FCC NPRM Proposing Major Changes to E-Rate Program Now Published in The Federal Register

August 14, 2026

As previously mentioned, the FCC released two E-Rate Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) that could significantly impact the program and the administration of the Universal Service Fund (USF).  

Both have now been published in the Federal Register, which starts the initial 60-day public comment period, followed by an additional 30-day reply comment period.  Based on today’s release, initial comments are due on or before Oct. 13, 2026, and reply comments are due on or before Nov. 12, 2026.

The two NPRMs,  “Ensuring Children’s Safe Use of Screens and E-Rate-Funded Services” and “Promoting Fair and Open Competitive Bidding in the E-Rate Program” (FCC-26-41), are premised on limiting student screen time in schools as a requirement to receive E-Rate funding.  But the NPRM goes far beyond just screen time, proposing specific changes and seeking comments on dozens of program areas.  For a list of all questions asked, go to  All-Questions-from-FCC_26-41.xlsx:      

  • Should the E-Rate program be limited or sunset to reflect today’s extensive connectivity rates? (paragraph 12)
  • Should CIPA compliance include [student] screen-time limits or monitoring? (paragraph 30)
  • To what extent should schools be required to provide parental “opt-out” of screen-based instruction or screen-use to receive E-Rate funding? (paragraph 31)
  • Should funding be eliminated from applicants with the lowest discount percentages? (paragraph 25)
  • Did Congress intend for the [FCC’s] decisions about the E-Rate program to be based on educational outcomes? If so, how should the Commission measure educational outcomes? (paragraph 28)
  • At what point should policymakers conclude that the program’s core objective has been achieved?
  • Does E-Rate support adopted in the 2014 Second E-Rate Order remain justified in light of today’s school connectivity rates and the availability of other federal funding sources?
  • Should E-Rate funding be phased out for schools and libraries in areas with the lowest NSLP participation rates, given the likelihood of greater resources and tax bases?
  • Does continued support for self-provisioned network construction and dark fiber risk displacing private investment or wasting federal resources on duplicative infrastructure? This is particularly relevant as programs like the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program administered by NTIA and established in 2021, aim to ensure high-speed broadband availability in any remaining unserved and underserved areas, including for community anchor institutions?
  • Should 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?  Should MIBS be limited to smaller schools and libraries?

The NPRM includes an additional section which proposes: 

  • Strengthening program integrity by increasing oversight over consultants, including requiring annual disclosures and certification, creating a registration system, and prohibiting certain percentage-based fee arrangements.
  • Streamlining administrative processes, including stricter requirements for signed contracts, formalizing the service substitution process, establishing a June 30th deadline for submitting the FCC Form 473, modifying the FCC Form 479 submission requirements, and requiring all contracts to be signed after the allowable contract date.
  • Reconsidering the eligibility of Managed Internal Broadband Services (MIBS)

If you choose to comment, I’ve provided step-by-step instructions at Filing-FCC-NPRM-Comments.pdf.

As things develop, I will provide more information.   

Sincerely,

Lorrie

Lorrie Germann
Pennsylvania E-Rate Coordinator
717-576-2737 – o
lgermann@e-ratepa.org
www.e-ratepa.org

Site designed and maintained by Silver Penny Studio