    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

      REALIZING THE BENEFITS OF RURAL BROADBAND: CHALLENGES AND 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

                                   __________

                                 JULY 17, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-150

    [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
    35-384                        WASHINGTON : 2019

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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,
    gpo@custhelp.com.

                        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...........................................     6
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     9
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    11

                                   Witnesses

    Tom Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association............    13
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   170
    Justine Forde, Senior Director of Government Relations, Midco....    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   174
    Claude Aiken, President and CEO, Wireless Internet Service
      Providers Association..........................................    37
        Prepared statement...........................................    39
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   178
    John C. May, President, Ag Solutions, and Chief Information
      Officer, John Deere & Company..................................    50
        Prepared statement...........................................    52
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   181
    Jenni Word, Associate Administrator and Chief Nursing Officer,
      Wallowa Memorial Hospital......................................    60
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   185
    Suzanne Coker Craig, a Former Commissioner of the Town of
      Pinetops and Managing Partner, Curiositees of Pinetops.........    70
        Prepared statement...........................................    73
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   187

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of coalition including the African-American Mayors
      Association, the American Library Association, the National
      Black Chamber of Commerce, and the Taxpayer Protection
      Alliance, submitted by Mr. Lance...............................   109
    Statement of the Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
      submitted by Mr. Loebsack......................................   111
    Statement of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, submitted by
      Mr. Olson......................................................   114
    Statement of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, submitted
      by Mr. Olson...................................................   115
    Statement of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives,
      submitted by Mr. Long..........................................   116
    Study by the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr.
      Doyle..........................................................   118
    Statement of the ITTA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn...............   126
    Statement of the Wireless Industry Association, submitted by Mrs.
      Blackburn......................................................   127
    Statement of the American Hospital Association, submitted by Mrs.
      Blackburn......................................................   128
    Statement of USTelecom, submitted by Mrs, Blackburn..............   133
    Statement of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, submitted by
      Mrs. Blackburn.................................................   134
    Statement of ACT, the App Association, submitted by Mrs.
      Blackburn......................................................   135
    Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association, submitted by
      Mrs. Blackburn.................................................   137
    Statement of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute,
      submitted by Mrs. Blackburn....................................   139
    Statement of the CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn...............   162
    Blog post from NCTA, July 17, 2018, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn..   163
    Letter of February 21, 2018, from Rural Broadband Caucus members
      to House appropriators, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............   165
    Chairman Walden's slides, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............   167

      REALIZING THE BENEFITS OF RURAL BROADBAND: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
    room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
    Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long,
    Flores, Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
    officio), Doyle, Welch, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo,
    Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator,
    Communications and Technology; Kristine Fargotstein, Detailee,
    Communications and Technology; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff
    Member, Communications and Technology; Margaret Tucker Fogarty,
    Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Human Resources/Office
    Administrator; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson,
    Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
    Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
    Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Brannon
    Rains, Staff Assistant; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant;
    Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology;
    Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and
    Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
    Jennifer Epperson, Minority FCC Detailee; Alex Hoehn-Saric,
    Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry
    Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
    Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; and C.J. Young,
    Minority Press Secretary.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE

        Mrs. Blackburn [presiding]. The Subcommittee on
    Communications and Technology will now come to order, and the
    Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening
    statement.
        And I want to welcome you to today's subcommittee hearing
    on rural broadband challenges and solutions. Extending the
    reach of broadband in rural Tennessee and across America is
    critical to ensure that everyone can participate in the digital
    economy. While the percentage of rural Tennesseans still
    lacking access to high-speed internet has decreased from 34
    percent to 23 percent, we have to continue to push. You can't
    have a 21st century economy without a 21st century internet.
        Since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, the private sector
    has invested roughly $1.6 trillion in their networks using
    different technologies. Understanding different technologies is
    key because broadband is more than just fiber. Moreover, we
    should acknowledge private investment in rural deployment and
    ensure that government-based solutions complement private
    investment instead of competing with it. For example, I am
    pleased to have the Satellite Industry Association testifying,
    so we can learn about the strides they are making to deploy
    modern satellites capable of delivering broadband internet
    anywhere in the country.
        Almost 6 months ago, I chaired a hearing on closing the
    digital divide. These hearings are useful, but, as chairman, I
    like to focus on results. Today's hearing allows us to check
    our progress, finding solutions and getting work done.
        I am proud to report that members of this subcommittee have
    worked together and accomplished quite a bit when it comes to
    expanding broadband access in rural America. In March, Congress
    passed RAY BAUM's Act, the most significant rural broadband
    legislation to become law in the last 6 years. The bill is
    named in honor of the E&C Committee Staff Director Ray Baum,
    who passed away earlier this year. Ray was a champion for rural
    America, and naming this bill for him is a fitting tribute.
        RAY BAUM's Act incorporated several legislative proposals
    we examined at our hearing in January. I will allow
    subcommittee members to discuss the legislative solutions, but
    I would like to highlight a couple that positively impact the
    people of Tennessee and Americans everywhere.
        Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McKinley took the reins on the broadband
    conduits, the idea that the Department of Transportation should
    facilitate broadband infrastructure on highway projects that
    use Federal dollars. I am pleased that we could work with Ms.
    Eshoo, who had this great idea, common sense, and we finally
    got it done.
        Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Loebsack worked together to require
    the FCC to study the potential of using spectrum more
    efficiently for rural areas.
        Lastly, our full committee chairman, Greg Walden, took on
    the difficult issue of ensuring the solvency of the Broadcast
    Relocation Fund. Wireless broadband providers spent over $19.8
    billion at auction for TV spectrum. Ensuring the solvency of
    the Relocation Fund is crucial to getting this spectrum to use
    for broadband, especially in rural areas.
        After passage of RAY BAUM's Act, the subcommittee passed
    two more rural broadband bills, the Precision Agriculture
    Connectivity Act from Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack, the ACCESS
    BROADBAND Act from Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance. These bills were
    reported out of full committee last week. All of this shows
    that Congress can, in fact, roll up our sleeves and get things
    done.
        Rural broadband remains a challenge and there are still
    unserved areas that need to be connected. With limited federal
    dollars to go around, we simply cannot afford to allow
    overbuilding to take place while so many areas are left
    completely unserved. We need to encourage states to find
    solutions that best suit their needs. We will not stop working,
    and I am proud to lead this subcommittee in working with the
    President to find good bipartisan solutions.
        I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance.
        [The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn

        Welcome to today's subcommittee hearing on rural broadband
    challenges and solutions. Extending the reach of broadband in
    rural Tennessee, and across America, is critical to ensure
    everyone can participate in the digital economy.
        While the percentage of rural Tennesseans still lacking
    access to high speed internet has decreased from 34% to 23%, we
    must continue to push. You can't have a 21st century economy
    without a 21st century internet.
        Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
    private sector has invested roughly $1.6 trillion in their
    networks using different technologies. Understanding different
    technologies is key because broadband is more than just fiber.
    Moreover, we should acknowledge private investment in rural
    deployment, and ensure that government-based solutions
    complement private investment instead of competing with it.
        For example, I'm pleased we have the Satellite Industry
    Association testifying so we can learn about the strides
    they're making to deploy modern satellites capable of
    delivering broadband internet anywhere in the country.
        Almost 6 months ago, I chaired a hearing on closing the
    digital divide.
        Hearings are useful, but as Chairman, I like to focus on
    bipartisan results. Today's hearing allows us to check our
    progress finding solutions and getting work done.
        I'm proud to report the members of this Subcommittee have
    worked together and have accomplished a lot to expand broadband
    access in rural America.
        In March, Congress passed RAY BAUM'S Act--the most
    significant rural broadband legislation to become law in the
    last 6 years. The bill was named in honor of the Energy and
    Commerce Committee's staff director, Ray Baum, who passed away
    earlier this year. Ray was a champion for rural America, and
    naming a rural broadband bill for him is a fitting tribute to
    his career of public service.
        RAY BAUM's Act incorporated several legislative proposals
    we examined at our hearing in January.
        I'll let our subcommittee members discuss their legislative
    solutions, but I would like to highlight a couple that
    positively impact the people of Tennessee, and Americans
    everywhere.
        Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McKinley took the reins on broadband
    conduits--the idea that the Department of Transportation should
    facilitate broadband infrastructure on highway projects that
    use federal dollars. I'm very glad we could work with Ms. Eshoo
    to finally get it done.
        Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Loebsack worked together to require
    the Federal Communications Commission to study the potential of
    using spectrum more efficiently for the benefit of rural areas.
        Lastly, our full committee Chairman, Greg Walden, took on
    the difficult issue of ensuring the solvency of the Broadcaster
    Relocation Fund. Wireless broadband providers spent over $19.8
    billion at auction for TV spectrum. Ensuring the solvency of
    the Relocation Fund is crucial to putting this spectrum to use
    for broadband, especially in rural areas.
        After passage of RAY BAUM'S Act, the subcommittee passed
    two more rural broadband bills:
         The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act from
    Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack; and
         The ACCESS BROADBAND Act from Mr. Tonko and Mr.
    Lance.
        These bills were reported out of full committee just last
    week.
        All of this shows that Congress can--in fact--roll up its
    sleeves to get things done. But we cannot rest on our laurels.
        Rural broadband remains a challenge, and there are still
    unserved areas that need to be connected.
        With limited federal dollars to go around, we simply cannot
    afford to allow overbuilding to take place while so many areas
    are left completely unserved.
        We need to encourage states to find solutions that best
    suit their needs.
        We will not stop working, and I'm proud to lead this
    subcommittee in working with the President to find bipartisan
    solutions.

        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
        I have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with Ranking Member
    Doyle which, among other things, would help spur rural
    broadband deployment by dedicating 10 percent of spectrum
    auction proceeds under the bill to rural broadband. Had this
    rural dividend been in place during the previous two spectrum
    auctions, over $6 billion would have been raised for rural
    buildout. I think that it is incredibly important that rural
    America be treated the same way as the rest of America.
        It is also important that we recognize that any federal
    funds for broadband deployment will be finite. I have worked
    hard to pursue policies to ensure coordination between various
    agencies.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a
    coalition letter of support for the AIRWAVES Act, and it
    includes the African-American Mayors Association, the American
    Library Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce,
    and the Taxpayer Protection Alliance.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Lance. And I yield back the balance of my time.
        [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.
        As broadband access becomes more and more important to
    success in the 21st century economy, closing the digital divide
    is an increasingly important issue facing our Nation.
        For my part, I have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with
    Ranking Member Doyle, which, among other things, would help
    spur rural broadband deployment by dedicating ten percent of
    spectrum auction proceeds under the bill to rural broadband.
    Had this ``rural dividend'' been in place during the previous
    two spectrum auctions, over $6 billion would have been raised
    for rural buildout.
        It is also important that we recognize that any Federal
    funds for broadband deployment will be finite. I have worked
    hard to pursue policies to ensure coordination between various
    agencies involved in broadband deployment, encourage
    concentration on unserved areas and generally avoiding over
    building of areas already served by a broadband provider.
        I ask unanimous consent to introduce a coalition letter of
    support for the AIRWAVES Act into the record and yield back the
    balance of my time

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
             CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Before I get started, I want to express my deepest
    condolences to Robin Colwell, the majority's chief counsel, on
    the passing of her husband, Bill. I know Robin and her family
    are grieving their loss, but our thoughts and prayers are with
    her and her family.
        Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing.
        We live in a divided nation when it comes to broadband
    access. All too often, people living in urban areas are the
    digital haves; whereas, those living in rural areas are being
    left behind with few or no choices, higher prices, and lower
    speeds.
        As I and many of our colleagues have said in the past, if
    we are going to bring more broadband to rural America, our
    government needs to make a sustained investment in building out
    more infrastructure. That is why I am proud to support Ranking
    Member Pallone's LIFT America Act, which would dedicate $40
    billion to building out broadband infrastructure in the
    unserved and underserved parts of the country. We also need to
    give communities like Pinetops the freedom and flexibility to
    provision their own service. That is why I am proud to continue
    to support Ms. Eshoo's Community Broadband Act. Ms. Coker
    Craig, reading your testimony, reiterates exactly what this is
    such an important option for rural communities.
        I am also proud to have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with
    Mr. Lance. This bill directs the FCC to conduct a number of
    spectrum auctions as well as to make significant amounts of new
    unlicensed spectrum available. The bill would set aside a
    portion of the revenue from those auctions for the deployment
    of new wireless broadband infrastructure in unserved and
    underserved parts of rural America.
        Mr. Aiken discusses in his testimony a number of the bands
    in the bill which would be ideal for buildout of broadband in
    rural areas, specifically the Citizens Broadband Radio Service,
    or CBRS, and the lower C-band. It is important to keep in mind
    that these bands could be structured in a way that would
    enhance rural broadband deployment, but they don't have to be.
    The Commission is currently considering changes to both these
    bands.
        The CBRS band was envisioned as a model for an innovative
    new spectrum licensing system that would cover smaller areas
    than traditional cellular licenses. This licensing model was
    supported by a broad range of industries, including rural
    broadband providers who see tremendous potential in being able
    to access smaller, more affordable blocks of license spectrum.
    But the Commission is considering changes to this band that
    would drastically increase license sizes, crowding out smaller
    players, so that only the largest wireless providers could bid
    on these licenses.
        The Commission also opened up a proceeding on the lower C-
    band. Several satellite companies that operate in this band
    have proposed making a portion of the band available for mobile
    broadband, which is great, but I agree with Mr. Aiken that this
    band has a lot more potential. The rest of the band could be
    shared between satellite operators and broadband providers
    using fixed wireless service. This proposal has the potential
    to greatly expand broadband deployment in rural parts of the
    country.
        In both of these bands, the Commission has before it two
    roads. They can work to make as much spectrum available for
    mobile broadband services. At the last hearing we had on that
    topic, every witness acknowledged 5G would not solve rural
    urban broadband divide. Or the FCC can adopt spectrum policies
    that bring broadband to all Americans. I think it is important
    for members on this subcommittee to realize that these are the
    decisions that the Commission is making right now that could
    affect the future of broadband in rural communities.
        With that, Madam Chair, I want to yield the remainder of my
    time to Mr. Butterfield.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                  Prepared statement of Hon. Michael F. Doyle

        Before I get started, I want to express my deepest
    condolences to Robin Colwell, the majority's chief counsel, on
    the passing of her husband Bill. I know Robin and her family
    are grieving their loss. My thoughts and prayers are with her
    and her family.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing, and
    thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
        We live in a divided nation when it comes to broadband
    access. All too often people living in urban areas are the
    digital have's, where as those living in rural areas are being
    left behind with few or no choices, higher prices, and lower
    speeds.
        As I and many of colleagues have said in the past, if we
    are going to bring more broadband to rural America, our
    government needs to make a sustained investment in building out
    more infrastructure.
        That's why I am proud to support Ranking Member Pallone's
    Lift America Act which would dedicate $40 billion to building
    out broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved parts
    of the country.
        We also need to give communities, like Pinetops, the
    freedom and flexibility to provision their own service. That's
    why I'm proud to continue to support Ms. Eshoo's Community
    Broadband Act. Ms. Corker Craig, reading your testimony
    reiterates exactly why this is such an important option for
    rural communities.
        I'm also proud to have introduced the Airwaves Act with Mr.
    Lance. The bill directs the FCC to conduct a number of spectrum
    auctions as well as make significant amounts of new unlicensed
    spectrum available. The bill would set aside a portion of the
    revenue from these auctions for the deployment of new wireless
    broadband infrastructure in served and underserved parts of
    rural America.
        Mr. Aiken discusses, in his testimony, a number of the
    bands in the bill which would be ideal for buildout of
    broadband in rural areas. Specifically, the Citizen's Broadband
    Radio Service or CBRS and the lower C-Band.
        It is important to keep in mind is that these bands could
    be structured in a way that would enhance rural broadband
    deployment, but they don't have to be. The commission is
    currently considering changes to both these bands.
        The CBRS band was envisioned as a model for an innovative
    new spectrum licensing system that would cover smaller areas
    than traditional cellular licenses. This licensing model was
    supported by a broad range of industries, including rural
    broadband providers, who see tremendous potential in being able
    to access smaller more affordable blocks of licensed spectrum.
    But the Commission is considering changes to this band that
    would drastically increase license sizes--crowding out smaller
    players so that only the largest wireless providers could bid
    on these licenses.
        The Commission also opened a proceeding in the lower C-
    band. Several satellite companies that operate in this band
    have proposed making a portion of the band available for mobile
    broadband, which is great. But I agree with Mr. Aiken that this
    band has a lot more potential. The rest of the band could be
    shared between satellite operators and broadband providers
    using fixed wireless service. This proposal has the potential
    to greatly expand broadband deployment in rural parts of the
    country.
        In both of these bands the Commission has before it two
    roads. They can work to make as much spectrum available for
    mobile broadband services. At the last hearing we had on that
    topic, every witness acknowledged 5G would not solve the rural-
    urban broadband divide. Or the FCC can adopt spectrum policies
    that bring broadband to all Americans.
        I think it's important for members on this subcommittee to
    realize that these are decisions that the Commission is making
    right now that could affect the future of broadband in rural
    communities.
        I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Butterfield.
        I'd like unanimous consent to include letters from CCA and
    NCTA in the record.

        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle, for
    yielding time this morning.
        And thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
        Madam Chairman, one of the privileges extended to members
    of this committee is to introduce their constituents when the
    committee invites them to testify. So, you can imagine my
    surprise when I learned that the committee had extended an
    invitation to one of my constituents from the town of Pinetops,
    North Carolina, population 1300, to serve as a witness for
    today's hearing on rural broadband.
        The town is a small, rural community located in my district
    in Edgecombe County. The town, with a population of 1300,
    comprises an area of about 1 square mile. In fact, I was in the
    town on Saturday night. I pass through there quite often. I
    stopped at Abrams Bar-B-Q, and former Sheriff James Knight was
    there. And he bought me a plate of barbeque, slaw, and hush
    puppies just this past Saturday night.
        Pinetops, Madam Chairman, is home to my constituent Suzanne
    Coker Craig, who accepted the Committee's invitation to
    testify. Ms. Craig and her husband Doug are small business
    owners in the town. Before starting her business in 2010 that
    continues to grow, Ms. Craig was Director of Advocacy Programs
    for the North Carolina Hospital Association. She served as
    Pinetops' Town Commissioner from 2009 to 2017, played a key
    role in securing high-speed internet service for the
    constituents in the town. And so, I am proud to welcome Suzanne
    to the committee. Suzanne will share her experience of living
    in an extremely rural community and the challenges that she and
    others face when not connected to the digital world.
        Thank you for yielding this time, Madam Chairman and Mr.
    Doyle. At this time, I will yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden, chairman of the full
    committee, for 5 minutes for an opening.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank my
    colleagues, and certainly our panelists, for being here today.
        Mr. Butterfield, we would have thought we would get to
    sample some of that fine barbeque. Yes, oK, we got that on the
    record.
        I want to welcome our witnesses, as I said, and I really
    appreciate your being here. Particularly, I want to thank my
    constituent, Ms. Jenni Word from the Wallowa Memorial Hospital,
    for coming here all the way from Wallowa County. She is there
    in Enterprise, a population of 1,916 people, and the county,
    with 6800 people, spans 3,152 square miles. So, this is big,
    wide-open country, beautiful mountain ranges, and forests and
    farmland. It is tucked in the far northeast corner of Oregon.
    It is larger than the state of Delaware and very rugged and
    remote.
        I have worked over the years with the health center there
    and the hospital and others on their efforts to build out fiber
    and get really good connectivity. We recently worked together
    with the FCC. Chairman Ajit Pai was in Oregon just after he
    announced he was raising the cap on the FCC's Rural Health Care
    Program. This really helps the folks to allow a county
    healthcare district and other rural providers to get affordable
    broadband service.
        Ms. Word will detail the telehealth opportunities that
    broadband access has opened up, and, most importantly,
    expanding the care patients can receive locally without having
    to travel hours to other hospitals. This is certainly of huge
    benefit in a place where, as a county commissioner once told
    me, Susan Roberts, it is winter 11 months out of the year and
    sometimes it snows in August. And that is true.
        Telemedicine, however, is only one example of the
    opportunities provided by broadband access in our rural
    communities all across America. Eastern Oregon University, Blue
    Mountain Community College, and others, are taking advantage of
    distance learning to expand access to higher education in
    isolated communities. Farmers and ranchers across America, and
    certainly in my district, are using precision agriculture more
    and more to regulate their inputs, and the transition to Next
    Gen 9-1-1 is critical for strengthening public policy.
        After all, broadband is the infrastructure investment of
    the 21st century. Broadband means jobs, and jobs come from
    deployment of broadband, including towers and cell sites,
    fiber, launching satellites, upgrading facilities that
    constitute the physical infrastructure.
        And the economic benefits don't stop at that infrastructure
    investment. Maintaining this infrastructure requires high-
    skilled jobs in engineering, network management, cybersecurity,
    advertising, customer service, and much more. Beyond all that,
    we know broadband is a force multiplier for job creation and
    providing efficiencies for every sector of the economy.
        Our Chair ran through some of the bills, including the RAY
    BAUM's Act, but the Chair herself deserves credit for
    spearheading the overall effort. This legislation, now law,
    included many provisions to improve broadband buildout.
        Spectrum auctions, for example, raise billions of dollars
    in federal revenue for deficit reduction and other investments,
    but a quirk in the law prevented the FCC from taking upfront
    payments of auction bidders and depositing the money directly
    with the U.S. Treasury. Though spectrum is the lifeblood of
    wireless broadband, this effectively stopped the FCC from
    conducting further spectrum auctions.
        So, this committee, and under the Chair's leadership, took
    care of that in the RAY BAUM's Act. RAY BAUM's Act fixed this
    by including a bipartisan bill from Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui
    that allows the FCC to deposit legally upfront payments
    directly with the Treasury. As a result, the FCC is now moving
    forward with its upcoming spectrum frontiers auction, which
    will make more high band spectrum available for 5G.
        RAY BAUM's Act, signed into law March 23rd, as you have
    heard, I have a feeling the bill's namesake Ray, who was from
    eastern Oregon and actually represented Wallowa and Union
    Counties in the state legislature, and called them God's
    country, would be very proud of our efforts then and now.
        While some may have been content with that accomplishment
    that we did earlier this year, this subcommittee continues to
    process important bills through regular order. And just last
    week, the full committee took up four more bills that were
    unanimously approved by this subcommittee. So, these bipartisan
    bills include Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance's ACCESS BROADBAND Act,
    which is an important and necessary step to coordinate funding
    for broadband across different agencies. We also passed Mr.
    Latta and Mr. Loebsack's Precision Agriculture Connectivity
    Act, which requires the FCC and the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture to form a task force to evaluate the best ways to
    leverage broadband for modern high-tech farming and ranching.
    These bills illustrate what we can accomplish when we work
    together, as we do often, on a bipartisan basis.
        However, other Members have put forward bills to address
    rural broadband challenges, and these proposals will deserve
    our attention and consideration as well. And I expect we will
    hear about some of those today and we will continue to work on
    those.
        I look forward to this hearing as a followup to our January
    hearing on closing the digital divide and the numerous other
    infrastructure-related hearings we have conducted this
    Congress. So, we have got more work to do to improve access and
    for telehealth, precision agriculture, education, and jobs
    across America.
        But I want to thank Ms. Word for being here today. We
    really appreciate your coming out. I look forward to your
    testimony.
        I will say in advance we have another hearing going on at
    the same time, so I will be bouncing back and forth. But we
    have the testimony from all of you and we appreciate your
    input.
        With that, Ms. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you, Madame Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses
    to this hearing on the benefits of rural broadband. In
    particular, I want to thank Ms. Jenni Word with Wallowa
    Memorial Hospital for trekking in clear from Wallowa County,
    Oregon to testify here today.
        Tucked up in the far northeast corner of Oregon, Wallowa
    County is larger than the state of Delaware and has a
    population of just over 6,800 people. It is rugged and remote.
    I worked closely with the hospital and community to help get
    fiber built out into the county, and we recently worked
    together with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to raise the cap on the
    FCC's Rural Health Care Program. This helps the Wallowa County
    Health Care District and other rural providers get affordable
    broadband service.
        Ms. Word will detail the telehealth opportunities broadband
    access has opened up, most importantly expanding the care
    patients can receive locally without having to travel hours to
    other hospitals. That is certainly a big benefit in a place
    where, as a county commissioner once joked, it's winter 11
    months out of the year and sometimes snows in August.
        Telemedicine, however, is only one example of the
    opportunities provided by broadband access in our rural
    communities. Eastern Oregon University, Blue Mountain Community
    College, and others are taking advantage of distance learning
    to expand access to higher education to isolated communities.
    Farmers and ranchers across my district have taken advantage of
    precision agriculture technology to reduce inputs. And, the
    transition to next generation 9-1-1 is critical for
    strengthening public safety.
        Broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st century.
        Broadband means jobs.
        Jobs come from deployment--building towers and cell sites,
    laying fiber, launching satellites, and upgrading facilities
    that constitute the physical infrastructure.
        The economic benefits don't stop at construction.
    Maintaining this infrastructure requires high-skilled jobs in
    engineering, network management, cybersecurity, advertising,
    and customer service.
        And beyond all that, we know broadband is a force
    multiplier for job creation, providing efficiencies for every
    sector of the economy.
        Chairman Blackburn ran through some of the bills included
    in RAY BAUM's Act, but the Chairman herself deserves credit for
    spearheading the overall effort. The legislation, now law,
    included many provisions to improve broadband buildout.
        Take spectrum auctions for example. Spectrum auctions raise
    billions in federal revenue for deficit reduction. But a quirk
    in the law prevented the FCC from taking upfront payments of
    auction bidders and depositing the money directly with the U.S.
    Treasury. Though spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless
    broadband, this effectively stopped the FCC from conducting
    further spectrum auctions. Bear in mind that we are in a global
    race to 5G.
        RAY BAUM'S Act fixed this by including a bipartisan bill
    from Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui that allows the FCC to deposit
    upfront payments directly with the Treasury. As a result, the
    FCC is moving forward with its upcoming Spectrum Frontiers
    Auction, which will make more high-band spectrum available for
    5G.
        RAY BAUM'S Act was signed into law on March 23rd. I have a
    feeling the bill's namesake, Ray, who was from eastern Oregon
    and often referred to Wallowa County as ``God's country,''
    would be very proud of our efforts and the positive impact RAY
    BAUM'S Act has made and will make across the country.
        While some may have been content with that accomplishment
    alone, this subcommittee continues to process important bills
    through regular order. Just last week, the full committee took
    up four more bills that were unanimously approved by this
    subcommittee.
        These bipartisan bills included Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance's
    ACCESS BROADBAND Act, which is an important and necessary step
    to coordinate funding for broadband across different agencies.
        We also passed Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack's Precision
    Agriculture Connectivity Act, which requires the FCC and the
    U.S. Department of Agriculture to form a task force to evaluate
    the best ways to leverage broadband for modern, high-tech
    farming and ranching.
        These bills illustrate what we can accomplish when we work
    together to fix problems on a bipartisan basis.
        However, other members have put forward bills to address
    rural broadband challenges, and these proposals deserve
    consideration as well. I expect we'll hear about some of those
    other bills today, and I hope we can continue working on a
    bipartisan basis to get them signed into law.
        I look forward to this hearing as a follow-up to the
    January hearing on closing the digital divide, and the numerous
    other infrastructure-related hearings we've conducted this
    Congress.
        I hope we can continue to work together to expand broadband
    for telehealth applications, precision agriculture, education,
    and economic opportunity across rural America.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 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.
        From the start of the Trump administration, there has been
    a bipartisan call to modernize America's infrastructure,
    including expanding broadband to communities that need it. And
    this takes significant resources and cannot be done simply
    through deregulation or streamlining processes. Actual
    investments are needed, and we must see states and local
    governments as partners, not adversaries.
        Committee Democrats recognize the need for real investment
    and to develop legislative proposals to build the modern,
    resilient infrastructure that Americans need and deserve.
        First, the LIFT America Act authorizes this $40 billion in
    grants for the deployment of secure and resilient broadband.
    This comprehensive infrastructure bill, which is supported by
    every Democrat on this committee, will also invest in drinking
    water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, healthcare
    infrastructure, and brownfields redevelopment. These
    investments will make Americans more competitive, safer,
    healthier, and connected.
        Second, Mr. Lujan, along with a number of other Democrats
    on the committee, introduced the Broadband Infrastructure
    Finance and Innovation Act. This bill would authorize $5
    billion worth of secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of
    credit to finance public/private partnerships for broadband
    deployment.
        Third, Mr. Tonko has introduced the ACCESS BROADBAND Act,
    which was just reported by this committee to the full House of
    Representatives last week. This bill would create an Office of
    Internet Connectivity and Growth to help ensure we are using
    existing broadband programs, and new ones, to get the most bang
    for the buck. I urge my colleagues to bring this bill to the
    House floor as soon as possible.
        Committee Democrats have also put forward many other
    innovative solutions that could make a real change in
    connecting the unconnected and opening up our airwaves for new
    wireless broadband services.
        Unfortunately, the administration and my Republican
    colleagues have placed infrastructure legislation on the back
    burner behind its tax scam that benefits large corporations and
    the wealthiest few. Rather than making real and substantial
    investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, they
    instead choose to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks at
    the wealthy who simply do not need them.
        So, I think we need to invest in broadband infrastructure,
    particularly in rural and urban communities that have been left
    behind. According to the FCC, 30 percent of Americans in rural
    areas and 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack
    access to baseline broadband service, and this is based on
    mapping data that we know underreports the scope of the
    problem.
        So, it is time to act. Democrats have bold proposals that
    will actually drive broadband deployment in all 50 states.
    These proposals are technologically-neutral and open the door
    to all internet service providers that can deliver fast and
    secure broadband access. We need to think outside the box in
    our effort to connect all Americans to the benefits of the
    internet. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how
    we can ensure access to high-speed broadband throughout
    America, including rural communities.
        On a brief personal note, if I could just say I was
    incredibly saddened to hear that Robin Colwell of the
    subcommittee's majority staff lost her husband, Bill, over the
    weekend following his battle with cancer. I want to offer our
    deepest condolences from the Democratic side and sympathies to
    her and her family in this trying time.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        From the start of the Trump Administration, there has been
    a bipartisan call to modernize America's infrastructure,
    including expanding broadband to communities that need it. This
    takes significant resources and cannot be done simply through
    deregulation or streamlining processes. Actual investments are
    needed, and we must see states and local governments as
    partners--not adversaries. Committee Democrats recognized the
    need for real investment and developed legislative proposals to
    build the modern, resilient infrastructure Americans need and
    deserve.
        First, the LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion in
    grants for the deployment of secure and resilient broadband.
    This comprehensive infrastructure bill, which is supported by
    every Democrat on this Committee, also invests in drinking
    water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, health care
    infrastructure, and brownfields redevelopment. These
    investments will make Americans more competitive, safer,
    healthier, and connected.
        Second, Mr. Lujan, along with a number of other Democrats
    on the Committee, introduced the Broadband Infrastructure
    Finance and Innovation Act. This bill would authorize $5
    billion worth of secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of
    credit to finance public private partnerships for broadband
    deployment.
        Third, Mr. Tonko has introduced the ACCESS Broadband Act,
    which was just reported by this Committee to the full House of
    Representatives last week. This bill would create an Office of
    Internet Connectivity and Growth to help ensure we're using
    existing broadband programs, and new ones, to get the most bang
    for the buck. I urge my colleagues to bring this bill to the
    House floor as soon as possible.
        Committee Democrats have also put forward many other
    innovative solutions that could make a real change in
    connecting the unconnected and opening up our airwaves for new
    wireless broadband services.
        Unfortunately, the Administration and my Republican
    colleagues have placed infrastructure legislation on the
    backburner behind its tax scam that benefits large corporations
    and the wealthiest few. Rather than making real and substantial
    investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, they
    instead chose to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks at the
    wealthy who simply do not need them.
        We need to invest in broadband infrastructure, particularly
    in rural and urban communities that have been left behind.
    According to the FCC, 30 percent of Americans in rural areas--
    and 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands--lack access
    to baseline broadband service. And this is based on mapping
    data that we know underreports the scope of the problem.
        It is time to act. Democrats have bold proposals that will
    actually drive broadband deployment in all 50 states. These
    proposals are technologically neutral, and open the door to all
    internet service providers that can deliver fast and secure
    broadband access. We need to think outside the box in our
    effort to connect all Americans to the benefits of the
    internet.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
    ensure access to high-speed broadband throughout America,
    including rural communities.
        On a brief personal note, we were all incredibly saddened
    to hear that Robin Colwell of the subcommittee's majority staff
    lost her husband-Bill-over the weekend following his battle
    with cancer. I want to offer our deepest condolences and
    sympathies to her and her family in this trying time.
        With that, I yield the balance of my time.

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. No one is
    seeking to claim his time.
        We appreciate so much the thoughts and condolences for
    Robin. We know that you all wish Robin and her girls well
    during this sad time.
        This concludes our member opening statements. The Chair
    would like to remind members that, pursuant to the committee
    rules, all members' opening statements will be made a part of
    the record.
        We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
    and taking the time to accept the invitation and come before
    the subcommittee. Today's witnesses will have the opportunity
    to give their opening statements, followed by a round of
    questions.
        Our panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Tom Stroup,
    President of the Satellite Industry Association; Mr. Justin
    Forde, Senior Director of Government Relations at Midco; Mr.
    Claude Aiken, President and CEO of the Wireless Internet
    Service Providers Association; Mr. John May, President of Ag
    Solutions and the Chief Information Officer at John Deere &
    Company; Ms. Jenni Word, Associate Administrator and Chief
    Nursing Officer at Wallowa Memorial Hospital in Oregon, and Ms.
    Suzanne Coker Craig, a former Commissioner of the town of
    Pinetops and the current Managing Partner at CuriosiTees of
    Pinetops.
        We appreciate each of you being here today, and we
    appreciate your testimony.
        We will begin with you, Mr. Stroup, 5 minutes for your
    opening statement.

        STATEMENTS OF TOM STROUP, PRESIDENT, SATELLITE INDUSTRY
       ASSOCIATION; JUSTINE FORDE, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
      RELATIONS, MIDCO; CLAUDE AIKEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WIRELESS
    INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN C. MAY, PRESIDENT,
       AG SOLUTIONS, AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, JOHN DEERE &
    COMPANY; JENNI WORD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF NURSING
    OFFICER, WALLOWA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; AND SUZANNE COKER CRAIG, A
       FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE TOWN OF PINETOPS AND MANAGING
                   PARTNER, CURIOSITEES OF PINETOPS.

                        STATEMENT OF TOM STROUP

        Mr. Stroup. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
    distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having
    me testify here today.
        I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry
    Association.
        Satellite communication services are positioned to be the
    keystone for bringing 21st century broadband capabilities to
    the entirety of the United States. These services are capable
    of providing broadband to rural and remote areas of the
    country, where it remains uneconomical for terrestrial services
    to deploy, and both provide speeds and prices comparable to
    terrestrial alternatives. These services are available directly
    to the consumer today, covering all 50 States and delivering
    broadband offerings up to 100 megabits per second.
        Satellite broadband is also used by business and government
    enterprises for both fixed and mobile purposes, using a range
    of spectral bands to deliver assured access to broadband
    communications. Further, satellites are providing critical
    backhaul internet connectivity to local internet service
    providers and community institutions in remote locations.
    Today, approximately 2 million customers nationwide are
    enjoying high-quality satellite broadband services at
    reasonable rates and at speeds that meet and exceed the FCC's
    definition of broadband service.
        The satellite industry is investing tens of billions of
    dollars to innovate and increase broadband connectivity to the
    U.S. and across the globe. High-throughput satellites, for
    example, rely on frequency reuse and spot-beam technology to
    produce increased output factors upward of 20 times that of
    traditional satellites.
        The industry has seen similar increases in the capacity of
    its systems. The first broadband satellite began service in
    2008 with a capacity of 10 gigabits per second. Today's
    satellites have capacities of up to 260 gigabits per second, a
    number expected to increase to 1,000 gigabits per second by the
    end of the decade. These terabit-capacity geostationary
    satellites will provide orders of magnitude capacity increases.
        In another highly anticipated advancement in the industry,
    thousands of new, high-throughput, non-geostationary satellites
    will soon join existing operators in low-earth and medium-earth
    orbits to provide additional high-speed broadband at low
    latency levels. Indeed, prototypes of these satellites have
    already begun to launch.
        As Congress develops its broadband policies, it should
    consider the many positive attributes of satellite broadband.
    These include, No. 1, competition. Just as it has with radio
    and television services in the past, satellite services provide
    market-based competition to terrestrial broadband services.
    Satellite broadband brings additional package options, pricing,
    and innovative services to consumers, often in areas with only
    a single or small number of providers.
        No. 2, wide geographic coverage. To address the digital
    divide, broadband services need to be available for the most
    rural and remote areas of the country. The nature of
    satellite's wide coverage ensures that all communities within
    the satellite's footprint receive the same quality of service,
    whether they are remote communities or big cities. Public
    policy makers should leverage terrestrial-style incentives with
    satellite's geographically-independent cost structure to
    achieve universal communication services.
        No. 3, availability. Unlike terrestrial service, satellite
    broadband is available today across a significant portion of
    the country without the buildout of additional infrastructure.
    Customers can obtain satellite broadband services by simply
    ordering and awaiting at-home installation.
        No. 4, cost efficiency. Because satellite systems have
    inherently wide area coverage, when technology-neutral
    incentives are made to encourage capacity redirection, there is
    no additional cost to build out to rural and remote areas, only
    lost opportunity costs in more lucrative service areas. This is
    unlike terrestrial services, where the low density of rural and
    remote areas makes it costlier and in most cases not
    economically viable to build out and cover these areas.
        And, 5, reliability. Natural and manmade disasters can
    interrupt terrestrial broadband services. Satellites, however,
    are less affected by these events, and satellite ground systems
    or satellite-enabled airborne equipment can be quickly deployed
    to restore connectivity.
        Of course, all of the breakthroughs we have seen because of
    satellite technologies should not be taken for granted. They
    depend upon our industry's ability to access spectrum. In order
    for our industry to sustain and meet the growing demand for
    satellite services, we encourage regulators to continue to
    allocate sufficient spectrum for satellite use and to support
    the national broadband mapping system as to provide a clear and
    complete map of broadband services.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
         [The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Forde, you are recognized, 5 minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF JUSTIN FORDE

        Mr. Forde. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
    today to discuss the challenges we face and the solutions we
    are working on to bring the benefits of broadband to rural
    America.
        My name is Justin Forde, and I am the Senior Director of
    Government Relations for Midco. Midco is the leading provider
    of internet and networking, cable TV, phone, data center, home
    security, and advertising services in the Upper Midwest. We
    serve more than 385,000 residential and business customers in
    South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin in
    communities ranging in size from less than 100 people to more
    than 180,000.
        Midco has a history of innovation in the Upper Midwest that
    continues to motivate our business today. In 2017, we launched
    the Midco Gig Initiative, a commitment to bring gigabit
    internet speeds to our entire service area. We have invested
    over $56 million in the Gig Initiative over and above the
    millions of dollars we invest in our network annually. Today,
    Midco Gig is available to more than 80 percent of our
    customers, with more communities to come in 2018.
        We are also focused on expanding our service to more cities
    and more communities across the region, but there are
    challenges and high costs associated with building fiber in our
    area of the country. While thinking about a creative solution
    to this challenge, we were contacted by the rural community of
    Brooktree Park, North Dakota, to help them obtain broadband
    access. We quickly determined that bringing wireline service to
    the area was not economically feasible, but we partnered with
    InvisiMax, a fixed wireless provider, and we were able to offer
    broadband service to that area within 30 days.
        Recognizing the potential of the fixed wireless solution to
    provide broadband to more rural residents, Midco has acquired
    InvisiMax, and we have begun to expand fixed broadband wireless
    with service more broadly in rural areas within our footprint.
    Fixed wireless allows us to reach areas that are up to 50 miles
    away from our fiber network, and we can implement that solution
    relatively quickly without the expense of constructing fiber
    networks.
        We can use fixed wireless to offer internet where the
    terrain can make it difficult, if not impossible, to provide
    wire internet, such as the Badlands of North and South Dakota,
    the granite fields of northern Minnesota, or the limestone
    cliffs in eastern Minnesota. We can also reach vast areas of
    farmland where it is not economically feasible to run fiber to
    every single acre. We can deploy new fixed wireless during the
    winter months, when difficult winters make new fiber
    construction impossible.
        I, myself, am a Midco fixed wireless customer. I get my
    internet from the top of a grain elevator in Prosper, North
    Dakota, to my small farmstead 6 miles west of Argusville, North
    Dakota. On a normal day, my three kids are streaming video or
    other content while my wife is using the internet to run a
    small business. This service has been a great asset to our
    family. Even today, it allows me to keep an eye on the farm
    from Washington, D.C., through a video and security systems
    enabled by fixed wireless.
        Midco supports your hard work to ensure that all Americans
    have access to broadband services. We greatly appreciate the
    bipartisan commitment of this committee to produce bills that
    nurture a broadband-deployment-friendly atmosphere. Your
    efforts on the RAY BAUM's Act and the MOBILE NOW Act to include
    broadband deployment provisions like the dig-once policy and a
    spectrum policy bouncing licensed and unlicensed uses, your
    thoughtful consideration of the ACCESS BROADBAND Act, have
    contributed to an environment in which we are more able to
    easily invest, expand, and deploy.
        Today, I would like to offer two suggestions for how you
    might help us further advance the reach of broadband networks.
    First, in some cases, government help is needed to bring
    broadband access to areas it is not financially viable to
    build. In the past, some broadband funding programs have
    allowed funds to be uses in places that already have broadband
    service. We were encouraged to see the pilot funding program in
    the Omnibus Appropriations Act and in the Senate farm bill that
    both seek to limit funding to areas that need it most. We ask
    your support efforts to keep broadband funding dollars to
    unserved areas.
        Second, to serve the greatest number of rural residents via
    fixed wireless, we must have the ability to purchase spectrum.
    We need more wide channels and spectrum bands where we receive
    interference protection, and we must have a fair ability to
    compete for access to any spectrum that is open and appropriate
    for fixed wireless service.
        Congress should support the FCC in its effort to expand the
    categories of eligible uses for certain underutilized spectrum
    bands, like 2.5 gigahertz, and support the FCC in adopting
    smaller license sizes and appropriate auction rules for bands
    that have potential for fixed wireless in rural areas. These
    actions will help all Americans, including those in rural
    America, to receive the full potential of America's broadband
    networks.
        Thank you again for inviting me here today, and I look
    forward to working with all of you on these important issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Forde follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Aiken, you are recognized.

                       STATEMENT OF CLAUDE AIKEN

        Mr. Aiken. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
    Doyle, and members of the subcommittee.
        I am Claude Aiken, President and CEO of WISPA, the Wireless
    Internet Service Providers Association, representing more than
    800 small businesses who are closing the digital divide in
    rural America. I am honored to offer our perspective on how
    fixed wireless broadband is making a difference in rural
    America.
        The majority of our members got their start the same way.
    They were bootstrapping entrepreneurs who saw the need for
    better broadband in their communities and answered the call.
    Whether it was via maxed-out personal credit cards, small loans
    from family members, or putting their life savings on the line,
    our members have built workable, cost-efficient, local networks
    and given their neighbors what they never had before, high-
    speed broadband internet.
        Our members use whatever spectrum is available, unlicensed,
    lightly licensed, or licensed spectrum. They lease whatever
    infrastructure is available to hang radios. It may be
    commercial towers, local water towers, or a neighbor's grain
    silo or barn. They transmit internet data, often over many
    miles, to small fixed receivers on their customer's premises,
    and they provide high-speed, low-latency, uncapped broadband,
    typically in the range of 5 to 50 megabits per second, and
    speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second are possible with current
    technology.
        Our members are overwhelmingly small, local, rural
    providers. More than half have fewer than 1,000 customers.
    Almost three-quarters have fewer than 10 employees. But,
    despite their small size, they are making a difference, serving
    more than 4 million people across our nation, and the majority
    do this without any government subsidies.
        Most importantly, WISPs can deploy fixed wireless service
    to residential consumers at about one-seventh the cost of fiber
    and one-fourth the cost of cable. That is right, we can deploy
    broadband for a fraction of the cost of fiber and cable, and we
    can deploy much more quickly, usually in months, rather than
    years.
        Clearly, we are a significant part of the solution. So, how
    can we in D.C. help unleash the power of fixed wireless
    economics to better serve your communities? The most important
    thing the subcommittee can do is to support more flexible,
    shared, and lightly licensed use of underutilized spectrum
    bands. Our members are often frustrated that they have
    potential customers within range of their towers, but
    insufficient spectrum to serve them, all the while licensed
    spectrum in their areas goes unused.
        Thankfully, this subcommittee has been a part of the
    solution. We commend your work to lower barriers to
    infrastructure deployment, streamline regulations, and widen
    the spectrum pipeline. Legislation like the AIRWAVES Act and
    the ACCESS BROADBAND Act will make a difference in rural
    America.
        WISPA also commends the FCC for moving forward on
    rulemaking proceedings that could and should make more spectrum
    available for rural broadband deployment. The FCC is at a
    critical juncture on one proceeding that I will briefly
    highlight, the ongoing Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or
    CBRS, proceeding. It is no exaggeration to say that this
    proceeding is vitally important to the future of rural
    broadband.
        In 2015, the FCC adopted innovative rules that would have
    auctioned seven 10-megahertz spectrum licenses in blocks the
    size of Census tracts, about 4,000 people each. But, last
    summer, the FCC reopened the rule seeking comment on greatly
    enlarging the license areas, up to the size of a partial
    economic area which generally contain both urban and rural
    areas and often cross state lines.
        For our members, enlarging the license areas would be like
    requiring an entrepreneur who wants to open a kiosk to purchase
    an entire shopping mall. Our members need the FCC to keep the
    existing unlicensed or GAA spectrum allocation intact and
    retain small, Census-tract-sized licenses in the CBRS band.
    This would increase auction participation and revenues and
    enable our members, and all kinds of entrepreneurs and
    innovators, to participate in the auction, not just our largest
    companies.
        And here's another reason why balanced spectrum policy is
    so important. If rural service can be deployed at much lower
    cost by fixed wireless providers, there is much less need for
    doling out subsidies to large carriers to offset their much
    higher costs. For example, ZIRKEL Wireless in Colorado is
    serving areas with one person per square mile without any
    government subsidies. With the right spectrum policy, access to
    private capital will become easier for small providers, and
    broadband deployment in rural and small town America will
    accelerate.
        To the extent subsidiaries are necessary, they should be
    made available in a technology-neutral and a provider-neutral
    manner. Too often, small WISPs find themselves overbuilt by
    providers receiving state or federal subsidies. We need to work
    together to find solutions that will prevent small companies
    that have invested private capital from facing competition from
    large companies backed with government subsidies, grants, and
    loans.
        Madam Chairman, our members are closing the rural broadband
    gap without subsidies, and we call on you to help modernize and
    rebalance U.S. spectrum policy, so that we can reach even more
    Americans in underserved areas.
        We thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aiken follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. May, you are recognized.

                         STATEMENT OF JOHN MAY

        Mr. May. Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, thank
    you for the opportunity to be here today and speak about rural
    broadband, a very important issue for many farmers and others
    in the agricultural sector.
        My company, John Deere, is the global leader in manufacture
    of agricultural, construction, turf, and forestry equipment.
    For 181 years, Deere has been helping farmers get more
    production from their fields in an efficient and sustainable
    manner. Technology, a big part of agriculture and the John
    Deere story, is the key to helping farmers meet the world's
    needs for food and agricultural goods in the future. And having
    access to broadband internet services is absolutely essential
    to leveraging the benefits that technology has to offer.
        The evolution of technology in agriculture is critical.
    That is because global demand for agricultural output, which
    has more than tripled since 1960, shows no signs of easing.
    Given forecasts of global population growth and dietary
    improvements, farm output will need to roughly double from 2000
    levels to meet the projected demand in 2050. What's more, these
    output gain will need to take place with essentially the same
    amount of land and water, and probably less labor. By and
    large, the technologies needed to produce these gains depend on
    the delivery of reliable internet connections to farmers in the
    field, something many farmers can't count on today.
        The extent of the broadband access problem in agriculture
    is hard to measure in exact terms, but we know anecdotally it
    is a significant issue. Based on the rate of successful
    connections between our John Deere customers and our data
    management platforms, we know there are many instances where
    producers cannot fully leverage the benefits of their data on
    account of nonexistent or unreliable internet service. This is
    to say nothing about connections that are never made or even
    attempted by those who lack internet service and don't bother
    to invest in the technologies in the first place.
        The nature and the extent of the problem is exactly why we
    believe Federal policy and programs should give more
    consideration to the needs of farmers and ranchers. Without a
    better understanding of the problem, we can't begin to design
    the right solution.
        John Deere commends the Energy and Commerce Committee's
    approval of H.R. 4881, the Precision Agricultural Connectivity
    Act. Along with our partners in the Agricultural Broadband
    Coalition, John Deere endorsed the bill. We see it as an
    important first step to addressing agricultural broadband
    issues. We are hopeful this legislation will be enacted this
    year, either as part of the farm bill or on its own.
        We also believe federal agencies with broadband deployment
    mandates should view access through an expanded lens, one that
    incorporates a geographic and functional usage metric, as
    opposed to looking only at population centers. In our view,
    broadband access on active cropland should be included as a
    metric for identifying areas where broadband infrastructure
    investment is most needed.
        Cell towers are for the time being the key for delivering
    high-speed LTE terrestrial signals, and we need more of them
    over croplands and ranchlands. As you know, farms represent a
    significant source of commercial activity in rural communities.
    Owners, employees, buyers, vendors, and service providers all
    conduct business in and around the farm operations. Supporting
    increased wireless broadband deployment in the very places
    where farming activities occur, in the fields, will bring many
    benefits to rural communities. These include increased economic
    growth, improved environmental stewardship, and enhanced food
    security.
        John Deere's higher purpose or mission is to help people
    live better lives through our commitment to those that are
    linked to the land. Today, we are expressing that commitment in
    the many ways we are developing and using technology, almost
    all of which is digital in nature and internet-based. That will
    help feed the world in a sustainable manner for generations to
    come.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the gentleman.
        Ms. Word, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                        STATEMENT OF JENNI WORD

        Ms. Word. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
    Doyle, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
    opportunity to appear before you today.
        My name is Jenni Word. I serve as the Associate
    Administrator and Chief Nursing Officer at Wallowa Memorial
    Hospital in Enterprise, Oregon. Our facility is a 25-bed
    critical-access hospital and Level IV trauma center. I am proud
    to report we have been named one of the top 20 critical-access
    hospitals in the Nation for the past 2 years.
        Our hospital serves Wallowa County and, as Congressman
    Walden referred to before, has a population of just under 7,000
    people spread over 3,152 square miles in frontier northeastern
    Oregon. That is a population density of 2.2 persons per square
    mile. The next nearest hospital, also a critical-access
    hospital, is 65 miles away.
        I would like to focus my testimony on the important role
    broadband plays in bringing telehealth services to rural and
    frontier areas. Our hospital provides a wide array of services,
    but not all the services our community needs. Telehealth has
    enabled us to fill this gap and ensure access to high-quality
    care in our frontier county.
        In my written testimony, I provided three examples that
    illustrate the lifesaving role telehealth can play in areas
    like ours. Broadband infrastructure is the foundation on which
    providers like ours can use telehealth technology to meet
    health crises like these.
        Moving forward, reliable, affordable broadband in homes and
    remote rural hospitals and clinics will be critical as we
    transform the current healthcare delivery system. Our goal is a
    system that effectively coordinates care for our patients,
    rewards value, improves quality and patient safety, and reduces
    costs. Broadband is the lynchpin of that effort.
        We are fortunate in Wallowa County to have good broadband
    infrastructure. But, even so, our county has many remote areas
    that do not yet have broadband connectivity. Nationwide, the
    Federal Communications Commission reports that 34 million
    Americans still lack access to adequate broadband.
        Oregon has made significant progress in the deployment of
    broadband connectivity. However, a 2014 survey of broadband
    adoption in Oregon found that rural areas lagged behind their
    urban neighbors in having access to broadband connectivity and
    rural residents are less likely than their urban counterparts
    to use broadband technologies.
        The Mississippi State Extension Service Index identified
    Wallowa County as one of 10 Oregon counties with the highest
    digital divide index. Congress took steps in the fiscal year
    2018 omnibus appropriations bill to address the digital divide,
    and the FCC recently increased funding available through the
    Rural Health Care Program, which supports broadband adoption
    for the nonprofit rural healthcare providers. We applaud both
    of these actions and thank you for your role in making them a
    reality. As these programs are implemented, we look forward to
    taking advantage of these new resources.
        Finally, I would like to say something about telehealth.
    The potential for telehealth to expand access to medical
    treatment seems limitless, especially in rural and frontier
    areas where vast distances make it difficult to get to a doctor
    or to a hospital. However, there are barriers preventing us
    from realizing that potential. For example, Medicare payment
    policy restricts sites eligible for reimbursement, limits
    distance site providers, and restricts the services for which
    Medicare will reimburse. Medicare does not reimburse for remote
    patient monitoring, a potentially vital tool in monitoring
    patients with chronic conditions, especially those in rural
    areas. Medicare also doesn't reimburse for phone, email, fax-
    based services, or store-and-forward technology.
        Providers would like these geographic and setting location
    requirements eliminated and expansion of the types of
    technology that can be used, and coverage for all services that
    are safe to provide. Rural communities also need additional
    capital to develop telehealth capabilities as well as adequate
    funding to operate systems, once they are up and running.
        I am pleased that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
    expanded Medicare coverage for telestroke and provided waivers
    for some alternative payment models, but more should be done.
    Every week, it seems, new technologies become available to help
    patient needs. The use of telehealth and other new technologies
    will improve access to healthcare, improve outcomes, and reduce
    costs. Public policy should not hold us back as we seek to
    realize the potential these new technologies hold.
        I applaud the Committee and its Chair and my Congressman,
    Greg Walden, for the leadership it has shown in addressing
    these challenges. There is certainly more work to do, and
    Wallowa Memorial Hospital and other rural hospitals stand ready
    to work with you in that effort.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Word follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the gentlelady.
        Ms. Coker Craig, you are recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF SUZANNE COKER CRAIG

        Ms. Coker Craig. Thank you all for your invitation this
    morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
        And thank you to Congressman Butterfield for the
    introduction. I am glad to hear you are hanging out at Abrams.
        [Laughter.]
        My name is Suzanne Coker Craig, and I am a small business
    owner and former Commissioner in the town of Pinetops, North
    Carolina. Our little town is 65 miles east of Raleigh and is
    centrally located between Greenville, Wilson, and Rocky Mount.
    We have a significant number of our residents who live well
    below the poverty level, and we are located in Edgecombe
    County, which is one of the poorest counties in the State.
    Unlike much of North Carolina, our local population has
    declined over the last 20 years, and we struggle to attract and
    keep college-educated people as well as small businesses and
    small industry in our area.
        Even with all of these challenges, Pinetops is a wonderful
    community in what I consider to be the best part of North
    Carolina. We have all the benefits of small town life, but are
    an easy drive to small cities around us. We are a great place
    to live and to raise a family. And in March of 2016, our little
    town got symmetrical gigabit speed broadband internet service
    that made my 25-year-old nephew in Raleigh jealous.
        But our own State legislature has constantly fought to
    disconnect us and take away the best economic, educational, and
    lifestyle benefit we have had in 50 years. Like most small
    areas, ours got left way behind in the technology boom. As the
    internet exploded, we struggled to get much more than a dial-up
    connection. Our only provider showed little interest in
    upgrading their antiquated services beyond what they billed as
    high-speed internet, which was defined as up to 10 megabits of
    service. Speed tests commonly showed that that was really
    between 4 and 6 megabits download with less than 1 megabit
    upload. And that was within a quarter mile of their hub. This
    would have been great service in 2000, but in 2015 it was a
    serious challenge to running a small business and providing
    access to modern education or healthcare. Other providers
    served nearby towns in our area, but were not at all interested
    in serving Pinetops.
        So, around 2008, the city of Wilson, which is 17 miles west
    and in neighboring Wilson County, began providing gigabit-speed
    fiber-to-the-premises internet service to their citizens. They
    borrowed money from private investors and have repaid them with
    revenues from the network without using taxpayer dollars.
        The city of Wilson has provided electric service to the
    town of Pinetops for well over 40 years and has been a great
    partner for our little town. So, we asked Wilson if they could
    bring that fantastic internet service our way. Well, in 2011,
    the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that not only
    put significant restrictions on building municipal broadband
    networks, but also specified that Wilson could not take their
    network beyond the Wilson County line, which was 6 miles away
    from Pinetops. So, we were sentenced by our own legislature to
    being 6 short miles away from technology that could help us
    help ourselves.
        In 2015, the FCC preempted that state law and opened a
    window for Pinetops to invite Wilson to bring their internet
    service, which is called Greenlight, to us. So, in March of
    2016, Pinetops residents eagerly began signing on as Greenlight
    customers.
        I spoke with several people in town who telecommute or have
    small businesses, and the difference in service was amazing.
    One neighbor who works for a large banking operation described
    downloading and uploading her daily work files in 15 minutes
    instead of the hours it had taken with the fastest service that
    CenturyLink could provide. A small furniture manufacturer in
    town reported downloading large files from international
    customers in an hour or two rather than the 12-plus hours it
    had taken earlier. A local fire chief was able to use for the
    first time online video resources to train his volunteer
    firemen. Families with multiple children no long had to
    timeshare to finish their online assignments. The service was
    fantastic, and we on the town board were working to promote
    Pinetops as the little town with symmetrical gigabit internet
    service.
        But, once again, our legislature betrayed us. The state
    sued to overturn the FCC's ruling, and they won. Greenlight
    would have to be forced to leave Pinetops, and we would be
    forced to take 10 giant steps back economically.
        About the same time, Hurricane Matthew hit, and we were
    flooded terribly. The Greenlight techs were there within hours
    of the roads opening and hooking up the emergency shelters and
    the disaster operations. Our town board, with the enthusiastic
    backing of the residence and business, were eager to fight to
    keep Greenlight. And so, we were able to get an exemption, with
    a lot of fighting, that would allow Pinetops to keep
    Greenlight. But, if another provider came in providing fiber
    services, Greenlight would have to leave. And we couldn't get
    language in the legislation that would make that service have
    to be comparable or serve everyone in town.
        So, we got the exemption and we were happy with that. But
    now, Suddenlink has decided that, since they didn't want to
    serve us with basic service, now they are bringing fiber to
    Pinetops. So, Greenlight has to leave.
        Good internet service in today's economy is as essential as
    electric power was in the forties and fifties. Rural areas and
    small towns then had to be creative and resourceful and rely on
    municipalities and co-ops to provide electricity in areas that
    private providers weren't willing to serve. If not for the
    forward-thinking leaders of that time, it is hard to imagine
    how small-town America would have survived. We still have to be
    creative and resourceful in keeping our towns alive. We have to
    be given the freedom to use all the tools we have.
        I need to emphasize that, while Pinetops now has broadband
    access, that great service is limited to our 1-mile-square town
    limits. Wilson would be connecting those homes, small towns,
    farms, and outlying areas if the state barriers didn't exist.
        The solution to getting rural communities connected will
    not come from one-size-fits-all legislation. It will not come
    from waiting for large providers to come to our communities.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired. If you
    can wrap up?
        Ms. Coker Craig. Yes, ma'am. I am sorry about that.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Coker Craig follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mrs. Blackburn. You are perfectly fine. We are so
    appreciative that each of you are here. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        This concludes our testimony, and we will now move into our
    Q-and-A portion of our hearing. And I will yield myself 5
    minutes for questions.
        Mr. Stroup and Mr. Aiken, I want to start with you. In your
    testimony, you mention existing alternatives in the marketplace
    to a big government approach that removes the ability for
    states to make important decisions that directly impact their
    financial health. One of the bills that does cause me concern
    is the Community Broadband Act, which I think would threaten to
    undo much of the progress that is being made across the
    country. The bill is essentially a further-reaching version of
    the FCC's failed 2015 Municipal Broadband Order, which
    basically preempted the fiscally-responsible measures that
    Tennessee had put in place regarding municipal networks.
        So, Mr. Stroup, can you expand on the differences, the
    specific advances, that some of your member companies have made
    in recent years that have positioned them to become competitors
    in the broadband market across the country? And is there
    anything additional that we can do to help increase
    competition?
        And then, Mr. Aiken, to you, kind of looking in that same
    vein, but from the wireless side, talk about how fixed wireless
    has become a viable alternative. And are there specific
    examples that might be illustrative to the committee?
        Mr. Stroup, to you first, please, sir.
        Mr. Stroup. As I noted in my testimony, certainly the most
    important things that our members have done is to increase the
    capacity of the satellites that have been launched as well as
    the speed, which ultimately makes the services more cost-
    effective. So, I noted just the change in the last 10 years,
    there has been a 20 times increase in the capacity of the
    satellites. Satellite services start at $49 a month. And so,
    those are the two and three most important things that the
    industry has done.
        As I also noted, there are plans to launch additional LEO
    satellite systems. To give you a sense of that, there are
    approximately 1700 satellites on orbit today. There are
    satellite applications that have either been granted or pending
    at the FCC for over 18,000 satellites. So, the growth in the
    industry is tremendous. The capacity that will be available is
    increasing accordingly.
        And the thing that is most important to us is continued
    access to spectrum and technology neutrality. Without spectrum,
    we do not have the opportunity to grow, and we just want to
    make sure that neither Congress nor the FCC weights the scale
    against any one industry against the other.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Thank you for the question.
        I think it is best illustrated with a story. Many farms
    across our great country are not connected to broadband, and
    this was the story of Lone Oaks Farm in Middleton, Tennessee,
    that didn't have any broadband connectivity to the farm. Along
    came Crossroads Wi-Fi, a fixed wireless provider who offered a
    robust business-grade broadband connection to that farm using
    the spectrum band that I mentioned in my opening testimony, the
    CBRS band.
        Through that broadband connection, that 2,000-acre farm was
    on the short list to be considered by the University of
    Tennessee for purchase. The University of Tennessee purchased
    that farm, turned it into a 4H state facility and a research
    institution. And that small, local provider was able to grow
    the bandwidth with the university, and it is just a great story
    of how a small provider can provide big solutions to rural
    America.
        Mrs. Blackburn. I appreciate that, and that is a beautiful
    property.
        Mr. Forde, permitting issues are a struggle. I would assume
    small providers are disproportionately impacted. But we hear
    about permitting issues regularly. They talk about the
    burdensome application process. I wish you would elaborate on
    that and, also, the fact that the Senate now has a discussion
    draft that would streamline small-cell deployment.
        What we need to do is look at what more is needed to
    unleash this private capital, to streamline this process, and
    to make available more small cells that are like on the grain
    elevator at your location.
        Mr. Forde. Well, thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
        Regarding the first part of your question, we have worked
    very hard to continue to deploy broadband. We have had some
    issues in some areas. Recently, in North Dakota we tried to run
    some fiber from the Killdeer area up to Watford City and to
    Williston. We had to hire several engineering firms, and some
    difficult permitting issues crossing the Missouri River. So,
    that is certainly one of the issues that we faced. That project
    was delayed by several months that allowed service to get to
    those areas.
        Regarding the small cell, certainly utilizing those areas
    and some of our more urban areas in our footprint in that
    legislation, but also I don't know if that is the solution for
    some of our rural areas. We believe that the fixed wireless
    technology will be able to cover much greater distances between
    those elevators, between those farms, and the small cell will
    be good for some areas that are a little bit more urban, a
    little bit more populated.
        We want to make sure, also, that we have a level playing
    field there, us as a provider, that those folks----
        Mrs. Blackburn. My time has expired.
        I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Aiken, the Commission is currently considering changes
    to the license structure of the CBRS band. Based on your
    testimony, it sounds like many of your members had already
    started making investments in new technology based on how this
    band was to be structured.
        First, I would like to ask you, do you think that if the
    Commission acts to expand the geographic size of the spectrum
    licenses, that your members and other rural providers will be
    able to successfully bid for those licenses?
        Mr. Aiken. The short answer there, Congressman, is no.
        Mr. Doyle. And what do you think will be lost if the
    licenses in these bands are made to be like traditional
    cellular licenses?
        Mr. Aiken. So, this band, it is absolutely critical to
    expand rural broadband. As you mentioned, a number of our
    members have already built out in the band. We polled our
    members. Over 60 percent of them had made investments in
    reliance on the rules. Like I said in my testimony, these are
    small companies providing big service in rural America, and
    this would hamper their ability to reach new customers that are
    within range of their towers.
        Mr. Doyle. Basically, it is your opinion that expanded
    license size will actually hurt the deployment of broadband in
    rural areas?
        Mr. Aiken. I believe so, and we have a proposal before the
    FCC that is backed by a large number of rural providers that
    would retain some small area license that would enable our
    providers to participate in the auction.
        Mr. Doyle. I want to talk about the lower C-band, too. In
    the lower C-band, several satellite providers have proposed
    freeing up a portion of the band to be auctioned for mobile
    broadband license service. However, a broad array of
    stakeholders have proposed spectrum-sharing rules in the rest
    of the band that would enable fixed, locked, wireless
    broadband. What are the merits of this proposal over the other
    proposals that would seek to transition the entire band to
    mobile broadband use? And to be honest, are these proposals
    even realistic?
        Mr. Aiken. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        I think in this band we have a fantastic opportunity to
    enable gigabit fixed wireless in rural America and a way to do
    so consistent with everybody getting a win here. We are part of
    a much broader Broadband Access Coalition that includes, again,
    a broad array of rural interests. And we put forth a proposal
    that would effectively clear some of the spectrum for 5G, would
    put some rational protections in place for satellite earth
    stations, and would make the remainder of the band available
    for license point-to-multi-point fixed wireless. We believe
    this approach would have a significant impact of the
    availability of broadband in rural America.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Ms. Coker Craig, your testimony and the story of your
    community is very compelling. And apparently, you have good
    barbeque down there, too, although Butterfield didn't share any
    of that with us.
        [Laughter.]
        But we have had other people from communities that have
    provisioned their own broadband infrastructure here to testify
    before us. It seems to me that every one of them seems to be
    happier with the service they provided themselves than any
    other available commercial option.
        Tell me what some of the advantages are of self-
    provisioning.
        Ms. Coker Craig. Well, it was amazing the difference to be
    able to call if there was any problem or any problem with
    anything with the connection, to call and you talk with someone
    in Wilson who knew where Pinetops was. And the speed and the
    reliability of their services and technicians were amazing.
    They know us. They are our friends and neighbors. We could
    usually get things fixed sometimes within a couple of hours.
    Sometimes they could do it over the phone. But, if not, they
    would have a technician there sometimes in 30 minutes.
        And it was just a tremendous asset to a business. When you
    are operating a business, that time is money. And when you are
    having to wait for 2 and 3 days for a technician to come and
    fix your internet, it is well worth it to switch over to
    Greenlight.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes.
        Well, Madam Chair, I see my time is almost expired. So, I
    will yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        And again, to our witnesses, thank you for being here. I
    thought I might put a photo up, or two, of Wallowa County, just
    so you can enjoy the home view.
        And while we are working on that, Ms. Word, this is Chief
    Joseph, a statue--they do a lot of bronze work there--with the
    Wallowas behind. And Chief Joseph Days are coming up the
    weekend after next. So, if you have got spare time and want to
    come out and enjoy Chief Joseph Days, we would be happy to host
    you. But you can see these photos, the wide-open spaces, some
    of the farming community out there, and then, another look with
    the Wallowas in the background.
        When I learned for the second year in a row rural
    healthcare facilities like yours were facing a 25-percent cut
    in their requested funding under the Rural Health Care Program,
    I encouraged the FCC to take a close look at the program in
    order to help telehealth facilities pay for the cost of this
    connectivity. I talked to the Chairman and his team.
        So, I was really pleased in June when the FCC increased the
    funding for the Rural Health Care Program by $171 million a
    year, increasing the cap for the program to $571 million,
    effective immediately. It is a 43-percent increase in funding.
    It represents what the funding level would have been today if
    the original $400 million cap that was established in 1997 had
    been adjusted for inflation.
        If the additional funding had not been provided, what would
    these cuts have meant to Wallowa Memorial Hospital from your
    perspective?
        Ms. Word. Thank you for the question.
        I think, simply, it would have been decreased access,
    increased travel time, inconvenience for patients. It is ones
    that aren't feeling well; travel is difficult. Family members
    are often taking time away off work as well. And then,
    increased cost to the patient and to the community to provide
    services or allow services out of town.
        Mr. Walden. In your testimony, you identified several
    barriers to expanding telehealth. You mentioned restrictions on
    Medicare reimbursements for remote patient monitoring,
    burdensome state licensing requirements, and the capital
    associated with developing and maintaining telehealth programs.
    Of these barriers, which do you think is most significant? What
    impacts you the most?
        Ms. Word. Because we are very patient-centered and patient-
    focused, I think the biggest barrier is the remote monitoring
    or access for those remote, whether it be a remote clinic,
    hospital, so that we can service the patients.
        Mr. Walden. And are there additional barriers the way the
    current Rural Health Care Program is formulated by the FCC?
    Anything there we need to be aware of?
        Ms. Word. Not that I can think of off the top of my head.
        Mr. Walden. All right. When you mentioned that the nearest
    critical-access hospital after yours is 65 miles away, do you
    want to describe what that journey is like in the winter?
        Ms. Word. Well, if the roads are open, not snow and ice, it
    is a windy, two-lane highway. You are traveling with log
    trucks, potentially farm equipment, not so much in the winter
    probably. It is 65 miles, but it takes over an hour to make the
    journey.
        Mr. Walden. That is down a narrow, windy, two-lane road
    down into the river bottom and, then, up the canyons and out
    and around. It is tough territory. So, if you lose service, if
    the fiber gets severed, what happens then?
        Ms. Word. You have no connections. You are relying on your
    own internal services within the county, within the cities. And
    that is not unusual. We have lost all connection. Your
    electronic health record goes down, your phone communication.
    We do drills around this. We are prepared for it because, for
    us, it is a reality.
        Mr. Walden. And talk to me about the interconnectivity
    among the other providers in the community there, the clinic,
    pharmacy, some of those things.
        Ms. Word. Sure. We are really very fortunate in eastern
    Oregon and Wallowa County, especially that we have separate
    clinics, we have our hospital, but we really function together.
    If you came from the outside, you would think it was one
    entity. Some of these specialists, they may be initially
    contracted with a non-hospital-owned clinic. Yet, we can still
    use them for an inpatient in the hospital. The clinic will use
    services that we have set up in the hospital as well. Wallowa
    Valley Center for Wellness, mental health and behavioral
    health, has a great telemedicine program that benefits everyone
    as well.
        Mr. Walden. All right. My time is about expired, Madam
    Chair.
        Thank you. And thanks again for making the journey.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The chairman yields back.
        And, Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Butterfield has left, but I will tell a story behind
    his back, but don't tell him. Shortly after he got elected to
    Congress, he thought he was kind of a big deal, like a lot of
    us. And he was back in Wilson, right next to Pinetops, and he
    went into a diner. A number of women were there, and they knew
    him. They looked at him and they said, ``You know, that is
    pretty good you got elected. Someday you may amount to
    something. You may be mayor of Wilson.''
        [Laughter.]
        And it is that hometown commitment, actually, that is so
    wonderful about a lot of your testimony.
        Mr. Walden, just the description in those pictures, they
    are very evocative for so many of us in our rural areas.
        I just loved your testimony about how important it is to
    get that broadband there.
        Now there are two things. No. 1, I think, Madam Chair, it
    is a little premature for us to congratulate ourselves on what
    we have done for rural broadband because it kind of stinks in a
    lot of places. It really does.
        No. 2, what Congress has to do, first and foremost, is we
    have got to dedicate funds to the buildout of broadband. There
    is just no escaping that. It is just like we made a decision in
    this country in the thirties about electricity. There was no
    economic case to be made for our utility companies to build out
    electricity in rural America, none. But we made a decision
    here, our predecessors did, that there was a social case to be
    made for it because rural America has the kind of people like
    you are describing, like Mr. Walden is describing. And we need
    them.
        So, money is really going to be important. I just have to
    say this. All of us who are dedicated to our rural
    constituencies, unless we are going to put some money in there,
    it is not going to go there. So, that is No. 1.
        No. 2, how to do it? We have got to be flexible. That is
    why I really enjoyed your testimony, Ms. Coker Craig, because I
    live on a dirt road, an 8-mile dirt road, and we have got great
    broadband. It was local people created a nonprofit. I don't
    know how they managed to defy expectations, but they went up
    and down the roads and they got each of us to invest a little
    bit. And we get that kind of service that you are talking
    about.
        So, I want to start asking a few questions. I will start
    with you, Mr. Aiken. If we get the money--and that is what we
    need--how do we deploy it in a way that is flexible? Because
    some of those pictures I saw from Mr. Walden, we don't have
    those in Vermont. There is a lot of hills and valleys. And one
    size does not fit all. So, how could we, if we had the money,
    deploy it in a way where we don't micromanage how to do it in
    Pinetops versus Tennessee? Do you want to comment on that?
        Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
        We represent predominantly small businesses. We have a
    couple of dozen providers who are participating in the upcoming
    Connect America Fund Auction. But what I have heard from my
    members time and time again is that complicated applications
    and difficulty----
        Mr. Welch. Well, how do we make it simple, but accountable?
    I do think it has got to be done at a local level. Anybody
    else, comment on that? You did it in Pinetops, right?
        Ms. Coker Craig. We did.
        Mr. Welch. How did you do it?
        Ms. Coker Craig. Well, like I said, we worked with the city
    of Wilson. The only thing, we had that small window of time
    with the FCC ruling. That was the only way we were able to do
    it because the state legislature had said there would be no
    more expansion past the Wilson County line.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Anybody else want to comment on that? How do
    we have accountability if we deploy money, but flexibility? So,
    where a community is ready to go and they have got whatever it
    takes, we can get them going. Anyone?
        Mr. Aiken. I can take a stab at that, Congressman.
        I think accountability on the back end is important. I
    think we are comfortable with a reverse auction design like
    that which is included in the LIFT America Act. We think that a
    streamlined, but accountable application is important. That is
    one of the reasons why we think the principles in the BROADBAND
    ACCESS Act are so important.
        Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
        Ms. Word?
        I am going to yield back. I am out of time. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        I will say, we put $670 million in the omni, our U.S., for
    deployment, and $171 million at the FCC for rural healthcare.
        Mr. Lance, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lance. Yes, thank you.
        That brings me to my questions regarding the additional
    funding that we put into our U.S. for a new loan and grant
    program for rural broadband.
        To Mr. Forde and Mr. Aiken, from your perspective in rural
    America, what is the best way this funding could be deployed in
    order to reach the most Americans in need with the amount of
    resources that the government has placed in that program?
        Mr. Forde. Certainly, focusing on those areas that are
    truly unserved to make sure that we take care of them first I
    think is very important, and, obviously, being technology-
    neutral. We, of course, have our fiber networks. We deliver gig
    through high-frequency cable, and then, we use the fixed
    wireless tools to reach the last mile. So, having all those
    things work.
        And I think there are some unique broadband grant programs
    out there. The State of Minnesota has a program where you get
    more points if you put more private capital into it. There is a
    challenge process to make sure that there is no overbuilding
    taking place, and a lot of unique things with that program that
    we work with that really help to find those areas that are
    truly unserved that need it most, and we are not spending too
    many federal dollars on those.
        Mr. Lance. Do you know, do other states intend to proceed
    the way Minnesota has proceeded, as you have outlined it?
        Mr. Forde. Not currently in our Midco footprint. Kansas, I
    believe, has looked at it a little bit, but they are in the
    initial stages of that process.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Yes, I would echo what Mr. Forde said, that a
    focus on unserved areas is critical. Ensuring that private
    capital isn't overbuilt by government subsidies is also
    critical. And we also believe that there should be a focus on
    cost-effectiveness in the program. We have a limited number of
    dollars. We have a lot of people to serve. And we need that
    money to go as far as possible.
        Mr. Lance. There is, of course, a difference between
    underserved and unserved. Mr. Aiken, from your expertise, how
    many Americans are completely unserved?
        Mr. Aiken. The number is smaller than those that are
    underserved. I think the FCC counts 24 million as not having
    access to advanced telecommunications capability. That number
    includes folks who have access to less than 25/3 broadband. But
    our members are focused on providing that high-speed service
    that rural Americans need.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you.
        Would anyone else on the panel like to comment?
        Mr. Stroup. Yes, I would like to comment a minute.
        Mr. Lance. Yes, of course.
        Mr. Stroup. I would like to emphasize that last year alone
    two of our member companies, ViaSat and EchoStar, launched
    satellites with the advanced technologies that I talked about
    with 25/3 FCC-defined broadband speeds. Both of those companies
    have announced plans for their next satellites. And I talked
    earlier about the LEO systems that have been announced. So, our
    members are not looking for subsidies in order to provide these
    services. They are moving forward with launching this capacity,
    and certainly, as I noted earlier in my testimony, provide
    coverage across the entire country. So, certainly the industry
    is moving forward with launching additional capacity to provide
    service to all areas of the country without any subsidies.
        Mr. Lance. Yes. Thank you.
        I live in a State, New Jersey, that is the most densely
    populated in the nation. We are well served, by and large, but
    I want to assure the panel that I will continue to work on this
    issue, as the sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that
    is important for this area.
        And to those from the great State of Tennessee, my wife and
    I met in law school at Vanderbilt, and I have a great affection
    for your wonderful state, not only because the chairman is from
    that state, but also from personal experience.
        I yield back a minute, Chairman.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, first, want to
    thank the Chair and the ranking member for holding this
    important meeting today. It has been great testimony.
        And thanks to all of you on the panel today for your
    testimony and for answering the questions.
        It is clearly no secret to those of us on the committee
    here that I do like to talk about rural broadband. I am from
    Iowa. I have 24 counties in Iowa. It is not quite a fourth of
    the State geographically, but it is quite a bit. And then, how
    to build out capacity in Iowa and the rest of rural America. At
    one point, the Chair even called me ``Broadband Loebsack,'' and
    that is a flag that I am very happy to fly while I am on this
    committee, while I am in the Congress.
        In my district, as many of you know, farming is a huge part
    of the economy. I thank Mr. May and John Deere for all the
    great work that those folks do with respect to the farming
    community in Iowa and around the country, and, indeed, around
    the world for John Deere.
        Farmers across America are facing a lot of challenges right
    now. We don't need to talk about trade, but there are a lot of
    things that are facing these farmers right now, a lot of
    challenges. It makes it more important than ever I think for
    our communities in the rural areas and the agricultural
    communities to be as efficient and productive as possible.
        To help lend our farmers a hand, I joined with
    Representative Latta in introducing the Precision Agriculture
    Connectivity Act. I really appreciate the fact that you folks
    were behind that, obviously, Mr. May. That bill, as was stated,
    as you know, would create a task force to help the FCC figure
    out how to deploy broadband on agricultural land to promote
    more precise farming techniques.
        Mr. May, I would just like to ask you, from your company's
    perspective--you did mention this already a little bit--what
    would having robust broad access mean to so many of your
    customers who really need precise and efficient farming
    equipment? What does this technology mean for agricultural
    productivity as well?
        Mr. May. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        Maybe I will give you a couple of examples of products that
    will unlock a lot of productivity and, frankly, more
    sustainability within agriculture. No. 1, I will go back to the
    sixties and where we saw a three times increase in productivity
    because of technology introduced at that time. That journey
    continues. Today, what is driving that journey is access to
    machines in the farm, on the farm field.
        For example, we have the ability today to stream computer-
    generated prescriptions directly to a planter based on the
    field conditions in that field and have the planter plant in
    the most optimum way. When the farmer is in combining, picking
    the corn in the field, we are sensing the environment that that
    combine is in and connecting back to the cloud to stream
    recommendations on how to optimize that combine, based on
    exactly what it is sensing within that field.
        Also, when we have a machine go down, you know what that
    means to a farmer. When that machine stops, it is dollars
    flowing out the window of the cab, and we need to get the
    machine up fast. With internet connection, we can connect
    remotely directly to that machine and diagnose the problem that
    is happening and get them back up and running quickly.
        So, we believe this phase of internet-based agriculture is
    going to unlock tremendous value and productivity and
    sustainability.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right, and feed America and feed the world.
        Mr. May. Absolutely.
        Mr. Lance. Just briefly, last September I went to visit a
    farmer in one part of my district. I got there and he was
    getting the corn in. And I knew how important that time was to
    him. So, I said, ``Listen, we don't have to go in your house
    for an hour and talk about the issues. Do you mind if I get in
    the cab with you?'' And that is what we did to bring the
    harvest in. And he was talking to me about the technology. It
    was really quite amazing.
        But this particular bill, I am proud. I have worked with
    Congressman Latta on that. We have got to make sure that we
    have the information, so that these machines can operate as
    effectively as possible.
        Are there any other things you would like to add that we
    could be doing along those lines?
        Mr. May. First of all, thank you for your work on that. We
    believe that that will bring a significant amount of value to
    agriculture across the United States.
        I think one of the other things that could be helpful is
    maybe a joint study between the FCC and the USDA----
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Mr. May [continuing]. To truly understand where do we have
    the issues, where it is unserved, as was mentioned----
        Mr. Loebsack. That is right.
        Mr. May [continuing]. And underserved, so that we can
    attack these problem areas directly.
        Mr. Loebsack. And that is connected to my other question,
    actually, too. I am probably just going to have to ask this
    question for the record of you, Mr. Aiken, but it has to do
    with mapping, obviously. I am very happy to get my mapping bill
    through.
        But I do have a letter, Madam Chair, from Chariton Valley
    Electric Cooperative. If I could put that in the record with
    unanimous consent?
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Loebsack. And then, I will just submit a question to
    you, Mr. Aiken, for the record.
        Mr. Loebsack. And I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        And next week, he will have the opportunity to ask the FCC
    about doing that study, and I am sure he will.
        Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much for
    having this hearing today. It is very, very needed.
        I represent the largest farming and producing district in
    the State of Ohio. It is important to our agricultural
    producers out here to have this technology.
        I have served and serve as the Co-Chair of the Rural
    Broadband Caucus and also Co-Chair of the Rural
    Telecommunications Working Group. We believe that it is
    absolutely important that we get the broadband out to our rural
    areas of our country. And it is not only the ag side, but from
    the testimony we have heard from the other witnesses, if you
    can't operate a business or you can't operate a hospital, you
    can't do certain things out there if you don't have that
    technology. So, it is absolutely important that we have that.
        My area is a little bit different from the chairman of the
    full committee, where you saw the mountains in the background.
    If you look at my district, it is probably as flat as your
    table that you are sitting at. But we grow things and we are
    very productive there.
        But if I could ask my first question, Mr. May, does it
    matter to you what type of technology is used to deliver that
    broadband service to connect agricultural producers, customers,
    and vendors across America, as long as the service is safe,
    affordable, and effective at meeting the needs of those users?
        Mr. May. There are lots of technologies that can be applied
    to make agriculture more productive. Frankly, we think each one
    of them has a place and we are open to all of them, whether you
    talk guidance, GPS systems, using satellite-based networks, to
    guide vehicles in the field within centimeters, that plays a
    critical role. Internet connections and the ability to stream
    large quantities of data is also significant. For us, we think
    there are several technologies that can be leveraged within
    agriculture, but, certainly, internet connectivity is critical
    from the data side of agriculture.
        Mr. Latta. What would you say especially on the GPS and
    being able to be within centimeters? About 2 years ago, I was
    out in the southwest part of my district. What we were doing at
    that time, they were showing how--my mom grew up on a farm. My
    grandfather used horses back in the thirties. I saw in your
    testimony that Deere has been around now for 181 years. My
    wife's family has been on the same farm in northwest Ohio for
    185 years.
        Mr. May. Excellent.
        Mr. Latta. But that day that we were out, they were putting
    in fertilizer in furrows to keep from having runoff or anything
    like that. But in the spring, when they were going to go out
    and plant that corn, they were going to be able to put it
    within an inch of where that furrow was. That is what that
    technology does. So, we appreciate that.
        Mr. May. Absolutely.
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Stroup and Mr. Forde, if I can ask you, will
    both of you provide examples of how your industries are working
    to promote rural broadband for precision agriculture, and what
    are some of those broadband solutions?
        Mr. Stroup. I would like to start by noting that precision
    begins with GPS, as you noted. It is important to recognize
    that GPS is provided via satellite. Also, precision agriculture
    involves earth observation, weather information which is
    gathered via satellite, and the ability to take the imagery and
    refresh it on a daily basis, all one of the capabilities of the
    satellite industry.
        But, to get to the communications aspect of it, the
    addition of the capacity that we have been talking about is an
    important aspect of what the satellite industry is doing. That,
    in combination with flat-panel antenna technology, which
    provides the ability to build it into every tractor/combine and
    provide continuous connectivity, because, ultimately, one of
    the great advantages of the satellite industry is ubiquitous
    coverage. So, we have complete coverage of rural America. The
    important thing that we are doing in terms of the capacity is
    adding additional satellites and the high technology that we
    have talked about.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Forde, I have got about 49 seconds, if you can answer
    that?
        Mr. Forde. Absolutely. One of the greatest examples is we
    have a small group of elevators, and the farmers in that region
    are now able to use Midco fiber running to some of those
    elevators and connecting that group of elevators through fixed
    wireless technology. So, the farmers are able to tell and
    direct their trucks when they are dumping out their grain and
    instantly be able to see where their grain was going in, and
    being able to see those records immediately online. So, I think
    that tool has been great for that, that group of elevators and
    the farmers in the area to make sure they know how much grain
    was going and how much was unloaded.
        Additionally, we have grain dryers. Of course, drying corn
    takes a tremendous amount of stuff. You have folks and farmers
    that are monitoring grain dryers almost 24 hours a day to keep
    those things running. Well, fixed wireless technology allows
    them to do some of that from their easy chair in their homes
    and spend more time with their families
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, my time is
    expired.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. McNerney, you are recognized.
        Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairwoman and I thank the
    panelists.
        Ms. Craig, state and local governments in California are
    doing important work right now with private industry to build
    out broadband in the state. I believe our state is leading the
    Nation when it comes to forward-leading policies in this area.
    But I am worried about calls to preempt state and local
    government in the name of streamlining wireless siting
    policies. In fact, California just rejected such a proposal on
    the state level. What we need, I believe, instead, is industry
    and cities working together to meet individual constituents'
    needs like what just happened in San Jose. Do you think the
    Federal streamlining of local government siting policy will
    make meaningful progress for bringing high-speed fiber to
    unserved and underserved areas?
        Ms. Coker Craig. Well, I think if that streamlining would
    give us the flexibility in local areas to work with our
    partners--and like I said, our partnership with Wilson was
    well-established. To me, it was a natural partnership. We
    trusted them. We knew that they were being fiscally responsible
    with this network. So, if that streamlining would simplify and
    give us the flexibility that we need, because rural areas are
    very unique. Some things may work for one area, but not in
    another.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, that is the point, isn't it, that you
    don't want a uniform federal policy that preempts local/state
    policies in some name of streamlining?
        Ms. Coker Craig. Right, but we also need to get past those
    barriers, those barriers that we had, and our response was the
    state government.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks. Rather than fighting against
    local governments, I think local governments and industry could
    work together to find meaningful solutions. The Broadband
    Finance, Investment, and Innovation Act that Congress Lujan
    introduced--and I am cosponsor of--would help public/private
    partnerships gain access to capital for deploying high-speed
    broadband. I think you could make a real difference in
    districts like mine and others. Do you think the use of PPPs,
    as this legislation envisions, would allow Federal Government
    to work constructively with local governments?
        Ms. Coker Craig. It sounds like it would. I am not terribly
    well-versed on that legislation, but it sounds like it would.
        Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. May, for some time now I have been raising concerns
    about cybersecurity and internet-connected devices. The LIFT
    America Act, of which I am a cosponsor, would acknowledge these
    concerns by requiring that all broadband projects funded by the
    Act would have to work to meet network and security
    specifications. What might cybersecurity vulnerabilities mean
    to farmers who are using advanced agricultural technology?
        Mr. May. Farmers today that are utilizing these advanced
    technologies are streaming large quantities of data, not only
    to their own farm, but to their trusted advisors to help them
    make better decisions.
        John Deere has been very transparent in our role to make
    sure that that data is as secure as possible, it is accessible,
    and it is easy to share. We have also tried to work with Farm
    Bureaus to develop more standards around what sort of security
    protocols should be in place. We believe that the security of
    data is critical and we support continuing to invest in that.
        Mr. McNerney. But what risks do farmers have, the ones that
    are actually using the technology?
        Mr. May. The risk the farmer could have is if their data
    gets in the hands of somebody they didn't intend it to. So,
    their yield data or how they planted the fields, what seed they
    used, that is their IP, and if that got in the hands of, I
    planted this hybrid, I sprayed with this sort of application,
    and I created a yield 10 percent higher than you, that is IP.
    And if that were to get in the hands of somebody else, then it
    is a loss to the farmer.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Ms. Word, in your testimony you point out that fewer than
    50 percent of households in the bottom income quintile use
    internet at home, and that narrowing this divide would become
    even more important as healthcare moves to a value-based
    system. Can you expand on your testimony and talk about the
    health implications if lower-income middle Americans are unable
    to afford access to broadband at home?
        Ms. Word. Sure. Thank you for the question.
        Those patients at that lower socioeconomic status are often
    some of the less healthy patients or they don't access
    healthcare as frequently. So, there are ways that we could do
    in-home monitoring, whether it is video, phone, email,
    monitoring of their health conditions that would prevent
    readmissions maybe to the hospital, improve their health, get
    them regular visits with their doctor when maybe they can't
    even afford to drive in to the clinic.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
    meeting.
        I would like to start by thanking my Co-Chair from
    California, Doris Matsui. We have worked on the Spectrum Caucus
    together. It seems like every meeting we have here we talk
    about spectrum, but it is so important.
        I just want to point out, in the RAY BAUM Act, there was
    also just nuances of technology policy. It is amazing. We had
    actually put in there the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act, just
    so they could deposit bank deposits for selling of spectrum.
    That was asked for by Chairman Pai. And the chairwoman was
    great to work with us and have this in the mark, so that we
    could move forward. And I appreciate you doing that.
        I am also pleased with the Commission's work on midband,
    licensed and unlicensed bands, that can help us keep the U.S.
    on the cutting edge of 5G, rather than letting China or any
    other person try to beat us to that.
        Mr. Forde--and also Mr. Aiken, I might ask you to comment
    on the question for Mr. Forde, but if you would comment?
    Starting with the spectrum question, I know that you are trying
    to provide service for unserved areas by using fixed wireless
    technology. And you say in your testimony that you need access
    to more spectrum in order to accomplish that. Charter is doing
    similar things in Kentucky. So, thanks for your efforts.
        And for Mr. Forde and Mr. Aiken, how much spectrum do you
    think is needed for fixed wireless and what would be the
    results for consumers? And what more can we do on this front?
    We can start with Mr. Forde and, then, Mr. Aiken.
        Mr. Forde. Yes, certainly, access to more spectrum, most
    importantly, the type of spectrum that works best for our
    customers and our people in rural areas. We need to make sure
    that the spectrum is offered, provides interference protection
    out there. I know the C-band has been talked a little bit about
    today, but we are, of course, an existing cable television
    provider and we use that C-band to provide television service
    to tens of thousands of customers across all the states that we
    serve. And that is the only option that we have. So, if we were
    to look at that band for fixed wireless, we need to make sure
    that that is also protected.
        And one of the bands that isn't being used as much in our
    area is the 2.5, the educational broadband. One of the reasons
    we really like that spectrum is because it is able to go
    penetrate dense forests, tree lines, things like that, and get
    through those obstacles. Obviously, it does have a certain
    educational benefit. I live in a very rural area. My kids go to
    a school out in the country 5 miles from my house. And I am
    amazed, even at their young age, how much work that is destined
    on having that good, reliable internet connection.
        So, yes, I think we need more spectrum in all these areas
    to accomplish it, but let's make sure it works for everybody.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
        Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
        Yes, I would echo what Mr. Forde said. We are looking at a
    lot of midband spectrum, so the same sort of spectrum bands
    that Mr. Forde mentioned, the EBS spectrum at 2.5 gigahertz,
    the 3.5 gigahertz spectrum, the CBRS band which the FCC is
    currently considering, as well as the 3.7 to 4.2 spectrum band.
    That midband spectrum has great characteristics to be able to
    go a long ways and carry a significant amount of bandwidth,
    which is perfect for radios that have to go many miles to
    houses in rural America.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
        Another concern, I have a district that could be a little
    bit of--Bob Latta just said his is as flat as a table, some of
    the best farmland in the country. And I have some that doesn't
    have the mountains quite that my friend from Oregon has, but
    beautiful mountains and lakes, and Mammoth Cave, if anybody
    wants to visit, is there as well. So, it is a beautiful place,
    but it is rural and, also, it is suburban and urban.
        I live in Bowling Green, which is kind of a boom, tied in
    with the work our chairwoman has done in Middleton, such a boom
    town. We are kind of tied in with that. I am hour from
    Nashville.
        If you look at mapping, so I am talking about if you look
    at mine, you would say Bowling Green is covered with broadband.
    And we have some friends out here from Connected Nation which
    is a local hometown group that does the mapping. But it depends
    on where you live. I have very rural counties that is exactly
    what we are talking about. But, even where I live, some people
    won't develop; they can't move forward because people don't
    want to buy a home that doesn't have broadband access moving
    forward. So, just in mapping, getting more specific in mapping,
    I think we are talking about it is just too broad to say that
    one county is covered or not.
        My question is for the panel. I didn't leave you much time.
    But what recommendation do you have to improve the granularity
    and accuracy of the data collected? And what recommendations do
    you have to improve it? Should NTIA coordinate with the
    Commission or are there other ideas about giving it to NTIA
    solely? Anybody? I only have two seconds, so if one of you
    wants to get that? Just making mapping better, NTIA.
        Mr. Stroup. Certainly, I would start with ensuring that the
    information is up-to-date. We have recognized that, given the
    advances in the satellite industry, the fact that we do provide
    25/3 coverage is not included in the current map.
        And one other technology that I would acknowledge that I
    think will be useful in terms of the broadband mapping is
    technology that is being deployed that allows for RF mapping
    from space. Ultimately, I would recommend that that company's
    technology--they are launching their first three satellites
    this year--be considered to be able to identify where there is
    actually a signal, rather than just identification of hopes
    that there is a signal.
        Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. We are out of time. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        We talked about spectrum is absolutely necessary to meet
    the coverage requirements of rural broadband networks. In 2004,
    Congress created the Spectrum Relocation Fund to assist Federal
    agencies relocating or sharing spectrum for wireless broadband
    use. And in 2015, Congress made improvements to the SRF by
    allowing agencies to use SRF funds for engineering research and
    development. But current law limits how much of these funds can
    be used by agencies to fund the research and related activities
    necessary to potentially reallocate or share their spectrum.
    Last month, my spectrum partner, Congressman Guthrie, and I,
    along with Senators Wicker and Schatz, introduced the SPECTRUM
    NOW Act to fix this problem. Specifically, the framework of the
    SPECTRUM NOW Act could provide a pathway for NTIA and DoD to
    make additional 100 megahertz of spectrum available in the 3.4
    gigahertz band.
        Mr. Aiken, what potential does a 3.4 gigahertz band have
    for WISP networks, and how could the SPECTRUM NOW Act help meet
    the growing demand for networks across rural America?
        Mr. Aiken. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for your
    leadership on this issue. We are incredibly supportive of that
    legislation, and it could make a real difference in rural
    broadbands, particularly if the FCC gets the rules right on the
    3.5 gigahertz or CBRS rulemaking, because that would allow
    these fixed wireless radios to just simply have a software
    upgrade and be able to utilize the spectrum in that band as
    well.
        Ms. Matsui. Right. OK. Thank you.
        Narrowband IoT networks are particularly useful for long-
    range, low-power applications. Specifically, these networks
    improve capacity, spectrum efficiency, and power consumption
    levels of user devices. Narrowband IoT networks have potential
    both nationwide and particularly for rural coverage. These
    networks can co-exist with commercial mobile networks, and
    their propagation characteristics provide better range and
    reduce coverage costs for consumers in both rural areas and
    across the country.
        The entire panel, what potential benefits do narrowband IoT
    networks have in rural areas from a spectrum efficiency, cost,
    and deployment perspective?
        Mr. Stroup, would you like to start?
        Mr. Stroup. Certainly. I think, as you noted, narrowband
    signals are more spectrum-efficient and you can put them in
    smaller allocations. Companies like Iridium, which is a
    satellite-based company that has been providing IoT services in
    rural America for some time. So, those services are already
    deployed. They tend to be more cost-effective just because they
    do not have the same power requirements, either, that broadband
    systems do.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
        Mr. Forde?
        Mr. Forde. We would be happy to get back to you on that.
        Ms. Matsui. Oh, certainly.
        Ms. Matsui. Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Sure. We generally view those networks as
    incredibly complementary to fixed wireless networks. It enables
    a lot of connectivity on farms that have a lot of benefit to
    precision agriculture efforts. We view those networks as
    complementary, and we see customers of our members who are
    farmers utilize both.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine.
        Mr. May?
        Mr. May. That technology we believe will play a role in
    machine-to-machine communication----
        Ms. Matsui. Yes.
        Mr. May [continuing]. But very limited capability if you
    have to upload data to the cloud. So, where we are sharing maps
    within a field between planters, it makes a lot of sense. But
    if we need to transfer data to or from that machine, it has
    limited capability.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine.
        Ms. Word. I will claim a little bit of ignorance, being a
    healthcare practitioner and not as much on the technology side.
    But I can say, with our diverse terrain in our county, I think
    we take advantage of just about every opportunity that is out
    there.
        Ms. Matsui. I am sure.
        Ms. Word. Certain technologies are going to work better in
    different areas.
        Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
        Ms. Craig?
        Ms. Coker Craig. I will also claim ignorance in this,
    proudly. But it sounds to me like it is just another option,
    and it points again to the flexibility that small communities
    need to have in working with whatever tools they can get.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. I don't have much time, but I want to ask
    the question on the C-band, about the particular clearing
    mechanism that could be used to allow additional terrestrial
    use in the 3.7-4.2 gigahertz band. In particular, NRPM has
    sought comment on whether market-based or the auction approach
    could be utilized to clear the spectrum that could, then, be
    made available for terrestrial mobile use.
        Mr. Stroup, I am interested in how a voluntary market-based
    mechanism would function for the very services currently being
    utilized in the C-band.
        Mr. Stroup. I think one of the most important things to
    keep in mind with respect to the C-band is just how heavily
    used it is. As part of the NOI process that the FCC went
    through, there were a number of users that came forward, and
    there are thousands of earth stations serving over 120 million
    people for video distribution services. Ultimately, if the FCC
    does decide that they are going to make any of that spectrum
    available, a market-based approach where they have an
    opportunity to work with a customer base, meaning the satellite
    companies have an opportunity to work with the existing
    customer base, is more likely to achieve the goals in the short
    term.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much, and I have run out of
    time. Thank you very much.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Olson, you are recognized.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair.
        And welcome to our six witnesses. Not to mislead you all,
    Texas 22 is two-thirds the suburbs of Houston, Texas, and one-
    third rural. That means corn, milo, cotton, and cattle. Our
    smallest farms and ranches are doing just fine. They have the
    broadband access that greater Houston has, but that access can
    disappear in a few hours in a natural disaster, like Hurricane
    Harvey.
        We learned a lot from Hurricane Ike that hit us in 2008. We
    bury our lines deep in the soil, so that stayed up a lot. We
    still lost some connectivity during the storm. And as you know,
    the most precious, lifesaving commodity in a disaster is
    information. We found out, too, our process for permits needs
    to be streamlined to provide that lifeline.
        And that is why I introduced H.R. 4045, the Connecting
    Communities Post Disasters Act. This legislation allows Federal
    disaster areas to be exempt from the National Environmental
    Policy Act and the Historical Preservation Act. That just lets
    communities get going quickly to rebuild.
        Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    introduce two letters of support for my legislation, one from
    the NTCA and one from the WIA.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Olson. Mr. Stroup, a question for you, sir. What are
    your main considerations from your perspective in the industry
    that Federal agencies can streamline disaster requirements and
    just streamline process for permits overall, especially in
    disasters? Any advice for Federal Government to act, so we
    don't have the problems we had with Hurricane Harvey?
        Mr. Stroup. Certainly, the satellite industry provides
    important capability in hurricane and natural disaster events
    because we have our infrastructure in the sky. From a
    permitting perspective, just the opportunity to be able to get
    our earth stations located, if they are not already in place,
    and work with existing customers, like the cellular industry,
    in order to be able to get their portable systems up and
    running. So, our infrastructure we don't need permitting with
    respect to that. It is the earth stations where we can benefit
    from a streamlined process.
        Mr. Olson. As a side note, DIRECTV addition to our home was
    basically weather radar. Without the TV, guess what is going to
    hit us in about 10 minutes? A big, nasty thunderstorm. So,
    thank you for that.
        My next question is for you, Mr. May. I saw the third
    generation of agriculture revolution in northwest Fort Bend
    County a few years ago. The farmer was not a farmer. He was
    what I call a manager of farm technology. He had this massive,
    huge John Deere tractor, a big, self-contained cockpit, air
    conditioning. It had a little radio, a satellite radio. The
    tractor was driving itself. What made that so special is he was
    putting every seed down perfectly, the same distance apart, the
    same depth, making all the turns. And so, that is exciting.
        You talked about, also, 4G. It is just the fourth
    agricultural revolution which uses artificial intelligence and
    machine learning to allow farmers to be more productive, be
    better farmers. Can you discuss the benefits of AI in the
    agricultural sector?
        Mr. May. Absolutely. We are really excited. We call this
    the fourth generation, if you will, of farming. The new
    technologies that are available to us are going to bring--the
    way I like to describe it is, today, a farmer, that farmer
    still relies heavily on his eyes for vision to see what is
    happening in the field. He relies on the 30 years of knowledge
    he has in head. And then, he makes adjustments with his fingers
    on the computer to optimize the machine. Computer vision,
    artificial intelligence, and robotics are going to help make
    that farmer even more better.
        We recently acquired a company called Blue River that is
    focused on eliminating up to 90 percent of chemicals that are
    used in the field by only spraying the weeds that are located
    within the fields. So, it is a huge advantage to productivity
    and, more importantly, sustainability.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you. I have 18 seconds left. So, I would
    like to offer my help to you, Mrs. Coker Craig, the whole town
    of Pinetops, North Carolina. My dear friend, Mr. Butterfield,
    talked about having barbeque at Abrams. With all due respect,
    ma'am, if you want the best barbeque in America, that is in
    Texas, Texas barbeque.
        [Laughter.]
        I offer you to come to either Killen's in Pearland, Texas,
    or The Swinging Door in Fort Bend County to have the best
    barbeque in America.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. And I will challenge that.
        [Laughter.]
        Anybody ever heard of Memphis and the barbeque competition?
        [Laughter.]
        All right, Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, I can't recommend a barbeque in Silicon
    Valley, but----
        [Laughter.]
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having this. This is a
    very important hearing. When at least a third of our country is
    either underserved or not served in the second decade of the
    21st century, that is a major issue for our country. Our
    Founding Fathers knew that, to be a united country, that
    Americans needed a nationwide communication system. And so,
    this is a very important responsibility that we have.
        I want to thank the witnesses. Each one of you I think has
    been excellent. And you have touched, in a deep and broad way,
    either what your association members are doing, what your
    companies are doing, what is happening in healthcare, and what
    is happening in municipalities.
        I want to thank the chairwoman for, in her opening
    statement, making a positive comment about the dig-once policy
    that was in the RAY BAUM legislation. It is sensible, dig once.
    I don't know why no one ever thought of it before we did it. I
    guess it was, as my grandmother used to say, the most uncommon
    of the senses is common sense. But, at any rate, we got that
    one done.
        Now, at the same time, she was critical of the Community
    Broadband Act, and that undermines state legislatures. Now I
    had very purposefully introduced that legislation because I
    think it is important to examine what is standing in the way,
    why are we not making headway, especially in rural areas. And I
    have that, too, in my district. Imagine, in Silicon Valley
    there are people that are either underserved or have no service
    whatsoever. I think most people would be stunned to realize
    that.
        There are today about 20 states that have outright
    prohibitions or bans relative to municipal broadband. Now I
    think that these state legislatures are undermining local
    municipalities from coming up with their own solutions. I come
    from local government, like you, Ms. Craig, and I really have a
    reverence for local government. I prefer a bottom-up than a
    top-down in many cases. Now there are some cases where I
    believe a national umbrella is very important relative to
    Federal policy for our country.
        I want to ask you, Ms. Craig, why do you think anyone would
    do that? It has been proven to be effective. Cities like
    Chattanooga and Wilson were stopped from deploying high-speed
    broadband access to people who want it. Now there is a whole
    variety of reasons that we can stitch together why we are where
    we are, one-third of the country. But who did this in your
    state?
        Ms. Coker Craig. Well, the primary----
        Ms. Eshoo. Who are the interests? Who are the interests
    that went to the state legislature to make sure that this
    access was banned?
        Ms. Coker Craig. My understanding is it was the big telecom
    industry.
        Ms. Eshoo. You got it.
        Ms. Coker Craig. It was the large----
        Ms. Eshoo. That is my softball or hardball question to you.
        So, I think we need to put the facts on the table. And that
    is that the very large interests, very large money holds sway,
    and this is holding back local communities from creating a
    choice. In most cases, it is much cheaper, too. So, that is
    what is happening in the country. If people want to stay with,
    stand with their state legislature for especially screwing
    their local communities, so be it, but that is what is
    happening. That is what is happening, and that is a very big
    thing in our country, especially because one-third of the
    country is not getting what they need.
        I want to ask the panel--well, I don't have enough time.
    So, I will put that question to the full panel. Your single one
    best idea on how we can advance? I will put that in writing and
    look forward to your response.
        Thank you for being here today. I think you are all part of
    the solution.
        Ms. Eshoo. Again, I thank the chairwoman for having this
    hearing.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
        Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And thanks to our panel for joining us today.
        I represent a very rural part of the country, the entire
    eastern flank of the State of Ohio, all along the Ohio River.
    Broadband access is one of my top priorities. We must figure
    this out. A one-size solution doesn't work everywhere in the
    country. And the digital rural divide is very, very real. We
    are losing a tremendous amount of intellectual capital from
    young people to entrepreneurs, to you name it, kids that can't
    do their homework, businesses that won't come into a rural area
    because they can't get access to the internet to connect with
    their customers, their suppliers, manage their employees. There
    is a host of reasons why this is somewhat urgent, I would even
    say in many cases desperate, situation for economic
    development.
        And some people think that it is a pie-in-the-sky luxury to
    have access to high-speed internet, and that is simply not
    true. In a digitized world that we live in today, where we do
    business across the oceans like we used to do business across
    town, you have got to have access to the internet. And I think
    that starts with being able to accurately identify those areas
    that are unserved and underserved. And that has been a
    complicated, and yet, inadequate effort up until now.
        That is why I was glad to introduce the MAPPING NOW Act,
    reasserting NTIA's authority to go do this. I am also pleased
    that the discussion draft to reauthorize NTIA tasks the
    administration with facilitating more accurate granular maps of
    broadband coverage, so that we can get on with this process.
        Mr. Aiken and Mr. Stroup, Administrator Redl recently
    stated in his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee
    that ``NTIA has long been a leader in gathering and analyzing
    broadband adoption and data, and on May 30th, 2018, NTIA
    published a Request for Comment to determine the most efficient
    path forward.''
        Gentlemen, could you offer your thoughts as to what NTIA
    should consider when thinking about how to get the most
    accurate and reliable data to properly inform broadband
    investment decisions? I don't think it is rocket science, and I
    am really frustrated with the length of time and the lack of
    progress.
        Mr. Aiken, let's go with you first; then, we will come down
    to Mr. Stroup.
        Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
        We are actively engaged with NTIA on its rulemaking on
    mapping efforts and appreciate their work on this issue.
        We share the frustration at the lack of good data out there
    on broadband deployment. It means that folks who might be
    eligible for the Connect America Fund aren't. And there are a
    host of other problems that you accurately identified.
        One of the things that we think we can potentially do is
    move, particularly for a fixed wireless perspective, to a
    polygon method of characterizing deployment. That is something
    that we think we can do without unduly burdening our smallest
    members. Our association is made up of mom-and-pop companies.
    So, regulatory burden is a pretty significant concern. But we
    are actively working towards finding solutions that will work
    both for our members and for the data needs of our country.
         Mr. Johnson. Mr. Stroup?
        Mr. Stroup. We also have engaged with NTIA and encouraged
    them to take advantage or to reflect the most up-to-date
    capabilities, as I note with respect to the satellite industry,
    the 25/3 capabilities. And also, the point that I had made
    earlier about utilizing new technologies to be able to do RF
    mapping, to be able to determine where there is, in fact, a
    signal.
        Mr. Johnson. Sure. Well, like I have said, I don't think it
    is rocket science, but guess what? Even if it is a rocket
    science, we have got rocket science in this country.
        [Laughter.]
        We ought to be able to figure this out, and it ought not to
    be this dadgum complicated.
        But, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Ms. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you so
    much for holding this really important hearing.
        And thank you all. I am sorry some of us have been going
    back and forth between other hearings.
        But this is critically important. I represent Indianapolis
    suburbs and rural communities in central Indiana. Not too long
    ago, I had the opportunity with FCC Chair--and one of the
    members of the committee--Carr to visit Beck's Hybrids and saw
    something that was really quite amazing.
        And so, I guess, Mr. Aiken, and maybe Mr. May, they have
    what they call FARMserver, where they have created their own
    server and service to help with precision ag. And it is
    simplified, but it allows their clients, not just their own
    customers, but others who are participating in FARMserve, to
    generate reports such as yield by soil type, yield by hybrid,
    yield by prescription. It is seed selection streamlined, field-
    focused recordkeeping, full support, taking information from a
    farm office out into the field very precisely, but, then,
    aggregating all of this data. And they have this massive server
    system data storage up in northern Hamilton County. I was not
    aware they were doing something of this level of
    sophistication, although they are an incredibly tech-savvy
    company, and always have been.
        We talked about data security, and that is not what I am
    going to go into. But their customers and those who they are
    working with, I asked about whether or not 5G, which is now
    being implemented in Indianapolis and some of the surrounding
    areas--you mentioned 4G. That is what, Mr. May, made me think
    about 5G. This type of service could have, I think, a dramatic
    impact on the ag industry. They used a WISP called On-Ramp.
        Can you all talk with us? Is this happening anywhere else
    in the country or are they truly unique in the country? I am
    just curious, Reynolds Farm Equipment, a great John Deere
    dealer, is right down the road from them. Can you all talk
    about this a little bit, Mr. Aiken maybe, and you may or may
    not know about this, Mr. May, in 5G. Yes?
        Mr. Aiken. Sure. So, thank you, Congresswoman, and I really
    appreciate you going out to visit our member, On-Ramp Indiana,
    and see the work that they are doing as a really small company,
    but bringing big connectivity and enabling the kind of
    innovations that you just mentioned in your statement.
        I think this is indicative of what our members are doing
    across the country. A lot of our members are actually farmers,
    in addition to being broadband providers. So, they understand
    what farms need in order to be able to be successful, both in
    the broadband world and in the farming world.
        But, as far as 5G is concerned, I think we have to
    remember, when we talk about 5G, that 5G is not only mobile. 5G
    is also fixed wireless.
         Mrs. Brooks. Right.
        Mr. Aiken. And a lot of the same technical innovations that
    we see going into the mobile space also will be in the fixed
    space. So, our members, if we have adequate access to spectrum,
    can provide these gigabit or multi-gigabit speeds to farms who
    desperately need the connectivity for big data.
        Mrs. Brooks. Mr. May, anything you would like to talk about
    5G?
        Mr. May. Yes. Yes, absolutely. First of all, 5G would bring
    additional capability in streaming larger sets of data. But,
    today, we have a similar system. It is the John Deere
    Operations Center, where a John Deere farmer today is streaming
    on a real-time basis from the field directly to our cloud-based
    ecosystem all of their agronomic data that, then, they can
    share with any of their trusted advisors in order to make
    better decisions and stream it directly back to the machine in
    the field. So, as we advance the internet connectivity, that is
    only going unlock more value within the field.
        Mrs. Brooks. Are there many companies like John Deere and
    Beck's doing this across the country or is it really just the
    largest? And the other thing I want to mention is, so many of
    these companies are also near small towns. We often think of
    urban and rural, but small towns like Pinetops and others. Do
    we think we are going to get 5G to small towns, to Pinetops,
    North Carolina? I mean, what are we going to do? Because I
    think we are going to be jumping to 5G very fast.
         Mr. May. Yes, our system is a global system that extends
    across the globe that uses multiple different internet
    capabilities. 5G, frankly, is a luxury from a data transmission
    standpoint, but we are leveraging today 3G and 4G as well to do
    the same thing.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thank you all so much for your
    testimony. I really appreciate all your work.
        I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yields back.
        Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
    much.
        I thank the panel for their testimony.
        One of the most important topics of discussion as we
    continue to build new connections and upgrade systems is
    resiliency. We saw what happened, of course, in Florida, Texas,
    and Puerto Rico. Now we are hurricane season, 2018 hurricane
    season. Similarly, other parts of the Nation face their own
    natural disasters, not just hurricanes. They face the threats
    that can impact connectivity and slow emergency communications.
        Mr. Forde, as Midco continues to expand to unserved
    markets, as well as upgrade existing systems, what precautions
    are being taken to help ensure that these systems are resilient
    to natural disasters, which for your area would be tornado
    threats, of course?
        Mr. Forde. Yes, the first thing is, obviously, we build a
    lot of redundancy into our system. Multiple fiber rings of
    sizes large and small allow that technology to go back around
    the ring. So, if we do have a fiber cut or an instance, that
    instantly reroutes, and is the first step in keeping up for
    lost service.
        Additionally, we have had some disasters in North Dakota
    and tornadoes and flooding. We have responded with providing
    free Wi-Fi and things for those communities on an instant
    basis. We have some trailers and things that we do. They are
    our friends. They are our customers. We do the best we can to
    make sure their communications are always working and up and
    running as fast as possible. If, for some reason, the main
    lines aren't working, we provide alternate forms of technology
    to get them up and running right away.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
        Continuing on the top of natural disasters, Mr. Stroup, in
    your written testimony you stated that satellite technology can
    deploy temporary-fix installations and very small aperture
    terminal antennas in the aftermath of a disaster to help
    communities get reconnected. The question is, how long does it
    take to deploy these systems to an impacted area? And what
    actions need to be taken by consumers in order to use these
    temporary systems if they do not have a preexisting
    relationship with that satellite provider?
        Mr. Stroup. The systems can be deployed in a matter of
    hours, depending upon where the equipment is located. I think
    what happened in Puerto Rico is a good example, where carriers
    have come forward and noted that satellite needs to be
    considered an important part of the infrastructure for the
    rebuilding process because of the speed and capability of the
    industry. For consumers, very often it is a matter of going to
    a point where there is a satellite connection. A good example
    is in Puerto Rico where people lined up at a grocery store to
    be able to use satellite technology. So, it is something that
    very often is used in conjunction with cellular systems. So,
    they are providing the backhaul where the cellular system has
    gone down. With other technologies, point-to-point
    technologies, it is not necessarily as applicable in terms of
    providing the point-to-point technology, but more being able to
    provide the backhaul capability.
        Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good. I appreciate it very much.
        And I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Cramer, you are recognized.
        Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thanks to all of you. My goodness, I am sitting here.
    As you know, I have sat here the whole time, and I have loved
    every minute of it because I see solutions. I have to agree
    with Ms. Eshoo. She said, you look at the six of you and you
    find the solution to the problem.
        I was thinking about the Precision Agriculture Connectivity
    Act, and what would that task force that the FCC will set up,
    should we pass this bill, look like. And I think it looks a lot
    like this, quite honestly.
        We do have competing technologies collaborating to create a
    ubiquitous network that is not reliant on any one of you. It is
    reliant on all of you and several others. That has, I think,
    been both the opportunity and the challenge, that we do have
    competing technologies. We didn't have that with the Interstate
    Highway System. We need a ubiquitous transportation system to
    move products to market and people from coast to coast. And so,
    we have this very public highway system. When it was time to
    bring electricity to the farm, the REA did it beautifully, but
    there weren't competing technologies. Today, of course, there
    are more community-based power sources, things like that, but
    not at the time.
        But you all are in something where there is a lot of
    competition, and you all are in something that needs the
    product. How it gets there is not as relevant as that it gets
    there, right? So, I think we have the makings of a great
    collaboration among competitors.
        We hear a lot now today, of course, about satellite. We
    hear a lot about cable and fiber and fixed wireless and
    community-based, all of those things. And then, we haven't
    talked a lot about mobile, but some, and not a lot about
    nomadic, but, of course, some. All of that has got to work
    together to get it there.
        But I want to ask you, Ms. Word, as I hone in a little bit
    on the tremendous opportunity that I see in telemedicine in
    rural America. With 36 hospitals in North Dakota, and still a
    lot of space between them, the bill we were able to do a couple
    of years ago, it allowed Universal Service funds to be used,
    for example, to connect nursing facilities, which I think was a
    good step in the right direction.
        One of the things, though, we always hear about--and God
    bless Mr. Welch for raising the fact that some of this does
    cost money, right, particularly in unserved and underserved and
    maybe profit centers it requires some money. And we provided
    some and more, and probably need to do more.
        But, at the same time, we often don't talk about the
    savings or the opportunities. For example--and this is what I
    want to get to you--in your testimony you talked about that
    telemedicine, the benefit of it, the value of it. Has there
    ever been a cost-benefit analysis of people being able to stay
    at home longer or maybe be in a community-based health center
    longer because they have ubiquitous access to the experts
    somewhere else? Because we always talk about the cost, not
    necessarily about the savings.
        Ms. Word. I don't know about an official study. I am sure
    they have been done. I know our facility, and also Grande Ronde
    Hospital, the one that is 65 miles away, has looked at the
    number of miles saved. That translates to gallons of gas, the
    hotel rooms, the time off of work that, whether it is the
    patient or family member, don't have to take.
        Most of the savings I think is for the hospital and
    probably our primary care providers. They are able to assist
    these specialists. Often, they will do their visits side-by-
    side with the primary care provider in the room.
        Mr. Cramer. Sure. What I wonder, because you talked about
    reimbursement issues, right----
        Ms. Word. Yes.
        Mr. Cramer [continuing]. And what is not allowable. It
    would seem to me that we ought to take a real serious look at
    how, whether it is private insurance or Medicare in most cases,
    is reimbursing, how they might save by reimbursing something
    that they might not think is healthcare, if that makes sense.
        Ms. Word. Absolutely. Reimbursement is a huge issue, both
    for the originating site and the distant site. I will tell, we
    don't really even consider for us, being the originating site,
    reimbursement. We often don't even bill. Whoever we are working
    with on the other end, they pay us $25 per patient, a max of
    $100 a day. We could do six, eight, twelve patients; we will
    get $100. We are about the patient and what makes it better for
    them. Healthwise, they often feel better if they are at home
    and they are with their loved ones, their spouse, their
    children, more comfortable with being at home.
        Mr. Cramer. Excellent.
        And I am just going to wrap up my last 10 seconds here with
    the aggies. Thank you, John Deere. We haven't talked about
    unmanned aerial vehicles and the opportunity for imagery there,
    and the ability to use--the beautiful thing about rural
    America, besides the fact that they grow enough food for the
    world, is that they do have a lot of available spectrum. It
    might be owned by somebody or licensed by somebody else or just
    not available, but it is available. If we can find ways to
    enhance the imagery, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to
    change the world with precision agriculture, and I know that
    you all are about doing that.
        And I have overstepped my time, Madam Chair. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Long, you are recognized.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        As a point of personal privilege, just for the record, I
    would like to state that, as everyone knows, Arthur Bryant's
    Barbeque in Kansas City would make Memphis and Texas barbeque
    want to run and hide.
        [Laughter.]
        So, I just want to get that out.
        Mr. Aiken and Mr. Forde, in this Congress I have introduced
    H.R. 4817, the PEERING Act. The focus is on improving broadband
    infrastructure in rural America. The bill would set up a
    matching grant program at NTIA to make peering centers more
    resilient where ones already exist and create new ones where
    they are needed, mainly across the Midwest, where Arthur
    Bryant's Barbeque is.
        Do you think this bill would help combat the strain on
    rural providers having to deliver consistently increasing
    amounts of internet traffic, including high bandwidth video
    transmissions? Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
        And I have to say, also, for the record, that I will be
    making a road trip through Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky
    this summer. So, I will have to sample the barbeque.
        Mr. Long. We will look for your report.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Aiken. I will submit that for the record.
        [Laughter.]
        But I appreciate the question. The cost of backhaul is a
    very significant cost for a lot of rural providers in terms of
    getting to that point where they can peer with other providers.
    So, I really appreciate your efforts to try to do things to
    reduce that.
        Mr. Long. What else can be done in more rural areas? I have
    several rural areas in my 10 and a fraction counties. A lot of
    it is rural America, and I don't think that the kids trying to
    do their homework should be affected differently than the kids
    in the city. So, what else can we do in more rural areas to
    keep service high quality and the speed fast?
        Mr. Aiken. From our perspective, Congressman, the answer is
    spectrum, and spectrum done in a way that makes sense for small
    companies. We have a ton of small providers out there in rural
    America providing broadband now, but the spectrum they are
    using is crowded. Like I mentioned previously, we have folks
    who have customers within range, potential customers within
    range of radios right now, but insufficient spectrum to do it.
        Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Forde, do you think this bill that I have
    introduced would help combat the strain on rural providers
    having to deliver consistently increasing amounts of internet
    traffic, including high bandwidth video transmissions?
        Mr. Forde. Obviously, we are delivering gigabit speeds
    across all of our footprint from Bowman to Battineau and
    Williston to Wahpeton in North Dakota.
        So, I wanted to make sure I said ``Hi'' to my Congressman
    Cramer up there as well. Excuse me, Congressman Long.
        But, yes, we certainly really believe that increasing those
    speeds would be great. One of the ways that we can really do
    that is, again, as Mr. Aiken said, more spectrum. Again, we
    really like the 2.5 gigahertz band of spectrum to put out that
    speed because it allows for interference protections and also
    to get through some of those tough, hard-to-reach areas through
    trees and woods, and things like that. So, yes, we constantly
    have efforts to increase speeds all across our footprint.
        Mr. Long. And what else can be done in more rural areas to
    keep service high quality and speeds fast?
        Mr. Forde. I think that the continued deregulation to allow
    us to keep focused on investing in our networks is very
    helpful. Allowing us not to have teams in rooms and even a
    floor full of people working on some of those regulations
    allows us to do what we do, and we do real broadband and
    continue to invest for our customers.
        Mr. Long. Thank you.
        And I didn't realize Senator Cramer had joined us, but
    thank you for pointing that out.
        I appreciate everything this committee does, and has been
    doing, in promoting broadband deployment.
        I would like to submit for the record a letter from the
    Missouri Electric Cooperatives about what they have been doing
    in Missouri.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Long. And last, but not least, I would love to get
    bipartisan support for my bill, H.R. 4817, the PEERING Act, and
    hope to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
    on this.
        Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Mr. Costello, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Forde, as you state in your testimony,
    you acknowledge that government assistance is sometimes
    necessary to reach areas of the country where there is no
    business case for private investment. But, to efficiently
    leverage USF funds to the areas that need it most, we need the
    federal government to collect and disseminate data that more
    accurately reflects the digital divide. This is why
    Representative Loebsack and I introduced the Rural Wireless
    Access Act, signed into law with the help of this committee in
    the spring. This bill directs the FCC to establish consistent
    data collection practices for mobile service coverage. Can you
    highlight some of the problems that arise from overbuilding
    with Federal dollars and how this committee can steer agencies
    to more efficiently focus efforts on the truly underserved
    areas of the country?
        Mr. Forde. Yes. I think Midco, as a company that is already
    providing robust service, and some of the communities already
    had multiple providers, and, of course, we had been overbuilt
    in many of those communities with those Federal dollars. What
    we have seen is there are still areas just outside those fairly
    large communities--places like Mitchell, South Dakota,
    population of approximately 15,000, had multiple providers
    there providing a high level of speed. But, yet, there are
    still people just not far from town that are unserved or
    underserved in that area. So, to the extent that we can focus
    on those first, that will be a much better use of those federal
    dollars, and let's make sure that we do that in a technology-
    neutral manner. Whether it is a fiber connection, whether it is
    the high-frequency cable, or the fixed wireless technology to
    reach those, let's use the best tool that we have in the
    toolbox.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Stroup, I recently introduced the WI-FI
    STUDy Act to highlight the economic benefits that result from
    unlicensed spectrum use in assisting internet traffic
    management, and how that will help us realize the benefits of
    an interconnected world with more efficient transmission of
    data. Can you talk about some of the roles that unlicensed
    spectrum can play in closing the digital divide in rural
    America? Second, can you also specifically touch on how
    unlicensed spectrum may play in the satellite industry?
        Mr. Stroup. Yes. Certainly, at least one of our members is
    working to show the value of community Wi-Fi connected by
    satellite systems. Wi-Fi, as you know, utilizes unlicensed
    spectrum. I think it is a combination of those technologies
    that provides an opportunity to be able to provide low-cost
    services in many of the areas that do not otherwise have access
    to service, and that is a great combination of unlicensed
    spectrum and satellite backhaul capability.
        Mr. Costello. Mr. Aiken, do you have anything to add on the
    issue of unlicensed spectrum and the role it can play in
    closing the digital divide in rural America?
        Mr. Aiken. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.
        Unlicensed spectrum is absolutely critical in closing the
    digital divide. The large majority of our members who are small
    businesses who have been, for lack of a better word, locked out
    of the license spectrum play for too long, have utilized
    unlicensed spectrum in predominantly the 2.4 gigahertz and the
    5 gigahertz bands to provide service. So, as I said in my
    testimony, additional unlicensed spectrum would be an
    incredible boon for rural broadband.
        Mr. Costello. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Flores, you are recognized.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for hosting this
    great panel.
        And, Panel, I appreciate your testimony. I echo what Mr.
    Cramer said. It has been a fascinating discussion so far.
        In terms of what Congress has done in this area to look at
    rural broadband, we have helped auction off spectrum for 5G
    deployment; we have streamlined the permitting processes; we
    are hoping to change the regulations, so we can put more
    broadband satellites in the sky; we are encouraging
    technological innovation, and we are simply funding government
    agencies and programs that drive broadband development. With
    that said, it is reassuring to see you all get together, as Mr.
    Cramer said, and offer us what we think are the solutions, what
    could possibly be the solutions for the future.
        My district, 90 percent of the population lives in about 5
    percent of the footprint. So, in terms of population, it is
    mostly urban and suburban. On the other hand, 10 percent of the
    population lives in 95 percent of the land area and it is
    rural. And so, broadband rollout is incredibly important to me
    in terms of representing that 10 percent of the population that
    has more limited access to broadband.
        Congress last year was working hard to deal with this when
    it took my Radio Broadband Consumer Protection Act, which
    ensured that broadcasters were protected in the repack to
    follow the first of its kind broadcaster incentive auction. In
    2012, the broadcast incentive auction, which raised $19
    billion, was part of Congress' effort to grow broadband
    development and access, but that legislation had an unforeseen
    impact, because at the time nobody realized that the radio
    broadcasters had not been protected. So, our legislation took
    care of that part of the repack of the spectrum, so that the
    wireless rollout for 5G and advanced 4G could continue on time.
    And that became part of the RAY BAUM'S Act, and that has become
    law now.
        Moving on to the next section, which has to do with
    regulations, last January I introduced H. Res. 701. That called
    for environmental and historic reviews conducted by the FCC or
    any entity regulated by the FCC to be limited to the area of
    impact. This resolution was part of this committee's effort to
    build out broadband. It promotes a more practical and efficient
    model for the modern deployment of broadband while respecting
    the oversight of historical and environmental impacts.
        I would like to start with that last issue first regarding
    regulatory reform. So, I would like to go through the entire
    panel. And this is the question: how important is it for
    broadband buildout that Federal requirements be proportional to
    the actual area being disturbed?
        Mr. Stroup, we will start with you. It is probably not as
    important for you as it is for the other folks on the panel.
        Mr. Stroup. Yes, certainly because the satellite industry's
    issues are somewhat different than the terrestrial systems.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Stroup. Our infrastructure is in the sky.
        Mr. Flores. Right.
        Mr. Stroup. So, for us, it is more a matter of ensuring
    that there is access to spectrum and that any technology that
    is adopted be technology-neutral. In terms of deployment of the
    infrastructure, certainly we utilize fiber systems, but that is
    not typically an impediment to the deployment of our systems.
        Mr. Flores. That is what I thought. How about in terms of
    your ground-based stations? Have you had any regulatory impacts
    in this regard?
        Mr. Stroup. So, we do have issues, but it is not a major
    impediment to the industry.
        Mr. Flores. OK. That is good to hear.
        Mr. Forde?
        Mr. Forde. Certainly we have, as I may have mentioned
    earlier, we have had some issues with the Army Corps and the
    permitting process in those environmental issues in reaching
    those tough areas. We also do feel that the fixed wireless tool
    can be very helpful in reaching some of those. So, those rules
    are also allowing us to do that without too much burden on our
    company. But, certainly, those regulations do slow us down in
    doing rural broadband.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Aiken?
        Mr. Aiken. Yes, I would agree with what Mr. Forde said. It
    is tough for a mom-and-pop business to have to pay $5,000 for a
    permit in order to hang a small radio on an existing tower. So,
    we appreciate the help that Congress and the FCC have been
    affording us on permit streamlining.
        Mr. Flores. Mr. May?
        Mr. May. Yes, we would agree. I think that speeding up the
    process would certainly help reach the areas that don't have
    service, and I think it is broader than we think. And we do
    those, but we are doing it in a sustainable way.
        Mr. Flores. OK. I would like to go to the next question. I
    will ask you all to answer supplementally.
        Ms. Coker Craig, you may have a response to that. Ms. Word,
    I don't know if it impacts you or not.
        Mr. Stroup, I suspect the satellite industry faces its own
    very unique regulatory impediments. Can you address the
    hindrances for deployment that the satellite industry faces?
        Mr. Stroup. Can you repeat that?
        Mr. Flores. Yes. Can you address the hindrances for
    deployment that the satellite industry faces?
        Mr. Stroup. Issues for deployment that the industry----
        Mr. Flores. Yes, hindrances.
        Mr. Stroup. Again, going back to the point that I made
    before, in terms of deployment, the biggest issue that we have
    is access to spectrum. We have a number of companies that have
    announced plans for deployment of their next generation
    technology, both GEO systems and LEO systems. So, the
    processing at the Commission is certainly an issue. We are
    going through a process with expediting small satellite
    licensing. But I think that the key points for us, again, are
    technology neutrality and access to spectrum.
        Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
        Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask
    questions, I thank all the witnesses for being here today. We
    appreciate your participation so much.
        Before we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
    following documents into the record:
        And I will start with you, Mr. Doyle. You have some to
    enter?
        Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        I know that it has been pointed out, the money that
    Congress has given to the Department of Agriculture's Rural
    Utility Service, and the FCC on the Rural Health Care Program.
    I just want to point out that the problem in rural America is
    way bigger than those efforts.
        I want to submit for the record an FCC study here that
    shows it will take $40 billion to build out 98 percent of the
    country. So, if we give the Agriculture Department the same
    amount we gave them this year, $600 million, it would take 66
    years before we got to 98 percent of the country. So, that is
    just a drop in the bucket, and we need to do a lot better.
        So, I would like to submit this study for the record.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the record.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. Unanimous consent to issue this following
    list of documents: a letter from ITTA; Wireless Industry
    Association; American Hospital Association; USTelecom; NTCA;
    the Rural Broadband Association; ACT, the App Association; CCA;
    Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute; CTIA; a blog
    post from NCTA; a letter from Rural Broadband Caucus members to
    House appropriators; Chairman Walden's slides; a letter from
    several associations supporting the AIRWAVES Act, from Mr.
    Lance; a letter to Mr. Olson from NTCA, submitted by Mr. Olson;
    a letter to Mr. Olson from the Wireless Industry Association,
    submitted by Mr. Olson; a letter to Mr. Long from the
    Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, from Mr. Long;
    and a letter to Mr. Loebsack from the Chariton Valley Electric
    Cooperative, from Mr. Loebsack.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, I will remind
    the members that they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions.
        And to you, our panel, if you will respond to those in
    writing within 10 business days of receipt?
        Mrs. Blackburn. Seeing that there is no further business to
    come before the committee this morning, the subcommittee is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]