Funds For Learning — Your E-rate Guides E-rate Trends Report · 2026
Download the PDF

Sixteenth annual survey · Published September 25, 2026

2026 E-rate Trends Report

What E-rate applicants said in 2026, and what they asked for.

Findings from the 2026 National Survey of E-rate Applicants and funding year 2026 requests as filed. Filed in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, 21-455, and 26-173.

Read the key takeaways Explore 695 applicant comments

Chapter 1

About E-rate and the annual Trends Report

About the E-rate discount program

The Schools and Libraries Universal Service Support Mechanism, commonly called the E-rate program, gives eligible schools, libraries, and consortia discounts on the goods and services that connect K-12 students and library patrons to the Internet. The Federal Communications Commission sets the rules; the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) administers the program.

Category One pays for the connections that bring the Internet to a school or library. Category Two pays for the equipment and services, such as Wi-Fi and network switching, that carry it inside the building. Discount rates rise with the poverty level of the community served and are higher for rural applicants. Each year, applicants post their needs for competitive bidding, choose a vendor, and request a discount on FCC Form 471. USAC reviews each request, commits the funds, and disburses the discount.

About the annual Trends Report

The report draws on two sources. The 2026 National Survey of E-rate Applicants, Funds For Learning's sixteenth annual survey of the people who handle E-rate for schools, libraries, and consortia, was open from May 5 to July 29, 2026. FY2026 funding request data as filed with USAC are drawn from Funds For Learning's E-rate Manager® platform as of April 15, 2026. In funding year 2026, 21,237 applicants filed funding requests with 3,616 service providers.

The survey received 2,460 responses, more than in any year since comparable counts begin in 2015. The 2,435 responses used in this report (chapter 11 explains the 25 set aside) correspond to 11.5% of the 21,237 applicants that filed FY2026 funding requests. The yearly tables behind the charts are in chapter 10.

The report presents what applicants said and what the request data show. Funds For Learning's views on the Commission's 2026 proposals are in its comments in those proceedings.

This report is not an encyclopedic review of the program, and while we strive to be fair and impartial, it is not a scientific analysis conducted by an independent third party. We hope it catalyzes discussion, generates new ideas, and leads to further improvements in this vital program.

Funds For Learning sells no E-rate eligible services, holds no SPIN, and accepts no payments from service providers tied to their sales to applicants.

Chapter 2

A note from John

Thank you to the 2,435 people who answered this year's survey. That is the most responses we have received in the twelve years we can compare, and it came from people who had plenty else to do this spring.

The FCC has asked whether the E-rate program has finished its work. That is a fair question to ask of any program, and it deserves a real answer. Our part of the answer is this report. We asked the people who file the forms and run the networks, and we put what they told us next to the Commission's questions, in the Commission's order.

Here is some of what they said. 95.9% say E-rate funding is vital to their connectivity goals. 90.8% say they can depend on it every year, which is the highest that number has been since we started asking in 2016. 78.6% say competitive bidding lowers their prices. 60.5% say the application process is fast, simple, and efficient. That last number was 34.7% ten years ago. It has come a long way, and it still has a long way to go.

I do not think this work finishes. Three out of four respondents expect their bandwidth needs to grow over the next three years. Seven in ten expect to upgrade their Wi-Fi networks in the same period. The students keep coming, and a network that was enough five years ago is being asked to do more.

This survey is the voice of the applicant. The schools and libraries that count on this program are trusting the Commission to get this right, and the most useful thing we can do for them is make sure that voice is in the record.

Thank you for reading it.

John D. HarringtonChief Executive Officer, Funds For Learning®

Chapter 3

Key takeaways

The funding request data show what applicants asked for. They do not show what applicants need and cannot request, or how the program looks from the applicant's side. The survey asks applicants directly: 2,460 responses, of which 2,435 are the basis of this report, equal to 11.5% of the 21,237 applicants that filed FY2026 funding requests.

95.9%

Vital. E-rate funding is vital to their organization's Internet connectivity goals; 83.4% strongly agree.

2,435 responses · 84.6% in 2016

90.8%

Dependable. Their organization can depend on E-rate funding every year, the highest value in the item's eleven-year series.

2,435 responses · 64.9% in 2016

60.5%

Process ease is still the lowest of the three goals. 94.9% agree on affordable access and 89.2% on cost-effective spending; on fast, simple, and efficient processes, 60.5% agree and 20.0% disagree.

2,289 responses · 34.7% in 2016

71.2%

Wi-Fi upgrades ahead. Of those with a Wi-Fi network, 71.2% expect to need an upgrade within three years; 99.0% call Wi-Fi extremely or very important to their mission.

2,255 responses

$2.54B

Category Two, year one of the new cycle. FY2026 Category Two requests total $2,535,670,890 in pre-discount cost, 27.6% above FY2025. Category One is 6.6% below FY2025, the lowest of eleven years.

Requests as filed, April 15, 2026

82.8%

Administration measures fall. Very or somewhat satisfied with USAC (2025: 86.6%). Among EPC users, 68.4% say the portal meets their needs (2025: 72.1%). 57.5% expect the FY2028 bidding portal to add administrative burden.

2,408 responses on USAC

Higher on every measure since 2016. The five statements about the program that the survey has carried since 2016 all stand between 11.3 and 33.9 points above their first-year values. Agreement that competitive bidding lowers prices rose from 44.7% to 78.6%. No statement moved more than 1.3 points from 2025 (Table A1).

Eligible services. 97.5% say network security and network management goods and services should qualify for E-rate support (2,198 responses), and 86.6% say dual, spare, or failover Internet should (2,147 responses); 18.0% have dual Internet connections and 62.0% say they would if E-rate rules allowed it. 76.1% expect their Internet bandwidth needs to increase over the next three years (2,268 responses), the lowest value in a series that began at 90.1% in 2016.

Who does the work. 70.6% of respondents have one trained E-rate person in their organization, or none (2,180 responses), and 56.4% of all respondents use a consultant for at least one reason (2,435 responses).

Chapter 4

The decade: 2016 to 2026 against the FCC's three goals

Since 2016 the survey has asked eight questions in the same words every year: five statements about what E-rate does for the respondent's organization, and three on whether the program is achieving each of the goals the Commission set for it in the 2014 E-rate Modernization Order. Four more track administration. Values are top-two shares; yearly values are in Tables A1 to A3.

What E-rate does: five statements, 2016 to 2026

All five statements are higher in 2026 than in 2016, by 11.3 to 33.9 points. Agreement that competitive bidding lowers prices rose the most, from 44.7% to 78.6% (2,435 responses), a series high. Agreement that the organization can depend on E-rate funding every year rose from 64.9% to 90.8%, also a series high. Agreement that E-rate funding is vital, the highest of the five in 2016 at 84.6%, rose the least, to 95.9%. Nothing moved more than 1.3 points between 2025 (1,329 responses) and 2026.

"Erate has been the single best, consistent program libraries have had in the 20+ years I have been here. While I think EPC could make the application more understandable, it has been exceptionally consistent for a very long time which removes a huge burden for library directors."

Oklahoma library

"In extreme rural communities E-rate is the only way we can afford connecting our schools and libraries."

Alaska school district

Five statements about the program, 2016 to 2026

% strongly agree + agree

Chapter 5

FY2026 request data

The figures in this chapter are FY2026 Form 471 requests as filed, from E-rate Manager®, as of April 15, 2026. Nothing here is a commitment or a disbursement; FY2026 commitments are still being issued.

Applicants and requests

21,237 applicants filed FY2026 funding requests with 3,616 service providers. 19,405 requested Category One services and 12,442 requested Category Two, up from 11,648 in FY2025. FY2026 is the first year of the FY2026 to FY2030 Category Two budget cycle.

Category One requests total $2,144,057,324 before discounts, of which $1,730,315,248 is the E-rate discount requested; Category Two requests total $2,535,670,890, of which $1,889,096,742 is the discount requested. The E-rate share of pre-discount cost is 80.7% in Category One and 74.5% in Category Two. Category One, an annual purchase of recurring service, is 6.6% below FY2025's $2,296,503,324 in pre-discount cost, the lowest of the eleven years charted. Category Two, capital spending against a five-year budget, is 27.6% above FY2025's $1,987,042,318.

Sites supported

FY2026 applications list 130,929 sites for Category One and 70,971 for Category Two. The Category Two count is the highest in the series, 1,309 above FY2025's 69,662; the Category One count has stayed between 129,324 and 132,174 since FY2016.

Requests as filed by category, FY2016 to FY2026

Pre-discount cost, billions of dollars

E-rate share of pre-discount cost, FY2016 to FY2026

Discount requested as % of pre-discount cost

Sites listed on applications by category, FY2016 to FY2026

Distinct recipients of service

Allocation of FY2026 requested services and products

Of the $4.68 billion requested for FY2026 before discounts, lit fiber accounts for $1,658,715,712, or 35.4%; other broadband services for $485,341,611, or 10.4%; Wi-Fi equipment and network switches for $1,802,656,635, or 38.5%; and network cabling, accessories, and installation for $733,014,256, or 15.7% (Table A7 defines the groups). Lit fiber's share was 39.9% in FY2025 and the Wi-Fi equipment and switches share 32.8%. In FY2026 the order is reversed, and Wi-Fi equipment and switches is the larger group.

Largest Category Two functions requested, FY2026

$741,477,025

Data distribution, pre-discount cost

$452,276,397

Wireless data distribution

$423,057,316

Licenses

"Our highest cost for our small rural district is LAN maintenance. Since E-Rate discontinued this service it has drastically hurt our district."

Texas school district

Allocation of requested services and products, FY2025 and FY2026

Share of pre-discount cost, four groups

Chapter 6

The 2026 survey

Funds For Learning's sixteenth annual survey of E-rate applicants was open from May 5 to July 29, 2026. It received 2,460 responses, and 2,435 are the basis of this report. Funding request data give an incomplete picture: services that are not eligible for discounts do not appear on Form 471, and there is no regular channel through which applicants tell the FCC how the program's administration is working.

Response counts vary by question. The figure reported for every agreement item is the share who strongly agree or agree; for other scales it is the top two answers (chapter 11). Forward-looking questions are in chapter 7; the eleven-year series are in chapter 4.

6.1 E-rate support

Applicants continue to describe E-rate as essential, and the numbers move little from year to year. 95.9% agree that E-rate funding is vital to their organization's Internet connectivity goals (2,435 responses; 2025: 96.8%), and 83.4% strongly agree. 90.8% agree that their organization can depend on E-rate funding every year (2025: 90.3%), the highest value in the item's eleven years. 78.6% agree the competitive bidding process lowers their prices (2025: 78.3%), the highest in a series that started at 44.7% in 2016.

"Without erate funding we would have to make deep cuts to other library services to finance our internet."

Oklahoma library

Read the 161 mission-critical comments

Five statements about the program, 2026

Share of 2,435 respondents

6.2 USAC's administration

Applicants' experiences with USAC are mixed. 82.8% are very or somewhat satisfied with USAC (2,408 responses; 2025: 86.6%, 1,314 responses), a change of −3.8 points. 55.4% say USAC cares about their individual situation a great deal or a lot (2025: 60.0%), a change of −4.6 points. The 2025 values were the highest in both series. Comments praise helpful staff and describe frustration with review delays, repeated document requests, and decisions that arrive after the summer installation window has passed.

"Processing speed has become an issue recently with E-Rate requests. If proposals take 6-months or more to approve (finally approving in the fall), it puts us into next year (summer) for install, and by then models may have changed. This was never an issue in years past, but we have missed the spring purchasing window and summer install windows the past two E-Rate cycles now."

Michigan school district

USAC: satisfied, and USAC cares, 2019 to 2026

% top-two answers

6.3 USAC's E-rate Productivity Center

77.6% of respondents used EPC during the FY2026 filing window (2,385 responses). Among those users, 68.4% say the portal meets their needs extremely or very well (1,837 responses; 2025: 72.1%, 1,074 responses), a change of −3.7 points. 50.2% rate EPC very easy or easy to use (2025: 52.4%), a change of −2.2 points; the item has risen from 23.4% in 2016. Comments still describe the portal as cumbersome and name password resets, navigation, and form wording that is hard to follow for people who use the system a few times a year.

"The EPC is not intuitive. As we only use it once a year, I have to pull up directions on where to find things. Many of the questions asked as part of the application process are worded in a way that I find difficult to understand, even though I have been handling our e-rate needs for over 10 years."

Iowa school

EPC among users: meets needs, and ease of use, 2016 to 2026

% top-two answers among EPC users

6.4 The homework gap

Since 2017 the survey has asked whether insufficient Internet access to the home of students or library patrons is a significant issue in the respondent's community. 67.6% agree (2,403 responses; 2025: 67.5%, 1,304 responses). The figure has come down from its 2020 high of 90.1% and is unchanged from 2025. Library respondents describe their buildings as the main public access point for residents who have no connection at home.

"We live in a very rural town with a population of [amount]. There are no businesses that provide free internet. There isn't even a coffee shop here. We are also very low income based and more than half of our students qualify for free and reduced lunch. Access to wifi provides students and patrons with services they cant get anywhere else."

Idaho library

Insufficient home Internet access is a significant issue in our community, 2017 to 2026

% strongly agree + agree

6.5 The bidding portal

In FCC 26-30, the Commission placed E-rate competitive bidding in a USAC-managed online portal beginning with FY2028. Both survey items are new in 2026. 57.5% agree that requiring bidding to go through the portal will increase the administrative burden on their organization (2,289 responses), and 5.0% disagree. On whether the portal is needed, opinion divides evenly: 30.7% agree that it is necessary to ensure the integrity of the competitive bidding process, 30.6% disagree, and 38.7% neither agree nor disagree. Some comments welcome a single system and expect it to be fair; others raise the participation of smaller and rural service providers, state procurement law that already governs their bidding, and applicants who receive one bid or none.

"I am very concerned about a bidder portal. We sometimes get no bids, so I wouldn't know that until too late to ask providers to bid on my projects. It just adds unnecessary red tape to what is working very well now."

Iowa school district

Read the 68 bidding portal comments

The USAC-managed competitive bidding portal, 2026

Share of 2,289 respondents

6.6 Who does the work

The chief technology official is named most often as responsible for E-rate applications, by 47.5% of the 2,165 who answered; dedicated E-rate staff are named by 8.9%.

70.6% report one staff member or none trained in or with expertise in the program's rules and procedures (2,180 responses), and 12.5% report none at all. Those who do the work are experienced: 72.2% have worked with the E-rate program for five or more years (2,180 responses; 2025: 68.9%, 1,220 responses), up from 63.1% in 2016.

The survey measures consultant use as scale and reasons only. 63.0% of those who answered the consultant block use a consultant for at least one reason (2,180 responses); on the all-respondent basis used in prior years, the only basis comparable across years (chapter 11), the share is 56.4% (2,435 responses). Among consultant users (1,373 responses), the reasons named most often are that they cannot keep up with all the regulations, 79.2%, and that they do not have the time, 64.5%.

The USAC News Brief is the most-used source for keeping up with E-rate, named by 68.5% of the 2,114 who answered, followed by third-party newsletters and listservs at 45.8%.

"The process is a little cumbersome for small districts like us, we have to outsource someone to file the paperwork for us as we do not have the time or expertise."

Arizona school district

Who is responsible for the E-rate applications, 2026

Share of 2,165 respondents; more than one role may be named

How respondents stay up to date on E-rate, 2026

Share of 2,114 respondents

Why consultant users use a consultant, 2026

Share of 1,373 consultant users

Chapter 7

Emerging needs

7.1 Bandwidth

Asked how much they expect their Internet bandwidth needs to change over the next three years, 76.1% of respondents expect an increase (2,268 responses; 2025: 76.8%, 1,256 responses), a change of −0.7 points. The 2026 value is the lowest in the eleven-year series, which began at 90.1% in 2016, and the share has come down in every year since 2021 (Table A15). The item asks about three years; the Commission's question in FCC 26-41 about future connectivity needs asks about five to ten.

Expect an increase in bandwidth need over the next three years, 2016 to 2026

% expecting any increase

Expected change in bandwidth need over the next three years, 2026

Share of 2,268 respondents

7.2 Resilience: dual Internet connections

Respondents were asked whether they have dual Internet connections, for load balancing or high-availability Internet. 18.0% have them (2,268 responses; 2025: 15.5%, 1,256 responses), a change of +2.5 points and the highest value in the series, which began at 13.4% in 2018. 62.0% answered "No, but we would if E-rate rules allowed it," and 20.0% answered "No, and we have no need for it." On eligibility, 86.6% say dual, spare, or failover Internet should qualify for E-rate support (2,147 responses; 2025: 86.1%, 1,196 responses; section 7.4).

"Dual internet connections should be allowed at a single BEN location."

Colorado school district

Dual Internet connections, 2018 to 2026

% who have dual connections

Dual Internet connections, 2026 answers

Share of 2,268 respondents

7.3 Wi-Fi and Category Two

99.0% of respondents say Wi-Fi is extremely or very important to fulfilling their organization's mission (2,255 responses; 2025: 98.6%, 1,253 responses), which ties the series high. 71.2% of those with a Wi-Fi network expect to need an upgrade within three years (2025: 69.7%), a change of +1.5 points; the 0.8% who report no Wi-Fi network are excluded from that base. 70.1% intend to apply for Category Two discounts in funding year 2027 (2,249 responses; 2025: 72.5%, 1,249 responses), a change of −2.4 points.

"Increase in Cat 2 budget is needed. With the higher cost of eligible network equipment increasing every year, the budgets are not sufficient to purchase core equipment such as switches, APs and cabling upgrades."

California school district

Wi-Fi importance, Wi-Fi upgrade timing, and Category Two intent, 2016 to 2026

% top-two answers

7.4 Eligible services

Respondents were shown two lists, Category One services and on-campus Category Two goods and services, and asked for each whether it should qualify for E-rate support (Table A19). Support for the core services is close to unanimous: 99.9% for primary Internet access, 99.3% for Wi-Fi, switches, and other data networking equipment, and 97.5% for network security and network management goods and services. Six of the ten items are below their 2025 value, by 0.4 to 5.8 points, and four are above, by 0.2 to 0.5 points.

The school bus Internet connectivity option was labeled "(currently eligible)" in error (chapter 11); the Commission's Declaratory Ruling of September 30, 2025 (WC Docket No. 13-184) ended that support. The 2026 figure is an opinion on a formerly eligible service, and its change from 2025 is not like-for-like.

"Cybersecurity is as essential as Internet and WIFI for operating a school. Firewalls and content filters should be fully eligible under category 2 (similar to access points and wireless controllers)."

Michigan school district

Read the 73 cybersecurity comments

Which services should qualify for E-rate support, 2026 with 2025

% answering yes; Category One services first, then Category Two

Chapter 8

Policy context

The survey instrument was designed before FCC 26-41 and FCC 26-52 were released, so none of its items was written to answer the Commission. Sections 1 to 7 follow the order of the Commission's questions; Funds For Learning's positions on the proposals are in its comments in the proceedings. Each section has its own anchor for citation.

The 2026 proceedings

DA 26-367Public Notice, April 15, 2026. Sought comment on USAC's processes and oversight.
FCC 26-30Report and Order, May 1, 2026. Placed E-rate competitive bidding in a USAC-managed portal from FY2028.WC Docket 21-455
FCC 26-41June 26, 2026. Asks whether the program's mission is complete and whether it should be narrowed or sunset; whether the eligibility of Internet access and internal connections survives Loper Bright; whether the discount matrix and geographic reach should change; proposes consultant regulation and administrative changes.WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, 21-455 · comments due October 13, replies November 12
FCC 26-52August 7, 2026. Asks who administers the Fund and on what terms.WC Docket No. 26-173 · comments due September 30, replies October 30

§1. Whether the program's mission is complete

91 FR 52627 to 52628#policy-1

The Commission asks

Whether §254(h) has been satisfied, whether E-rate should be limited or sunset, and whether Congress intended the program to operate indefinitely; how far schools and libraries use E-rate funds on a recurring basis and how their ability to afford those services would change if support ended; and whether the program's structure is consistent with §254 given other federal broadband funding.

What applicants said

On items asked every year since 2016 (2026: 2,435 responses; 2016: 948, unless noted), 95.9% agree that E-rate funding is vital to their organization's Internet connectivity goals (2016: 84.6%), and 83.4% strongly agree; 90.8% agree that their organization can depend on E-rate funding every year (2016: 64.9%, 942 responses), the highest value in the series.

On recurring use, 21,237 applicants filed FY2026 requests, and the number has stood between 21,185 and 24,025 in every year since FY2016 (Table A4). Mission-critical language is the most common theme in the open-ended comments (26.9% of substantive comments).

Not measured. The survey has no item on other federal broadband programs and none on children's online safety.

§2. Needs inside and outside the current scope

91 FR 52628#policy-2

The Commission asks

How connectivity needs will change over the next five to ten years and whether E-rate should be updated for them, why demand has fallen below the cap, and whether schools and libraries have needs outside the program's current scope. The survey's bandwidth item asks about the next three years.

What applicants said

On that horizon, 76.1% expect their Internet bandwidth needs to increase (2,268 responses), the lowest value in the series. 18.0% have dual Internet connections (2,268 responses), the highest in that series, which began in 2018, and another 62.0% answer "No, but we would if E-rate rules allowed it." 97.5% say network security and network management goods and services should qualify for support (2,198 responses).

Category Two requests as filed for FY2026, the first year of the FY2026 to FY2030 budget cycle, total $2,535,670,890 in pre-discount cost (FY2025: $1,987,042,318); Category One requests total $2,144,057,324 (FY2025: $2,296,503,324). Cybersecurity is a theme in 14.5% of substantive comments, and program scope, including requests for eligibility of servers, licenses, voice, and devices, in 18.8%.

§3. Eligible services under review

91 FR 52628 to 52629, 52640#policy-3

The Commission asks

Whether any currently eligible services are no longer necessary or are inconsistent with the statute; whether the 2014 expansion to special construction, dark fiber, and self-provisioned networks remains justified; whether to reverse the presumption that on-premises activity serves an educational purpose; and whether managed internal broadband services should continue, and on what reimbursement terms.

What applicants said

Asked whether each currently eligible service should qualify, applicants answer near the top of the scale: primary Internet access, 99.9% (2,224 responses); managed Wi-Fi by a third party, 91.3% (2,195 responses); self-provisioned network, 89.7% (2,155 responses). School bus Internet connectivity, 63.8% (2,117 responses; 2025: 69.6%, 1,181 responses), is no longer eligible (Declaratory Ruling of September 30, 2025, WC Docket No. 13-184); the 2026 option was annotated "(currently eligible)" in error, so the 5.8-point change is not a like-for-like comparison.

Of the $4.68 billion in FY2026 pre-discount requests, lit fiber accounts for $1,658,715,712 and other broadband services, including dark and self-provisioned fiber, wireless, and copper, for $485,341,611 (chapter 5).

Not measured. The survey has no item on special construction, dark fiber, other funding sources, or the educational-purpose presumption.

§4. Who does the work, and why applicants use consultants

91 FR 52629; 52635 to 52638#policy-4

The Commission asks

About the role and incentives of vendors and consultants, their influence on selections, and safeguards. The FNPRM proposes to define "consultant" as any non-employee assisting with any aspect of the program, with or without a fee, and proposes an annual certification and disclosure form (FCC Form 5654) that applicants without a consultant would also file, an individual registration database with annual training, a ban on percentage-based fees, and letters of agency with fee-agreement retention.

What applicants said

The survey measures scale and reasons only. 63.0% of those who answered the consultant block use a consultant for at least one reason (2,180 responses); on the all-respondent basis, the only one comparable across years (chapter 11), the share is 56.4% (2,435 responses). Consultant users (1,373 responses) most often say they cannot keep up with all the regulations, 79.2%, or do not have the time, 64.5%. 70.6% report one or no staff trained in the program's rules and procedures (2,180 responses), and 12.5% report none.

Not measured. The survey has no item on fee structures, letters of agency, or artificial intelligence tools.

§5. The discount matrix and geography

91 FR 52629 to 52630#policy-5

The Commission asks

Whether NSLP and urban or rural status remain effective for calculating support, whether a disproportionate share flows to large, well-resourced districts, whether rural discounts should exceed urban, whether to phase out the lowest-NSLP areas, whether E-rate should be limited to rural or single-provider areas, and how §254(b)(3) comparability applies.

What applicants said

The survey does not ask about discount rates, and this report does not compare groups of respondents; it describes who answered. Of the respondents who described their organization rather than giving a Billed Entity Number (chapter 11), 62.2% are rural and 37.8% urban (1,607 responses); 88.3% are public and 11.7% non-public (1,622 responses). Equity and access is the topic of 9.8% of the 695 comments; several library respondents describe their buildings as the only public Internet access in their communities.

§6. Administration and the bidding portal

FCC 26-41; FCC 26-52#policy-6

The Commission asks

About service substitutions in writing, a June 30 SPAC deadline, Form 479 timing, codified certifications, and a knowledge-of-rules certification; about cost-effectiveness with one or no bids, including reseller margin caps, Open Data reimbursement caps, pricing justifications, and the bidding portal's role; and about the Kalamazoo exception and the lowest corresponding price rule. FCC 26-52 asks about turnaround reporting and shot clocks, budget sub-caps, and audit and recovery authority.

What applicants said

60.5% agree the program is achieving the FCC's third goal, making the application process and other E-rate processes fast, simple, and efficient (2,289 responses; 2025: 63.4%, 1,271 responses), and 20.0% disagree. 82.8% are very or somewhat satisfied with USAC (2,408 responses; 2025: 86.6%, 1,314 responses), and 50.2% of EPC users rate EPC very easy or easy to use (2025: 52.4%). Process friction is a theme in 24.5% of substantive comments and EPC usability in 9.6%.

Two items on the bidding portal adopted in FCC 26-30 (WC Docket 21-455) are new in 2026: 57.5% agree that requiring competitive bidding to go through the USAC-managed portal will increase the administrative burden on their organization (2,289 responses; 5.0% disagree, 37.5% neither), and 30.7% agree that a USAC-managed bidding portal is necessary to ensure the integrity of the competitive bidding process (30.6% disagree, 38.7% neither). The bidding portal is a theme in 12.1% of substantive comments.

Not measured. The survey has no item on contract dates, bid counts, unit pricing, service substitutions, the SPAC deadline, or lowest corresponding price.

§7. What the survey does not measure

91 FR 52630; WC Docket 26-173#policy-7

The 2026 instrument has no item on screen time, device ownership, Internet filtering, CIPA compliance or Internet safety policies, third-party device restrictions, or public hearings, and it does not measure educational outcomes. It has none on whether an applicant could absorb an extrapolated recovery or how pay-and-dispute would change participation (WC Docket 26-173), and none on whether schools and libraries would keep filtering and an Internet safety policy if E-rate obligations fell away, or what network-level filtering would cost. These gaps are stated in chapter 11. The homework gap item concerns access at home and is reported in section 6.4.

Chapter 9

Open-ended responses

The survey ends with an open comment box, and 754 respondents used it. Their comments are printed as written, edited only to protect the identity of the respondent: names, specific institutions and towns, vendors, and identifying figures are replaced in brackets. Each comment was read and grouped by its main topic. Fifty-nine entries such as "n/a" are left out; the other 695 follow, numbered as in the PDF.

Comment topics, 2026

Main or second topic, share of 695 substantive comments

Key themes

Continued reliance. The most common theme is dependence on the program. Respondents describe E-rate as the reason they can afford their connections, and many say a loss of support would force cuts elsewhere in their budgets.

Process and administration. About a quarter of substantive comments describe the process as slow or burdensome: decisions that arrive months after filing, review questions repeated from year to year, document retention, and the fear of an error. Comments about the E-rate Productivity Center as software are a separate and smaller group.

The program's scope. Requests to change what the program funds are the third most common theme: Category Two budgets and the per-student multiplier, licenses and maintenance, servers, voice service and VoIP equipment, and student devices. Requests for network security and cybersecurity services are counted separately and are the fourth most common topic.

The bidding portal. Nearly one comment in eight mentions competitive bidding or the USAC-managed portal adopted for FY2028. Both views appear. The survey item on the portal's necessity divided 30.7% agree, 30.6% disagree (chapter 6).

Kudos. About one comment in seven thanks the program, USAC staff, or a state coordinator, or describes an improvement.

Comment topics: main topic and main-or-second topic

Shares of the 695 comments; a comment may touch two topics

Source: 2026 E-rate applicant survey. 754 respondents left a written comment

Chapter 10

Data tables

The tables behind the charts in chapters 4 to 7; each title names the chapter it supports. Survey figures are the share of respondents; the number of responses is given with each table. Request figures are as filed, with the data date.

Chapter 11

Method and demographics

The survey

The 2026 National Survey of E-rate Applicants was open online from May 5 to July 29, 2026. Invitations went out through Funds For Learning's outreach and through partner organizations. Respondents answered as individuals: the people who handle E-rate for a school, a library, or a consortium. More than one person from the same applicant may respond, and each answer counts.

The survey received 2,460 responses. Twenty-five were not real answers (gibberish, straight-lining, or profanity) and were set aside; the remaining 2,435 are the basis of this report. A respondent who stopped partway through is counted on the questions answered, so the number of responses varies from item to item and is stated with every figure. The 2026 count is the largest since comparable counts begin in 2015. The prior high was 2,348 in 2024; 2025 closed at 1,329.

Reading the percentages

For a statement respondents were asked to agree or disagree with, the figure reported is the share who strongly agree or agree. Other scales are read the same way, by their top two answers: very or somewhat satisfied; a great deal or a lot; extremely or very well; very easy or easy; extremely or very important. Yes-or-no questions report the share answering yes. Three items are read on a stated base: the bandwidth item reports the share expecting any increase over three years; the Wi-Fi upgrade item reports the share expecting to upgrade within three years, among respondents with a Wi-Fi network; the staff item reports the share with one trained person or none.

Earlier years

Every prior-year figure in this report is computed from the survey data for that year in the same way as the 2026 figure, so a comparison across years compares like with like. A few values therefore differ slightly from figures printed in earlier editions. The 2025 edition's text gave 97.6% for "E-rate funding is vital," 93.3% for "we can depend on E-rate every year," 96.4% for faster connections, and 95.5% for more students and patrons connected; on the common basis used here the 2025 values are 96.8%, 90.3%, 92.1%, and 90.7% (1,329 responses), and every 2026 comparison is to these values. A reader citing a 2025 figure should say which edition it comes from.

What changed in the 2026 survey

Two questions are new: whether requiring competitive bidding to go through the USAC-managed portal adopted for FY2028 "will increase the administrative burden on my organization," and whether such a portal "is necessary to ensure the integrity of the E-rate competitive bidding process." Neither has a prior-year value. Four items appear in the report for the first time although they were on earlier questionnaires: whether the respondent used EPC during the FY2026 filing window (77.6% yes; 2,385 responses), the explicit "we do not use a consultant" answer, the number of staff trained in E-rate rules, and the organization questions asked in place of a Billed Entity Number. Two questions from 2025 were not asked in 2026: sharing Internet access off campus (59.1% yes in 2025) and whether a self-provisioned network lowers the price per megabit (33.8% agree in 2025).

In 2026 the school bus option carried "(currently eligible)," which was wrong: the Commission's Declaratory Ruling of September 30, 2025 (WC Docket No. 13-184) ended E-rate support for Wi-Fi on school buses. The 2026 figure is presented as respondents saw the option, and the report does not describe the change as a shift in opinion.

Funding request data

The funding figures in chapters 3, 5, and 8 come from E-rate Manager®, Funds For Learning's E-rate data platform. They describe funding requests as filed on FCC Form 471, before any change made during USAC's review, for each funding year from FY2016 to FY2026. The FY2026 figures are as of April 15, 2026, two weeks after the filing window closed on April 1. No figure in this report is a commitment or a disbursement. Pre-discount cost is the total cost of the services and equipment requested. The E-rate discount requested is the funding request itself, the eligible cost multiplied by the applicant's discount rate. Applicants are counted by Billed Entity Number. Sites are the distinct locations listed to receive service, counted in each category they receive, using the recipient records current in E-rate Manager on August 11, 2026.

What the survey does not measure

The 2026 questionnaire was written before the Commission released FCC 26-41 and FCC 26-52. It has no questions on screen time, device ownership, or content filtering; none on CIPA compliance or third-party devices; none on educational outcomes; none on whether an applicant could absorb a recovery of past funding or how a pay-and-dispute process would change participation; and none on whether schools and libraries would keep their filtering and Internet safety policies if E-rate obligations ended. Where the Commission asks these questions, the report says so rather than stretching a nearby item to answer them. They go on the list for the 2027 survey.

Who answered: applicant type, 2026

Share of 1,624 respondents who described their organization

Who answered

62.2%

rural; 37.8% urban (1,607 responses)

88.3%

public; 11.7% non-public (1,622 responses)

72.2%

have worked with E-rate for five or more years (2,180 responses; 2025: 68.9%)

70.6%

report one staff member trained in E-rate rules, or none (2,180 responses)

29.6%

of the 1,783 who made the choice gave a BEN; 70.4% chose the organization questions

Source: 2026 E-rate applicant survey

Cite this report

Funds For Learning, 2026 E-rate Trends Report, September 2026, fundsforlearning.com. Filed in WC Docket Nos. 26-133, 13-184, 21-93, 21-455, and 26-173 on September 25, 2026; cite by page.
Section in view: Chapter 1 · fundsforlearning.com/trends/2026/#about
Download the PDF

The PDF is the filed record; cite it by page. The digital edition carries the same figures with an anchor for every chapter and for each section of chapter 8.

Funds For Learning's views on the Commission's 2026 proposals are in its comments in WC Docket Nos. 26-133 and 26-173, not in this report.

Independent by design

Funds For Learning sells no E-rate eligible services, holds no SPIN, and accepts no payments from service providers tied to their sales to applicants.

Standard of Conduct