The FCC has opened a review of the E-Rate program, the federal E-Rate funding that gives schools and libraries 20%-90% discounts on internet access and internal networks. This guide breaks down exactly what the 2026 FCC E-Rate proposal means for applicants, in plain English with the exact source text.
After nearly three decades, E-Rate has largely achieved its founding goal: virtually all U.S. schools and libraries now have broadband and Wi-Fi (the draft itself notes "virtually all schools report having broadband connectivity and Wi-Fi"). Against that backdrop, the FCC's June 2026 draft is best understood as a review and modernization of a successful program, revisiting its original purpose and identifying where spending no longer matches need. The headline question "should the program be limited or sunset?" is one of many questions open for public comment, not a decision, and not an announcement that E-Rate funding is going away.
What this is: a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC-CIRC2606-02; WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, 21-455), released June 4, 2026. Status: draft. Comments due 30 days after Federal Register publication; replies 60 days after. Earliest realistic effect for the operational changes is about FY2027.
Our advice: don't change anything yet. The right moves now are simple: (1) understand how each item could affect you, (2) add your perspective to the FCC's comment record while the window is open, and (3) be ready to adjust if and when a rule is actually adopted. Every "What this would mean for you" note below is written in that spirit, what it would look like if it passed, not a to-do list for today. Read the source: FCC-CIRC2606-02 (DOC-422168A1).
Quick definitions
- USAC
- Runs E-Rate for the FCC.
- EPC
- USAC's online filing portal.
- Form 470 / 471
- Bid request / the funding application.
- Form 479
- Consortium-member certification.
- Form 5654
- A new consultant form this draft would create.
- ACD
- Allowable Contract Date (28 days after posting the Form 470).
- CIPA
- The children's internet-safety law (filtering + an internet safety policy).
- NSLP
- National School Lunch Program (sets your discount %).
- MIBS
- Managed Internal Broadband Services (paying a vendor to run your internal Wi-Fi).
- Special construction
- Building new fiber/infrastructure out to a site.
First: what is an "NPRM," and what does "proposed" actually mean?
If you take one thing from this guide, take this: a proposed rule is not a rule. Here's how the process works and where this document sits in it.
- NPRM = Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The formal step where a federal agency publicly says "we're thinking about changing the rules in these ways, tell us what you think" before anything becomes binding. By law (the Administrative Procedure Act), agencies generally must go through this notice-and-comment step before adopting or changing a rule.
- FNPRM = Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Same idea, used when the agency wants to propose additional specific changes, often with draft rule text already written so the public can react to exact language.
- This document is both at once: an NPRM (the big-picture "should we modernize/right-size E-Rate?" questions) plus an FNPRM (the concrete program-integrity proposals, with draft regulation text in Appendix A).
Read the verbs, they tell you how far along an idea is. "We seek comment on whether…" is an open question that may never become a rule (most big-picture items: sunset, discount formula, screen-time caps, CIPA reinterpretation). "We propose…" (especially with draft rule text) is a concrete proposal far more likely to become a rule (the consultant form, the contract/ACD change, the June 30 Form 473 deadline, the Form 479 overhaul).
| Step | What happens | Status here |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Draft circulated | FCC staff write a draft; Commissioners review | This document (June 4, 2026) |
| 2. Commission vote | Commissioners vote to adopt the NPRM/FNPRM | At the June 2026 meeting |
| 3. Federal Register | The adopted notice is officially published | Triggers the clock below |
| 4. Comment period | The public files comments | 30 days after publication |
| 5. Reply comments | The public responds to others' comments | 60 days after publication |
| 6. FCC reviews record | Staff read comments and weigh options | Months |
| 7. Report & Order | The FCC adopts the final rules (may differ a lot, or drop items) | Often a year or more later |
| 8. Effective date | Final rules take effect (new forms need OMB approval) | Later still |
Plain-English translation: nothing in this document changes your obligations today. The concrete proposals, if adopted roughly as written, realistically wouldn't bind applicants before about FY2027; the exploratory questions could take longer, change shape, or go nowhere. You have a real voice: schools, libraries, consortia, and state coordinators can file comments in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, 21-455 via the FCC's ECFS, and well-supported comments routinely change final rules.
At a glance: what's on the table for applicants
Administrative changes most likely to land first (FNPRM proposals):
- A new annual consultant form (Form 5654), required even if you don't use a consultant.
- End of the "Kalamazoo" existing-contract option, re-bid and sign after the ACD.
- Service substitutions in writing, sworn, and pre-approved by USAC.
- No percentage-based consultant fees; keep LOAs + payment records.
- Consortium members each certify the full Form 471 set in EPC before the lead files.
Modernization questions being reviewed (NPRM, longer horizon):
- Which eligible services still fit, including special construction / self-provisioned networks / dark fiber and MIBS.
- Whether the discount formula (NSLP + urban/rural) should be retuned.
- CIPA for the modern era, possibly extending filtering to personal devices and addressing screen time.
- Pre-K / Head Start eligibility and cost-allocation.
1) A modernization review of a successful program
This whole section is NPRM "seek comment" material: the FCC is asking how to right-size and refocus E-Rate now that the original connectivity goal is largely met. These are questions, not cuts.
The framing question: has the mission been accomplished, and how should the program evolve?
Even in the most aggressive scenario, "sunsetting" E-Rate would take years and require legal justification under Section 254, so the realistic outcome we expect is a narrower, more tightly scoped program, not elimination. For planning, assume E-Rate continues, but don't assume every service stays eligible forever: build flexibility into multi-year technology plans and avoid betting your network roadmap on any single E-Rate category surviving untouched.
Plain English (neutral): The FCC notes the program has largely done what Congress built it to do, connect schools and libraries, and asks how it should be modernized, refocused, or right-sized for today. "Limited or sunset" is posed as a question for comment alongside many less drastic options.
As a threshold matter, Congress enacted the E-Rate program to ensure that schools and libraries across the country "have access to advanced telecommunications services." We are interested in understanding the E-Rate program's progress in achieving this purpose and to what extent the E-Rate program should be reexamined in light of the current state of school and library connectivity and current demand for program funds. When the E-Rate program was established pursuant to section 254(h) of the Communications Act, many schools and libraries lacked basic access to the Internet; today, however, some data sources state that virtually all schools report having broadband connectivity and Wi-Fi. In establishing the program in 1996, Congress was addressing a specific problem: limited access to advanced telecommunications and Internet services in schools and libraries. Given the substantial expansion of broadband access in schools and libraries over the last three decades, we seek comment on whether and to what extent the E-Rate program has fulfilled that mission and whether continued funding is consistent with Congress's original objective. Has Congress' directive in section 254(h) of the Communications Act been satisfied? Should the E-Rate program be limited or sunset to reflect today's extensive connectivity rates? At what point should policymakers conclude that the program's core objective has been achieved? We seek comment on whether Congress intended E-Rate to operate indefinitely, regardless of the extent to which schools and libraries have achieved universal connectivity. As the E-Rate program has worked to expand connectivity rates across schools and libraries, we note that demand for program funds has consistently fallen under the cap in recent years, while the program's annual funding cap has steadily increased to account for inflation each year consistent with the Commission's rules. The E-Rate program supports both Internet connectivity to and within schools and libraries, with applicants requesting $1.806 billion in funding year 2025 for category one services (i.e., connections to schools) and $1.418 billion in funding year 2025 for category two services (e.g., internal connections, Wi-Fi, basic maintenance, managed internal broadband services). Since funding year 2016, special construction has been eligible for E-Rate funding in limited circumstances, namely, when it is the most cost-effective solution for providing the requested broadband services. The E-Rate program has disbursed approximately $136.6 million to support self-provisioned network construction since the Commission added it as an eligible service to the E-Rate program in funding year 2016.
Overlap with newer broadband programs (e.g., BEAD)
If adopted, expect to certify or disclose on your application that a given service isn't already paid for by BEAD or another federal source. Practically, start keeping a simple per-site record of how each location's connectivity is funded, so a "no duplication" question is a two-minute answer instead of a fire drill.
Plain English: With other federal money now flowing to broadband, the FCC asks how to avoid funding the same thing twice and keep E-Rate focused.
In recent years, the federal government has provided billions of dollars of investment in other programs for expanding broadband access, including for schools and libraries. Against this backdrop, we seek comment on whether the E-Rate program's current structure is consistent with the statutory directive or, as discussed below, whether the program should be limited or otherwise restructured to reflect today's connectivity rates, reduce federal spending, and ensure that E-Rate funds are not used to subsidize potentially duplicative services or services beyond those authorized or envisioned by Congress in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. To the extent commenters believe the program should be limited or restructured in this way, we invite them to address the Commission's legal authority under section 254 of the Communications Act to modify the program consistent with and mindful of the principles of fiscal responsibility and statutory limitations.
Which eligible services still fit, including special construction, dark fiber & self-provisioned networks
If a service comes off the Eligible Services List, new requests for it would be denied going forward (existing multi-year contracts are typically honored to term, but renewals wouldn't be funded). If you've used (or planned to use) E-Rate special construction, building new fiber to a site, self-provisioned networks, or dark fiber, those options are specifically flagged for review: the FCC asks whether to limit it to single-provider areas, require you to disclose other funding sources, or eliminate it entirely. Special construction has been eligible since FY2016 and totals only about $136.6 million of disbursements, which is partly why it's an easy "does this still fit?" candidate. Nothing changes today, but if a fiber build is on your multi-year roadmap, factor in that this support could be narrowed and plan to document why E-Rate (not BEAD or another source) is the right fit.
Plain English: A line-by-line look at what E-Rate funds today, asking what still maps to the core "connect the classroom" purpose. (Bus Wi-Fi and home hotspots were already wound back in 2025.)
We note that the scope of the services and equipment eligible for support within the E-Rate program has expanded significantly since its inception and evolved over time, and the program has been subject to recent criticism for such expansion. For example, in 2023 and 2024, respectively, the Commission expanded E-Rate support to include Wi-Fi on school buses and hotspots for schoolchildren, uses that are inconsistent with the statute and were reversed in 2025. We seek comment on whether similar expansions within the E-Rate program warrant reconsideration. Are there services that are currently eligible for support that are no longer necessary or are inconsistent with the statute? Specifically, are there any services or equipment that the program currently funds that do not ultimately transport information to school classrooms and, therefore, should be ineligible for E-Rate funding? In addition, we seek comment on whether the expansion of E-Rate support to include special construction adopted in the 2014 Second E-Rate Order remains justified in light of today's school connectivity rates and the availability of other federal funding sources. We note those changes were subject to significant legal and policy criticism at the time and have raised ongoing concerns about facilitating subsidized overbuilding and distorting competitive markets. Does continued support for self-provisioned network construction and dark fiber risk displacing private investment or wasting federal resources on duplicative infrastructure, particularly as programs such as the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program administered by NTIA and established in 2021 are aimed at ensuring high-speed broadband availability in any remaining unserved and underserved areas, including for community anchor institutions? Should we require applicants and service providers to specifically disclose other funding sources to avoid duplication? Should funding for special construction be limited to those areas that are served by only one service provider? Should funding for special construction be eliminated entirely? We seek comment on these questions and whether BEAD and other similar sources of funding make it no longer necessary for the E-Rate program to continue to provide support for self-provisioned network construction, even in limited circumstances.
Deeper dive: MIBS (managed Wi-Fi) eligibility and cost
If MIBS shifts to hours-based reimbursement, you'd need your vendor to log tickets and hours and submit them with every invoice, more paperwork, but cleaner accountability. If eligibility is limited by size, smaller districts and libraries would likely keep MIBS while larger ones with their own IT are nudged to self-manage. Either way, expect to justify a MIBS bid against a straight internal-connections bid, so ask vendors for an apples-to-apples comparison going forward.
Plain English: If you pay a vendor to manage your internal broadband / Wi-Fi (MIBS), common for smaller districts and libraries without in-house IT, the FCC is questioning how to ensure those contracts are cost-effective, and even whether MIBS should remain eligible or be limited by district size.
For instance, we are concerned about the ability to review the cost effectiveness of contracts for managed internal broadband services (MIBS) and whether it should continue to be a supported service within the E-Rate program. We seek comment, and specific proposals, on how the Commission should define and ensure cost-effective purchasing for these services. For example, should reimbursement for MIBS services be limited to the number of hours worked with the requirement that tickets for work requested/performed and hours worked be included with requests for reimbursement? What information should applicants include in an FCC Form 470 or request for proposal document when requesting MIBS to ensure bidders have sufficient information to submit a responsive bid and applicants can effectively compare bids to select the most cost-effective service offering? Would requiring applicants to compare bids on internal connections directly with those of a MIBS bid help safeguard applicants and the E-Rate program from MIBS providers offering contracts at rates that exceed the value of the network itself? We expect that smaller schools and libraries may need to weigh the cost of managing a network, and we would expect larger districts with their own information technology staff to have a simple comparison. Alternatively, should we limit eligibility of MIBS to schools and libraries of a certain size instead of eliminating it as a supported service? We seek comment on these questions.
Cost-effectiveness when you receive one or no bids (reseller pricing)
If reseller caps arrive, an invoice priced well above the underlying manufacturer or carrier cost could be trimmed to the cap, or you would have to justify the markup or cover the difference yourself. When you receive only one bid, keeping documentation that shows the price is reasonable (vendor quotes, published list prices) would help, because the burden of proof could shift onto you. The draft does not spell it out, but the heavy focus on cost data, reseller caps, and USAC Open Data tells us the FCC wants to be sure applicants genuinely pick the most cost-effective option, expect "most cost-effective" to be scrutinized far more closely.
Plain English: When a Form 470 draws only one bid (or none), there's no price competition. The FCC asks whether to cap reseller markups near the underlying cost, or build reimbursement caps from USAC pricing data, aimed at making sure E-Rate dollars reflect fair market pricing.
Cost-Effectiveness Requirements. Finally, we seek comment on additional measures to help ensure applicants select cost-effective services in situations where one or no bids are received in response to an FCC Form 470. Although the Commission's rules require applicants to select the most cost-effective offering, limited competition in these instances may reduce the effectiveness of existing safeguards and increase the risk that E-Rate support does not reflect market-based pricing. To address these concerns, we seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt additional measures in circumstances where competitive bidding yields one or no bids. … should the Commission, for example, consider limiting the profit margins of resellers by capping the reimbursement amount at or near the underlying carrier or manufacturer cost? Should the applicant be required to justify the higher cost of the reseller or be responsible for the difference in pricing between the underlying carrier/manufacturer and the reseller? Alternatively, to what extent should the Commission and USAC leverage available pricing information available in USAC's Open Data to create reimbursement caps for certain eligible services and equipment in specific geographic locations? … We also seek comment on whether other rule changes or safeguards could better ensure cost-effective outcomes when one or no bids are received …
Is the discount formula still right? (NSLP + urban/rural)
If the discount matrix is retuned, your discount percentage could move, most likely downward for higher-income or urban applicants, with support concentrated on the neediest. Model your budget at a slightly lower discount band so a change would not blindside your local share, and keep your NSLP/poverty data current since it drives the number.
Plain English: The formula that sets your 20%-90% discount is being reviewed to make sure dollars flow to the schools/libraries that need them most, including a question about phasing down support for the lowest-poverty areas. This is about targeting, not eliminating, support.
Since its inception, the E-Rate program has provided eligible schools and libraries discounts on the cost of eligible services ranging from 20% to 90%, with higher discounts provided to the most disadvantaged schools and libraries. We seek comment on whether the use of the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) eligibility and urban/rural status in determining an applicant's discount rate remains an effective method for calculating support … Does this general approach allocate funds fairly, efficiently, and achieve the objective of helping low-income and rural schools, or does a disproportionate share of funding flow to large, well-resourced school districts with substantial local tax bases? … We further seek comment on whether to phase out E-Rate funding for schools and libraries in areas with the lowest NSLP participation rates, given the likelihood of greater resources and tax bases.
Whether to target support to the highest-cost / rural / single-provider areas
If support is narrowed to high-cost, rural, or single-provider areas, well-served urban and suburban applicants could see reduced or no Category One support. If you are in a competitive broadband market, track this one closely; it is among the more consequential ideas here for your funding, and a comment explaining your real costs could matter.
Relatedly, we note that although broadband prices have generally been decreasing, they are demonstrably higher in less competitive areas and those that lack competition entirely. … we seek comment on whether E-Rate support should be limited to areas where applicants face the highest costs for E-Rate supported services. For example, should E-Rate support be limited to rural areas or to areas served by a single provider? What would be the benefits and costs of such an approach?
The "on-campus = educational purpose" presumption
If the presumption is reversed, you may have to affirmatively show that a given use is educational rather than assume it because it happens on your property. In practice that means tighter acceptable-use documentation and being ready to defend how E-Rate-funded services are actually used.
The Commission also previously established a legal presumption that activities that occur on library or school property serve an educational purpose and, therefore, are eligible for E-Rate funding. We seek comment on whether this presumption should be reversed.
2) Child safety, screen time & CIPA: modernizing for today's devices
The FCC frames this as updating CIPA for a world of 1:1 devices and personal phones. Again, mostly NPRM questions.
Read between the lines: CIPA compliance is the focus this season
Step back from the individual questions and the theme is unmistakable: CIPA is the centerpiece of this proceeding, and CIPA compliance is going to be a defining issue for applicants this season. The draft pokes at almost every part of the rule at once, who and what devices it covers, what your internet safety policy must contain, how public notice and hearings are run, screen time, social media, age tiers, and what counts as "monitoring." Read together, that signals the FCC intends to raise the bar on CIPA, and that an outdated, template-only, or loosely-documented compliance posture is the most exposed place an applicant can be. We are not telling you to overhaul anything today. The smart posture is to know exactly where your CIPA compliance stands (your current filter's reach, your internet safety policy, and your proof of public notice and hearings), be ready to make changes quickly if a rule passes, and, if you disagree with where any of this is heading, say so in a comment while the window is open. Of everything in this proposal, CIPA is the area we would watch most closely as an applicant. See our CIPA overview for the foundational requirements.
"Educational purposes" and screen time
If "educational purposes" is tightened, uses like devices-as-reward or open browsing could be scrutinized, and you might have to certify or document that E-Rate services are used primarily for instruction. Tightening your acceptable-use policy and keeping basic usage records now is cheap insurance.
E-Rate applicants are required to certify that the services requested through the E-Rate program will be used primarily for educational purposes. … As noted herein, children's screen time often exceeds the recommendations of experts and can include access to content that is not "integral, immediate, and proximate" to the education of students or the provision of library services. For example, some suggest that screen time may be used in the classroom to calm or reward students. Should these uses be considered "educational purposes" as contemplated by the Communications Act? … We also seek input about the measures schools and libraries are taking to limit screen time. … In addition, we seek comment on whether there are differences between what qualifies as an educational purpose for a school versus a library.
A possible parental opt-out (as a condition of funding)
If this becomes a funding condition, every participating school would have to give parents a real way to opt their child out of screen-based instruction. That means new board policy, a workflow to honor opt-outs, and likely non-screen alternatives for those students, which is an operational lift for curriculum and IT, not just a form.
In recent years, a growing number of parents across diverse school districts have sought the ability to opt their children out of routine or sustained screen-based instruction … we seek comment on whether, and to what extent, we should require, as a condition of receiving E-Rate support, that participating schools provide parents with a meaningful opportunity to opt their children out of screen-based instruction or screen use during the school day. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it has the legal authority under section 254 of the Communications Act or any other provision of law to adopt such a requirement …
Pre-K & Head Start eligibility / cost-allocation
If cost-allocation is required, districts serving pre-K or Head Start would have to back those students and classrooms out of funding requests, shrinking the discount base and adding allocation math. If eligibility is limited to public schools, non-public pre-K and Head Start programs could lose E-Rate entirely. Identify now whether any funded sites or students fall in this category.
We seek comment on whether Head Start and pre-kindergarten students should continue to receive E-Rate program support and whether schools should be required to cost-allocate and remove Head Start and pre-kindergarten students from their funding requests. … Alternatively, we seek comment on limiting the eligibility of Head Start and pre-kindergarten facilities and students to those that are part of a public school or public school district. … We note that several states and territories … already limit the eligibility of pre-kindergarten and Head Start students and facilities to those that are part of a public school or public school district. …
CIPA could extend from your computers to your whole network (incl. personal devices)
This is the big one. If CIPA is read to cover the whole network, you would have to filter not just school-owned devices but any device on your E-Rate network, including student and staff personal phones and laptops. That likely means network-level or DNS filtering, captive-portal or device-posture controls, and updated policies. No need to change anything today, but this is the one most worth thinking through and raising in a comment; if it passes, you would confirm whether your filter can enforce at the network level and plan budget accordingly.
The Commission currently interprets CIPA restrictions to apply only to the use of devices that are owned by schools or libraries (i.e., "its computers") … Did Congress intend an arrangement under which a school- or library-provided device must protect minors but a third-party device connected to the same E-Rate supported network need not protect minors? … Should schools or libraries prevent third-party owned devices from connecting to E-Rate-funded networks and services altogether? … What share of schools and libraries already impose restrictions on third-party devices? …
In the alternative, we seek comment on whether CIPA's references to schools and libraries "with computers having Internet access" or "any of its computers with Internet access" should be interpreted more broadly to be focused on protecting children from harmful online content on any computer accessing the Internet through a school or library if the school or library receives E-Rate support … regardless of the ownership, or control of the device used to access the Internet? … We also seek comment on whether we should amend the Commission's CIPA-related rules to reflect this reading of the statute …
Network-level filtering: possibly including screen-time limits
If network-level filtering becomes the standard, device-by-device filters may no longer be enough; you would need filtering applied at the network edge to every connection. If screen-time limits get folded in, your filter or MDM would also need time controls. Favor a filtering solution that works network-wide the next time you renew.
Relatedly, we seek comment on whether technology protection measures should be required to include filtering at the network level (i.e., applying the filter to any device that connects to the network) … Should such filtering include limits on screen time? …
"Monitoring the online activities of minors" and "unauthorized access"
Definitions turn soft expectations into auditable requirements; a time-based reading of "unauthorized access" is another path to enforceable screen-time limits. If "monitoring online activity" and "unauthorized access" get defined, your internet safety policy may need explicit monitoring language and possibly time thresholds. Raise privacy concerns in a comment.
… We seek comment on the meaning of "monitoring the online activities of minors" … We seek comment on the meaning of "unauthorized access" and whether it encompasses any material devoid of "educational purposes" (e.g., students scrolling through social media instead of doing online research) … could "unauthorized access" mean that the student accessed a computer in excess of an Internet safety policy's prescribed number of hours? Should the term "computer" be defined? …
Is social media "harmful to minors"? (revisiting the 2011 position)
A reversal could make blocking specified platforms a funding condition. Many schools already restrict social media; if yours does not, be ready to.
… The Commission previously determined in 2011 that social networking websites are not per se "harmful to minors" under CIPA. … In light of changes to the social media landscape since 2011 and more recent research on the impact of social media on children, should the Commission revisit that conclusion?
"Appropriate online behavior" education / digital-literacy mandates
A defined or mandated curriculum could require completion records; if you already teach digital citizenship you are most of the way there, so keep completion records and consider student-privacy implications.
The Protecting Children in the 21st Century Act also revised CIPA to require each elementary and secondary school to certify that, "as part of its Internet safety policy, [it] is educating minors about appropriate online behavior …" … Would requiring minors to complete mandated digital and online media literacy courses … help reduce screen time …? … Should schools be required to produce documentation to the FCC demonstrating that children and minor students attended and completed the courses? …
Defining "child" and age-tiered protection: what it would actually take
Today CIPA defines "minor" as anyone under 17, and most schools run a single filtering policy district-wide. A separate "child" definition (for example, under 13) with stronger protections by age could turn "one filter for everyone" into "different filtering by age band." You would likely run more than one filtering profile mapped to age or grade:
- Under 8 (early elementary): the most restrictive profile, tightest categories, lowest screen-time allowance.
- 8 to 12 (upper elementary and middle): a moderate profile.
- 13 to 17 (high school): a lighter profile with more access.
Enforcing that requires: a filter or MDM that supports per-group policy; a student information system that feeds grade or age into the filter so the right profile follows the student; and answers for shared devices, mixed-grade buildings, substitutes, and BYOD ("which age profile applies to this user right now"). Your internet safety policy would need to describe the tiers, with records showing each band gets the right protection. Scenario: today a K-12 district applies one filter district-wide; under age tiers it would maintain a strict profile for K-5, moderate for 6-8, and lighter for 9-12, each driven automatically by grade. The benefit is real for younger kids; the technical and documentation lift is the part to plan for. If your filter cannot do per-group policy or pull grade data, that is worth knowing now and worth a comment.
Alternatively, should we consider refining any of the existing definitions in section 54.520(a) of the Commission's rules? For example, we currently define "minor" as any individual under the age of 17. We seek comment on whether we should also adopt a definition for "child" or use the COPPA definition of any individual under the age of 13 … Should there be heightened online safety requirements for younger children? …
Internet safety policy: minimum contents, collection, publication, templates
This is the most actionable CIPA area, squarely in your control. A thin or template-only policy could fail review, and your policy could become public. Make sure it addresses every CIPA element in your own words and is something you would be comfortable posting publicly.
Many schools and libraries model their Internet safety policies after or rely entirely on template policies created by other stakeholders. We seek comment on the adequacy of these frequently used template policies, and whether they meet the minimum bar for the statutory requirements of CIPA. … Should the Commission expand the requirements for Internet safety policies to include additional content from these Internet access and/or acceptable use policies? …
Public notice and public hearings: timing, enforcement, recovery, frequency
This is the most common quiet compliance gap, and it could get teeth. If recovery becomes the penalty for a missed hearing, a paperwork miss could put dollars at risk. Keep a documented notice-and-hearing trail for every adoption or amendment of your policy.
In certain circumstances, such as failing to provide public notice or hold a public hearing or meeting, E-Rate applicants are given the opportunity to correct minor errors … Should the Commission direct USAC to reduce funding commitments or recover disbursed funding if it determines that the applicant failed to provide the required public notice and/or hold a public hearing or meeting? … Are there any circumstances under which a school or library should be allowed to cure a CIPA-related violation?
Most speculative of all, the FCC also asks whether it has authority beyond CIPA to set per-day screen-time hour caps (paragraphs 38-41). Treat that as a watch item, not a near-term build.
CIPA readiness self-check
Nothing to file, just to think about:
- Can your filter enforce at the network level, not just on school-owned devices, with time controls if ever required?
- Do you have a clear BYOD policy for personal devices on your E-Rate funded network?
- Does your internet safety policy address every CIPA element in your own words, or is it an untouched template?
- Do you have documented proof of public notice and at least one public hearing for your policy and any amendments?
- Do you have a digital-literacy component you could show completion for?
- Where do you stand on social media access and monitoring, and could you adjust quickly?
Our take: CIPA compliance is going up, and documentation is everything
Our honest read, separate from the neutral summary above.
Across this entire proceeding, the FCC is clearly moving in one direction on CIPA: more obligations and more enforcement. Whatever the final rules look like, we do not see a version of this where CIPA gets easier. Device coverage, network-level filtering, screen time, social media, age tiers, policy contents, public hearings, and monitoring are all being pulled in tighter at the same time. CIPA is the heartbeat of this season, and it is going to matter more than it has in years.
What we believe that means for applicants: the single most valuable thing you can do is be able to prove your CIPA compliance, on demand, without scrambling. It is not enough to be compliant. You have to be able to show it. The districts and libraries most exposed are the ones treating CIPA as a one-time checkbox, with a template policy nobody has reopened in years and no record of the public hearing that was supposed to happen.
Our advice is simple and low-cost: start a CIPA evidence file now and keep it current. At a minimum it should hold your internet safety policy (in your own words, addressing every CIPA element), proof of public notice and at least one public hearing for that policy and any amendments, a record of how your filter is configured and what it blocks, whatever monitoring you do, and any digital-citizenship or training completion you can point to. None of that requires a rule to pass, and all of it is exactly what an auditor, or a tougher future CIPA rule, would ask for.
Cost allocation: the quieter compliance pressure point
Read between the lines on the cost-effectiveness and educational-purpose themes and cost allocation is where they land for applicants. Nothing changes today; the move is clean, well-documented allocations and a comment where a proposal would be hard to apply.
- Head Start and pre-K (paragraph 23): either cost-allocate these students and classrooms out (shrinking the discount base and adding allocation math), or, if eligibility is narrowed to public school programs, non-public programs could lose access. Identify whether any funded sites or students fall in this category.
- Eligible vs. ineligible components (§54.504(a)): not new, but codifying the certification raises the stakes; keep clean cost-allocation worksheets for any request that mixes eligible and ineligible components.
- Shared services and the "appropriate share" condition (§54.504(a)): be ready to show the benefit flows to the neediest members.
- The on-campus presumption (paragraph 15): if reversed, you may have to show a use is educational and allocate out what is not, tying allocation to educational purpose.
3) New consultant rules you would follow (FNPRM: concrete proposals)
A new annual consultant form (Form 5654): even with no consultant
If adopted, every funding year you would file Form 5654; your consultant completes it, or you certify you use none. If it passes, you would build it into your annual E-Rate calendar alongside the 470 and 471 and confirm your consultant is registered and trained to complete it. For now, just be aware it is coming.
Next, we propose to require applicants and service providers to collect and submit to USAC an annual consultant certification and disclosure form to be completed by each of their consultants. … Applicants and service providers that do not use a consultant would also be required to submit this form and certify to not having used a consultant for any E-Rate-related activities.
If it isn't filed, USAC could hold, then reject, your other forms
If the consequence rule passes, forgetting Form 5654 could freeze, then sink, your whole year's applications. If it passes, the 5654 would be a gating item, since no 5654 could mean no funding. Nothing to do yet beyond keeping it on your radar.
… to encourage applicants and service providers to timely submit these forms, we propose that USAC hold any E-Rate-related FCC form(s) under review until the certification and disclosure form is completed and submitted. If the annual form is not timely submitted, we propose that USAC reject any pending E-Rate-related forms submitted by the applicant or service provider for that year. …
No percentage-based consultant fees; keep LOAs & payment records
If your consultant is paid a percentage of your E-Rate award, that arrangement would be prohibited and you would move to a flat or hourly fee and update your contract and LOA. If adopted, you would also sign a Letter of Agency, submit it with Form 5654, and retain LOAs, fee agreements, and payment records for 10 years. For now, just keep it in mind; a simple per-funding-year consultant file would make an audit a non-event.
… We therefore seek comment on a strict prohibition on applicants and service providers from entering into any fee arrangement with their consultant that is based on a percentage of the consultant's E-Rate contracts with and/or disbursements to the applicant and/or service provider they represent. …
… We first propose that applicants and service providers be required to enter into a letter of agency (LOA), or similar agreement with their consultant(s) … and be submitted to USAC with the submission of the proposed annual consultant certification and disclosure form (FCC Form 5654). We also propose that applicants and service providers be required to retain the following types of consultant-related documentation: letters of agency, consulting and fee agreements, and banking records showing payments to consultants and/or consulting firms. …
The oversight burden shifts onto your recordkeeping. Even though these rules target consultants, the applicant holds and produces the paper. Per funding year, expect a consultant file with the signed LOA (likely submitted with Form 5654), the consultant contract and fee agreement on a flat or hourly basis, banking or payment records, and confirmation the consultant is registered (has a CRN) and trained. Scenario: a district pays its consultant 6% of its annual E-Rate funding with only an email thread as the "agreement." Under the proposal, that pricing model is not allowed, the engagement moves to flat or hourly, and the district needs a proper LOA, a written fee agreement, and payment records on file for audit.
The individual consultant registration database, per-person CRN, date-of-birth + last-4-SSN, and annual anti-fraud training apply to consultants themselves (paragraphs 53-58), not to applicants directly, but they affect who you can hire and how they work in EPC on your behalf.
4) Competitive bidding & contracts (FNPRM: concrete proposals)
Read between the lines: competitive bidding and cost justification will matter more
The draft does not say "we are going to audit your bids harder," but that is the direction. Ending the existing-contract shortcut, requiring contracts to be signed after the ACD, written and pre-approved service substitutions, reseller-cost caps, and reimbursement caps built from USAC pricing data all point at one thing: the FCC wants a clean, well-documented competitive bidding process and a clear cost justification for what you chose. The message to applicants is that your bid evaluation, your "most cost-effective" decision, and the paper trail behind them are going to be looked at more closely. We are not telling you to change your process today. The smart move is to make sure your competitive bidding documentation is genuinely in order, your Form 470, your bid evaluation and scoring, why you picked the winner on price as the primary factor, and your contract dates, so that if these proposals pass you can show your work without scrambling.
End of the "Kalamazoo" existing-contract option
This changes a real workflow. You could no longer lock in a contract before bidding and then paper it through a 470; every contract must be signed after the 28-day ACD. In practice, never sign or date a contract until your 470 has been posted 28 days and you have evaluated bids. Watch the state-master-contract carve-out the FCC is asking about, since many applicants rely on those.
Plain English: Today you can post a Form 470 and select a contract you'd already signed (using it as the "winning bid"). That would no longer be allowed; every contract must be signed after the 28-day ACD. The FCC asks about a possible state master contract carve-out.
Use of Existing Contracts. … we first propose to require all applicants to enter into a signed contract or legally binding agreement with their chosen service provider following the completion of a competitive bidding process … and signed or agreed to after the allowable contract date (ADC) that is included on the FCC Form 470. … E-Rate applicants would no longer be able to request support for equipment and/or services under an existing contract that was not competitively bid … pursuant to the Bureau's decision in the 2002 Kalamazoo Order on Reconsideration. … Under the proposed rule, all contracts and legally binding agreements would have to be signed or agreed to after the ACD that is included on the FCC Form 470 and is calculated 28 days after the posting of the form on USAC's website. …
We seek comment on these views … To the extent these proposed rule modifications may adversely affect applicants that rely on state master contracts, for example, we invite comment and seek alternative language that results in the same outcome. Would we need an exception for applicants that file an FCC Form 470 and select a state master contract as the service offering?
Service substitutions: in writing, sworn, USAC pre-approved
If adopted, a substitution would require a written, perjury-certified request that USAC approves before you are reimbursed. Build in lead time, and do not deploy a substituted product expecting payment until USAC has signed off in writing.
Service Substitutions. Second, we propose to amend section 54.504(d) of the E-Rate program rules to make clear that service substitutions must be in writing and certified under penalty of perjury by an authorized person and that the Administrator must approve the service substitution prior to reimbursement being made. In practice, this should not result in a large difference for applicants filing service substitutions, but it is consistent with rules adopted in other programs offering service substitution options and helps codify these requirements. We seek to improve our ability to monitor services and costs and discourage undisclosed substitutions. We seek comment on this proposed change.
5) Forms, consortia & certifications (FNPRM: concrete proposals)
Consortium members would certify the full Form 471 set in EPC before the lead files
If adopted, every consortium member would certify the full Form 471 set in EPC before the lead files, and members become directly accountable. Consortium leads would need members to complete their 479s in EPC early; members should expect to certify far more than just CIPA and to own their own compliance, not lean on the lead.
FCC Form 479 Revisions. We propose adding the certification statements found on the FCC Form 471 applications to the FCC Form 479, which is currently used by consortium members to certify their compliance with CIPA. … In addition, we propose requiring consortium members to submit the FCC Form 479 within EPC prior to the consortium lead certifying the FCC Form 471 during the annual EPC administrative window. … when a consortium member fails to comply with a program rule, the consortium lead that made the certification may not be the appropriate party from whom to recover the funding …
Certifications written into the rules (Forms 470/471/472/473/474)
This is mostly housekeeping; the certifications you already make would be written into the rules and standardized. No new obligations, but "I did not know" becomes a weaker defense once the rules spell out exactly what you are certifying, so make sure whoever signs your forms actually understands them.
Other Form Revisions. … we propose to incorporate into the Commission's rules all certification statements currently required as part of the submission of our E-Rate program forms, including those on the FCC Forms 470, 471, 472, 473, and 474. … without imposing any new or substantive obligations on program participants. …
The rule text that would change for applicants (Appendix A)
- §54.500, new "consultant" definition (page 45-46).
- §54.503(c)(2),(c)(4), Form 470 certifications + the ACD rule: "Applicants are not permitted to rely on an existing contract or legally binding agreement that was signed or agreed to prior to the ACD." (page 46-49)
- §54.504(a), Form 471 adds: "I certify that I and the entity(ies) I represent have knowledge of and have complied with all program rules…" (page 50)
- §54.504(d), service substitution in writing, under perjury, USAC pre-approval (page 51).
- §54.504(h), NEW: consortium members file a full Form 479 (page 52-55).
- §54.516(a), recordkeeping now includes LOAs, consulting/fee agreements, and banking records for consultants (page 57).
- §54.517, NEW "Consultants" section: Form 5654, percentage-fee ban, LOA requirement (page 57-61).
Bottom line for applicants
This proposal treats E-Rate as a program worth keeping and worth modernizing, not one slated for elimination. The near-term, concrete changes are administrative housekeeping (a new consultant form, contracts signed after the ACD, written service substitutions, consortium certifications). The bigger items, which services still belong (special construction, MIBS), how discounts are targeted, and how CIPA applies to modern devices, are open questions in a public comment process, where applicants, consortia, and state coordinators have a direct opportunity to shape the outcome. The practical move now: keep filing as normal, tighten your consultant documentation, and consider filing comments on the eligibility/discount questions that affect your roadmap.
Our take: is the E-Rate program going away? We don't think so.
This section is ErateSync's opinion, clearly separate from the neutral, sourced summary above.
Short answer: no. We don't read this proposal as the beginning of the end for E-Rate. Three reasons we're confident the program is being modernized, not dismantled:
- The FCC just invested in E-Rate's future. On May 1, 2026, only weeks before this draft, the Commission adopted a brand-new Competitive Bidding Portal (FCC 26-30), a piece of E-Rate infrastructure that this very proposal leans on (paragraph 72). Agencies don't build new systems for programs they're planning to wind down.
- The concrete proposals strengthen the program. Look at what's actually being proposed (the FNPRM, with real draft rule text): a consultant registration system, mandatory anti-fraud training, a ban on percentage-based consultant fees, expanded recordkeeping, codified certifications, and a firm Form 473 deadline. Every one is an anti-fraud / program-integrity upgrade. You don't spend this much effort hardening a program's defenses in order to cancel it a year later.
- The "sunset" line is a question, not a plan. "Should the program be limited or sunset?" appears in the exploratory NPRM alongside dozens of other questions, there is no proposed rule to end E-Rate. Demand is still strong (FY2025 requests of roughly $3.2 billion across Category One and Category Two), and the funding cap was just raised for inflation.
Our read: this is a modernization and clean-up of a program that achieved its original mission, near-universal connectivity. The smart move for applicants isn't to brace for cancellation, it's to get your consultant documentation, contracts, and compliance in order, because that's clearly the direction the program is heading. (That said, it's still a draft, if you have a stake in the outcome, file a comment.)
Frequently asked questions about the E-Rate program changes
What is the E-Rate program?
The E-Rate program is the FCC's universal-service program that gives eligible schools and libraries 20%-90% discounts on broadband, internet access, and internal network equipment (Wi-Fi, routers, switches, cabling). It's administered by USAC and is one of the largest sources of K-12 and library connectivity funding in the country.
Is E-Rate funding being cut?
No, the 2026 FCC E-Rate proposal does not eliminate E-Rate funding. It's a review and modernization of the program after schools and libraries reached near-universal connectivity. "Should the program be limited or sunset?" is one question among many open for public comment, not a decision. Most near-term changes for applicants are administrative.
What is the FCC proposing for E-Rate?
Concrete proposals (most likely to take effect) include a new annual consultant form (Form 5654), ending the "Kalamazoo" existing-contract option (sign contracts after the ACD), written, pre-approved service substitutions, a June 30 Form 473 deadline, and a Form 479 overhaul for consortium members. Open questions (comment stage) cover eligible services (special construction, dark fiber, MIBS), the discount formula (NSLP + urban/rural), pre-K/Head Start eligibility, and CIPA + screen-time modernization.
How does this affect E-Rate for schools and libraries right now?
Right now, nothing changes, keep filing as normal. If adopted, the near-term effects are mostly paperwork (the new consultant form, contracts signed after the ACD, written service substitutions, consortium certifications). The bigger items (discounts, eligible services, CIPA for personal devices) are still open for comment.
Does this change E-Rate special construction or MIBS?
Not yet, but both are explicitly under review. The FCC asks whether to limit or eliminate special construction / self-provisioned networks / dark fiber, and whether MIBS (managed Wi-Fi) should stay eligible, be limited by district size, or be reimbursed by hours worked. If either is on your multi-year roadmap, plan accordingly and consider filing a comment.
When would E-Rate changes take effect?
Not immediately. After the comment period (30 days) and reply comments (60 days), the FCC issues final rules later, realistically not before about FY2027, and the final rules can differ from the proposal or drop items entirely.
How can applicants weigh in?
File comments in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, and 21-455 through the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), individually, through your state E-Rate coordinator, or via an association/coalition.
Source: FCC-CIRC2606-02 (DOC-422168A1). Quotes reproduced verbatim (footnote numbers and page footers omitted; "…" marks where context sentences are condensed). This is a draft rulemaking; nothing here is final. Always confirm against the official document before acting. This post is general information, not legal advice.