BroadbandClusters.org
Systematic Study of E-Rate Program Implementation and Outcomes · FY 2024 Data
Federal Universal Service Fund · Schools and Libraries Program · FY 2024

In FY 2024, 77.0% of E-Rate allocation went to communities where 14.2 million households lack home internet and 9.0 million lack a large-screen device

With $1.8 billion of the $2.76 billion committed in FY 2024 covering recurring internet bills, this study examines whether the program's core objectives are being met and what the communities it serves look like today

E-Rate Program Core Objectives
1
Affordable Connectivity Provide discounts of 20% to 90% on internet access and telecommunications services to eligible institutions.
2
School and Library Access Ensure all eligible K-12 schools and public libraries can maintain high-speed broadband connections.
3
Support for High-Need Communities Direct the highest level of financial support to rural and low-income areas.
4
Internal Connections Infrastructure Fund the hardware, wiring, and maintenance required to distribute internet within buildings.

Every year, the federal government helps schools and libraries pay their internet bills through a program called E-Rate, part of the Universal Service Fund. In 2024, it approved $2.76 billion in discounts for 21,102 institutions across the country: 18,507 schools and school districts, and 2,595 libraries. This study matches every funded institution to Census data for the communities around it, to examine who the program serves and what those neighborhoods look like.

The discount each institution receives is set by the federal government based on how many students qualify for the National School Lunch Program (NSLP) -- free or reduced-price meals, a standard federal measure of household income. Schools where 75 percent or more of students qualify receive the deepest discounts: 80 to 90 percent off their bill. Schools where fewer than 35 percent qualify receive 20 to 49 percent off.

In 2024, 77.0 percent of E-Rate dollars went to the highest-need category. In the ZIP codes where those institutions operate, Census data shows 14.2 million households have no home internet subscription and 9.0 million have no large-screen device such as a laptop, desktop, or tablet.

Central question this study addresses

With $1.8 billion (64%) of 2024 E-Rate spending going to recurring internet bills rather than one-time infrastructure, and with 14.2 million households in those communities still lacking home internet access, can E-Rate's core objectives be considered met? And if the program were stopped, what would be the consequence for those communities?

Program scale at a glance · FY 2024
$2.76B
Total E-Rate commitments approved in 2024. Covers 21,102 institutions: 18,507 schools and school districts, 2,595 libraries.
77.0%
Share going to schools where 75% or more of students qualify for free or reduced lunch. That is $2.13 billion, serving 11,869 institutions.
14.2M
Households with no home broadband in ZIP codes where those institutions operate. That is 28.5% of 49.7 million total households in those areas.
9.0M
Households with no large-screen device in those same communities. That is 18.2% of households with no laptop, desktop, or tablet of any kind.
How this study was conducted
1
Every school and library that received an E-Rate funding commitment was downloaded from USAC's public records. Only funded applications are included; cancelled or denied applications are excluded.
2
Each institution was matched to its ZIP code using USAC's entity directory, then joined to the U.S. Census Bureau's American Community Survey 2020-2024 five-year estimates to obtain broadband adoption, device access, and poverty figures for surrounding communities.
3
All rates are weighted averages by household count, so larger communities contribute proportionally more than smaller ones. Each ZIP code is counted once per analysis band to prevent double-counting of population.
Geographic limitation: School districts and consortia, which account for 93% of committed dollars, are matched to their administrative billing ZIP code. That ZIP may not represent all communities those institutions serve. Lower Kuskokwim School District in Alaska, for example, is billed in Bethel but serves approximately 56 remote villages across 22,000 square miles. Community figures reflect the billing ZIP, not every community served.

E-Rate spending falls into four categories defined by the FCC. The largest is internet access: the recurring monthly bill a school or library pays to an internet provider. In this funding year, that category alone accounted for $1.72 billion, or 62.1% of total commitments. This is not a one-time purchase. It is a bill that returns every month. If the discount were removed, the bill would not disappear -- each institution would need to cover the full cost on its own budget.

Spending by category · All institutions

$2.76 billion across four FCC-defined categories

The FCC defines each category. Descriptions below use plain terms.

Internet Access  $1,717M (62.1%)
The monthly internet bill paid to service providers on behalf of schools and libraries.
Includes: Fiber connections, cable broadband, fixed wireless, and satellite service
Internal Connections  $979M (35.4%)
Equipment that distributes internet inside buildings and across campuses.
Includes: Wi-fi access points, routers, network switches, cabling, wireless hotspot devices for student home use, and firewalls
Managed Broadband  $46M (1.6%)
Externally managed network services where a vendor operates the internal network.
Includes: Managed wi-fi and cloud-managed network services
Maintenance  $21M (0.8%)
Upkeep and repairs for equipment funded through E-Rate in prior years.
Includes: Repairs, updates, and technical support for existing network equipment

The Census Bureau tracks not just whether households have internet, but what devices they use. A household with internet access only on a smartphone but no laptop, desktop, or tablet is counted as smartphone-only. A household with no computing device of any kind is counted separately. The figures below cover ZIP codes served by the highest-discount institutions, weighted by household count.

Device and connectivity access · ZIP codes of 80-90% discount institutions · ACS 2020-2024 · Weighted by households
35.5 million
households (72%) have home broadband
More than two-thirds of households in these communities have a broadband subscription at home.
ACS table B28011 · 49.7 million total households in these ZIP codes
14.2 million
households (28.5%) have no home broadband
No home internet subscription of any kind. Mobile data plans on phones are not counted as broadband by the Census Bureau.
ACS table B28011
9.0 million
households (18.2%) have no large-screen device
No laptop, desktop, or tablet of any kind. Of these, 6.2 million (12.5%) have internet only on a smartphone, and 2.8 million (5.7%) have no computing device at all.
ACS table B28010

For comparison, in ZIP codes served by the lowest-discount institutions (20-49% band): 2.0 million households (16.1%) have no home broadband, and 1.0 million (8.0%) have no large-screen device.

The table below shows all four discount bands, the institutions in each, the committed dollars, how that money splits between recurring internet service and equipment, and the Census figures for surrounding communities. All household figures are estimates derived from Census data.

Committed dollars and community context by discount band · FY 2024

Where the $2.76 billion goes

Discount band set by NSLP enrollment share per FCC matrix. Broadband, device, and poverty figures are household-weighted averages from ACS 2020-2024. Household counts are Census estimates.

Recurring internet service (monthly bills)
Equipment, wiring, and hotspot devices
Discount NSLP threshold Institutions Committed Recurring vs Equipment Population Total households Households without broadband Households without large-screen device ZIP poverty rate
80-90%+ 75% or more of students 11,869
10,001 schools, 1,868 libraries
$2.13B
77.0% of total
64.0% recurring, 36.0% equipment
129.5M 49.7M 14.2 million (28.5%) 9.0 million (18.2%) 16.7%
70-79% 50-74% rural / 75% or more urban 2,276
1,898 schools, 378 libraries
$199M
7.2% of total
79.0% recurring, 21.0% equipment
11.3M 4.5M 1.4 million (30.4%) 700K (15.6%) 10.8%
50-69% 35-74% of students 4,446
4,141 schools, 305 libraries
$366M
13.3% of total
55.0% recurring, 45.0% equipment
49.6M 19.3M 3.8 million (19.9%) 2.0 million (10.3%) 9.2%
20-49% Fewer than 35% of students 2,655
2,610 schools, 45 libraries
$70M
2.5% of total
47.0% recurring, 53.0% equipment
32.1M 12.6M 2.0 million (16.1%) 1.0 million (8.0%) 8.1%

The two charts below show where institutions and dollars are concentrated across the four discount bands.

Distribution by discount band

Number of schools and libraries at each discount level

Each bar is one discount band. Taller bar means more institutions at that level.

Committed dollars at each discount level

The 80-90% band accounts for $2.13B, or 77.0% of the total.

The 20 cities below received the most E-Rate funding in 2024. Each row shows the number of schools and libraries receiving funding, the average discount level, and Census estimates for the surrounding communities.

Top 20 cities by 2024 E-Rate commitments

Average discount across all institutions in that city. Broadband and device figures are household-weighted averages from ACS 2020-2024. Household figures are Census estimates. Geographic limitation applies: figures reflect the administrative billing ZIP, not all communities served.

# City Committed Schools and Districts Libraries Average Discount Total Households in Area Households Without Broadband Households Without Large-Screen Device Smartphone-Only Households ZIP Poverty Rate
1 New York, NY $137.0M 97 3 77% 732K1,551K people 143K(20.0%) 88K(12.0%) 55K(8.0%) 16.0%
2 Bethel, AK † $96.6M 1 0 90% < 1K< 1K people < 1K(52.0%) < 1K(24.0%) (22.0%) 14.1%
3 Los Angeles, CA $36.9M 132 3 75% 835K2,257K people 203K(24.0%) 122K(15.0%) 90K(11.0%) 18.3%
4 Chicago, IL $29.9M 76 2 64% 832K1,963K people 223K(27.0%) 134K(16.0%) 90K(11.0%) 17.4%
5 Amarillo, TX $29.1M 5 0 77% 41K98K people < 1K(23.0%) < 1K(19.0%) < 1K(14.0%) 12.5%
6 Houston, TX $29.0M 64 2 79% 653K1,722K people 182K(28.0%) 123K(19.0%) 97K(15.0%) 19.1%
7 Unalakleet, AK $25.5M 1 0 89% < 1K people (75.0%) (27.0%) (26.0%) 8.1%
8 Montgomery, AL $23.4M 5 1 83% 28K71K people < 1K(31.0%) < 1K(25.0%) < 1K(17.0%) 30.1%
9 San Antonio, TX $23.0M 34 1 77% 307K834K people 81K(26.0%) 64K(21.0%) 49K(16.0%) 18.3%
10 Columbia, SC $21.0M 6 2 80% 64K157K people 14K(23.0%) 10K(16.0%) < 1K(13.0%) 23.9%
11 Kotzebue, AK $19.6M 1 0 89% < 1K< 1K people (29.0%) (15.0%) (13.0%) 14.0%
12 Salt Lake City, UT $19.5M 7 1 66% 63K153K people 18K(28.0%) < 1K(14.0%) < 1K(11.0%) 14.6%
13 Albuquerque, NM $18.7M 58 2 79% 248K590K people 63K(25.0%) 37K(15.0%) 26K(11.0%) 16.2%
14 Memphis, TN $18.6M 35 1 82% 213K533K people 70K(33.0%) 52K(25.0%) 39K(18.0%) 23.7%
15 Dallas, TX $18.3M 41 0 74% 355K899K people 85K(24.0%) 55K(15.0%) 39K(11.0%) 14.7%
16 San Juan, PR $17.9M 23 18 85% 131K289K people 67K(51.0%) 50K(38.0%) 27K(21.0%) 36.3%
17 Springfield, IL $17.5M 2 0 68% 27K60K people 11K(42.0%) < 1K(27.0%) < 1K(19.0%) 25.9%
18 La Mirada, CA $16.7M 3 0 77% 15K46K people < 1K(18.0%) < 1K(8.0%) < 1K(5.0%) 6.2%
19 Flint, MI $15.6M 15 2 82% 50K118K people 14K(28.0%) 13K(26.0%) < 1K(19.0%) 29.6%
20 Orlando, FL $14.6M 42 1 68% 288K781K people 64K(22.0%) 32K(11.0%) 25K(9.0%) 14.4%

† Bethel, AK is the billing address for Lower Kuskokwim School District, which serves approximately 56 remote villages across 22,000 square miles of western Alaska. Census figures shown reflect Bethel city only.

Definitions
Large-screen device: a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet (ACS B28010). Smartphone-only household: has internet access but no laptop, desktop, or tablet. No computing device: no laptop, desktop, or tablet of any kind, regardless of internet access. Home broadband: a wired or fixed-wireless subscription at the residence; mobile data plans are not counted (ACS B28011).

Methodology
All rates are household-weighted averages. ZIP codes are assigned to one discount band using the dominant committed dollar amount to prevent double-counting of population across bands. Committed figures represent approved discounts; disbursements lag by one to two years as institutions invoice after service is delivered and are not used in this study. Entity counts reflect unique Billed Entity Numbers after deduplication. Consortia are grouped with schools as they represent joint school-district applications. Correlation between E-Rate discount rate and reported NSLP enrollment: r = 0.904.

Geographic limitation
93% of committed dollars flow through school districts and consortia matched to their administrative billing ZIP. That ZIP may not represent all communities those institutions serve. Community figures should be read as characteristics of the billing ZIP area, not the full service geography.