting different information to a state/local portal than what is being submitted to the competitive bidding portal, that may be treated as a competitive bidding violation and the E-Rate funding requests could be subject to denial" (para. 25).

What it means for vendors. A version-control slip between your state submission and your federal submission is no longer a paperwork wrinkle. It can kill your customer's funding, and a funding denial you caused is how you lose the account. This lands hardest on vendors selling into states with their own procurement portals, where two teams may currently prepare two packages.

Action item: build one bid package, submit it twice. Make "state and federal submissions match, byte for byte" a checklist gate before anything goes out.

4. Assume everything in the portal is logged Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 31.

The FCC told USAC exactly what the portal must record: an audit log showing "a date and time for when a bid is received, opened, and downloaded, and by whom, along with the IP address" (para. 31). The stated reason is accommodating state sealed-bid rules and helping applicants prove they did not open bids early.

What it means for vendors. For an honest vendor this is protection, not a threat. The same log that catches manipulation also proves you bid on time and stayed inside the process. When a competitor alleges your bid got early treatment, the log answers the question. The deterrent is aimed at bad actors, and the record works in your favor.

Action item: none required beyond knowing it exists. If you have ever needed to prove your bid was timely, this log becomes your evidence.

5. The document repository cuts your recordkeeping burden Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 19.

It is not all new obligations. Because competitive bidding documentation lives in the portal, the order says participants "will no longer need to separately retain documentation uploaded to the portal," and USAC and the Commission "will be able to obtain competitive bidding documentation directly through the portal instead of through document requests" (para. 19).

What it means for vendors. Fewer document production requests aimed at you, and one less category of records your back office has to keep audit-ready for a decade. Note the boundary: the relief covers what you uploaded to the portal. Everything else in your E-Rate record retention obligations still stands.

Action item: when the portal launches, upload complete bid documentation as a habit. What lives in the repository is what you never get a document request for.

6. Invoicing got more forgiving Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 64; amended 47 CFR 54.514(b) (Appendix A).

The order eased the invoice filing deadline, and this applies to service providers as well as billed entities. The amended rule reads: "Service providers or billed entities may request a one-time extension of the invoicing filing deadline if such request is filed before, or within 15 days after, the deadline. ... The Administrator shall grant a 120-day extension of the invoice filing deadline ... if it is timely requested" (54.514(b)).

What it means for vendors. Two things changed in your favor. First, the grace window: you can now request the extension up to 15 days after the deadline passed, which converts a class of fatal misses into recoverable ones. Second, the word "shall": if the request is timely, USAC grants it. For SPI-filing providers whose back office runs hot at deadline time, this is the difference between a bad week and writing off the receivable.

Action item: calendar every invoice deadline with a 15-days-after fallback alarm. The extension only saves you if someone actually files the request inside the window.

7. Switching providers mid-year finally has a clean path Adopted

Status: adopted. Citation: FCC 26-30, paragraph 44.

The order creates a process for applicants transitioning services mid-year: they "file partial year funding requests for both the old and the new services, estimating the cutover dates," flag the transition on the Form 471, then file a post-commitment request once real dates are known, "which USAC will be permitted to grant even if the date change results in a higher funding commitment" (para. 44).

What it means for vendors. Cuts both ways. If you are the challenger, the historical friction that kept unhappy customers locked to an incumbent through the funding year just dropped; mid-year displacement is now an administrable sales motion. If you are the incumbent, the switching cost that quietly protected your renewals dropped by the same amount. Either way, the conversation you have with a mid-contract prospect changed.

Action item: if you hunt competitive accounts, build the partial-year, dual-FRN structure into your displacement pitch. If you defend a base, know that your customers now have a documented exit ramp and manage the relationship accordingly.

Section B: Proposed rules, comment now (FCC-CIRC2608-02 and the FNPRM)

Everything below is a proposal or an open question. None of it binds you today. All of it is aimed at your business, and the comment record is being built right now. Ordered by vendor impact, not paragraph number.

8. Recovery by extrapolation from a sample Proposed

Status: proposed, with drafted rule text. Citation: FCC-CIRC2608-02, paragraphs 24-26 and Appendix B, proposed 47 CFR 54.707(d).

Today, USAC recovers what it actually finds wrong. Under this proposal, USAC could review a statistically valid sample of the disbursements under audit, requiring "a 95 percent confidence level and a 5 percent margin of error" (para. 24), find an error rate, and project that rate across the whole base. Same audit, potentially a much larger recovery. The drafted rule text gives the Administrator authority "to calculate a recovery based on extrapolation of a statistically valid sample of disbursements at issue in the audit" (proposed 54.707(d)).

The scoping ambiguity is the whole ballgame. Audits are usually scoped to a single Form 471, the application and the FRNs on it. Appendix B ties extrapolation to "disbursements at issue in the audit," which under the usual scope means one Form 471's disbursements, a contained base. But paragraph 24's narrative describes recovering across the whole population of claims or activity by the auditee. One reading is the audited application. The other could read as everything the auditee has ever claimed. Nothing in the document defines the scope. That gap is the single most valuable place for a provider comment in this entire proceeding.

What it means for vendors. This one hurts service providers, and it hurts SPI-invoicing providers most. When you invoice via SPI, the disbursements flow through you, so an extrapolated error rate lands on your side of the ledger. A lot of providers struggle with the back-office side of E-Rate, and under extrapolation, a sloppy back office stops producing item-sized findings and starts producing percentage-of-the-base findings.

Action item: two of them. First, audit your own SPI invoicing operation before USAC does; the error rate you fix today is the error rate that never gets projected. Second, file a comment asking the Commission to define the extrapolation base explicitly. Which reading wins may matter more to your risk than the rule itself.

9. Pay-and-dispute recoveries Proposed

Status: proposed (seeks comment). Citation: FCC-CIRC2608-02, paragraph 28.

In E-Rate today, filing an appeal pauses a recovery; you keep the money while you fight. The Commission seeks comment on "a pay-and-dispute model for all USF programs" under which providers and beneficiaries "would be required to pay a recovery to USAC notwithstanding the filing of an appeal ... so long as there has been a relevant Bureau or Commission-level decision" (para. 28). The Commission's stated concern is that appeals-as-stays "may encourage gamesmanship and delay the return of improperly disbursed funds."

What it means for vendors. This is the biggest cash item in the document. A $150,000 recovery upheld by a Bureau order gets paid first and argued second, with a refund if you eventually win. Be precise about what this does: it does not improve anyone's cash flow. It relocates cash, from you to the Fund, during a dispute you may still win. Two limiters worth knowing. First, it bites only after a Bureau or Commission-level decision, so USAC's initial audit finding still gets a stay. Second, if you also file the Form 499 on the contributions side, you already live under pay-and-dispute there (para. 27 describes the existing contributions procedure), so this extends a regime you know rather than inventing a new one.

Action item: model the cash impact of your current open disputes as if pay-and-dispute were law. If the number is uncomfortable, that discomfort belongs in a comment, with the number attached.

10. The June 30 Form 473 (SPAC) deadline, codified with consequences Proposed

Status: proposed, with drafted rule text. Citation: FNPRM, paragraphs 66-67; proposed 47 CFR 54.504(f).

First, what this is not: a new date. The current rules require an annual Form 473 but state no deadline. Because USAC must have a SPAC on file to disburse anything, USAC's longstanding practice already requires it by June 30 of the funding year (see USAC's Form 473 filing page). The proposal codifies that June 30 practice into the rules (paras. 66-67), and the drafted rule text opens: "All service providers ... shall submit annually a completed FCC Form 473 to the Administrator by no later than June 30 of the applicable funding year" (proposed 54.504(f)).

Two additions ride along. The Commission asks what the consequences for missing the deadline should be, floating whether providers "should ... be barred from participating in the program until they come into compliance, similar to the non-compliance rules for CIPA certifications" (para. 67). It also asks whether applicants should be allowed to switch to a different service provider when the original one refuses to file. And the drafted rule codifies 18 SPAC certifications, covering false-statement liability, no double billing, no rebates or kickbacks, gift compliance, independent pricing, no bid disclosure, recordkeeping and audit cooperation, suspension and debarment status, and covered-equipment and national-security certifications, among others.

What it means for vendors. The Commission's stated target is providers who never file, stranding BEAR-method applicants who did everything right and still cannot get reimbursed. If you file on time every year, codification changes little except the stakes of a miss: what is today an operational delay could become a rule violation with a participation bar attached. The switch-provider question is quietly significant too; a provider who sits on the SPAC could hand the account to a competitor mid-stream.

Action item: calendar June 30 as a hard corporate deadline with an owner and an escalation path, the same way you treat a tax filing. Then read the 18 certifications in proposed 54.504(f) and confirm your compliance team can actually stand behind each one.

11. A brand-new Lowest Corresponding Price section Proposed

Status: proposed (seeks comment). Citation: FNPRM, paragraphs 85-88.

This is the change that is easiest to miss. The adopted item contains an entire new subsection on Lowest Corresponding Price that did not appear in the circulated June 4 draft; the phrase appears zero times in the draft and the section arrived only in the adopted item. LCP is the existing rule requiring you to charge schools and libraries no more than you charge similarly situated non-residential customers. The new section asks whether the FCC should:

• Refresh and clarify the LCP rule, reviving a 2010 USTelecom/CTIA petition that was never resolved.
• Define "similarly situated" and "similar services" so providers cannot avoid the rule by claiming they have no comparable customers, possibly importing the Rural Health Care program's approach, where USAC decides and "similar" is judged from the end-user's perspective.
• Make provider rates more public, through an annual rate report or an LCP-specific database, and consider an LCP median benchmark or shifting the LCP calculation from providers to USAC.
• Add LCP-specific certifications to the Form 471 and/or Form 473.
• Toughen enforcement, including whether to codify LCP violations as "continuing" violations, which would override the prior BellSouth Order treatment of each non-compliant invoice as a one-time violation.

What it means for vendors. Every one of those five bullets moves work or risk onto the provider side. Public rate reporting exposes your commercial pricing. New certifications add personal-liability signatures. The "continuing violation" question is the sleeper: it changes how far back an LCP problem can reach and how large it can grow. If you are a carrier or any provider with a rate card and non-E-Rate commercial customers, this section is aimed at you.

Action item: have someone who actually knows your rate structures read paragraphs 85-88 and draft comments. LCP has been a vague obligation for years; this is the proceeding where its teeth get defined, with or without your input.

12. Reseller markup caps and MIBS scrutiny in one-or-no-bid situations Proposed

Status: proposed (seeks comment). Citation: FNPRM, paragraph 72 (WC Docket 26-133).

When a Form 470 draws one bid or none, prices are not market-tested, and the Commission is asking what to do about it. The floated measures, all quoted from paragraph 72: "limiting the profit margins of resellers by capping the reimbursement amount at or near the underlying carrier or manufacturer cost"; requiring the applicant "to justify the higher cost of the reseller or be responsible for the difference in pricing"; and leveraging "pricing information available in USAC's Open Data to create reimbursement caps for certain eligible services and equipment in specific geographic locations." It also asks whether pricing justification documentation should be required when services are hard to compare.

Managed services face a parallel squeeze of their own: the FNPRM and the Bureau's FY2027 Eligible Services List public notice stack a full question set onto MIBS and NaaS, large enough that it gets its own entry. See change 17.

What it means for vendors. If you are a reseller, read the first floated measure again: reimbursement capped at or near your underlying cost is a proposal to regulate your margin in one-or-no-bid situations. The newly adopted portal (change 1) is explicitly expected to give the Commission visibility into which entities keep drawing single bids, so the data to enforce this will exist. The Open Data reimbursement-cap idea affects everyone: your pricing becomes benchmarkable against every comparable FRN in your geography.

Action item: know your one-bid exposure. Pull your book and flag every account where you were the only bidder; those are the accounts where a markup cap would bite. If margin caps would make rural or high-cost service uneconomical for you, that is precisely the comment the Commission invited when it asked about effects "on competition and participation."

13. Eligible services rollback and special construction questions Proposed

Status: proposed (seeks comment). Citation: E-Rate program review NPRM (FCC 26-41, WC Docket 26-133), paragraph 14.

The Commission notes that E-Rate's eligible services list "has expanded significantly since its inception" and asks whether expansions warrant reconsideration, pointing to bus Wi-Fi and hotspots as expansions "reversed in 2025." The questions on the table: Are currently eligible services "no longer necessary or ... inconsistent with the statute"? Should anything that does not "ultimately transport information to school classrooms" be ineligible? Should special construction support survive at all given BEAD, including whether "self-provisioned network construction and dark fiber risk displacing private investment"? Should applicants and providers "specifically disclose other funding sources to avoid duplication"? Should special construction be limited "to those areas that are served by only one service provider," or "eliminated entirely"?

What it means for vendors. If your revenue includes special construction, dark fiber, or self-provisioned network builds, the continued eligibility of your product line is an open question in this proceeding. That is not a small compliance tweak; it is existential for that book of business. The funding-disclosure question also creates a new intake requirement: you would need to know whether your customer's project touches BEAD or other federal money.

Action item: if you build fiber or sell dark fiber into E-Rate, this is your comment to file, with deployment economics attached. The Commission is explicitly weighing whether BEAD makes your E-Rate category redundant; the record needs the cases where it does not.

14. Service substitutions in writing, under penalty of perjury, pre-approved Proposed

Status: proposed, with drafted rule text. Citation: proposed 47 CFR 54.504(d).

The drafted rule formalizes service substitutions. A substitution request must be in writing, and the applicant certifies under penalty of perjury that the replacement has the same functionality, violates no contract or procurement law, does not increase the ineligible percentage, and stays within the scope of the controlling Form 470, with an exception for unanticipated bandwidth needs. Price protection is built in: support is based on "the lower of either the pre-discount price of the service for which support was originally requested or the pre-discount price of the new, substituted service." And the kicker for your revenue timing: "Reimbursement for substitutions shall only be provided after the Administrator has approved a written request for substitution."

What it means for vendors. Every equipment swap you propose, the discontinued switch model, the newer access point, now runs through a written, certified, pre-approved gate, and the funding never goes up, only down or flat. The approval-before-reimbursement sequencing matters most: ship a substituted product before the approval lands and you are carrying that receivable at risk.

Action item: build substitution paperwork into your product-change workflow now, and never let delivery get ahead of the written approval. Your finance team should treat an unapproved substitution as unbilled inventory, not revenue.

15. USAC deadline warnings before you miss a filing Proposed

Status: proposed. Citation: FCC-CIRC2608-02, paragraph 14.

The Commission proposes "to require USAC to monitor upcoming filing deadlines and the filing status of parties impacted by those deadlines and communicate to individual stakeholders regarding their filing status prior to the deadlines" (para. 14). For a service provider, that reads as a warning before you miss a SPAC filing or an invoice deadline.

What it means for vendors. Genuinely helpful, with one caveat you must not skip. Footnote 25 states that "a lack of notice from USAC will not excuse or cure a failure to timely file." So this is a backstop the FCC explicitly tells you not to rely on. The deadline stays your responsibility; the warning is a courtesy, not a defense.

Action item: none beyond what change 10 already demands: own your own deadline calendar. Treat any future USAC warning as a fire alarm, not a filing system.

16. Shot clocks on USAC processes Proposed

Status: proposed (seeks comment). Citation: FCC-CIRC2608-02, paragraphs 15-16.

The Commission asks whether it should "establish deadlines or 'shot clocks' for specific USAC processes," modeled on the FCC's 180-day transaction review clock, and whether a clock should "apply only to workable applications, excepting those that require further information" (para. 15). Paragraph 16 leaves the pause rules open.

What it means for vendors. Predictable USAC timelines would be a real forecasting improvement; today, revenue tied to a pending review is revenue you cannot date. Note the carve-out, though: a clock that applies only to "workable" applications skips the stuck ones, which are usually the exact ones providers complain about. Whether the clock pauses, and when, is where this proposal gets real.

Action item: if slow USAC processing has cost you booked revenue, comment with specifics: which process, how long, what it cost. "Reviews are slow" is noise; "our invoice reviews averaged N days across M FRNs" is a record.

Section C: The FY2027 ESL proceeding (WC Docket 13-184)

A third, narrower proceeding rounds out the picture. On June 30, 2026, the Wireline Competition Bureau released the draft FY2027 Eligible Services List (DA 26-647). It proposes no other changes to the list, but it stacks a pointed question set onto managed services and usage-based pricing. Its own comment window has closed (comments July 30, 2026; replies August 14, 2026). The Bureau encouraged MIBS comments in both dockets, so the live lane for this input is WC Docket 26-133, due October 13, 2026.

17. MIBS and NaaS under the ESL microscope Proposed

Status: proposed (ESL window closed; input live via WC Docket 26-133). Citation: FNPRM, paragraph 73 (WC Docket 26-133); FY2027 ESL public notice, DA 26-647 (WC Docket 13-184).

If you sell managed internal broadband services (managed Wi-Fi) or usage-based connectivity, this question set is aimed at your product line:

• Whether MIBS should continue as a cost-effective eligible service at all, or be limited to schools and libraries of a certain size instead of eliminated.
• Whether MIBS reimbursement should be tied to actual hours worked, with tickets and hours filed with every reimbursement request, instead of fixed monthly pricing. That is an operational overhaul of how a MIBS practice bills.
• What extra information applicants should include in Form 470s and RFPs for managed services, so your bids get compared line by line.
• Whether applicants must compare MIBS bids directly against buying and owning the internal connections, meaning your managed offer gets benchmarked against a hardware quote every time.
• How to keep ineligible products and services from being bundled into MIBS contracts, and how to keep MIBS from functioning as outsourced IT staffing, which is ineligible.
• Whether applicants that own their equipment should be limited to basic maintenance (BMIC) instead of MIBS, which would shrink the MIBS-eligible market.
• Whether Network-as-a-Service and other variable-priced services should become fundable at all. The Form 471 today cannot request variable monthly bandwidth at varying prices, and the Bureau asks whether such services should "remain ineligible" or whether the Forms 470 and 471 should be modified to accommodate them. If NaaS is in your portfolio, this is the question that decides whether it can ever be an E-Rate product.

The Bureau's direct statements. From the FY2027 ESL public notice (DA 26-647, the Bureau's own words):

And on NaaS:

What it means for vendors. The hours-based billing question alone decides how a MIBS practice invoices. The IT-staffing and bundling questions decide what a MIBS contract can contain. The BMIC-only question decides how much of the market you can sell into. And the NaaS question decides whether usage-based connectivity ever becomes an E-Rate product.

Action item: if MIBS or NaaS is a real revenue line, file on these questions through the 26-133 window before October 13, 2026. The ESL's own window is closed, and the Bureau pointed commenters at both dockets.

Your vendor action checklist

Adopted, effective FY2028 (build the process now):

• Assign an owner for the competitive bidding portal workflow.
• One bid package, submitted identically to state and federal portals. Checklist-gate it.
• Upload complete bid documentation to the portal repository once live.
• Calendar every invoice deadline with a 15-days-after extension-request alarm.
• Update your displacement playbook (or renewal defense) for the mid-year switching path.

Prepare and comment (proposed):

• Audit your SPI invoicing back office before extrapolation arrives.
• File a comment demanding a defined extrapolation base (single Form 471 vs. all activity).
• Model pay-and-dispute cash impact on your open recovery disputes.
• Calendar June 30 SPAC as a hard corporate deadline with an owner. Review the 18 proposed certifications.
• Have your pricing lead read the LCP section (FNPRM paras. 85-88) and draft comments.
• Pull your one-bid accounts and assess reseller markup-cap exposure.
• If you sell special construction or dark fiber: comment with deployment economics.
• If MIBS or NaaS is a revenue line: file on the ESL questions through the 26-133 window (due October 13, 2026).
• Build the written-substitution gate into your product-change and billing workflow.

Sources

• FCC 26-30, Report and Order (competitive bidding portal), adopted May 1, 2026: paragraphs 19, 25, 31, 44, 53, 55, 64; Appendix A (47 CFR 54.503(b), 54.514(b)).
• FCC 26-41, E-Rate program review NPRM and FNPRM, WC Docket No. 26-133 (published August 14, 2026, 91 FR 52626; comments due October 13, 2026, reply comments November 12, 2026): NPRM paragraph 14; FNPRM paragraphs 66-67, 72-73, 85-88; proposed 47 CFR 54.504(d), 54.504(f).
• FCC-CIRC2608-02, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 26-173 (USAC reform): paragraphs 14-16, 24-26, 28; footnote 25; Appendix B (proposed 47 CFR 54.707(d)).
• Wireline Competition Bureau, DA 26-647, proposed FY2027 Eligible Services List, WC Docket No. 13-184 (released June 30, 2026; comments closed July 30, 2026, replies August 14, 2026): MIBS and NaaS questions.
• USAC, FCC Form 473 (SPAC) filing page.
• ErateSync, "The 30 Changes Proposed in the FCC's USAC Reform NPRM (WC Docket 26-173)": deep dives on changes 8, 9, 15, 16 above.