- The FCC is taking comments on the E-Rate program
- Early commenters are afraid the FCC will reduce funding to the program
- Concurrent with the FCC’s review of E-Rate, a non-profit group is challenging the program in court
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has opened a comment period related to the E-Rate program, which provides funding for internet access at eligible schools and libraries, with subsidy levels tied to poverty rates.
Advocates of E-Rate are concerned because FCC Chairman Brendan Carr seems inclined toward revisions to the program. “Today, our E-Rate program spends around $2.5 billion a year,” wrote Carr. “And a lot of new data is pouring in about the use of screen time for students. Through this item, we take a top-to-bottom review of the program and ….seek comment on actions to further strengthen E-Rate program integrity.”
Early commenters are concerned the FCC will reduce funding for the program.
For example, Leisa Winston, superintendent of Huntington Beach City School District in California, wrote, “Our district's connectivity is not a convenience; it is the delivery mechanism for state testing, student safety and wellness monitoring, emergency communication with families, and daily instruction across 9 schools. E-Rate matching funding of nearly $1.5 million over the past 10 years has helped us build and maintain that infrastructure, including networking switch upgrades and wireless access points, to a standard we could not otherwise afford.”
Delana Knight, director of the Northeast Georgia Regional Library System, said her organization received $415,760 in E-Rate funding between 2021 and 2025. “E-Rate funding enables Northeast Georgia libraries to provide high-speed broadband internet access that library patrons use daily for multiple activities, including completing online learning assignments, applying for government benefits, filing taxes, creating resumes and applying for jobs, and attending virtual healthcare appointments,” wrote Knight.
What are the attacks on E-Rate about?
Concurrent with the FCC’s review of E-Rate, a non-profit group called Consumers’ Research is pursuing litigation, challenging two of the four programs under the Universal Service Fund (USF) — E-Rate and the Rural Health Care Program.
Previously, Consumers’ Research challenged the entire legitimacy of USF. However, the Supreme Court didn’t buy that argument, and in 2025 it upheld USF’s constitutionality.
But Consumers’ Research is not giving up. Earlier this year, it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit challenging E-Rate and the Rural Health Care Program, which are two of the four programs under USF.
The four USF programs are:
- Financial support to eligible telecommunications carriers serving high-cost areas
- Assisting low-income customers with discounted installation and monthly broadband and telephone services
- Providing discounted telecommunications services, internet access, and internal connections to eligible schools and libraries — E-Rate
- Providing discounted services to rural health care providers
Why does Consumers’ Research want to challenge these programs that help poor kids get access to the internet and rural clinics pay reasonable rates for telecom services?
The non-profit is using legal arguments to say the FCC doesn’t have authority to fund E-Rate and Rural Health Care because only Congress can do so.
But from a broader perspective, Consumers’ Research is pursuing a far-right agenda. Its website says, “We believe that corporations need to start serving their customers, not woke politicians.” And it recently expanded its consumer education initiative to include health systems nationwide "that leverage federal funding streams, taxpayer dollars, and benefits from their tax-exempt status to advance woke agendas, including Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), gender ideology, and climate activism, all over patient well-being,” says its website.
In terms of the E-Rate program, according to the Schools, Health & Libraries Broadband Coalition (SHLB), “If Consumers’ Research prevails in court, the ruling would undermine the legal basis for the E-Rate and Rural Health Care programs. A ruling against these programs would create serious uncertainty for the communities that rely on them.”