This year marks the 30th anniversary of the federal E-Rate program, which provides broadband funding for public libraries and schools. On June 25, however, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will decide whether to limit or sunset E-Rate, which could adversely affect libraries, schools, and other community groups that rely on it most.
On June 11, Joey Wender, executive director of the Schools, Health, and Libraries Broadband (SHLB) Coalition, published the following column in Benton Institute for Broadband and Society Digital Beat. It is reprinted here with permission.
The FCC Is Asking Whether to End E-Rate
Every school and library should answer
On June 4, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released a draft proposal that should alarm schools and libraries around the country. Tucked inside a long document is a direct question: Should the E-Rate program be “limited or sunset”?
When E-Rate began in the late 1990s, most schools and libraries had little or no internet access. Today, nearly every school in the country has a high-speed connection. The FCC points to that success and suggests the job is finished. The reality is the opposite. That connectivity exists because E-Rate supports it year after year.
A network is a continuing commitment. Bandwidth needs grow every year. Equipment ages and has to be replaced, and Wi-Fi that once served a few laptops now supports online testing, security systems, and daily building operations. In many schools and libraries, broadband now runs everything from the HVAC to door locks. Treating E-Rate as a finished project is like deciding to stop maintaining a highway because it has already been built. Congress understood this from the start. The 1996 Telecommunications Act, which created E-Rate, defines universal service as an “evolving level of telecommunications services,” a commitment meant to keep pace with advancing technology.
So what happens if E-Rate goes away? Schools and libraries would have to absorb the full cost of their internet service. For institutions already working with tight budgets, that money has to come from somewhere. That money comes out of staff and program budgets that make a school or library more than a building.
The deepest harm falls on the students whose schools can least afford high-speed internet, since E-Rate discounts are tied to need. Schools and libraries in lower-income communities receive the largest discounts, which is a focus of the universal service program. Pull that funding, and the digital divide between well-resourced districts and struggling ones grows. The communities that depend most on E-Rate are the ones that would suffer the greatest.
The FCC also asks whether E-Rate support should be limited to rural areas. Universal service should not draw a distinction between a disadvantaged child in a rural town and a disadvantaged child in a city. Congress did not write that difference into the law, and there is no reason to invent it now.
It is also worth remembering that E-Rate does not stand alone. It is one of four programs funded through the Universal Service Fund, and those programs reinforce one another. Weakening E-Rate weakens the entire system that brings affordable connections to schools, libraries, rural and urban communities, low-income families, and health care providers. A threat to one is a threat to all.
Much of the proposal is framed around concerns over children’s screen time, and those concerns are worth taking seriously. However, a student doing supervised research on a school device is in a different category from a child scrolling on a personal phone, a distinction the proposal only briefly raises. There are real questions about what healthy screen use looks like and how different kinds of use compare. Those questions should not become a backdoor for dismantling E-Rate.
For all its length, the proposal spends no time discussing the benefits the program delivers, and it offers no plan for what would happen if the program were scaled back or ended. How would institutions plan their budgets around a program that might disappear? The item asks whether to cut the cord without describing the fall.
Here is the good news: This is a proposal, not a decision. The FCC is required to take public comments, and it will receive them. The SHLB Coalition believes in E-Rate because we have seen what it makes possible, and we will not stand by as it is quietly unwound.
All of our voices carry weight in this proceeding. Follow SHLB’s coverage in the coming weeks, starting with our free webinar on July 16, for a look at what the proposal says and resources on how and when to file a comment with the FCC.
We will also have more in-depth programming on this issue at our annual AnchorNets conference, taking place October 7–9 in Arlington, Virginia.
What’s ahead
E-Rate was built by advocacy and is sustained by action. We must protect what connects our communities.
ALA and our SHLB Coalition partners have been in direct communication with FCC policymakers, but congressional support will be necessary to protect this program that Congress created. Follow ALA’s social media for updates about the results of the June 25 FCC meeting and our advocacy strategy moving forward.
