[Senate Hearing 115-854]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-854
BROADBAND: OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES IN RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2018
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
57-492 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman
ROGER WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts
DEAN HELLER, Nevada TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma GARY PETERS, Michigan
MIKE LEE, Utah TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
CORY GARDNER, Colorado CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
TODD YOUNG, Indiana JON TESTER, Montana
Nick Rossi, Staff Director
Adrian Arnakis, Deputy Staff Director
Jason Van Beek, General Counsel
Kim Lipsky, Democratic Staff Director
Chris Day, Democratic Deputy Staff Director
Renae Black, Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 4, 2018.................................. 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 3
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 4
Introduction of Godfrey Enjady by Senator Udall.................. 5
Statement of Senator Udall....................................... 77
Statement of Senator Hassan...................................... 80
Statement of Senator Cortez Masto................................ 82
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 84
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 87
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 89
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 94
Witnesses
Denny Law, Chief Executive Officer, Golden West
Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc............................ 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Mona Thompson, General Manager, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Telephone Authority............................................ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Grant B. Spellmeyer, Vice President, Federal Affairs and Public
Policy, United States Cellular Corporation..................... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Godfrey Enjady, General Manager, Mescalero Apache
Telecommunications, Inc........................................ 72
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Appendix
Utilities Technology Council, prepared statement................. 99
Response to written questions submitted to Denny Law by:
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 100
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 102
Response to written questions submitted to Mona Thompson by:
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 102
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 103
Response to written questions submitted to Grant B. Spellmeyer
by:
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 110
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 112
Response to written questions submitted to Godfrey Enjady by:
Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto.................................. 113
Hon. Jon Tester.............................................. 114
BROADBAND: OPPORTUNITIES
AND CHALLENGES IN RURAL AMERICA
----------
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2018
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:08 a.m. in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. John Thune,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Thune [presiding], Klobuchar, Tester,
Udall, Cantwell, Hassan, Cortez Masto, Baldwin, Moran, and
Wicker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
The Chairman. Good morning and welcome to today's hearing
on a topic that continues to be critically important to this
committee and that's access for all the broadband services.
As Chairman, I want to share some principles that I believe
should guide the Committee with regard to building out rural
broadband.
First, rural Americans and the smaller businesses serving
them must never be an afterthought when making public policy
decisions.
Second, universal service cannot be achieved without
pragmatic and bipartisan cooperation in Congress and without
proper oversight of the Federal Communications Commission and
other agencies tasked with advancing this goal, like the Rural
Utilities Service at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Third, the certainty and sufficiency of funding for
broadband in rural America for carriers and end users must be
ensured.
Providing quality communications services at just,
reasonable, and affordable rates as a congressionally mandated
telecommunications mission has been in place for over 80 years.
In fulfilling this mission, one of the most crucial,
critical programs overseen by the FCC is the Universal Service
Fund's High-Cost Program. It has been more than a year since
Chairman Pai, Commissioner Carr, and Commissioner Rosenworcel
sat before this Committee and committed to conducting thorough
economic analysis of the impact of USF funding cuts on
broadband deployment in rural areas before allowing any further
reduction in the percentage of cost recovery for high-cost
areas.
Since that time, however, the cuts resulting from the FCC's
budget control mechanism have increased by almost 25 percent.
There has been no economic analysis of what these cuts are
doing to rural America, what they're doing to rural jobs, rural
economic development, and the ability to live and learn, work
and play in communities like Pierre, South Dakota; or Ocean
Point, Hawaii; Yankton, South Dakota; or Yakima, Washington.
The FCC has not conducted an analysis of what insufficient
and unpredictable funding is doing to the companies trying to
deploy broadband under some of the most difficult circumstances
in America. This is simply unacceptable.
The FCC's failure to ensure sufficient and predictable
funding jeopardizes the vitality of America's rural communities
and makes it much, much harder for our witnesses and others
like them to deploy broadband. The impact of the FCC's failure
is even greater in America's tribal lands.
The challenge of deploying broadband in these areas is
often greater than in rural America more generally and so the
impact of uncertain and insufficient funding is even more
severe for tribal communities in desperate need of the
communications infrastructure that brings more jobs and
improved education resources.
Just yesterday, I, along with the rest of the South Dakota
delegation, sent a letter to Chairman Pai in which we laid out
a strong case for immediate FCC action to restore sufficiency
and predictability to the High-Cost Program.
In my home state of South Dakota, support for rural
carriers will be cut by more than $11 million over a 12-month
period if the FCC does not act by the end of the year. That is
just the impact on South Dakota.
If the FCC does not act, these cuts can cause providers to
halt or cancel broadband build-out, reducing the availability
of broadband throughout rural America. Additionally, this could
also cause an increase to the cost of service to those who
already receive service, putting at risk investments already
made. Such an action by the FCC would be contrary to its
mission.
Another issue the Committee has frequently examined is
broadband mapping and how our current maps are insufficient.
Without accurate maps, we cannot build out broadband in truly
unserved areas.
On a more positive note, I am heartened to see FCC Chairman
Pai planning for an option for the Remote Areas Fund to provide
service to extremely high-cost areas, including both rate of
return and price gap areas.
I'm interested in seeing a tech-neutral approach for future
support from programs, such as the Remote Areas Fund, which
ensures that wire line service, fixed mobile wireless service,
and satellite service all have a part to play in connecting
Americans to next generation broadband service.
As I said at the beginning of my statement, rural Americans
should never be left behind their urban counterparts. That is
why I'm happy to have a panel of individuals who are uniquely
qualified to speak to the real-life challenges of running
broadband in rural America.
I want to thank our panel to Washington and look forward to
hearing from all of you momentarily.
I'll now recognize our Ranking Member, my neighbor from
Minnesota, Senator Klobuchar, for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
like our neighbors in South Dakota, we have many tribal lands
and I have noted many times visiting them the issues with
broadband.
This is the infrastructure challenge of our generation. I
remember back 10 years ago people were just concerned about
whether or not they had broadband. They wanted to send an e-
mail to their grandkid in college. Well, times have changed.
They need high-speed broadband and they need that to do their
schoolwork and they need that to do their work and they
certainly need that today in modern agriculture, with precision
agriculture, and what we're seeing all over our country.
The 2018 Broadband Deployment Report shows that more than
24 million Americans lack access to high-speed broadband and
for tribal areas, the report notes that only 31.6 percent of
rural tribal lands in the lower 48 states have adequate
broadband access.
In my home state, more than one in four rural Minnesota
households lack access and I hear it in every single rural
county that I visit and in every single tribal area.
Recently, I heard from a tribal member in Leech Lake who
told me what happened when one of their members got Wi-Fi at
their house and they were really excited and all of a sudden
they look out the window and there are 15 kids out there in the
yard doing their homework and it's a sweet story but it's also
a sad story to think that that was where the kids had to go to
the one house that was able to afford Wi-Fi.
We see that, of course, as the Chairman knows, with our
farmers that are going to town just to be able to do business
with their customers or the story I heard in Northern Minnesota
of a doctor who, while he could get Wi-Fi at the hospital, he
couldn't get it at his house and so when he had emergency
calls, he would go to the McDonald's parking lot to do
business.
This shouldn't be happening in the United States of America
in the year 2018, and as the Chairman noted, one of the most
effective tools we have to close the digital divide is the
Universal Service Fund.
This funding is crucial to help deploy and maintain modern
communications infrastructure in less populated areas. That's
the whole reason it was designed for low-income and also for
rural areas.
Current USF funding shortfalls are preventing new broadband
deployments and driving up prices for our rural customers.
That's why Senators Fischer and Moran and I have led some
efforts to try to push this funding as have so many others on
this committee.
In Minnesota, the insufficient USF budget is estimated to
cut support by more than 7.6 million over a 12-month period.
The Chairman, as was noted, has committed before this Committee
to address the funding shortfall before the end of the year and
I will be working to ensure that that deadline is met.
America's rural consumers can't afford to wait. If you lose
customers or you're not able to do your schoolwork, you can't
make up for that time. You can't make up for it if you can't
get into college because you weren't able to get the right AP
classes if you're on a tribal land. You can't make up for it if
you lose customers that your small business is working for.
That's why this is so important.
Beyond USF, we need to be prioritizing broadband funding as
a basic infrastructure investment. There are a number of us
that are co-chairs of the Broadband Caucus and we have called
for dedicated stand-alone broadband funding as part of any
infrastructure initiative.
I hope we get that infrastructure initiative going. There's
a lot of appetite for it around here and if we do it, it better
have a significant amount of funding for broadband, including
on tribal lands.
Mapping, I know that's something you're going to discuss.
Recent reports from the GAO show that the FCC's Broadband
Access Data on Tribal Lands frequently overstates coverage and
fails to take into account the quality or affordability of
service.
We know tribal communities are disproportionately
underserved, we've all seen it in our states, and that's why
this mapping is so important to improve.
Last issue, I'll bring up streamlining. We have worked to
streamline the deployment process by requiring coordination
between state departments of transportation and broadband
providers during construction so they only have to dig once
when they're doing other construction.
A provision based on this bill was included in the Mobile
Now Act and was recently signed into law and we have also
worked to include a provision to simplify the permitting
process on Federal lands.
For many rural and tribal communities, the cumbersome
process to get this going has been a major barrier to
connectivity.
These issues can mean the difference, as I note, between a
student doing her homework where she lives or in the school's
parking lot, between a farmer sending crop data from the field
or from the closest McDonald's.
In the 1930s, we worked to bring electricity and telephone
service to every home in America. Today, we need to put the
same effort into expanding broadband.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Mr. Chairman, just very quick. At a time
when both parties tend to run to their corners, I want to thank
you for your opening statement. It was spot on with rural
America and Indian Country and I want to associate myself with
your remarks.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Tester.
We have a distinguished panel, as I mentioned. One of our
panelists today is from New Mexico and so the Senator from New
Mexico, Senator Udall, wishes to make an introduction.
INTRODUCTION OF GODFREY ENJADY BY HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, and I would also like to
associate myself with your opening comments. I think they were
right on, also, and with Senator Klobuchar's comments, which I
thought were very good.
Thank you for the latitude to allow me to introduce my
friend, Godfrey Enjady, representing the National Tribal
Telecommunications Association as its current President.
His resume is stellar and includes General Manager of
Mescalero Apache Telecom in Mescalero, New Mexico; Chairman of
the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association's
Tribal Affairs Committee; and Designated Participant on the
Federal Communications Commission Intergovernmental Advisory
Committee.
Mr. Enjady, thank you again for your testimony yesterday in
the Indian Affairs Committee and here this morning. Your
comments are essential to help create a path forward to close
the digital divide in rural and tribal areas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the courtesies.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Chairman,----
The Chairman. Yes, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell.--Thank you for mentioning Yakima,
Washington, in your remarks, and I just want to--since you've
highlighted and my colleague here that we're having dual
testimony from a witness from the Indian Affairs Committee
yesterday, I hope our colleagues will get the testimony from
that hearing of GAO's report on how the FCC is not doing all
that it can be doing to help us here.
So I think a lot of information came to light yesterday in
the Indian Affairs Committee and obviously could be applied to
larger rural broadband, as well.
So thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
We'll get started. We have a great panel. Mr. Denny Law is
the General Manager and CEO of Golden West Telecommunications.
He's joined by Ms. Mona Thompson, who's the General Manager of
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority; Mr. Grant
Spellmeyer, who is Vice President of Federal Affairs and Public
Policy for U.S. Cellular; and then, as Senator Udall already
noted, Mr. Godfrey Enjady, who is the General Manager of
Mescalero Apache Telecom, Incorporated.
It's great to have all of you here. We look forward to
hearing from you. If you confine your oral remarks to no more
than about five minutes, we'll make sure that your entire
statements are included as part of the permanent record, and
we'll look forward to interacting with you.
So, Mr. Law, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF DENNY LAW, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICR, GOLDEN WEST
TELECOMMUNICATIONS COOPERATIVE, INC.
Mr. Law. Chairman Thune, Senator Klobuchar, Members of the
Committee, good morning and thank you for this opportunity to
testify on Broadband Opportunities and Challenges in Rural
America.
I am Denny Law. I'm the Chief Executive Officer of Golden
West Telecommunications Cooperative, based in Wall, South
Dakota.
Golden West was incorporated in 1916 for the purpose of
providing telephone service between the towns of Interior and
Quinn. Today, we provide service to over 30,000 customers
spread across 24,500 square miles. That's a geographic area
larger than the states of Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut,
and Delaware combined. The largest community we serve is about
3,500 people.
With more than 14,000 route miles of network in service,
that's enough to stretch from Wall, South Dakota, to Hong Kong
and back, it underscores the strides Golden West has made to
ensure that our customers have access to world-class
communications that make rural South Dakota a more vibrant
place to live and to do business.
Building broadband networks in rural areas is capital-
intensive and very time-consuming. The population is sparse,
the terrain quite diverse. Especially when crossing Federal
lands or railroad rights-of-way, small rural providers must
address permitting concerns or other hurdles that can delay
projects or increase their already high costs.
All of these factors make the delivery of broadband in
rural America a sustained commitment. We miss the mark as a
nation when we treat the broadband challenge as a one-time
declaration of success based on the preliminary act of
connecting locations.
The construction of rural broadband networks is important
but also challenging. It's also just the beginning.
Despite these many challenges, rural broadband has far-
reaching benefits for both urban and rural America. In my
written testimony, I share the stories of students in rural
South Dakota learning Spanish from a teacher working from her
farm, a broadband-enabled small business with overseas
customers operated by a rancher in Western South Dakota, and a
Golden West customer able to publish a book from home using
online tools. These stories are not exceptions.
Golden West recently surveyed customers on whether they
telecommute for their work using broadband internet access.
Twenty-three percent of those surveyed answered yes and of
those, Forty percent indicated they telecommuted from their
home using broadband Internet access five days a week. Nor are
these stories unique to Golden West or to South Dakota.
These networks exist and these benefits are possible
because Congress wisely called for reasonable comparable
services and rates between rural and urban America in the 1996
Telecom Act.
Anything less would not allow rural consumers to experience
the same educational, economic, health care, public safety, or
other benefits of broadband that Americans may take for
advantage.
While the Universal Service Funding and concept to support
robust networks, the high-cost budget has not kept pace.
Instead, it has been effectively capped since 2011, forcing
hometown companies, such as Golden West, to do more with less
and calling into question the great progress we've made to date
in advancing and sustaining rural broadband.
This high-cost budget cap is cutting USF support for
investments that have already been made, deterring future rural
broadband investments and driving consumer rates higher.
Cutting USF support cuts the legs out of the business case
for rural broadband in many places and Golden West had to delay
or cancel projects due to these cuts.
If we want to make progress as a nation toward universal
broadband, we need to return to a predictable and sufficient
mechanism as contemplated by Congress in 1996 and required by
law.
Fortunately, policymakers across Washington, D.C., have
expressed concern about the USF budget shortfalls. Earlier this
year, more than 190 Members of Congress signed letters to the
FCC urging prompt action on this issue and a window of
opportunity now exists.
FCC Chairman Pai and several other FCC Commissioners have
indicated their intent to resolve concerns about the budget
shortfalls by the end of this year. We are grateful that they
apparently plan to take action and we are also thankful to
those of you in Congress who have supported our efforts.
Of course, once the business case can be made to build the
network, one still needs the upfront capital to do so. This is
where the Rural Utility Service or RUS has been so important.
RUS telecommunications lending has helped enable and
unleash billions of dollars in private capital investment for
rural communications infrastructure.
As Congress works to update our U.S. programs, rural
providers believe we must update these programs and aim for
more robust services and higher speeds.
It is also important, however, to ensure the efficient use
of limited Federal resources by targeting those resources
carefully. It is particularly important to ensure that new
networks built leveraging new Federal programs will not
undermine the sustainability of networks already in place
leveraging other Federal resources. Coordination is essential
to sustain rural broadband.
Golden West thanks this committee for its leadership on and
interest in rural broadband and we look forward to working with
you to realize a vision of true universal service form in the
robust and sustainable networks that will deliver reliable,
high-quality, and affordable communications services throughout
rural America now and in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Law follows:]
Prepared Statement of Denny Law, Chief Executive Officer, Golden West
Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.
Introduction
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the importance of rural
broadband.
I am Denny Law, Chief Executive Officer of Golden West
Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc in Wall, South Dakota. While every
rural area presents unique challenges to serve--and while I believe
Golden West's serving area is likely one of the more rural and sparsely
populated in the nation--I also believe the history of advancing
telecommunications in South Dakota is relatively indicative of the
challenges and rewards of serving consumers and businesses throughout
rural America.
Golden West Telephone Company was incorporated in 1916 to provide
telephone service between the towns of Interior and Quinn, accomplished
by stringing telephone line along fence posts to farms and ranches.
Golden West Telecommunications and its subsidiaries now provide service
to over 30,000 accounts, 25,000 broadband Internet subscribers, and
10,000 cable television customers across 24,500 square miles--an area
larger than the states of Maryland, New Jersey, Connecticut and
Delaware combined--equating to 1.42 customers per square mile. The
largest community we serve has just over 3,500 residents. Yet, with
more than 14,000 route miles of fiber and copper in service, one could
stretch that 14,000 mile network from Wall, South Dakota, to Hong Kong
and back again--underscoring the significant strides we have made to
ensure that our customers have access to the world-class communications
they need to make rural South Dakota a more vibrant place to live and
do business.
In addition to robust service for consumers and businesses, we
serve numerous anchor institutions, including 72 K-12 schools, 62
health clinics/hospitals, 22 libraries, and five Veterans
Administration facilities within our service territory. Golden West
also provides telecommunications service on portions of five Native
American tribal reservations in South Dakota. In addition, Golden West
operates across large swaths of Federal land, including land owned by
National Grasslands, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land
Management, National Forest, National Parks, and Army Corps of
Engineers.
While once again every story in rural areas is unique, I think
Golden West's efforts and its community commitment are fairly
representative of the hundreds of small, community-based companies and
cooperatives like those in the membership of NTCA-The Rural Broadband
Association. I have had the privilege of serving as chair of the NTCA
committee that sets policy direction for the association, and in that
role, I have had significant opportunity to meet and talk with peers
around the country who, like Golden West, are doing whatever they can
to deploy and sustain advanced communications services in the most
rural parts of America. Small telecommunication providers like Golden
West serve less than five percent of the U.S. population spread across
over 35 percent of the U.S. landmass. In the vast majority of these
wide-ranging rural areas, companies like Golden West are the only full-
service fixed networks available. Small broadband providers therefore
are essential to connect rural America with the world--making every
effort to deploy advanced networks that respond to demands for cutting-
edge, innovative services that help rural communities overcome the
challenges of distance and density.
Rural Broadband Deployment Benefits and Challenges
Benefits of Rural Broadband
Investing in rural broadband has far-reaching effects for both
urban and rural America, creating efficiencies in health care,
education, agriculture, energy, and commerce, and enhancing the quality
of life for citizens across the country. A report released in 2016 by
the Hudson Institute in conjunction with the Foundation for Rural
Service underscores the nationwide benefits that arise from rural
broadband; this study found that investment by rural broadband
companies contributed $24.2 billion to the economies of the states in
which they operated in 2015.\1\ Of this amount, $8.3 billion accrued to
the benefit of rural areas, while nearly $16 billion accrued to the
benefit of urban areas. In addition, better broadband access in rural
America is helping to drive growth in online transactions--a recent
survey found, for example, that rural consumers account for more than
10.8 billion internet-driven transactions annually, representing
approximately 15 percent of the national total.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``The Economic Impact of Rural Broadband'' (2016), The Hudson
Institute, Washington, D.C.
\2\ A Cyber Economy: The Transactional Value of the Internet in
Rural America, White Paper, iGR (2018), at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The benefits of rural broadband, however, go beyond sheer numbers--
it's helpful as well to understand the productive uses of broadband and
what they mean to those communities that get and stay connected. A
major benefit of rural broadband, for example, comes in the form of
distance learning. With a shortage of teachers in many areas of rural
America, many schools must rely on high-speed connectivity to deliver
interactive-video instruction for foreign language, science, and music
classes. For example, rural Bridgewater, South Dakota resident Tara
Currier-Hofer is teaching Level 1 and 2 Spanish to over 100 students in
14 high schools this year. She does it all from home, in a small office
located on her farm. Because of her broadband connection, she is able
instruct hundreds of students who otherwise would not have the
opportunity to learn Spanish.
Robust broadband networks also enable rural residents to start
their own business and gain access to new markets. JT Rickenbach from
Oelrichs, South Dakota started WESTROM in nearby Hot Springs in 2002,
while living and maintaining a ranch with his family. WESTROM builds
electronics, cases and housings for electronics, and the machines to
build electronics. WESTROM boasts two locations--one in Hot Springs and
another in Hong Kong. Most of JT's business is outside of South Dakota,
but despite the distance from most of his customers (many of whom are
international), broadband enables JT and his family to live and work in
South Dakota.
Another example of how broadband promotes and sustains
entrepreneurs comes from Joyce Wheeler from Phillip, South Dakota.
Joyce has lived on a South Dakota ranch her whole life, where she began
to pursue her lifelong dream of writing novels. After the first two
publishing houses she used closed their doors, Joyce decided to self-
publish. She now works one-on-one via the Internet with a company in
Florida. While she receives publishing help from Florida, Joyce also
relies on her broadband service for local help in marketing her books
and website.
One of the best statements I have ever heard about the importance
of broadband in rural areas came from a Golden West customer who lives
in a very rural area near Hayes, South Dakota. She is a Software
Development Manager for an international software firm. After living
and working in an urban area, she and her husband decided they ``were
done with city life'' and wanted to move back to South Dakota. She was
able to negotiate a work from home/telecommuting arrangement with her
employer. Fast forward the clock a few years and she is now managing
software teams located throughout the world, all from her rural
location in Hayes. Her statement to me was that her broadband
connection meant ``being able to work where you want to live instead of
having to live where you want to work.''
These stories are not just exceptions to the rule or on the
margins. Golden West recently completed a survey of our customers that
posed the question ``Does anyone in your household telecommute, or in
other words, use an Internet connection to work from home?'' Twenty-
three percent of the respondents answered ``Yes,'' and of those, 40
percent indicated they telecommuted for their employment five days a
week. Nor are these stories, I believe, unique to Golden West or South
Dakota--instead, my sense is that they are repeated in rural areas
across the country, especially in places where smaller rural operators
have, like Golden West, led the charge in deploying robust, high-
capacity, low-latency networks and in taking pride in the delivery of
high-quality customer service for the communities in which we live.
Indeed, Golden West was recently given a ``Smart Rural Community''
Showcase award for its efforts in connecting rural South Dakota with
the rest of the Nation and the world, and its partnership with local
business and community leaders to make effective use of the broadband
networks we have built. We were one of 13 award recipients this year
nationwide, and several dozen other smaller operators have received
similar awards in prior years. Taken together, these awards demonstrate
the importance of not only getting broadband to rural areas in the
first instance, but the value of keeping it there and empowering
consumers, businesses, and anchor institutions to make the most of it.
As described in a recent CoBank report on rural economic
challenges, ``Rural America faces a unique set of economic challenges,
but it has demonstrated resilience during the past eight years of
recovery. The rural population, jobs and incomes are all trending in
the right direction. And current efforts to improve rural broadband
access offer the greatest opportunity to make a significant dent in the
rural/urban economic divide. As broadband becomes more widely available
in rural communities, enhanced access to education, healthcare and
business opportunities can markedly improve the quality of life and the
economic vitality in these communities. Rolling out broadband to rural
communities will take several more years in some areas. But as access
increases, so will rural America's economic potential.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``THE YEAR AHEAD: Forces that will shape the U.S. rural economy
in 2018'' (2018), CoBank Knowledge Exchange Report, https://
www.cobank.com/-/media/files/ked/general/2018-year-ahead-report-jan-
2018.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural Broadband Challenges
Building broadband networks is capital-intensive and time-
consuming. The primary challenge of rural network deployment is in
constructing networks across hundreds or thousands of miles where the
population is sparse and the terrain is diverse. Especially when
crossing Federal lands or railroad rights-of-way in rural America,
small rural providers must address environmental and historical
permitting concerns or contractual obligations that can delay projects
and increase their already high costs. Then, where networks are built,
they must be maintained over those hundreds or thousands of miles--this
requires technicians who regularly travel long distances to make
service calls and customer service representatives trained to deal with
questions about router and device configurations in ways that were
unimaginable for ``telephone companies.''
Moreover, even the best local or ``last mile'' networks in rural
markets are dependent upon ``middle mile'' or long-haul connections to
Internet gateways dozens or hundreds of miles away in large cities. As
an example, Golden West's operations are more than 300 air miles--not
route miles--from the closest Tier 1 Internet peering point. Reaching
such distant locations is expensive, and as customer bandwidth demands
increase--moving from Megabytes to Gigabytes to Terabytes of demand per
month per customer--so too does the cost of ensuring sufficient
capacity to handle customer demand on those ``long-haul'' fiber routes
that connect rural America to the rest of the world. In fact, Golden
West's analysis found that our average broadband customer monthly data
usage was 92GB as of August 2016. By August 2018, the average broadband
customer monthly data usage was 224GB. In just two years, we estimate
the average usage will exceed 500GB a month. In four years, average
monthly usage will likely exceed 1TB of data per month. By contrast,
some networks come with plans that either cap data usage at much lower
levels per month or slow data when they exceed these levels; for
example, even in the context of their ``unlimited'' plans, certain
wireless operators will use thresholds of 50 GB or less. These figures
indicate the wisdom, the necessity, and the efficiency of investing in
robust future-proof ``last mile'' access networks that can handle
demands for years to come and the need for robust ``long-haul''
capacity to connect rural areas to the rest of the world.
Also, barriers to broadband deployment such as disparate
applications, fees, and reviews across Federal and state landowning
agencies must also be addressed as part of any holistic plan to promote
and sustain infrastructure investment. Small providers often face
infrastructure rules and burdensome permitting processes in seeking to
build broadband networks across rural America. Efforts to standardize
Federal permitting processes and implement ``shot clocks'' for securing
prompt approvals would free resources for broadband investment. Our
industry appreciates this Committee's bipartisan effort to reduce
barriers to deployment of communications networks.
All of these factors make the delivery of broadband in rural
America an ongoing effort that requires sustained commitment. We will
miss the mark as a nation if we treat the broadband challenge as a one-
time declaration of ``success'' just for the very preliminary act of
connecting a certain number of locations. The construction of broadband
networks is important and undoubtedly challenging in rural areas, but
it is only the beginning. Particularly when one considers that even
where networks are available many rural Americans pay far more for
broadband than urban consumers, it should be apparent that the job of
connecting rural America--and, just as importantly, sustaining those
connections--is far from complete. I am proud of Golden West's
investment in rural South Dakota, and the rural broadband industry as a
whole can tell a great story of success. But there is also much more
work to do--and this is where public policy plays an important role in
helping both to build and sustain broadband in rural markets.
Rural Utilities Service Network Financing
Throughout Golden West's history, we have obtained financing from
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) or its predecessor agency under the
U.S. Department of Agriculture. RUS telecommunications lending has
helped enable and unleash billions of dollars in private capital
investment in rural communications infrastructure. In Fiscal Year 2017,
RUS loans to the small, rural broadband members of the South Dakota
Telecom Association totaled $116.7 million. Due in part to the
availability of this financing, many communities served by small
broadband providers throughout the United States have significantly
higher broadband deployment than neighboring communities served by
larger carriers. But, as I will explain, RUS financing is just one
important piece of a broader public policy puzzle when it comes to
making the business case for rural broadband deployment.
In the first instance, deploying a communications network in a
rural area requires a large capital outlay due to the challenges of
distance and terrain. The RUS has long played a crucial role in
addressing rural broadband challenges through its telecommunications
programs that finance network upgrades and deployment in rural areas.
Since at least the early 1990s, the RUS telecom programs have financed
advanced network plant at a net profit for taxpayers and helped deploy
state-of-the-art networks to rural Americans left behind by providers
unable or unwilling to serve low-population-density markets. With rare
exceptions, RUS, CoBank and the Rural Telecommunications Finance
Cooperative are the primary lenders that small rural providers can turn
to for outside financing. Not only does RUS help rural America remain
connected, its Broadband Loan & Loan Guarantee program and traditional
Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan & Guarantee program make loans
that must be paid back with interest--creating a win/win situation for
rural broadband consumers and American taxpayers.
In addition to the creation of a new RUS broadband loan/grant pilot
program in the FY18 Omnibus appropriations bill, the pending expiration
of the current Farm Bill has afforded Congress an opportunity to reform
and expand RUS broadband programs, including the Farm Bill Broadband
Loan & Loan Guarantee program that was first authorized in the 2002
Farm Bill. Rural telcos wholeheartedly endorse the notion that we as a
nation must closely examine these programs and aim for more robust
services and higher speeds. As discussed above, networks must be built
to accommodate future demands wherever and whenever possible. It is
essential as well, however, to ensure the efficient and effective use
of limited Federal resources to promote both the availability and
sustainability of broadband networks by targeting those resources
carefully. It is particularly important to ensure that new networks
built leveraging new Federal programs do not compete with and undermine
the sustainability of networks that are already in place leveraging
Federal resources, such as those made available through the rural
development programs of the RUS and/or Universal Service/Connect
America Fund support from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
For decades, the RUS and FCC's High-Cost Universal Service Fund
(USF) have worked in concert to deploy and sustain communications
networks in rural America. In fact, I would submit there has been no
more successful formula for advancing and sustaining rural broadband
than the combination of RUS loans financing upfront network
construction (with payback) and USF helping to support ongoing
operations and the affordability of rates on the networks once built.
More specifically, while RUS lending programs finance the substantial
upfront costs of network deployment, the USF High Cost Fund helps to
make the business case for such construction and then sustains ongoing
operations at affordable rates.
In particular, USF by law aims to ensure ``reasonably comparable''
services are available at ``reasonably comparable'' rates. Not to be
confused or conflated, RUS capital and ongoing USF support therefore
serve distinctly important, but complementary rather than redundant,
purposes in furthering rural broadband deployment. It is essential that
these complementary roles continue, and that we avoid the prospect of
two, dueling federally-supported networks built in a rural area that
could not sustain either one without such Federal support. We can make
smarter, better use of Federal resources by reaffirming and codifying
yet again the complementary nature of coordinated RUS and FCC programs,
rather than allowing these programs and the resulting networks to be
pitted against one another in a manner that undermines the
sustainability of the networks and the integrity of the programs
themselves.
The FCC's High Cost Universal Service Fund
As mentioned above, support from the Federal High-Cost USF program
is essential to make the business case for rural broadband. In fact, it
is the primary, if not the only, tool to ensure--as mandated by the
Communications Act--that consumers in deeply rural areas like those
served by Golden West can purchase telecom services that are reasonably
comparable to what urban Americans receive at rates reasonably
comparable to what urban consumers pay.
Put another way, USF does not itself ``pay for'' upfront network
construction; instead, the USF program supports ongoing operations (and
the repayment of loans and private capital) by ensuring that rural
consumers can pay reasonable rates for their use of services atop
networks, thereby allowing consumers to buy such services and operators
to justify the business case for investments in those networks in the
first instance. USF is thus perhaps the best, most successful example
of a public-private partnership that exists in the broadband space,
having helped to justify the business case for private network
investments that can total tens of billions of dollars per year when
measured as gross plant in service. Without USF support, it would have
been impossible for Golden West to do all that it has done in seeking
to continuously improve broadband access across wide swaths of rural
South Dakota--and if USF support remains capped as it has been for many
years, this threatens to undermine our progress, if not stop it in its
tracks.
Enabling the business case for delivery of advanced telecom
services across rural America is a big job, and yet the High-Cost USF
has been confined under the same budget since 2011--even as small rural
carriers have sought to deliver more robust networks that will scale to
meet the anticipated enormous consumer demands for bandwidth in the
future and last over the lives of the loans taken out to build them.
No justification is available for why the current High-Cost USF cap
is the appropriate level of funding to meet the program's goals, beyond
a judgment back in 2011 that 2010 support levels seemed like the
``right'' amount to carry out a National Broadband Plan. In fact,
precisely because they have tried to keep investing where possible in
broadband to serve their rural communities, small rural carriers now
face escalating cuts to USF support for investments already made--
revealing how much the High-Cost program is woefully underfunded to do
the job that the law requires and that Congress wants in terms of
making robust, affordable broadband available in rural America. To make
matters worse, the High-Cost USF budget is the only program budget
under the FCC's universal service umbrella without even an annual
inflationary factor--and each of the other programs has also seen
upward adjustments to their respective budgets in recent years. This is
absolutely not to begrudge or question any increases needed in the
other programs by any means, but only to point out that the High-Cost
USF program's capped budget is woefully out of date and out of step.
Golden West and its customers have been directly affected by the
High-Cost USF budget shortfalls. The loss of USF support for network
projects already completed has forced us to reduce our future
investment plans. Due to USF budget cuts, we have postponed nearly $4
million of network upgrade plans scheduled for 2019 in rural South
Dakota. The end result will be fewer customers receiving broadband or
upgraded broadband services. And, Golden West is not alone in feeling
this pain. Because of these support cuts, I have heard that many other
rural network operators are cutting back on future broadband
infrastructure investments and cannot deliver affordable standalone
broadband to rural consumers. A survey by NTCA earlier this year found
that the average member reported over $660,000 in cuts in USF support
over the next 12 months, which translated on average to more than an
estimated $1.6 million in deferred or declined investment in rural
broadband infrastructure. This in turn translates into fewer customers
receiving higher-speed services; the NTCA survey found, for example,
that the USF budget cuts were expected to result in 52 percent fewer
customers on average receiving new 10 to 25 Mbps broadband than
companies had anticipated prior to the cuts due to project
postponements, cancellations, or modifications.
Fortunately, policymakers throughout Washington, D.C. have
expressed concern about the USF budget shortfalls. Over the past
several years, hundreds of members of Congress--including many members
of this committee--have written repeatedly to the FCC, expressing
serious concern about how the persistent and increasing USF budget
shortfalls affect private infrastructure investment and consumer
broadband rates. Yet again earlier this year, more than 190 members of
Congress signed letters to the FCC expressing concern about the USF
budget shortfalls. The letters demonstrated the sizeable, shared, and
sustained bipartisan interest in prompt action on this issue, and a
window of opportunity exists. Indeed, FCC Chairman Pai and several
other FCC commissioners have expressed their shared concerns about the
existing budget shortfalls, and have indicated their intent to act to
resolve such concerns by the end of this year--we are grateful to them
for planning to take action on the long-standing budget cap, and to
those of you who have urged them to take such action.
But as heartening as it is to see an apparent consensus with
respect to the problem and the need for a solution, it is essential to
move forward now with all due speed. Remedying this USF budget concern
and providing sufficient support by the end of this year is imperative
to the sustained delivery of affordable, high-quality broadband service
to consumers and small businesses that this Subcommittee and so many
other members of Congress hope to see in rural America. We urge
Congress to continue its efforts to press for a fix to this problem,
and we are hopeful the FCC will take action as promptly as possible to
provide sufficient support for all recipients of High-Cost USF support.
Conclusion
Robust broadband must be available, affordable, and sustainable for
rural America to realize the economic, healthcare, education, and
public safety benefits that advanced connectivity offers. As noted in
this testimony, it takes an effective mix of entrepreneurial spirit,
access to capital (whether from RUS or otherwise), commitment to
community, and Federal USF support to enable and sustain deployment of
communications infrastructure in many parts of rural America. The RUS
and the High-Cost USF programs play important, but complementary rather
than redundant, roles in promoting the deployment and sustainability of
broadband infrastructure in rural America. Promoting greater access to
capital through strong, well-tested RUS lending programs, ensuring
sufficient funding of USF to make the business case for use of private
and/or borrowed capital in rural areas, and demanding continued
coordination between essential Federal programs that aim to promote
broadband access in rural America are all critical pieces of a
comprehensive, thoughtful national rural broadband strategy.
Golden West thanks the committee for its leadership on and interest
in all these issues, and we look forward to working with you to realize
a vision of true universal service in the form of robust and
sustainable networks that will deliver reliable, high-quality, and
affordable communications services throughout rural America now and for
years to come.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Law.
Ms. Thompson.
STATEMENT OF MONA THOMPSON, GENERAL MANAGER, CHEYENNE RIVER
SIOUX TRIBE TELEPHONE AUTHORITY
Ms. Thompson. Chairman Thune, Senator Klobuchar, and
members of the Committee, good morning and thank you for the
opportunity to testify on Broadband Opportunities and
Challenges in Rural America.
I am Mona Thompson, General Manager of the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority in Eagle Butte, South Dakota.
Today, I will describe the unique challenges of operating
in rural America generally and tribal areas specifically as
well as the struggles going into deploying a rural network. My
relatives, I shake your hand with a good heart.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is a federally recognized
tribe. It is also known as the Cheyenne River Lakota Nation. At
4,226 square miles, the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation is
the fourth largest Indian reservation in the United States. The
population density for our 8,000 residents is fewer than two
people per square mile.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority, CRST,
was founded in 1958 when the Tribal Council purchased an
existing telephone company. CRST was the first tribally owned
telephone company to partner with the Rural Electrification
Administration, now known as Rural Utility Service.
50 years after its founding, CRST relied upon a $37.8
million loan with RUS, a telecommunications loan to upgrade its
network to fiber. With the degrading copper network, upgrading
to fiber network wasn't a luxury, it was a necessity for the
Cheyenne River Community.
Before upgrading to fiber, our copper network couldn't
handle a DSL connection further than three miles away from our
central offices, leaving many without access to even minimal
broadband connection. We actually had dial-up service, which is
horrible.
In fact, the copper plant was in such poor shape that our
customers living out of town would oftentimes receive static
over the phone lines when it would rain.
We knew we had to do something, which is why we started
construction on our fiber to the home project in 2010. However,
a couple of years into the project, we became very concerned
about continuing that construction over the winter months. We
had a meeting to discuss whether to continue that project or
not.
Due to the new budget control cuts that the Universal
Service High-Cost Program, we were very concerned that the cuts
would be drastic enough where we couldn't pay back our RUS
loans and we didn't want to put our company in jeopardy nor the
customers in jeopardy.
While we remained concerned, we decided to continue that
project and in December 2016, we completed the fiber to the
home project at a total cost of $27.5 million and that deployed
over 1,500 miles of fiber throughout the reservation in Dewey
and Ziebach Counties in South Dakota.
I'm very happy we continued with the fiber build-out
because it was the right thing to do but cuts to the USF
support mechanism that keeps our operations ongoing are still
happening today.
The impact from this year's cuts will result in 500,000
less support than we anticipated to receive from the USF. As a
general manager of a small company, cuts of this size are what
keep me up at night and make me concerned about maintaining our
operations in the future.
Despite these challenges, CRST delivers voice, broadband,
and other advanced services across a cutting-edge network that
is essential for economic productivity, health care, and
education.
Federal high-cost support in our U.S. programs are
essential to making this happen. These gains in rural broadband
can be achieved only if sound policies support both the
deployment and ongoing operation of broadband infrastructure in
rural America. Sufficient and predictable universal service
support is necessary to ensure that rural providers have
reliable resources to deploy and maintain better broadband.
RUS loan and grant programs are also a vital piece of this
puzzle, providing financing to move forward with critical
infrastructure projects in deeply rural areas and tribal lands.
Together, USF and RUS financing programs allow local
community-based providers, like CRST, to deliver better
broadband and the benefits that it empowers.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to address this
committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Mona Thompson, General Manager, Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the committee,
good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify on broadband
opportunities and challenges in rural America.
I am Mona Thompson, General Manager of the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe Telephone Authority in Eagle Butte, South Dakota. I have also
served on the Tribal Affairs Committee of NTCA-The Rural Broadband
Association. Today I will describe the unique challenges of operating
in rural America generally and Tribal areas specifically, as well as
the opportunities promised by the deployment of robust and resilient
broadband. My testimony will describe how, with the proper tools and
resources, our rural areas and Tribal Nations can overcome these
conditions for a brighter, more prosperous future. Our story also
indicates that these gains are best realized through the deployment and
sustainability of broadband networks that sit upon a foundation of
entrepreneurial spirit, community buy-in, and programs that help make
the business case for investment and ongoing operations.
An Introduction to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is a Federally-recognized tribe; it
is also known as the Cheyenne River Lakota Nation. Our members include
representatives from four of the seven bands of the Lakota. The
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe has a proud lineage. Our heritage is bound
up in the heroism of great leaders such as Sitting Bull; our
reservation was initiated by the historic Treaty of Fort Laramie
(1868). At 4,226 square miles, the Cheyenne River Indian Reservation is
the fourth largest Indian reservation in the United States. The 2010
Census reported a population of 8,090 residents; our population density
is less than two people per square mile.
The Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority (CRST) was
founded in 1958 when the CRST Tribal Council purchased an existing
telephone company. CRST was the first Tribally-owned telephone company
in the United States. CRST was also the first Tribally-owned telephone
company to partner with the Rural Electrification Administration, now
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Fifty years after its founding, CRST
relied upon a $37.8 million RUS Telecommunications Loan to upgrade its
network to fiber. In December 2016, we completed our Fiber to the
Premise (FTTP) Loan Project at a total cost of $27.5 million that
deployed approximately 1,500 miles of fiber throughout the Reservation,
which covers approximately 2.8 million acres in the Dewey and Ziebach
counties of South Dakota.
Rural Challenges--and Much More
Deploying and sustaining broadband in rural America present
significant challenges. Distance and density make the costs of building
networks and delivering services far greater than the revenues one can
expect in return from rural consumers. Indeed, smaller community-based
companies like ours exist in the first place because, back in the
``telephone days,'' larger providers could not make the business case
to serve certain areas. We filled the gaps in unserved areas back then,
and today, we deliver voice, broadband, and other advanced services
across a cutting-edge network that, as I will discuss, is essential for
economic productivity and community well-being in areas that are
otherwise challenged. But, even with technological advancements beyond
what anyone ever could have imagined back when telephone service was
first deployed, it is still difficult to make the business case to
deploy and then continue to operate a network in deeply rural areas.
For these reasons, as described below, even the most community-
committed operator like ours cannot deliver on the promise of broadband
for rural areas and Tribal residents without a reliable partnership
with key Federal government initiatives.
Moreover, we face unique financial, geological, social and cultural
factors serving Indian Country. For example, according to the 2014
American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau, nearly twice as
many Native Americans live in households with incomes that are beneath
the Federal poverty level. Such economic conditions unfortunately pave
the way for other adverse conditions: lack of adequate income can
prevent the acquisition of proper health insurance or health care;
persistent poverty can feed mental health challenges or substance
abuse; and, educational performance among the youth can suffer, making
it more difficult to secure gainful employment in already-depressed
economic regions.
While we do not view broadband as a miracle cure, it is essential
to attracting, cultivating, and attracting businesses that will help
rural communities generally and Tribal communities more specifically
rise and thrive. Broadband enables users to connect to the world,
increasing their access to economic opportunity, improved health care,
and educational resources. Without broadband, as I explain more fully
below, we cannot hope to make the connections that will lift and
sustain rural communities that can otherwise be isolated and Tribal
areas that too often lack in hope and opportunity.
Leveraging Broadband to Overcome Adversity and Create Opportunity
Broadband is rapidly and increasingly being viewed as an
``equalizer'' for its ability to conquer distance. Whereas telephone
enabled only verbal communication, broadband enables applications that
encompass voice, video and data, allowing a great range of human
experience to be shared across great spaces. There are several key
applications worth noting as they help to overcome adversity and
generate opportunity in rural areas and on Tribal lands.
Telemedicine
Chronic disease causes about 75 percent of health care costs and
contributes to about 70 percent of all deaths in the United States.
These conditions are exacerbated in rural areas. Individuals living in
rural areas often have increased numbers of medical conditions such as:
diabetes and hypertension. Rural residents also tend to travel further
for medical care than urban counterparts. These rural health challenges
are compounded by physician shortages and lack of access to nearby
health care facilities. Although 25 percent of the U.S. population
resides in rural areas, only 10 percent of physicians are in rural
America. And, rural areas have 70 percent fewer specialists.
Additionally, poverty increases the risk of complications from chronic
conditions by decreasing the likelihood that individuals will have
health insurance or otherwise be able to absorb the costs of treatment
and preventative care. Unfortunately, Tribal lands not only share these
challenges, but often experience more acute manifestations of them.
On the Cheyenne River Reservation, unemployment is a challenge, and
more than two-thirds of the population subsists on less than one-third
of the average U.S. income. And, yet, while such factors affect
communal health, broadband offers a promising tool to combat such
problems. Broadband-enabled telemedicine can help patients monitor
chronic illnesses and maintain more consistent contact with their
physician, leading to better patient compliance rates. Broadband-
enabled applications can also be helpful, if not critical, in enabling
distant physicians to consult on and assist with acute medical
emergencies. Broadband-supported teletherapy can be deployed for
physical, occupational, and speech therapy. And, for regions afflicted
by high rates of substance abuse, teletherapy can be a tool in the
prevention, treatment and rehabilitation from alcohol and drug abuse.
Broadband-enabled telehealth/telemedicine thus holds the potential to
improve the quality, cost and availability of health care throughout
rural America. From avoiding transportation costs and lost wages to
saving hospital costs and increasing revenues local labs and
pharmacies, broadband-enabled telehealth can and does make a
significant difference in rural areas, and on Tribal lands in
particular.
A 2017 survey of NTCA rural broadband service provider members
indicated that 75.9 percent of hospitals and medical clinics in NTCA
service areas are connected by FTTP, with an average maximum available
speed in the service area of 734 Mbps. In relation to other NTCA
members, CRST currently offers speeds up to 250Mbps and we are capable
of providing higher speeds. The existence of such connectivity is
essential to realize the benefits described above, but the job is not
done--many more healthcare facilities remain to be served at such
levels, and even once built, the job of operating and maintaining such
networks and delivering high-quality broadband at affordable rates in
sparsely populated high-cost areas is itself an ongoing challenge.
Education
The future of rural communities depends upon educating young people
who can graduate with the skills necessary to fill the next generation
of jobs. Data projections through 2024, however, indicate a decline in
the number of Native Americans who will be enrolled in public K-12
schools, graduate from high-school and attend post-secondary
institutions. Similarly, as compared to libraries elsewhere throughout
the United States, fewer Tribal libraries offer students the resources
necessary to obtain coursework, resources for homework, or other
materials. This is troubling given that quality educational systems
help both to keep people in a community and to attract new residents
who see the opportunities presented. Robust broadband--both in the
schools and at home--can play in essential role in making quality
education a reality in many rural communities, and perhaps in keeping
within the educational system many students who might otherwise drop
out.
Across the United States, K-12 schools and libraries are connecting
increasingly to the Internet. Connectivity is exceedingly important in
rural areas where that connection may be the student's sole access to
cultural, historic or artistic resources. This is especially important
where, for example, an insufficient number of students might not
justify the offering of advanced or specialized coursework. In those
instances, the aggregation of distantly placed students and their
connection through broadband to an instructor can open theretofore
unavailable educational opportunities. Here, too, rural achievements
are high: a 2017 NTCA survey found that 63.9 percent of public
libraries and 82.4 percent of K-12 schools in NTCA rural broadband
provider service areas are connected by FTTP, with average maximum
available speeds of more than 450 Mbps for libraries and more than a
gigabit for K-12 schools. Like with telemedicine, our current speeds
are up to 250 Mbps but we are capable of offering higher speeds.
But here, too, the job is not done. Once again, delivering
broadband involves more than the one-time act of deploying
connectivity; it takes significant ongoing effort to operate and
maintain these networks, and to deliver affordable, high-quality
services that respond to consumer demands. Moreover, even with a much-
needed focus on connecting schools and libraries, reliable and robust
broadband access at home is equally important to academic achievement.
By definition, the ``homework gap'' indicates that learning does not
begin and end at the schoolhouse door. Students should not be required
to travel to libraries or community centers--or worse still, to try to
``grab'' WiFi in business parking lots--to complete homework. A
national broadband plan that aims primarily to connect anchor
institutions in rural America and does not include reliable connections
at home as well risks failing rural America and leaving communities
behind. This is one of the primary reasons why CRST has made such
extensive efforts to deploy robust networks throughout its serving
area, rather than delivering the highest-speed connections only to
businesses and anchor institutions.
Economic Opportunities
Broadband is growth-enabling. A USDA report concluded that ``wage
and salary jobs, as well as the number of proprietors, grew faster in
counties with early broadband Internet access.'' Other studies have
found that broadband adoption can be linked to increases in several
factors of economic prosperity, including higher growth in median
household income levels, number of firms and total employment. These
quantifiable benefits are joined by qualitative societal benefits,
including more capable public safety communications resources for
security and emergency response capabilities; civic engagement; and
enhanced communications capabilities that can benefit regional
coordination and development, exist beyond the quantifiable benefits. A
recent survey found, for example, that rural America is responsible for
15.5 percent of all consumer internet-driven transactions--a value of
$10.8 billion each year. Another recent study found that rural
communications providers contributed $24.1 billion in economic activity
to the U.S. economy in 2015, through their own operations and the
follow-on impact of their operations. C.R.S.T. contributes
approximately $2.5 million to the local reservation economy. Such
figures help highlight the importance of broadband as a driver of
economic opportunity.
How Do We Best Promote and Sustain Rural Broadband?
The benefits of rural broadband described above can be achieved
only if there are providers willing to take on the work of reaching
these rural areas, as well as sound and rational policies that help
support the deployment of broadband infrastructure in rural America.
For example, sufficient and predictable high-cost universal service
fund (USF) support has been critical in enabling rural providers to
deploy (and maintain) better broadband further into rural areas. Recent
caps, cuts and constraints that have been implemented in the high-cost
program, however, have had a damaging impact on rural providers'
ability to meet important goals; CRST has seen decreases close to $1
million in high-cost support, and CRST has cautiously rolled out stand-
alone broadband just recently due to pricing this service to be cost
effective for CRST and reasonable to the customers. Time will tell. The
decrease also impacts our ability to maintain the FTTP network and our
certainty to pay back the debt for the FTTP deployment over the term of
the loan. As a complement to Federal universal service support that
helps to make the business case for investment and allows recovery of
costs while still charging rural customers reasonable rates, RUS loan
and grant programs are important too in providing access to upfront
capital and allowing companies to move forward with critical rural
infrastructure projects. The RUS programs were vital to CRST's network
expansion, and the continuing availability and viability of these
programs will be important to finance broadband deployment in many of
the most rural parts of our country.
Conclusion
There seems to be no doubt that the challenges of deploying
broadband in rural America are known and acknowledged by policy makers.
But, sustaining broadband in such areas is equally important--and often
overlooked. Indeed, particularly in Tribal areas where unique
challenges can exist in terms of healthcare, education, and economic
opportunity, the ongoing availability of robust and affordable
broadband will be essential in overcoming such hurdles. We need to
build broadband networks and then also enable the most effective use of
them. For these reasons, those that share our view of the importance of
rural broadband to American prosperity should look to leverage and
improve the workings of programs like the FCC's USF and RUS financing--
these coordinated programs have worked better than any others to make
the business case for rural broadband investment, to sustain those
broadband networks once built, and to enable effective use of those
networks by Tribal residents and millions more rural Americans. It is
by using and enhancing these proven USF and RUS programs that we can
build upon and sustain the progress made to date, overcoming challenges
and creating opportunities through better broadband in rural America.
Thank you very much for this opportunity to address the Committee.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Thompson.
Mr. Spellmeyer.
STATEMENT OF GRANT B. SPELLMEYER, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL
AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC POLICY, UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION
Mr. Spellmeyer. Chairman Thune, members of the Committee,
thank you for the opportunity to testify here today regarding
the challenges faced by wireless carriers serving rural
America.
Although there are many items I could discuss this morning,
I'm going to focus on the issue of broadband mapping.
This Committee has discussed the mapping topic on a number
of occasions over recent months and I have had the opportunity
to visit personally with many of you on the Committee to
discuss the coverage problems you experience as you travel
around your states.
A number of you have asked us to gather empirical data that
accurately documents coverage. U.S. Cellular has driven many
parts of your states as part of the Mobility Fund II Challenge
Process and has gathered important data to help inform
decisionmaking about the quality of the maps.
What I can tell you today is that your concerns are valid.
U.S. Cellular has gathered way more data than I can touch upon
here today in 5 minutes but I will share with you some of our
essential findings.
First, let me briefly talk about that Mobility Fund
Challenge Process. The original concept was that an accurate
FCC propagation model, supplemented by an efficient challenge
process to fine-tune the results, would yield accurate maps
upon which to make Universal Service Funding decisions.
However, the maps have proven to be so inaccurate that the
Challenge Process is ill-equipped to fix all but a tiny portion
of the country.
The Challenge Process testing procedures are complex and
will likely undercut the ability of local governments to
conduct the tests for themselves. I can assure you that the
process in place will prove problematic even for the most
vigilant communities.
To begin with, you need to understand that the FCC created
a one square kilometer grid, not miles but kilometers, and
overlaid it over the United States. Imagine the country broken
up into 200-acre farms.
In order to file a valid challenge, we are required to take
multiple data readings at specified intervals inside each of
those farms and we have to prove that 75 percent of each has
coverage below the minimum requirements.
Almost half of those areas have insufficient roads to meet
the 75-percent requirement and therefore are effectively immune
to challenge, no matter how lacking the coverage may be.
Let me briefly talk about our findings to date. U.S.
Cellular has spent nearly $2 million and taken over 16 million
data readings in the field. That's 10 terabytes of information
that we have gathered and we need to process and upload to the
FCC. That's more data than the Hubble Space Telescope sends
back to Earth in a year.
Unfortunately, that has allowed us to only manage to drive
3 percent of our ETC footprint. We will never recover that
money, which could have otherwise been used to invest in rural
networks.
Let's look at a couple of sample maps and talk about the
results. If you look at Pages 14 and 15 of my testimony, you'll
see a series of maps that demonstrate what we found in Kansas,
Maine, and West Virginia.
Our work has generated in excess of 400 additional maps
that we intend to submit to the FCC. The purple areas you see
on the map represent areas where we have found that the FCC's
map is in fact invalid. Green represents areas where the
coverage on the ground was accurately reflected by the FCC
maps.
The colors you see follow the roads. We can't effectively
reach the areas off the roads and this FCC Challenge Process
won't fix those areas. Anything you see in yellow wasn't tested
by us and is by default considered ineligible because the FCC
says they're covered.
So a few key statistics. The FCC's maps are so flawed that
we expect to successfully challenge 34 percent of the squares
that we have driven across the country that have a sufficient
amount of roads to meet the 75-percent requirement.
Even more startling, 55 percent of the time when we take a
reading on the network of a carrier claiming coverage, we found
no signal at all. These are huge error rates. We must face
these facts. These maps simply can't be allowed to drive the
allocation of $4.5 billion of government funding for rural
America.
I applaud each of you here today for your continued
leadership and engagement on this matter. The time is now to
fix the maps. We believe a number of options exist to improve
the mapping coverage, the mapping effort, including urging the
FCC to further refine its model and then to move expeditiously
forward to release better maps.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spellmeyer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Grant B. Spellmeyer, Vice President, Federal
Affairs and Public Policy, United States Cellular Corporation
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson, and members of the
Committee, my name is Grant B. Spellmeyer, and I am the Vice President,
Federal Affairs and Public Policy at United States Cellular
Corporation. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss opportunities and
challenges facing mobile broadband providers in rural America.
I. Introduction.
U.S. Cellular provides mobile wireless telephone and broadband
services in nearly 200 markets across 23 states located in regional
clusters across the country. We serve overwhelmingly rural areas in
many states represented on this committee, including Missouri,
Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, West Virginia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,
Wisconsin, and Illinois.
Much of our business involves finding ways to build cell towers in
small towns and along rural roads, as well as in areas where population
density, income levels, and commercial development are often well below
those in our Nation's urban areas. Consequently, we are constantly
thinking about ways to address the economics of providing vital
services to areas that present financial challenges to build, maintain,
and upgrade.
Our nation's business success in the 20th Century was built upon
our backbone infrastructure--our rail network, our interstate highway
system, our electrical grid, and our fixed line telephone system--all
of which blossomed with the active engagement of the public and private
sectors. If the United States is to lead in the 21st Century, we must
make a similar commitment to public and private sector investments to
deploy essential broadband infrastructure, providing coverage
throughout the country that delivers high-quality 4G LTE and 5G fixed
and mobile broadband. Ubiquitous, high-quality mobile broadband is
essential to your communities and the reasons are numerous and
expanding daily. I will highlight just four of the many benefits that
come from mobile broadband connectivity:
Public Safety. The ability to use 911/E-911/Text-to-911 and
eventually NG911, depends 100 percent on high quality coverage,
to fully enable location-based services.\1\ When disaster
strikes, first responders depend on mobile wireless and
broadband networks, which are the first to return to service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The FCC estimates that 70 percent of 911 calls are placed from
wireless phones, and that percentage is growing. See, https://
transition.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/wireless911srvc.pdf.
Health Care. Mobile devices and applications capable of
diagnosing, monitoring and treating various conditions are
burgeoning and revolutionizing health care.\2\ These advances
improve patient outcomes, and increase efficient delivery of
services, saving millions of dollars. It is now possible for a
diabetic patient to continuously monitor, store, and transmit
glucose levels to health care providers through a mobile
device.\3\ Mobile video conferencing is increasingly important
to emergency medical services and in delivering health care to
remote areas where facilities are not easily accessible.\4\
These applications are but a small fraction of the incredible
health care tools enabled by mobile broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A list of hundreds of approved mobile medical applications
(last updated on July 25, 2018) can be found at: https://www.fda.gov/
MedicalDevices/DigitalHealth/MobileMedicalApplica
tions/ucm368784.htm.
\3\ http://www.dexcom.com/g5-mobile-cgm (describing a mobile
continuous glucose monitoring system that provides real-time glucose
readings for patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes every five
minutes). Someday soon, patients may wear a contact lens that
constantly measures glucose level through tears, transmitting the data
to attending physicians. See, https://verily.com/projects/sensors/
smart-lens-program/ (describing work on smart ocular devices, including
a glucose-sensing lens for continuous monitoring of glucose levels).
\4\ The FCC's Connect2HealthFCC initiative is a powerful example of
how broadband data can be used to improve health care. See, https://
www.fcc.gov/about-fcc/fcc-initiatives/connect2
healthfcc; https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/maps/connect2health/
#ll=39.909736,-95.03906
3&z=4&t=insights&inb=in_bb_access&inh=in_diabetes_rate&dmf=none&inc=none
&slb=90,100&
slh=10,22 (Mapping Broadband Health in America 2017); and https://
www.fcc.gov/document/
commissioner-clyburn-continuation-connect2health-task-force (FCC
Commissioner Clyburn statement that the Connect2Health Task Force
``will continue to ensure that the Commission is equipped with the data
and information it needs to understand the rapidly evolving landscape
for broadband-enabled healthcare''). In addition, the FCC recently
initiated an inquiry into how it can help advance and support the
movement in telehealth towards connected care everywhere and improve
access to the life-saving broadband-enabled telehealth services it
makes possible. Promoting Telehealth for Low-Income Consumers, WC
Docket No. 18-213, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 18-112 (Aug. 3, 2018).
The Internet of Things. Soon, almost any object will be
capable of connecting to the Internet. Statista projects 30.73
billion IoT devices will be deployed worldwide by 2020, and
75.44 billion will be deployed by 2025.\5\ According to General
Electric, the Internet of Things will add as much as $15
trillion (not a typo) to worldwide GDP growth by 2030.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See, https://www.statista.com/statistics/471264/iot-number-of-
connected-devices-worldwide/
\6\ See, https://www.visioncritical.com/internet-of-things-stats/.
Precision Agriculture. As agriculture technology has
developed and expanded, it has made ``mobile broadband . . . an
essential service for agricultural operations that form the
economic heart of many American rural communities.'' Deere has
explained that, ``[a]s these [precision agriculture] machine
populations continue to grow and our solutions continue to rely
on high speed machine connections, our reliance on rural
broadband coverage will only increase. . . .'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, Deere & Company Comments, FCC GN Docket No. 17-199 (filed
Sept. 21, 2017), at 2-3.
None of the benefits described above will be available to rural
Americans unless high-quality mobile broadband coverage is available
everywhere people live, work, and travel. It is critical that rural
America not be left with 20th Century infrastructure in an age where
access to technology and innovation are essential to economic success.
Below, I discuss opportunities and challenges to improving broadband in
rural America.
II. The Economics of Broadband Deployment are Challenging for Many
Rural Communities and for the Carriers That Seek to Serve Them,
Without Some Level of Government Support.
Building broadband infrastructure in rural areas where it is
uneconomic to do so is a brute force problem--it can only be solved
with sufficient funding to stand up and maintain networks. In many
rural areas we serve, if there were a marketplace solution, it would
have already appeared sometime in the nearly thirty years since the FCC
awarded the first cellular licenses. The public and private sectors
must work together to provide incentives and rewards for entrepreneurs
to deliver services, while ensuring that any support program is
efficient and effective.
The primary driver of public funding for mobile broadband is the
FCC's Mobility Fund. In the upcoming Mobility Fund Phase II, the
Commission has allocated $4.53 billion over ten years ($453 million per
year) to support the deployment of 4G LTE service at a median download
speed of 10 Mbps and upload speed of 1 Mbps (``10/1''). Mobility Fund
II support will be awarded by reverse auction, with the lowest bidders
receiving the exclusive right to a ten year stream of payments. At this
stage, there is no plan to develop Mobility Fund Phase III that we are
aware of.
U.S. Cellular views the current level of support for mobile
broadband, as well as what's proposed for Mobility Fund Phase II, as
clearly insufficient to address the needs that many of the Senators at
this hearing know afflict their communities. Our sense is that the size
of Mobility Fund II, $453 million annually, has been somewhat
constrained by program budgets, rather than calibrating the program's
size to address need. In its orders adopting the Mobility Fund (going
back a number of years), the Commission has never adopted a methodology
that would, (1) set a specific goal to deliver high-quality terrestrial
mobile 4G LTE broadband service everywhere that people live, work and
travel, (2) estimate the cost of meeting that goal, and (3) determine
how many years it should take to achieve the goal.
In 2017, CostQuest Associates estimated that providing 4G LTE
service to the areas that the FCC believed to be unserved at that time
(using Form 477 data) would require approximately 37,500 new towers, at
a cost of $12.5 billion.\8\ In addition, annual operating expenses for
these towers would cost approximately $21 billion over ten years, for a
total of approximately $33.5 billion. From this estimate, the FCC could
determine how much public and private capital should be devoted to the
task. What we know sitting here today is that the size of the hole
dwarfs the amount of dirt we apparently intend to use to fill it.
Hoping that $453 million per year will solve the problem should not be
our strategy. What we should do is accurately assess the size of the
challenge and set target goals and then determine what is the
appropriate approach to meeting those goals. The basis of that effort
must come from solid, reliable, verifiable, and empiric data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, CostQuest Associates, Cost Study for 4G Unserved Areas,
accessed at: https://ecf
sapi.fcc.gov/file/10217086509033/
2017%200216%20CQ%20Cost%20Study%20for%20Unserved%
20Areas%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only by going through such an analysis can the Commission hope to
accomplish the task that Congress set before it in the 1996 Telecom
Act, to ensure that universal service support is ``sufficient to
achieve the purposes'' \9\ set forth in Section 254, including
providing consumers in all regions of the Nation, including low-income
consumers and those in rural, insular, and high cost areas with access
to telecommunications and information services that are reasonably
comparable to those services provided in urban areas, at reasonably
comparable rates.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 47 U.S.C. Section 254(e).
\10\ 47 U.S.C. Section 254(b)(3). See also, S.2418, co-sponsored by
Senators Klobuchar, Capito, King, and Cortez Masto, which proposes to
establish a national standard to determine whether commercial mobile
services, commercial mobile data services, and broadband Internet
access services available in rural areas are reasonably comparable to
those services provided in urban areas, as required by Section
254(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A budget of $453 million per year is simply not going to accomplish
the goal set by Congress to deliver reasonably comparable services at
reasonably comparable prices any time soon, if ever. If by 2029,
Mobility Fund Phase II delivers mobile broadband to rural America at
10/1 speed, which is currently being surpassed in urban areas, U.S.
Cellular believes rural America will be farther behind urban areas than
it is today.
We must have a sense of urgency because as 5G services begin to
roll out in 2019, the Commission will need to begin working to ensure
that rural Americans have access to 5G broadband, as envisioned by
Section 254(b)(3). CostQuest has estimated several 5G deployment
scenarios for the US, with total capital investment ranging from $61
billion to achieve ubiquitous coverage to $250 billion to deploy a
network capable of autonomous vehicle support and future demand.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, Cost Quest Associates, The 5G Mobile Ubiquity Price Tag
Costs for Full U.S. Deployment Of 5G--With and Without Support for
Autonomous Driving (2017), at: https://www.cost
quest.com/uploads/pdf/5g-mobile-ubiquity-costs-summary.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At last week's 5G summit at the White House, lawmakers and
stakeholders came together to discuss how the United States can extend
the Nation's lead in 4G LTE technology into the rapidly approaching 5G
world. Among other things, releasing suitable 5G spectrum, deployment
standards, public safety, and protecting the supply chain were all on
the table. It is just the kind of event that is needed to focus
industry and policymakers.
In addition to the vital topics covered at this meeting, my sense
is that additional focus is required to advance universal service in a
5G world. For decades, our Federal universal service mechanism has been
the biggest driver of telecommunications infrastructure deployment in
rural areas. As wireless speeds and capacity continue to increase,
reforming the contribution mechanism and ensuring competitive
neutrality must be addressed in the coming years to ensure that rural
citizens can access advanced telecommunications and information
services that are reasonably comparable to those available in urban
areas.
Moving America into a 5G world requires bold action. Most
important, in order to accelerate mobile and fixed wireless broadband,
which is the most cost-effective means of serving sparsely populated
areas, the Commission must have the will to increase the size of the
Federal universal service fund dedicated to these tasks.
III. The FCC's Current Coverage Maps Significantly Overstate 4G LTE
Coverage.
To efficiently invest Federal universal service support in rural
areas, the Commission must accurately target funds to unserved areas.
Everyone understands that mapping where people have access to mobile
broadband, and at what speeds, is a difficult challenge, because radio
waves must be mapped to a specific location, either with radiofrequency
propagation maps or actual field testing. However hard it is to do, we
must have accurate maps so that policymakers have confidence that our
limited funds are targeting communities that most need reliable
service.
A. How the FCC Developed the Challenge Map
In early 2017, the Commission acknowledged that its FCC Form 477
data did not identify mobile broadband coverage with sufficient
accuracy to launch the Mobility Fund II auction. The Form 477
submissions allowed each carrier to determine where it has coverage
using its own standards. Under Chairman Pai's leadership, the
Commission moved away from using Form 477 data, instead requiring
carriers providing 4G LTE service to submit improved data in a ``one-
time'' filing.\12\ This one-time submission, which consisted of data
files developed from radiofrequency propagation models, was used to
create a new challenge map. The Commission intended to limit variations
in model inputs so that each carrier submitted data that produced
consistent coverage maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See, Connect America Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second
Report and Order, FCC 17-102 (Aug 4, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, the Commission required model inputs specifying a
coverage area showing where service is available at a download speed of
5 Mbps at the cell edge, with 80 percent probability and a cell loading
factor of 30 percent. In rough terms, the model should show an area to
be covered where a person can initiate a data session at the edge of a
cell site's coverage at 5 Mbps of speed, with 80 percent certainty, if
the cell site is running at 30 percent capacity.
I was personally involved in developing a wireless industry
consensus on this one-time data collection. Although the FCC accepted
many of industry's recommendations, some final decisions on the model
parameters and the subsequent challenge process procedures undermined
the challenge map's accuracy and made it extraordinarily difficult for
carriers and third parties to mount challenges. Industry, including
CTIA and CCA, recommended 90 percent certainty that a 5 Mbps session
could be initiated at the cell edge, and that the network should be
loaded at the 50 percent level, consistent with how mobile broadband
networks are designed. Other technical suggestions from some parties,
such as those relating to thermal noise density and standardizing power
assumptions for handsets, were not adopted.
Importantly, parties submitting data using a radiofrequency model,
with inputs set at the Commission's chosen parameters, were not
required to do any field testing to validate their model, nor did the
Commission do any independent validation, not even a statistically
significant sampling, before releasing the challenge map. It was left
to challengers to field test after the fact, to determine the accuracy
of maps produced by the parameters. And here is the key issue: If the
map output is generally accurate, then the areas needing to be tested
and challenged are relatively small. If the map output significantly
overstates coverage, then challengers must test a much larger area.
B. The Process Obstacles for Challengers
On February 27, 2018, the Commission released a 53-page public
notice explaining how the challenge map would be generated, the
procedures for filing a challenge, and how the FCC would process
challenges.\13\ The process has proven to be extremely complicated for
challengers, so much so that even U.S. Cellular will be unable to drive
test the vast majority of areas within its rural service footprint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See, Procedures for the Mobility Fund Phase II Challenge
Process, Public Notice, DA 18-186 (Feb. 27, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me explain the process and consider how difficult it is to
comply with such standards. Under the current procedures, mapping data
from the Commission must be downloaded via a government portal to
analyze which areas warrant a challenge. A challenger must demonstrate
the absence of coverage in each one square kilometer block specified by
the FCC. Inside each block, tests must be conducted no further than 800
meters apart from one another, and done between 6:00 AM and 12:00 AM
local time. Vehicle based drive testing must be done on accessible
roads, which in rural areas can be far apart or otherwise inaccessible
due to private or public restrictions, seasonal closures, or other
factors. The tests must include all unsubsidized wireless companies
claiming coverage inside that block. Handsets enumerated by each
operator must be purchased from each operator claiming coverage in the
area, and rate plans must be subscribed to and constantly monitored to
ensure service is not throttled or subject to data caps. A challenger
must either purchase, mount and calibrate test equipment, or hire a
testing company to perform the tests.
Drive testing the area requires understanding where the vehicle is
in relation to the one square kilometer blocks eligible to be
challenged, and conducting testing at the required locations inside the
blocks, that is, at the minimum distance separation of 800 meters. This
requires the purchase of separate GPS tracking equipment. To accomplish
this project also requires access to drivable roads sufficient to
demonstrate the lack of coverage in 75 percent of the grid being
challenged.
In U.S. Cellular's experience, nearly half of the blocks in our
footprint have proven to be untestable because there are insufficient
roads to be driven to cover the 75 percent benchmark, as one might
expect when testing in rural communities. Those blocks are off the
table and essentially bullet proof from a challenge, notwithstanding
that in many remote areas, it is easy to make a common sense
observation from the lack of coverage on the roads that do exist that
there can be no service in the balance of the surrounding area either.
Yet, the Commission's testing procedures do not allow such observations
to be submitted and off-road testing would require the challenger to
mount equipment on horses, drones or all-terrain vehicles. I am not
kidding about those options, as U.S. Cellular has actually used horse-
drawn sleds to access remote sites for building some of our cell towers
and infrastructure. Clearly, requiring such methods to reach areas in
question is practically impossible given the time and money required to
do so.
We've attached as Exhibit A several photographs taken by U.S.
Cellular's drive testers while in the field depicting inaccessible
roads that prevent challenges from being completed consistent with the
FCC's rules. In addition, we've attached as Exhibit B a summary of the
Commission's drive testing regime, along with materials from the
Universal Service Administrative Company website, to give the Committee
a sense of how difficult it is to conduct tests consistent with the
Commission's rules.
To date, U.S. Cellular has conducted drive testing in 19 states
including Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, New
Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Washington, Wisconsin, West
Virginia, and Illinois.\14\ In doing so, we have spent nearly $2
million conducting testing in compliance with the FCC's challenge
process rules and have only covered 3 percent of the challengeable
areas in our ETC coverage footprint. Accordingly, despite the
Commission having granted an additional 90 days within which to submit
challenges, U.S. Cellular has no hope of addressing even ten percent of
the areas that should be tested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ A short video demonstrating the difficulties U.S. Cellular has
encountered in drive testing in and around Lewisburg, West Virginia can
be found here: https://youtube/L2rM7i3ivas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If one extrapolates U.S. Cellular's experience across the nation, a
huge portion of rural areas that could be challenged are not going to
be verified. Regrettably, these areas will be doomed to whatever level
of service they have today; it will be the apex of their experience for
the next 10 years. We will lock them in to the status quo during a
period of rapid technological growth.
C. The Map Outputs Significantly Overstate Coverage
As a policy matter, if the current maps understate coverage, then
it is likely that scarce universal service funds would be used to
construct facilities in areas that already have service at the
threshold level. This error, which should be avoided, is trivial when
compared to the damage potentially done when an unserved area is deemed
to be served by an overstated map. I feel as if I must repeat the
reason overstating coverage maps is so troublesome for your states and
your communities: Let's be perfectly clear, any area deemed to be
served today by these maps will be blocked from even bidding for
support for at least ten years--the life of the funding from Mobility
Fund II. In areas where our rural citizens need service, getting this
challenge map right is a huge issue and as crafted today will preclude
the communities hoping for help from having the right to bid for
support.
Let me also explain the extensive work we have undertaken in the
past few months. So far, we have taken over 16 million data readings
(10 terabytes of data) during drive testing of areas the FCC maps deem
covered. U.S. Cellular observes that on average fully 34 percent of the
locations tested showed no coverage or coverage at speeds below the
FCC's 5 Mb standard. If even a quarter of the challenge area is
overstated nationwide, there is a huge disparity between what the maps
show to be served to the standard and what areas are actually served.
To give the Committee a sense of the disparities we've encountered in
testing, here are three examples of drive test results we've
undertaken:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Just last month, in response to a request from members of the
Senate's Committee on Indian Affairs, the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) released a report concluding, among other
things, that ``limitations in the FCC's existing process for collecting
and reporting broadband data have led the FCC to overstate broadband
access on tribal lands.'' \15\ GAO recommended that the Commission
develop methods for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data
on broadband access specific to tribal lands. The specific findings,
conclusions, and recommendations set forth in the GAO Report could be
similarly applied to the challenge process maps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See Broadband Internet, FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal
Lands, GAO-18-630 (Sept. 2018) at: https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-
630.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anecdotally, I know from conversations with many of the Senators on
this Committee who drive throughout their states, that you know there
are many more unserved areas than the maps show. At the recent
oversight hearing, a bipartisan group of senators affirmed that the
maps are not accurate and urged the FCC to update the maps and reset
the program so that funds are accurately targeted to our Nation's rural
areas.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See, Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission (Aug.
16, 2018) at: https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/
hearings?ID=BD64E539-0863-41B5-AA8A-2B40D
3FEF89C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. The Challenge Process Has Not Worked As Intended
Chairman Pai inherited FCC Form 477 data that was woefully
inadequate and he called for better data. For example, under Form 477
an entire census block is considered to be covered if a carrier
provides service to even one customer within the block, or if it can
provision service to the block without extraordinary effort, even if
such service has never been built.\17\ Recognizing these and other
shortcomings, Chairman Pai, the rest of the Commission, as well as
industry stakeholders, have diligently worked to increase accuracy of
mobile broadband mapping for Mobility Fund Phase II. Unfortunately, the
process provided no way to test the challenge map output before
commencing the challenge process. As a result, a significantly
overstated coverage map has left challengers an extraordinary task:
they must use a very difficult, cumbersome, and expensive process to
test an enormous geographic area. When the time period for filing
challenges expires on November 26, 2018, there will not be a complete
and clear picture of the scope of wireless broadband coverage in rural
America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ See, FCC Form 477, Local Telephone Competition and Broadband
Reporting, Instructions, OMB Control No. 3060-0816 (Dec. 5, 2016) at:
https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In sum, either the challenge process must be revised to allow more
common sense testing methodologies or the challenge map must be revised
to more accurately depict current 4G LTE coverage, so that the areas
that need to be challenged can be significantly reduced. Once the FCC
does fix the maps, there remain a number of additional issues that must
be addressed for Mobility Fund II including how support will be
allocated between flat states and mountainous states where funds are
distributed in a reverse auction that clearly favors bidders aiming to
serve open and flat terrain. Other issues include a number of auction
procedure related items such as reserve prices for the auction.
Some people I've talked to have expressed concern that if we fix
these maps the Mobility Fund Phase II auction will be delayed. While I
agree that we need to move quickly to invest in infrastructure that is
the foundation of a 5G future, any delay needed to get the map right
will substantially accelerate the time within which support gets to the
right places. If we get this wrong now, in some or even many areas
where support is deployed incorrectly, it will delay coverage and
upgraded technology in areas that need it, by as much as a decade. I
think NTIA director David Redl got it right at last week's White House
summit, in committing to develop improved mapping data from many
available sources, a resource that the FCC could use to more accurately
target Mobility Fund II support.
IV. U.S. Cellular Supports Additional Steps to Accelerate Broadband
Deployment
A. The AIRWAVES Act
U.S. Cellular fully supports the efforts of Senators Gardner and
Hassan regarding S.1682, the ``Advancing Innovation and Reinvigorating
Widespread Access to Viable Electromagnetic Spectrum Act.'' U.S.
Cellular has long been a proponent of an ``all of the above'' strategy
for broadband deployment, with fiber, mobile wireless, fixed wireless,
licensed spectrum, unlicensed spectrum, and satellite all having an
important role in knitting together broadband networks that meet the
needs of every American.
Among other things, the AIRWAVES Act requires the FCC to release a
steady stream of mid-band and high-band spectrum. By giving the FCC
specific deadlines for completing auctions, it allows the FCC to put
spectrum to use promptly, removing external pressure on the Commission
to schedule auctions to maximize revenue while providing potential
bidders with increased certainty to plan for future auctions. This is
the right policy choice because the economic and long term societal
benefits of putting spectrum to use far exceed whatever short-term
auction revenues might yield.
U.S. Cellular is also pleased to see that ten percent of AIRWAVES
Act auction proceeds will be set aside for deployment of rural
infrastructure. This reflects a Congressional policy priority--to
develop a steady stream of auction proceeds that can target places most
in need of infrastructure development. Congress has set aside proceeds
in the past for spectrum clearing and other salutary purposes; this is
a smart policy choice that will have lasting benefits. U.S. Cellular
notes that Auction 101 for spectrum in the 28 GHz band commences in
November 2018, with Auction 102 for spectrum in the 24 GHz band to
follow immediately thereafter. Accordingly, immediate passage of the
AIRWAVES Act is needed to capture ten percent of those auction
revenues.
B. The STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act
Senators Thune and Schatz have introduced S.3157, the Streamlining
The Rapid Evolution And Modernization of Leading-edge Infrastructure
Necessary to Enhance Small Cell Deployment Act, which would modernize
Federal law governing small cell deployment and adopt shot clocks to
move application proceedings along, while maintaining local authority
over placement, construction, and modification of telecom facilities.
U.S. Cellular supports this effort to ensure that the Nation leads in
critical small cell 5G deployment.
C. Allowing E-Rate Support to be Used for Wi-Fi Access on School Buses
Senators Udall and Gardner have introduced S.2958, a bill to make
the provision of Wi-Fi access on school buses eligible for E-rate
support. In many rural and Tribal areas, children travel via bus to and
from school, sometimes for several hours. U.S. Cellular supports
allowing E-rate funding to be used to furnish Wi-Fi connectivity on
school buses, to permit that time to be used for homework projects and
related school activities.
D. Streamlining Broadband Infrastructure Permitting
Senators Wicker and Cortez Masto have introduced S.1988, the
Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband
Infrastructure Act of 2017 (the ``SPEED Act''), a bill to streamline
permitting on established public rights-of-way. Among other things, the
bill would exempt certain colocations, small cell deployments, and
deployments in existing rights-of-way from review under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA''). The bill would also
require a GAO report on delays in siting telecommunications equipment
on Federal lands.
Also addressing deployment concerns on Federal lands, we thank
Senators Heller and Manchin for introducing S. 1363, the Rural
Broadband Deployment Streamlining Act. Importantly, this bill would
create a timeline for considering applications to locate facilities on
land administered by the Department of the Interior and the Forest
Service and requires additional review of the accuracy of coverage data
for the National Broadband Map.
U.S. Cellular supports prompt passage of both of these bills,
because NEPA reviews should not delay projects, for example, in
situations where equipment is being collocated on structures that have
already passed NEPA review. In addition, U.S. Cellular has, and is
aware of others, who have encountered significant delays in acquiring
permits needed to construct wireless telecommunications facilities on
Federal lands, especially those operated by the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service. While appropriate environmental
reviews are necessary to preserve and protect our vital lands and our
people, there must be a sense of urgency to complete reviews in a
timely fashion, and not require redundant efforts on facilities that
have already been reviewed, sometimes on multiple occasions.
E. Accelerating 5G in Rural America
There has been a great deal of discussion in this Committee
regarding the promise of 5G in rural America. We agree that the promise
is great. In particular, I want to flag the importance of clearing
sufficient mid-band spectrum, especially 3.7-4.2 GHz, to ensure that at
least four providers in every market have an opportunity to each to
deploy robust 5G services. Mid-band is particularly important to
bringing service to rural areas given its superior propagation
characteristics compared to the high band spectrum that FCC will also
auction, coupled with more bandwidth than is available at lower
frequencies.
In addition, U.S. Cellular urges Congress and the FCC to conduct
the mid-band auctions via a traditional FCC-sponsored public auction.
Some have called for the use of a private sale mechanism. We believe
the use of a private sale mechanism will severely disadvantage non-
national bidders and adversely impact rural service.
Closing Remarks
Thank you for your attention to the needs of rural America. It is
critical that these communities are not left behind in the 21st Century
economy. We all benefit when everyone is connected and we must find
ways to use our precious public funding in the most efficient ways
possible. That is our goal, and I know it's yours.
______
Exhibit A
Drive Test Photographs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Spellmeyer.
Mr. Enjady.
STATEMENT OF GODFREY ENJADY, GENERAL MANAGER, MESCALERO APACHE
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Chairman Thune and members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony.
I am Godfrey Enjady, General Manager of the Mescalero
Apache Telecom, located in Mescalero, New Mexico.
Today, I testify as President of the National Tribal
Telephone Association, NTTA, which is comprised of nine
tribally-owned telephone companies throughout the country. We
provide voice, broadband, and other communications services to
our communities.
While NTTA members share many of the same concerns that
rural independent-owned and cooperative communications
providers experience, my testimony focuses on issues vital to
tribal communities.
The recent 2018 Broadband Deployment Report acknowledges
that only 31.6 percent of rural tribal areas in the lower 48
states have access to 25.3 fixed broadband services.
The difficulties in serving more remote dispersed
communities situated in hard-to-serve rough terrain has been
thoroughly highlighted in congressional testimony and on the
record at the FCC and RUS.
A September 2018 GAO study magnifies the digital divide
experienced in Indian Country and I encourage you to take a
look at that document. Access to capital is a major roadblock
to network growth and viability because most tribally owned
carriers cannot collateralize their assets. RUS is the only
lender that we have.
In 2015, my company received the first RUS loan underneath
the 2018 Farm Bill. Substantially under-served trust area,
SSUTA provisions, RUS loans and FCC Universal Service Funds
support go hand in hand.
NTTA supports language in the Senate version of the 2018
Farm Bill that allows for the refinancing of RUS loans with the
understanding that the SSUTA provision would be used when
appropriate.
We greatly appreciate Senator Udall's leadership in
championing the provision. We also appreciate Chairman Thune's
support. Thank you, sir.
The arbitrary budget cap that has been established for the
FCC's USF High-Cost Program does not allow for adequate funds
to build and maintain the broadband networks that are demanded
by regulators, policymakers, and consumers.
There continues to be a debate about the appropriate
levels, broadband capacities, and speeds no matter what the
platform or delivery is.
To put it bluntly, the Universal Service Fund High-Cost
Program is vastly underfunded, vastly underfunded. Capital
operational expense caps must be eliminated. FCC Chairman Pai
has even questioned the wisdom of these caps.
My company is experiencing major negative impacts from the
implementation of the operational expense caps and we are in
the process of working with the Commission on a positive
solution and examination and reform of the U.S. contribution
regime is long overdue and may eliminate any need for arbitrary
budget cap.
A just-released GAO study states that from 2010 to 2017,
less than 1 percent of the FCC's funding and about 14 percent
of RUS funding went directly to tribes and tribally owned
providers or about .7 percent of the overall funding. This
illustrates the need for dedicated funding for tribal entities.
In June 2015, NTTA went on record at the FCC with a
proposal to adopt a tribal broadband factor as part of the
reform of the long-term USF for rate of return carriers. The
proposal was straightforward and easily understood and was
narrowly tailored to address the specific need to promote
broadband while using very little impact on the overall USF
mechanism. The FCC did not adopt this proposal.
NTTA continues to push for tribal area-specific high-cost
mechanism. We encourage Congress and the FCC to address this
much-needed reform to eliminate the digital divide experienced
in Native communities today.
We also believe that an increase in the enhanced lifeline
credit for tribal areas is vital to adoption and affordability
of those who are eligible and qualified for this program.
As I previously mentioned, our communities have very high
rates of low-income consumers. The previously mentioned GAO
study addresses the need for better mapping mechanisms to
measure the levels of access to broadband service in Native
communities.
The use of Census walks as a measurement simply does not
work and a majority of Indian Country, the enforcement of
engagement and consultation between tribal entities and
Federal, state, and local governments and private businesses
must be improved.
NTTA looks forward to working with this committee and other
policymakers to provide tribal communities with accessible,
robust, and affordable broadband services and to add to that, I
appreciate the Committee's work on this issue and that rural
areas of this country need more funding. We seem to have been
forgotten.
In closing, I want to thank you all for listening to my
testimony. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Enjady follows:]
Prepared Statement of Godfrey Enjady, General Manager,
Mescalero Apache Telecommunications, Inc.
Chairman Thune, Ranking Member Nelson and members of the committee,
thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony. I am Godfrey
Enjady, General Manager of Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc. (MATI)
located in Mescalero, New Mexico. Today I testify as President of the
National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA) which is
comprised of the nine Tribally-owned and operated telecommunications
companies that provide voice, broadband and other communications
services to their communities. Those companies are Cheyenne River Sioux
Telephone Authority, Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc., Gila River
Telecommunications, Inc., Hopi Telecommunications, Inc., Mescalero
Apache Telecom, Inc., Saddleback Communications, San Carlos Apache
Telecommunications Utility, Inc., Tohono O'odham Utility Authority, and
Warm Springs Telecom. The Nez Perce Tribe and Sacred Wind
Communications are associate members.
While NTTA members share many of the same concerns that rural,
independently-owned and cooperative communications providers
experience, my testimony focuses on issues vital to Tribal communities.
Mescalero Apache Telecom serves the entirety of the Mescalero
Apache Reservation located in the remote South Central Mountains of New
Mexico. Prior to MATI purchasing its service area and building its
network in 2001, 52 percent of the Mescalero Apache Tribe received no
service, and 48 percent received only basic voice service. Nearly 100
percent of the Tribe now has access to some level of broadband service.
MATI provides services in what is considered a rural, high-cost area
and serves an average population density of two customers per square
mile. This situation causes the average cost per loop to substantially
exceed the national average. MATI, like all NTTA members, has a large
percentage of consumers that qualify for the Lifeline program.
The recent 2018 Broadband Deployment Report acknowledges that only
31.6 percent of rural Tribal areas in the lower 48 states have access
to 25/3 fixed broadband service. MATI attests that, in its specific
case, extremely high costs are incurred to build out its Reservation
and maintain network operations to provide modernized
telecommunications and broadband services to its community and close
the digital divide. The record is also clear that other NTTA members
face similar high-cost circumstances and, like MATI, incur additional
costs specific to serving Tribal lands.
The difficulties in serving remote, dispersed communities situated
in hard to serve, rough terrain has been thoroughly illuminated in
Congressional testimony and on the record at the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and with USDA's Rural Utilities Service (RUS). A
September 2018 GAO study (GAO-18-630) magnifies the digital divide
experienced in Indian Country and I encourage you to take a look at
that document.
Access to capital is a major roadblock to network growth and
viability. Because most Tribally-owned carriers cannot collateralize
their assets, RUS is our only lender and I appreciate the work that
they do. In 2015, my company received the first RUS loan under the 2008
Farm Bill's Substantially Underserved Trust Area (SUTA) provision. RUS
loans and FCC Universal Service Fund (USF) support go hand-in-hand.
Reliable and predictable cash flow is required to get any sort of loan,
including RUS loans.
NTTA supports language in the Senate version of the 2018 Farm Bill
(Sec. 6209) that allows for the refinancing of RUS loans with the
understanding that the SUTA provision would be used when appropriate.
We greatly appreciate Senator Udall's leadership in championing this
provision. We also appreciate Chairman Thune's support.
The National Broadband Plan, in numerous instances, outlined the
need for greater efforts to make broadband available on Tribal lands.
In referencing the GAO study outlined earlier in my testimony, there is
a lack of FCC development of broadband performance goals and
measurements on Tribal lands. We recommend the development of training,
mapping, data collection, and performance goals and measurements for
broadband development in Native communities.
The arbitrary budget cap that has been established for the FCC's
USF high-cost program does not allow for adequate funds to build and
maintain the broadband networks that are demanded by regulators, policy
makers and consumers. There continues to be a debate about the
appropriate levels broadband capacities and speeds, no matter what the
platform of delivery. Fiber optic networks, with the complement of
wireless and satellite technologies, delivers the highest quality, most
rewarding Internet experience, and long term benefit to consumers. And
that network requires a viable and predictable funding source,
especially in areas that are remote, sparsely populated and hard to
serve.
To put it bluntly, the Universal Service Fund high-cost program is
vastly underfunded. Capital and operational expense caps must be
eliminated. FCC Chairman Pai has even questioned the wisdom of these
caps. My company is experiencing major negative impact from the
implementation of the operational expense cap and we are in the process
of working with the Commission on a positive solution. An examination
and reform of the USF contribution regime is long over-due, and may
eliminate any need for the arbitrary budget cap.
A just released GAO study (GAO-18-682) states--``Specifically, from
2010 to 2017, we found that less than 1 percent of FCC funding and
about 14 percent of RUS funding went directly to tribes and tribally
owned providers. Combined, FCC and RUS funding totaled $34.6 billion
during that time period and tribes and tribally owned providers
received $235 million, or about 0.7 percent.'' This illustrates the
need for dedicated funding for Tribal entities.
In June of 2015, NTTA went on record at the FCC with a proposal to
adopt a Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF) as part of the reform of the long
term USF for rate-of-return carriers. The TBF included a multiplier for
targeted support on Tribal lands, and had specific obligations for any
carrier, Tribally-owned or not, that uses the program. The proposal was
straightforward and easily understood, and was narrowly-tailored to
address the specific need to promote broadband while causing very
little impact on the overall USF mechanism. The FCC did not adopt this
proposal.
NTTA continues to push for a Tribal area-specific high-cost
mechanism (or revisions to the current mechanisms). We encourage
Congress and the FCC to address this much needed reform to eliminate
the digital divide experienced in Native communities.
We also believe that an increase in the enhanced lifeline credit
for Tribal areas is vital to adoption and affordability of those who
are eligible and qualify for this program. As I previously mentioned,
our communities have very high rates of low income consumers.
NTTA recommends that a pilot program be established to locate
existing infrastructure in Indian country. In many Tribal areas,
current infrastructure facilities (water, sewer, gas, electricity) are
not properly identified or mapped. The preference of burying new
broadband infrastructure leads to unintended cuts and/or damage to
existing utility facilities that can prove to be inconvenient and
possibly dangerous to the local community as well as adding significant
cost to a broadband build out. There are numerous instances of
Tribally-owned and operated telecommunications companies using a major
portion of their broadband project funding to repair damaged
infrastructure. For example, MATI recently incurred over $350,000 of
additional construction costs resulting from hitting unmarked water and
sewer lines during its current fiber-to-the-home build. In the case of
Tribally-owned companies, this funding would be provided primarily
through RUS loans or grants. With aging infrastructure on Native lands,
the scope of this problem is significant and unknown. A pilot program,
with adequate funding, would allow all parties involved to develop best
practices and methods to identify unmarked infrastructure to avoid
damage and unneeded additional cost.
We also recommend additional funding for the development of more
robust middle mile infrastructure and capacity. Most Tribally-owned
telecommunications companies serve rugged and remote areas. Issues
related to distance and capacity make connecting to the ``outside
world'' very costly. As Tribal companies build out broadband to their
communities, they add more customers and therefore more traffic on
their network. Customer usage and consumer demands have also driven the
need for more capacity (distance learning, telemedicine, video
streaming, etc.). An injection of funds to build more middle mile
capacity for Tribal use would greatly benefit those communities.
Also, there needs to be a reallocation of spectrum for Tribal use.
The current process of spectrum allocation makes it very difficult for
smaller entities to access spectrum. This includes Tribal communities
which need both wired and wireless services to prosper. One way to
address the scale of size issue is to establish a Tribal Spectrum
Network to increase the capacity ``buying power'' of Tribal entities.
The previously mentioned GAO study addressed the need for better
mapping mechanisms to measure the levels of access to broadband service
in Native communities. The use of census blocks as a measurement simply
does not work in a majority of Indian Country.
There are many other issues that can be addressed to enhance
broadband deployment in Tribal areas: expansion and increased funding
for USDA's Community Connect Grant program, the reduction of regulatory
compliance reporting for small companies, and a better Tribal
engagement and consultation processes. On this last point, the
enforcement of engagement and consultation between Tribal entities,
federal, state, and local governments, and private businesses must be
improved. This includes a wide range of issues such as rights-of-way,
easements, and pole and tower siting.
Mr. Chairman, much more work needs to be done on infrastructure
growth in Tribal areas, most importantly in the area of broadband
deployment. NTTA looks forward to working with this committee and other
policy makers to provide Tribal communities with accessible, robust,
and affordable broadband services.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Enjady, and again thank all of
you for being here and for sharing your thoughts as we look at
these issues and try and come to the best conclusions about how
we can better serve rural areas of the country and ensure that
everybody has access to the same quality of services that
people in populated areas do.
Mr. Law, in your testimony, you emphasized the importance
of predictable high-cost support.
Could you describe the process you go through in planning
and deploying broadband and why predictability is so important
to a small carrier like Golden West?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For all rural providers,
when you are planning network upgrades over significant areas
or even within specific communities, it is a multiyear process
that involves identifying the needs, where do the updates need
to happen or the upgrades need to happen, engineering it or at
least coming up with an initial estimate to determine what's it
going to cost.
Then you have to determine do I have the funding to do it,
the customer base to do it. Then you have to deal with
acquiring supplies, arranging for contractors, and in the Upper
Midwest, you also have to account for the fact that you've got
about a 5-month window from May through November, May through
October, rather, that you can do construction.
Ultimately, design projects like that are a multiyear
process. So we are working as Golden West right now, we're
focusing primarily on our 2020 activities, of what are we
looking to construct or upgrade or build in 2020 and 2021.
We've identified the items for 2019 already. The question
will be, do we have adequate funding for it? So it is a
multiyear process, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thanks. Ms. Thompson, I understand, it's
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Telephone Authority's 60th
Anniversary, so congratulations. We want to recognize you on
that achievement.
Could you just kind of explain maybe some of the unique
challenges that you've faced over the last 60 years as you've
been able to come to them and what, if anything, Congress can
help in overcoming those?
Ms. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman Thune. Some of the
challenges that we face as the tribally owned telecom business
on the reservation is where are we going to find the funding to
bring a good quality service, which is in our mind is the fiber
optics, and so without RUS funding, as Mr. Enjady noted in his
opening statement, without that RUS funding, we would not have
been able to build out the fiber that we did. So we were very
glad about that.
The other challenge again is the Universal Service support
and the cuts and the budget control mechanism and the pro rata
factor, the impact that's had on us, and how are we going to
continue to repay our loan, and also to make the service
affordable for the low-income consumers that we serve in our
area.
Like I said in my opening statement, I'm very happy that we
did complete the build-out of fiber optics and the residents on
the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe Reservation have access to
broadband service.
The Chairman. Great. Thank you.
Mr. Spellmeyer, we have been focused on making sure that
the United States leads the world in 5G Mobile Broadband
Services. However, we still have places that are without 3G or
4G services.
How will the lack of today's services impact the ability to
deploy next generation services?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, there is no doubt that the impact of
bad data and bad maps is going to be very significant in its
impact on 5G in rural America.
As we've seen in all the states that we've gone to, the
FCC's maps have a high error factor. That's particularly
important because what the FCC proposes to do in Mobility Fund
II is to dedicate a full 10 years worth of support, based on
those maps.
So if the maps are bad today in South Dakota and elsewhere,
as we believe they are, it's going to be 2029-2030 before we
can get access to additional government funding to come back
and fix all those places and, you know, that's particularly
alarming to us and it should be to all policymakers.
The Chairman. What would you use to determine whether the
Mobility Fund II, which, as you mentioned earlier, is prepared
to deliver $4.5 billion over 10 years to support and expand
mobile broadband coverage in rural communities, what measure do
you use to determine whether it's a success or not?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, in the long run, I think 10 years
from now you'll look back and see whether coverage has advanced
significantly. We've got a lot of concerns about that.
The FCC set the speed target for Mobility Fund II at 10
megabits. So hopefully you'll get 10 megabit speeds out to
rural America by 2029. You're going to have to take a look at
that and, as I said again, if it only gets to half the places
that really need it, it's going to be a terrible stumbling
block to then move to 5G and 5G is likely to be--I
characterized it the other day and other experts have as the
next industrial revolution. It's going to change the country
and if those changes don't come to half the geography in the
country, it's going to be a terrible failure in the global race
that we have with China and other countries to deploy 5G.
The Chairman. My time's expired.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Chairman Thune. I really
appreciate the discussion you've engendered here.
Yesterday, the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, where
Chairman Hoven and myself as the Vice Chair worked on a hearing
and we convened a hearing around the issue of two recent
Government Accountability reports. Both those focused on the
significant need for additional dedicated attention and
resources to provide broadband in tribal areas and, as Senator
Cantwell said earlier here, I would suggest the staff to take a
look at the testimony that came in because I think there are
some very, very good things there that enlighten us a lot.
Yesterday, we heard some great practical ideas about ways
to bring more broadband to tribal areas and most of them start
with funding, both from the Universal Service Fund and from
other grants or loans.
The question for the panel is does everyone here agree that
we should have an infrastructure package and that it should
include a broadband funding mechanism? If you want to elaborate
a little bit that's fine.
Mr. Law. Senator, I would answer two quick items. Overall,
absolutely, yes, I agree, but I would also emphasize that RUS
funding and, more importantly, Universal Service Funding are
foundational to that infrastructure package in making
additional broadband investment.
Senator Udall. Ms. Thompson.
Ms. Thompson. Yes, and I would agree to Mr. Law's
statements. I do agree, absolutely, that there should be.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Mr. Spellmeyer.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Senator, U.S. Cellular certainly
supports the concept of a large infrastructure package to
address rural broadband, including in tribal areas.
The biggest challenge, other than finding the money, will
be, as I've stated, getting the coverage determinations sorted
out so the money can actually get there.
Senator Udall. Mr. Enjady.
Mr. Enjady. Yes, Senator Udall, it is greatly needed,
especially in Indian Country. We always lag behind, as you can
see from the numbers that I talked about earlier. We're still
trying to catch up to the rest of the world.
Fortunately for us out in New Mexico, Mescalero, I was
fortunate enough to work for a company called Comtel, which
turned into GTE and eventually became Verizon but on the wire
line side. From that, I was able to build a phone company, come
back to the reservation and help build a phone company. So back
in 2001, we opened the doors for Mescalero Apache Telecom.
I've been running the operation since then and working and
advocating for more funding always to provide services on a
reservation.
Our reservation's about 575 square miles. It's pretty huge
and a lot of services that are needed by our tribal members.
We've become very good at what we do but it's a hard thing to
provide services to Indian land because there's not a lot of
Mona Thompsons or Godfrey Enjadys on every reservation to be
able to try to do that.
So the tribal engagement portion is very important for the
FCC to make sure that they have the key people in place to be
able to teach and educate, as we talked about yesterday, but,
yes, more funding is needed. We need to be able to provide
these services and the government is coming to where it's kind
of more paperless, where we needing to use more iPads.
As you can see around the room, people are using their
phones. We need that ability to have that come to our
reservations and people to get to the services they need, that
is so greatly needed, so yes. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you all for that answer.
Chairman Thune, I would ask unanimous consent to put this
chart into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
[The chart referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Udall. This is a chart we took from the FCC data
and the very high graph on the end shows in the United States
of America 92.20 percent is availability of broadband and
that's in the United States and the much smaller down to a
third, about 31.60 percent, is lower 48 tribal areas. So you
can see the difference between tribal and non-tribal
connectivity.
What does this severe lack of connectivity mean for tribal
citizens to access to economic development, access to public
safety, and their children's access to educational benefits
that high-speed broadband offers?
I would focus on Mr. Enjady and Ms. Thompson on that.
Please, Ms. Thompson.
Ms. Thompson. Without broadband on tribal lands, it would
hinder the children's ability to get a good quality education
and economic development definitely would impact that, as well.
Public safety, broadband is important to all aspects of having
quality of life on tribal lands, just as you would in other
lands across the Nation.
Senator Udall. Mr. Enjady.
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Udall. Yes, it is very
important, especially the education side, as Ms. Thompson's
talking about. That is one thing that I'm getting older,
hopefully these children that we're raising, I want to give
them enough tools to be able to take care of me as I grow older
and living on the reservation, it's kind of tough, and like I
said, like any child, if they ask for something and want to
learn something, obviously we teach it. So these are some of
the aspects of what we as NTTA members try to do with our
tribal members and hopefully we can outreach more.
I know, Senator Udall, you had talked about trying to get a
school bus with Wi-Fi to be able to get the children to be able
to at least have homework done before they get home or because,
like you said earlier, that a lot of kids are trying to find
Wi-Fi just anywhere to grab on and try to be able to do what
they need to do.
But, yes, I appreciate your question.
Senator Udall. Thank you, and thank you for the courtesies.
I'm running over my time.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Hassan.
STATEMENT OF HON. MAGGIE HASSAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Hassan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I, too, want
to thank you for your opening remarks and associate myself with
them.
I want to thank you and the Ranking Member for this hearing
and to all of the witnesses: thank you so much for being here.
Mr. Spellmeyer, I want to not only commend your testimony
just now on the difficulty with the FCC maps and mapping
process, but also I commend to the rest of the Committee the
video that U.S. Cellular did of you and folks in the field
trying to find their ways to these places where they're
supposed to collect data, and where there aren't any roads.
It just showed a lot of the effort and a lot of the
practical difficulty and I think the Committee could benefit
from getting the link. So that's a homework assignment for you.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you, Senator. There is a link. If you
go to the exhibit, there's a link at the bottom. We'll
obviously circulate it around again. Most of the staff have it.
It was a very challenging operation and I think that video
captures it well.
Senator Hassan. Yes. It really did. Toward that point,
working with Senators Wicker and Moran, we challenged the FCC's
process and we, along with members of this Committee, got the
FCC to do a 90-day extension on the Challenge Process.
Is that 90-day extension enough, and what additional steps
do we need to take to make these maps reliable?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Senator, the 90-day extension was helpful.
It is allowing us to drive right now to additional places, but
as I indicated, you know, we've spent over $2 million. We've
only gotten to 3 percent of the places that we really should go
to, given the infirmities that we see in the maps, and, you
know, I think we would benefit from an additional extension, if
someone would be willing to grant us that.
But, frankly, I think we need to send the FCC back to the
table to refine the model that led to these maps in the first
place. We shouldn't be charged with going around and fixing a
bad model. We should fix the model and then have a very minimal
challenge process.
Senator Hassan. OK. Thank you for that. I want to turn to
another subject, Mr. Spellmeyer. I wanted to get your feedback
on the importance of the AIRWAVES Act, which I introduced
earlier this year with Senator Gardner.
This legislation now has 12 bipartisan co-sponsors in the
Senate, including many people on this Committee. The
legislation would ensure a Spectrum pipeline to meet the needs
of a 5G America, would provide additional unlicensed Spectrum
to benefit our Nation's entrepreneurs and innovators, and the
AIRWAVES Act would make meaningful investments in rural
broadband.
Mr. Spellmeyer, can you expand on the benefits the AIRWAVES
Act and how this bill will help ensure 5G technology gets fully
deployed not just in our heavily connected areas but throughout
the country?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Senator. I had to laugh. I spoke on a
panel a few weeks ago and the press quoted me as saying I love
the AIRWAVES Act and that remains the case. It's an important
piece of legislation.
Senator Hassan. We might have noticed that. Just saying.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Spellmeyer. It is an important piece of legislation not
only because it will help identify and free up additional
Spectrum for 5G deployment, which will be important, but it
contains the provisions related to the digital dividend which
would set aside a portion of future Spectrum proceeds and to
use those for rural deployment.
We don't think the Mobility Fund II is big enough to get
the job done in the long run and that digital dividend,
especially if we can get it passed before we do all these 5G
options, will be very beneficial to rural America and
deployment.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you for that. I wanted to ask
about one other piece of legislation. It's a bill I introduced
with Senator Capito that would establish a national standard
for determining whether mobile and broadband services in rural
areas are truly reasonably comparable to the service in urban
areas. I think, Mr. Law, you had mentioned that concept, too.
I'll start with Mr. Spellmeyer and then maybe, Mr. Law, you
can jump in.
The Rural Reasonable and Comparable Wireless Access Act
would help ensure that there is equitable wireless and
broadband coverage in rural and urban areas, something which
has long been undefined.
So first, Mr. Spellmeyer, do you think this legislation is
important, why or why not?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I absolutely do. That, you know, reasonably
comparable standard was in the 1996 Act. It's what the FCC is
supposed to be working from. Unfortunately, that's kind of, you
know, slipped to the back burner and your bill, along with
Senator Capito, is important because it really does direct the
FCC to do certain things, to take an inventory of that
standard, and it will advance the equitability of service
across the country.
Senator Hassan. Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I may hear from
Mr. Law? Please go ahead, sir.
Mr. Law. We would be also supportive, Senator, of
identifying reasonable and comparable as well as the addition
of. That standard will change overtime and----
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. Law.--so appreciative of the legislative effort. Thank
you.
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you very much, and thank you,
Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hassan.
Senator Cortez Masto.
STATEMENT OF HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I, too,
want to echo the comments of my colleagues.
I want to thank both you and Senator Klobuchar for your
opening comments. I couldn't agree more.
Thank you all for being here as well as the hearing
yesterday in Senate Indian Affairs.
Let me just start by this. Mr. Spellmeyer, I agree with
you. As we move forward with 5G, and I think we should, we've
got to address this issue of our rural communities that are not
connected and underserved communities because they will be left
behind, and I think that's a tragedy on so many levels from
what we were just talking about, from the need for economic
development that this connectivity brings to public safety to
education, e-learning, to health care, behavioral health. I
mean, there are so many things that we should be focused on.
So one of the topics that I want to talk about is grant
funding and I was reading through the GAO report on the tribal
broadband and I noticed many of the same concerns that tribal
communities have are shared by those in our rural communities.
I'm from Nevada. We have both, and specifically under the
section titled Grant Application Requirements, the report said,
and I quote, ``Representatives from eight of the tribes were
contacted, told us that in general the language included in the
Federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the
administrative requirements of Federal grants are burdensome.''
And again this is similar to what I hear across Nevada and
I don't know if my other colleagues have, but I have applied
for Federal grants and you literally need a degree to get
through all of the requirements there.
So based on this input, I joined with Senator Gardner of
Colorado and introduced the bipartisan Access Broadband Act and
what this bill does is establishes a coordinating office for
Federal broadband resources at the NTIA and requires that
office to come up with a streamlined application process that
is as uniform as possible for all of the Federal broadband
programs.
So I wanted to open it to the panelists. Can you talk a
little bit about what you're seeing with the application
process and the comments that were in the GAO and would
streamlining these grant programs help to bring needed dollars
into the tribal communities to address what we are talking
about today? Does anybody have any comments on that? Please.
Mr. Enjady. My comments on that would be the fact that
grants are great. The streamlining process, you usually go
out--most tribes will get whoever they need to do that, but the
biggest thing is that after you get the grant, put whatever you
need to put in a grant or whatever, say telecommunications, you
need sustainability of funding behind that to be able to take
care of that because most tribes are very poor. They're not
able to take care of the infrastructure itself after you've put
it in.
So that's a big problem that needs to be addressed in some
way of additional funding as the project goes along. So those
are some of my comments that would be needed, but like I said,
they're great, but like I said, you've got to be able to pay
for it afterwards and most tribes just don't have that funding
right now.
Senator Cortez Masto. Right, right. Thank you. Anyone else?
Please.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Senator, I can't comment on that process in
particular, but if you look at my testimony, you'll see an
attachment with 50 pages of instructions from the FCC about how
we're supposed to upload the data that we collect in this
Challenge Process and if it's anything similar to that, you get
a feel for just how complicated it is for small enterprises to
deal with this.
Senator Cortez Masto. And I agree because I know part of
the grant process for tribes particularly and the requirements
are access to the data that's going to be necessary to apply
for the grants and if you don't have accurate data or can't
sustain it or get that information, it makes it difficult to
even do that initial application, to even put your foot in and
open the door to getting access to that funding. So I
appreciate that.
Mr. Law, in your testimony, you mentioned that Golden West
was recently given a SMART Rural Community Showcase Award.
Mr. Law. Correct, Senator.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you mind, can you talk about some
of the exciting things that you're doing, that you're seeing in
rural America on this, and how important it is for the
communities to have Federal and private partners?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator. I'd say the exciting
opportunity from the broadband are some of the items that were
touched on today in terms of enabling small, rural, remote at
times, depending on how you want to define remote, providing
them with the digital opportunities to enhance the quality of
life within those communities and so one of the communities
that we worked on the eastern side of the state where we did a
complete upgrade of the system in that community for Dell
Rapid, South Dakota, we went through and met with various
businesses, both how they use broadband today, at that time, as
well as what did they need their broadband to be able to do for
them in the future, focused on them in terms of capacity,
system requirements, and really how that transforms their
business opportunities specifically from contractors to main
street, two-people to 30-people operations.
Those were some of the areas that we focused on in our
SMART Rural Community application. Certainly we have other
examples throughout, but it was an exciting process, honored to
receive the award, and I hope there are more areas in rural
America that we can talk about having a SMART rural community.
Senator Cortez Masto. And I do, too, and that's why I
introduced the Moving First Act. I think it's important that we
authorize more grant funding programs for rural America, for
certain communities to access the funding to do just what you
talked about. So thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Many of
Wisconsin's rural telecom companies trace their roots back to
the early 20th Century. In order to serve their own rural
communities, Wisconsites often formed their own telecom
companies that would issue them shares in return for a small
investment.
Today, many of those same companies still exist and remain
the sole provider of phone, TV, and high-speed broadband in
their communities. However, these original companies' shares
have been split among children who have then split them among
their children.
This has gone on for so many generations now that some
Wisconsin companies will soon hit the SEC's 500-shareholder
threshold, which requires the issuer to submit independent
financial audits that can cost hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Now I've heard from a number of Wisconsin rural telecom
companies that these reporting requirements are unnecessary in
their circumstances and very burdensome.
So, Mr. Law, I understand your company is a co-op and does
not have this problem, but I know you interact with many
others, and I wonder if you could describe how the current
reporting requirements impede rural telecom companies and
discuss what we can do to ease this burden.
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Certainly any of the
rural telecommunications providers on this panel or throughout
the country can tell you about the regulatory burdens in terms
of provision of quality of service across wide areas, reporting
to state authorities, public utilities commissions, the Federal
Communications Commission, reports for Universal Service
Funding. There's a whole litany of those things, but they are
all dedicated to the provision or the providing of broadband
services.
The action that you're referring to specific for the
Wisconsin companies, and there are other companies throughout
the country that are impacted by that, is involving Securities
and Exchange Commission filings because the initial founders or
shareholders of that company way back when, and many companies
formed that exact same way, now has grown over the years and,
all of a sudden, they trip a level for a non-publicly-traded
entity that has, I'll say, evolved over the years to add the
layer of SEC reporting requirements on top of what in many
cases may be a 10-12-20-person operation that may not have that
expertise is a tremendous six-figure financial burden, not just
for Wisconsin companies but to others, as well.
But if they a similarly caught company, so to speak, that
tripped that threshold on the number of shareholders, I would
hope that some mechanism could be found to provide them an
opportunity to either be waived or the requirements lessened
because there is already a substantial, I'll say, regulatory
burden in being in the telecommunications business.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. During the Committee's August
FCC Oversight hearing, Commissioner Rosenworcel and I discussed
the shortcomings of the current picture of what level of
broadband service exists in which parts of the country.
In particular, I expressed my concern that we rely too much
on the industry alone to tell us where the service exists,
whether that is data submitted by providers or, as we've heard
today from Mr. Spellmeyer's testimony, the costly efforts
undertaken to identify service gaps as part of the Challenge
Process.
Commissioner Rosenworcel and I discussed how the Federal
Government could and should do more to bear the burden of
having the accurate maps, and I suggested that there are a lot
of Federal agencies that operate in rural parts of my state
every day, the Postal Service and many others, that should be
able to contribute to our knowledge of what's truly available
to customers there.
Mr. Spellmeyer, given your company's experience on the
ground testing as part of the Mobility Fund Challenge Process,
do you agree that it makes sense to leverage these kind of
Federal resources to collect more accurate data on broadband
service and are there other ways beyond that that you think we
should bring more stakeholders into the process?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I do, Senator. The biggest single cost of
this undertaking is the labor to drive the roads and we're
going to have to deal with the stuff that's off the roads, as
well, and ideas, like the Postal Service, the sheriff's
department, the state patrol, have all been talked about and
are worthy of consideration.
Beyond that, the concept of trying to use a model was a
good one and, as I said earlier, I think the FCC just--another
way to do this is to go back and take a short delay and fix the
data and then let's move forward. We shouldn't need to drive
every road to verify a model.
Beyond that, NTIA Administrator Redl just announced an RFP
coming this fall where NTIA got $7.5 million, I believe, in the
Appropriations Bill to work on mapping and they're going to
push forward on that. They probably need more funding than
that, given that I had to spend $2 million to cover 3 percent
of my 15 percent of the country, but certainly all of those are
viable options.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Baldwin.
Mr. Law, could you speak a little bit about what resources
that you have or need as RUS moves forward with its pilot
program to prevent overbuilding in your service area?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The concern is that as
the RUS moves forward with its pilot program deals with there
is a significant amount of money available, $600 million, but
the question is what areas are eligible for that funding and,
as a rule telecommunications provider, I strongly believe, and
I think the industry supports that, those funds should be
deployed to further broadband in areas that does not exist
today.
There is language involved that RUS is seeking comment on
about what standards should be used. There was language from
the Senate that dealt with a 90-percent threshold, that if the
area had a 90-percent coverage threshold--I'm sorry. If up to
90 percent of the customers didn't have coverage there, that
the pilot funding was available.
House version sets a much lower level, and I think it would
be disappointing to have RUS funding potentially working
against funding of other programs, specifically USF or RUS
loans to other providers, for the purposes of providing
network.
Certainly the testimony here today and the comments from
other members on the panel have all talked about the need to
deploy broadband in areas that don't have it. It gets to be a
lot more challenging to talk about not just deploying it in
areas that don't have it but do we deploy for the second or the
third or the fourth provider in areas that already do have it?
I personally don't believe that that's a satisfactory use
of Federal funds used to deploy broadband.
The Chairman. Thanks. Ms. Thompson, can you explain what
the impact that the current USF High-Cost budget shortfall's
having on your company and the communities that you serve?
Ms. Thompson. Sure. For 2018, the impact to CRST was a loss
of approximately 935,000 and that's due to the pro rata factor,
the budget control mechanism, and the CAFVLS, and then for
2019, the new figures just came out yesterday, our impact is
going to be $1.2 million of loss in support.
The Chairman. Mr. Law?
Mr. Law. For the current funding year for Golden West, the
budget control mechanism alone will impact us by $4.2 million,
Mr. Chairman, and specifically that impact is based off of
investments that Golden West made in broadband services two or
more years ago and so the investments we made last year and the
investments that we made this year really were done without the
knowledge of what that budget control mechanism will be and so
while $4.2 million is a significant amount of money to any
company and certainly Golden West, the fact that the budget
control looms even larger potentially in coming years makes it
concerning in regard to our commitment to invest significantly
in additional broadband services.
We will continue to invest at some level. However, I think
it will be challenging in the current environment with the lack
of budget and the budget control mechanism from the FCC when,
all of a sudden, you take a $4.2 million haircut in 1 year and
that number has increased each of the last three and a half
budget cycles from the FCC.
So it's dramatic for us and we've had to either pause or
cancel particular capital projects that would have furthered
broadband expansion.
The Chairman. Mr. Enjady, any comment on that?
Mr. Enjady. Repeat the question again.
The Chairman. The shortfall in the High-Cost budget----
Mr. Enjady. Yes, it has caused a significant impact. Yes,
I've lost pretty much along the same line as Mona's talking
about, about $900,000. It has been tough. I've had to cut our
budget by that much just to try to stay alive.
Again, once you use the High-Cost Fund, it's a double-edged
sword because you have to spend money to be able to get money
from the fund itself. So once I cut, I lose even more money. So
it's even a tougher situation for us out in Indian Country,
especially when we went out and borrowed money in the first
place from the government, RUS, and be able to pay that back
through USF. It is a double-edged sword.
We're trying to make it work, but like I said, once you go
one way and the other way, it's a fine-tuning of trying to do
this. Hopefully, the FCC can provide more funding, take the
caps off, and that will get us back in to be a whole company
where we're just trying to provide services.
Right now, all my energy is trying to just balance our
budget because predictability is not there. So once the FCC can
be able to provide the funding that we need to be able to put
us back on track, we can be able to go out and borrow money.
As you know, tribes cannot collateralize their tribal
lands. So conventional banks, we cannot borrow from them. So
RUS is our only provider of funding. So that's the only way we
can do this.
The Chairman. Mr. Spellmeyer, as this committee heard in
our recent hearing on the Race to 5G, the three and a half
gigahertz band is the closest to market mid-band Spectrum for
wireless use.
As the FCC considers the final rules for this Spectrum
band, what's the most important for your company's ability to
deploy in rural areas?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, so I have had an opportunity to look
at the Draft Order that is going to be voted on in a few weeks
and, you know, to us, there are two major things.
One is license area sizes. That's counties in the three and
a half gig item and we're supportive of that. We think that's a
good compromise. The other thing that we look at is access to
Spectrum by non-national carriers. Anybody smaller than a
national carrier needs to have a pathway to get adequate
Spectrum and so that's something we focus very closely on.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Moran.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. I think Senator Klobuchar is next.
Senator Klobuchar. No.
Senator Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Spellmeyer, I'm going to start with you. We've had
conversations about this topic and I know this has been talked
about in this hearing, but I would put in the record, I
continue to find the Mobility Fund Phase II Eligibility Map to
be inadequate.
I've had that conversation with the FCC Commissioners.
We've had that conversation in person. We've had this
conversation in hearings in this room. I've heard the continued
complaints from my carriers in Kansas and organizations like
the Kansas Farm Bureau who are out trying to do tests to
provide the information in the appeal process, and I've
indicated this before and I would say it again.
It is troublesome to me that the FCC has a map that they
know is faulty, they know is failing to meet its purposes, and
the only solution that they have provided is for an appeals
process, which means government is shifting the burden to
people without the finances, the resources, the time and
ability to correct a map that we know fails us.
I would compliment the FCC. They've taken several steps at
our request, at others' request, to make this process
different, and to give more people the opportunity to
participate in the appeal.
But really what we need, you talk about a model in your
testimony, how do we refine the model so that this is not about
people out testing, it's not about people trying to figure out
how they get to a point in Kansas in which they can take this
reading to demonstrate the map is failing? What's the model
that can be used?
Mr. Spellmeyer. So originally, Senator Moran, industry got
together and agreed on a set of parameters that would be used
for this one-time data collection. That agreement was based
upon the way we engineer our own networks, things like cellage
probability and cell-loading factors.
When that went to the FCC, unfortunately, the FCC watered
those standards down, introduced a much higher error factor, an
allowable error factor into the map, and once you've created
four maps with a 20-percent error factor and overlaid them on
each other, you end up with a real mess.
So, fundamentally, I think we need to go back to what was
originally proposed by industry, quickly seek comment on it,
and tighten down on those error factors so that we can get a
better model and then we don't all have to drive around in a
circle.
Senator Moran. So this map and the appeal process will not
end in a satisfactory result. We need to move ourselves away
from this and begin again.
Mr. Spellmeyer. I don't see any way that it will end in a
satisfactory process. We've spent, as I said earlier, $2
million. We've covered 3 percent of our footprint. Everywhere
we go, we're finding a 30-40-45-percent error rate in the areas
that we're looking at.
The maps just are nowhere near accurate and many of you
know it, if you look at your states, and you see in some
instances an entire state has been deemed covered when you know
it's not and in other places, the states are partially covered
but everybody I talk to, you know, both Houses of Congress, all
the Members of Congress that drive around all the time, they
all know they're just terrible, and we can't lock it in for 10
more years that way and say Kansas is done, come back to us in
2030 and we'll revisit it then, or the tribal areas in
Washington are done, so come see us in 2031.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Law, I do support the short-term funding. Let me tell
you that every Kansan has been to Wall, South Dakota.
Mr. Law. Thank you.
Senator Moran. It's part of our growing-up experience.
While I support the short-term funding the FCC agreed to
provide in the USF High-Cost Program for rate of return
carriers earlier this year to mitigate the consequences of
budget control mechanism, I continue to urge the FCC that a
sufficient and predictable funding for this program is critical
for connecting our rural communities to high-speed broadband.
I assume you agree and I assume that this lack of certainty
creates consequences in your decisionmaking process for
deployment.
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your support of
the control and working with the budget aspects.
In response to an earlier question in terms of the planning
cycle for networks as a telecommunications provider, it is a
multiyear cycle just to plan it and deploy it, and I'll say to
get it in the ground or hung on the poles and delivered to the
house is a several-year process.
So in my organization, we're talking about what we would
like to be doing in 2020 and 2021 right now. That is years out,
but with the overhang of really an uncertain and wildly varying
budget amount or potential funding available, the willingness
to take a risk on funding that not only may not be there but
may be significantly less than the funding that we have today
causes us to look at less broadband upgrades instead of more at
the time that a national priority is more rural broadband.
Senator Moran. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, have I bragged sufficiently on South Dakota
that I can ask a third question? Thank you.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Of course you are.
Senator Moran. It was the Thunes that brought us and our
daughters to Wall, South Dakota, and it was my parents who took
us to Wall, South Dakota, as kids. Every middle-class Kansan
has to see Pike's Peak followed by Mount Rushmore and the
Badlands. Thank you for your hospitality. We good? OK.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Proceed, proceed.
Senator Moran. This again for you, Mr. Law, is I want to
talk about the Farm Bill. In June, the Senate passed its
version of the Farm Bill that included protections that we
encouraged and insisted be included to prevent Federal
subsidies administered by the Rural Utility Services from
overbuilding, to overbuild on top of existing
telecommunications infrastructure.
These protections were left out of the House Farm Bill and
I just would like you to confirm that you and others would be
supportive of the Senate version on this issue.
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator. Strongly supportive would be
an accurate reflection of the Senate provision as it relates to
the necessary items in place to prevent over-building areas
where perhaps it is a struggle to support one network and take
the focus off trying to figure out how do you get more networks
in an area that can't support one network without Federal
assistance. Thank you.
Senator Moran. Thank you for both your answers.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moran. Well done. You can
brag on South Dakota, too, if you want to.
Senator Klobuchar. We won't get into the football team.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think she's
going to pass to me, but I'll brag on South Dakota.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Definitely, definitely, definitely want
to continue to work with the Chairman on making sure we have
continued access to great sites for our national parks and we
just moved legislation yesterday and are helping you with a lot
of things in your state, which has many great assets, but
getting there and the infrastructure is very important, so
we'll keep working with you on that.
I thank the witnesses and, Mr. Enjady, thank you for
yesterday, as well.
To me, we could have more accurate data and information or
I guess I should say crystallization of the issue in ways that
would make it simpler to then decide what and where do we want
to play our role in helping rural broadband and broadband in
Indian Country.
But I wanted to ask the witnesses about this issue as it
relates to the networks writ large. Having experienced around
Washington several incidents where we have been able to get
broadband delivered in very rural parts of the state or to
Indian Country, we've had some great innovations, whether
that's the PUDs, the public utility districts, being involved
in the last mile or this issue of open access, which I know
probably scares big providers because they don't want their
network to be open access.
But at the same time, do we need some creativity at the
local level to help on this last mile issue, yes or no?
Mr. Law. Senator Cantwell, thank you for your question. I
think in areas where there are committed providers to serving
small rural or insular communities, honestly, I'm not sure that
is necessary, and I think I could point to the three providers
behind the table to say each of us and our organizations are
committed to these small rural communities, not that there is
not a role for some level of local government involvement.
However, when you're talking about network deployment and other
things, I think that gets a lot stickier.
As you get into other areas that may not have a committed
local community provider, perhaps that's a different
discussion, but I can only speak for the areas in much of South
Dakota. For example, 75 percent of our land mass is served by
locally-owned-based telecommunications providers and I think if
you talk to the majority, if not all, of the communities inside
that channel, I think they'd tell you that there is not a role
for them.
Senator Cantwell. OK. Yes, Mr. Enjady.
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Yes, there needs
to be involvement by tribes. There needs to be an understanding
because most tribes do not understand what's going on. That's
one of the things that we talked about yesterday, was
education, educating tribes, getting the FCC to play a role in
that, and it's the engagement process.
This is something that's much needed. Local governments
have no knowledge or idea of how telecoms work. Like I said,
when it comes to myself, we are general managers of small
telephone companies but there are only nine of them throughout
the United States and if we look, there are a lot more tribes
than that.
So more participation by local government in tribal areas
is needed to be able to provide comments to you to say that
this is what we need. We're always the last ones left behind.
So this is something that we've fought hard for.
NTTA as an organization has done that, too, to make people
aware. As I speak, I'm just only one of nine tribally owned
telephone company general managers that provide information
about tribal areas. We took it upon ourselves to be able to
provide these services and be able to get our reservations
hooked up, as you could say, with devices to be able to provide
these broadband services.
Not every tribe has that opportunity. This is something
that again, like I said, education is needed and if we can get
the FCC to really push hard on that, the office, ONAP, being
able to provide those services to Indian Country would be
greatly needed. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I think the question here is just
we're talking about trying to deliver broadband services to
smaller populations where carriers just aren't running to
because the market is not there and yet we have these programs
that are supposed to help and yet we can't quite crystallize in
some of these instances exactly how that's going to work or how
much resource.
So I would just say from my own experience, Neah Bay being
one of the most remote parts of our state at the end of the
Strait of Juan de Fuca, yet that's where the Coast Guard is,
that's where the Makah Tribe is, that's where health care
delivery is. If you want health care other than right there in
that community, you're going to be driving hours.
So it's essential that we have broadband and I think
CenturyLink stepped up to that, working with the community, but
it took a lot, a lot more hand-holding and coordination than
people could even possibly imagine, and I'm not even sure that
we're completely done because I think they're still looking at
what service they are going to deliver there and how is it
going to pencil out for the community, but I would just say
that our rural communities, just like they deserve, Mr.
Chairman, hospitals and critical access hospitals and just like
they deserve infrastructure investment, like airports, they
also deserve broadband investment.
So thank you for making this a priority.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm
glad to be back. We have a lot going on. You can always do two
things at once, especially something this important.
As we work to close the digital divide, it's critical we
understand where broadband is available and it's not. I
mentioned in my opening statement the mapping issues and while
the FCC can't verify coverage at the local level, consumers can
provide valuable feedback about service quality at the places
they live and work.
Mr. Spellmeyer, do you believe allowing consumers to report
data could help create more accurate FCC maps, including when
it comes to distributing funding? This is the crowd-sourcing
idea.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes. I absolutely do. We urged the FCC to
incorporate that into the Challenge Process. Unfortunately,
they decided to limit it to state and local governments absent
a waiver.
Senator Klobuchar. But this is one thing we could look at
in the future?
Mr. Spellmeyer. It absolutely is. A number of folks talked
about it, including Commissioner Rosenworcel. My company can't
drive to each of those one square kilometer grid cells that I
described in my testimony, but there are a lot of people that
live close to those who could begin to tackle that issue. It's
an important resource and it should be leveraged.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Mr. Law, Ms. Thompson, actually
Chairman Thune and Senator Tester worked with me on this rural
call complete issue.
As you know, unbelievably so, a number of rural calls are
just dropped by basically middle men providers and others that
don't think they're work the while and then what happens is
people lose customers, including emergency providers have had
this problem.
We did pass something to push the FCC to improve this and
there have been some improvements, but could you tell me if
your customers have experienced difficulty with any of these
long distance calls?
Mr. Law. First, Senator Klobuchar, Chairman Thune, Senator
Tester and many members on this panel, thank you all for your
support and advocacy for the legislation for rural call
completion. The legislation was and is beneficial. It is now
working its way through the process at the FCC----
Senator Klobuchar. Right.
Mr. Law.--in terms of setting up those guidelines. I will
tell you as recently as two weeks ago in my office, we still
experienced and had a customer, a large business customer of
ours contact us to indicate that they were not receiving calls.
So the problem does exist.
I'm hopeful and optimistic that a solution continues to be
found. The legislation absolutely is helpful.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. You want to add anything, Ms.
Thompson?
Ms. Thompson. Yes, thank you. I have not had any customer
complaints about dropped calls of recent. I had taken several
calls maybe a year or so ago but within the recent year, I have
not heard any.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I think there has been some
improvements but, as we know, it's still going on, and I think
shedding light on this has been helpful. Thank you.
Mr. Spellmeyer, I mentioned in my opening that we want to
try to install the physical infrastructure at the same time
before expanding broadband as we do other things.
Could you talk about how that might be helpful to get fiber
conduit laid?
Mr. Spellmeyer. It absolutely would be. It's something
we've been supportive of in the past. The cost of opening and
placing fiber optic especially on public roads is significant
and the more we can get fiber out to the cell sites that we use
to provide service and the more economically that can be done
the better off everybody will be.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Have you all experienced challenges
obtaining permits or can you give some examples on Federal
land? What were some of the principle delays that you
encountered?
Mr. Law. Senator, thank you. Golden West serves a
significant portion of Federal land, including national parks,
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, Corps of Engineers,
and I'm probably forgetting a couple of other agencies that we
cross territories, as well.
Senator Klobuchar. Can you name all their acronyms?
Mr. Law. No, ma'am.
Senator Klobuchar. You're not under oath.
Mr. Law. At times, we have had significant delays, measured
in years, merely to go along road right-of-way. I say merely
because we had proposed in a particular area in Forest Service
land in this case for a fiber construction project that would
follow along road right-of-way, a nice two-lane highway in very
rural South Dakota, very similar to what you would see in
Minnesota and other rural states, and due to delays in
receiving the permit to go along that road right-of-way, we had
purchased several million dollars of material that sat in a
storage area for over a year and a project--we missed the cycle
and so we were granted the permit the following November, which
meant we couldn't start construction until the next spring and
we lost that whole year from that. That's just one example. I
have several I could provide. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Anyone else?
Mr. Spellmeyer. We have certainly run into it on a number
of occasions in particular in our operations in Washington and
Oregon where we're adjacent to a number of Federal lands.
Senator Klobuchar. OK.
Mr. Enjady. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Yes, we do have
two projects that are ready to go. Fortunately, working with
the Forest Service, they streamlined our process and we went
through quite quickly. The problem I have now is just trying to
get funding. I just don't have----
Senator Klobuchar. Right.
Mr. Enjady.--a business plan to be able to provide the
funding to be able to borrow the money to build it out.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. And there are two big sources.
One is the Universal Service Fund that I mentioned earlier and
getting more money allocated from that and Chairman Pai, we're
pushing to get that done. The second would be a major
infrastructure investment, which, you know, we had every point
of the Tax Bill was, I think a hundred billion or something
like that, and you think about we may have done one or two
points less, that would have been a huge investment we could
have made, but we are where we are and so we need to ramp that
up again.
We know we have other issues, as well, with locks and dams
and with our highways and bridges and rail and we don't want to
fall behind the rest of the world, especially when we see this
tremendous export market, and the broadband should be a major
part of any infrastructure package.
Thank you.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Next year, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Got that. Thanks.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar.
I think we have one member who still would like to ask
questions. I'd ask if he could just indulge us for a little bit
longer. We'll wrap up here momentarily.
Since Senator Klobuchar referenced this and it has been
referenced other times today, I think it's important to address
this, we have a bill that I introduced along with Senator
Schatz and we're trying to build bipartisan support for it that
gets at the issue that Senator Klobuchar raised called the
Streamline Act and it is designed to expedite and make it
easier to get some of these projects sited and permitted that
creates a shock clock, a certain amount of time in which local
governments would have to act on that.
There's been pushback from some local governments. We've
tried to work with them. We want to make sure that we respect
their prerogatives in this, but we think it's really important
as we race to 5G that we make it easier, not harder, to invest
and build out and deploy some of these projects.
I don't know if you had an opportunity to look at that yet,
but could you comment on the STREAMLINE Act and how that might
bear on the ability to get some of these projects up and going
faster?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Absolutely, Senator, Mr. Chairman. I
believe you and Senator Schatz have found a great compromise
with the legislation you've put forward. We're fully supportive
of it and it will no doubt expedite deployment of 5G in rural
areas. So thank you.
Mr. Law. Senator or Mr. Chairman, I would also echo support
for it and perhaps tie something to it that's not perhaps as
readily apparent.
While the focus is on 5G specifically, as it relates to 5G,
5G is heavily dependent on a very rich and deep fiber network
which affects providers, such as myself, and so the ability to
have the Streamline Act in terms of the permitting and that
aspect of it will have potentially direct impact not only on
that level of broadband but deployment, as well.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Wicker.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. I know the Chair is delighted to see me
breathlessly come into the room here after everybody else had
supposedly finished.
We've had problems with scheduling today, as you might
imagine, and I understand there have been questions about the
map and about the Challenge Process, about the fact that there
is additional time, but that alone, we still don't have a
comfort level that this is going to get the right information
to the decisionmakers with regard to this Mobility Fund and so
let me follow up on that to Mr. Spellmeyer.
Will we be able to challenge all geographic areas presumed
to lack unsubsidized 4G LTE service within the allotted time
that's now been extended and why is it so important to get the
map right before the Mobility Fund Phase II Auction begins?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Senator, we absolutely will not be able to
get to all of the areas that we'd like to get to.
I talked in my testimony, you know, we've taken 16 million
readings. We've spent $2 million doing so and we've only gotten
to 3 percent of our ETC footprint and there are a whole lot
more places we need to go.
I've got 20 drive test teams in the field in a dozen states
right now and we're going as fast as we can but we're going to
run out of time before we get to the end of the extended
Challenge Process.
It's crucial to get it right because, you know, these maps
are just wildly inaccurate in a number of states and we're
going to lock those states into the state they are today, the
condition they are today for the next 10 years and it's going
to be 2030 before we can go back and bring some of these places
up to five megabits per second at a time when by then 5G will
be running around urban areas at a gigabit a second and it's
going to crack open a digital divide that's far worse than what
we've seen previously when people in urban areas have, you
know, self-driving cars and remote health care and we're going
to be lacking the kind of precision agriculture and all those
other benefits that we need in rural areas.
Senator Wicker. That's certainly the apprehension that I
have and I think a lot of Members of Congress have.
Do you have any legislative steps that you would like to
suggest to the members of this Committee to address this
problem?
Mr. Spellmeyer. So, Senator, I think the FCC has all the
tools they need to get this right. There just hasn't been
enough time and attention devoted to it. Certainly, I would
urge Congress----
Senator Wicker. What if they're not convinced that the
steps need to be taken?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, I would like to see the FCC directed
to stand down and if they're not willing to fix it, then we
give it to NTIA. Administrator Redl has talked about doing so.
There are ways to do this and to do it in a relatively
efficient timeframe so that we get this right.
I think the FCC's tried. I don't mean to be overly critical
today, and this is challenging, but we can do better than what
we have.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, and I agree. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Klobuchar. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Klobuchar.
Senator Klobuchar. Yes, since Senator Wicker is here, I
just wanted to ask a question about the work that we've done
together on the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act, which
identifies gaps in coverage and encourages broadband deployment
on farms and ranchland.
In addition, Mr. Law, to poor coverage data, what are some
of the funding challenges associated with deploying broadband
on farmland because we know everyone is--you know, we want to
be as up-to-date as the equipment and be able to take advantage
of using less water or using less pesticides or being smart
economically as well as environmentally and that's a bill that
we passed.
So could you tell me why this is important?
Mr. Law. Thank you, Senator, for your question. I concur
that the amount of computing power required today to run
today's modern agriculture, family owned, I'm not talking
corporate anything, family owned agriculture operation is
absolutely staggering.
The connectivity needs and the corporate computing power
from the probably millions, if not billions, of data points
that they have, I think, is a great example of why broadband in
the farming and ag area is so important.
The challenge from the deployment perspective is typically
farms are spread quite apart. The broadband network benefits
from density, density of customers, density to spread those
costs amongst other users.
However, in terms of importance, I think, you know, your
example and your legislation points out a great example of
perhaps no more important provision than the connected ag
issue.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Senator Wicker. And if I might add to that, Mr. Law, there
is an efficiency aspect to this need, that there is an American
productivity aspect to this need, and also there's a very
important environmental aspect to this need.
We can limit the amount of pesticides and insecticides and
fertilizer that are applied by these family farms by getting
the data right, isn't that correct?
Mr. Law. Absolutely agree with you, Senator Wicker. The
ability to produce additional resources from existing land with
more data that is available than ever before, I think we're
probably at the beginning of this, not at the end in terms of
where this may go and the freedoms that that probably allows
the rest of us who aren't directly involved in production
agriculture to have.
Senator Wicker. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Wicker, Senator Klobuchar.
Good endorsement for your legislation, sounds like.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
Senator Wicker. We both like our bill.
Senator Klobuchar. It did pass. It is in the Senate Farm
Bill.
The Chairman. There you go. You're not alone. You have a
lot of support out there.
But precision agriculture is something that is profoundly
important in the types of advancements that have already been
made and the sky's the limit in terms of what we can do as far
as yields and everything else. Anybody who's climbed on to one
of those big rigs now and drives around in them can appreciate
the calibration and everything that goes into application of
chemicals and seed and everything else that's involved, it's
really, really remarkable. So we're fortunate, but we have to
keep it going and to do that, we've got to make sure that we're
making the investments in the right area to keep up with the
technologies that are going to keep coming out.
So we appreciate all of you being here. Thank you. It was
very helpful, and we will keep the record open for a couple of
weeks. I'm sure Members will have follow-up questions that
they'd like to submit for the record. If you could get your
responses back to those as soon as possible but certainly
within that two-week timeframe, we'll make sure that's made a
part of the permanent record.
And I'm glad we're able to wrap it up. So I apologize again
for the late start. As my colleague said, there's a lot going
on right now around here and so we've had multiple commitments
but thank you for your patience and your indulgence and for
making the time to be with us here today.
I know Mr. Law has to get back for a football game tomorrow
night in South Dakota and we know you all have lots of
commitments and obligations. So thank you for your time.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:48 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Prepared Statement from Utilities Technology Council
The Utilities Technology Council (UTC) thanks the Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation for the opportunity to submit
these comments for the record regarding the above-referenced hearing.
As the Committee considers the challenges and opportunities regarding
rural broadband deployment, UTC would like to note that several of its
members are supporting broadband deployment by both providing access to
utility infrastructure for third-party broadband providers and, where
allowed, actually providing broadband services in unserved and
underserved areas.
Established in 1948, UTC is the global association representing
energy and water utilities on their needs related to the deployment of
reliable and resilient information and communications technology (ICT).
Energy and water utilities use ICT networks as the backbone for the
infrastructure that delivers safe, reliable, and secure energy and
water services. These networks are essential for reliability, safety,
resiliency, and security.
UTC applauds the Committee for holding this important hearing. Our
membership represents utilities of all sizes and ownership types, from
large investor-owned utilities serving millions of customers in
multiple states to publicly and consumer-owned utilities located in
smaller towns and rural areas. Although our membership is diverse, they
all share the belief that access to affordable and reliable broadband
is a key economic driver for our Nation. Indeed, electric utilities in
particular enable broadband access in multiple ways, including through
pole-attachment processes.
Additionally, where not prohibited by state or local statute, a
number of utilities are actually providing broadband services
themselves in areas where private firms have decided not to deploy such
services. Most of these locations are in rural areas.
For electric utilities, the decision to provide broadband services
to their customers and beyond is a natural progression because in most
cases these utilities have already built communications networks to
enhance electric reliability and resiliency; these networks include
wireline and wireless services that have narrowband and broadband
features. Electric utilities can therefore use both their existing
knowledge and, in some cases, their infrastructure to deliver
broadband. Electric utilities can deploy future-proof, often fiber-
based, networks offering robust, affordable and reliable broadband to
potential customers inside and outside their service territories.
Importantly, utility broadband services are reasonably comparable to
the cost and quality of broadband available in urban areas.
In addition, some electric utilities are willing and able to
provide wholesale services and infrastructure access to third-party
commercial communications service providers to enable broadband
deployment. As stated above, electric utilities have extensive
infrastructure that includes wireline and wireless communications
networks, as well as power poles and rights of way. Many utilities
offer wholesale capacity and dark fiber services over their
communications infrastructures at rates, terms and conditions that are
just and reasonable.
Most obviously, utilities empower broadband deployment by providing
voice, data, and cable suppliers affordable access to utility poles
found all across the country. Utility poles are essential to delivering
reliable and affordable electricity to everyone in the country, no
matter where they live. Additionally, many, if not all, of these poles
carry cable, broadband, and other services. As this Committee knows,
the regulation of these pole-attachment policies is carried out by the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for poles owned by investor-
owned (private, for-profit) utilities. The FCC has used pole-attachment
policies as a means to promote rural broadband.
We would note, however, that the FCC's pole-attachment policies are
not a panacea to expanding rural broadband. Despite pronouncements that
reducing regulatory requirements and fees will spur rural broadband,
the reality has proven otherwise. In fact, evidence suggests that lower
pole-attachment rates have no bearing on the deployment of rural
broadband. Indeed, state governmental agencies have found no conclusive
evidence linking lower pole fees to rural broadband expansion. The
Virginia State Corporation Commission concluded, in a 2011 report,
that, ``No persuasive evidence was submitted in this proceeding that
proved lower pole-attachment rates would directly result in additional
broadband deployment.'' \1\ Additionally, the communications industry
has advocated that the only way to bridge the rural Digital Divide is
through Federal subsidies. Finally, the FCC's own records demonstrate
that broadband is not being deployed on a reasonable and timely basis,
despite the continued reduction of pole attachment rates and the
imposition of additional requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Report on Electric Cooperative Pole Attachment Issues.''
Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission, November 1,
2011. Link to text: http://www.scc.virginia.gov/docketsearch/DOCS/
2h%40m01!.PDF
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
UTC recommends this Committee, as it looks to encourage broadband
deployment, consider the following:
Supporting broadband-funding programs that promote the
deployment of future-proof networks which provide robust,
reliable and affordable broadband services to all Americans;
and,
Supporting pole attachment policies that promote safety,
reliability and security of electric utility infrastructure
while accelerating broadband deployment.
Ensuring that all Americans have access to affordable, reliable
broadband is just as important today as electricity was for the growth
of the Nation a century ago. Now as then, electric utilities are
critical partners in doing so and stand ready to assist.
UTC thanks the Committee for holding this important hearing and
appreciates the opportunity to submit this statement. We look forward
to working with the Committee in ensuring that all Americans have
access to robust, affordable and reliable broadband networks and
services.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Denny Law
Question 1. Streamlined Application Process--Reading through the
GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that
tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more
generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant Application
Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives from eight of
the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the language included
in the Federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the
administrative requirements of Federal grants are burdensome.'' This is
similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and
nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Do you believe streamlining the application processes for broadband
programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout?
Answer. Yes. As you noted, applications for Federal grants are
often burdensome and complicated for providers of all kinds--especially
smaller operators. In fact, many of the companies applying for Federal
broadband related grants and loans are smaller, rural providers with
limited staff and resources to help navigate the byzantine application
and review processes. The review procedures can take substantial
amounts of time, undermining the ability to plan for and deploy
broadband infrastructure. In addition, the lack of coordination and
standardization in application and approval processes across Federal
agencies further complicates the deployment of broadband
infrastructure. While not specifically regarding Federal applications,
the terms of local franchises, pole attachments, and railroad crossings
can also create substantial costs and concerns in deploying broadband
infrastructure.
Question 2. Rural Input--The GAO report makes reference to the
Broadband Opportunity Council, which was established in 2015, saying
quote: ``Recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband
deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council issued a report stating
that Federal agencies should use all available and appropriate
authorities to identify and address regulatory barriers that may unduly
impede broadband deployment.''
Do you believe it is important to have entities like the Broadband
Opportunity Council to ensure rural America has a voice in the Federal
government?
Answer. Yes. The Broadband Opportunity Council and other Federal
tasks forces and councils related to broadband deployment can consider
holistically what is needed to ensure that broadband is advanced and
also sustained in rural America. Reducing regulatory barriers to build
new infrastructure and streamlining complex application processes is
certainly one way that such groups can help improve the conditions for
rural broadband deployment, but it is important to note that the single
biggest challenge in rural America is simply making the business case
to deploy any broadband at all. Put another way, permitting barriers
and other impediments to construction are no barriers at all if one
cannot justify even building a network in the first place. Without such
resources, any effort is likely to be effective only on the margins or
in very limited respects, leaving behind many areas that still lack
broadband access and/or putting at risk investments already made to
deploy advanced broadband networks in deeply rural areas. It is
important therefore that the council and individual agencies focus not
only on perceived barriers to deployment in the form of permitting and
processes, but also on the economics of rural broadband in the first
instance.
Question 3. RUS and E-Rate--Looking at the recent GAO Report on
partnerships on tribal lands, there is a focus on ways RUS could help
tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on their lands--
including through RUS's grant program. I understand that there are
60,000 mostly rural K-12 Native students who attend federally-supported
schools that do not have the broadband infrastructure required for
digital learning in the classroom.
Are any of you aware if there are ways that RUS grant programs
could be leveraged to provide the matching funds for the FCC'S E-Rate
program in order to connect these students?
Answer. I am not aware of ways to leverage RUS grants to provide
matching funds for the E-Rate Program.
Question 4. Rural Spectrum--In Nevada we have two main metropolitan
areas and the rest of the population lives in small towns and rural
areas often separated by hundreds of miles. Tribal communities in these
areas are not only separated by distance but also mountainous and
remote terrain. Another challenge is that this land is almost always
owned by the Federal government, so we have a very unique situation in
Nevada as we try to build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal
communities that live in these areas. One of the issues that has arisen
is that wireless spectrum works differently in mountainous areas than
it does on flat land or in a city.
What challenges arise with getting the right spectrum to bring
fixed wireless to these areas?
Answer. Policymakers should take steps to ensure that multiple
interested parties (including smaller, local providers) have an
opportunity to obtain scarce wireless spectrum to ensure that advanced
mobile voice and broadband services are fully deployed in hard-to-serve
areas such as mountainous areas. At the same time, it is important to
take realistic stock of whether, when, and to what degree wireless
services can deliver meaningful service options on a widespread basis
throughout rural America. In all cases, ``wireless needs wires''--
meaning that spectrum resources, whether used for 4G or 5G services or
in a fixed or mobile service context, must rest upon a robust
foundation of fiber that can handle the massive amounts of data already
being consumed and the exponential growth in data demands to come. As
performance of broadband in the form of speed and latency and usage
limits (or the lack thereof) become increasingly important, and as
topographical and other geographic challenges limit the capabilities of
wireless access, it will be essential to ensure that both wired and
wireless networks are available to keep pace with and fulfill evolving
consumer and business demands.
Question 4a. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure
built on Federal lands?
Answer. As noted in my testimony, barriers to broadband deployment
on or through Federal lands must be addressed as part of any holistic
plan to promote and sustain infrastructure investment. Small providers
often face infrastructure rules and burdensome permitting processes in
seeking to build broadband networks across Federal lands.
While not all-inclusive, I would suggest the following areas
require immediate attention.
Eliminate disparate application forms across Federal
agencies and standardize on a specific application format which
perhaps could include agency-specific addendums.
Standardize application process (and perhaps a shot-clock)
for broadband deployment that proposes to utilize existing road
right-of-way and/or previously disturbed areas across Federal
lands. A separate application process (or perhaps a longer
shot-clock) could be used for broadband deployment that is not
utilizing road right-of-way, or is traversing native or
undisturbed habitat.
Implement a tracking system for each application received by
a Federal agency. Currently, broadband providers have limited
visibility into the status of an application once it is
submitted to the respective Federal agency, requiring countless
phone calls inquiring on the status of the application.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Denny Law
Question 1. In reviewing FCC and RUS broadband funding programs,
GAO found less than one percent has gone directly to tribes to expand
broadband service. How do we get funds to tribes? Should there be set-
asides? Partnerships? Both?
Answer. Making the application process less burdensome should help
improve access to RUS broadband funding programs for both tribal
broadband companies and non-tribally owned companies that serve tribal
lands, such as Golden West Telecommunications. Many of the companies
applying for Federal broadband related grants and loans are smaller,
rural providers with limited staff and resources to help navigate the
byzantine application and review processes. The review procedures can
take substantial amounts of time, undermining the ability to plan for
and deploy broadband infrastructure--especially in those areas of the
country with shorter construction seasons due to weather. Golden West
Telecommunications has made significant investments on tribal lands in
South Dakota--which could not be done without the Universal Service
Fund (USF). Providing sufficient support for the USF High-Cost Program
is critically important to help build networks to reservation
communities. While RUS lending programs finance the substantial upfront
costs of network deployment, the USF High Cost Fund helps to make the
business case for such construction and then sustains ongoing
operations at affordable rates.
Question 2. These maps are not working. What can be done to make
these more accurate? Who should be responsible for correcting these
maps?
Answer. Accurate, more granular data on service availability is
needed to ensure that government efforts to support broadband target
resources as efficiently as possible. Better data helps ensure support
is not withdrawn due to ``false positives'' in the form of a
competitive network that does not in fact exist to serve a given
location. In addition, it helps avoid ``false negatives''--support for
duplicative infrastructure where a network already exists. NTCA and
many other stakeholders--including operators, associations, and NTIA
and the FCC--are currently evaluating options to promote greater
accuracy and granularity in the data, and NTCA is optimistic that some
of the ideas being considered will yield better identification of
broadband availability.
This being said, no matter what mapping mechanism is ultimately
adopted, there will still be a need for a ``challenge process'' to vet
and validate any maps that are developed. Precisely because any map (no
matter how granular) will incorporate and rely in the end upon self-
reported data from operators in some form, it is essential that a
process be in place that permits others that have a stake in the area
at issue to challenge whether service is or is not in fact available at
a given location or in a given area.
Question 3. Would you say the challenge process for the FCC maps is
a reasonable process to dispute data coverage? How would you improve
it?
Answer. As discussed above, regardless of how much more granular
any coverage reporting and maps may get, a robust challenge process
will remain essential to validate the data given it will be based upon
otherwise unverified self-reporting.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Mona Thompson
Question 1. Streamlined Application Process--Reading through the
GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that
tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more
generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant Application
Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives from eight of
the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the language included
in the Federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the
administrative requirements of Federal grants are burdensome.'' This is
similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and
nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Do you believe streamlining the application processes for broadband
programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout?
Answer. The RD application process for Rural Broadband Access is
cumbersome and streamlining the application processes for broadband
programs would definitely help encourage broadband buildout on tribal
lands.
C.R.S.T. Telephone Authority utilized an engineering firm in 2009
to write the loan design and application at a cost of approximately
$46,000. The loan was approved and ultimately, C.R.S.T. Telephone
Authority built out FTTH over 4,600 square miles in our service
territory. However, we would not have had the ability to complete the
application without the expertise of our engineering firm.
Question 2. Tribal Expertise--In the GAO report on partnerships one
of the concerns mentioned is that tribes often do not have some of the
technical expertise necessary to access some of the funding that is
available. This is also a concern that stakeholders have raised with me
as one of the major problems for getting some of this funding to where
it is truly needed. The GAO notes that the Rural Utilities Services has
provided some funding for technical assistance for applicants, funding
that enabled RUS to address some of the barriers tribes face. However,
according to the report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify
or address the barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant
funding, including lack of expertise.
What can the Federal government do better to bring some technical
help to tribes?
Answer. The Federal government can provide free educational
seminars/workshops and technical resources to Tribes that are
interested in providing broadband services on their tribal lands.
Question 3. Are Federal workshops helpful?
Answer. Federal workshops would be helpful but should be provided
in every state so Tribal leaders can attend. Travel expenses can be
prohibitive if held in a regional format rather than state by state.
Question 4. Telemedicine--In Nevada, we've recently completed the
Nevada Broadband Telemedicine Initiative. It has been a great example
of a public-private partnership, including Switch, a Nevada tech
company and the Nevada Hospital Association, as well as local and
Federal cooperation to improve the rural quality of life in the state.
For example, when Desert View Hospital in Pahrump recently celebrated
their connectivity they talked about how they are able to triage mental
health issues via telemedicine without the unnecessary costs of
transport to Las Vegas, as an example.
I am very excited about this and how these applications can work
for our native communities in Nevada, many of whom live hundreds of
miles from the nearest population center.
Are there any unique challenges for rural tribal communities
accessing telemedicine that may differ from other remote places?
Answer. While distance to health care facilities create many
challenges for rural Americans in general, rural tribal communities
face greater and unique challenges. And telemedicine is definitely a
tool that can help bridge those challenges. Here on the Cheyenne River
Sioux Tribe reservation, the outlying tribal communities have access to
broadband but they don't all have access to a community clinic. Those
in need of health care still have to drive a distance to the community
clinic and they are not open every day of the week.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Mona Thompson
Question 1. In reviewing FCC and RUS broadband funding programs,
GAO found less than one percent has gone directly to tribes to expand
broadband service. How do we get funds to tribes? Should there be set-
asides? Partnerships? Both?
Answer. The National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA),
which C.R.S.T. Telephone Authority is a member of, recently submitted a
Tribal Area Solution proposal for addressing the digital divide that
currently exists between rural Tribal areas and the rest of the United
States to the FCC. C.R.S.T. Telephone Authority supports this proposal
and it is attached with this response.
Question 2. These maps are not working. What can be done to make
these more accurate? Who should be responsible for correcting these
maps?
Answer. C.R.S.T. Telephone Authority understands the importance of
the broadband maps however they are inaccurate due to the length of
time it takes to update the maps. We just viewed the maps yesterday and
the data is from June 2017, which is well over a year old.
Question 3. Would you say the challenge process for the FCC maps is
a reasonable process to dispute data coverage? How would you improve
it?
Answer. C.R.S.T. Telephone Authority has not challenged the process
to dispute data coverage for the FCC maps.
______
Filed Via ECFS--October 25, 2018
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC.
Re: In the Matter of Connect America Fund and Lifeline and Link-Up
Reform and Modernization, WC Docket Nos. 10-90 and 11-42;
National Tribal Telecommunications Association's Tribal
Area Solution for Universal Service Reform
Dear Ms. Dortch:
On behalf of the National Tribal Telecommunications Association
(NTTA), attached please find NTTA's Tribal Area Solution proposal for
addressing the digital divide that currently exists between rural
Tribal areas and the rest of the United States. This proposal
recommends revisions to existing Federal support mechanisms for
carriers serving predominantly rural Tribal areas and urges the
Commission and other stakeholders to comprehensively address the
associated issues surrounding broadband affordability and adoption.
Please contact the undersigned if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Douglas K. Kitch, CPA,
Principal,
Alexicon Telecommunications Consulting,
On Behalf of The National Tribal Telecommunications Association.
cc: Matthew Duchesne, ONAP
Attachment
______
National Tribal Telecommunications Association
Tribal Area Solution For Federal Universal Service Support
Executive Summary
The National Tribal Telecommunications Association (NTTA) consists
of Tribally-owned communications companies and broadband providers
including Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone Authority, Fort Mojave
Telecommunications, Inc., Gila River Telecommunications, Inc., Hopi
Telecommunications, Inc., Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc., Saddleback
Communications, San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc.,
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority, and Warm Springs Telecom, as well as
associate members Nez Perce Tribe and Sacred Wind Communications.
NTTA's mission is to be the national advocate for telecommunications
service on behalf of its member companies and to provide guidance and
assistance to members who are working to provide modern
telecommunications services to Tribal lands.
The digital divide in rural Tribal areas--the difference in
broadband service availability and affordability as compared to other
and more urban areas of the United States--is a reality for many Native
Americans. Even with the substantial efforts undertaken at the federal,
state, and in some instances, the local, levels, Tribal areas are
consistently on the wrong side of this divide. There are many causes of
this persistent divide, including the rural and high cost nature of
many Tribal areas, the chronic economic problems in Tribal areas, and
the generally lower-income nature of Tribal residents. While solving
these problems will take efforts from many disciplines, NTTA offers
herein a proposal to address the insufficient and unpredictable support
available to rate-of-return carriers serving Tribal areas, and urges
the FCC, Congress and other stakeholders to tackle adoption/
affordability, and broadband mapping issues in an expedited manner.
NTTA, consistent with past advocacy, proposes a Tribal Area
Solution to revise current Federal universal service programs for RoR
carriers. These revisions, proposed for the High Cost Loop Support,
Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support, and Alternative Connect
America Cost Model support programs, recognize the unique challenges
faced by carriers serving rural Tribal areas of the lower 48 states in
the country. The additional support generated by NTTA's proposals would
be accompanied by additional public interest obligations placed on
support recipients, and would be subject to an inflation-adjusted cap
on the total support generated.
I. Introduction and Summary
NTTA has worked on the problem of access to and affordability of
broadband Internet access services in Tribal areas of the United States
continuously since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) declared
broadband Internet access service (BIAS) to be part of the definition
of universal service in 2011. Since then, as shown below in Table 1,
Federal universal service support for NTTA members in total has
remained basically constant--while at the same time, NTTA members are
expected to do more, such as provide universal BIAS at affordable
rates. While broadband availability, depending on the fluid definition
adopted by the FCC in its annual deployment report, has slightly
improved in Tribal areas, there still exists a digital divide between
these areas and the rest of the country.
In this Tribal Area Solution, NTTA takes another step to address
the digital divide that exists between rural Tribal and other areas of
the country. The data is incontrovertible that the divide is there, but
action at the Federal level continues to lag. Two years ago NTTA
presented a solution for additional funding in Tribal areas served by
rate-of-return (RoR) regulated carriers, upon which the FCC has yet to
act. Since then, the FCC has made several changes to the Federal
programs, has several proposals pending, and has addressed one major
problem experienced by carriers serving Tribal areas. And yet, no
comprehensive solution has been adopted.
In order to move this important process forward, NTTA presents a
package of revisions to the current Federal universal service fund
programs to better calibrate support for deployment, operations,
maintenance, and affordability in Tribal areas. These revisions will
address high cost programs as well as the low-income consumer Lifeline
program under the theory that deploying a network does no good unless
the network can be operated and maintained, services can continue to be
provided on a cost-efficient basis, and customers can afford to
subscribe to the services offered.
II. Background
NTTA's position on support for broadband, and voice, services in
Tribal areas has consistently called for additional attention,
policies, and support for Tribal areas where the digital divide is the
greatest. NTTA has presented unrefuted evidence on the record that
Tribal areas of the United States are continually on the wrong side of
the digital divide, are more difficult and costly to serve, and
carriers serving these areas incur unique and higher levels of costs.
NTTA has also demonstrated that Americans living on Tribal lands
require more support in order to make even subsidized voice and
broadband services affordable.
NTTA's Tribal Broadband Factor (TBF), not to be confused with the
FCC's recent proposal of the same name, consisted of a simple method to
increase support to Tribal areas served by RoR carriers while at the
same time ensuring support was used effectively and efficiently.\1\ The
TBF called for a 25 percent increase in support to RoR carriers serving
locations in census blocks located on Tribal lands. In return, TBF
recipients would be obligated to meet certain build out obligations
commensurate with the amount of additional support received. In
addition, NTTA made clear that TBF support would also help with
continuing operations and maintenance of voice and broadband networks.
Table 1 shows the level of support for all NTTA members since 2011:\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See e.g., In the Matter of Connect America Fund, WC Docket No.
10-90, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 16-33, rel. March 30,
2016) at 368-382; Also see Letter from Godfrey Enjady, NTTA President,
to Marlene H. Dortch, filed in WC Docket No. 10-90 on June 19, 2015.
\2\ USAC High Cost Program Disbursements tool, includes NTTA
members Cheyenne River Sioux, Fort Mojave, Gila River, Hopi, Mescalero
Apache, Sacred Wind, Saddleback, San Carlos Apache, and Tohono O'odham.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In continuance of and consistent with NTTA's goal of ensuring all
Native Americans have access to quality, affordable services, NTTA
advocated for relief from the FCC's operating expense limitation.\3\ In
order to recognize the unique level and types of expenses related to
serving Tribal areas, NTTA requested the FCC increase the allowance for
carriers serving these areas, which the FCC partially granted.\4\
Unfortunately, one of the conditions placed on receiving this relief
caused some carriers to be improperly excluded, as evidenced by
petitions file by two carriers.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See e.g., NTTA Comments, filed May 12, 2016 in WC Docket No.
10-90 and NTTA September 16, 2016 Ex Parte communication filed in WC
Docket No. 10-90.
\4\ In the Matter of Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90 (FCC
18-37, rel. April 5, 2018)
\5\ Petitions for Reconsideration Filed by Mescalero Apache
Telecom, Inc. on May 30, 2018 and Sacred Wind Communications, Inc. on
May 31, 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To address affordability and adoption of broadband services, NTTA
advocated for an increase in the enhanced Tribal Lifeline credit,
originally adopted by the FCC in 2000.\6\ Due to the addition of
broadband to the list of services to be supported by the Federal
Lifeline program, NTTA recommended the FCC further consider an increase
to the current enhanced Tribal credit of $25 to recognize these facts.
The FCC thus far has declined adopt NTTA's proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In the Matter of Federal-State Joint Board on Universal
Service; Promoting Deployment and Subscribership in Unserved and
Underserved Areas, Including Tribal and Insular Areas, Twelfth Report
and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, CC Docket No. 96-45 (FCC 00-208, rel. June 30, 2000)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC, Congress, and other stakeholders have recognized the
necessity to focus resources on Tribal areas to address the twin
challenges of availability and affordability. This recognition includes
the aforementioned enhanced Tribal Lifeline credit, the FCC's
commitment to working with Tribal governments on a peer-to-peer
basis,\7\ statements made in the National Broadband Plan that Tribal
areas require more support in order to meet national broadband
goals,\8\ and statements made in the 2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order
regarding the challenges faced in Tribal areas.\9\ The FCC also adopted
Tribal-specific Connect America Fund (CAF) programs to address at least
part of the problem, and recognized the need for Tribal governments to
have a substantive say in how services are deployed and provided in
their areas.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ In the Matter of Statement of Policy on Establishing a
Government-to-Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy
Statement (FCC 00-207, rel. June 23, 2000)
\8\ Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, rel. March 16,
2010, at p. 152, Box 8-4
\9\ In the Matter of Connect America Fund, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 10-90 (FCC 11-161,
rel. November 18, 2011) at 1059
\10\ Id., Tribal Mobility Phase I and II funds; adoption of Tribal
Engagement Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recent activities have continued this trend--the FCC recently
proposed to adopt local priority filing windows for rural Tribal
nations in relation to transforming the 2.5 Ghz spectrum band,\11\
proposed a revision to the RoR carrier ACAM support calculation to
include more locations located in Tribal areas in the model,\12\ and
provided operating expense limitation relief to a limited set of RoR
carriers as mentioned above. Further, the so-called Ray Baum's Act was
included in the 2018 Consolidated Appropriations Bill that, among other
things, requires the FCC to issue a report by 2020 to address the lack
of broadband availability in Tribal areas. Finally, the United States
Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report on
broadband data in Tribal areas and concluded that the FCC's information
overstates availability.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In the Matter of Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 18-120 (FCC 18-59, rel. May 10,
2018)
\12\ In the Matter of Connect America Fund, Report and Order, Third
Order on Reconsideration, and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket
No. 10-90 (FCC 18-29, rel. March 23, 2018) at 120 (RoR USF Budget
Order/NPRM)
\13\ GAO Report: Broadband Report, FCC's Data Overstate Access on
Tribal Lands, GAO-18-630, September 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When considered in totality, the efforts to bring universal
broadband availability to Tribal areas has, at least on paper, been
fairly substantial. However, the facts are clear--Tribal areas,
especially rural Tribal areas in the lower 48 states, lag significantly
behind the rest of the country in regards to broadband availability.
According to the FCC's latest broadband availability report (which,
according to the GAO, overstates access in Tribal areas),\14\ 64.6
percent of Americans living on Tribal lands have access to fixed
broadband with speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps, compared 92.2 percent of
the country in total. Over time, the digital divide, measured here as
the difference in availability, has barely narrowed:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Services to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely
Fashion, GN Docket No 17-199, 2018 Broadband Deployment Report (FCC 18-
10, rel. February 2, 2018)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
In 2018, Congress passed, and the President signed the Consolidated
Appropriations Act.\15\ Section 508 of this Act, a portion of what is
commonly known as Ray Baum's Act, addresses Tribal digital access.
Pursuant to Section 508, the FCC is to submit a report to Congress
evaluating broadband coverage in Indian country, and is to complete a
proceeding to address the unserved areas identified in the report. This
will clearly be a substantial effort, and must include an investigation
into the topics raised in this paper, including but not limited to,
sufficiency and predictability of broadband universal service support,
affordability and adoption, broadband mapping, and Tribal sovereignty.
NTTA looks forward to assisting the FCC with this report and subsequent
proceeding, and requests the FCC take into consideration the proposals
made below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (HR 1625)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of the above, NTTA once again implores the FCC,
Congress, and other policy makers to address the serious digital divide
that exists between rural Tribal areas and the rest of the country. To
this end, NTTA offers several policy proposals in the remainder of this
paper.
III. NTTA's Tribal Area Solution
In order to address the clear digital divide that exists between
rural Tribal areas and the rest of the United States, and to better
recognize circumstances in existence in Tribal areas, including Tribal
sovereignty, historically depressed economies, sparse populations, and
high costs of service, NTTA offers Tribal Area Solution (TAS) that
proposes simple revisions to the FCC's current Federal high cost
support programs. As partial evidence that the areas served by NTTA
members are substantially higher cost than the average across the
United States, consider Table 3: \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Source: National Exchange Carrier Association total HCLS cost
per loop data (excludes Hopi Telecommunications, Inc. due to ACAM
election)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
A. Address the Overall Budget
The first action the FCC and other policymakers must take is to
address the insufficiency of the current RoR high cost fund (HCF)
budget. The FCC recognizes this problem in its latest rulemaking
proceeding,\17\ and received substantial comment on the need to
increase the budget and fix the budget control mechanism.\18\ NTTA
agrees with parties arguing for a rebasing of the RoR HCF and then
applying an inflation factor on an ongoing basis. However, the budget
should include a separate and specific amount allocated to cover the
support increases for Tribal areas in the revisions offered by NTTA
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ RoR USF Budget NPRM at 107
\18\ See e.g., Letter to Marlene H. Dortch from ITTA, USTelecom,
NTCA, and WTA, filed in WC Docket No. 10-90, et. al., on October 1,
2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Connect America Fund Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS)
CAF BLS was adopted by the Commission to provide high cost support
for broadband only lines that were previously excluded from High Cost
Loop Support (HCLS) and Interstate Common Line Support (ICLS).\19\ CAF
BLS provides support for data only broadband line (DOBB) costs,
determined via FCC rules, above a per-line threshold, currently set at
$42 per month.\20\ In essence, the $42 per month threshold establishes
the amount that DOBB customers should be expected to contribute toward
their monthly broadband Internet access service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See In the Matter of Connect America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-
90, Report and Order (FCC 16-33, rel. March 30, 2016)
\20\ 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.901
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTTA proposes to increase CAF BLS funding to Tribal areas served by
RoR carriers by reducing the $42 per month threshold by 25 percent to
$31.50. This will provide more support to the affected carriers, which
can then reduce the pressure on customers to be able to pay for this
vital service. The 25 percent reduction is consistent with (1) NTTA's
original TBF, and (2) the FCC's proposal in the latest RoR USF NPRM.
C. High Cost Loop Support (HCLS)
HCLS is designed to support higher than average loop costs related
to voice telecommunications services. The HCLS calculation, which has
been in effect in one form or another since the 1990s, provides support
for loops costs in excess of a national average, according to the
algorithm contained in the FCC's rules.
NTTA proposes to revise the HCLS algorithm for carriers serving
Tribal areas in the following manner:
The current formula provides for study areas with 200,000 or
fewer loops, and for study area costs per loop between 115
percent and 150 percent of the national average cost per loop,
HCLS covers 65 percent of the study area loop costs. NTTA
proposes to increase this amount to 81.25 percent (a 25 percent
increase).
For study areas with loop costs in excess of 150 percent of
the national average, the HCLS covers 75 percent of the study
area's costs. NTTA proposes to increase that to 93.75 percent
(a 25 percent increase)
Again, the 25 percent adjustment is consistent with past proposals
made by both the FCC and NTTA. Furthermore, this adjustment works
within the FCC's current HCLS rules and thus does not constitute a new
support mechanism.
D. Alternative Connect America Cost Model Support
The FCC proposed a revision to the Alternative Connect America Cost
Model (ACAM) that it termed a ``Tribal Broadband Factor'' (TBF).\21\
This revision, which was meant to draw more carriers serving Tribal
areas into the ACAM support regime, would lower the funding threshold
from $52.50 by 25 percent to $39.38. As shown in NTTA's comments in
response to the proposal, the ACAM revision would not result in
sufficient support for most NTTA members.\22\ However, one NTTA member
(Hopi Telecommunications) elected to receive ACAM support and would
thus otherwise not be eligible for the TAS revisions outlined above. In
addition, there may be other ACAM recipients that would otherwise be
eligible for a support increase under the TAS proposal. In order to
address these situations, NTTA recommends a solution similar to the
Commission's ``TBF'' where current recipients, if deemed eligible under
the criteria discussed below, would receive revised offers of support
at the reduced funding threshold for locations served on Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ RoR USF Budget NPRM at 120
\22\ NTTA Comments, filed May 25, 2018 in WC Docket No. 10-90 at 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Other Issues
Eligible areas and carriers should be consistent with NTTA's
previous TBF proposal; namely eligible areas are those located in
Tribal areas, served by RoR carriers. Any relief provided will be
accepted by RoR carriers on a voluntary basis and will be provided for
a specific term of years. The support increase caused by NTTA's
proposals will be limited to RoR carriers with service areas consisting
of at least 50 percent Tribal areas.
In order to identify areas eligible for support via the TAS, NTTA
proposes to begin with FCC Form 477 data, but that potentially affected
carriers be able to provide supplemental information in order to prove
additional eligible areas. This step is necessary due to the inherent
inaccuracies of the Form 477 data in Tribal areas as documented in
recent petitions for reconsideration filed before the FCC and in the
September 2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report.
Carriers accepting the additional support offered via the revisions
to HCLS and CAF BLS outlined above will incorporate additional buildout
and reporting obligations. In addition to the baseline buildout
obligations assigned to the receipt of HCLS and CAF BLS, NTTA proposes
that a specific number of obligations in terms of locations lacking 10/
1 Mbps or 25/3 Mbps service be attached to the increased support
discussed herein. Specifically, and consistent with past NTTA
proposals, a certain percentage of new support, equal to the percentage
of CAF BLS and HCLS expended on capital expenditures and depreciation
expense, be applied to a per-location allowance to arrive at the
required new locations to be built out during the term of support. This
method recognizes that the CAF BLS and HCLS programs help to support
not only deployment but also ongoing operations and maintenance of
broadband capable networks.
NTTA proposes to limit the total support offered and accepted by
eligible carriers under the TAS to $25 million per year. NTTA proposes
that the total amount be funded from CAF reserves. As stated above, and
consistent with advocacy by other industry groups for the overall RoR
USF budget, NTTA proposes to adjust any cap on the support provided via
the above-discussed USF program revisions to reflect inflation.
IV. Affordability
Any attempt to address broadband availability in Tribal areas must
also address affordability. The main methods the FCC and other
policymakers use to address affordability and adoption issues are
Federal and state Lifeline programs. NTTA has advocated for an increase
in the enhanced Tribal Lifeline discount, currently $25 per month
($34.25 in total), to recognize the addition of broadband service to
the list of supported services, and in recognition of the cost of such
service.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NTTA Comments filed August 31, 2015 in WC Docket No. 11-42
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A recent study discussed the correlation, if any between the
availability of high-speed broadband services in rural areas and
economic benefits.\24\ The study, unsurprisingly, concluded that
affordability and adoption plays a significant role in if and how
broadband services benefit rural economies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ American Action Forum: A Look at Rural Broadband Economics,
August 14, 2018
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
It is imperative that the FCC, Congress, and other stakeholders
address, in earnest, and take immediate action to remedy, the
challenges in making universal broadband service in Tribal areas a
reality. While many actions have been taken that attempt to address
these challenges, the fact remains that the digital divide between
Tribal areas and the rest of the United States stubbornly persists.
NTTA has constantly and consistently advocated for policies to help
ensure universal voice and broadband access in Tribal areas. NTTA now
offers the Tribal Area Solution that proposes revisions to current
Federal Universal Service programs designed to better allow RoR
carriers serving Tribal areas to deploy, operate, and maintain
broadband-capable networks. These proposals will help ensure support
for carriers serving Tribal areas is sufficient, and perhaps more
importantly, predictable. Currently, support for Tribal areas broadband
service access is neither. NTTA also urges the FCC, Congress, and other
stakeholders to seriously address adoption and affordability, as it
does little good to deploy, operate, and maintain a broadband network
if customers cannot afford the services offered.
NTTA Members
Cheyenne River Sioux Telephone Authority
Fort Mojave Telecommunications, Inc.
Gila River Telecommunications, Inc.
Hopi Telecommunications, Inc.
Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc.
Saddleback Communications
San Carlos Apache Telecommunications Utility, Inc.
Tohono O'odham Utility Authority
Warm Springs Telecom
Associate Members
Nez Perce Tribe
Sacred Wind Communications
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Grant B. Spellmeyer
Question 1. Streamlined Application Process--Reading through the
GAO report on partnerships I noticed many of the same concerns that
tribal communities have are shared by those in rural areas more
generally. Specifically, under section titled ``Grant Application
Requirements,'' the report says quote ``Representatives from eight of
the tribes we contacted told us that in general, the language included
in the Federal grant applications is difficult to understand or the
administrative requirements of Federal grants are burdensome.'' This is
similar to concerns I have heard from others in both tribal and
nontribal rural areas in Nevada.
Do you believe streamlining the application processes for broadband
programs would be helpful for encouraging broadband buildout?
Answer. Yes, and let me offer two suggestions. First, to the
greatest extent possible, it would help for grant applications and
requirements to be written and organized in a simplified fashion. We
consider our company to be relatively sophisticated when it comes to
making applications for various grant programs, and yet we often find
the process and costs to be challenging. We consult with attorneys
experienced in the process, who sometimes must communicate directly
with government officials to help us understand various requirements.
We have a team of engineers, experienced in designing networks. We have
financial analysts able to ascertain for the government whether a
project will be sustainable over a five-year period. Many of these
assets are not readily available to Tribal governments who have never
run a telecommunications network. Simplifying the process, including
the language, will assist them in navigating the process. Simplifying
reporting requirements will make it more likely that applicants will
apply.
Second, and just as important, there should be a consolidation of
data and baseline requirements for similar programs. Two examples:
First, there should be one standard for what constitutes a baseline
level of broadband required of a Federal government grantee, whether it
be the FCC's universal service program or the RUS's new e-Connectivity
Program. If the prevailing expectation for acceptable mobile broadband
is 25 Mb throughput down and 3 Mb throughput up, then all programs
should drive to that standard. Second, all broadband programs should be
operating off of the same baseline data concerning where funds are
needed, that is, everyone should be operating off of a single map for
both fixed and mobile broadband, so that each dollar invested by the
Federal government is accurately targeted. Having such a resource would
also help states and Tribes that have grant or universal service
programs identify areas for investment.
Finally, we suggest that partnerships between established carriers
and Tribal governments or Tribal telecommunications companies can be
mutually beneficial, however there are few incentives for private
businesses to undertake such partnerships today. That is, there's not
enough reason to assess opportunities on Tribal lands from a different
perspective than any other place, which can depress investment in
remote areas. Increasing such incentives should be explored, so that
the expertise that telecommunications companies have can be combined
with a Tribal entity to accelerate broadband deployment. It is not a
one size fits all solution--there must be solutions tailored to the
demographics, geography, and particular needs of Tribes in different
parts of the nation, and having different challenges.
Question 2. Rural Input--The GAO report makes reference to the
Broadband Opportunity Council, which was established in 2015, saying
quote: ``Recognizing the need to reduce barriers to expand broadband
deployment, the Broadband Opportunity Council issued a report stating
that Federal agencies should use all available and appropriate
authorities to identify and address regulatory barriers that may unduly
impede broadband deployment.''
Do you believe it is important to have entities like the Broadband
Opportunity Council to ensure rural America has a voice in the Federal
government?
Answer. Yes. Increasing broadband investment on Tribal lands
requires focused entities such as the Broadband Opportunity Council,
who not only have a mission, but specific goals and measurements for
success.
Question 3. RUS and E-Rate--Looking at the recent GAO Report on
partnerships on tribal lands, there is a focus on ways RUS could help
tribes obtain funding to expand broadband deployment on their lands--
including through RUS's grant program. I understand that there are
60,000 mostly rural K-12 Native students who attend federally-supported
schools that do not have the broadband infrastructure required for
digital learning in the classroom.
Are any of you aware if there are ways that RUS grant programs
could be leveraged to provide the matching funds for the FCC'S E-Rate
program in order to connect these students?
Answer. For the most part, schools that are most in need, those
having the highest rates of students living in poverty, receive a 90
percent discount from the FCC's E-Rate program. 47 C.F.R. Section
54.505. It does not seem to be a productive use of RUS grant funds to
provide the additional 10 percent of funding for those schools, given
the necessary ``friction'' involved in the administrative steps needed
to transfer funds between programs and make any eligibility
determinations. Instead, the FCC could simply be directed to move to a
100 percent discount for such schools and avoid the administrative work
needed to transfer funds between programs.
In remote areas, if there is fiber running to a cell tower, it is
possible to extend fast broadband by either extending fiber or point-
to-point microwave from the tower to the school, often at a very low
cost. Accordingly, we believe a better way to leverage RUS funds would
be to encourage and incentivize RUS Community Connect Grant Program
applicants who propose to deliver middle-mile or last-mile fiber to
schools that are eligible for the 90 percent discount.
Question 4. Rural Spectrum--In Nevada we have two main metropolitan
areas and the rest of the population lives in small towns and rural
areas often separated by hundreds of miles. Tribal communities in these
areas are not only separated by distance but also mountainous and
remote terrain. Another challenge is that this land is almost always
owned by the Federal government, so we have a very unique situation in
Nevada as we try to build out broadband to some of the rural and tribal
communities that live in these areas. One of the issues that has arisen
is that wireless spectrum works differently in mountainous areas than
it does on flat land or in a city.
What challenges arise with getting the right spectrum to bring
fixed wireless to these areas?
Answer. In remote areas, accessing unlicensed spectrum that can
provide fixed wireless to rural and Tribal communities is not
difficult, because low population density does not exceed the capacity.
Fixed wireless providers operate on several low-band and medium band
unlicensed frequency blocks that offer different propagation
characteristics. The low-band frequencies go farther and penetrate
buildings and trees better, while the mid-band frequencies generally
have higher capacity, but cover shorter distances.
I do not believe access to spectrum is a large barrier for
companies attempting to provide fixed wireless broadband to remote
areas. The biggest barrier is sparse population density and lack of a
sustainable business model. As evidence, I note that in the recent
Connect America Fund Phase II auction, electric cooperatives and other
wireless Internet service providers won significant amounts of CAF
support. These companies have the assets needed to reach rural and
Tribal lands, but they cannot do it without some form of support to
defray construction and operating costs.
Question 5. What challenges arise with getting infrastructure built
on Federal lands?
Answer. Over the years, the biggest challenge for mobile wireless
carriers has been tower siting. On lands managed by the U.S. Forest
Service, the Bureau of Land Management, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, acquiring permits to erect towers can be very difficult, even
where there are public roads traversing Federal lands that have no
service and are remote and very dangerous in bad weather. I'm aware of
other companies having to wait several years until a new communications
plan is adopted before the application process can even begin.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Grant B. Spellmeyer
Question 1. In reviewing FCC and RUS broadband funding programs,
GAO found less than one percent has gone directly to tribes to expand
broadband service. How do we get funds to tribes? Should there be set-
asides? Partnerships? Both?
Answer. Senator, my sense is that funding Tribes directly will not
be productive unless there is an established Tribal telecommunications
company that has experience operating a telecommunications network. I
believe that partnerships between established carriers and Tribal
governments or Tribal telecommunications companies can be mutually
beneficial, however today there are few incentives for private
businesses to undertake such partnerships. That is, there's not enough
reason to assess opportunities on Tribal lands from a different
perspective than any other place, which can depress investment in
remote areas. Increasing such incentives should be explored, so that
the expertise that telecommunications companies have can be combined
with a Tribal entity to accelerate broadband deployment. It is not a
one size fits all solution--there must be solutions tailored to the
demographics, geography, and particular needs of each Tribe.
Question 2. These maps are not working. What can be done to make
these more accurate? Who should be responsible for correcting these
maps?
Answer. With respect to improving the accuracy of broadband maps,
we favor an ``all of the above'' approach. Federal and state resources
must be combined to improve our maps so that future investments are
accurately targeted. Until 2015, the Federal government developed the
National Broadband Map, a national resource that drew upon data from
Federal and state sources, however funding ran out and the Broadband
Map has not been updated. Earlier this year, NTIA received an
appropriation from Congress that includes a directive to ``update the
national broadband availability map, in conjunction with the FCC and
previously developed partnerships with the states.'' 83 Fed. Reg 24747
(May 23, 2018). We fully support NTIA's efforts to coordinate resources
and data to improve accuracy.
In terms of the FCC's Mobility Fund, which is currently hamstrung
by maps that appear to significantly overstate coverage, carriers
cannot correct the issues because they are far too big. We have
invested over $2 million in the challenge process to date, and we've
tested only a small fraction of the areas that we could test. Smaller
carriers are less able to undertake the cost and burden of testing
substantial rural areas, sometimes covering tens of thousands of square
miles in remote lands.
To make the maps more accurate, in the short term the FCC could
require carriers to refile maps using model inputs that better reflect
industry practices as were originally suggested by U.S. Cellular and
many others when the challenge maps were adopted. Better maps would
expose more areas as unserved and improve map accuracy because the
parameters suggested aligned with how carriers design and build
networks.
In addition to new maps, the Commission could require its Field
Operations Bureaus and USAC drive testers to help. Field Operations
Bureaus around the country employ engineers capable of investigating
harmful radiofrequency interference. They are capable of conducting
drive tests of a statistically significant data sample of roads to help
determine how big the problem is. USAC performs drive tests of our
network when we access Mobility Fund support--surely they can drive
test areas to determine how big the differences are between coverage on
maps and coverage on the ground. In the short term, we need the Federal
government to meaningfully contribute to solving this problem by
testing enough areas and comparing the results with carrier maps. That
will drive how big the problem is and what the solution should be.
Longer term, we think that NTIA should be permitted to do its work,
as authorized by Congress, and given all of the tools and resources
that it needs to develop accurate maps of fixed and mobile broadband
availability nationwide.
Question 3. Would you say the challenge process for the FCC maps is
a reasonable process to dispute data coverage? How would you improve
it?
Answer. Senator, having a challenge process is fine, provided, (i)
the underlying maps are generally accurate, reducing the amount of
testing that needs to be done to verify them, (ii) the process for
challenging is reasonable, and (iii) the FCC plays a meaningful role in
verifying data and conducting independent testing. None of those are
happening today.
On the first point, with the maps so significantly overstating
where mobile broadband is available at 5 Mbps of speed, it is
impossible for private industry to test all of the areas that should be
opened up to new investments. It is a non-starter for small and medium
sized carriers. The solution has to begin by improving map accuracy so
as to minimize challenges, which by the way was the FCC's stated goal
when it developed the challenge process.
On the second point, the FCC's procedures to submit a challenge are
so difficult as to make it all but impossible for even a diligent
challenger to succeed. Breaking the Nation into 1 square kilometer
blocks and requiring each block to be individually tested, with
multiple tests conducted at specified distances, all but ensures
failure. For a very low cost, we can drive test a series of roads
forming a ring and determine with certainty where coverage is on the
roads, and with near certainty whether there is coverage inside the
ring--areas oftentimes remote and inaccessible. The FCC's challenge
process is expensive, time consuming, and allows no such assumptions
concerning areas where we may have specific local knowledge of where
other carriers are providing service.
On the third point, beyond improving map accuracy, the Commission
should use its Field Operations Bureaus, its USAC drive testers, its
crowd-sourced speed test application, as well as input from state
officials collecting such data (for example, California has extensive
broadband availability data), to improve map accuracy. This has to be
an ``all of the above'' efforts, because rural Americans are clamoring
for improved broadband and they will never get it in areas that the FCC
deems to be served.
I trust that these responses will prove to be useful. Should you
require further information, please contact me any time and we'll be
happy to follow up.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
to Godfrey Enjady
Question 1. Tribal Expertise--In the GAO report on partnerships one
of the concerns mentioned is that tribes often do not have some of the
technical expertise necessary to access some of the funding that is
available. This is also a concern that stakeholders have raised with me
as one of the major problems for getting some of this funding to where
it is truly needed. The GAO notes that the Rural Utilities Services has
provided some funding for technical assistance for applicants, funding
that enabled RUS to address some of the barriers tribes face. However,
according to the report, RUS has not adequately taken steps to identify
or address the barriers tribes face when applying for RUS grant
funding, including lack of expertise.
What can the Federal government do better to bring some technical
help to tribes?
Answer. ``Additional funding for training would be helpful. There
is a great need for more expertise in Tribal communities. Native
communications companies, like all small carriers, face many staff
hours complying with filing requirements of the FCC and other entities.
Lifting some of this administrative burden would free-up resources that
could be used to serve their customers. As to grants, they are
appreciated and useful. However, most grants are for capital expenses.
Once new infrastructure and/or facilities are operational, they must be
maintained and updated. Ongoing operational expense funding must
accompany any grants.''
Question 2. Are Federal workshops helpful?
Answer. ``Any time an agency reaches out for a meeting it is
appreciated. Some workshops are useful, others not-so-much. Many times
it depends on location, timing and expense as to the cost effectiveness
of any given workshop. NTTA does see a need for better consultation
with Tribal entities so that government agencies can understand the
challenges and sovereignty issues of Native communities.''
Question 3. Telemedicine--In Nevada, we've recently completed the
Nevada Broadband Telemedicine Initiative. It has been a great example
of a public-private partnership, including Switch, a Nevada tech
company and the Nevada Hospital Association, as well as local and
Federal cooperation to improve the rural quality of life in the state.
For example, when Desert View Hospital in Pahrump recently celebrated
their connectivity they talked about how they are able to triage mental
health issues via telemedicine without the unnecessary costs of
transport to Las Vegas, as an example.
I am very excited about this and how these applications can work
for our native communities in Nevada, many of whom live hundreds of
miles from the nearest population center.
Are there any unique challenges for rural tribal communities
accessing telemedicine that may differ from other remote places?
Answer. ``The record at the FCC is clear about higher costs
necessary to serve Tribal areas, and thus the need for additional
funding (not just the equivalent to other rural carriers), which isn't
happening. Without sufficient to keep the network modernized and
provide for robust broadband, telemedicine becomes less of an option.''
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
Godfrey Enjady
Question 1. In reviewing FCC and RUS broadband funding programs,
GAO found less than one percent has gone directly to tribes to expand
broadband service. How do we get funds to tribes? Should there be set-
asides? Partnerships? Both?
Answer. ``Set-asides or carve outs are helpful. NTTA has put
forward such a plan at the FCC that was unopposed during the comment
period and was not approved. Because of sovereignty issues,
partnerships can prove to be difficult.''
Question 2. These maps are not working. What can be done to make
these more accurate? Who should be responsible for correcting these
maps?
Answer. ``The entire industry is working on this. For small Tribal
carriers, better mapping equals more time and resources spent, thus the
need for adequate funding. The use of census blocks does not work in
most Tribal communities.''
Question 3. Would you say the challenge process for the FCC maps is
a reasonable process to dispute data coverage? How would you improve
it?
Answer. ``NTTA members provide broadband and other services to
their communities. As a part of their local, Tribal community, NTTA
members know where services have been deployed. Larger carriers need to
do a better job of mapping and location.''
[all]