[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JANUARY 30, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-95
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-879 WASHINGTON : 2018
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, prepared statement.............................. 4
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Witnesses
Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 186
Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA...................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Answers to submitted questions............................... 190
Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO, American Cable Association.. 32
Prepared statement........................................... 34
Answers to submitted questions............................... 193
Shirley Bloomfield, CEO, NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association... 49
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Answers to submitted questions............................... 196
Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 61
Prepared statement \1\....................................... 63
Answers to submitted questions............................... 200
Joanne S. Hovis, President, CTC Technology and Energy............ 73
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Answers to submitted questions............................... 203
Elin Swanson Katz, Consumer Counsel, Connecticut Consumer Counsel 85
Prepared statement \2\....................................... 87
Answers to submitted questions............................... 210
Submitted Material
Statement of the American Cable Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 134
Statement of CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn................... 136
Statement of NCTA--The Internet & Television Association,
submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 137
Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association, submitted by
Mrs. Blackburn................................................. 139
Statement of the Telecommunications Industry Association,
submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 141
Statement of C-TEC, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................. 143
Statement of the Power and Communication Contractors Association,
submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 145
Statement of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, submitted
by Mrs. Blackburn.............................................. 146
White paper by CISCO, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn................ 148
Letter of January 23, 2018, from Members of Congress to President
Donald J. Trump, submitted by Mr. Welch........................ 157
Article entitled, ``When the city is your internet provider, the
real cost may be hidden,'' Belleville News-Democrat, January
30, 2018, submitted by Mr. Shimkus............................. 158
Study entitled, ``Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders
in America,'' Harvard University, January 2018, submitted by
Ms. Eshoo...................................................... 161
Press release, The Power and Communication Contractors
Association, submitted by Mr. Doyle............................ 178
Article entitled, ``Scoop: Trump team considers nationalizing 5G
network, Axios, January 29, 2018, submitted by Mr. Doyle....... 180
Statement of Tipmont REMC, submitted by Mr. Doyle................ 183
---------- \1\
\1\ Mr. Slesinger's full statement can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-
wstate-slesingers-20180130-u5050.pdf.
\2\ Ms. Swanson Katz's full statement can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-
wstate-swansonkatze-20180130-u5060.pdf.
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in
room 2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta,
Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores,
Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
officio), Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Rush,
Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Also Present: Representative Tonko.
Staff Present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator C&T; Ray Baum,
Staff Director; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly
Collins, Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel,
Communications & Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach
and Coalitions; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Zach Hunter,
Director of Communications; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel,
Communications & Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel,
Communications & Technology, Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant;
Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications & Technology;
Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Everett
Winnick, Director of Information Technology; Jacqueline Cohen,
Minority Chief Environment Counsel; David Goldman, Minority
Chief Counsel, Communications & Technology; Tiffany Guarascio,
Minority Deputy Staff Director and Chief Health Advisor; Jerry
Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson,
Minority Chief Counsel; C.J. Young, Minority Press Secretary;
and Catherine Zander, Minority Environment Fellow.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order. The chair now recognizes
herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
Welcome to the subcommittee's first hearing of the new
year. And I must say, we are off to a very promising start. We
wanted to have a very inclusive hearing today to discuss all of
the great ideas from subcommittee members on both of sides of
aisle to create broadband infrastructure deployment, and a goal
of closing the digital divide. Whether you agree or disagree
with any individual idea, it is so important that we get the
conversation started, and we have got a lot to talk about with
25 bills introduced in time to be a part of today's hearing. I
very much appreciate all of the thoughtful proposals and the
great work from the staff of both the Republican and the
Democrat side, and I look forward to seeing progress as we move
through the next few weeks.
These legislative initiatives follow the leadership of
President Trump's recent efforts on broadband infrastructure.
The bills to be examined in this hearing are targeted at
promoting the innovation, cutting red tape, and advancing
public safety.
It is impossible in my allotted time to highlight each
bill, but I do want to call attention to a couple of
resolutions expressing the guiding principles on broadband
infrastructure that should underpin our efforts.
First, as noted by Vice Chairman Lance, any funds for
broadband in an infrastructure package should go to unserved
areas.
Second, as noted by Congressman Latta, the Federal
Government should not be picking winners and losers in the
marketplace. Any Federal support for broadband infrastructure
should be competitively and technologically neutral.
If we adhere to these principles, I am confident we can
avoid the pitfalls of waste, fraud, inefficiency that marred
the previous administration's efforts on broadband
infrastructure.
Lastly, and perhaps most important, Congress should be
mindful of the significant amounts of private capital spent to
support broadband deployment. Since passage of the bipartisan
1996 Telecom Act, the private sector has invested roughly $1.6
trillion in their networks.
This investment includes wireline, wireless and other
broadband technologies. However, this investment experienced a
decline that coincided with the FCC's 2015 decision to
reclassify the competitive broadband marketplace under Title II
of the Communications Act, an outdated relic of the 1930's
monopoly era.
I want to reiterate our support for Chairman Pai, who
corrected this ill-conceived policy and returned us to the
light-touch regulatory approach that allowed the digital
economy to flourish. This light-touch approach has been the
bedrock of communications policy since the Clinton
administration.
As I previously stated, history makes clear that countries
with the best communications have the highest economic growth.
Continuing our Nation's leadership is, and most important, must
remain a bipartisan effort.
And I am pleased to note that our effort has broad support
from a cross section of the industry.
At this time, I would like to enter into the record several
letters of support from American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA,
Competitive Carriers Association, Telecommunications Industry
Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Power and Communication
Contractors Association, and the Wireless Infrastructure
Association.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. I am pleased to convene this hearing. I
look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. And with that,
I yield the remainder of my time to the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Lance.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to the subcommittee's first hearing of the new
year. And I must say we are off to a very promising start. We
wanted to have a very inclusive hearing today to discuss all of
the ideas from Subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle
to promote broadband infrastructure deployment with a goal of
closing the digital divide. Whether you agree or disagree with
any individual idea, it is so important that we get the
conversation started. And we have plenty to talk about, with 25
bills introduced in time to be part of our hearing today. I
very much appreciate all of the thoughtful proposals and look
forward to seeing many of them progress in the coming weeks.
These legislative initiatives follow the leadership of
President Trump's recent efforts on broadband infrastructure.
As stated in the President's recent Executive Order:
``Americans need access to. broadband internet service to
succeed in today's information-driven, global economy.
``Currently, too many American citizens and businesses.
lack access to this basic tool. [and] this problem is
particularly acute in rural America.''
Collectively, the bills to be examined at this hearing are
targeted at promoting innovation, cutting red tape, and
advancing public safety.
Together, Congress and the administration can help span the
digital divide so all Americans may fully realize the
innovations made possible by broadband.
This will require expanding broadband to unserved areas,
supporting deployment of advanced networks and new technology,
as well as helping citizens recover from hurricanes, floods,
fires, and other disasters.
It's impossible in my allotted time to highlight each bill,
but I do want to call attention to a couple of resolutions
expressing the guiding principles on broadband infrastructure
that should underpin our efforts:
First, as noted by Vice Chairman Lance, any funds for
broadband in an infrastructure package should go to unserved
areas.
Second, as noted by Congressman Latta, the Federal
Government should not be picking winners and losers in the
marketplace; any federal support for broadband infrastructure
should be competitively and technologically neutral.
If we adhere to these principles, I am confident we can
avoid the pitfalls of waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency
that marred the previous administration's efforts on broadband
infrastructure.
Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Congress should be
mindful of the significant amounts of private capital spent to
support broadband deployment. Since passage of the bipartisan
1996 Telecommunications Act, the private sector has invested
roughly $1.6 trillion in their networks.
This investment includes wireline, wireless, and other
broadband technologies. However, this investment experienced a
decline that coincided with the FCC's 2015 decision to
reclassify the competitive broadband marketplace under Title II
of the Communications Act, an outdated relic of the 1930s
monopoly-era.
I want to reiterate our support for Chairman Pai who
corrected this ill-conceived policy and returned us to the
light-touch regulatory approach that allowed the digital
economy to flourish. This light-touch approach has been the
bedrock of communications policy since the Clinton
administration.
As I have previously stated: history makes clear that
countries with the best communications have the highest
economic growth. Continuing our nation's leadership is, and
must remain, a bipartisan effort.
I am pleased to convene this hearing, and I look forward to
the testimony of our witnesses.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. And first of all, the State
of the Union is that the chair is doing a terrific job at this
subcommittee.
Since 1996, the wireless and wireline industries have
invested over $1.6 trillion in private capital investment. As
we consider how best to promote broadband deployment and Next
Generation Networks, it is important that we remember the
success of private investment in the past and pursue Federal
policies to help and encourage an emphasis on private
investment in the future.
As our economy becomes more digitized, we must ensure
broadband access to all areas of the country.
It is important that we recognize that any Federal funds
for broadband deployment will be finite, and our focus on
unserved or underserved areas of the Nation.
I am pleased we are considering the Access Broadband Act,
which I have introduced with Congressman Tonko on a bipartisan
basis. I commend the chair and the members of the subcommittee
on both sides of the aisle on the impressive package of
broadband infrastructure bills we are considering today. I look
forward to hearing the testimony from the panel.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Leonard Lance
Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and thank you to our
distinguished panel members for appearing before us today.
Since 1996, the wireless and wireline industries have
invested over $1.6 trillion in private capital investment. As
we consider how best to promote broadband deployment and next
generation networks it is important that we remember the
successes of private investment in the past and pursue federal
policies to help and encourage an emphasis on more private
investment in the future.
As our economy becomes increasingly more digitized,
bringing broadband access to more areas of the country connects
more consumers and small businesses to the internet economy for
the economic benefit of all. However, in many rural areas of
the country, the cost to deploy broadband infrastructure is
prohibitive and I believe that there is a role for federal
funding to play in the cases where prohibitive costs prevent a
market solution.
However, it is important that we recognize that any federal
funds for broadband deployment will be finite and are focused
on unserved areas of the country. The Federal Government should
not be in the business of subsidizing competitors in local
markets where a broadband provider already provides service and
I am pleased that we are considering my resolution that clearly
states this principle.
I am also pleased we are considering the ACCESS BROADBAND
Act, which I introduced with Congressman Tonko. The bill would
streamline the federal grant programs related to broadband
deployment and better track how federal funds are used. I thank
Congressman Tonko for his leadership on this important issue.
I commend Chairman Blackburn and the members of the
subcommittee on both sides of the aisle on the impressive
package of broadband infrastructure bills we are considering
today. I look forward to hearing the testimonies from the
panel.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Doyle, you
are recognized, 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair for holding this hearing,
and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
I want to start off by saying that I share Chairman
Blackburn's and this committee's goal of ensuring that all
Americans have access to broadband, and that we need to come
together, on a bipartisan basis, to address the challenges that
millions of Americans face today from a lack of broadband
access, a lack of sufficient speeds, and a lack of affordable
option. While it is crucial that nobody gets left behind, I
believe we cannot ignore the lack of competition, particularly
among wireline providers, and the high cost of service that
results in far too many foregoing service.
That being said, I am concerned about the approach we are
taking here today. We are considering 25 bills at this hearing.
I can't remember a time when this committee held a hearing on
so many bills with a single panel of witnesses. We are simply
not giving these bills the time and expertise required for the
members of this committee to fully consider each of these bills
and the ramifications. It would seem to me far more prudent to
have hold a series of hearings so that members would have an
opportunity to discuss and understand the proposals before us.
Rushing this process gives short shrift to many worthwhile
ideas for members on both sides of the aisle, and precludes
these bills from undergoing a truly deliberative process.
It is my hope that Chairman Blackburn and the committee
staff for the majority can work with us to avoid this
unnecessary problem for the future. It is my hope, Madam Chair,
that as we move forward on broadband infrastructure
legislation, we can do so on a collaborative and bipartisan
basis.
That being said, I am concerned that many of the majority's
proposals do not actually address the primary issue of getting
broadband to rural America, and that there is no business case
for that private investment. If we are serious about solving
this problem, and we believe that people living in rural areas
should have access to reasonably comparable service, we need to
appropriate the funds necessary for that buildout.
With that Madam Chair, I would like to yield a minute to my
good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California, and then a minute and a
half to my good friend, Mr. Welch.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael F. Doyle
Thank you, Chairman Blackburn for holding this hearing, and
thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
I want to start off by saying that I share Chairman
Blackburn's and this Committee's goal of ensuring that all
Americans have access to broadband--and that we need to come
together on a bipartisan basis to address the challenges that
millions of Americans face today from a lack of broadband
access, a lack of sufficient speeds, and a lack of affordable
options.
While it is crucial that nobody gets left behind, I believe
that we cannot ignore the lack of competition, particularly
among wireline providers, and the high cost of service that
results in far too many people forgoing service.
That being said, I'm concerned about the approach we are
taking here today. We are considering twenty five bills at this
hearing, I don't remember a time when this Committee held a
hearing on so many bills with a single panel of witnesses. We
are simply not giving these bills the time and expertise
required for the members of this Committee to fully consider
each of these bills and their ramifications.
It would seem far more prudent to hold a series of hearings
so that members would have an opportunity to discuss and
understand each of the proposals before us. Rushing this
process gives short shrift to many of the worthwhile ideas from
members on both sides of the aisle, and it precludes these
bills from undergoing a truly deliberative process.
It is my hope that Chairman Blackburn and the Committee
staff for the majority can work with us to avoid this
shortsightedness and avoid unnecessary problems for the future.
It is my hope, Madam Chairman, that as we move forward on
broadband infrastructure legislation we can do so on a
collaborative and bipartisan basis.
That being said, I am concerned that many of the Majority's
proposals do not actually address the primary issue of getting
broadband to rural America--and that there is no business case
for private investment. If we are serious about solving this
problem, and we believe that people living in rural areas
should have access to reasonably comparable service, we need to
appropriate the funds necessary for that buildout.
Ms. Eshoo. I thank the ranking member.
Here it is, the second decade of the 21st century, and too
many Americans cannot fully participate in modern life, because
they do not have a robust broadband connection. It is either
unavailable to them, or it is unaffordable, and it is our
responsibility to remedy this. That is why I have introduced
several bills to clear the way for communities to take control.
The Community Broadband Act and the Climb Once Act both ensure
that communities are empowered to create their own municipal
broadband networks, and streamline pole attachments to improve
efficiency and competition.
Where muni broadband is deployed, and where Climb Once
policies are in place, such as Louisville, Kentucky, Nashville,
Tennessee, and soon, San Francisco, California, consumers enjoy
more access, better service and lower prices. And a recent
Harvard study showed that communities with municipal broadband
were up to 50 percent lower in cost than private alternatives.
And the Community Broadband Act will open the doors for all
communities to explore that option. And most especially, both
of these bills will really boost and make a difference in rural
America.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I
yield back to him.
Mr. Doyle. Yes. And I yield the remaining time to Mr.
Welch.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. We know about 40 percent of rural
America has no broadband. Not slow broadband, no broadband. And
there is no economic future for any part of our country if it
doesn't have high speed internet. And rural America is being
left behind. And the other issue here is that it makes no
economic sense for private markets to be expanding in the rural
areas. There is no payback. Bottom line: We need funding to
make certain that rural broadband is real. And we have a group
on this committee that wrote to President Trump, Mr. Cramer,
Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. Latta. We want infrastructure funding that
is real so that there is broadband in rural America.
Now, absent funding, there is no broadband. It is as simple
as that. This is a good hearing on several good bills, but
there is nothing before us that is going to address the funding
that we need for infrastructure for rural broadband.
In my call to the committee, is that we get real and
acknowledge that we have to have money for this buildout, much
as our predecessors in Congress provided funding for the
buildout of electricity in rural America. No funding, no
broadband. It is as simple as that. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, Chairman Walden, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all our
members, and especially to our witnesses. We got a big panel of
witnesses because we have a lot of really important ideas from
our members. We have got 25 bills, as you have heard; eight of
them from Democrats, the other 17 from Republicans. Obviously,
this committee is used to dealing with big, important issues.
Sometimes we have had bills that are maybe hundreds of pages
long. These are, I think, important policy statements in some
cases, streamlining processes in other cases.
The whole concept here is to look at the broad range of
ideas that members have brought to this committee for its
consideration. And that is why at the subcommittee level, we
thought it was important to put as many of these bills as
possible up for the public to see, because it is on our agenda
and our website, but also for us to begin getting our heads
around as we move forward in our legislative process.
So I am delighted to have the bills before us. I am
delighted you all are before us. I remember when the last
administration did the stimulus bill. It was a whopping $7
billion they pushed out the door before they produced the maps
to tell us where unserved areas were in America. They only did
that after the fact.
So as you know, we are trying to get the other side of that
coin and identify where are the really unserved and underserved
areas? What kind of reporting mechanisms are poorly being
conducted today to show us that? We want NTIA and other
organizations to help us figure that out. So when the taxpayer
or ratepayers' money is invested, it is not invested to
overbuild, it is invested to reach out to the 29 million
Americans, 23 million Americans, 39 percent rural areas that
don't have access to high speed broadband.
Because you know, at $7 billion, you have to remember in
the market, they are spending close to $80 billion a year on
broadband deployment; $1.6 trillion between 1996, I think it
is, and 2006. But anyway, the big investment here is done on
the private sector. There is public money that is spent. Our
job is to make sure that public money is spent appropriately
and helps close this digital divide.
You want to talk about rural? My district would stretch
from the Atlantic to Ohio. It is 69,341 square miles. I have
got places in my district where there is one person for every 9
miles of power line. We live this gap every day, and we are
trying to close it. And there are multiple ways to close it,
but one of the best ways is to make sure that we can expedite
the closure of that through reform siting, targeting the
financial resources of ratepayers and the government,
specifically to those areas that are underserved, and helping
move this country forward to connectivity like we have never
seen before.
In 2012, we worked in bipartisan manner in this committee
to free up spectrum. That is now being built out. We want to
move forward with 5G development. Oh, by the way, we are not
Venezuela where the government doesn't need to own, operate,
control through a command structure that kind of a network.
Now, there may be security issues, and I imagine there are,
and we all ought to be apprised of, and I have asked for a
briefing, either classified or non, to figure out what those
issues are. We want to be smart about having a secure network
for the newest innovation. But I don't know that having the
government run it is necessarily the best way to go. So we are
looking at those issues, too.
This is an exciting time for America. We want to be in the
lead. We don't want to wait. We can do a hearing every week for
25 weeks and then move forward, or we can do one hearing with
25 bills, figure out our ideas among ourselves, come together
as a committee in a bipartisan way, deal with making America,
again, clear on the forefront on development of connectivity,
wired and wireless, and the newest innovation and technology,
much like we are trying to do with autonomous vehicles. I look
at my friend and colleague from Ohio with the Self-Drive Act.
We have a lot before us. Let's get it done.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. Is there any
other member requesting his time? Not seeing anyone----
Mr. Welch. Madam Chair?
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. I will--yes.
Mr. Welch. I just have a request to--the letter that was
signed, sent to the President asking for funds can be submitted
into the record.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Mr. Pallone, at this time, I yield you
5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair. One year ago,
President Trump promised us $1 trillion infrastructure package
that would bring Democrats and Republicans together. And for
our part, in May of last year, committee Democrats introduced a
comprehensive infrastructure package across all areas of this
committee's jurisdiction. Yet here we are, hours from the State
of the Union without serious legislation from the President,
and instead, we have proposals from House Republicans, that
mostly conflict with the plan that was just leaked out of the
White House.
In stark contrast, committee Democrats developed a
legislative proposal to build the type of modern resilient
infrastructure Americans need and deserve. At a time when our
Nation's infrastructure is either crumbling or in desperate
need of modernization, it is time we make real and significant
investments for the future.
The LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion for the
deployment of secure and resilient broadband. It would also
provide over $22 billion for drinking water infrastructure;
over $17 billion for modern; efficient and resilient energy
infrastructure; over $3 billion for health care infrastructure;
and almost $3 billion for brownfields redevelopment. And the
LIFT America Act puts real dollars where they are needed:
creating jobs, revitalizing communities, and addressing serious
threats to human health and environment. It would address lead
in school drinking water, fund medical facilities in Indian
country, reduce carbon emissions, and improve our resilience to
the impacts of climate change. And it would do all that without
rolling back environmental safeguards, as we are now hearing is
a majority component of the President's plan. And when it comes
to broadband, we have also put forward additional thoughtful
proposals building on the strong foundations of the LIFT
America Act. Our bills would ensure we are investing in our
infrastructure efficiently, basing our decision on good data
and reaching urban, rural, and tribal lands.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen bipartisan and
bicameral agreement that we need dedicated funding to improve
access to broadband nationwide. Yet despite this rare
consensus, Republicans on this committee have decided to unveil
a series of partisan bills that don't address the real
problems. These bills are simply window dressing. They
unnecessarily pit urban versus rural, industry versus local
government, and broadband access versus our environment. And
the Republican proposals will not improve broadband
development, and may, indeed, hurt workers and the economy in
parts of the country.
So I appreciate Republicans scheduling a hearing on
broadband deployment and including some Democratic proposals,
but I am concerned that the majority is simply trying to jam
too much into this one hearing. Seven witnesses discussing 25
bills will not help the American public understand these
proposals, let alone the members of this committee.
What is more, we do not even have the relevant agencies
here to help us understand how they will interpret the often-
conflicting directions that are included in the Republican
bills. And we are now a little over a year into this
administration, and all Washington Republicans have to show the
American people, in this subcommittee's purview, are a check-
the-box hearing to design to paper over this Republicans'
failure on infrastructure, the erosion of our privacy rights,
and the elimination of net neutrality. And when it comes to
governing, this subcommittee, in my opinion, is falling short.
And with that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ruiz.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
One year ago, President Trump promised us a trillion dollar
infrastructure package that would bring Democrats and
Republicans together. And for our part, in May of last year
Committee Democrats introduced a comprehensive infrastructure
package across all areas of this Committee's jurisdiction. Yet,
here we are, hours from the State of the Union, without serious
legislation from the President. All we have are some back of
the napkin proposals from House Republicans that completely
conflict with the plan just leaked out of the White House.
In stark contrast, Committee Democrats developed a
legislative proposal to build the type of modern, resilient
infrastructure Americans need and deserve. At a time when our
nation's infrastructure is either crumbling or in desperate
need of modernization, it's time we make real and significant
investments for the future.
The LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion for the
deployment of secure and resilient broadband. It would also
provide over $22 billion for drinking water infrastructure,
over $17 billion for modern, efficient, and resilient energy
infrastructure, over $3 billion for healthcare infrastructure,
and almost $3 billion for brownfields redevelopment.
The LIFT America Act puts real dollars where they are
needed, creating jobs, revitalizing communities, and addressing
serious threats to human health and the environment. It would
address lead in school drinking water, fund medical facilities
in Indian Country, reduce carbon emissions, and improve our
resilience to the impacts of climate change. And it would do
all that without rolling back environmental safeguards as we
are now hearing is a major component of the President's plan.
When it comes to broadband, we have also put forward
additional, thoughtful proposals, building on the strong
foundation of the LIFT America Act. Our bills would ensure
we're investing in our infrastructure efficiently, basing our
decision on good data, and reaching urban, rural, and tribal
lands.
Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen bipartisan and
bicameral agreement that we need dedicated funding to improve
access to broadband nationwide. Yet, despite this rare
consensus, Republicans on this Committee have decided to unveil
a series of partisan bills that don't address the real
problems. But these bills are worse than simply window
dressing. They turn bipartisan agreements on their head,
unnecessarily pitting urban versus rural, industry versus local
governments, and broadband access versus our environment. The
Republican proposals will not improve broadband deployment, but
will hurt workers and the economy.
I appreciate Republicans scheduling a hearing on broadband
deployment and including some Democratic proposals, but I'm
concerned that the Majority is simply trying to jam too much
into this one hearing. Seven witnesses discussing 25 bills will
not help the American public understand these proposals, let
alone the members of this Committee. What's more, we do not
even have the relevant agencies here to help us understand how
they will interpret the often conflicting directions included
in the Republican bills.
We are now a little over year into this Administration, and
all Washington Republicans have to show the American people in
this Subcommittee's purview are a check-the-box hearing
designed to paper over the Republicans' failure on
infrastructure; their erosion of our privacy rights; and their
elimination of net neutrality. When it comes to governing, this
Subcommittee is falling short.
Thank you.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you. In today's digital age, access to high
speed internet is simply essential. That is why we must do more
to bridge the digital divide. Today, the committee is finally
beginning to advance the bipartisan commonsense solutions that
we were sent here to find. For example, the bipartisan Rural
Wireless Access Act introduced by Mr. Loebsack, would help the
FCC provide targeted Federal assistance to deploy wireless
service in rural areas with the worst coverage.
In my bill, H.R. 1581, the Tribal Digital Access Act would
help close the digital divide in Indian country by codifying
and reinforcing the importance of the FCC Universal Service
Fund programs that serve tribal communities.
Tribal lands are the most underserved regions in our Nation
in terms of broadband access. We have a responsibility to honor
our legal and moral obligations, and this commonsense bill
helps do just that. I urge the committee to move these bills as
quickly as possible along with other bipartisan solutions
before us here today.
And I yield back my time to Mr. Pallone.
Mr. Pallone. And I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back, and this
concludes our member opening statements.
I would like to remind all the members that, pursuant to
the committee rules, you all have your statements that can be
made a part of the record. And we want to thank our witnesses
for being here today and for taking their time to testify
before the subcommittee.
Today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening
statements, followed by a round of questions from the members.
Our panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Jonathan
Spalter, President and CEO of USTelecom; Mr. Brad Gillen,
Executive VP of CTIA; Mr. Matt Polka, President and CEO of the
American Cable Association; Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of the
NTCA--the Rural Broadband Association; Mr. Scott Slesinger, the
Legislative Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council;
Ms. Joanne Hovis, President of CTC Technology and Energy; and
Ms. Elin Swanson Katz, the Connecticut Consumer Counsel.
We appreciate each of you for being here today and for
preparing for this committee, submitting your testimony. Today,
we will begin with you, Mr. Spalter, for 5 minutes, and we will
work right through the dais. You are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF JONATHAN SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, USTELECOM;
BRAD GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, CTIA; MATTHEW M. POLKA,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION; SHIRLEY
BLOOMFIELD, CEO, NTCATHE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION; SCOTT
SLESINGER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
COUNCIL; JOANNE S. HOVIS, PRESIDENT, CTC TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY;
AND ELIN SWANSON KATZ, CONSUMER COUNSEL, CONNECTICUT CONSUMER
COUNSEL
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER
Mr. Spalter. Thank you. Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle, and other distinguished members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
you. I am Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO of USTelecom,
representing our Nation's broadband providers, large and small,
urban and rural, and everything in between. All of our members
are deeply committed to and are on the front lines of the
massive effort underway to connect all Americans to the
opportunities and possibilities of broadband. So we greatly
appreciate this subcommittee's leadership and the growing
momentum we are seeing throughout Congress on both sides of the
aisle to aid this effort.
In a few short hours, we know the President will deliver
his State of the Union address, and according to the pundits,
topics that draw consensus will probably be few and far
between. But infrastructure is one of those rare issues with a
powerful centrifugal force pulling us all together. From the
administration's statements and actions to Senator's Schumer's
blueprint to the 25 bills now making their way through this
committee, Washington has caught up to the connected times, and
not a moment too soon, acknowledging the pivotal role of
information infrastructure, the 1s and 0s of broadband networks
to our Nation.
Since the earliest days of our internet as we sought to
rise above the honk and screech of dial-up service, expanding
and upgrading the Nation's broadband networks has largely been
a private sector endeavor. America's broadband providers have
invested, as Vice Chairman Lance and as Chairman Walden
mentioned, more than $1.5 trillion over the last two decades,
building out U.S. digital infrastructure, and that is more than
our Nation spent in public dollars to put a man on the moon,
and to build out our interstate highway system combined.
So why must we continue to commit public funds to the
cause? Because we risk leaving millions of U.S. households and
citizens behind if we do not. We know the private investment
model works well in reasonably populous areas, but the business
case breaks down when the average $27,000 per mile of LAN
fiber, not to mention the network upgrades and maintenance
costs associated with it that are constantly required, must be
spread across a handful of users.
Broadband companies, USTelecom members, want to connect
everyone from our most populated urban areas to the most remote
rural communities in our Nation, but they need a committed
partner in these final unserved, high-cost areas. And that
partner should be all of us, including government.
So what specifically does that mean? First, new and direct
public funding is needed to supplement private investment in
connecting the final frontier. Second, care must be taken to
ensure broadband funding is not merely an option on a vast
spending menu, but has its own specific allocation. A position
now being championed by the bipartisan cochairs of the rural
broadband caucus. And thank you very much for that. Third,
public dollars should prioritize connecting unserved areas
using proven mechanisms, chief among them, universal service
fund, to move quickly and with accountability while minimizing
administrative costs to U.S. taxpayers. Fourth, connectivity
also should be factored into physical infrastructure projects.
Adding more of our bridges and roads to broadband connectivity
makes them smarter, safer, more cost effective, and extends
their useful life. Last, a stable streamlined regulatory
environment can accelerate and extend the impact of both public
and private dollars.
Earlier this month, the President signed an executive order
to expedite Federal permitting so broadband companies can build
infrastructure in rural areas faster. Continuing these efforts
reduces deployment costs, stretching limited resources further.
When it comes to broadband, this grand aspiration of a truly
connected nation truly is within striking distance. Working
together, we have the means and the opportunity to relegate
this challenge to the history books. All that remains is a
question of will.
For that reason, I really greatly appreciate the
subcommittee's interest today and your ongoing leadership. The
Nation's broadband provider stands ready to link arms with the
Nation's policy leaders and anyone else who wants to help step
up to finish the job. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gillen, 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN
Mr. Gillen. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn,
Ranking Member Doyle, and the subcommittee for including
wireless as part of this conversation.
The sheer number of bills and proposals before us
underscores the scope of the challenges we face together, as
well as the opportunities we have working together to solve
them. For us, we really see the infrastructure as the
opportunity to create jobs, drive economic growth and expand
opportunities for all Americans for better broadband to more
Americans.
The subcommittee has really two core challenges before you.
The first is the digital divide. From Vermont to eastern
Oregon, there are too many Americans today, despite billions
invested and years of work that do not have access to the wired
and wireless broadband solutions that all of us rely on every
day. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to
shrink and address that gap and drive both wired and wireless
broadband deeper in America.
Our second challenge is one of global competitiveness. We
lead the world today in 4G wireless services. Just last month,
the International Standards body set the rules for the 5th
generation of wireless, or 5G, and the race is now on. Other
countries have seen what leadership has meant here, and they
want to take that a mantle from us. China and others are
investing billions and accelerating their deployment schedules
with over 100 active trials ongoing today.
In the U.S., we like to win, too, and we are ready to
invest as well. We have our own trials ongoing. We are
investing in the technology we think we are going to need to
win, and ultimately, we are ready to invest approximately $275
billion in private capital over the next 10 years to build out
those networks.
So we don't need Federal funding from this committee to
solve the 5G problem. We do need help to modernize our approach
to siting. Because these networks will be different because we
are going to build them with these, small cells, hundreds of
thousands of these attached to street lights and to sides of
buildings. And the challenge we face today is that too often, a
device that takes 1 to 2 hours to install can take 1 to 2 years
to get approved.
The challenge we face is that because at every level of
government, local, state and Federal, we treat these like a
275-foot tower along the side of a highway. In short, our new
networks need new rules, and that is why we appreciate this
committee's focus on this issue, particularly today, focusing
on the Federal impediments we face. Representative Shimkus is
focusing on how do we modernize our Federal regulation to
expedite deployment of things like this and other new
infrastructure. Congresswoman Brooks and Representative Matsui,
how do we marshal Federal assets to drive broadband deeper into
rural America by better utilizing Federal lands.
The other thing for this committee, we would hope for in
future sessions to talk about, is this committee's leadership
and role with respect to state and local siting as well. It is
the committee's leadership in 1992, 1996, and most recently in
2012, to give guardrails and guidance to local communities as
to how siting can and should work to ensure we have deployment
of wireless and broadband. And just like Federal rules need to
be updated, so does that Federal guidance. And when we get
those rules right, 5G will be transformative to all of your
communities. It will unlock remote surgery, self-driving cars,
and the Internet of Things. It is going to create jobs. It is
going to create 2800 jobs in downtown Pittsburgh, 3 million
across the country. It is going to build communities.
Clarksville, Tennessee will see over $200 million added to
its economy, $500 billion nationwide. That is why we are
excited about winning the 5G race. That is why we think it is
so important. And we also need to make sure in doing that, we
also make sure that all Americans have access to broadband at
the same time. So we think with bold bipartisan leadership by
this Congress, this committee, we can and need to do both.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you so much. At this time, Mr. Polka,
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. POLKA
Mr. Polka. Thank you, Chairman. As you know, for the last
year, ACA and its members have been discussing with members on
both sides of the aisle, the administration, and the FCC, about
how to effectively and efficiently close the digital divide.
ACA appreciates and supports the subcommittee's commitment to
bring broadband to all Americans.
Over the past decade, because of many hundreds of billions
of dollars of private investment by ACA members and others, and
the FCC's reforms to its universal service programs, we are
closing in on this goal. Today, more than 100 million homes
have access to broadband speeds greater than 100 megabits per
second. And only 5.3 million remain with speeds less than 10
megabits. Not only have ACA members been investing billions to
upgrade and expand their networks, but also many with their own
money have deployed 840 thousand homes that would otherwise be
eligible for FCC's support.
We should recognize and build upon those successes. We
know, however, there was much more to do, but from my travels
visiting with ACA members across the country, I can tell you
that ACA members are committed to serving the Nation's most
challenging corners. They believe we can close the digital
divide, and they believe we can keep it shut by following four
principles: First, encourage private investment; second, remove
barriers to deployment; third, before spending Federal funds,
let us take account of successes; fourth, provide broadband
subsidies efficiently.
Let me expand. First, let us encourage private investment.
Fixed and mobile broadband providers today are spending $75
billion annually to upgrade and expand broadband networks. This
will continue for the foreseeable future, and should be
encouraged by avoiding governmental action that would hinder
these investments. For example, it would not be helpful if
government funds were used to overbuild unsubsidized providers
or measures were adopted that were not competitively and
technologically neutral favoring one class of providers or an
industry sector over others. Second, let us remove barriers to
deployment. Building high-performance broadband networks is
costly, and you will get the most bang without spending a buck
by lowering those costs.
Here are some steps to take: Facilitate access to utility
poles by removing impediments, such as fixing the make-ready
process; apply the Federal Pole Attachment Law to electric
cooperatives, and require cost-based nondiscriminatory rights-
of-ways fees, and prohibit charging such fees on a per service
basis; third, don't neglect successes before determining where
to spend Federal money and how much is needed. ACA calculates
that by removing barriers, the cost of network deployment will
be reduced such that 1.2 million homes would become served with
fiber infrastructure through private investment alone.
Moreover, we believe that the new tax law will enable more than
400,000 unserved homes being served. Finally, the Connect
America Programs will reduce the number of homes receiving less
than 10 megabits to 2 million by 2020. Fourth, let us provide
broadband subsidies efficiently. Through its Connect America
Programs, the FCC has given us an effective roadmap for
awarding government support more efficiently by targeting
support only to unserved areas and awarding support using a
reverse option.
With any new money, let us employ these two principles and
also limit the amount of Federal support to account for state
subsidies unless any additional broadband performance is
required.
The four principles that I set forth will maximize consumer
welfare, increase economic growth, make communities throughout
the country thrive, and it will enable you to bridge the
digital divide sooner and with more sustainable results.
ACA and its members stand ready to assist you in every way.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Polka follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Bloomfield, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD
Ms. Bloomfield. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle, members of this committee, I can't tell you how
excited we are that you are actually talking about this
incredibly important topic of broadband and how we ensure all
Americans actually have access. I am Shirley Bloomfield. I am
the CEO of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, and we
represent approximately 850 small businesses who are providing
broadband across this country in 46 states.
For decades, these small community-based telecommunications
providers like my membership have really led the charge in
terms of connecting rural Americans with the rest of the world
by deploying advanced networks that respond to the need and the
demand for cutting edge, innovative technology. These companies
serve areas where the average density is about seven customers
per square mile, and we actually have a rough density, as
Chairman Walden had referenced that, but that is essentially in
the entire average population density of the State of Montana.
To emphasize the work that these hometown providers have
done, a recent survey found that 87 percent of NTCA members'
customers can actually purchase broadband at 10 megabits or
higher, and 67 percent can access speeds above 25 megs. But the
job is simply far from done. With the statistics I noted, they
are good news, but unfortunately, they also still tell the
story of a lot of rural consumers that need access. And the
story is still bleaker for those who are not served by NTCA
member companies.
Finally, it is not as if the job is done once the network
is actually built. There is a lot of ongoing work to ensure
that quality service is still available in very rural areas. So
the question remains, how do we overcome these challenges of
deploying and sustaining rural broadband? In the first
instance, you actually need a business case to even consider
deploying rural broadband. Questions relating to permitting and
regulation are very important, of course, but if you can't
afford to build or sustain a network, these questions never
even come into play. The economics of broadband are very
difficult, if not impossible, in many rural markets. The rates
that rural consumers actually pay is rarely sufficient to cover
the actual cost of operating in these rural areas, much less
the large capital expenditures required to deploy the
broadband.
I wish I had an easier answer for you but, frankly, the
infrastructure is expensive and you simply have fewer consumers
spread across to actually cover the costs. And that is why the
ongoing support of the High Cost Universal Fund Program
overseen by the FCC is so critical in making a business case
for rural broadband.
A bipartisan letter last year, led by many on this
subcommittee, was signed by 101 Members of Congress in the
House encouraging the FCC to ensure sufficient resources are
available to enable the USF mechanisms to work as they are
designed. This incredible show of support by Congress was
greatly appreciated by NTCA and our members, and reaffirms the
fact that the USF high-cost program is the foundation for rural
broadband in America.
If the foundation is strong, we can then focus on the next
most significant challenge, and that is the barriers to
deployment itself. And this is where the questions and the
legislation presented in today's hearing become so very
important, especially with the potential infrastructure package
hopefully on the horizon, and Chairman Blackburn, I had the
privilege of being with you in Tennessee when the President
signed the memorandum and executive order on broadband. It is
encouraging that the members of this committee are considering
measures that are aimed at some of the very unique challenges
presented by rural broadband.
Many of your initiatives also mirror some of the work that
was done on some of the FCC BDAC working groups that I had the
privilege to serving on, addressing permitting reform, disaster
relief, broadband mapping, and supporting innovation on a
technology-neutral basis must be the central part of a
coordinated and comprehensive effort to help address challenges
across the broadband landscape.
Smaller providers, like those in NTCA's membership, have
neither the staff nor the resources to navigate complex Federal
agency structures for companies and cooperatives who have an
average of about 25 employees per system. That time and money
that is spent on navigating the effort relates to money and
time that is not spent on deploying broadband.
This committee's desire to obtain better mapping data is
also much needed and greatly appreciated. We need accurate,
granular data. We need transparency on availability to ensure
the government resources are used to support broadband build-
outs that are deployed as efficiently as possible. And we also
welcome the subcommittee's consideration of innovative ideas to
support and enable broadband. Today's small rural broadband
providers are using all communication technologies available to
them to provide world class service to their members and to
their customers.
Just as we transition from telephone-focused to broadband-
focused companies, we need flexibility and access to additional
support and resources to deploy new technologies and address
the remaining challenges.
In closing, small rural broadband providers, like those in
my membership, have made great strides in reducing the digital
divide in rural America, but the job is far from done. With
millions of rural Americans still without access to robust,
high speed broadband and millions more served only through the
help of the FCC's Universal Service Programs, we must continue
to work diligently to ensure that no child is left behind
without internet access for homework, no rural area is left
behind without access to telehealth capabilities, no farmer is
left without precision agriculture tools, and no main street
business is prevented from participating in a global economy.
On behalf of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, your
leadership and your commitment to this issue in identifying
these challenges and looking for creative solutions is so
greatly appreciated.
I appreciate the invitation to be here with you, and I am
looking forward to engaging with all of you further.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Slesinger,
you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER
Mr. Slesinger. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and Mr.
Doyle. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name
is Scott Slesinger. I am the legislative director of the
Natural Resources Defense Council. I will concentrate my oral
remarks on the impact of Federal environmental reviews on new
infrastructures, including broadband.
The poor state of our infrastructure is not because of
Federal environmental reviews or permitting. Our problem is
cash. The solution is a political will to appropriate the
needed dollars.
Numerous studies from GAO and CRS show that it is not
Federal rules that are causing delays. The number one problem
is lack of funding, followed by state and local laws, citizen
opposition to projects, and zoning restrictions. Mr. Chairman,
broadband deployment is not delayed by environmental impact
statements. In fact, no broadband project was ever required to
do one by the FCC. Drinking water projects suffer from a lack
of financing, not environmental reviews. Scapegoating NEPA may
be a cheap applause line, but we cannot streamline our way to
universal broadband access, new tunnels under the Hudson, or
bridges over the Ohio River, or new sewer systems.
I would like the committee to appreciate why NEPA is so
important. In many cases, NEPA gives your constituents their
only opportunity to voice concerns about a Federal project's
impact on their community. Because informed public engagement
often produces ideas, information, and solutions that the
government might otherwise overlook, NEPA leads to better
outcomes for everyone. The NEPA processes save money, time,
lives, historic sites, endangered species, and public lands,
while encouraging compromise and resulting in better projects
with more public support. Most recommendations to cripple the
process try to limit public notice and comments and are
undemocratic.
The first time a rancher learns of a pipeline going through
his property shouldn't be when an attorney shows up at his door
with an offer to purchase under threat of taking the property
by eminent domain. Because many congressional committees have
tried to assert jurisdiction over NEPA, there has been numerous
and contradictory changes in the NEPA process made by Congress
in 2005, 2012, and 2015.
Various provisions have shortened public comment periods,
changed the statute of limitations to four different time
periods, limited access to courts, and set up arbitrary
deadlines for permit approvals.
DOT can now find other agencies that miss deadlines, a
provision that makes as much sense as debtor's prison. The FAST
Act, based in large part by the Rapid Act promoted by Mr.
Shimkus, was passed in 2015, made dramatic changes in the
process. The law created a new interagency administrative
apparatus called the Federal Infrastructure Permitting
Improvement Steering Council, which is largely controlled by
OMB, to set deadlines, push through resolution of interagency
disputes, and allocate funds and personal resources to support
the overall decisionmaking process.
President Trump's first infrastructure permitting executive
order--as the chief sponsor, Senator Portman wrote in a letter
to the President--contradicted authorities and responsibilities
already in FAST-41 to the consternation of project sponsors
that were already participating in the permitting board's
existing process, and this slowed projects. Even the business
roundtable has said that we should be looking at existing law,
not layer on new laws to the NEPA process.
Despite enactment of these laws, the Congress has many
bills go to the House floor that would further amend the NEPA
process without regard for their impact on process changes
already made. Rather than simplifying current processes, these
bills would create new conflicts, sow confusion and delay
project reviews. The recent draft infrastructure proposal from
the White House should not be taken seriously. The leaked
provisions would repeal critical clean air, clean water, and
endangered species protections. It would also set up a process
guaranteed to neuter public input into Federal actions, such as
giving agency heads free rein to virtually exempt any project
from NEPA free from court challenge.
To fix our infrastructure, we don't need to give the
Interior Secretary carte blanche to build pipelines through
every National Park. We do need NEPA to help build a modern
infrastructure system that is resilient, energy-efficient, and
takes into account the impacts of a changing climate in the
needs of the 21st century. We can do this smarter and better by
using, not crippling, the environmental review process.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, NRDC looks
forward to working with the committee on bold and effective
solutions to our Nation's infrastructure challenges. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Slesinger follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Mr. Slesinger's full statement can be found at: https://
docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-
wstate-slesingers-20180130-u5050.pdf.]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Hovis, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOANNE S. HOVIS
Ms. Hovis. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
members of the subcommittee, thank you for your commitment to
bridging the digital divide. I am Joanne Hovis. I am President
of CTC Technology and Energy, a communications engineering and
planning consultancy. I am also CEO of the Coalition for Local
Internet Choice, a coalition of public and private entities
that believe solving our Nation's broadband challenges requires
a full range of options, including locally-driven efforts and
public-private collaboration.
As we look forward to Super Bowl Sunday, I suggest today
that our country's drive to bridge the digital divide is a
critical test of our ability to develop a winning strategy on
one of the most important playing fields of the 21st century.
Let me ask a couple questions in this regard. First, do we
actually have a winning strategy?
Much of the current discussion here in Washington seems
premised on the idea that a winning broadband strategy will
smash so-called barriers such as environmental processes, local
process, and cost of access to public facilities. In my
experience, the premise is wrong. As multiple members of this
panel have said, the fundamental reason we do not seek
comprehensive broadband deployment throughout the United States
is that areas with high infrastructure costs per user,
particularly rural areas, fail to attract private capital. To
solve this, all levels of government can take steps to improve
the economics of broadband deployment in areas where investment
has been insufficient. These include not only rural
communities, but also underserved urban areas, such as small
business locations in cities and suburbs, and low-income areas
where adoption is low and incumbents see no return that
justifies network upgrades. Particular attention and support
must be directed to those areas. Without such efforts, private
dollars will continue to flow primarily to the most profitable
areas.
A focused game plan would involve these plays. First,
support public-private partnerships that ease the economic
challenges in constructing rural, urban, and tribal
infrastructure; second, incent local efforts to build
communications infrastructure, infrastructure that private
internet service providers can use by making bonding and other
financing strategies more feasible, potentially through reduced
interest payments or expanded use of tax exempt bonds or
expansion of the new market tax credit programs; empower local
governments to pursue broadband solutions of all types,
including use of public assets to attract and shape private
investment patterns so as to leverage taxpayer-funded property
and to create competitive dynamics that attract incumbent
investment; require all entities that benefit from public
subsidy, including assets to publics assets, to make
enforceable commitments to build in areas that are historically
unserved or underserved; and maximize the benefits of
competition by requiring that all Federal subsidy programs are
offered on a competitive and neutral basis for bid by any
qualified entity.
The current strategy doesn't squarely face the challenge.
Many current efforts at the FCC and in this body are focused on
reducing the private sector's cost of doing business, such as
by blanket removal of local process and by forcing local
communities to subsidize carrier access to public property. All
of this simply makes more profitable the already profitable
areas of the country rather than changing the economics of
broadband deployment in areas where there is no return on
investment.
And if these strategies are premised on the idea that
removing so-called barriers will lead to rural deployment of
5G, it is critical to know that no credible engineer, market
analyst, or investor, is claiming that 5G deployment is planned
or technically appropriate for rural areas. This is because 5G
is a wireless technology for very fast communications over very
short distances and is, thus, not well-suited to low density
areas.
If the goal is to attract private capital to rural
communities, making wireless deployment more profitable and
high-return metropolitan markets is exactly the wrong way to do
it. Rather, this approach is like moving the ball a few inches
and calling it a touchdown.
My second question is, do we have the right players on the
field? Let me suggest that local governments have been most
valuable players in creating and incenting broadband deployment
for years, and that it is counterproductive to vilify
localities based on the evidence-free assertion that local
efforts and local processes restrict or deter private
investment. The assumption that the Federal Government is more
motivated to enable deployment of broadband, ignores the
immediacy of the digital divide for local officials. And the
assumption that the Federal Government is more competent to
develop strategies ignores the experience of the past decade,
which demonstrates across a wide range of public-private
collaborations that local governments, given the opportunity,
will apply creativity, local resources, physical assets and
diligence to try to solve broadband problems.
My testimony includes examples of a wide range of different
public-private collaborations that are in existence or in
development in communities ranging from West Virginia to
Wyoming to New York City, to the coastal cities on the West
Coast.
Let me say, finally, that preempting local efforts and
authority is not a winning strategy, as it simply removes from
the playing field one of the most important players.
My thanks for your consideration.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hovis follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Swanson
Katz, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELIN SWANSON KATZ
Ms. Swanson Katz. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking
Member Doyle, and distinguished members of the committee. I am
the consumer counsel from the State of Connecticut--go
Patriots--you brought it up. I am head of a small, independent,
nonpartisan state agency that advocates for consumers on issues
relating to electricity, natural gas, water, and
telecommunications.
In that capacity, I serve as Governor Malloy's designee to
the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the FCC, in which I
serve as chairman. I am also President of the National
Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates, an
organization of 44 consumer advocates across the country,
including the District of Columbia. And in that capacity, I
serve on the FCC's Joint Board for Universal Service. So my
interest in this and my time spent on this is deep.
So I thank you for your interest and your attention to this
important issue of the digital divide. As you know, there are,
as we have heard, there are many, many Americans who--and
particularly small businesses--that do not have access to
broadband.
According to Pew Research Center, that is about 25 percent
of Americans do not have a broadband connection in their home.
That number rises to an astonishing 39 percent in rural
America. And there is approximately 5 million homes with
school-aged children which are equal over 17 percent of those
homes with school-aged children do not have a broadband
connection. And it is particularly egregious in low income
households.
In Connecticut, we wanted to learn more about the digital
divide, particularly as it impacts children. And you may be
surprised by that, since Connecticut is generally seen as an
affluent state with generally-sound broadband infrastructure.
However, like every state, we have unserved and underserved
communities. We, therefore, commissioned a report with the
Hartford-based group called Strategic Outreach Services to
assess the affordability of an accessibility of broadband for
students in the north end of Hartford. That is a predominantly
ethnic minority community with predominantly low income but,
nonetheless, an area known for its community pride and
commitment to its schools.
And we worked in that partnership with Janice Flemming-
Butler, who is the president of that organization, and founder.
And I mention her, because she is in the room today, which is a
testimony to her commitment. And for those of you who are
interested, I urge you to talk with her.
So we met in that capacity. We met with educators and
parents and students. We met with church leaders. We met with
neighborhood watch site organizations. We met with city
leaders. We talked to literally hundreds of people in the North
End of Hartford. And what we learned is that many students in
the North End suffer from the Homework Gap, that area that we
define as generally between 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. When students
need access to connection to do their homework.
And what we heard is that many students take extreme
measures because they don't have a broadband access at home,
either for affordable or because of access. And we heard
stories that students would go to fast food restaurants to try
to do their homework. And in fact, one of the local restaurants
changed its policy so you could no longer sit there that long,
seemingly in response.
We also learned that students venture out at night into all
kinds of weather trying to catch Wifi from other buildings.
People were upset that the public schools shut down the Wi-Fi
after hours, so students can sit nearby, although we learned
they did it because of safety concerns.
We heard from parents who recognized that broadband was
important to their children, but simply found it unaffordable
or unavailable at any price, or the back balances prevented
renewals. We saw long lines of students queued up at the public
libraries to use their computers, although when they closed at
6:00, they had nowhere to go. And in fact, since we have done
the reports, some of those branches have closed.
There is also frustration expressed that policymakers saw a
smart phone as a substitute, but that is not an adequate
substitute. It is very expensive to do your homework on a smart
phone, and it is very hard to type a paper. So there is simply
not an adequate substitute.
So what troubled me as a consumer advocate, as a former
teacher, as a parent, and as a human being is that if it is
happening in Connecticut, it is happening everywhere. And no
child should have to sit in Dunkin' Donuts or McDonald's to do
their homework, or sit outside in the dark trying to finish a
project. And the implications for our education system and the
quality of education that we deliver to children in low income
urban communities, and rural communities, is profound.
We would never say to students whose parents can't afford
textbooks, I am sorry, you don't get to learn history, or math,
or English. Or if you don't live near a library, I am sorry,
you don't have access. But that is, in effect, what we are
saying to these children, to the entire generations by failing
to address the Homework Gap in so many areas.
So my ask for you today is that you consider the urban
communities as well as the rural communities. We are working
with both in Connecticut. And it is not just this question of
adoption. It is not just simply that they can't afford it, it
is also a question of quality. And that makes a difference as
well.
So thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Swanson Katz follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ms. Swanson Katz's full statement can be found at: https:/
/docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-
wstate-swansonkatze-20180130-u5060.pdf.]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back. And Ms. Swanson
Katz, would you please recognize your guest again?
Ms. Swanson Katz. Yes, Ms. Janice Flemming-Butler.
Mrs. Blackburn. Janice, would you please stand?
Thank you for your good work.
By way of correcting some statements that were made
earlier, and for the information of those with us today, I
wanted to reiterate the subcommittee hearing activities
relative to infrastructure that have taken place.
You had November 16th, a hearing on The Race to 5G; October
25th, FCC Oversight Hearing; July 25th, we had the FCC
Reauthorization Legislative hearing; June 21st, the hearing on
Defining and Mapping Broadband Coverage; and actually, we had
some on the committee that felt that one was redundant because
we had already had a March 21st hearing. An April 5th, Fueling
the Wireless Economy hearing; March 29th, Realizing Nationwide
NG911; March 21st, hearing with the discussion draft, some of
those bills were now in bill form; and Ms. Eshoo's Dig Once
bill, which has bipartisan support was a part of that; and then
February 2, Reauthorization of the NTIA.
So it is time for us to stop talking and get bills in front
of us and pass them and get to work. And I am going to yield
first to Chairman Walden for questions.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on
these issues but also for yielding, as I have another
commitment I have to go to.
I just want to ask a couple of questions and, first of all,
thank you all for your testimony and your shared commitment
with us to get broadband out to all Americans: students,
seniors, everybody in between.
Mr. Slesinger, in your testimony, I was intrigued, on page
3 you said, ``Broadband deployment is not delayed by
environmental impact statements. In fact, no broadband project
was ever required to do one by the Federal Communications
Commission.''
You are not really saying no broadband deployment project
has ever been required to do an EIS, are you?
Mr. Slesinger. That is correct. Many have had to do
environmental assessments and some may have done----
Mr. Walden. Yes. So----
Mr. Slesinger. Excuse me. Of the 50,000 Federal activities
a year, there is only about a couple hundred EISs, and none of
the ones that we could find in the FCC has never required a
full environmental impact statement.
Mr. Walden. Yes. Reclaiming my time, because I think it is
actually required through other agencies. Again, 55 percent of
my district is Federal land, so I am somewhat familiar with
this, and as I said, it is 69,341 square miles. By the way,
Connecticut is about 5,544, not that we are counting. New
Jersey, 8,722, Mr. Pallone.
But the point is, I run into this all the time on siting.
We are trying to get broadband out there. We are trying to get
three-phase power into--some of our communities have waited 3
years to get an EIS to do four power poles on BLM land, and so
I think there is an issue here with siting. I just think there
is more there than what you represent in your testimony.
I want to go to Mr. Gillen. Thank you for your testimony as
well. As you know, we have seen these situations with various
Federal laws and State laws that have delayed. I know Mr.
Shimkus will probably speak to this because it was in his
district, I guess. 2016, a company was looking to expand by
adding a 14-by-10-foot area of land adjacent to its existing
facility in a parking lot. The study they were required to do
took 5 months to complete and cost thousands of dollars.
Have you or Mr. Polka or anybody else on the panel who
actually does deployment, tell us about the things you have run
into. Tell us what you like about these bills. You have
referenced some in the testimony, but your member companies and
all, what are you seeing? Is this a problem or isn't it?
Because on one end of the panel we hear it is not a problem. On
the other end we hear it is a problem. I sort of live in a
district like mine firsthand. So, Mr. Gillen, do you want to
start off?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your example is a good
one. It is something we face every day throughout the country.
Carriers are running into challenges that, particularly when we
start talking about things like this, that to install 23 of
these in a parking lot costs $173,000 in environmental and
historic reviews and takes many months. We don't think that
makes any sense. There are times where it is appropriate to
have those types of things----
Mr. Walden. Right.
Mr. Gillen [continuing]. But streamlining that
Representative Shimkus and others are pursing is the type of
things that will actually expedite deployment now.
Mr. Walden. Could you say that again, that was in a parking
lot?
Mr. Gillen. In a parking lot at NRG Stadium for the Super
Bowl last year.
Mr. Walden. And it cost how much?
Mr. Gillen. $173,000 to site 23 of these.
Mr. Walden. Wow.
Mr. Polka, do your folks ever run into any siting problems
that we could address?
Mr. Polka. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I have visited with
members all across the country. Our members literally build
into their budgets time and money because of how long it takes
for attachments to poles to produce broadband to be approved
and permitted and to move forward. Thousands and thousands of
dollars where application fees are made for makeready, then
additional engineering studies are made. Further requests for
engineering studies, duplicating the process. The fact that a
member company has to build in at least 6 months of time, at
least, before they can move forward on a broadband deployment
is actually causing broadband deployment not to be deployed in
these most important areas.
Mr. Walden. Ms. Bloomfield?
Ms. Bloomfield. I would love to jump in on that as well.
Just to cite a couple of examples, I have a company up in South
Dakota that had a year-long delay because of needing to get
some U.S. Forest Service permitting through. You are in South
Dakota. Your build time is very short, as Congressman Cramer
knows. You have got periods of time where you miss that
opportunity.
Mr. Walden. Right.
Ms. Bloomfield. In Wyoming, we have had a state BLM office
that actually wound up treating the broadband build like it was
a pipeline. So they actually had to get bonding to go ahead and
do the construction when it was really just a broadband
conduit. So, absolutely, there are instances. And to my fellow
panelist's point, time and money is needed to be built into the
process.
Mr. Walden. I know my time is about expired. I would argue,
I am probably one of the few if only chairs of this committee
that has ever actually been through a tower siting process and
antenna siting process. I was in the radio business for 20-plus
years. And while I never climbed a tower, I was involved in a
lot of that. So I share your pain.
And I don't think any of your companies want to do
environmental damage. I think it is a complete false argument
that somehow we are going to run roughshod over the
environment. I reject that. That is not the point. The point is
that we can streamline the discussion process, the siting
process in the Federal Government that is an analog process in
a digital environment.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Doyle, 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to start by recognizing a great Pittsburgher on the
panel and great CEO of the American Cable Association, Matt
Polka. Matt, welcome. I think Matt will agree with me, most of
us from Pittsburgh rarely root for the Philadelphia Eagles, but
when they are playing the New England Patriots, we are all
Eagles fans. I hope they win.
Mr. Polka. Don't forget the Steagles too, back in World War
II.
Mr. Doyle. That is right. Exactly.
So, Mr. Gillen, I want to make sure I just understood. You
were holding that box up and said you don't need any money from
the Federal Government, just make it easier to streamline,
deployment of that. And you are not suggesting that you are
going to--your member companies would take care of the
deployment in unserved areas in all of rural America or are you
talking--are those little white boxes going to solve our
problem in rural America if we just streamline the process?
Mr. Gillen. We think there are two separate and important
problems. This helps us drive 5G. It certainly will be in dense
areas in cities and towns, but, no, it won't solve the problem
for unserved----
Mr. Doyle. OK. I just wanted to clarify that, that this is
not a solution to rural broadband.
And, secondly, are some of the impediments to deployment
state and local issues or are they all Federal issues?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely it is a mix of both.
Mr. Doyle. It is a mix of both. OK. Thank you.
I want to ask Ms. Hovis, in areas that are unserved or
underserved we see municipalities, either through public-
private partnerships or even on their own, provide broadband to
their communities. And in some cases when a municipality offers
broadband as an alternative to an incumbent that may be there,
we have seen the incumbent actually lower prices. It has been
better for consumers. But we are also seeing a number of states
are passing laws to prevent municipalities from providing
broadband or engaging in a public-private partnership. What
effect do you think these state laws are having on broadband
deployment?
Ms. Hovis. I think it is detrimental to deployment because,
as I said earlier, it takes important players off the field,
but it also stops a competitive dynamic from emerging. The
cities and towns and communities where we have the most robust
broadband and the most robust competition are places where some
kind of competition has come into that market and incumbents
have reacted to that competition and invest as a result.
I will say also that for smaller and rural communities that
are unserved and underserved, sometimes the only entity that is
willing to step up and invest is a community either by itself
or through a public-private partnership, and I hate to think
that we here in Washington would try to interfere with local
collaborations and processes when we are seeing, frankly, a
thousand collaborative processes bloom around the country.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Let me ask everyone on the panel, and this is just a yes-
or-no question, does anyone here on the panel believe that we
can successfully deploy unserved areas in rural America or
underserved areas without some sort of Federal investment, that
it can just be done through streamlining regulation and making
deployment easy, which I think is important too and we should
be doing that. But is there anyone here that thinks that we
don't need to appropriate any money to solve this problem? Just
yes or no.
Mr. Spalter. No. We need direct funding by a universal
service funding mechanism.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Polka. Agreed.
Mr. Doyle. Mr. Gillen.
Mr. Gillen. Funding would be helpful on a technology-
neutral basis.
Mr. Doyle. So you agree that we need funding, though? I
understand your technology.
Mr. Gillen. Yes, absolutely. Sure.
Ms. Bloomfield. Support is needed to make the business a
case model in rural America.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Slesinger. Yes, definitely needed.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Hovis. I agree.
Ms. Swanson Katz. Yes, I agree.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. And lastly, Mr. Gillen, we saw this
memo that leaked out of the White House, the 5G memo that
focused in detail on our network cyber vulnerabilities
particularly when it comes to foreign actors and the proposal
of nationalizing our wireless telecommunications
infrastructure. I think many of us here on the committee on
both sides of the aisle seems uninformed. I am concerned that
the White House and the President have not fully addressed and
rejected this very troubling proposal. We heard some of that
today.
That being said, the security of our Nation's broadband
issue is critical. And at the beginning of his tenure, FCC
Chairman Pai rolled back a number of Commission items related
to cybersecurity, including a notice of inquiry specifically
questioning how the FCC could best secure 5G networks. I am
concerned that rolling back these measures is part of what has
caused so much concern amongst members of the National Security
Council.
Mr. Gillen, I just want to ask you, do you think it is wise
for the FCC to roll back cybersecurity initiatives such as this
5G notice of inquiry? I mean, if the relevant Federal agency
cannot merely ask questions about how best to secure 5G
networks, how can we hope to address this problem?
Mr. Gillen. Thank you, Congressman. It is a great question.
Cybersecurity is critical to everything we do. If you don't
have a safe and secure network, we are not serving the American
people and we are not doing our jobs.
With respect to the specific question you asked, we think
that cybersecurity is best handled through a partnership with
the Department of Homeland Security. They are the experts in
those we work closely with. And I think the White House
proposal, I think Chairman Walden and all five FCC
commissioners have characterized it very well, so I won't say
anything further about that right now. But in terms of the
cybersecurity, that is something we work on every day and we do
need a partnership with the Federal Government to make sure
that we understand the threats, and a lot of what this
community and other committees have focused on information
sharing is critical to doing that.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
I will recognize myself for some questions, and I want to
start with Mr. Spalter, Gillen, and Polka. You all talked a
little bit about tax reform and how that would help with
investment. And sometimes I think as we talk about the changes
in regulatory relief and tax reform, people focus on big
companies and not on the smaller companies. So if you would
take just a moment and talk a little bit about how tax reform
regulatory relief affects your companies in the deployment of
broadband.
Mr. Spalter. Thank you, Chairman. They affect our companies
both large and small across the board. I had the opportunity
recently to visit with some of our smaller companies in western
New Mexico, western Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. And to a
company, each of them have been elated by the idea that they
are going to be able to invest more in deploying more
broadbands to unserved communities, invest more in research and
development to be able to expand next generation networks, and
also provide new incentives for their employees, even though
they have not met many employees. This is a meaningful step
forward and augurs well for the future of closing the digital
divide.
Mrs. Blackburn. Great.
Mr. Gillen.
Mr. Gillen. I agree with Mr. Spalter. In terms of the
wireless industry, it means we have seen promises of new jobs,
we have seen commitments to build out more networks and add
capital expenditures, bring money back home. And really it does
underscore the capital-intensive industries like wireless. This
tax reform regulatory relief will make a real difference.
Particularly for smaller carriers, a lot of the regulatory
relief we are talking about--as my colleagues have said, they
don't have the staff to manage these processes, so any types of
streamlining or standardization helps them actually do their
day jobs and serve consumers.
Mr. Polka. Thank you. As I said in my testimony, let's take
a count of the successes that exist. Our member companies
certainly use private funds to deploy broadband, but the
benefit of the recently passed tax act cannot be underestimated
when you look at the investment that now our members as smaller
internet service providers have to put back into their systems,
which they are doing. I have heard from members all over the
country who have said to me that the difference in the
corporate tax rate will make more money available for the
company to reinvest broadband serving now hundreds, thousands
more homes that would otherwise be uneconomical to serve. So
that has helped tremendously already to give a boost to smaller
businesses, not to mention the deregulation that has already
occurred.
For smaller companies, regulations affect them
disproportionately. They have fewer customers per mile over
which to pass that cost of regulation. When the Federal
Government takes into account that there was a difference
between small and rural and big and urban and allows for those
smaller companies to be able to deploy sensibly and take into
account the burden of regulation, it makes a big difference on
getting rural broadband out there faster.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you all.
And, Ms. Bloomfield, I want to come to you now. We spoke
briefly about some of the good things in Tennessee. I know
north central Tennessee spent like a quarter million dollars on
historical reviews and $14 million in investment just to build
out this. And Mr. Welch mentioned 39 percent of rural America
is without broadband, and I think people lose sight of that,
that there is just not that access there. And in Tennessee, we
were talking about the first round of grants, almost $10
million that has gone out, and we have got the Scott County
Telephone Co-Op got $1.9 million. They are going to use that in
Hawkins County. DTC Communications, $1.765 million to use in
Smith and Wilson Counties, and Sunset Digital got $1.4 million
to use in Claiborne and Hancock Counties to expand that
footprint and to bring more people online, and that type
investment we want to see.
At the Federal level, of course, we have got $4.53 billion
that is there in the USF that is going to be over 10 years to
expand this service, and $2 billion for rural broadband
deployment that should come from the competitive reverse
auction.
So I want you to talk just a little bit on specifics of how
this serves to get more people online.
Ms. Bloomfield. So, Chairman, I think you raise a really
important concept, and that is coordination. How can we ensure
that what is going on at the Federal level coordinates with
what can happen on the state level? And I think that is where
some of the things the committee is looking at, like accurate
mapping and making sure we know where the underserved and
unserved areas are, so that we can focus those limited
resources, whether they are universal service dollars. And we
are pleased that the FCC is currently circulating an order that
looks to restore some of the funding that had been subject to
the budget mechanism, which will go a long way in terms of
giving folks regulatory certainty. How do they know that they
have got the resources to actually deploy? And you combine that
with some State initiatives.
What Tennessee has done is really interesting. Minnesota
has done something similar. Wisconsin has done something
similar. How do you actually take all of these different pieces
so that we can thoughtfully, as a country, build out to those
consumers that actually have not had the opportunity to have
access. CAFTA is going to be really important. We look at those
areas, when that auction comes up, as an opportunity for my
companies to potentially edge out into communities that are
unserved that are neighboring their areas where they may have
an opportunity to bring robust broadband like they have to
their own incumbent areas out to those who are waiting for
service. So we are hopeful that those rules will be helpful.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you.
At this time I yield Mr. Welch 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
I want to talk about two things. One is a bipartisan bill
that I have with Mr. McKinley, and then second is this question
of the rural broadband buildout. And by the way, thank you all
for what I thought was very, very good testimony.
Mr. McKinley and I have a bill that would require the FCC
to define, on an ongoing basis, what is reasonably comparable
service and reasonably comparable prices in rural and urban
America. And we have seen, from my perspective, an alarming
approach by the current FCC chair that is essentially dumbing
down, as I see it, with successes in rural America.
Ms. Bloomfield, could you just respond to your view about
the value of having the FCC, on an ongoing basis, give a
concrete and scientific answer to the question of reasonably
comparable in rural versus urban areas? Would that be helpful?
Ms. Bloomfield. As I mentioned in the statistics that we
have in terms of the number of my carriers and what the
capacity is, I think we do have to figure out how you ensure
that particular consumers' demands increase. The bandwidth
demands that people are looking for grows exponentially. So how
do we make sure that you are not creating two different
services between rural and urban America, and how do you make
sure there is comparability there?
Part of the issue that continues to be the underlying
problem, however, is the high cost of deploying that network.
So, for example, when you look at something like the ability of
a rural provider to do standalone broadband for the consumer
who simply wants the ability to access broadband, they may not
want the telephone service, they may not want some of the other
things that come with it. Right now, based on support--sorry.
It is going to be very important, but it is going to take
resources and it is going to take support from things like
universal service.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Now, Mr. Doyle asked the question that everyone said
affirmatively we do need Federal funding, and I want to go back
to that, because I have heard a lot about regulatory reform and
I have heard a lot of good ideas. That makes sense to me. I
have heard a lot, by the way, that the local efforts are very
important, so what we do should enhance them, not diminish
them. But bottom line, there has got to be money just like
there was with rural electrification.
And, Mr. Gillen, in your written testimony, as I read it,
you didn't believe there was a need for Federal funding to
deploy 5G. So if that is the case, would your folks be able to
commit that you will be deploying 5G services at the same speed
and pace in rural America as in urban America?
Mr. Gillen. 5G will start in dense areas throughout the
country. A rural town in Burlington, Vermont, will see it.
University of Vermont will see 5G. It really is to start dense.
When you talk about reaching the unserved households, you are
going to need money.
Mr. Welch. That is obvious, right? I mean, you go where the
market is. And there is no expectation, on my part, that anyone
who has shareholders and has some obligations to the
shareholders would do anything different. There is a
fundamental policy question that only Congress can answer. Are
we going to show us the money in rural America.
So there is a bill that Mr. Pallone has that is based on a
study that the FCC did saying that we really need $40 billion.
And Mr. Walden raised questions about spending that wisely, and
we want to do that, make sure it is done right. But of the
panelists here, does that FCC figure, $40 billion for this
buildout for reasonably comparable service in rural America,
sound like a good number to you? I will start with you
Jonathan, Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Congressman Welch, there are numbers of
studies that have indicated that more monies are needed for
reaching ubiquitous access for Americans, a goal that we all
share. Not necessarily agreeing with one or another set of
numbers, what we all agree to is that we do need direct funding
where there is no business case to deploy high-speed broadband,
especially in unserved areas, and using universal service fund
as the platform for doing so we know is most efficient and most
administratively logical.
Mr. Welch. And even assuming we do the things that have
been recommended with regulatory reform and local partnerships,
the number that we are going to have to spend is in the
billions of dollars. Does anyone disagree with that?
Mr. Spalter. No.
Mr. Welch. Ms. Hovis?
Ms. Hovis. I do agree. Unfortunately, it is far more costly
to build in rural areas on a per-user basis. It gets more and
more costly with lower density, and not just for capital costs,
but also for operating costs, and that is the fundamental
challenge that we face. But directing the funding there and
making sure that the funding is well suited to the needs there,
and the needs are the same in rural America as in urban and
suburban America. We all need high speed. We need scalable
networks that are capable of growing over time. We don't need
second-rate services in rural America.
Mr. Welch. My time is up. I want to thank the panel.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Latta. No, Mr. Lance, you are recognized. Five minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Chairman.
Mr. Spalter, in your testimony, you mentioned that finite
Federal resources should be targeted to ensure that funding to
unserved areas, that that funding is prioritized, and I
couldn't agree more with that. And I have introduced a
resolution stating as much. Could you please expand on the
importance of prioritizing Federal funds to unserved areas of
the country, and are we able to learn from past mistakes
related to this issue when we are deciding how best to spend
Federal resources?
Mr. Spalter. Thank you very much for the question, Vice-
Chairman Lance. As stewards of Federal dollars of broadband
providers in Congress, all of the American republic have to be
very, very cautious about how we use those dollars, and we have
to make sure that they are being used efficiently and to
targeted purposes. And we are all focused on doing so in ways
that will achieve those goals.
With respect to reaching unserved areas where there is no
access to broadband. Those high-cost areas require a partner in
government-directed funds using universal service fund
methodologies is, we believe, the appropriate way to go. And
there is no doubt that in order to fulfill the obligation that
we have of closing the digital divide, thinking very carefully,
as we are doing here today and I hope we are going to continue
to do, of how we actually can expand that universal service
budget to--universal service fund budget to meet this great
goal of closing the digital divide is, I think, a great
priority for all of this.
Mr. Lance. And, Mr. Spalter, do you believe that this will
require statutory change or can this be done administratively
or will it be a combination of both?
Mr. Spalter. I believe it can be a combination of both. It
will be left to Congress to decide its commitment to, in fact,
fulfilling this great goal we have of closing the digital
divide. To do so we understand it is going to cost tens of
billions of dollars. Universal service funds and the universal
service fund platform in the direct funding model has been
proven to be most efficient in doing so. And we think both
administratively and through statute there are going to be
mechanisms of actually achieving this goal, and we are looking
forward to working with you in doing so.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Would other members of the panel like to comment?
Yes, Ms. Bloomfield.
Ms. Bloomfield. I would just like to jump in and say, when
I look at my membership, it is a combination of universal
service along with support, like the USDA has with our U.S. So
you build the business case with universal service that allows
folks to get the capital funding through things like USDA to
actually build these networks. And the one thing I would say it
is going to be really important for us to be thinking about
building future proof networks, to make sure that as we look at
that underserved and those finite resources, that we are using
them to build networks that will last into the future.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Anyone else like to comment?
Mr. Polka. Congressman, I would agree. I would totally
agree. There certainly is a need, as has been demonstrated in
very hard to reach unserved areas where Federal funds can be
very important to closing that aspect of the digital divide.
But then as we look at past programs, whether it is at the
reform of the Connect America Fund, which is focused on
unserved areas ensuring that we are using reverse auctions to
spend money wisely, these are good ideas to employ.
The last thing we want to do, as I said, is to discourage
private investment, and one way you would do that, and you
recognize this because of your resolution, is by permitting any
situation where an unsubsidized internet service provider would
have to face subsidized competition. That is a disincentive to
further investment in deployment of broadband.
So, otherwise, I think you are right on target as it
relates to focusing on areas where broadband is unserved. Let's
make sure that we are not overbuilding the unsubsidized
providers.
Mr. Lance. So we have to be careful regarding subsidies and
those nonsubsidized.
Mr. Polka. Correct.
Mr. Lance. Yes. Anyone else on the panel care to comment?
Yes, of course.
Ms. Hovis. Congressman, my perspective would be that
competition in this environment, as in any environment, gets
better results. And if there is going to be public funding for
broadband deployment, then offering it on a competitive basis
so that the best situated, most efficient, perhaps most
motivated, strongest set of partners are able to bid for that
kind of thing, rather than offering it to a single set of
companies where there is no competitive benefit. I think that
is a proven strategy.
Mr. Lance. I would agree with that.
Yes. Connecticut near New Jersey, although we have to be
careful as to whom we root for in New Jersey.
Ms. Swanson Katz. My remarks concerning the New England
Patriots are my own and do not reflect the nonpartisan views of
the Connecticut Consumer Counsel.
I would just like to add that I think when you are talking
about effective deployment of dollars, Federal, state, at any
level, we have to recognize the very legitimate important role
of state and local governments in maximizing those dollars, and
I would just encourage you to think about including them in
this and not excluding them.
And as an example, in the northwest corner of Connecticut,
we have 26 municipalities, all nonpartisan, have banded
together and are looking at models for how they can get a
network deployed into their neighborhoods. And it is much more
efficient to have 26 small towns working together in trying to
do things like streamlining, permitting, and finding siting for
these companies then and working with private sector as their
model. So, keep that in mind, that we will be much more
effective if we allow municipalities and local leaders to work
on this level.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. My time has expired. My thanks to the
entire panel.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Pallone, you are recognized.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we all agree that better broadband can help provide
more opportunities for more people. And to make ubiquitous
broadband a reality, Democrats on this committee have been
working on ways to make sure everyone, whether they live in
rural areas or urban areas, has access to better and more
affordable broadband services, and that is why we introduced
the LIFT America Act that would provide $40 billion through a
mix of reverse auctions and state programs. The bill would
prioritize sending money to underserved areas and then funding
underserved areas, anchor institutions, and building our next
generation of 911 systems.
I wanted to start with Mr. Spalter. In your testimony, you
discuss the need for Federal funding to support a more
expansive broadband network. Can you just elaborate on why this
is necessary?
Mr. Spalter. There is a demonstrable need in America today
because of the challenging business case of delivering
broadband to our unserved areas, our hardest to reach areas for
a direct funding model. We understand that with best intentions
American broadband providers are doing everything they can to
extend the opportunities that broadband can bring, but there
still are areas that are going to require a partnership with
government. We know that the direct funding model, again, using
platforms like Universal Service Fund, is the most efficient
and administratively logical way to actually advance that goal.
Direct funding has been and will be the principal and most
sound funding model for actually making the reality of closing
the digital divide actually happen.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you.
Over the past year, Republicans have eliminated our privacy
rights online and destroyed net neutrality, and now they want
to eviscerate our environmental and historic preservation laws,
and they have done all of this in the name of broadband
deployment. So I wanted to ask Ms. Hovis, have you seen any
evidence that elimination of these protections will bring
broadband to the millions of Americans who are not yet served?
Ms. Hovis. No, Congressman. I think that this will make for
more profitable companies, whether better profitability leads
to more deployment, particularly in areas that are not going to
result in profits themselves. It is just not clear to me that
there is a link between those things. I am concerned frequently
that certain kinds of regulatory relief, deregulation, or other
kinds of things are extended to the companies based on the
premise that it will lead to new deployment in rural areas, but
there is no commitment or enforceable mechanism for making sure
that that actually happens. And given greater profitability,
companies may or may not further invest.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
I understand that the elimination of our environmental laws
will not make a meaningful difference in connecting the
millions of Americans that don't have access to broadband, but
I do think we need to better understand what the effect of some
of these proposals would actually be. So I wanted to ask Mr.
Slesinger, if I could, in your opinion, what would be the
effect of carving up longstanding environmental protections as
some of the bills before us would do?
Mr. Slesinger. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I think that the
impacts can be very big. Broadband cells that we are talking
about are not large environmental problems to this country.
There are ways that the Forest Service and BLM on their lands
could do a programatic impact statement that would make it very
easy to get any required Federal approval. It is not a major
issue. We have programmatic impact statements for solar; we
could do it easily for broadband. And I don't think that is a
big problem.
However, I think we are missing the issue here. And in many
of these cases, it is state and local zoning and other things
that are the problem. But I think the issue that I was talking
about was mainly in the LIFT bill where we are talking about
things well beyond broadband that can have large environmental
impacts, and in that case, we need to keep the environmental
laws strong and enforced so that people's communities are not
adversely affected by large Federal projects. Clearly, the FCC,
as I said, has never required an EIS. There is not a big burden
in this, but it is an excuse not to do unprofitable broadband
in rural areas.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks for being
here on an issue that we seem to continue to talk about.
I am pretty proud of my co-ops, my small telephone
companies in these areas that are trying to do just that. So
there is a need for government involvement to provide some
certainty financially because the return on investment is just
not there. I always talk about the need on the Universal
Service Fund to get that right and start parlaying that toward
a broadband deployment.
But I think when we hear the testimony--I am sorry, I am
bouncing back like a lot of members between two hearings. When
we just beat up large corporations and their profitability, we
really want to incentivize these small co-ops and these small
family privately owned companies to do what they are trying to
do right now, and then bring competition. This came from my
local newspaper just January 28, not that I solicited it. And I
would like to ask unanimous consent to submit this for the
record.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Shimkus. It just talks about a community in my
district, Highland, Illinois, that because they felt they were
held hostage to the local provider, they built their own fiber
system.
Now, the editorial is pretty good because it says there was
just a report out, the Harvard University study, and they were
fifth out of 27 public utilities that said you are doing a good
job. But at the end of it, it also says, but there are hidden
costs when you have a government run system, right, the
government is assuming some of those costs just on payroll and
insurance and all those other things. So I just thought it was
timely, and I wanted to submit that for the record because this
does really segue into this debate.
And I do believe regulatory burdens slow the process up,
and especially for these smaller companies, whether privately
or public. So that is why we did the SPEED Act, which is an
attempt to alleviate some of these additional reviews,
especially in the environmental and historic reviews.
Now, the key to this small provision of this package is
that it is in right-of-way and it is already being used. So it
is not like new. It is not like a green field area. It is not
like you are building over new territory untouched pristine
land. It is using current right-of-ways and current systems and
with a focus on size.
So, Mr. Gillen, can you elaborate on the challenges of the
environmental and historic reviews that present for a
deployment and how this bill might address those?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. Thank you
for your leadership on this issue. I agree with everything you
said. When you are talking about siting rights-of-way or siting
devices like this, like your bill addresses, right now, that
adds thousands and thousands of cost and months and months of
review that we don't get back that is delaying deployment and
increasing the cost of deployment. So absolutely the SPEED Act
would address a core impediment we face.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me follow up. And as you follow actions
going around through the states, is this similar to what some
of the states are doing in this venue in this way?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. I think the notion that we need
both state and local governments to tighten how they do this,
and we need the Federal Government. It is going to take both
for us to do this.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Spalter, how important is it for
communications, this whole debate, a policy to apply equally
regardless of technology?
Mr. Spalter. Technology and neutrality is extremely
important as we think about the opportunities of actually
closing the digital divide. We support any innovation that
actually will be able to deliver broadband through whatever
technology that most suits community and the institutions that
support that community. What we also realize, though, is in the
current moment that we are living in, that the most effective
mechanism is to pull broadband fiber to as many communities as
possible, and to do so needs creative partnership that has to
exist between private investment, which is on the table, with a
strong partner in government through direct funding.
Mr. Shimkus. And let me follow up with Ms. Bloomfield. Are
small providers disproportionately impacted by regulations?
Ms. Bloomfield. Part of that is just that they have fewer
staff and they have fewer resources so, obviously, time you
spend dealing with regulations you are not dealing with
building broadband. But I also do want to commend you for your
leadership, because I think the other initiative in your
legislation is you recognize that it is also about upgrading
the network. So it is not just building it, but what you are
trying to address is the fact that these networks are living
and breathing networks, and they need to constantly be
ungraded, so that certainly eases the process.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, my time has
expired.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chair for holding this
hearing, and the witnesses.
I am going to start with Ms. Katz. I am concerned that the
FCC's recent action of eliminating net neutrality and Lifeline
will actually open the digital divide. Is the FCC's current
lifeline proposal to cut 70 percent of the Lifeline program
counterproductive to closing the digital divide and making
broadband widely available to lower income Americans?
Ms. Swanson Katz. Well, I think the short answer to that is
yes. The rationale for eliminating, severely curtailing the
availability of the lifeline is that it would enhance broadband
deployment, but I think that is comparing apples and oranges.
This is a situation we are trying to put communication
capabilities in the hands of our lowest income people, and to
take those away from them, yes, absolutely will aggravate the
digital divide, exacerbate it, and have negative impacts on
many different populations. There is just a lot of talk of how
lifeline phones are being used by the homeless to connect with
family and find resources. And so it not only broadens the
digital divide, but it has a ripple effect on the way we can
see our most vulnerable citizens impacted.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Hovis, I appreciate your direct testimony. I heard in
some places the best way to deploy high-speed internet access
that Americans deserve is to go to public-private partnerships,
and you stressed that in your testimony. Can you provide us
with some illustrations from your work regarding the
effectiveness of public-private partnerships?
Ms. Hovis. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. I am seeing
around the country hundreds, possibly thousands, of local
initiatives with the willing and enthusiastic participation of
the private sector in communities like Sublette County,
Wyoming, where the local community is planning to deploy
infrastructure that will be made available to their private
partners and to business areas, to business districts where
there is no adequate broadband at all, just speeds of a megabit
or two, at best, in order to allow businesses to thrive in that
part of the community. There are efforts like that underway in
parts of Kentucky and parts of West Virginia, all over the
country. And then even more ambitious and farsighted efforts,
the city of San Francisco is considering a public-private
partnership that is focused on ensuring that the 150,000 people
in San Francisco who don't currently have broadband, mostly
because they can't afford it, have access to adequate speeds,
not one megabit speeds but the same kinds of speeds that you
and I consider to be appropriate for our families. There is
enormous creativity on both the public and the private side,
and the private sector is willingly participating and engaged.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I cosponsored a bill with
Congressman Lujan that would help public-private partnerships
get low-interest financing. Would that be helpful for building
out access?
Ms. Hovis. Yes. I think it is an incredibly helpful
approach, because what it does is it makes it feasible for a
local community to have low-cost financing to build
infrastructure and then potentially to make that infrastructure
available for private sector use. We have all agreed on this
panel that the cost of infrastructure deployment in certain
markets is prohibitive. If there is a way that public's state,
local, and Federal efforts can be targeted toward
infrastructure, then allowing for private sector service
provision, in some cases public service provision, it is going
to differ from community to community, but that is a mechanism
for ensuring that we get infrastructure to places where it does
not exist in an adequate way.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Spalter, I am going to move to cybersecurity. We have
had security experts testify in front of this committee that
many or maybe most of the IoT devices are unsecure, Internet of
Things devices. By 2020, it is projected there will be 20
billion to 50 billion IoT devices in use. Should we be
concerned about the risks that unsecure IoT devices are posing
to our broadband networks?
Mr. Spalter. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is
a concern that all broadband providers share, that we have to
be much more focused and increasingly focused on the
resiliency, the security, not only of our wired networks, but
also of our wireless networks. The Internet of Things is an
opportunity of great promise for the economic productivity of
our country.
The focus that we have been giving as a broadband community
to this initiative is also being done in partnership with a
broader set of colleagues in the internet ecosystem. Our cloud
companies, our internet information technology companies,
internet companies increasingly are joining to share the
responsibilities with us to extend greater security for our
broadband networks, including for the Internet of Things, and
we are doing so in partnership with the Department of Homeland
Security and other agencies of government that we have to work
closely with to solve this problem.
Mr. McNerney. Very good. Well, I have a lot more questions,
but I have run out of time, so I am going to yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Latta, 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for
holding today's hearing. This is very, very important.
As co-chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus and co-chair of
the Rural Telecommunications Working Group, access to high-
speed broadband in rural areas is a top priority of mine. I
believe Congress should facilitate the development of robust
broadband networks by creating a regulatory environment,
promotes competition, and encourages innovation. That is why I
introduced a resolution I expressed to be sent to the House
that broadband deployment should be competitively and
technologically neutral. I have also introduced the Precision
Agriculture Connectivity Act with Congressman Loebsack to help
close the digital divide faced by the agricultural communities
in rural America.
And, Ms. Bloomfield, if I could pose my first question to
you. Agriculture operations generate significant value to the
national economy and are an essential source of revenue in jobs
in our rural communities. Today, modern high-precision farming
requires access to high-speed broadband to support advanced
operations and technologies that significantly increase crop
yields, reduce costs, and improve the environment. My bill, the
Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act, requires the FCC to
recommend steps to obtain reliable measurements of broadband
coverage in order to gain a better understanding of the true
lack of access in America. It is my understanding that finding
adequate, accurate broadband mapping and coverage managements
is nearly impossible.
And so, Ms. Bloomfield, in what ways would it be beneficial
for the FCC to obtain such data for the purpose of deploying
high-speed broadband on agricultural croplands in other rural
areas?
Ms. Bloomfield. So, Congressman Latta, I appreciate the
question, and greatly appreciate the leadership that you have
shown on a lot of these issues. Smart ag is truly the next
frontier when we think about economic development vitality for
rural America, and I think a lot of the initiatives you are
looking at is how do you gather more of that granular data so
that we can really look at the census track level and figure
out where is the infrastructure and where is the void. Because
we certainly know that you need to be able to see it, whether
it is street level or whether it is literally on the cropland,
in terms of where that infrastructure resides.
So I think that when we look at the FCC and some of the
work that they have been doing in gathering 477 data and trying
to take that data and figure out in a granular, transparent,
and accurate way and measuring apples to apples--and the thing
I always worry about is when you get different entities trying
to measure, they are measuring different ways of measuring
where that deployment is. So I think your focus on how do we
coordinate, how do we actually aggregate this will go a long
way in terms of seeing where we really need to focus some of
our future energy and resources.
Mr. Latta. Let me ask you just to follow up when you talk
apples to apples and not apples to oranges here. What should we
be looking at then to make sure that they are looking at the
right data and, everyone is on the same page here and they are
not looking at two different things, the same coming with two
different answers.
Ms. Bloomfield. So I think we saw a little bit during the
stimulus where there was actually national broadband map that
was built, but it was very inconsistent, and it wasn't checked,
so people were kind of putting in their own data. There was
really no resource to basically say is this the real data, is
there really coverage there. And as somebody who represents
small carriers, I understand that there is always that
competitive concern about what data you are releasing. But I
also worry that if you have got an entity like NTIA looking at
data and you have got the FCC and they are using two different
measurements, two different land tracks, different speeds, I
think the ability to actually kind of house it in one place
where you have got the ability to be consistent, you have got
the ability to be transparent, I think folks need to actually
see as it gets developed, and you need to be able to have the
ability to check it. I think those are things that are going to
be very important check posts as we go forward on that. But it
is going to be the foundation for where we go in terms of
future investment.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Polka, there is legislation as part of our hearing
today which I support that incentivizes 5G wireless deployment.
I have also introduced a resolution setting the policy of
competitive tech neutrality so the government isn't picking
winners and losers out there. Is the cable industry doing
anything comparable to the 5G rollout with similar speeds in
coverage?
Mr. Polka. Comparable and surpassing when you look at the
amount of broadband service that is being delivered by our
members in rural America. I had the chance yesterday to hear
from a number of members all over the country telling us what
they are doing. I heard from one small company in eastern
Kentucky, Big Sandy Broadband. They are delivering gigabit
speed in eastern Kentucky. I heard from a company called
Hickory Telephone, which is building fiber to the home in
underserved areas, one of our members in western Pennsylvania.
We have members all over the country that are providing gigabit
service: 100 megabit, 200 megabit, 300 megabit service. So we
are building that service as our customers and our community
want us to do. And what we ask, and which is why we appreciate
your resolution, that as we go forward as a country and we look
at regulations that apply to helping broadband be deployed more
effectively, that we do so on a competitive technology-neutral
basis.
I can tell you we have a lot of area out there that I have
visited personally with our members. It is amazing how much
rural area there is out there. Not one company is going to
solve these problems, which is why our policy needs to
encourage competitive technology-neutral proponents. So, yes,
we are providing the service. We are building the backbone that
actually can help to deliver 5G service down the road as it
comes farther out into our areas. So we are up to the
challenge.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, my
time has expired, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really great.
Normally, I would be asking questions earlier, but I was a
little bit late. I had some things in my office I had to do,
some meetings, but I got to hear from so many of my colleagues
and all of you folks. And the first thing I want to say is I
guess when we talk about the funding, making sure that we do
have broadband in these rural areas. I represent about a fourth
of Iowa, not quite as much. The State of Iowa isn't quite as
big as Chairman Walden's district, he likes to remind me, but
we have a lot of rural areas in Iowa, as you might imagine. But
it is pretty clear to me that we have got to have some public
funding. We have got to have a lot of private investment. There
is no doubt. We have got to make sure we deal with regulations.
Chairman Walden and I have worked together on that to make sure
that small internet service providers in particular are not
unfairly subject to too many regulations so they can actually
put their resources into building out and making sure that
rural America is served, instead of simply filling out
paperwork regulations that are unnecessary, that kind of thing.
So I think we actually have more bipartisan support, and I
think the chairwoman would agree that we actually have some
bipartisan support on a number of these issues here.
Mrs. Blackburn. Oh, yes. I am accustomed to hearing from
broadband Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. That is right. Exactly. And thank you very
much, Madam Chair, I do appreciate that.
And working with Representative Latta; we talked this
morning earlier today. I didn't realize he was going to quite
steal so much of my thunder, but really happy to work with him
on the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act. Very important,
obviously, in my district in Iowa.
But, of course, related to what he was talking about with
mapping, I actually did introduce, and with Mr. Costello, last
year, the Rural Wireless Access Act. And we got it out of
subcommittee, but the FCC paid close attention to that. That
comes down, essentially, to I like to call garbage in, garbage
out. If we don't have accurate maps, then we are not going to
be able to make accurate decisions and good decisions going
forward.
And so a lot of people from Iowa like to say we have a lot
of common sense, but a lot of what is going on here is just
common sense that, if we don't have accurate data, whether it
is an agriculture or that being a subset of something larger,
then we are not going to be able to make a decision, public
policy decisions, or even investment decisions on the part of
the private sector.
One last point on that. Chairman Pai last year, I did ask
him because I had heard he had been to northwest Iowa. He drove
from my home town Sioux City up to southern Minnesota, and he
found out just how many problems there are in rural Iowa with
dropped calls and all kinds of things, not to mention, actual
broadband service as well.
So I just want to ask, I guess, that, Ms. Bloomfield, you
have already pretty much responded to what this is all about,
so I am going skip you for a moment, if that is OK.
I would like to go to Mr. Gillen, talk about that issue, if
you would, mapping issue and making sure that we have good
data.
Mr. Gillen. As you said, Congressman, thanks to your
leadership, I think we have all listened and heard. And I think
working with both national and regional carriers, we have
worked with the FCC, that will hopefully have a better map to
inform the mobility fund going forward. And, what that $450
million a year the FCC is starting to give out will do is
hopefully start serving those areas in those communities that
don't have service today, but the condition precedent to doing
that is the data that you have been looking for, and that will
start very soon.
Mr. Loebsack. Yes, the 477.
And, Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. I would agree with Mr. Gillen. And I also want
to thank you for your leadership in understanding that
important management principle: what you can't measure, you
can't manage. And this is particularly true with respect to
delivering broadband.
Form 477 has taken great strides as it has been streamlined
to provide more precise geocoding longitudinally and
latitudinally for customers that actually have service. The
next frontier is to try to do so with that kind of geocoding
specificity for locations that don't have broadband yet. And we
believe that we have to think creatively and innovatively and
slightly out of the box in thinking how to do so, as long as we
have uniformity of data.
One idea is as the Census Bureau itself is looking at its
own 2020 effort. Their resources might be profitably brought to
bear to actually bring that longitudinal and latitudinal
specificity to help pinpoint areas where broadband is not yet.
Mr. Loebsack. I would even suggest, mostly jokingly, that
the FCC talk to all of us who have rural districts, because we
can actually identify where the gaps are and where they are
not, if we get around our districts like I do all the time.
Ms. Bloomfield, would you like to elaborate a little bit?
Ms. Bloomfield. The only thing I would add is we talk about
your initiative on some of the wireless front is that, just a
reminder, that wireless needs wires so that those networks
can't even be built if you don't have the backhaul out there.
And as we have more and more need for capacity and more and
more ability for you, if you are like me and I have gotten lost
in northwest Iowa, the ability to pull over and actually pull
up a map and see where you are, to do that data you actually
need that infrastructure, so they really go hand-in-hand. They
are complementary services, and I think they are going to all
be very important for rural Americans.
Mr. Loebsack. Thanks to all of you. And thank you, Madam
Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Olson, 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. And welcome to our seven
witnesses. A special welcome, Mr. Gillen. And please give our
warm regards to your boss, Meredith Attwell Baker. As you know
that family is a legend in Houston, Texas, iconic. So please
give our regards.
I would like to brag about Texas and give perspective on
Chairman Walden's comments about square miles. He talked about
Connecticut and Oregon. For the record, Texas is 268,597 square
miles. Now, my district, Texas 22, is a small portion of that,
1,032 square miles. Very small. Basically, it is split halfway
between rural and suburban. But because it is so close to
Houston, all the challenges with the telecom industry, the 5G
aren't really applicable. But we did suffer a disaster.
Hurricane Harvey hit us in August, and we weren't alone.
After that, Puerto Rico was hit with Maria and the Virgin
Islands as well, and Florida was hit by Hurricane Irma. And we
have seen catastrophic wildfires in California and subsequent
floods and just rushes of mud because of the loss of the cover.
And when these disasters hit, as you all know, it is critically
important that we get the communications infrastructure up and
running as quickly as possible to give these communities the
help they need to recover as quickly as possible.
And that is why I have this bill that is probably on top of
your pile. It is H.R. 4845. It is called the Connecting
Communities Post Disasters Act. And this bill makes a simple
step by allowing local communities to bypass long and
unnecessary environmental and historic views and to replace
damaged or lost towers and communication infrastructure. Not to
have new ones but replace ones that are hit by disaster.
My first question is for you, Mr. Gillen. Houston made a
strong effort after Hurricane Ike to bury their communications
cables, and that was very successful. In fact, FCC Commissioner
Pai came down a couple days after the storm hit and wowed about
our buried cables, but he also noted we have a lot of cell
towers that are exposed to the storm, especially where she came
ashore there by Corpus Christi. How important is it for you to
get communications up and ready following a disaster? How
important is that to fight the disaster?
Mr. Gillen. It is critical. And I think it is critical for,
particularly, temporary facilities to be marshaled immediately,
because as we learned in these most recent storms, that
smartphones is what Americans need to reach public safety, to
reach their families, to let people know that they are safe,
and that cell coverage is critical. And that bill is very
important because when the storm is over, our jobs are really
just getting started. And it is how do we restore services, and
not only restore them, but make them better, and that we have
the opportunity in your district to start giving you the most
advanced networks. And thanks to your bill we can start doing
that more quickly.
Mr. Olson. They go off the whole night for three straight
nights, got all these warnings on a cell phone about tornado
watches, flood warnings. That was valuable information that was
coming, not from the phone lines, not from the TV, it was
coming from the cell phones that my kids had, I had, my wife
had, so it was very important.
Do you agree that it makes sense to suspend parts of the
NEPA review when reconstructing these telecommunications
towers, the infrastructure, just to suspend them a certain
amount of time to get rolling quickly, as opposed to dragging
this thing out month after month, year after year?
Mr. Gillen. To bring back your economy, to bring back your
constituents, absolutely, and I think it is a very targeted
relief you are proposing.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Spalter, Ms. Bloomfield, any comments on
this issue about disaster?
Ms. Bloomfield. I would just add that we had about four
carriers that were in the path of Harvey, and I checked in with
each one of them. Thanks to the ability to build these future-
proof networks and the bury plant and the ability to put their
switches underground, we actually, every one of my companies
that were in the path actually were able to be up and running
instantaneously, actually never even lost service, so very
important.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Congressman, your initiative to actually move
forward with H.R. 4845 is meaningful, not only, I know, to
citizens in your community which were served by companies in
U.S. telecom like Consolidated and Smart City that were running
towards danger to support the broadband needs, but also your
initiative is going to be meaningful for communities around the
country, including places where I used to live near earthquake
faults in California.
It is an absolute necessity that we as a Nation provide any
mechanism to provide efficiencies so that broadband facilities
can be put back into place to serve communities that have been
affected by disaster, and your initiative is one such step, and
we are grateful for it.
Mr. Olson. I am out of time, sir. I have one question
before I yield back. There was discussion, some sort of
concern, a little hostile, about the football game coming up,
the Super Bowl, between the Patriots and the Eagles. I have a
yes-or-no question for all the panelists. Are you all OK, do
you have a problem with the Houston Astros being the world
champs for 91 days now?
Mr. Spalter. As long as you legislate about it.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman's time has expired on that
one.
Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am not going to
get into that since I don't have a dog in that fight, but good
luck to all.
Thank you, Mr. Olson, for bringing up some of the issues
that are related to disasters. And I know there was a response
here, but I think that it is important to note that in the
fires in northern California, in Napa and Sonoma Counties, the
cell phones didn't work.
Life is not tidy. Fires just don't occur between the time
people get up maybe 7 o'clock in the morning and retire at
maybe 10 o'clock at night. Were it not for the public safety
people actually going door-to-door and banging on doors in the
middle of the night to arouse people to get them out of their
homes, and they fled in their nightgowns, in their underwear,
that was it, because the fires were even at the back of their
houses and their roofs had started burning. And the other alert
was dogs, their own dogs barking so much that it awakened them.
So we can't live in a bubble that we have something, this
one--which I think is wonderful. It is an American invention.
It is a computer in our pocket. But we shouldn't allow
ourselves to dream on and say we have something, and it is
going to alert everyone. So we have to think outside the edges
of the envelope. But I want to thank the gentleman for raising
that.
I want to go to Ms. Hovis and Ms. Katz. I have to go
downstairs for another hearing of the Health Subcommittee and
wanted to come back and ask a few questions here.
What do you think are the biggest impediments to deployment
that you see in communities? It is certainly in rural
communities. There are many specifics that belong to rural
communities, but you spoke very clearly about the Hartford
area. I was born and raised in Connecticut, so it is nice to
have someone from Connecticut here, just outside of the
Hartford area, actually. But I think what the committee needs
is some pinpointing by you of specifics that will actually
remove impediments to employment.
Now, I mean that as a softball question because I have
legislation on it, and neither bill costs a dime. But anyway,
to both of you, whomever wants to go first. You want to do it
alphabetically?
Ms. Hovis. Thank you, Ms. Eshoo. I couldn't agree more
about the importance of some of those particular issues. And we
have talked a lot about rural challenges, but I would say that
there are some very acute urban challenges that, unfortunately,
get a lot less discussion. And I think sometimes they are not
even recognized.
For example, small business areas in urban and suburban
areas are remarkably less served in many cases than residential
customers, and that is because the traditional footprint of the
cable industry, to its credit, was to go to all of the
residences in the community. That is great in most metropolitan
areas because there will be a phone company provider and a
cable company provider.
Ms. Eshoo. But you see all the advertisements on TV for the
commercial site, come do business with us and we are the ones
that can serve your small business the best. So----
Ms. Hovis. If the infrastructure is not there, it is going
to be incredibly costly to get the infrastructure there. A
large business will be able to afford to pay whatever it takes,
but a small business that can spend $79 or $99, $129 a month,
there is simply not a business case for the private sector to
build best-in-class infrastructure to them. That is not a slam
toward the private sector. That is how private investment
works, and the private sector is doing exactly what it should.
But I think there is an undiscussed conversation that should be
had about the fact that small business areas struggle at
remarkable levels, as do very low income neighborhoods, in many
cases, because there is simply not business case for upgrade of
the networks.
Ms. Shoo. Thank you. I want to go to your----
Ms. Swanson Katz. Yes. If I could just----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Seat mate there because I have 30
seconds.
Ms. Swanson Katz. Sure. If I could just add to that, the
reason we focused on Hartford is that we were contacted by
Hartford officials who had done a survey of their small
businesses and found that they were unable, for the reasons Ms.
Hovis was discussing, to connect to the internet because they
were being quoted prices of $8,000, $9,000, $10,000, $30,000
for a street crossing. And, again, it is because of the high
cost of the street crossings and things like that. So I don't
fault the industry, but I do note that that is a reality, and
so that is where we need to make some progress.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, I think that that is very helpful.
Madam Chairwoman, I am going to ask unanimous consent that
I be able to place the Harvard study that I referenced in my
opening comments today that deals with communities being able
to set up their own municipal broadband.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered, without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. Thank you to all of the witnesses. A
good hearing. Important one.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
And now the gentleman leading our broadband expansion
effort, Mr. Johnson, you are recognized.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
And this is such an important hearing. I can tell you,
living in rural Appalachia, I hear all the time about the urban
rural divide. It is very, very real. Places that businesses
will not come into because they can't get access to their
suppliers, to their customers, provide training for their
employees. You have got children that have to go to another
county or to a local township or to a public library to get
access so that they can do their school projects. We have got a
lot of intellectual capital and a lot of economic potential in
rural America that is being just ignored because of this rural
urban divide.
And that is one of the main reasons that I was pleased to
sponsor H.R. 4810, the Mapping Now Act. Because an important
step to solving the rural broadband issue and expanding
deployment is, first, accurately identifying where those
unserved areas are. We need an accurate map to do that. And as
some of you on the panel and I have discussed, just because one
facility or one location in a census block says that there is
coverage, that is not true. I can tell you from somebody that
lives there, that is simply not true.
And so we need this legislation that directs the Assistant
Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to
create that national broadband map and reassert NTIA's
authority to do so. Many rural areas in Appalachia or Ohio find
themselves on the wrong side of that urban rural divide.
We all know that high-speed internet is no longer a luxury;
it is a necessity today for education, for business, especially
in this technology-driven global marketplace. So I am going to
continue to drive this issue very, very hard and working with
my colleagues to break down the barriers to broadband
deployment, particularly in rural areas.
Mr. Gillen, from CTIA's perspective, in your written
testimony, you mentioned that any new funding should also
ensure that reaching areas unserved by wireless is reflected in
the program's objectives. In making funding decisions, better
data is key, and rural broadband is no exception.
First of all, do you agree with my assertion that the maps
are inaccurate, that we really don't have a good definition of
where the unserved and underserved areas are?
Mr. Gillen. We certainly agree. We can and we need to do
better.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. Do you have any suggestions on
how we can ensure better data of unserved areas?
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. I think there are commercial tools
available that we can start informing our process as well, but
I think it really comes down to, we have to have a set idea of
what we are measuring for? What do we decide broadband is? What
is satisfactory coverage? Just a baseline of what we think we
need to do and then measure it consistently across-the-board.
And we think it is important to have one person in charge as
you direct.
Mr. Johnson. I can tell you what satisfactory coverage is.
Satisfactory coverage is coverage. That is what it is. It is
access. But I appreciate your answer.
Ms. Bloomfield, could you please explain the benefits of
having an accurate broadband map?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. And I know we have all
discussed this. And again, thank you for your leadership. But
the ability to actually get granular, get clear, get
transparent, and making sure that you are coordinating, so when
you talk about whatever Federal entity actually is controlling
the mapping, the making sure that actually we are coordinating
between all of those who are gathering data. So again, you are
comparing. You don't have those inconsistencies, which I think
have led to some of the confusion in the past. And I think the
whole focus on the ability to access spectrum will also be very
important in the future.
Mr. Johnson. OK. In your written testimony, Ms. Bloomfield,
you mentioned the need for a single authoritative source that
can provide accurate data at a granular level and on a
consistent basis to help drive better-informed decision-making.
So when updating the broadband map, should NTIA use Form 477
data? And is that data detailed enough? And if not, how would
you recommend obtaining more granular detail?
Ms. Bloomfield. So I think you make an excellent point, and
I think 477 is the best data so far that really is collected
from all broadband providers, which is going to be important so
that you make sure that everybody that is in the pool actually
is submitting the data.
Now, the problem is it is still self-reporting, so you are
still going to have to make sure that there is some way to
check to make sure that there is verification that what people
report is actually true, other than driving through your
district and actually doing it anecdotally. So I think that is
going to be important. But I think having it spread across
different entities is going to just lead to some confusion and
not get the results that you are looking for.
Mr. Johnson. All right. Well, thank you very much.
I had a lot more questions but, Madam Chair, my time has
expired. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. I thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I thank
our panelists for their expert testimony here this morning.
This Congress, I have had the honor of introducing and
establishing the Congressional Smart City Caucus along with my
colleague, Congressman Darrell Issa. As co-chair of this
bipartisan Smart City Caucus, I know deploying broadband in our
cities is critical.
We in Congress must do more to make sure that, first of
all, the deployment is ubiquitous, but to address the 10
million Americans in urban areas who do not have access to
broadband as defined by the FCC. And that is why I have
cosponsored the Connecting Broadband Deserts of 2018, with my
colleague, Congressman Bobby Rush. Under this legislation, the
FCC will be tasked with reviewing the state of deployment in
urban broadband deserts, and will be required to take action to
help speed deployment if it is not occurring at a reasonable
pace.
So, Ms. Katz, what types of issues--and we heard a little
bit about this when the question was asked, I believe it was by
Ms. Eshoo, what issues do we currently allow to fester when we
assume that every part of a city is already connected? And what
could we do to help address these issues?
Ms. Swanson Katz. Well, thank you for your leadership, and
thank you for the question. It is an excellent one. I talked a
little bit about the homework gap. We have seen continuing
impacts on small businesses. There is also in my testimony a
report we did on that issue. And so we see that you continue
the cycle of lack of opportunity for these areas when they
don't have access to broadband. This panel, it is delightful
that it is almost undisputed that it is a utility at this
point, that everybody needs access to it.
And so I think some of the most effective things we can do
is to allow state and local governments to be part of the
dialogue. It does concern me, as chair of the Intergovernmental
Advisory Committee, when there is repeated references to
removing barriers at state and local levels. And, in fact,
state and local governments are trying very hard to move the
needle on these things. For example, in Connecticut, we have
been working for years on a single pole administrator, one-stop
shopping for connecting to utility poles. That is one of the
things that is most expensive.
We are also working, it is very important for smart cities,
dig-once policies, how can we coordinate on the digging up of
streets. These are very important but very complex issues, but
these are some of the initiatives that state and local
governments are working on.
Ms. Clarke. Very well.
Ms. Hovis, did you have something that you wanted to add
with respect to this, a concern?
Ms. Hovis. I would say just that from the smart city
standpoint, and the smart communities, because we are going to
have smart counties and smart rural areas as well, the
infrastructure is so critically important. And as long as a
divide persists and who has access to the best infrastructure,
then as services in a smart community environment move on to
the infrastructure more and more, there will be less access by
some members of the community.
So our risk here is that the digital divide, rural/urban,
and that that impacts low income folks and that impacts small
businesses will get more and more pronounced over time. We
can't double down on the existing divide.
Ms. Clarke. The other concern that has been flagged and
part of this conversation is one of cybersecurity. So that if
we are talking about smart cities and we are talking about gaps
in coverage, would any of you speak to what having those
vulnerabilities could mean from a national perspective?
Ms. Bloomfield. I would be happy to jump in. I have the
opportunity right now to serve on the FCC CSRIC working group
talking about, what is the importance of protecting those
networks. And one of the things that we think is really
important is to ensure--I have 850 carriers across 46 states.
People tend to think of the large carriers, but we need to make
sure that the small carriers have the ability to protect their
networks, because sometimes it is the assumption that, you
know, where the networks are vulnerable is where the problems
will actually happen.
So we are spending actually a lot of time in resources this
year educating our small network operators on how to protect
their assets, how to protect their consumer assets. And that is
going to be really important as we move on to the Internet of
Things.
Mr. Spalter. And if I could as well, I applaud your efforts
to make our city smarter, and I also applaud your efforts to
make our broadband infrastructure for our cities and all of our
communities safer, more secure. We at USTelecom are taking that
mandate very, very seriously. We have recently launched a small
and medium business initiative to make sure that, not just our
largest companies, but also our smallest companies, as Ms.
Bloomfield said, who share a vulnerability, can actually do
incident response, reporting, and information sharing much more
effectively.
But our enemies in this domain are getting smarter and more
wily by the day. We have to think of this as not just a
challenge carried by broadband providers, but by the entire
internet ecosystem.
Ms. Clarke. The ecosystem.
Mr. Spalter. We have to join in common cause in doing so.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much. Sorry, I have been
bouncing between a couple of hearings today, so I apologize.
But I did hear Mr. Johnson's questioning. And I understand
there were some other questions about mapping. And I know that
is what we are talking about, and the fact that we have to get
more granular data and the 477 may not give enough information.
So this is really to the providers, so for Mr. Spalter and
Ms. Bloomfield, the questions. Given the need for service
providers to protect the proprietary asset information and our
need as policymakers to get more granular broadband
availability information, is there even a pathway forward to
get to a street-level understanding of broadband service
availability that meets both needs? I will just start with Mr.
Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Technologically, I think there is a pathway
forward. The technology is not only being deployed by our
Federal Government, particularly by the FCC, but also by those
that are being advanced by the private sector. I think that
this is an opportunity going forward to think about how we can
actually streamline and make a uniform approach to a mapping
exercise so that we are not merely identifying addresses, but
actually geocoding longitude and latitudinally relevant
locations where we need to deliver broadband. Which is why I
said earlier, first, that it is fantastic via H.R. 4810. You
and Mr. Johnson are working to come up with creative solutions
going forward, but also knowing that the FCC is going to be
driving this process forward. To the extent the NTIA is going
to be involved, it needs to meaningfully coordinate with FCC to
avoid duplication and, therefore, confusion. And also, we
collectively have to think about other assets can be put on to
the table, including, as I mentioned, whether the Census Bureau
can use its resources to help map and locate, again,
longitudinally and latitudinally, areas where there are not
institutions, residences where there is not yet broadband
access.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen.
Mr. Gillen. Thank you for the leadership on this issue to
bring more attention to it. I think we are seeing progress. I
would echo Mr. Spalter's comments. I think it is important we
marshal all resources, and it is going to take a partnership of
all of these companies and the government to figure out how
best to do this. But I think a lot of that, as Mr. Spalter
said, are right on track.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Ms. Bloomfield. And if I would just add, we talked a lot
about streamlining. The one thing I would encourage is that we
don't look at creating multiple burdens so that you are not
having small companies like the ones I represent having to do
onerous reporting to three or four different agencies. So,
again, that coordination is going to be important.
Mr. Guthrie. Are there mechanisms you would put in place
that would relieve that burden?
Ms. Bloomfield. I think it is actually helpful to figure
out a way to designate who takes the lead. Not dissimilar to
some of the other efforts that the committee has been looking
at is how do you actually designate where that point is and
agree to kind of one form of process, one form of data to be
collected. And then certainly a challenge process so that folks
can ensure that the data is accurate.
Mr. Guthrie. OK. Thanks.
Mr. Polka?
Mr. Polka. Completely agree. Mapping is essential. We have
to know where we need to build. There does need to be a
partnership. There is no question about it. Whatever
technological means that we can determine to help better
determine where broadband is necessary, but ultimately this is
going to come down to information from the provider.
In the hardest-to-reach areas, you are going to have small
companies that do have very, very small staffs, very few
people. The people that they employ are the ones that are
literally climbing the poles and serving the customers at the
counters. They don't have deep legal staffs, nor regulatory
staffs. So for them to take the time to fill out the
information that is required is a burden. So that has to be
factored in. Certainly, that self-reporting is important and
essential as a piece of how we determine where broadband is and
isn't as part of the mapping process. But this has to be, I
think, a much broader, deeper discussion on what is the
baseline of information that we want to obtain, how can we
obtain it, and who will be the providers to help provide that
information.
Mr. Guthrie. From some of the previous mapping efforts, the
SBI mapping that the NTIA administered from 2009 to 2014, what
are some of the deficiencies and maybe lessons learned that can
be applied? I only have about 45 seconds. So the providers can
go as you want to go. But what are the deficiencies in that and
what should we do different?
Mr. Polka. I would say paperwork. It is as simple sometimes
as paperwork. When you have forms to fill out, again, by small
companies who do not have the background, the regulatory, the
legal background, even then determining more particularly
census block, census tracks, obtaining the data, the cost of
the data to even populate the maps, it is extremely difficult
for small companies to accomplish. It is vital, but here,
again, it has to be part of a public-private purpose to deliver
that information.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you very much.
My time is expired, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Collins, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank
you also for just holding this hearing and having such a
diverse group of witnesses.
Broadband access, as we all know, is important to our rural
communities as our reliance on the internet continues to grow.
Unfortunately, some states like New York are now working to
complicate this issue, but we will set that aside for a second,
and say I am at least glad to see some bipartisan bills here as
the subject of this committee hearing.
And as we focus on infrastructure, the inclusion of
broadband is something that I bring up again and again. It is
not just roads and bridges and airports. Sixty-five percent of
my district, eight counties, very rural, lot of dairy farmers,
are certainly underserved.
My bill, H.R. 4798, is the bill that considers inventory of
assets for the Communication Facilities Act of 2018. Let's know
what we have got. Let's at least make it easier for some of the
smaller carriers. Somebody, when we introduced this, made the
comment, ``Well, don't the big guys already know what we have
got?'' And maybe they do, maybe they don't. It never hurts to
make it easier, but certainly some of the smaller suppliers, I
think, may be those that end up coming into some of my rural
communities, if they can see some value.
So, maybe specifically, Mr. Spalter, I will ask you. As
common sense as some of this is, I am presuming you would
support such an inventory of assets, and could you speak to how
that might help?
Mr. Spalter. It is not only common sense, but it is music
to our ears when the Federal Government wants to actually try
to identify and map its assets. Great. And we encourage that to
happen.
I would also say that we know that when and as that mapping
takes place and as inventories are done, we will be able to
deliver more broadband more efficiently with the speed to
market that will be much more effective. When our Federal
infrastructure and assets are connected to broadband, they
became more cost effective, safer, and have longer lifespans.
So this is an important initiative that you are undertaking,
and we applaud your effort for thinking it through, and we are
going to support you.
Mr. Collins. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Gillen?
Mr. Gillen. I think this is something actually both big and
small companies don't know where those assets are, so I think
it is a critical resource to be able to know when you are
trying to deploy, particularly trying to deploy as quickly as
you want to deploy, where we can and can't go. So I think it is
a critical transparency vehicle for us to be able to start
building faster.
Mr. Collins. Yes. Ms. Bloomfield.
Ms. Bloomfield. I was also just going to commend you for
keeping it technology neutral, which I think is really going to
be very important as we actually assess the assets.
Mr. Polka. Finally, I would just say access to technology
is important. Particularly for a smaller company where you have
fewer customers per mile, but the cost of technology that you
need to deploy the same mile of broadband is just about the
same, whether you are in rural New York or in the middle of
Manhattan.
So having access to additional resources for small
businesses is extremely important. In fact, I am not aware of
any other idea like that before that has existed where such
information would be made available to smaller companies. So we
certainly appreciate the idea and really look forward to
working with you on it.
Mr. Collins. So, Mr. Gillen, you brought your 5G device in.
Is this even more critical as we are going to have a lot more
5G devices hanging out there than we are the big towers.
Mr. Gillen. Absolutely. And I think when you talk about
Federal assets, there is the post office, there is the Federal
building in town, and it is critical for us to go in town and
know exactly where we can start. Because if we want to win the
5G race against China and others, we need all the information
we can get.
Mr. Collins. Do any of the other witnesses care to make a
comment? I was going to say if not, but go ahead.
Ms. Swanson Katz. Yes. No, I think it is incredibly
important to know where the assets are, where the broadband is,
what is available to consumers. And I think it is also
important that it be independently verifiable, because I think
it is important for the public to know that they can rely on
the data and it's transparently available.
Mr. Collins. We will make sure it is accurate.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield black.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Now to the patient Mr. Cramer.
Mr. Cramer. I have patience. I am not sick. But thank you.
And by the way, Madam Chair, thank you for the hearing. And
thank all of you for your testimony, for being here. And it
really didn't require any patience at all. This is really quite
interesting to me and fascinating. So I appreciate everybody
being here.
I have to admit that sometimes when I hear about these
sparsely populated states like Vermont and their digital
divide, I start feeling a little guilty, because when I look at
North Dakota, it is hard to claim a divide. Now, there are some
places, but we have over 90 percent of our population that has
100 Mbps or more, and 93 that are over 25. So while there are
still a few spots, our folks do a great job.
And, Ms. Bloomfield, you know well that, and this is one of
the concerns I want to get to here with regards to some of this
policy, that many of your members in North Dakota were
broadband before broadband was cool. They were efficiently
using Federal support funds to build out broadband long before
it was mandated by either tradition or policy. And one of the
things I worry a little bit about, as we talk about, and I
support, let's get to unserved before underserved. That is
really important. We want to have that bridge. It would be kind
of crazy to have an interstate that if they decided to gravel
for a couple miles in Montana or something. But as each
generation comes and the demands get greater in places like
North Dakota, where it is not just education, it is not just
health care--huge, really huge--other business, really
important, access to market is really important. But even
safety, environmental safety, SCADA systems that have to work
on our oil pipelines and our gas pipelines and, of course, our
big transmission lines as we generate a lot of electricity. All
of that will require upgrades.
And so as we talk about the efficient deployment of Federal
funds, I want to make sure that we have protections for
upgrading as well. Does that make sense? Maybe I will start
with you, Ms. Bloomfield, to comment, and anybody else that
would like to.
Ms. Bloomfield. You are absolutely spot on. And again,
thank you for your leadership on all of these issues. And I
think people are always surprised that North Dakota actually
has probably one of most fiber-rich states in the country,
because when you look at that land mass, it is pretty amazing.
But in part, when you are really that rural, you actually see
what broadband can do to kind of narrow that gap that geography
creates. So the ability to do telemedicine, the ability to
actually bring communities together, to do economic
development. And then when you had the oil industry coming in,
the ability to make sure that that economic enterprise was
absolutely able to be supported.
So the fact that people get so focused on building and they
forget about the fact that you have got to maintain that
network, otherwise, down the road, you don't have anything but
a capacity that is limited by what it was when it was actually
built. So the ability to live and breath.
The other thing that I would tout, particularly in a State
like North Dakota, is the ability of the carriers to
collaborate with one another. They have created DCN, a State
fiber network, the ability for them to realize that all boats
rise. If they are able to build that infrastructure out
further, all of the carriers in the State actually benefit from
it, and the State itself benefits from it.
Mr. Cramer. Well, I might, just to add a couple of
statistics for others to comment, there are only three states
that have less population density than North Dakota, but there
are 20 states and territories that actually have less
connectivity than North Dakota, so it can be difficult.
But I also wonder, some of these other states have a lot of
Federal lands, and we have been talking about that. We do not.
We have some, but not a lot. It is not a barrier for us. I
think state policy does matter. And while I agree that
communities ought to have some competitiveness about how they--
and some control over their own regulation, there should be a
minimum standard that makes sure that the country is connected
as well.
But Mr. Spalter, you wanted to comment?
Mr. Spalter. Well, I couldn't agree with you more that the
cost of maintaining and upgrading networks for underserved
areas is only escalating. It is a multiplier of what the bill
costs actually are. And we know that particularly as we are
seeing this extraordinary spike in the data that is being put
through these networks from an increasingly small number of
internet companies that are sending video to customers around
the country, that this is even becoming more profound.
So I completely agree with your insight but also your
initiative via 4832 to not only think through opportunities to
serve communities that have been impacted by disaster, but also
to better serve communities that already have broadband.
Mr. Cramer. Yes. Well, I think we have certainly learned
some things in the last year that can be helpful in; that, so
why not apply it across the board and avoid special
circumstances.
Anybody else?
Mr. Polka. I would just offer, sir, when you talk about
upgrades, it is really, really important to remember how these
upgrades are accomplished. One of the things that I mentioned
in my comments were about this sexy issue of pole attachments.
It is incredibly important when you have either--whether it is
an attachment to a pole or a conduit, it seems like our policy
is any time something new happens to the pole or the conduit,
that is a new starting point for a long application process,
for fees and other things of that nature, rather than saying,
how can we simplify this process? One Touch Make Ready,
simplifying this to make sure that we get attachments on the
poles, internet lines, through the conduits to get broadband
out there faster. So I hope you factor that into your thinking
as well.
Mr. Cramer. Another reason not to nationalize anything.
And with that, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
This hearing is so popular today we have uc'd Mr. Tonko
onto the committee for his questions. The gentleman is given 5
minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Chair Blackburn. Thank you, Ranking
Member Doyle, for hosting this hearing today.
I hear from constituents across my district all the time on
the need for broadband expansion. I was excited to see that the
ACCESS BROADBAND bill included in today's discussion, which I
have sponsored, is part of the focus. But I fear that we don't
have the time to have an in-depth discussion on many of these
important issues.
I am proud to have worked on this legislation with
Congressman Leonard Lance, and thank the bipartisan group of
Members who have cosponsored the legislation, including eight
members of the Energy and Commerce Committee who have worked
together and agreed that this is an issue worth supporting.
I also want to thank Jonathan Spalter with USTelecom for
your call to action to move forward on vital bills like ACCESS
BROADBAND that offer responsible solutions. I have engaged with
industry and many organizations and believe this is a bill we
can all work on together and support.
Chair Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, I ask that as we
move forward, we take a closer look at pieces of legislation
like ACCESS BROADBAND that have strong bipartisan support.
Let's have a discussion on what we can improve and let's move
the bills forward.
H.R. 3994, the Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands
Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and
Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand, or ACCESS BROADBAND--
that acronym took a bit of work--would establish a coordinating
office for Federal broadband resources. It would use existing
resources to streamline management of Federal broadband
resources across multiple agencies and simplify the process for
small businesses and local economic developers to access them.
Broadband internet access is often the difference between
success and failure for students doing homework, job seekers
training for a new career, doctors reading a medical scan, or
entrepreneurs starting a small business. However, to date, the
Federal Government has done a poor job of tracking broadband
deployment.
Currently, there is no comprehensive system that tracks
where Federal dollars are going and how the funding is
impacting communities. Investments are made with little
accountability and oversight on behalf of the taxpayer.
So, Ms. Hovis, can agencies do a better job of coordinating
Federal resources? And what are some of the current problems we
see with a lack of coordination?
Ms. Hovis. Congressman, I think coordination would be
exceptionally helpful. It is obviously not a simple matter in
any large organization, whether public or private, but it would
be helpful, not only because we would be collecting better data
of all types and knowing exactly how public funds are being
spent and the impact they are having on the broadband
environment, Federal Government is a big buyer of services and
so its dollars are being spent to deploy infrastructure in
certain places and to make it more economical in other places.
It would be helpful from that standpoint, but it would also be
helpful with things like--and I think many of my colleagues
have spoken to this sort of thing--knowing where public assets
are and knowing how public assets can be used.
An example of this would be that there is at the state and
local level, I think, some confusion among private companies,
but also departments of transportation about whether assets
built with Federal funds for transportation purposes can be
used, excess capacity can be used for broadband purposes,
whether public or private. Clearing up some of that confusion,
having coordination among different levels of government and
among different government entities would be enormously helpful
and timesaving.
Mr. Tonko. And, obviously, that coordination could unlock
more broadband development?
Ms. Hovis. Yes, I think it could. That information is
always going to be better, and lack of information, like a map
that is insufficiently granular, or lack of information about
what different agencies are doing and spending makes it just
that much harder to plan in an efficient and pragmatic way.
Mr. Tonko. I have a question for both you, Ms. Hovis and
Mr. Spalter. Can we better coordinate to simplify the process
for companies, for small businesses, and local economic
developers to access Federal resources?
Mr. Spalter. Well, I think we can. And I must say,
Congressman, that the ACCESS BROADBAND Act is an innovative
step towards unlocking that opportunity. Not only do you
recognize at its core that we have to do better in managing and
streamlining and making more efficient Federal broadband
resources, but the more that our smaller enterprises can have a
greater understanding of how those resources are being directed
and how they are being managed, there will be opportunities to
create even more efficiencies for broadband deployment and for
their participation in that process.
And so we are very grateful for your insight, but also your
foresight in making sure that we can do better in unlocking the
opportunities of managing our Federal resources in a more
efficient way.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
And, Ms. Hovis?
Ms. Hovis. I totally agree. And I would just add to that
that it is critically important, obviously, that those assets
and resources were built for particular purposes having to do
with the agencies that built them and their critical mission.
And so it is critical that no asset is ever compromised by a
secondary use, as important as these secondary uses are.
Transportation, public safety, all of these kinds of
infrastructure assets have that first primary use. But subject
to protection of that use and security and so on, there is
enormous potential value of this kind of coordinated planned
approach.
Mr. Tonko. So I would assess that the Federal Government,
knowing where it spends on broadband and understanding the
impact of this spending, are going to provide a lot of
direction as we go forward.
So were you going to add----
Mr. Spalter. I am just agreeing with you, sir.
Mr. Tonko. OK. Thank you. Thank you so much to our
witnesses too, and thank you for allowing me to participate.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
And seeing that there are no further members----
Mr. Doyle. Madam Chair?
Mrs. Blackburn [continuing]. Asking questions--yes, Mr.
Doyle, you are recognized.
Mr. Doyle. I would like to get unanimous consent to enter a
few things into the record. A press release from PCCA on
today's hearing, an Axios story on the National Security
Council's plan to nationalize 5G networks, the PowerPoint
slides and memo discussing that story, and a letter from
Tipmont REMC.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. And pursuant to committee rules, all
members have 10 days to submit questions, and we would ask that
you respond in 10 days to those questions.
Without any further business coming to the subcommittee
today, the committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]