Trump Federal Communication Commission Chairman Brendan Carr has announced vague potential changes to the FCC’s E-Rate program that could harm program funding, effectiveness, and the overarching goal of bringing affordable Internet access to long-neglected schools and rural communities trapped on the wrong side of the digital divide.

The reforms come as Carr also looks to make changes to the FCC’s broadband mapping efforts, something consumer groups say could harm the government’s ability to measure which communities need improved, affordable access, or suffer from a pronounced lack of broadband competition.

In an announcement to the FCC website, Carr stated the 30-year-old bipartisan E-Rate program, which costs $3 billion annually, was in dire need of reforms. The program is primarily funded by a small surcharge affixed to phone lines. With the steady erosion of copper-based phone lines, debates have arisen about how to best sustain the program.

But instead of focusing on issues like subsidy fraud by large telecoms, Carr’s announcement oddly focuses heavily on concerns about student “screen time” and what content students are allowed to view. It’s a problematic foray for an FCC boss recently under fire for unconstitutional censorship efforts targeting comedians and journalists.

Consumer and civil rights groups last week told the Trump administration that their proposed “reforms” of the FCC’s Lifeline program would undermine efforts to ensure equitable, affordable access to the internet for all Americans, and are based on lies about immigrant fraud.

Last January, the Trump FCC under Brendan Carr proposed a series of “reforms” to the agency’s Lifeline program, which, as part of the broader bipartisan Universal Service Fund (USF) program, provides qualifying low-income US households with a modest $9.25 monthly subsidy for telecom services (which jumps to $34.25 for tribal homes).

At the time, Carr insisted that the reforms were necessary to improve government efficiency.

“The FCC has an obligation to be a good steward of federal dollars,” Carr said in a prepared statement. “And that is why the agency will be taking a comprehensive look at the FCC’s nearly $1 billion dollar a year Lifeline program, which subsidizes phone and Internet services for low-income Americans.”

To further sell his pitch, Carr made the false claim that the program was somehow awash with illegal immigrants who were exploiting U.S. taxpayers. To “prove” his claim, Carr stated that more than $5 million in Lifeline money funded 116,000 dead people across three states, with the heaviest “fraud” occurring in California.

Image

“Over 80% of those scams took place in California alone,” Carr said. “That type of waste, fraud, and abuse is completely unacceptable. It should go without saying that only beneficiaries that are both living and here legally should qualify for benefits under this program,” Carr said.

In yet another bruising blow in the fight to ensure equitable access to high-speed Internet service, an appeals court struck down federal rules this week that aimed to combat digital redlining.

The ruling came despite a mandate from the bipartisan infrastructure law passed during the Biden administration that directed the FCC to develop “rules to facilitate equal access to broadband internet access service” that would prevent “digital discrimination of access based on income level, race, ethnicity, color, religion, or national origin.”

Not adopted until 2023 after a lengthy rulemaking process and public comment period, when the FCC published its final digital discrimination rules it gave the agency the authority to penalize Internet Service Providers (ISPs) whose policies resulted in “disparate impact,” even if the agency couldn’t prove deliberate discriminatory intent.

Among the real-world “disparate impact” examples advocates presented to the FCC were instances such as when residents of Hope Village, a mostly Black neighborhood in Detroit, experienced a 45-day Internet outage during the height of the pandemic lockdowns – as well as studies that found many large providers charge poor, minority neighborhoods significantly more money for slower broadband access than their more affluent, less diverse counterparts.

Lawmakers are pressuring the FCC to restore a council dedicated to ensuring that broadband availability is both equitable and affordable, especially for marginalized communities that have historically been overlooked and overcharged when it comes to Internet access.

A cornerstone of the Trump administration has been the wholesale (and at times illegal) termination of any and all digital equity initiatives aimed at making broadband more uniformly available and affordable for those long stuck on the wrong side of the digital divide.

That included last year’s dismantling of the federal Digital Equity Act, which mandated the creation of three different grant programs intended to shore up equitable, widespread access to affordable Internet, while providing the tools and digital literacy education needed to help neglected U.S. communities get online.

It also included the Trump FCC’s dismantling of the Communications Equity and Diversity Council (CEDC), which has operated in some capacity since 2003 under multiple partisan administrations to make the communications sector more equitable and reduce digital discrimination. Until FCC Chair Brendan Carr arbitrarily disbanded it in January 2025.

Image

Carr has historically been allied with the nation’s biggest telecom giants, consistently siding with regional monopolies on nearly all policy initiatives. But he’s also dutifully loyal to President Trump, who has targeted efforts to combat systemic racism.

When Congress passed the Telecommunications Act of 1996, it sought to foster innovation and competition in telecommunications markets, expand the definition of universal service, and modernize regulatory structures for the digital age. Three decades later, architects of the ‘96 Act say it achieved many of those goals, but numerous legal challenges following its passage reshaped how key provisions were implemented.

“Litigation shaped so much of what the Act eventually became,” said Mignon Clyburn, a former commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission, speaking Thursday among a panel of former FCC regulators, legal counsel, and policy advisors who helped shape and defend the landmark telecom law.

Gathered for an event organized by the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society marking the law’s 30th anniversary, the event reflected on both the spirit and letter of the landmark legislation which has shaped much of the modern Internet in the United States. The first major overhaul of telecommunications law in more than 60 years, the ‘96 Act required the FCC to conduct more than 80 separate rulemakings addressing everything from appropriate pricing, to interconnection rules and the unbundling of incumbent telephone networks.

In late 2024 the Biden FCC implemented a new rule requiring that broadband providers include a “nutrition label for broadband,” making any fees, restrictions, usage caps, or other limits clear at the point of sale. The proposal was mandated by Congress as part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure law to try and ensure the quality of taxpayer-subsidized broadband.

The proposal was well-intentioned. It mandated a certain level of transparency on telecoms to ensure that consumers knew exactly what kind of broadband connection they were buying. The effort attempted to counter historically dodgy practices by bigger providers to jack up their advertised prices using sneaky and misleading below-the-line fees.

But four years after Congress proposed the idea, studies began making it clear that ISPs weren’t seriously adhering to the rules, and regulators weren’t really interested in enforcing them anyway.

This joint study out of York and Michigan State University found that out of 35 monitored ISPs, only sixteen properly placed labels at the point of sale as required. Not a single ISP received full marks for completely adhering to the FCC’s requirements. Only six ISPs received a full ten-star ranking for proper formatting.

“The average across the sample was 5.2/10 stars,” the authors noted. “Across the 15 large ISPs assessed the average score was 5.8/10. Across the 12 medium ISPs assessed the average was 5.4/10 stars, and the average across the eight small ISPs, the average score was 3.75/10 stars.”