    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     LEGISLATING TO CONNECT AMERICA: IMPROVING
                               THE NATION'S BROADBAND MAPS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-60

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                       govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    40-987 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2021

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                         FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                     Chairman
    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
    ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
    JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
    JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
        Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
    JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
        Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
    LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
    DARREN SOTO, Florida
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                     ------

                               Professional Staff

                       JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                    TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                    MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                            MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
                                     Chairman
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York             Ranking Member
    DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
    MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
    A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia         PETE OLSON, Texas
    DARREN SOTO, Florida                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    ANNA G. ESHOO, California            BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              BILLY LONG, Missouri
    G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    BILL FLORES, Texas
    DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
        Chair                            TIM WALBERG, Michigan
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
    KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    TONY CARDENAS, California
    DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
        officio)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
      Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................     5
    Hon. Billy Long, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Missouri, prepared statement...................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     7
        Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    10

                                   Witnesses

    Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA-The Rural
      Broadband Association..........................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    15
    James W. Assey, Executive Vice President, NCTA-The Internet and
      Television Association.........................................    23
        Prepared statement...........................................    25
    Grant B. Spellmeyer, Vice President, Federal Affairs and Public
      Policy, United States Cellular Corporation.....................    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
    Dana J. Floberg, Policy Manager, Free Press and Free Press Action
      Fund...........................................................    44
        Prepared statement...........................................    46
    Jonathan Spalter, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      USTelecom......................................................    62
        Prepared statement...........................................    64
    James W. Stegeman, President, CostQuest Associates...............    68
        Prepared statement \1\
        Answers to submitted questions...............................   176

                               Submitted Material

    H.R. 4229, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
      Availability Act...............................................   109
    H.R. 4128, the Map Improvement Act of 2019.......................   134
    H.R. 4227, the Mapping Accuracy Promotes Services (MAPS) Act.....   141
    H.R. 2643, the Broadband Mapping After Public Scrutiny Act of
      2019...........................................................   144
    H.R. 3162, the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2019............   146
    Letter of September 10, 2019 from James D. Ogsbury, Executive
      Director, Western Governors Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr.
      Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle..................................   161
    Letter of September 9, 2019, from Jim Matheson, Chief Executive
      Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and
      Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA-The Rural
      Broadband Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by
      Mr. Doyle......................................................   174

    ----------

    \1\ Mr. Stegeman's prepared statement and additional material submitted
    for the record have been retained in committee files and also are
    available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109914.

     LEGISLATING TO CONNECT AMERICA: IMPROVING THE NATION'S BROADBAND MAPS

                                  ----------

                         WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:29 a.m., in
    room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Doyle
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
    Loebsack, Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui,
    Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Dingell, Pallone (ex
    officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Olson,
    Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Walberg,
    Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
        Also present: Representatives Rodgers and Griffith.
        Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
    Director; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press Secretary; Waverly Gordon,
    Deputy Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel,
    Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry Leverich, Senior
    Counsel; Dan Miller, Policy Analyst; Phil Murphy, Policy
    Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts,
    Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Adam Buckalew,
    Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel,
    Health; Michael Engel, Minority Detailee, Communications and
    Technology; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant;
    Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office Administrator;
    Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie,
    Minority Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth,
    Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
    Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; Evan Viau, Minority
    Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; and
    Nate Wilkins, Minority Fellow, Communications and Technology.
        Mr. Doyle. The Subcommittee on Communications and
    Technology will now come to order. The Chair now recognizes
    himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.

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

        Before we get started, I just want to take a moment to
    remember the lives lost 18 years ago on September 11th. Many of
    us on the committee were there when this happened. I remember
    having breakfast in the Capitol when the first plane hit the
    tower, which I didn't know at the time. And when I got back to
    my office and saw my staff all watching the television sets is
    when the second plane hit, and we just knew something terrible
    had happened.
        And it seems like it couldn't have been 18 years ago, but
    it was, and I just think we want to remember all the sacrifices
    that got made by our police and firemen, all our first
    responders that ran towards that building. Many of them aren't
    with us today from illnesses that they contracted being down
    there at that site.
        And also remember that evening that we all stood on the
    steps of the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans locking arms
    and singing ``God Bless America,'' I remember that very vividly
    too. We probably could use a little bit more of that these days
    in this country, of coming together as Americans. But I just
    ask that may we just take a brief couple seconds for a moment
    of silence just to reflect on 9/11, 18 years ago, and all the
    people that passed.
        [Moment of silence.]
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Well, I want to welcome everyone to
    our first hearing since our August recess. Today, our hearing
    is focusing on Legislating to Connect America: Improving our
    Nation's Broadband Maps. This subcommittee will consider five
    pieces of legislation that I believe can help address serious
    problems with the way the FCC currently collects broadband
    deployment data.
        This is an often-discussed topic here in Congress, and the
    lack of clear data has often been a sore spot for many of here
    on the committee. However, the FCC in coordination with
    industry stakeholders has been making significant strides to
    improve the quality of some of these maps, and the bills before
    the committee today build on those efforts.
        Accurate maps of who does and who doesn't have access to
    broadband are a critical first step in closing the digital
    divide. We can't hope to solve this problem if we don't know
    the scope of the problem and where to put our resources.
        First, we have H.R. 4229, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy
    and Technological Availability Act, introduced by
    Representative Loebsack and Ranking Member Latta. This bill
    would dramatically improve the FCC broadband maps by requiring
    the FCC to collect and disseminate far more granular broadband
    data for both fixed and mobile services. The bill would also
    allow the FCC to use crowdsource data to help verify and
    supplement carrier-provided data.
        Second, we have H.R. 4128, the Map Improvement Act of 2019,
    introduced by Representatives Lujan, Bilirakis, and myself. It
    would standardize the methodology used for collecting and
    verifying coverage data provided by providers. It would also
    establish a new office within the FCC to serve as a central
    coordinator for the Commission's mapping efforts.
        Third, we have H.R. 4227, the Mapping Accuracy Promotion
    Services Act, introduced by Representatives McEachin, Long,
    Loebsack, and Latta. This bill would make it unlawful for a
    person to submit inaccurate broadband coverage data to the FCC.
        Fourth, we have H.R. 2643, the Broadband Mapping After
    Public Scrutiny Act of 2019, which has been introduced by
    Ranking Member Latta and my good friend Mr. Welch. This bill
    would create a challenge process at the FCC for fixed and
    mobile broadband coverage data and allow private entities as
    well as State, local, and Tribal government entities to verify
    coverage data submitted to the FCC.
        And, finally, we will consider H.R. 3162, the Broadband
    Data Improvement Act of 2019, introduced by Representative
    McMorris Rodgers and Representative O'Halleran. This bill would
    update the FCC's mapping process, establish a public challenge
    process and require Federal agencies to use the newly created
    broadband maps to determine the extent and the availability of
    broadband in the United States.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the
    discussion about this important legislation.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

        Good morning.
        Before we get started, I'd like to take a moment to
    remember the lives lost 18 years ago on September 11th, and the
    extraordinary sacrifices made by the police, firefighters, and
    EMS techs who responded to those horrific attacks as well as
    those who have fought to keep us safe and keep fighting for our
    country every day. We owe all of them a tremendous debt.
        With that, I'd like to welcome everyone to our first
    hearing since the August recess. Today's legislative hearing is
    titled ``Legislating to Connect America: Improving the Nation's
    Broadband Maps.''
        The subcommittee will consider 5 pieces of legislation that
    I believe can help address serious problems with the way the
    Federal Communications Commission currently collects broadband
    deployment data.
        This is an often-discussed topic here in Congress, and the
    lack of clear data has often been a sore spot for many of us on
    the committee. However, the FCC in coordination with industry
    stakeholders has been making significant strides to improve the
    quality of some of these maps, and the bills before the
    committee today build on those efforts.
        Accurate maps of who does and doesn't have access to
    broadband are a critical first step in closing the digital
    divide. We can't hope to solve this problem if we don't know
    the scope of it--and where to put our resources.
        First, we have H.R. 4229, the ``Broadband Deployment
    Accuracy and Technological Availability Act,'' introduced by
    Representative Loebsack and Ranking Member Latta. This bill
    would dramatically improve the FCC broadband maps by requiring
    the FCC to collect and disseminate far more granular broadband
    data for both fixed and mobile services. The bill would also
    allow the FCC to use crowdsourced data to help verify and
    supplement carrier-provided data.
        Second, we have H.R. 4128, the ``Map Improvement Act of
    2019,'' introduced by Representatives Lujan, Bilirakis, and
    myself. It would standardize the methodology used for
    collecting and verifying coverage data provided by providers.
    It would also establish a new office within the FCC to severe
    as a central coordinator for the Commission's mapping efforts.
        Third up, we have H.R. 4227, the ``Mapping Accuracy
    Promotes Services Act,'' introduced by Representatives
    McEachin, Long, Loebsack, and Latta. This bill would make it
    unlawful for a person to submit inaccurate broadband coverage
    data to the FCC.
        Fourth, we will consider H.R. 2643, the ``Broadband Mapping
    After Public Scrutiny Act of 2019,'' introduced by Ranking
    Member Lata and my good friend Congressman Welch. This bill
    would create a challenge process at the FCC for fixed and
    mobile broadband coverage data--and allow private entities as
    well as State, local, and Tribal government entities to verify
    coverage data submitted to the FCC.
        Finally, we will consider H.R. 3162, the ``Broadband Data
    Improvement Act of 2019,'' introduced by Representatives
    McMorris Rodgers and O'Halleran. This bill would update the
    FCC's mapping process, establish a public challenge process,
    and require Federal agencies to use the newly created broadband
    maps to determine the extent and availability of broadband in
    the United States.
        I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the
    discussion about these important bills.
        I yield the balance of my time to Congressman Loebsack.

        Mr. Doyle. And at this time, I would like to yield the
    balance of my time to Congressman Loebsack.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Chairman
    Pallone, Ranking Members Walden and Latta, for holding this
    legislative hearing today. And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for
    giving me some of your time.
        There is a lot of great stuff in the Broadband Development
    Accuracy and Technological Availability Act or Broadband DATA
    Act and we will be discussing that shortly. But I would first
    like to extend an extra special thanks to Ranking Member Latta
    for working with me to introduce the Broadband DATA Act. I have
    long been an advocate for better maps and the needs of rural
    America, and I don't know that I could have had a better ally,
    quite honestly, than my friend from Ohio. Further, I thank
    Ranking Member Latta for agreeing to continue working with me
    on this bill as we look forward to an eventual subcommittee
    markup. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
        We have had some great conversations with stakeholders,
    many of whom are represented on the panel today or in the
    audience, and I believe there is still some potential for some
    improvements between now and the markup. And just quickly, some
    of the things that we might continue to work on: creating
    additional clarity that this bill will keep data publicly
    available; looking at the addition of an authorization of
    funding; studying the use of USF funds for administrative
    costs; exploring a GAO study or ongoing review process for what
    source of information are informing the fabric; and considering
    how we ensure we are not burdening small businesses.
        I am very proud of the bill that Representative Latta and I
    introduced and we will be talking about today and I think we
    have a bill that is ready for markup and passage on the House
    floor, but there might be some room for improvement and I am
    willing to work with Congressman Latta going forward. And with
    that I yield back my time.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes my friend Mr. Latta, the ranking member of the
    subcommittee, for 5 minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could offer
    before my time begins, I would like to thank you for your very
    sincere words on remembering 9/11. I think everyone in this
    room can remember where they were that day and the very impact
    it has had on this Nation. And I totally agree with you that,
    you know, the country came together that day. I was in the Ohio
    legislature at the time, but I appreciate your words, and we
    have to always remember what happened on that day. So thank
    you.
        I would like to welcome you to today's committee
    legislative hearing on potential solutions to accurately map
    broadband availability in rural America. I thank our witnesses
    for joining us and providing their thoughts on this issue.
    Extending the reach of broadband in rural Ohio and across
    America is critical to ensure everyone can participate in the
    digital economy.
        Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
    private sector has invested roughly $1.7 trillion in their
    broadband networks. We should acknowledge this investment in
    rural deployment; ensure that government-supported solutions
    complement private capital instead of competing with it. This
    is becoming increasingly important with some proposals calling
    for as much as 150 billion in government funding to publicly
    own and operate networks nationwide.
        Today's legislative hearing features several bills
    introduced by committee members who deeply understand the lack
    of connectivity across their districts. Our constituents tell
    us when they don't have service and it is through their voices
    that I have heard and work with my colleagues on two of the
    bipartisan bills that will be discussed today.
        The Broadband MAPS Act, which I introduced with my very
    good friend, the gentleman from Vermont, would help to verify
    reported data through a public challenge process. And the
    Broadband DATA Act, which I have developed with my good friend,
    very good friend, the gentleman from Iowa, would take a
    comprehensive approach to fixing our Nation's maps. I believe
    that these bills will help build on the success of our previous
    partnership to deploy broadband to rural farmlands through the
    Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act.
        As we look to the FCC's next round of Universal Service
    Funding, it is vital that we work in a bipartisan manner to
    ensure that there is a verified, accurate, and granular
    foundation upon which we make these funding decisions. Congress
    has an important oversight role to play in ensuring that we do
    not repeat the mistakes of the past. With limited Federal
    dollars to go around, we simply cannot afford to misidentify
    areas as served which are truly unserved. Only with accurate
    and granular data will we begin to close the last frontier of
    the digital divide.
        It is also critical that a robust, user-friendly challenge
    process is in place to appropriately dispute potential
    inaccuracies within the coverage maps. We must and have to get
    the maps right, and in creating a pathway for the FCC to
    consider additional broadband data will help achieve that goal.
        As we move toward committee markups, I anticipate
    continuing discussions with my friends across the aisle on
    several outstanding issues such as striking the right balance
    between protecting competitive, sensitive information while
    providing transparency to consumers; ensuring that we can
    leverage data the best we can across the Federal Government and
    addressing the cost of the fabric and ongoing review of the
    fabric's reach and effectiveness; and, finally, examining
    unintended impacts of certain requirements on small businesses.
        I thank the chairman for holding this hearing and I am
    committed to working with my colleagues on these issues through
    regular order.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

        Welcome to today's subcommittee legislative hearing on
    potential solutions to accurately map broadband availability in
    rural America. I thank our witnesses for joining us and
    providing their thoughts on this issue. Extending the reach of
    broadband in rural Ohio, and across America, is critical to
    ensure everyone can participate in the digital economy.
        Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
    private sector has invested roughly $1.7 trillion in their
    broadband networks. We should acknowledge this investment in
    rural deployment and ensure that government-supported solutions
    complement private capital instead of competing with it. This
    has become increasingly important with some proposals calling
    for as much as $150 billion in government funding to publicly
    own and operate networks nationwide.
        Today's legislative hearing features several bills
    introduced by committee members who deeply understand the lack
    of connectivity across their districts. Our constituents tell
    us when they don't have service and it's through their voices
    that I've worked with my colleagues on two bipartisan bills
    that will be discussed today. The Broadband MAPS Act, which I
    introduced with Representative Welch, would help to verify
    reported data through a public challenge process. And, the
    Broadband DATA Act, which I've developed with Representative
    Loebsack, would take a comprehensive approach to fixing our
    Nation's maps. I'm hopeful that this bill will build on the
    success our of previous partnership to deploy broadband to
    rural farm lands through the Precision Agriculture Connectivity
    Act.
        As we look to the FCC's next round of Universal Service
    Funding, it is vital that we work in a bipartisan way to make
    sure there is a verified, accurate, and granular foundation
    upon which we make these funding decisions. Congress has an
    important oversight role to play in ensuring that we do not
    repeat the mistakes of the past. With limited Federal dollars
    to go around, we simply cannot afford to misidentify areas as
    served which are truly unserved. Only with accurate and
    granular data will we begin to close the last frontier of the
    digital divide.
        It is also critical that a robust, user-friendly challenge
    process is in place to appropriately dispute potential
    inaccuracies within the coverage maps. We must get the maps
    right and creating a pathway for the Commission to consider
    additional broadband data will help achieve that goal. As we
    move toward committee markups, I anticipate continuing
    discussions with my friends across the aisle on several
    outstanding issues, such as:
         striking the right balance between protecting
    competitively sensitive information while providing
    transparency to consumers;
         ensuring we can leverage data the best we can
    across the Federal Government;
         addressing the cost of the fabric and the ongoing
    review of the fabric's reach and effectiveness; and,
         examining unintended impacts of certain
    requirements on small businesses.
        I thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and I'm
    committed to working with my colleagues on these issues through
    regular order. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Long.

        Mr. Latta. And at this time, I would like to yield the rest
    of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri.
        Mr. Long. Thank you for yielding. And I would like to thank
    the witnesses for being here, and I am happy to see that the
    subcommittee is prioritizing the need to develop accurate
    broadband maps.
        For rural communities such as Missouri's 7th congressional
    district, access to broadband is as scarce as hen's teeth. I
    think we can all agree that mapping and graphically displaying
    where broadband is and is not available at certain speeds is a
    critical tool in closing the digital divide. As we move
    forward, I believe it is important that the broadband mapping
    update be paired with appropriate enforcement measures to
    ensure that providers' submissions are complete and accurate,
    which is why I am working with my colleagues on H.R. 4227 and
    the MAPS Act.
        In closing, I would like to thank Representative Dave
    Loebsack of Iowa; the telecom ranking member, Bob Latta; and
    Donald McEachin, Virginia, for their work on both the Broadband
    DATA Act and MAPS Act, and I am committed to working together
    toward the subcommittee markup and sticking the landing on this
    important topic. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Billy Long

        I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, and I'm
    happy to see the subcommittee is prioritizing the need to
    develop accurate broadband maps.
        For rural communities, such as those in Missouri's 7th
    Congressional District, access to broadband is scarce. I think
    we can all agree that mapping--graphically displaying where
    broadband is and is not available at certain speeds--is a
    critical tool in closing the digital divide.
        As we move forward, I believe it is important that any
    broadband mapping update be paired with appropriate enforcement
    measures to ensure that providers' submissions are complete and
    accurate--which is why I'm working with my colleagues on H.R.
    4227, the MAPS Act.
        In closing, I'd like to thank Representatives Dave Loebsack
    (D-IA), Bob Latta (R-OH), and Donald McEachin (D-VA) for their
    work on both theBroadband DATA Act and the MAPS Act and I am
    committed to working together towards a subcommittee markup.

        Mr. Latta. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 5
    minutes for his opening statement.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
        This year our committee is focused on improving
    telecommunications services for consumers. In July, the House
    overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Stopping Bad Robocalls
    Act, and earlier this year the House passed legislation that
    restores a free and open internet by reinstating net
    neutrality. And now this subcommittee continues its work on a
    range of pro-consumer issues including broadband deployment,
    spectrum policy, supply chain security, and more.
        Broadband mapping is a central component in each of these
    discussions. Without good maps we can't correctly determine how
    we should target funding for broadband access and adoption in
    rural and urban areas. Without good maps we don't have enough
    detail to assess competition or review mergers. And without
    good maps we don't have a proper view of whether the FCC is
    appropriately using its authority to benefit consumers.
        It is not an exaggeration, in my opinion, to say this FCC's
    terrible broadband data is its Achilles Heel. And the
    statistics show just how bad this problem is. Free Press
    recently discovered that one carrier alone was overstating its
    deployment by 2.2 million consumers, throwing off the FCC's
    entire estimate of unserved Americans. And CostQuest discovered
    as part of its State pilot program that as many as 38 percent
    of households in the study area might be unserved, but the FCC
    may count them as served.
        I think it is a huge problem. Fortunately, there is
    bipartisan agreement on this subcommittee that the FCC's bad
    maps need to be fixed. Last year, Representative Loebsack's
    Rural Wireless Access Act was signed into law which aimed at
    fixing the FCC's wireless data. Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't
    yet taken the action required by law due to the ongoing
    investigation into carriers intentionally submitting bad data
    as part of the Mobility Fund II proceeding.
        So it is clear that despite our past action more work needs
    to be done, and I thank the many Members who have worked hard
    to solve this problem.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        This year, our committee has focused on improving
    telecommunications services for consumers. In July, the House
    overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Stopping Bad Robocalls
    Act, and earlier this year the House passed legislation that
    restores a free and open internet by reinstating net
    neutrality. And now this subcommittee continues its work on a
    range of pro-consumer issues including broadband deployment,
    spectrum policy, supply chain security, and more.
        Broadband mapping is a central component in each of those
    discussions. Without good maps, we cannot correctly determine
    how we should target funding for broadband access and adoption
    in rural and urban areas. Without good maps, we don't have
    enough detail to assess competition or review mergers. And
    without good maps, we don't have a proper view of whether the
    Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appropriately using
    its authority to benefit consumers.
        It is not an exaggeration to say this FCC's terrible
    broadband data is its Achilles heel.
        And the statistics show just how bad this problem is. Free
    Press recently discovered that one carrier alone was
    overstating its deployment by 2.2 million consumers, throwing
    off the FCC's entire estimate of unserved Americans.
        CostQuest discovered as part of its State pilot program
    that as many as 38 percent of households in the study area
    might be unserved, but the FCC may count them as served.
        This is a huge problem. Fortunately, there is bipartisan
    agreement on this subcommittee that the FCC's bad maps need to
    be fixed. Last year, Representative Loebsack's Rural Wireless
    Access Act was signed into law, which aimed at fixing the FCC's
    wireless data. Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't yet taken the
    actions required by law due to the ongoing investigation into
    carriers intentionally submitting bad data as part of the
    Mobility Fund II proceeding.
        It's clear that despite our past action more work needs to
    be done. I thank the many Members who have worked hard to solve
    this problem.

        Mr. Pallone. I have 3 minutes. I would like to yield,
    basically split it if I could, between Representative Lujan and
    Representative O'Halleran. And I yield the minute and a half
    now to Representative Lujan, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you to the chairman and to the ranking
    members. When it comes to broadband access, according to the
    FCC more than 21 million Americans lack access to high-speed,
    fixed broadband. We know that is because of no connectivity or
    unaffordability. And as the chairman pointed out, wireless maps
    are also not accurate. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, they
    are misleading. Because of the problems with how broadband data
    is collected and mapped, no one really knows what the number
    is. The problem most likely is significantly worse.
        This is also a life and death issue. Ashlynne Mike was an
    11-year-old Navajo girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered
    in 2016. When Ashlynne went missing, the AMBER Alert systems
    didn't work and there was no connectivity.
        Mr. Chairman, we have to act. And I thank Chairman Doyle
    and Congressman Bilirakis for partnering with me on the Map
    Improvement Act, and I thank my colleagues for their related
    efforts, and I yield back.
        Mr. Pallone. I yield the rest of my time to Mr. O'Halleran.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today this
    committee takes an important step towards helping rural America
    connect to the internet. According to the FCC, only 40 percent
    of rural Arizona is currently connected in the home at FCC
    standard speeds. And even this data point likely overstates
    broadband coverage due to the census block reporting regime.
        Working together, I know this committee can right this
    wrong. The legislation before us today including my and
    Representative Rodgers bipartisan bill, the Broadband Data
    Improvement Act, takes important steps to improve how the FCC
    and Federal agencies identify where broadband coverage exists
    and where it does not. Just last month, the FCC adopted
    concepts from this bill to move away from census block
    reporting and instead ask the internet providers to report
    shapefiles of their current coverage offerings.
        There is still more work to be done, and I am pleased to
    see the bills before us today continue to move us towards
    making the National Broadband Map as accurate as possible. Mr.
    Chairman, I am excited to work in a bipartisan manner on this
    important issue and, collectively, I know we can achieve our
    mutual goal. And I yield.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the full committee,
    for 5 minutes for his opening statement.

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

        Mr. Walden. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    and thanks to all our witnesses for being here. Some familiar
    faces back at the table. We appreciate your guidance and
    counsel on these matters. I want to thank my colleague from
    California, Ms. Eshoo. We worked a lot on these issues going
    back over a number of years and thank you for your leadership.
    And we are still not there, but we are working at it.
        It is obviously an issue that I have cared about a lot over
    the last couple of decades. And some of my friends will
    remember when the stimulus bill was being voted through this
    committee, I pled, begged, and even had an amendment to do the
    mapping before the money went out, and unfortunately we came up
    a few votes short on that. But maybe today we will begin this
    process because the money needs to go where it is needed and
    not overbilled and serve these markets that claim on the maps
    that are already served, but yet they aren't.
        And so, while the incentives have expanded broadband access
    and made communicating and participating in a 21st century
    economy easier than ever before, much work remains to connect
    all Americans to high-speed internet broadband. I want to use
    an example, Weston, Oregon, which is in Eastern Oregon in my
    district. The mayor, Jennifer Spurgeon, describes their
    internet service as being dial-up, just without the modem
    noise, all right. And she told Chairman Pai that when he was
    out a year or so ago, and I thought it was a pretty good line.
        They frequently experience, obviously, sub-megabit speeds.
    Sub-megabit. So you can imagine how surprised they were when
    the FCC's map said they had 100-megabit service. And so they
    were a little surprised because, yes, it is dial-up without the
    modem noise.
        As chairman of this committee, we worked in a bipartisan
    fashion last Congress, many of you will recall, to enact
    legislation to promote rural broadband and I am hopeful we can
    build on that same spirit of bipartisanship. We included
    provisions in the RAY BAUM'S Act to improve the methodology for
    the collection of mobile service coverage to streamline access
    to easements and rights-of-way and lease requests for deploying
    communications equipment on Federal property--just for the
    record, my district is over 50 percent Federal land, so trying
    to do anything out there can be very time-consuming, costly,
    and burdensome--and we wanted to improve efficiency of spectrum
    allocation.
        So as we continue our oversight of RAY BAUM'S Act as well
    as our efforts to spur broadband deployment in rural America,
    we must also ensure the Universal Service Program is
    efficiently and effectively reaching truly unserved parts of
    America. So I applaud Chairman Pai for his leadership on this
    front, proposing a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund using cost-
    efficient reverse auctions to better allocate limited financial
    support from the Feds.
        At the same time, we must ensure that the FCC is relying on
    accurate and sufficiently granular information when making
    these decisions. There are areas that we all know are unserved.
    That is pretty obvious, and then of course we know of the
    underserved areas.
        But what we really need are really good maps that show us
    for sure. The Senate has already moved a consensus bill through
    their committee to address this issue, which I believe
    represents an interesting path. The legislation before us today
    rightly underscores the importance of this issue and the
    attention it has earned among members of the committee.
        There are a number of issues with which Republicans are
    committed to working on with our counterparts, such as how we
    are going to provide funding, how to balance publicly available
    information, and how to improve data sources, and how we can
    best leverage the data to the greatest extent possible across
    the Federal Government. Other Members have also put forward
    bills to address rural broadband challenges, and these
    proposals deserve consideration as well and I expect we will
    hear about some of those other bills today.
        So again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership on this.
    Thanks for holding this hearing today and we look forward to
    working in a good bipartisan spirit to connect America and to
    have maps that show the truth. We are all about facts and truth
    here, so let's get 'er done. Thank you. I yield back.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses to
    this hearing on the importance of accurately mapping broadband
    availability in America.
        This is an issue I've been working on for two decades. Many
    of you will remember that I advocated ``mapping before money''
    for the Obama administration's stimulus act. Unfortunately, I
    was voted down along party lines, but my warnings and those of
    my Republican colleagues were borne out, and documented by news
    outlets, such as Politico in an article entitled ``Wired to
    Fail.''
        While market incentives have expanded broadband access and
    made communicating and participating in the 21st century
    economy easier than ever before, much work remains to connect
    all Americans to high speed broadband. It's past time to get
    accurate mapping data.
        Take the community of Weston in eastern Oregon as an
    example. Mayor Jennifer Spurgeon describes their internet
    service as being dialup, just without the modem noise. They
    frequently experience sub-megabit speeds. You can imagine they
    are surprised to learn they have 100-megabit service according
    to the FCC's map.
        Under my chairmanship, this committee worked in a
    bipartisan fashion last Congress to enact legislation to
    promote rural broadband, and I'm hopeful we can continue to
    build on our past success.
        We included provisions in RAY BAUM'S Act to improve the
    methodology for the collection of mobile service coverage;
    streamline access to easements, rights-of-way, and lease
    requests for deploying communications equipment on Federal
    property; and improve the efficiency of spectrum allocation.
        As we continue our oversight of RAY BAUM'S Act as well as
    our efforts to spur broadband deployment in rural America, we
    must also ensure that the Universal Service program is
    efficiently and effectively reaching truly unserved areas. I
    applaud Chairman Pai for his leadership on this front,
    proposing a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund using cost-efficient
    reverse auctions to better allocate limited Federal support.
        At the same time, we must ensure that the FCC is relying on
    accurate and sufficiently granular information when making
    these decisions. There are areas that we all know are unserved,
    and sufficiently precise data will help better reach these
    areas. Too often, the areas most in need of Federal broadband
    support get lost in the rush to dole out government funds,
    especially when program rules distort eligibility for some
    areas that are already adequately served. Without the best
    available data identifying parts of the country that need funds
    most the vicious cycle of leaving rural Americans behind will
    continue.
        The Senate has already moved a consensus bill through their
    committee to address this issue, which I believe represents an
    interesting path. The legislation before us today rightly
    underscores the importance of this issue and the attention it
    has earned among members of the committee. There are a number
    of issues which Republicans are committed to working on with
    our counterparts--such as how we're going to provide funding,
    how to balance publicly available information, how to improve
    data sources, and how we can best leverage the data to the
    greatest extent possible across the Federal Government.
        Other Members have also put forward bills to address rural
    broadband challenges, and these proposals deserve consideration
    as well. I expect we'll hear about some of those other bills
    today.
        Thank you again for holding this hearing today, I hope we
    can continue working on a bipartisan basis through regular
    order to get the job done.

        Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman and he yields back.
        The Chair would like remind Members that, pursuant to
    committee rules, all Members' written opening statements will
    be made part of the record.
        I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
    hearing: Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, chief executive officer, NTCA-
    The Rural Broadband Association; Mr. James Assey, executive
    vice president, NCTA-The Internet and Television Association;
    Mr. Grant Spellmeyer, vice president, Federal Affairs and
    Public Policy, U.S. Cellular; Ms. Dana Floberg, policy manager,
    Free Press and Free Press Action; Mr. Jonathan Spalter,
    president and CEO of the USTelecom Association; and Mr. James
    Stegeman, president and CEO of CostQuest Associates.
        We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
    We look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will
    now recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their
    opening statement.
        But before we begin, I would like to explain our lighting
    system. The light in front of you will initially be green at
    the start of your opening statement. It will turn yellow when
    you have 1 minute remaining, and please begin to wrap your
    testimony at that point. The light will turn red when your time
    expires.
        And with that, Ms. Bloomfield, you are now recognized for 5
    minutes.

    STATEMENTS OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NTCA
     09THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION; JAMES M. ASSEY, EXECUTIVE
    VICE PRESIDENT, NCTA 09THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION ASSOCIATION;
    GRANT B. SPELLMEYER, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC
     POLICY, UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION; DANA J. FLOBERG,
    POLICY MANAGER, FREE PRESS AND FREE PRESS ACTION FUND; JONATHAN
    SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USTELECOM; AND
           JAMES W. STEGEMAN, PRESIDENT, COSTQUEST ASSOCIATES

                    STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD

        Ms. Bloomfield. Thank you very much, Chairman Doyle,
    Ranking Member Latta, Mr. Walden, and members of the
    subcommittee. It is so terrific that you all are gathered here
    today coming back from recess to talk about something so
    important like broadband mapping and the legislation you have
    that is being considered by the subcommittee. I am Shirley
    Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association. I have
    850 community-based providers across the country in 46 States
    that really serve the most sparsely populated parts of our
    Nation.
        A major challenge associated with making informed policy
    and investment decisions regarding the deployment of broadband
    in these rural sparse areas is whether there is or is not
    service already, which is why the hearing is so important
    today. But as it stands today as you have noted, the FCC
    maintains the most accurate maps available for most areas, but
    these mapping efforts are still frustratingly inconsistent and
    unreliable.
        We find it is not unusual the conditions that are actually
    on the ground look very different from what appears on a
    national map. And we know that the current FCC maps miss the
    mark because they show an entire census area served when even
    if it is just one location in the block that is served, meaning
    that the entire census block becomes ineligible for support
    funding.
        This false positive can mean a single customer can result
    in unserved customers miles away looking served on a map. In
    other words, perhaps the most important significant problem we
    have is granularity. Just last month the FCC did adopt an order
    that will move away from the overly broad use of census blocks
    for reporting broadband coverage and instead is now going to
    require providers to submit shapefiles. And that will actually
    be a good step forward.
        At the same time, the FCC agrees with NTCA that we should
    not stop at shapefiles alone, but we should continue to move
    forward towards a uniform national dataset on top of which
    carriers can report broadband availability to ensure that this
    data can ultimately translate to which locations in our country
    are served or are not. This movement offers great promise in
    getting more granular maps, but it is really essential to
    remember that granularity and accuracy are not the same thing.
        In fact, there are a few key steps that must be taken to
    promote accuracy separate and apart from granularity. First, we
    have got to standardize reporting. We have got to make sure
    that everybody reports on an apples-to-apples basis. That is
    really critical. Specific technical standards should be
    established and we must ensure that providers are not making
    unreasonable or unrealistic assumptions about the capacities
    that they actually have. We simply cannot rely on people
    reporting advertised speeds across a wide swath of rural
    America to be considered sufficient.
        In addition to tracking speeds, NTCA submits that the FCC
    should require reports specifically on the latency and the
    usage limits applicable to broadband services. Latency and
    usage limits can play a really critical role in the consumer
    experience, particularly when you are doing something really
    important like telemedicine or distance learning. And it would
    be useful and not an incrementally difficult database to
    gather.
        But even if you do standardization up front to improve the
    mapping inputs, all of that data in question still becomes
    self-reported. It is self-reported data, so therefore you are
    going to have to have a back-end validation process as well to
    ensure that the process actually has integrity. So one of these
    validation processes could be crowdsourcing, which allows users
    to actually report what they are experiencing on the ground.
    The crowdsource data must be implemented thoughtfully so that
    it provides value and detects noteworthy trends rather than
    creating confusion or burdens. Think of a heat map and what
    that data tells you.
        Another and perhaps more critical validation that the
    Commission could utilize would be a robust challenge process
    anytime that it is preparing to make significant funding or
    other policy decisions. A challenge process would enable
    providers and policymakers to do one last sanity check on the
    accuracy of the map before decisions are actually reached.
        A lot of broadband deployment since the most current map
    which is out there, which is in 2017, and we want to make sure
    that we are not doing overbuilding using Federal support
    because that is not the best use of limited resources. Improve
    the maps on the front end, validate on the back end. American
    consumers deserve the integrity of that process.
        Turning specifically to the role that Congress and this
    committee can play, the legislation that you have under
    consideration, we applaud the careful attention that
    Representative Loebsack and Latta have placed in looking at a
    couple of things. First, making immediate granularity
    improvements in the form of shapefiles, very critical. Second,
    moving towards a more granular location fabric in the future,
    so we can really get a clearer picture. And third, calling
    explicitly for standard development and challenge processes to
    improve the data collection on both the front end and the back
    end.
        So due in large part to the leadership of this committee
    and the subcommittee, small broadband providers like those in
    NTCA's membership have really made great strides in reducing
    the digital divide. But the job is far from done and you know
    that. We have got to make sure that we can use these maps to
    really figure out where broadband is lacking and sustain
    broadband where it actually exists today.
        So on behalf of NTCA and all the members that we represent,
    we thank you sincerely for this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
        The Chair now recognizes Mr. Assey for 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ASSEY

        Mr. Assey. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Doyle, Ranking
    Member Latta, members of the subcommittee. My name is James
    Assey and I am the executive vice president of NCTA-The
    Internet and Television Association. NCTA's members include the
    Nation's largest providers of high-speed internet access as
    well as small ISPs serving some of the most rural parts of the
    country. We welcome today's hearing focused on several bills to
    improve broadband mapping and look forward to working with you
    on these issues.
        Over the last 2 decades, our broadband maps have helped
    chart the rapid growth and expansion of internet technology.
    Indeed, following hundreds of billions of dollars invested by
    the cable industry and other ISPs, high-speed internet service
    has rapidly expanded to reach over 90 percent of American
    households. Yet, despite such success there are still many
    places today where broadband service is not available and
    likely may not be without some form of government support.
        Ideally, data from our broadband maps would help us
    identify these coverage gaps. But, regrettably, while the tools
    currently used offer some assistance in highlighting unserved
    areas, our system at present is too crude to fully perform this
    role with desired precision. This is because the FCC's map
    today relies on information submitted on Form 477 that requires
    providers to report deployment data at a census block level.
        While such an approach helps us identify census blocks that
    are wholly unserved, it also leads to some admitted mistakes as
    the methodology counts an entire census block as served even if
    just a single household in the block has access. Thankfully, we
    can improve this process.
        Indeed, the FCC has recently taken significant steps in
    this direction adopting a proposal suggested by NCTA that will
    require providers to submit polygon shapefiles or coverage maps
    that more precisely reflect the areas where service can be
    offered in the normal course of business. Importantly, these
    rules will also permit further refinement through public,
    crowdsourced feedback that will promote a more accurate picture
    of broadband availability.
        As the committee considers mapping legislation, we
    encourage it to build on what the FCC has done and refrain from
    actions that might delay the swift implementation of these
    improvements. Consistent with this belief, we commend
    Congressman Loebsack, Ranking Member Latta, as well as
    Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and O'Halleran for their
    respective efforts on the Broadband DATA Act and the Broadband
    Data Improvement Act. Each of these bills would ratify the
    FCC's reliance on more granular shapefile submissions, secure a
    more robust validation and challenge process, and improve
    coordination among Federal agencies to track broadband funding
    awards.
        Beyond the clear benefits of shapefile reporting, we note
    that some providers have suggested that the FCC create other
    tools to complement an improved map of served and unserved
    areas. Unlike shapefiles, the location fabric tool suggested by
    USTelecom focuses not on the more granular identification of
    unserved areas, but rather determining the precise location of
    serviceable buildings within unserved areas.
        Admittedly, such data could be helpful to bidding parties
    in sizing the potential cost of serving unserved areas. But it
    also raises a number of thorny implementation questions that
    deserve to be fully explored on the public record. Indeed, the
    FCC's pending further rulemaking tees up many of these issues
    for consideration and offers a perfect venue for parties to
    test private claims and consider the marginal costs and
    benefits of creating a new location tool.
        Finally, as we work to improve the accuracy of maps
    identifying unserved areas, a process that has already taken 2
    years at the FCC, we should avoid getting sidetracked by
    attempts to insert extraneous data points into the
    consideration of whether broadband service is or is not
    available in a particular area.
        The FCC already collects a wealth of data from broadband
    providers and each type of data has value, but attempts to
    graft new data requests onto mechanisms designed to address
    broadband availability would only muddy the waters, increase
    costs, and could delay funding to unserved areas. Instead, we
    encourage you to appreciate the relevance of specific data to
    its specific context so as to help identify the signal from the
    noise and keep improvements moving forward as cleanly and
    efficiently as possible.
        At the end of the day we know that no map will be perfect
    and that every map is only a snapshot of a world where
    conditions constantly change. But with common purpose and
    humility we can work together to meaningfully improve the
    accuracy of our current maps in ways that are practical and
    advance our national interest in bringing the benefits of
    broadband to all.
        Thank you for this opportunity and look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Spellmeyer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF GRANT B. SPELLMEYER

        Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
    Latta, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today on broadband mapping. Just for the
    benefit of the Members assembled here today, I am the wireless
    witness. I am going to talk about the wireless side of the
    mapping. Most of my colleagues here at the table are going to
    be speaking, you know, exclusively to the wireline side and I
    want to try to avoid a little bit of confusion over some of the
    nomenclature that you will hear.
        With that said, U.S. Cellular fully supports legislative
    efforts to improve broadband mapping including all of the bills
    before this committee today. As you well know, this is not the
    first congressional hearing on the topic of broadband mapping.
    Thanks to this committee's continuing oversight efforts, it is
    now universally accepted that the FCC's maps overstated
    coverage in rural areas, sometimes significantly.
        U.S. Cellular operates in 21 States across America
    including many of those represented on this committee. Much of
    our business involves finding ways to provide service in small
    towns and on rural roads, areas where population density,
    economic investment, and income levels are often well below
    urban areas. We are constantly thinking about ways to address
    the economics of providing vital broadband services to those
    areas.
        Accurately mapping mobile broadband coverage is difficult
    because there are many factors such as terrain, foliage,
    spectrum, and equipment deployed that affect how far a radio
    signal travels and the signal quality a consumer actually
    experiences on the ground. We believe the primary issue with
    the FCC's one-time data collection for wireless is that some of
    the key standards adopted were inconsistent with how carriers
    actually design and operate their networks.
        For U.S. Cellular, the Mobility Fund II challenge process
    was an all but impossible task. Our challenges are documented
    in a YouTube video that is referenced in my written testimony.
    I have also attached to my written testimony example maps
    demonstrating the abysmal results we found during drive testing
    across this country.
        My company invested over $2 million to bring those
    challenges. We exhausted that budget. We ran out of time. We
    succeeded in testing only a small fraction of the areas that we
    believed to be inaccurate. To its credit, the FCC heard the
    widespread complaints and late last year they thankfully
    suspended that challenge process to review carrier submissions
    and to consider next steps.
        We are at a critical moment in time. Everyone agrees that
    the maps are not good enough to conduct an auction. The
    Broadband DATA Act will significantly improve broadband mapping
    for mobile services by mandating standards that reflect how
    wireless carriers actually engineer their networks today in
    rural America. For example, the FCC's one-time data collection
    used a cell edge probability of 80 percent and a cell loading
    factor of 30 percent. Consistent with how we actually engineer
    our networks today, this legislation would properly direct the
    use of stronger factors. Ninety percent at the cell edge
    probability and a 50 percent cell loading factor, reflective of
    how busy the network actually is in a rural area.
        By passing this legislation, Congress will also
    significantly improve the challenge process. For a challenge
    process to be effective, the areas of controversy should be
    small so that the task of bringing challenges is actually
    manageable for carriers and for the American public and so that
    people believe that actually taking the time to participate is
    worthwhile.
        In closing, we must get this right because 10 years' worth
    of Federal Universal Service funding is riding on this map. In
    the fixed broadband world that is over $20 billion. In the
    mobile broadband world, it is another $4\1/2\ billion. Every
    study indicates that it is going to take significantly more
    than $25 billion to achieve high-quality fixed and mobile
    broadband throughout our Nation and that doesn't even begin to
    account for the costs of rolling out 5G. We can't afford to
    waste even a single dollar.
        This committee should adopt the Broadband DATA Act and the
    related legislation before it today so that we can get on with
    the task at hand. Step one is fixing the maps and we begin that
    process here today. Step two is even more significant; that is
    actually filling in those maps. That is a broader challenge and
    we look forward to working with the committee on that next.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Spellmeyer follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Ms. Floberg, you have 5 minutes.

                      STATEMENT OF DANA J. FLOBERG

        Ms. Floberg. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Members Latta and
    Walden, and subcommittee members, thank you for inviting me to
    testify. I am here today representing Free Press Action, a
    nonpartisan nonprofit with 1.4 million members.
        Every community deserves the benefits of a robust,
    affordable broadband connection and better broadband maps are
    part of getting there, yet they aren't all we need to close the
    digital divide. We support H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act,
    and H.R. 4227, the MAPS Act, which improve the FCC's National
    Broadband Map and the underlying Form 477 data by making it
    more granular.
        There are indeed opportunities to improve that data, though
    the existing errors on wired broadband may be significantly
    smaller than some stakeholders fear. In Virginia and Missouri,
    CostQuest pilot found that a few hundred thousand additional
    households might be unserved at what the FCC defines as
    broadband speed. If we extrapolate that nationwide that could
    mean potentially eight to nineteen million additional unserved
    people. That is certainly an issue worth fixing, but the number
    is far lower than some have speculated. Still there are some
    key areas where wired deployment data could be improved.
        Mobile maps on the other hand seem to deserve all the
    criticism they get. Accurately assessing how a signal will
    propagate presents unique challenges that can lead to widely
    overstated wireless maps. We are optimistic about this
    legislation's proposals to improve the granularity and accuracy
    of both mobile and wired deployment data.
        As we improve our broadband maps, however, we must not
    sacrifice transparency. Both Congress and the Commission have
    long recognized the value of ensuring public availability of
    not just our broadband maps but also the underlying data. Free
    Press and others have made extensive use of this data recently
    shining a light on massive overreporting by a single small ISP.
    This illustrates the value of keeping deployment information
    publicly available.
        And for a new challenge process to have any true corrective
    power, outside parties must have access to this data. The
    Broadband DATA Act goes a long way towards this goal, though we
    would welcome amendments to clarify that deployment data should
    not be considered confidential.
        But improving the accuracy of broadband deployment maps
    should not be the sole preoccupation of this subcommittee. At
    their best, maps are useful because they help us get where we
    are going. The National Broadband Map is meant to chart a
    course for policymakers to close the digital divide. Federal
    policy here has centered around people who can't subscribe to
    broadband because it is not available where they live. But the
    divide actually extends far beyond these completely unserved
    communities.
        Millions more people live in an area where broadband at the
    FCC speed threshold is already deployed, yet they can't afford
    to subscribe. In fact, only 42 percent of households making
    less than $20,000 a year subscribe to wired home internet
    compared to 82 percent of households with incomes above
    $100,000. So even if these bills resulted in completely error-
    free maps and even if those maps enabled complete national
    broadband deployment, the digital divide would persist.
        When it comes to broadband dreams, if you build it, they
    will come, just isn't true. It is more like if you build it,
    they will come, but only if they can afford to pay the price.
    When families are forced to forego necessities like diapers and
    food so they can afford to keep paying their internet bill,
    when students are forced to research and write essays on mobile
    phones because their parents can't afford a fixed connection,
    when the unemployed are forced to hunt for jobs without the aid
    of broadband because the price is just too high, we have an
    affordability problem.
        Discrimination also plays a key role. At every income
    level, people of color are less likely to adopt broadband than
    their white counterparts. Taken together, there is strong
    evidence that lack of affordability, lack of competition, and
    racial discrimination are keeping people offline. Better maps
    will help target public investments to improve broadband
    deployment and that is good. But your unserved constituents
    can't use on-ramps to a digital superhighway they can't afford
    to ride.
        That is why while we support the bills in today's hearing,
    we urge this subcommittee to see them as a stepping stone.
    Improving the National Broadband Map is valuable so long as
    policymakers stay true to the principle of ensuring publicly
    available deployment data and remember that the digital divide
    is much broader than maps or deployment alone.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Floberg follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Spalter, you have 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER

        Mr. Spalter. Well, thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking
    Member Latta and other distinguished members of this committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of
    the members of USTelecom, large and small, who collectively
    invest--who have invested far more and for far longer than any
    other sector to connect rural America.
        Today's hearing is appropriately focused on one of the most
    critical questions before our country: Will every person in
    this Nation have access to the foundation of the 21st century
    American dream? Bridging the digital divide is not a partisan
    issue, this is an American opportunity. And we are at a pivotal
    moment where we have the tools ready and the bipartisan will to
    ensure that we can identify and connect the unconnected
    quickly, efficiently, and accurately.
        We convene today to focus on one of the biggest barriers to
    achieving our goal, the fact that our Nation still lacks a
    single map that can accurately identify every home and business
    that is currently unserved. If we can't see it, we can't fix
    it. And that is why USTelecom launched the Broadband Mapping
    Initiative and its proof of concept pilot program to show its
    costs and benefits. We all understand the severe limitations of
    the ``one served, all served'' census block approach that still
    guides Federal investments in achieving universal broadband
    service. In the past it did serve an important purpose helping
    public-private efforts increase rural connectivity by more than
    70 percent in the last decade.
        But we have reached a plateau. The good news is that with
    the advent of new data sources and processing capabilities and
    the bipartisan support here in Congress and at the FCC, we can
    now quickly and affordably account for every single served and
    unserved location in the Nation and deliver near 20/20 vision
    on the challenge before us.
        Our mapping initiative brought together a diverse group of
    partners who stepped up to the plate to forge a lasting
    solution. We launched the pilot program in April. Our goal was
    focused to identify the precise number and location of every
    broadband serviceable location in the pilot States and
    demonstrate the ability to scale the approach nationally using
    modern data sources and with that foundation demonstrate how
    providers can report broadband availability on top of that
    foundational dataset, shapefile or otherwise.
        It is now complete and the findings are crystal clear. Yes,
    we can quickly and affordably map the gap and with a degree of
    accuracy that makes the census block or shapefile only
    approaches look like Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Equally
    important, we can take this step concurrent with any new
    broadband support programs such as the FCC's potentially game-
    changing $20 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, in a
    manner that need not delay; indeed, would likely accelerate our
    ability to finally and truly connect every part of our Nation.
        This is a once-in-a-generation leap forward in identifying
    the availability of broadband. We conducted the pilot in
    Virginia and Missouri. We are now happy to be working with the
    FCC and you to scale our approach nationwide, producing a
    visibility into our country that no regulator or provider has
    ever seen before. And our findings underscore the urgency of
    this work, identifying a margin of error as high as 38 percent
    under today's approaches. That is up to 445,000 homes marked
    served that could in fact be unserved in our two pilot States
    alone.
        To argue that we need to choose between speed and
    allocating scarce Federal dollars based only on existing
    reporting approaches and accuracy in the form of better maps
    later is a false choice. Our pilot proves we can do both, be
    quick and be accurate. That is one of the reasons why USTelecom
    strongly supports the bipartisan Broadband DATA Act and the
    MAPS Act that mandates the proper ready-aim-fire sequencing of
    mapping the gap and then targeting finite Federal resources
    with a precision that has not been possible to date.
    Critically, the legislation wisely pairs more granular
    reporting on the one hand with more precise location
    identification to close the digital divide once and for all.
        Today should be a galvanizing moment. A unifying and
    bipartisan sense of determination combined with innovative new
    data capabilities put victory at long last within reach. But as
    we approach the finish line, we cannot back down a single step
    on how we define the win. Creating a complete database of all
    broadband serviceable locations will provide policymakers a
    necessary picture of where scarce taxpayer dollars should be
    targeted and allow providers the best opportunity to invest
    those resources officially and with greatest impact increasing
    speed and minimizing waste. Most importantly, this new mapping
    approach directed in the legislation before us today will
    render visible and thus reachable the unseen and the unserved.
        So thank you again for calling on us to raise our sights
    and raise the bar when it comes to connecting all Americans. I
    am really happy to take your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Stegeman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                     STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN

        Mr. Stegeman. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Doyle,
    Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. My name
    is James Stegeman. I am president of CostQuest Associates, and
    it is an honor to be here again to discuss the status of
    broadband in this country.
        For the last 20 years, CostQuest has taken pride in
    empowering the public and private sector with the ability to
    make data-driven decisions with their most critical resources
    and we seek to do the same for broadband mapping. While
    CostQuest is known for its cost expertise, the integration of
    geospatial design and data forms the underpinning of all our
    studies, analysis, and models. As for my own experience, I am a
    statistician by trade. And as Hal Varian, chief economist at
    Google said in 2009, the sexy job in 10 years will be
    statisticians. As you listen to my testimony today, 2019, I
    will let you decide if Hal was right. Now let me jump to the
    heart of my testimony.
        A coalition of leading broadband innovators launched the
    Broadband Mapping Initiative in April of 2019 to demonstrate
    the feasibility of identifying the precise number and locations
    of structures that require broadband access in Missouri and
    Virginia. The resulting dataset known as the Broadband
    Serviceable Location Fabric makes it possible to precisely map
    and understand where broadband is available and more
    importantly where it isn't.
        Let me first walk through what the fabric represents. The
    fabric is based upon parcel data, tax assessor data, building
    polygons, addresses, and roads. Combined through our unique
    geospatial process, we were able to identify the broadband
    serviceable location on the vast majority of parcels. Where the
    data were inconclusive, we sent records, 140,000 in total, out
    to our partner firm at CrowdReason who managed a visual review
    using a crowd labor pool.
        Now, let me share some of our key findings. First, the
    pilot was a success. Developing the fabric for two States
    showed it can be done for the entire country.
        Second, we can identify the unserved. For rural census
    blocks in Missouri and Virginia that are considered served by
    the current 477 guidelines, we found that 38 percent of those
    locations were not reported as served by the carriers in the
    study. This amounts to 445,000 homes and businesses.
        Third, we found that location counts differ. The fabric
    revealed that 48 percent of the location counts in rural census
    blocks are different from current estimates used by the FCC.
    This is meaningful when assessing the scope of the unserved
    problem, determining build-out requirements, and ultimately how
    much budget is needed to remedy.
        Fourth, we found that the current datasets conflict with
    the fabric. In our pilot, census blocks identified for an
    address were different 28 percent of the time when comparing
    the provider submitted location versus the fabric location.
    Under today's 477, this could impact which census blocks are
    reported. And, finally, reporting is enhanced. Regardless of
    how the new FCC coverage reporting format is set up, the
    quality and validity of the reporting will be improved using
    location-specific data.
        Now let me show you some slides of what the fabric reveals.
        [Slides shown.]
        In image 1, shown on the screen, I highlight what are
    current 477-based understanding of broadband coverage would
    look like in ten populated census blocks in rural Missouri.
    Using the pilot's providers data, all the census blocks shaded
    in blue would be reported as served. This is the extent of our
    knowledge today. Nothing more, nothing less. We do not know if
    all customers in the census blocks are served or if it is only
    one.
        In image 2, I demonstrate what polygons might look like
    under the FCC's proposed coverage efforts where carriers will
    file polygons that represent where they provide service. In
    this image, my team created hypothetical polygons, the light-
    blue bounded areas, based on carrier-provided latitude and
    longitude coordinates. This is one approach to polygon
    creation. There are others, some of which can be found in
    Appendix D of my testimony.
        In image 3, using the fabric I am now able to reveal within
    these ten census blocks the extent of served locations, the
    green dots and, more importantly, the unserved locations, the
    red dots. Of all the benefits of the fabric, to me this most
    clearly demonstrates why the fabric is needed. Specifically,
    polygon reported, as I showed in the previous image, will only
    improve our knowledge of what the served areas look like. The
    fabric is needed to then provide knowledge of the unserved
    locations.
        In regard to next steps, can this fabric be generated
    nationally? Unequivocally, yes. How much time will it take? We
    estimate that, starting from where the pilot left off, it
    should take no more than 5 to 8 months to stand up an initial
    national fabric for testing, and 12 to 15 months to fully
    complete. And what will it cost? I estimate the initial cost to
    be between 8\1/2\ and 11 million dollars for a restricted-use
    dataset.
        That concludes my testimony. Thank you for your time. And I
    would encourage you to see more in my written testimony for
    additional details.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Mr. Stegeman's prepared statement and additional material
    submitted for the record have been retained in committee files and also
    are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
    ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109914.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. That concluded our
    openings. We are now going to move to Member questions. Each
    Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses,
    and I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
        So, Ms. Floberg, tell me why is it so important that
    broadband coverage data be accessible to the public and be
    challengeable by third parties such as your organization?
        Ms. Floberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I think that we have seen and we have heard today a lot
    about the importance of ensuring that there is a check on
    whatever mapping system we implement, some ability for the
    public, for researchers to be able to look at the underlying
    data and say this reflects reality or this does not reflect
    reality. This is something that Free Press has done even very
    recently.
        We found an error in the FCC's Form 477 data where small
    ISP called BarrierFree had mistakenly reported serving 20
    percent of the U.S. population with fiber to the home speeds in
    less than 6 months' time. In reality, they served a much, much
    smaller percentage of the population and that error actually
    threw off the FCC's entire analysis of how much broadband had
    been deployed, how much fiber had been deployed in that past 6
    months.
        So making sure that that data is available for
    organizations such as Free Press, but also for members of the
    public to say the map says I am served by this many providers;
    that I am served by these speed tiers and I am not, is really,
    really important.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
         Mr. Stegeman, it is very interesting testimony. We know
    the FCC currently has about $20 billion for Universal Service
    programs that has not been awarded and then it is going to be
    used to fund a broadband buildout over the next 10 years. So
    let me--I don't know if it is possible, but you were able to do
    pilots on two States, Virginia and Missouri. And it may be a
    reach, but if you extrapolated your findings in those two
    States to the rest of the country, who across the country would
    be left behind if the FCC didn't look before it leaped over the
    next 10 years of broadband deployment?
        Mr. Stegeman. Thank you for that question. In our study in
    Missouri and Virginia, we were able to unveil or reveal that
    there are unserved locations in what people considered served
    census blocks before. We were also able to identify that if
    carriers use address tools to identify which census blocks the
    report has served, those census blocks may be incorrect that
    they identify.
        So what we found in the study is that there is an
    underreporting of the unserved issue in the country, and there
    are many studies out there. I think Dr. George Ford put out a
    study that I think he estimated the unserved at potentially
    four million. We have seen estimates as high as in the ten
    millions. It is hard for me to project forward for the Nation,
    but I know it is in the millions. I just don't know the exact
    count at this time.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. You know, there has been a
    lot of discussion about how overstated and unreliable coverage
    maps hurt rural areas, but I don't have to drive very far
    outside of Pittsburgh before I experience dead zones and
    despite the map saying that I am covered.
        Mr. Spellmeyer, how does this issue affect consumers in
    urban and suburban areas as well as rural areas?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is certainly an
    issue, I think, for all Americans. You know, you can get in
    your car right here and drive 5 miles to the Potomac River, and
    there are some areas along there that you don't want to end up
    in trouble because there is no cell phone coverage and you
    can't stop to figure out, oh gee, which carrier's phone do I
    need to take along on my trip to Rock Creek Park.
        So we have got to fix it. I traveled down Highway 1 in
    California this year. I was shocked to see the expansive
    stretches where there is no coverage. The same thing is true--I
    have been to Weston, Oregon, that Chairman Walden mentioned
    earlier. We have got to fix it both for the people in the rural
    areas and the people that get in their car and drive 10 miles.
        Mr. Doyle. Yes, thank you very much. Boy, I will tell you
    we have been talking about this issue for as long as I can
    remember. Ms. Eshoo told me we have been talking about this
    since they made the very first maps when the Earth was flat.
    And it seems to me that we have got to get moving on this. I
    want to thank you all for your questions, your testimony.
        So the Chair is now going to recognize Mr. Latta, the
    subcommittee ranking member for 5 minutes to ask questions.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
    very much to our witnesses. And that is a long time for those
    maps, but that is why we are here today and, really, we thank
    you all for your testimony.
        Mr. Spalter, if I could start with you. USTelecom's fabric
    building pilot appears to have been a productive start to
    identify which locations in rural areas need broadband and show
    gaps in the current data collection process. Building on that
    experience, I want to focus on where the rubber meets the road.
        Would you walk us through the expected timeline under your
    proposal from updating the collection of data for the broadband
    map to actually using the data to more accurately guide the
    Universal Service funding?
        Mr. Spalter. Thanks for that great question. As Mr.
    Stegeman pointed out, it is possible to have a fully nationally
    realized, scalable, universal, harmonized, deduplicated map in
    12 to 15 months. His estimates, and I think they are accurate
    in his project management capacity, that we can actually even
    deploy maps sooner than that, that will be scalable and usable.
        The important point, Congressman, is that once we actually
    can put pen down on this map and we can do it quickly, that can
    become the basis for guiding any new dollars going out the door
    for any broadband support program, including the Rural Digital
    Opportunity Fund, to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is being
    used to its best and highest purpose as accurately as possible
    to reach the truly unserved in this country. This is attainable
    and we can do it.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        If I could follow up, Mr. Assey, if I could ask you, when
    it comes to the actual data used to create the map, how helpful
    are the quality of service metrics in shaping our picture of
    broadband availability driving the funding decisions these maps
    are designed to determine?
        Mr. Assey. Congressman, thank you for the question. The
    broadband map is a map that reflects coverage, so it is really
    aimed at focusing where networks are and where they are not.
    The quality of service, really, I think only relates to the
    speed tiers and the data requests that the FCC makes, so it is
    really kind of a separate issue. And one of the reasons we are
    so focused on the shapefile portion of improving the map is
    because we believe that will offer the quickest improvement on
    a national scale in the quickest amount of time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you.
        Mr. Spellmeyer, how can Congress ensure that there is a
    meaningful challenge process to validate data while also
    protecting the proprietary data that providers and third-party
    vendors and consumers may supply through a commission-developed
    process to inform on the map?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Congressman, your legislation and much of
    the legislation in front of us today outlines some stronger
    parameters for how the FCC would run a challenge process at
    least on the wireless side. We think that is needed.
        In terms of confidentiality of data, there are certain
    inputs to a wireless map that may be confidential, but beyond
    that I believe it is actually important that the public see the
    map and understand what the maps look like. One of the biggest
    mistakes the FCC made last time was not to allow the American
    public to participate in the challenge process. This
    legislation gets that right, but it is really hard for a
    consumer to go out and participate in the challenge process if
    they don't understand who is claiming coverage where.
        So I think it is essential that we make sure that that
    information gets out to the public while protecting--there are
    certain proprietary inputs like the, you know, the height on a
    tower where someone has got a particular antenna that you might
    want to keep confidential, but beyond that the rest of it
    should come forward.
        Mr. Latta. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Assey, how do shapefiles from different providers
    factor into this endeavor and what is the benefit?
        Mr. Assey. Well, the benefit is, you know, we are currently
    living with a system that is not based upon how providers
    actually build their networks. We are essentially retrofitting
    data into a census block map. Shapefiles will allow providers
    to actually draw the shape and the contours of where they offer
    service.
        And whether or not you are a cable provider or a fixed
    wireless provider or a telco, you will be able to provide that
    data and essentially layer it on top of the national map so
    that we can actually identify in a more granular way those
    places that are being served with broadband today and we can,
    more importantly, identify those places that are yet to get
    service.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for today's hearing, thanks
    to our witnesses, and I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman and I thank the
    witnesses. Very informative, kind of exciting testimony this
    morning, so I am looking forward to seeing progress on this
    issue. In my district I know there are wide areas that are--we
    just don't have enough data to know if people are being served
    and in fact I know people that aren't served, so this is an
    important issue.
        Ms. Bloomfield, in your testimony you discussed the
    importance of the challenge process and crowdsourcing, I am
    kind of following up on Mr. Latta. Could you tell us more about
    how these methods will help obtain reliable results? Just
    explain the process a little bit.
        Ms. Bloomfield. Sure, absolutely, and I appreciate the
    question. So, you know, with the better mapping, you know, if
    you start with the shapefiles that the FCC has talked about,
    you will start to get more granular data so we will be able to
    start to see a better picture. But remembering it is still
    self-reported, you know, so how do you make sure that you are
    validating what people are reporting?
        So if a carrier is reporting something, what we want to
    know is on the ground that is what is really happening. So that
    is the advantage of things like crowdsourcing where you can
    basically allow consumers on the ground to get some feedback
    and say yes, we are seeing this or we are not seeing this. The
    one thing I could caution again is, you know, if you asked me
    today what speed I am getting at my house, I am not sure I
    could give you the answer.
        So I think it is the ability to whoever is handling that
    information to see what trends, where are you seeing spaces
    really bright up that there clearly are problems, there clearly
    are issues. So again, it is that ability to take that accuracy
    and make sure that we can also be granular at the same time.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Ms. Floberg, in your testimony you raise the issue of
    compatibility with historical 477 data. Can you elaborate on
    that and its importance? Do you have any recommendations that
    would follow?
        Ms. Floberg. Sure. Thank you so much for that question. We
    do believe that it is really important to make sure that even
    as we make the maps more granular and more accurate that we
    preserve the ability to compare new deployment data to the old
    deployment data so that we can see trends where they are
    happening. This also gives us the opportunity to compare
    deployment data with granular data from the Census Bureau about
    demographics to figure out who is being served and who isn't
    being served.
        So maintaining some ability to not just have this granular
    data about who is unserved, but to still be able to aggregate
    that to the census block level will preserve an abundance of
    rich analysis that we can move forward with. I think the
    Broadband DATA Act does have some great language about that
    about ensuring backwards compatibility, so really it just comes
    down to making sure that that data is available to the public
    and available in a way that it is easy to make those
    comparisons and do that analysis.
        Mr. McNerney. Is there also a thing about how trends, what
    the trends are, or is that like too far in the future for now
    what the trends in terms of coverage is?
        Ms. Floberg. I think that definitely maintaining that
    compatibility is how we would be able to see trends. It would
    also be a way to see how these new more granular sets of data
    have potentially improved, how we keep track of who is unserved
    and who isn't. It would give us, I think, the ability to see
    much better trends in deployment as we move forward with better
    maps.
        Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
        Mr. Stegeman, we have heard about the importance of making
    broadband mapping data publicly available. I want to make sure
    that the data being collected will also be accessible and
    usable by households, small businesses, and local governments
    across my district in particular. Do you foresee any challenges
    in making that possible?
        Mr. Stegeman. There are challenges in creating the fabric
    dataset. If we go a proprietary route we can get to the answer,
    but quicker with less money because the data quality is better.
    The proprietary route doesn't mean it is not viewable by the
    public. What the proprietary data means is it is restricted in
    use that someone cannot download the entire country of all the
    data. They can't download full States, but it is usable by
    companies, by the public to do that.
        The alternative route is to use kind of an open dataset,
    open source datasets that are out there that we can initiate
    the process. We actually did that in Missouri to see how well
    it would work. It will work, but it will require additional
    visual verification because the records will not match in sync
    as well as the proprietary data. That public, open dataset can
    be released and used by the public the same as the proprietary
    but it would have less restrictions on use.
        Mr. McNerney. Well, I just--I am going to have to close
    here or I am going to be gaveled out.
        But, Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Spalter, you made it sound like
    creating these maps as accurate, granular, and with low latency
    is something that we can actually achieve in a fairly short
    time, so I hope you are right.
        Mr. Spalter. I am confident that we are.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes my friend, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair and welcome our six witnesses.
    I would like to start out with a point of personal privilege.
    Everybody here that September 11th is not just a day to
    remember what happened 18 years ago in New York, in DC, and
    Pennsylvania; 7 years ago in Benghazi, four Americans were
    killed, Ambassador Smith and three others, they were overrun by
    terrorists. So, please, later today, pray for their lives as
    well as lives that were lost here, in New York, and
    Pennsylvania on 9/11.
        Now I got to open by saying Texas 22 is a big suburb. We
    have a lot of broadband access; that is not our problem. But my
    State is huge, and Texas has some real issues that you guys
    have brought up. For example, Mr. Hurd is not here, Will Hurd,
    but he has one county called Loving County, has one small town,
    population of 134 people. I guarantee you if one person on that
    map has access or reports access, the whole city has access and
    that is just not true.
        So my questions come from my role as the cochair of the
    House Artificial Intelligence Caucus, the AI Caucus. I am a
    cochair with Dr. McNerney over there. And Form 477, the primary
    source the FCC uses to assess access for broadband, et cetera,
    et cetera, has some real problems that you all brought up
    today. I mean there are false positives, coverage when there is
    not coverage, the maps, et cetera, et cetera.
        I would like to ask you all to put on your thinking caps
    and put on that AI cap. How can AI help resolve these problems
    you have going forward?
        Ms. Bloomfield, you are up first, ma'am. Any ideas?
        Ms. Bloomfield. I knew that was going to be the downside of
    sitting here, right?
        So I think, you know, when you think about AI and you think
    about applications, for example, I have a company down on the
    border of Mexico that is in Texas that actually uses a lot of
    AI and drone technology to do border security. So thinking
    about, you know, first of all, you have to have the access and
    then you have got to think about what are the applications that
    you can enable particularly in an area where you have got a
    wide swath of land.
        So I think there is--I think we are just starting to
    explore. Thankfully, this isn't a privacy hearing, but I think
    there are a lot of different applications. But first, you have
    to have the connectivity to be enable the cool things that you
    want to be able to do.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Assey?
        Mr. Assey. Yes, Congressman. I think technology, whether it
    is AI or other technology, certainly plays a large role in
    helping us fill the gaps and provide service to unserved
    America whether that is through the technology that cable
    companies offer or the technology that other broadband
    providers offer. But first thing we have to do is really get
    that accurate picture of what we are up against and what the
    challenges of geography and low density are providing.
        Mr. Olson. I think AI can help with that.
        And, Mr. Spellmeyer, for the mobile phones, how about AI?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, Congressman, I am no artificial
    intelligence expert, but--and I don't know that we need to get
    to artificial intelligence. But as I sit here reflecting on the
    wireless side, I think there are already several players out
    there in the ecosystem that have an awful lot of data,
    actually, about coverage and those companies that come to mind
    are Apple and Google. They track a significant amount that goes
    on up and down on every handset, every day. They know that I am
    sitting here on the third floor of the Rayburn Building right
    now. And we should try to find ways to leverage that down the
    road to improve coverage data.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Ms. Floberg?
        Ms. Floberg. I don't think we can suggest any particular AI
    applications, but I do think that making sure that the
    underlying deployment data is publicly available will make sure
    that others can think of what those innovative ideas might be.
        Mr. Olson. Perfect. Thank you.
        Mr. Spalter?
        Mr. Spalter. One of the critical issues about the
    deployment of AI in the future is that it will be enabled and
    enhanced and turbocharged when we actually can deploy
    nationally 5G technologies. And for too long, 5G technologies
    have been considered to be the province only of our urban and
    suburban residents and enterprises.
        If we can map broadband accurately, granularly, with the
    process and methodology we are suggesting, pinpointing where
    there is, in fact, unserved locations and couple that with
    other reporting technologies and provide that to programs like
    the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, that will mean we will be
    able to pull fiber to places like your communities in Mr.
    Hurd's district and your district that then can use fiber-
    enabled resources to empower rural communities from benefiting
    from 5G, and with 5G use the cloud scale algorithms, machine
    learning, and other data processes that are enabled and will
    enable artificial intelligence applications for health care,
    for education, from advanced manufacturing, for all kinds of
    things.
        But we have to start with accurate mapping and that is why
    we have stood up our pilot program and wanted to be integrated
    into the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
        Mr. Olson. Thank you.
        Mr. Stegeman?
        Mr. Stegeman. Yes, I am excited to say that we actually use
    machine learning and artificial intelligence on the fabric. If
    you think about it, we will have over a terabyte worth of data,
    170 million building locations, 150 million parcels and trying
    to weed through that information intelligently it will be a
    struggle. And we have incorporated machine learning and other
    efforts to actually be able to do that successfully.
        Mr. Olson. And that is why I saved you for last.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
         Since Superstorm Sandy ravaged my district, I have been
    very focused on network resiliency. And I know there are so
    many uses for granular broadband data, but building a national
    location fabric could be quite helpful in disaster response.
        Mr. Floberg, what do you think about that if I could ask
    you? Ms. Floberg, I am sorry.
        Ms. Floberg. That is quite all right. I think that there is
    definitely potential here. The kind of fabric that we have
    heard CostQuest and others describe could potentially be very
    useful for making sure that we have the best and most accurate
    data about when there are these outages in response to natural
    disasters; where people are experiencing those outages; where
    folks are who might need help; who might need resources
    directed by our disaster response.
        How we do that and how we ensure that we get the
    appropriate data from carriers about where those outages are
    and where there are problems with network resiliency that need
    to be resolved, I think, is an open question, but we can
    certainly see the potential in having that kind of granular
    data about where folks are who are going to need assistance.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        And, Mr. Spellmeyer, do you think better wireless maps will
    be useful for public safety in the wake of disasters?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. I do, Mr. Chairman. Without that
    information you are flying blind. The wireless industry works
    pretty hard in advance of and during disasters to try to stay
    on top of outages and to communicate with public safety. And we
    have made that as an industry an even greater priority since
    Hurricane Sandy, thanks to your leadership.
        You know, we know instantly because of remote monitoring
    when a cell tower goes down. And if we are in a hurricane
    situation, we have an obligation to report that to the FCC that
    same day. And we do that and we try to regularly communicate
    with public safety to leverage that information, but certainly
    continuing to improve these maps and to make sure that
    everybody understands who claims to have coverage where will
    help.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks.
        I think the committee should be very proud of the bills
    before us today. And in particular I believe that including
    metrics for quality of service is a valuable addition. And once
    this legislation passes, I hope we can build on the progress we
    have made to give consumers more insight into the quality of
    the service that broadband providers offer.
        But if I could just ask the entire panel, just a yes or no,
    would each of you commit to working with the committee to build
    on the concept of quality of service with the aim of helping to
    better inform consumers? And again, a simple yes or no, if I
    could start with Ms. Bloomfield.
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Assey?
        Mr. Assey. Yes.
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes.
        Ms. Floberg. Absolutely.
        Mr. Spalter. One hundred percent.
        Mr. Stegeman. We would love to.
        Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
        Now let me go back to Ms. Floberg. Significantly, in your
    written testimony you note that the data that goes into the
    FCC's broadband maps needs to be publicly available and I
    agree. In my opinion, this data must be available for
    researchers who can double check the FCC's analysis, local
    governments who can check the accuracy of the data, and for
    consumers who can use it to understand better what is
    available.
        So, Ms. Floberg, from your perspective, considering all
    Free Press' analysis of broadband deployment data, what would
    happen if the FCC kept this information to itself?
        Ms. Floberg. Well, I think, first and foremost, it would
    absolutely throw a wrench in the works for having any sort of
    functional challenge process to get a sense of whether or not
    the data that is being reported from carriers is accurate, but
    I think it would also have tremendous other impacts. Free Press
    has used the deployment data to assess where there are racial
    disparities in broadband deployment. That would be much more
    difficult without that kind of deployment information. We have
    also used it to assess the accuracy of claims about investments
    stalling out in the wake of the 2015 Open Internet Order.
        So there are all sorts of different kinds of analysis
    related to broadband deployment that would become much, much
    more difficult for researchers as well as for members of the
    public simply to gauge whether or not the maps are correct that
    they have service or that they don't have service.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
        And then my last question is, Mr. Spalter, I also know
    quickly fixing the FCC's maps is important. Do you think H.R.
    4229 strikes the right balance in that regard?
        Mr. Spalter. We do. And we commend this body and this
    legislation in particular for advancing three principles. One
    is that we actually need to prioritize mapping as part of any
    effort to move forward in accurately determining where unserved
    American residences and enterprises are. Second, that there is
    a need for speed in doing so. And third, that it provides
    bidders, providers, ultimately, who will be seeking these
    resources to deliver these services the ability to do so with
    pinpoint accuracy, limiting the risk that we are wasting
    taxpayer dollars, and speeding up our efforts to actually
    deploy broadband to unserved Americans so that we can close the
    digital divide once and for all.
        Mr. Pallone. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to you all
    for being here.
        Accurate broadband mapping is incredibly important so that
    industry and government can work to provide internet service to
    un- and underserved areas. It has been one of the bigger goals
    of this committee and it is the only goal of the Rural
    Broadband Caucus in which I am proud to serve as a cochair.
    Billions of dollars have been invested by the government and
    industry alike and substantial improvements have been made, but
    there are too many Americans without adequate broadband
    service, and the fact that there are Americans here in 2019
    with no service at all is just beyond me.
        There is near-universal agreement that the current mapping
    methodology is outdated, to put it nicely. We have heard
    arguments today about not only the maps and the data, but the
    need for government to quickly disburse funds to continue the
    buildout. I just want to state that the speed at which funding
    goes out should be a goal, but it can't be the only goal. For
    what seems like forever now, government, industry, and Main
    Street have been complaining about the inaccuracy of broadband
    maps. Should we move quickly here? Yes, absolutely.
        But given the complexities of the issue and the
    difficulties striking the right balance, we may not have a
    similar opportunity to do this again for some time. So I would
    like to move quickly, but it is vital that we get it right so
    we aren't spending billions of dollars with no effective
    metrics or meaningful oversight. The most important goal must
    be to get service to those Americans that have never had it at
    their homes, their business, or their schools. There is a
    balance to be struck here and I am optimistic that we can find
    it.
        So, first question, for Mr. Spalter. It is encouraging the
    USTelecom received input from several wireline providers during
    its pilot program. It is clear, however, that more partnerships
    are needed from all fixed and wireless providers. How does
    USTelecom propose that industry could partner and coordinate in
    developing this data and would regularly help private industry
    working groups in coordination with policymakers factor into
    building that database?
        Mr. Spalter. We were very privileged and lucky that a
    number of innovative wireline providers stood up and stood tall
    to work with us in advancing this idea that we can deliver more
    accurate data not only of served broadband locations but
    unserved locations so that we could present to you and to the
    FCC and to any government agency the clarity that is required
    to guide our future broadband support programs.
        I am disappointed that not all wireline providers decided
    to join with us in our effort, particularly the cable industry;
    however, we know that there are some very utilizable datasets
    that we have available that are immediately available once we
    complete the map to deploy not only, finally, a National
    Broadband Map, but broadband support programs like the Rural
    Digital Opportunity Fund that will be effective.
        In terms of continued partnership, we want to work not only
    with all parts of government in a harmonized way, but we
    commend the legislation that is before this body to ensure that
    there is actually coordination amongst and between government
    agencies in utilizing maps, and we as an industry are very
    eager and ready to work with all parts of government from the
    FCC to the Commerce Department, the Agriculture Department, and
    beyond to advance these maps, including at the State and local
    level as well. This is all achievable.
        And we need to understand that if we are going to design
    and deploy effective broadband support programs, they need to
    have an undergirding, foundational dataset upon which all kinds
    of different reporting mechanisms, including shapefiles, can be
    added in order for us to get the job done of closing the
    digital divide.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
        Mr. Assey, how do cable providers propose to combine
    efforts with the wireline and wireless industries to build on
    the recent pilot program?
        Mr. Assey. Well, I think, first and foremost, as I
    mentioned in my testimony, we are focused on delivering the
    shapefiles that are going to accurately show the places that
    are already served. The important thing when we are talking
    about serving unserved America relative to the fabric and the
    buildings that may exist in unserved America, that to me goes
    to how much it is going to cost to the would-be bidders to
    extend service there.
        So we believe that actually making progress and getting the
    shapefiles done, out there, and located on the map will give us
    a better sense of the area as we need to focus on and allow us
    to come up with new strategies to actually devote the scarce
    resources that we do have where they are most needed.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So from your perspective, does the fabric
    tell us which locations have access to broadband?
        Mr. Assey. The fabric doesn't. The shapefiles will tell us
    and the process that we are going to create to have providers
    actually demonstrate this is where we believe we can serve. And
    we have a verification process and a public crowdsourcing
    process to make sure that we get that right and then we can
    focus our energies on making sure we spend the dollars to hook
    up more people to broadband in unserved America.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I have more questions. But time flies
    when you are having fun, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
    you all.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to say
    again, thank you to Mr. Latta for helping on the bill that we
    are offering today. We have worked together really well. And I
    want to thank the Members who have been here longer than I have
    been. Some of the folks' names were mentioned already, too many
    for me to repeat. But I have only been on this committee now
    for 5 years. I am in my fifth year; I am still kind of a
    newbie.
         And I won't be here after this term any longer in the
    Congress, so there is a little urgency on my part to get this
    done before I get out of here so that the people in my
    district, people of Iowa, the people of the country can benefit
    from better maps. I have often said garbage in is garbage out
    and that is the way it has been in the past, unfortunately, the
    way these maps have been constructed and then the potential
    uses of those maps too.
        A couple of other quick points, Ms. Floberg, I want to
    thank you for talking about the affordability issue. That is
    really, really critical and I really appreciate that. And, you
    know, affordability is, we talk about a rural-urban divide and
    most of us are talking about rural access today. But
    affordability is not just a rural or urban issue, it is a
    national issue, and so thank you.
        And, Mr. Spalter, I hope you don't ever come to my State to
    run against any of my friends because you are awfully damn
    inspirational and thank you very much for your remarks today.
    Not to take away from anybody else, but this has really been a
    great panel, I have to say.
        I do want to just ask, first of all, Mr. Assey, a quick
    question about crowdsourcing, but before I do that, I have to
    repeat the experience that we have had in my district with
    Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative. They have missed out on
    getting funding for building out. They are an electric
    cooperative, but they wanted to build out broadband and the
    data indicated that there really wasn't any need for it and it
    was based on census data and what have you. Absolutely
    horrendous decision on the part of the FCC to deny them
    funding.
        If you would, Mr. Assey, I know that you have an interest
    in crowdsource data.
        Mr. Assey. Sure.
        Mr. Loebsack. Could you speak to that issue?
        Mr. Assey. Yes. I think crowdsourcing is a very interesting
    and innovative idea for us to improve the accuracy of the data
    that we are going to get it. Under the current mechanism for
    reporting it is basically a very binary choice, you are either
    providing service somewhere in the census block or you are not.
    But we are now going to move to a regime in which providers
    themselves are going to have to draw shapes that are going to
    outline where they can provide service and every point along
    that line, along the edge of that shape is potentially a
    contestable question.
        So we are going to do our dead level best and work in good
    faith to provide data that is accurate and complete, but
    obviously people who live there who have boots on the ground,
    they often know some things that we don't know here. So we
    really are going to have to work collaboratively to get this
    right.
        Mr. Loebsack. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate
    that.
        Ms. Floberg, can you explain why knowing quality of service
    of available broadband is important for consumers? Can you talk
    about that a little bit?
        Ms. Floberg. Absolutely. I mean some of the quality of
    service metrics are necessary simply for making the maps in
    determining whether or not service in a particular area counts
    as broadband according to the FCC's speed threshold, which
    currently defines that as 25 megabits per second downstream and
    3 megabits per second upstream.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Ms. Floberg. We are encouraged to see that that is
    preserved in the Broadband DATA Act as well as the inclusion of
    latency which is useful especially for particular applications
    that consumers may want to use. And we think that there is a
    lot of benefit to additional quality of service metrics, usage
    limits, additionally possible pricing data, and we definitely
    appreciate that the language of this bill does not in any way
    prohibit the FCC from expanding on the definition and
    collecting data that it decides that it needs in the future.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
        Ms. Bloomfield, I have a related follow-up question for
    you. When mapping broadband why is it important to consider
    latency and not only speed?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So you think about the consumer
    experience, when we go online and the things we anticipate
    doing and the uses that we have. So when you think about
    latency, again, you know, you are in a rural community, you are
    using telehealth, you certainly don't want latency if somebody
    is actually doing any kind of procedure on you.
        So you think about or distance learning, you know, children
    actually using the technology in the classroom and what that
    jitter and that buffering does to that experience for those
    kids in the classroom. So again, they are all part of the
    consumer experience and they are not that difficult to gather
    that data as well, so it should absolutely be included.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. And I do have a follow-up
    question I will submit for the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
    to Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired. The
    Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Assey, the bills before us today all focus on solving
    the mapping challenge at the FCC, but for the last several
    appropriation cycles Congress has given NTIA money to fund a
    modernization of the National Broadband Map. So do you see an
    ongoing role for NTIA in the mapping context?
        Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think all
    government agencies have a piece of this pie, whether it is
    NTIA, the FCC, or even the Department of Agriculture. And one
    of the things that is considered in this legislation that I
    think is extremely helpful is Congress' imprimatur and
    direction to the Federal agencies to really coordinate and work
    together. And the creation of a better map through the use of
    shapefiles will give us the background that we need to ensure
    that all of the agencies, no matter which corner of the Federal
    Government they are operating in, are operating off the same
    playbook.
        Mr. Johnson. Well, I am sure many of my colleagues are
    experiencing the same thing, especially those that live in
    rural areas when we go back home. You know, when I was first
    elected in 2010, one of the first things we started talking
    about in early 2011 was the need for an accurate broadband map.
    Here we are in 2019 and we are still talking about the need for
    an accurate broadband map. The American people are getting
    frustrated with the lack of progress on this. We have spent a
    lot of money to try and solve this problem.
        I agree with you that it is going to take all of us working
    together, but at the end of the day I am a mule farming
    plowboy, you know, and I think we need to go back to the basics
    and be simple. It ain't that tough to figure out who has got
    broadband and who doesn't have broadband. I can't believe it is
    this dadburn complicated, but we need to figure it out.
        Ms. Floberg, just as coverage data may overstate the
    availability of service in some areas, consumers can experience
    a difference between the speed of the service they are
    advertised and the speed of the service they actually receive.
    Would it be helpful for consumers if the FCC collected data on
    actual speeds instead of or in addition to advertised speeds?
        Ms. Floberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
    think that, absolutely, actual speeds are very valuable
    information for consumers to know, for policymakers to know,
    and could certainly be a part of this data collection. There
    currently is a project measuring broadband for America that
    does collect some of this data and this is part of why one of
    our main concerns is making sure that the data collected
    through Form 477 is publicly available and is compatible with
    other datasets.
        As long as we can take the data that we get from Form 477
    about deployment and compare it and use it in conjunction with
    the data that the FCC does already collect about actual speeds
    that also we think would serve to bring that important data
    point to the conversation.
        Mr. Johnson. OK.
        Mr. Spellmeyer, do you have any thoughts on how we can
    identify and correct this problem so that rural users on the
    wrong side of the digital divide can have the same experience
    as urban users do?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. And is your question in relation to the
    mapping or actually getting the service out to them?
        Mr. Johnson. No, it is the advertised versus the----
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Versus the actual.
        Mr. Johnson. What you actually get.
        Mr. Spellmeyer. All right. Well, I wasn't going to wade
    into this, but, you know, on the wireless maps advertising
    plays no role. The one-time data collection that the FCC did
    was not based on advertised speeds, it was supposed to be an
    exercise to map areas where actual speed was above 5 megabits
    per second. That is what would happen under the legislation
    that is before the committee today on the wireless side. That
    is what is in the bill that has already passed the Senate
    Commerce Committee and we hope to get signed into law.
        Mr. Johnson. OK, all right.
        Ms. Bloomfield, when a network is built with support from
    either the Universal Service Fund or the Rural Utility Service,
    what sort of validation processes should be used to ensure that
    the network is actually delivering consistent, high-speed
    service as intended?
        Ms. Bloomfield. That is a really excellent point, because
    when you are a steward of Federal support whether it is USF or
    the ReConnect, you really want to make sure that the consumer
    is getting what you say they are going to get from that
    support. One of the things that the FCC did that I think is
    really interesting when they designed Universal Service
    support, they basically required providers to actually provide
    some of the information like latency and speed and things like
    that.
        So there are some requirements. It is part of the truce
    that you have when you work with the government. And I think
    ReConnect, one of the things that I think has been very
    interesting watching RUS is they are actually doing trials out
    in the field as they are looking at this new grant and grant/
    loan program to actually see what is there, what is not there,
    what are the speeds that are there, so it is that extra step of
    doing that, you know, whether it is a challenge process or
    whether it is verification.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
        When you look at the different sizes of the census block
    and the current rules as far as what counts and what doesn't,
    the gamesmanship that is happening right now becomes really
    obvious. The largest census tract is 8,500 square miles in
    Alaska, and they are as small as half a block that could be, or
    one-tenth of a square mile in an urban area. So when the rule
    is ``if the providers determine they could offer service to at
    least one household,'' you could see how terrible a map we
    could get. Providing one household to the Alaska tract that is
    8,500 square miles, you would get the whole thing on the map.
    We can do obviously a lot better than that. In my district in
    South Osceola County and Polk County, we have large census
    tracts, very rural areas.
        So my first question, Ms. Bloomfield, does this series of
    bills take care of all the loopholes that are preventing us
    from having an accurate broadband map in rural areas or is
    there other things we are not addressing here?
        Ms. Bloomfield. What your legislation does is a really
    important start. It really starts to get more granular and that
    is what we absolutely need to have. You know, my carriers
    provide service to folks on every seven people per mile of
    wire. Here in DC we have 10,000. So you are right, you have
    those huge swaths.
        But one of the things that we need to be thinking about,
    one of the things that is interesting and hasn't really come up
    is RDOF, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund that the FCC is
    going to be rolling out is really going to start with the
    unserved areas. So the beauty is we have the opportunity to
    move to the shapefile, start getting more granular, get better
    maps, and then as time goes on move to some of the things like
    the work that USTelecom has done I really commend, but I think
    we don't want to hold back.
        I think it is that balance between you have unserved people
    there. You know it every time you go back to a town hall
    meeting, I am sure it is the first thing you hear. So how do we
    keep the process moving, and I think your legislation actually
    very nicely tees up that sequence.
        Mr. Soto. So there is a synergy between this new funding
    and getting more, a more accurate map.
        Mr. Stegeman, are we covering all the loopholes that we
    need to for right now to get a more accurate, rural map?
        Mr. Stegeman. I think it hits most of the key topics which
    are how shapefiles should be formed or that shapefiles should
    be provided. But the fabric is needed. I think the fabric is a
    key part of this. There could be efforts to help explain what a
    shapefile represents. I am sure if I asked anybody here, you
    are not quite sure what a shapefile is and I am sure many
    providers don't know what a shapefile is and they are going to
    have to come up with it. So there may be some clarification of
    what those things represent and what can be in and what can be
    out.
        Mr. Soto. That is helpful. I am also concerned about how
    our broadband efforts are working nationally vis-a-vis some of
    our competitors in the world stage, whether what they are doing
    in China, Japan, or Europe.
        Mr. Spalter, how are our broadband efforts stacking up to
    places like China and Europe?
        Mr. Spalter. I think the record is very clear in a hotly
    competitive national market that the size and the scale that
    the United States is, our broadband service is unparalleled. We
    are investing as an industry close to $80 billion of CapEx in
    our national broadband infrastructure. On a per capita basis
    that is an extraordinary step.
        One of the wonderful challenges that this body, Congress,
    the FCC, and others have posed is can we extend broadband
    service not just to our urban and suburban and even exurban
    areas, but also to our rural areas that are some of the hardest
    to reach places on the planet, and which is why we believe that
    if we can actually accelerate our efforts to have a granular
    and accurate National Broadband Map guiding some of our future
    investment coupled with shapefiles and other types of reporting
    methodologies, we will actually not only get the unserved
    served, but improve national broadband performance overall.
        Mr. Soto. And, Ms. Floberg, how are we stacking up to China
    and Europe and others right now as far as our efforts to
    provide a better broadband coverage throughout the United
    States?
        Ms. Floberg. I can't speak as much to the international
    comparisons, but I think we can hear already from folks in this
    country where we are falling short. I think that a huge part of
    this conversation that needs to be talked about more, really,
    is the affordability portion. We have even in the areas where
    we have made efforts and successful efforts to deploy broadband
    at the fastest available speeds, we are often leaving behind
    people who can't afford a $70-a-month bill to get on to
    Charter's entry-level tier of 200 megabits per second.
        So I think we can see some of those issues and those
    problems even when we just focus on looking inside the United
    States.
        Mr. Soto. Thanks. And I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Assey, as I said in my opening remarks this
    morning, I believe it is important for any broadband mapping to
    be paired with appropriate enforcement measures that ensure
    providers' submissions are complete and accurate. While
    enforcement is important, it is important to be mindful that
    unintentional mistakes can happen from time to time.
        My question is this. Do you think it makes sense to clarify
    that the standard set forth in the MAPS Act including the word
    ``recklessly'' is not intended to apply to providers who submit
    information or data under this act that contains minor
    mistakes, small omissions, or overstatements or other
    unintentional errors?
        Mr. Assey. Yes, I do. I think, you know, as you point out,
    it is one thing to intentionally ignore or violate a rule, but
    we are really embarking upon a new regime here with the drawing
    of shapefiles. And we have some familiarity with them because
    they are used whether it is at the RUS, there have been pilots
    in Kansas, but this is going to involve a lot of different data
    points and innocent mistakes can be made. I think the issue is
    going to be are they material and intentional that would be of
    concern.
        Mr. Long. Yes. Well, that is different if they are
    intentional, you know, but I am talking about just the minor
    mistakes, as we said.
        Mr. Stegeman, I was very excited to see that my home State
    of Missouri was included in one of the two States used in the
    Broadband Mapping Initiative program. How much will it cost to
    produce a nationwide map based on the pilot program that you
    just completed and are there some existing data points that
    could be used that would reduce those costs?
        Mr. Stegeman. Thank you for that question, and we were
    happy to do Missouri. It was a good State to look at. It
    presented a lot of unique characteristics that we could test
    out. As we looked at that map we expect a national fabric to
    cost around $10 million if we are able to use some proprietary
    data. We think we can turn that up within a year so that it is
    usable. That it can help inform----
        Mr. Long. Cost how much again? What did you say?
        Mr. Stegeman. Ten million.
        Mr. Long. OK.
        Mr. Stegeman. Ten million just for the fabric. We think
    that fabric will then be useful for the creation of the
    polygons or the shapefiles to help inform them. It will be
    useful for the consumer to actually be able to look at their
    point on their surface; understand what those shapefiles mean.
        What would help improve the program is for States to step
    forward with databases. In Missouri, Missouri does not have a
    statewide 9-1-1 database. That would have been informative to
    the effort had that occurred and that we could pull that in,
    but counties do have that. So going nationally, I think we
    would expect or ask that States contribute information to us of
    known locations. Many States have good address datasets, good
    locational datasets that would just help improve the process
    and potentially bring down the cost.
        A big portion of the cost is actually the visual
    verification that CrowdReason did for us. Each record is
    actually reviewed by a person who is looking at satellite
    imagery, clicking on the map of where the location is. If we
    can reduce that it will reduce total cost.
        Mr. Long. OK, thank you. And I had one more question for
    you. One of your primary conclusions was that up to 38 percent
    of unserved households in the two States, that being Missouri
    and Virginia, you collected data for would have been missed or
    deemed served by previous FCC Form 477 efforts. Could you break
    down that percentage a bit by explaining, if possible, how that
    figure could be different based upon additional data from cable
    and wireless broadband providers?
        Mr. Stegeman. Yes, we did. So when we put together the
    study for Missouri and Virginia we only have a limited number
    of providers in the study. We did not have the cable providers
    participating and providing us data of what they served. So
    when we published the 38 percent we did note that that is at
    the high end of our estimate of what the total unserved is and
    that it could potentially come down as we get more providers
    reporting information.
        We attempted to estimate that by removing blocks that the
    cable providers serve in the current 477 effort and when we did
    it, it cut it in about half. So it is still the significant
    issue even if we brought in all the cable companies and assumed
    the cable companies served every household in the blocks that
    they serve today.
        Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
        With scarce Federal resources being spent every year for
    broadband development, we can all agree that the need to
    produce accurate broadband coverage maps has never been
    greater. I believe mapping legislation passed out of this
    committee should be quickly scalable, produce detailed coverage
    data swiftly, and not place extra reporting burdens on small
    internet providers.
        We know too well that the census block reporting structure
    is outdated and hurting rural and Tribal communities. Simply
    ask small town businesses across America, economic development
    groups, our teachers educating children, our public safety
    officials and first responders, our citizens nationwide in
    rural areas whose quality of life is being impacted daily
    without affordable connectivity. They will all say that our
    coverage maps are failing them and we must act quickly to fix
    them, if they knew what a coverage map was.
        This is going to require partnerships for coordination and
    investment. America needs these families where they are at.
    They need to have a good quality of life. Urban America really
    needs these families where they are at. Whether it is for food
    or water or transportation or energy, you name it, urban
    society, urban America doesn't exist without them where they
    are at. And so, we need to find an answer to this.
        Mr. Assey, you stated that the goal of broadband mapping
    should be to focus on where broadband is and isn't and that
    trying to layer other types of data into this particular
    effort, while laudable, could cause unintended delays. What
    exactly is the type of data that the FCC should focus on
    collecting for broadband mapping and how quickly could this
    type of data be replicated nationwide?
        Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think, first and
    foremost, we should follow the direction that the FCC set down
    in the order it recently adopted in August and push forward
    with the adoption of shapefiles. I think that gives us a
    granular picture of where broadband is and where broadband
    isn't. I think the idea of the location tool and really getting
    atomistically into the longitude and latitude of individual
    buildings in unserved America could certainly be of interest.
        And there is a proceeding teed up at the FCC to answer a
    number of the questions that the pilot project turned up. So I
    think it is certainly of something that we should continue to
    look at and pursue, but I would not want that to slow the
    progress that we are about to make in moving to a shapefile-
    based reporting.
        Mr. O'Halleran. And what about timing? How quickly could
    that data be replicated nationwide?
        Mr. Assey. Well, that really is up to, I think right now we
    are waiting on some direction from USAC. The order has been
    adopted by the Commission, but we have folks who are, you know,
    making the plans now to be able to comply as quickly as
    possible.
        Mr. O'Halleran. Oh, God help us.
        Ms. Bloomfield, NTCA's membership knows all too well the
    struggles that small internet service providers often face in
    providing broadband in difficult to reach rural communities. I
    was just out in my district and I traveled about 4,500 miles
    and I had cell reception at least half the time, so I can just
    imagine what the rest of it is like. As Congress and the FCC
    work towards reforming the reporting requirements that produce
    our maps, could you outline the importance of mapping
    legislation offering technical and financial assistance to
    small providers under a new reporting structure?
        Ms. Bloomfield. I appreciate your thinking that way,
    because again as you look at carriers particularly small ones
    taking on additional burdens, the question is, you know, if you
    have a staff of 15 what can you actually accomplish. I think
    from a shapefile perspective, I think that folks already file
    so much data now because most of my companies are Universal
    Service recipients so they are very used to collecting data,
    sharing data; that is part of their kind of process.
        Going to a more complex system, greatly appreciate the
    thought process that you may be leading down, which is that it
    may take more resources as we get even more granular to help
    some of these smaller providers actually track where exactly
    those locations that are served or are not exist.
        Mr. O'Halleran. I am not leading down it, that is where I
    am going. And thank you for your comments. I just want to say
    we need to invest more as a government in this process. It is
    about our citizens and their safety also.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Flores for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Republican Leader
    Latta, for holding this important hearing, and I want to thank
    the panel for joining us today.
        Each time the subject of rural broadband and rural mobile
    service comes up, people invariably complain about the maps, so
    it is important that we get this right. Also, no one in this
    committee wants to have a repeat of the BTOP program, earlier
    in this decade, where $4 billion was pushed out the door and we
    got virtually no effect on expanding coverage. As a matter of
    fact, there are only two projects that have received funding
    since 2010 and the rest of it was essentially wasted.
        Mr. Assey, my question for you is this. In your testimony
    you highlighted a need for any mapping track data to show areas
    where providers have been awarded Federal funds to deploy
    broadband. In doing so we could properly designate the National
    Broadband Map to reflect, first of all, which areas are using,
    or second, which areas will require Federal assistance to
    provide service.
        I couldn't agree more that we need to make sure that finite
    resources go to the truly unserved and that private
    stakeholders involved in building out the next generation of
    technology know that they are not going to be competing with
    the Federal Government when they make their investment.
        So my first question is this. To what extent would it be
    helpful for the National Broadband Map to require additional
    reporting information for the areas that are covered using
    Federal funds?
        Mr. Assey. I think it would be very helpful. You know, we,
    I totally agree with the points you made about duplication and
    really sending funds to places that broadband already exists.
    That to me is not the best stewardship of public funds. But I
    also think it is important not only to make sure that our money
    is spent wisely, but also to ensure that there is
    accountability when we do actually fund projects to make sure
    that we know exactly where broadband was delivered and that the
    map is updated appropriately.
        Mr. Flores. OK. And continuing along the question of
    duplication, to your knowledge how much interagency
    coordination occurs to avoid cross-subsidizing in the same area
    with different Federal programs such as the High Cost Program
    and the Rural Utility Service program?
        Mr. Assey. I don't know that I would hazard a guess on how
    much coordination there is. I know that they obviously do talk
    from time to time, but I think they are all dealing with
    imperfect tools presently, and our hope is by getting a better
    broadband map that will assist their coordination and certainly
    your pushing the right direction will help as well.
        Mr. Flores. That is certainly something we in Congress need
    to work on is making sure we are not having duplication of
    efforts and when it comes to the subsidization programs.
        Mr. Spellmeyer, I agree with your testimony in which you
    voice your support for H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act, and
    specifically for the inclusion and standardization of
    definitions for radio frequency engineering terms used to
    measure signal strength and propagation. Further, you note that
    this bill would require the FCC to continue revising the rules
    in the future to reflect changes in mapping related
    technologies.
        Can you expand on why common standards are so important for
    mapping needs and to what extent standardization will be
    helpful as the next generation of mapping technologies is
    developed?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, certainly getting a common set of
    standards is important when you are trying to take the claimed
    coverage by, you know, a number of providers, two, three, four,
    five in a given area and overlay them on top of each other.
    That is where the FCC kind of veered off course a number of
    years ago. Chairman Pai made some efforts to try to standardize
    it with the last one-time data collection.
        Unfortunately, we are going to be headed back, I think,
    after this legislation passes to do another one-time data
    collection. It is really important that we fix some of the
    things like the cell edge probability, because if that number
    is too low you are building in an error factor that once you
    lay one map on top of the other it begins to multiply itself.
        Now, it is also important to the second half of your
    question to focus on evolving technologies over time. We are on
    the precipice of 5G. My company wants to bring 5G to lots of
    places in rural America and the legislation gives the FCC the
    tools to update that over time as that continues to deploy.
        Mr. Flores. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Ms. Eshoo for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My number one wish is
    that under your leadership and that of Mr. Latta that we get
    this done. It has been a long time. It is too long.
        To all the witnesses, you have given terrific testimony and
    we are always better for it. We really do pay attention to what
    you say. This is about mapping our future, the future of
    America, and sometimes I think we get bogged down in--well, in
    many ways, by necessity, in a lot of the details. But I think
    the overarching call to action needs to be based on what I just
    said, that this a map for America's future.
        And my first question is, and if each one of you can say
    yes or no, I--well, let's see what you will say. Based on the
    legislation that is at hand and I think will succeed--it is
    bipartisan, it is sensible, it has strength in it, all of those
    factors--if technologies change and they always do, given all
    the collective expertise at the table, does this legislation,
    can it stretch itself so that it meets future challenges?
        In other words, if it is just for now and what we have now,
    then you know what, you are going to be back here testifying
    and I don't know how much longer I am going to be able to show
    up for meetings on mapping. But do you think that this
    legislation speaks to the future, future technologies? And, you
    know, for example, moving to satellites. There are so many
    areas that I don't want to have to keep revisiting new types of
    fixed or mobile broadband technologies, small cell sites,
    satellites, I could go on and on. You know what I am talking
    about. So yes, no?
        Ms. Bloomfield. So I would say the framework of the bill
    will live on. I think the standards could change, but that is
    up to the FCC to work on that. So absolutely, yes. This is a
    framework for the future.
        Mr. Assey. Yes, I agree. And as you said, we are creating a
    map, but it is also a living map so it will be flexible to
    accommodate new technology.
        Ms. Eshoo. Good. Encouraging.
        Mr. Spellmeyer. My answer would be absolutely. And the good
    news is the Senate is tired of dealing with this issue. They
    have moved a bill out of committee and I think they are going
    to send it over here soon and hopefully you guys can adopt it.
        Ms. Eshoo. Wonderful.
        Ms. Floberg. We are also optimistic that this bill would be
    applicable and useful for future technologies.
        Ms. Eshoo. Great. Good.
        Mr. Spalter. It is a strong, durable, and sustainable
    framework. It is based on, and this is the genius that it
    insists that we at a granular level can map both served
    locations but also unserved locations and then be able to
    update it as a living document with crowdsourcing and other
    types of----
        Ms. Eshoo. Good.
        Mr. Spalter [continuing]. More effective, challenging
    mechanisms.
        Mr. Stegeman. I would agree it does. It is a flexible bill
    and it does provide flexibility into the future for new
    technologies as they come out.
        Ms. Eshoo. Yes. I think that Mr. Stegeman is the only
    statistician on the panel today. Thank you very much.
         And I think the most often used word, because I have been
    here for a long time this morning, is granular. So whomever, I
    don't know, maybe there is a prize for that.
        Let me--I think each one of you have talked about the
    challenge process so that consumers and government officials
    can speak up when the FCC data doesn't reflect reality. My
    question is this data is available today in CVS files, which is
    easily accessed in Microsoft Excel or Google Docs and also
    easily accessed by researchers using R and Stata and other
    statistical software.
        Do you think that shapefiles can be turned into a format
    that is easily accessible for people to understand--this is
    real operative phrase in my question--easily accessible for
    people to understand so they know whether or not to challenge
    the FCC data?
        Mr. Stegeman. If I can take a first shot at that.
        Ms. Eshoo. Yes, sure.
        Mr. Stegeman. So shapefiles will be a challenge only from
    the aspect of, one, normalization of what the shapefiles mean;
    two, is they are potentially----
        Ms. Eshoo. I don't know what that means.
        Mr. Stegeman. It is what are the shapefiles based on. Are
    they based on points, are they based on roads, what does it
    represent?
        Ms. Eshoo. I see.
        Mr. Stegeman. And if my address falls in it, does that mean
    I am served, and those types of issues. But there will be 4,000
    of these potential shapefiles filed by all the providers. If
    you look at all of them out there each one will have to provide
    shapefiles by speed, so it may overwhelm researchers.
        The point level data, the fabric, actually may be easier to
    analyze just because it is point-specific data and I don't have
    to analyze all these shapefile layers that will be stacked upon
    each other, which makes it difficult for research. It can be
    done, but point level data just makes it a bit easier to work
    with the data.
        Ms. Eshoo. Easier.
        Mr. Stegeman. Easier.
        Ms. Eshoo. I think my time is expired. I don't know if I
    get all of that or if my next-door neighbor will know how to
    access this, but I am going to trust what you said.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks for all of your testimony. I love what my colleague
    from California just said. Not only has she and others been
    working on this for a long time, but she is thinking about the
    future as she always does and is thinking about let's not pass
    something that is going to be stuck in time, and that is always
    the challenge with all of our legislation around technology. So
    thank you on the flexibility and the forward-leaning.
        I have to admit, like Congresswoman Eshoo there were terms
    that, you know, are just foreign to all of us. Shapefiles,
    fabric issues, I mean these are just not commonly understood
    terms, and I applaud you, Ms. Bloomfield, acknowledging that
    you might not know the speed of your internet. Most of us
    don't, really. And so to the extent that you all can just
    continue to educate the American people, because this is really
    the issue for the future and for everyone in our country.
        Indiana, I am really proud, has made a commitment to
    broadband buildout on a State program called Next Level
    Broadband and we are going to be investing a hundred million
    dollars for broadband in our nonserved and underserved areas.
    Officials involved with those buildouts though have told me
    that we have ongoing problems. We heard this from Scott Rudd,
    the director of our broadband opportunities for Lieutenant
    Governor Crouch, that we are having ongoing problems with
    households paying for internet service but then having such
    restricted access due to network outages. And we haven't really
    talked about that with the fault, you know, resting on the
    ISPs, so essentially, they don't have internet access.
        Has there been any discussion in all of this about whether
    or not to include network outages as part of any criteria for
    whether a location is served or not in the new proposed mapping
    regime being pursued? We hear about latency, but what about
    outages? Has that been discussed at all and why or why not?
    Anyone have any answers for that?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Congresswoman, I have not heard any
    discussion on that in relation to the wireless side of the
    equation. We certainly have outage reporting obligations to the
    FCC that we engage in on a regular basis when they are
    triggered, but I haven't heard. You know, I think as an
    industry we try to deliver a service that is relatively
    reliable, you know, 99.9 percent of the time, and I don't see
    that as a big issue on the wireless side.
        Mrs. Brooks. Anyone else?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Again, I would also say that wireline
    carriers also have obligations and reporting requirements. As
    we talk about different things that could be plugged in, you
    know, adding that as a factor might make sense. Honestly, they
    have such strict obligations, I am actually surprised to hear
    that that is such a big issue in Indiana.
        Mrs. Brooks. Well, I would be really interested.
        Mr. Spalter, did you----
        Mr. Spalter. I am sorry. If you needed to complete----
        Mrs. Brooks. No, no, no. Did you have anything?
        Mr. Spalter. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. Well, the
    really important aspect of the legislation before this
    committee is that it insists that we move forward, before we
    actually spend Federal resources to achieve greater broadband
    support for unserved communities, that we have a map that is
    sufficiently granular that shows where served and unserved
    locations are. That is the location fabric. Once we have that
    you can then layer on all kinds of other reporting
    methodologies. Shapefiles, highly complementary to it,
    potentially even reporting of network blockage or network
    outage moments, as Mr. Stegeman just advised me.
        But what we need to start with precedentially, if we are
    going to be good stewards of Federal dollars and really close
    the digital divide, is first do our fundamental work of
    developing and scaling that location fabric which shows where
    the locations that are currently served and takes that next
    important, Holy Grail step of identifying by the rooftop level
    where there are unserved locations still in America.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK. Well, thank you. And if anyone wants to
    call Scott Rudd, feel free to find out what he is concerned
    with. I want to thank Mr. Stegeman in my remaining time,
    because in case you are contemplating doing more pilots Indiana
    would welcome the opportunity for you to conduct more pilots.
    But given the issues you said were present in address data, do
    you have any thoughts on whether addresses should be considered
    served if ISPs don't actually know whether or not they serve a
    specific household or not?
        Mr. Stegeman. It is a good question. The address level data
    that we have seen there are difficulties in tying that address
    to a point on the Earth surface and actually identifying your
    house, sometimes, in rural areas. It just doesn't link up. When
    you get it in Google or elsewhere it doesn't line up. So the
    fabric provides that additional knowledge of where the location
    is, so that you understand if you will have access to service
    or not when you have the maps available.
        Mrs. Brooks. OK, thank you and thank you for your work. I
    yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to
    the ranking member, thank you for your continued efforts to
    improve the accuracy of our National Broadband Maps. I wish Ms.
    Eshoo was still here. I would publicly associate myself with
    her remarks. And then Mrs. Brooks came along from Indiana and
    she aligned herself with Ms. Eshoo. And I just want to say that
    what both of these Members have said is critically important.
        I came on this committee January 3rd of 2007. I guess that
    has been 12 years now, and every year that I have been on this
    committee we have been talking about mapping. And so, as Ms.
    Eshoo said, let's just get it done. The data is crucial to
    understanding which parts of our country still lack adequate
    broadband infrastructure and sufficient speeds to use the
    internet effectively.
        There are still parts of my district as my other colleagues
    have mentioned in their districts, there are still parts of my
    district in eastern North Carolina that do not have consistent
    access to reliable broadband, a resource critical to competing
    in today's economy. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that
    our maps purporting to identify underserved and unserved areas
    remain absolutely inaccurate.
        That is why I was delighted to join Mr. O'Halleran and Mrs.
    Rodgers as original cosponsor of H.R. 3162. Our bill will
    ensure, Mr. Chairman, that national service data is accurate
    and will hold providers accountable for the mapping data,
    shapefiles if you will, that they submit. It is my hope and
    belief that this bill and others that we will consider will aid
    us in bringing the promise of the internet age to all
    Americans.
        Let me go to my far left, since I am most comfortable with
    that.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Butterfield. I have friends on the right too.
        But, Ms. Bloomfield, I agree with you that it is important
    to engage in a challenge process before an agency gives out
    broadband funding, but how do we strike the right balance, if
    you will, so that providers and the FCC aren't so overwhelmed
    by challenges that vital funding gets delayed?
        Ms. Bloomfield. That is an excellent question. It is a
    balance and you are always seeking that balance. And I think in
    part as you move to more granular maps you are going to have
    better maps so the gap is going to narrow, so you are going to
    have better information so you are going to start from that;
    that if this bill is enacted, FCC moves forward, the maps will
    become more granular by definition, so the areas that you are
    looking to actually do these challenges process in will be more
    limited.
        I think, you know, you don't want people to do this on a
    whim, but I think that again the story of what is on the ground
    is really the sanity check because you are dealing with self-
    reporting data so you need to have that reality check of what
    is actually taking place. I think there is a way to strike that
    balance and I think it is going to be an important one. I don't
    think we are going to see what we saw with the Mobility Fund, I
    think, again because better mapping will lead to better data.
        Mr. Butterfield. All right.
        Mr. Assey, if I can go to you next, please, I think it is
    important for the public to be able to provide input on the
    broadband maps so that we get a better sense of really what is
    happening on the ground. I understand you support both
    crowdsourcing and a challenge process as a means of getting
    this done. Could you please talk about how those public input
    opportunities will create a more accurate broadband map?
        Mr. Assey. Sure. And I would agree with Ms. Bloomfield, we
    do have to have standards and make sure that we come up with a
    mechanism that is administratively workable and provides public
    input that can lead to more accurate maps. But the fact of the
    matter is that sometimes the people with the best information
    are the people with boots on the ground.
        And certainly there is a capability to challenge
    representations that are made and this is a process that we can
    create to hopefully improve the accuracy of the maps we have.
    We have some experience at least with respect to grants that
    have been made for broadband previously in developing a
    challenge process and hopefully we can learn from that in
    developing a process that the general public can participate in
    as well.
        Mr. Butterfield. If I may continue with you very briefly, I
    think it is important for the public--excuse me. I am an
    original cosponsor of the mapping bill introduced by Mr.
    O'Halleran and I would like to go back to your testimony where
    you talked about the benefits of using shapefiles to map
    broadband service. As you know, much of my district in North
    Carolina is rural so getting the best broadband data in the
    quickest way possible is important to me and to my
    constituents. Could you explain how shapefiles can achieve more
    granular data?
        Mr. Assey. Sure. I think shapefiles will allow network
    providers to draw boundaries around their service areas based
    on what they know, based on the places they are, the places
    their lines run, the places they offer service or can offer
    service. Right now, we have a reporting mechanism that
    essentially requires us to report on the basis of presence or
    absence in a census block.
        So I think being able to rely on the provider at least as a
    matter of first instance to draw the boundaries of where it can
    serve will lead to more accurate results and we will be able to
    refine that over time.
        Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Is this similar to tax mapping?
    All of our tax departments have this GIS system. Is it in the
    same, yes?
        Mr. Assey. I am sorry, I couldn't tell you.
        Mr. Butterfield. All right, thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
    committee for having this hearing and for the witnesses to be
    here. All I know is that for too long my constituents in
    southern rural Michigan have been missing out on the 21st
    century digital economy due to flawed broadband availability
    maps. But, more importantly, I don't care whether I look at it
    through a shapefile in the fabric or how granular I get, I
    can't find broadband at my property and so I am left out as
    well.
        So it is personal to me and so I commend the members of the
    committee here today for offering this legislation and for us
    debating it. I am just hoping it works as we move forward with
    what ought to be. When I first heard about shapefiles, I
    remember my singing quartet experience of shape notes. I know
    all about that, but shapefiles I am going to learn more about
    through practical experience.
        Mr. Spalter, in your testimony you spoke of how the
    Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric could be the underpinning
    of a, as you said, a contemporary, tailored and updatable
    broadband map to serve as the foundation for all future
    spending decisions. I believe we must ensure efforts to improve
    our maps are not just for the short term, so I think I agree
    with you on that.
        How important is it for the fabric to reflect changes in
    mapping capabilities in the future and do you have
    recommendations on how we can improve mapping sources so the
    fabric can be constantly improving?
        Mr. Spalter. The foundational element of any improvement
    for future broadband mapping methodologies has to be again that
    location fabric that will be a national dataset that shows
    where locations are served, but also importantly where they are
    unserved.
        And once we are able to establish that location dataset,
    and we know that we can do it timely and affordably within a
    year, then you can dynamically add on all kinds of reporting
    and complementary reporting methodologies like shapefiles,
    other types of datasets that will be coming online that will be
    made available openly, in an open source way through State,
    local, and even municipal data sources in new, innovative,
    proprietary data sources, additional company-led efforts to
    initiate open source methodologies, for example, like
    Microsoft's rooftop imagery datasets which already are
    incorporated into our location fabric.
        But it all starts with the need to have a baseline
    understanding of where our broadband-served locations currently
    are and where they are not. And upon that then we can couple
    all kinds of other reporting methodologies. And we must do so
    particularly as we are looking about the opportunity of
    spending $20 billion in a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,
    three-quarters of which according to the current design will be
    out the door without the benefit of this foundational dataset.
        We need to have a proper sequencing, which is why we
    support your efforts in this committee echoing what has gone in
    the Senate with similar legislation to move forward to
    establish this foundational dataset.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I appreciate that.
        Mr. Assey, it is vital that we obtain more detailed
    information about where service is and where service is not so
    that we can better identify the truly unserved populations. Do
    you believe incorporating shapefiles will help achieve this
    goal and if so, how?
        Mr. Assey. Shapefiles will definitely help us achieve the
    goal of more accurately identifying households that are
    unserved. And to the extent we can do that we can better
    marshal our resources to fill those gaps.
        Mr. Walberg. Well, we hope that is the case, very much so.
        Ms. Bloomfield, can you talk about how important an ongoing
    and periodic challenge process is to improving our Nation's
    mapping capabilities?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So as everybody was talking
    about whether you go shapefiles, fabric, you know, what
    sequence you are looking at, again it is still self-reported
    data. So at the end of the day the challenge process is going
    to be really important because it is your sanity check. It is
    the one chance to be able to say what is really happening.
        Mr. Walberg. That is good nomenclature.
        Ms. Bloomfield. So I think it is really critical. And, you
    know, we have seen it work in programs. RUS has a challenge
    process with some of their awards that they are doing under the
    ReConnect. It is an important part to make sure that if you
    have Federal resources that are pretty limited, how do we
    direct them particularly to the unserved, then start working to
    the underserved, and then continuing to build and sustain that
    work.
        So if we are really going to tackle this as a country and
    we are really going to be serious about it we have got to use
    the resources wisely and the challenge process will help us do
    that.
        Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad the
    committee is finally acting to fix this widely inaccurate
    broadband map situation. We have been at it for a number of
    years, and finally we have a chairman who has got the gavel
    that is going to make something happen. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
        You know, one of the things that actually is very troubling
    is in the zeal of the FCC to get out feel-good information
    there was no critical assessment of what the reality was for
    people in rural Vermont or in rural South Dakota or in rural
    Iowa, and it is pretty outrageous. I just want to say that
    because there was all this happy talk for years that we have
    coverage in all these areas when we didn't, and that was our
    government really neglecting rural America. And I just want to
    register my outrage at that because so much of the people we
    represent need that coverage and don't want to be second-class
    citizens. So when this Congress says the rural America is going
    to get that equal service, more or less, but then the FCC
    doesn't stand up to make that happen, it really is not
    acceptable.
        Now having said that, I am very happy with this panel and
    with the progress we now are making, but we have got to follow
    through on this because it has to be at the end of the day that
    rural America has the tools it needs in order to survive and
    compete. And that is real common thread amongst all of us who
    represent rural America.
        But let me ask a few questions. I will start with you, Mr.
    Spellmeyer. We have been talking about the mapping challenges
    for years now, so it is nice to have a concrete discussion
    about progress in the committee. Can you share with the
    committee what your company found when it went around the
    country and challenged the maps during the Mobility Fund II
    process and where do we go from here?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Congressman. The short answer is we
    found a mess. As I said in my testimony, we spent $2 million.
    That was a significant investment on our part to hire drive
    test companies to drive around. I think we covered 16 States.
    We found more places to challenge than we didn't find and we
    submitted a huge number of challenges to the FCC.
        I think you are right. I have been talking about this issue
    for a decade and I actually think it is a good-news story of
    Congress actually working. For a long time I couldn't get
    bureaucrats in Washington to pay any attention to this issue
    and eventually it was conversations with members of the Senate
    and Members of the House who all looked at me and said, ``Yes,
    you are right, I don't have coverage in my district,'' that
    allowed us to raise the profile of this issue and get to where
    we are at today. And I am actually really excited that we can
    pass this bill.
        Mr. Welch. Well, let's keep going.
        Ms. Bloomfield, do we have to have a challenge process in
    place?
        Ms. Bloomfield. I would not go down this road without a
    challenge process. I think it is very important you need a
    verification. If you are going to really take this seriously--
    --
        Mr. Welch. Right.
        Ms. Bloomfield [continuing]. There is only so much--first
    of all, I think it is impressive that you have a panel that
    includes a lot of provider representatives who are all saying
    we want to report, we will report, but you have got to be able
    to verify.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you.
        Mr. Spalter, when you are mapping broadband do you feel it
    is important to consider latency and usage limits or is
    tracking speed enough?
        Mr. Spalter. I think that latency is an important, critical
    insight that will inform not only, you know, the quality of
    service that ultimately consumers need, but also will help
    direct our Federal broadband support programs to the kinds of
    technologies that actually can toe the line when it comes to
    maintaining those standards.
        We know, particularly, if we want to have a 5G world, we
    are going to have to have a wireline infrastructure to provide
    the backhaul especially in rural America to make that promise
    available to those citizens that live in our rural communities.
        Mr. Welch. Thanks.
        Mr. Spalter. And the latency requirements need to be
    eventually part of any assessment of where our broadband
    dollars are going to be most effectively used.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you.
        Ms. Floberg, do you want to comment on that as well?
        Ms. Floberg. Yes. I think that when we are looking at,
    first of all, the broader digital divide, not just questions of
    deployment but questions of competition, questions of
    affordability, the more information we can get about what this
    market actually looks like for consumers is going to be
    immensely valuable for policymakers. Usage limits, for example,
    can have a huge impact on how a customer uses services, whether
    or not they have to pay more for that service than they
    initially signed up for; whether or not they can use that
    service consistently.
        So I think especially as we try to use this legislation as
    a stepping stone and move into talking about the broader
    digital divide and these competitive issues and affordability
    issues, these kinds of quality of service metrics should be
    part of the conversation.
        Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
    Gianforte for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
    the panel for this important discussion today.
        During our hearing with the FCC commissioners, many Members
    on this committee raised concerns about the accuracy of Form
    477 and the FCC coverage maps. The inaccuracy of these maps
    show cell phone and broadband coverage in areas of Montana
    where we have no coverage. This failure reduces USF investment
    in our most hard-to-reach places and it could lead to
    overbuilding in some areas while underbuilding in others.
        The lack of high-speed broadband coverage and investment
    has real impacts on hardworking Montana families. I have heard
    from small business owners who because they don't have access
    to reliable cell coverage just can't conduct business while
    they travel around the State. Recent FCC reports on broadband
    deployment claim that 86 percent of Montanans had access to
    high-speed internet service. This is simply not true. Many of
    the providers I have met with believe that the number is
    greatly inflated and that access is probably closer to 50
    percent. The FCC even acknowledged its figures aren't correct
    and has issued fines to companies that have overstated
    coverage.
        Recently we had Commissioner Brendan Carr to Montana. I
    commend him. He has now traveled to over 30 States to observe
    locally to get on the ground. He stated when he was in Montana,
    Montana has the worst cell phone coverage of any State he has
    been to so far. I know I can also attest that every Montanan
    can tell you exactly where on the interstate you are going to
    lose coverage and how long it is going to take to get it back
    so you can continue a conversation.
        That is why I signed on to the Broadband Data Improvement
    Act. Rather than using large and inaccurate census blocks,
    Representative Rodgers' bill encourages the FCC to use
    shapefiles in order to give a better idea of where broadband
    coverage is and, more importantly, where it isn't so we can
    invest. I think we should also focus on the challenge process--
    we have had a lot of discussion on that here today--to help
    smaller co-ops and rural broadband providers challenge coverage
    maps before funding is disbursed.
        There is a conversation about using crowdsource data which
    could be informative, but not a deciding factor in this
    accuracy of the maps. It is time to get these maps right so we
    can invest in those areas that need it most to close this
    digital divide so that Montanans can have better access and
    more reliable access to broadband and cell coverage.
        So, Ms. Bloomfield, it is good to see you again. Thank you
    for traveling to Montana. It was good to have you there at the
    Montana Telecom Association event in Big Sky just a couple of
    weeks ago. We spent a lot of time there talking about mapping
    and the other challenges Montanans face.
        I want to drill into this challenge process a little bit.
    You have talked about it today, the importance, so that our
    small guys who have actually been, in my mind, better stewards
    of the USF dollars than some of the larger legacy out-of-state
    providers who have not invested the way the local people have.
    Could you just reiterate briefly the importance of the
    challenge process?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So particularly as we are
    looking at the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund coming out,
    Congressman, and again, you know, I knew exactly where, even in
    Big Sky, and we joke because it is a resort, you just go a mile
    down the road and you lose service. You lose actually internet
    access everywhere.
        So it is, these programs like Universal Service are going
    to be really important. And choosing to put those dollars in
    the areas, and we look at RDOF, it is the opportunity for
    carriers who are not going to be providing service in those
    territories to basically say so and allow other providers to
    come in. To best direct those fundings we really need to know
    where those resources can be directed so you can start filling
    in the gaps in a State like Montana which has gaps.
        Mr. Gianforte. Now we just had some discussion from the
    prior questioner. Mr. Spalter spoke about the need to consider
    latency and usage limits in addition to just tracking speed.
    Could you comment on that further, Ms. Bloomfield?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. You know, I think when we start
    looking at standards and we start looking at what service
    really entails and obviously people think about speed and they
    think about their experience, but part of the experience really
    is truly the latency and it is the ability to be able to do
    some of the things like Ms. Floberg had talked about where, you
    know, when if your access might be tied to usage and you have a
    kid doing homework and you have, you know, data limits, at some
    point you are really kind of tying the hands of some of your
    consumers.
        So making sure that folks actually submit and report that
    information, it is not onerous to do so and if we are really
    going to take this seriously and gather data we should gather
    all the data we can.
        Mr. Gianforte. Great. Well, I just want to re-emphasize the
    need for accurate maps. We do not have accurate maps in
    Montana. And as a result, the USF dollars, taxpayer money, is
    just not being invested properly. So thank you for testimony.
    With that I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5
    minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
    our ranking member, Mr. Latta, for convening this subcommittee
    hearing today on improving our Nation's broadband maps.
        Broadband has proved to be an equitable instrument to level
    the playing field for millions of Americans and a necessary
    step to ensuring the success of our national infrastructure.
    The use of this technology has the potential to decrease the
    digital divide so consumers can have access to educational and
    employment opportunities, and this is no longer a luxury for my
    constituents.
        However, fraudulent broadband mapping reporting on
    broadband access is a barrier to consumers whether they are
    from rural America or urban America. These harmful reporting
    practices skew the data that determines where and how Federal
    dollars is spent. Thus, in a GAO report it was found that the
    FCC data overstated broadband deployment by allowing providers
    to report availability in blocks where they do not have any
    infrastructure connecting homes to their networks if the
    providers determined that they could offer service to at least
    one household. We have heard that.
        It is incumbent on each Member here to ensure that these
    gaps and broadband coverage are addressed in a manner that will
    protect the American people and help to close the digital
    divide across our country. Like our highway system, if you
    don't make sure that every road is connected at some point, we
    are going to have catastrophic circumstances and parts of our
    Nation will be left behind.
        So my first question is actually to Ms. Floberg. Ms.
    Floberg, can you describe the effect that high prices have on
    closing the digital divide and is that a good reason for the
    FCC to collect pricing data?
        Ms. Floberg. I would say it is an excellent reason for the
    FCC to collect pricing data. What we have seen is that right
    now according to the current FCC Form 477 collection, 141
    million people in this country don't subscribe to broadband at
    the FCC's 25/3 speed threshold.
        Now there is, this conversation is a lot about trying to
    figure out how big of a proportion that don't have access,
    can't subscribe to that service because it is not available and
    that is an important problem. But we still have,
    conservatively, a hundred million people who do have access to
    25/3 and they can't subscribe, or they subscribe to a slower
    tier because that is the only option they have. They can't
    afford to get the fast kind of internet that they need or
    again, millions and millions more people who do subscribe but
    are constantly having to make sacrifices and to choose what
    they pay for this month.
        Can they afford the internet this month or can they afford
    food this month? And those kinds of choices are not choices we
    should be asking people to make. They are not choices that
    indicate a closed digital divide.
        Ms. Clarke. Absolutely, thank you.
        The FCC's mapping data is utilized for various policy
    matters including Federal subsidies. Additionally, the data is
    used to better understand telecom marketing competition,
    specifically to review mergers. Mr. Spalter, how is mapping
    data utilized to justify potential telecom mergers and how will
    update flawed collection methods like Form 477 and broadband
    maps help improve this process?
        Mr. Spalter. I can't speak specifically to how broadband
    mapping, per se, can actually improve or accelerate the ability
    to effectively and incisively evaluate mergers. I am not an
    antitrust expert. However, what I do know is that the ability
    to deliver to policymakers at the FCC, at other agencies of
    government across the country, a mechanism to more accurately
    and with specificity pinpoint where our current locations are
    served and unserved is a start of an extraordinary range of
    diverse and innovative reporting and/or analytic opportunities
    that we could layer on to that foundational dataset such as
    merger reviews that will actually be able to accelerate good
    public policy and allow us to maintain really good stewardship
    of the kinds of dollars that we are committing through public
    programs.
        Ms. Clarke. Very well. I have like 22 seconds left. Would
    you like--OK. Let me ask a final question in that quickly.
        Ms. Bloomfield, it is important to improve broadband
    mapping so that we can identify more precisely where broadband
    is available, but also to examine the quality. Do you agree
    that information on quality of service is valuable too? If so,
    can you expand on this statement?
        Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. I think it is a good idea to
    actually capture performance. But I think, again, when I hear
    this committee talk about how long it is taking to get mapping
    done, I would say right now the discussion on the table is also
    about like how do we get the location, how do we get the
    accuracy in that? I think teeing up for another day,
    absolutely, discussions about, you know, we welcome better
    visibility into the performance process, so those are also key
    discussions.
        Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes
    Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate it and I appreciate the testimony of the panel.
        Representative Lujan and the chairman and myself have
    introduced legislation that would provide some accountability
    to the mapping process. The Map Improvement Act directs the FCC
    to engage in standardized information collection and
    incorporate it into a single map. This seems like common sense
    to me. The bill also allows for consumers to provide feedback
    on map accuracy. That makes sense too, since the individual
    themselves is the ultimate decider of whether coverage exists
    at their property or not.
        Mr. Spalter, do you think that including the intended end
    user in the coverage map is an important check on map accuracy,
    and then also and how would you envision the review process
    taking shape from the company perspective?
        Mr. Spalter. It is not only important, but it is entirely
    appropriate, Congressman Bilirakis, to facilitate that not only
    for Federal Government's, but for all levels of governments,
    Tribal entities, to be able to actually have that kind of
    accountability and verifiability that comes with both challenge
    and verifiability processes.
        One of the benefits, actually, of advancing in the proper
    sequence at the front end, a location fabric, is that it will
    actually allow us, as Ms. Bloomfield pointed out, to minimize
    the number of challenges we ultimately are going to have
    because we all have a reference point, a national reference
    point of where locations are and where they are not, against
    which it will be a lot harder and there will be more
    disincentives to report inaccurately.
        So we think that crowdsourcing, keeping this as a living
    document that can be iterated with the best kinds of products
    that are out there in the marketplace, every year, is an
    important step and we support it.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good, thank you.
        Mr. Assey, the FCC is questioning whether it should require
    more granular data. One complaint from providers for very
    granular address level service data is that such information
    could be used as a target for their competitors. Is this a
    reasonable fear, in your opinion and, if so, what can be done
    to ensure that the FCC has accurate and reliable data but also
    protect sensitive information for their industry regardless of
    how granular it is? If you could answer that I would appreciate
    it.
        Mr. Assey. Sure. Thank you for the question. I mean,
    obviously there is competitively sensitive data that all
    companies have about their plans to serve their customers. I do
    think one of the things that we have achieved through the
    shapefile process is a real balance. You know, we have talked a
    lot about a granularity, but there is another side, which is
    you can get so granular that you can create systems that are so
    complex that they are difficult to execute and update on a
    regular basis.
        So one of the reasons we focused on moving from census
    blocks to shapefiles is because we believe that protects
    competitively sensitive data, that it is achievable, and that
    it is extendable across the United States in a very rapid
    fashion and that we will get the most bang for our buck if we
    focus on that.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. I appreciate that.
        Anybody want my time? All right, I will yield back.
        Oh, yes, please.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Very quickly, if I
    may. As you know, Mr. Spellmeyer, our bill, the Latta-Loebsack
    bill, Loebsack-Latta, however we want to say it, has some
    specific parameters to change how mobile broadband internet
    access is documented. And can you explain how and why these
    prescribed parameters will improve the maps that we have now?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Congressman. I do believe they will
    significantly improve the map. There are a number of additions
    specified by the legislation. The two most important ones
    relate to when we model these networks and how the signal
    propagates you have to make a choice about something called
    cell edge probability. What is the probability that that signal
    is actually going to get out to the cell edge? The FCC used 80
    percent. We don't think that is a commercially reasonable
    number. Taking it up to 90 is consistent with how we engineer
    our networks.
        The other big one was cell loading. The FCC said model
    network loaded at 30 percent. We don't think that is accurate
    and this one bumps it up to 50, much more balanced picture.
        Mr. Loebsack. All right, thank you.
        And thank you again, Mr. Bilirakis, for yielding. Thank
    you. I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
    recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, in urban
    America, which I represent, we have sort of two, you know,
    different issues. You know, you have like myself for instance,
    right, where I have one MVPD provider and then I have a
    different ISP because I don't necessarily get the highest speed
    in my area. So I have to have two different services so I can
    have the highest speed. And then, but there are still some
    services in urban America where there is no coverage.
        And so I want to maybe ask Ms. Floberg, you know, when they
    were, you know, looking into this issue, do you think that the
    shapefiles that have been proposed would also be able to
    accurately show where there are underserved areas in urban
    America that may still need coverage especially when you take
    into consideration that the $20.4 billion that was used for
    existing universal payout to ISPs to be able to provide
    coverage to rural areas were really, I think, specified just
    for rural America? And so do you have any thoughts on that at
    all?
        Ms. Floberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes,
    I think that the promise of greater granularity here is most
    relevant when we are talking about these larger rural census
    blocks, but is absolutely valuable and I think has the
    potential to help highlight where there might be particular
    neighborhoods in urban areas that are being overlooked when it
    comes to deploying faster and faster speeds. I think that that
    definitely can, the level of granularity promised could
    hopefully highlight some of those areas and help us figure out
    if there are cases where we have examples of digital redlining
    occurring.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes. And with the FCC's different proposals--
    and I will be happy for anybody to answer this. With some of
    the other proposals that have been out there like, you know,
    digital opportunity data collection, crowdsourcing, sunsetting
    Form 477, is there something that should have also been
    included that wasn't a part of that initial FCC proposal that
    could really help people in underserved areas?
        Ms. Floberg. I can jump in on that again. I mean, I think
    that part of this again that we think is really important and
    this may not be for this bill and this day, but expanding our
    understanding of the digital divide and trying to expand that
    to understanding prices, trying to understand what kinds of
    prices consumers are actually being charged.
        Right now, this is something where the FCC currently
    collects virtually zero useful data in trying to gauge what
    those prices are nationwide, which makes it very hard to say
    where broadband might be affordable, where it is not, or even
    for policymakers to assess what kinds of interventions might be
    necessary.
        Mr. Veasey. Yes.
        Ms. Bloomfield. I would just add that I do think that we
    are in a really interesting sweet spot where with what you all
    are doing in the legislation that you have bipartisanly written
    through this committee and have discussed, aligned with what
    the FCC's current action is, is really all moving on the right
    track at the same time.
        So I think there is some really interesting momentum that
    we don't always see here in Washington, DC, to actually take
    care of the mapping issue, so I just applaud all of you for
    that and again the coordination with the FCC.
        Mr. Spalter. Congressman, we are literally on the precipice
    of being able to stick the landing on national bipartisan
    legislation coupled with the important work that our colleagues
    at the FCC are doing to advance the idea that we can have a
    National Broadband Map. And once we accomplish that goal, there
    will be innumerable ways to catalyze additional insight,
    analytics, reporting, and other elements that will speak to
    exactly the issue that you are driving, which is how can we
    better support all Americans in rural communities, exurban,
    suburban, and urban communities as well to realize the power
    and potential of broadband and make it more affordable.
        Mr. Veasey. And if I could just ask with the remainder of
    my time just one very, if very hypothetical question, so if a
    company were able to deploy low Earth orbit satellite to
    provide coverage in these gaps that we have talked about today,
    would current providers, would there still be the need on the
    ground from people represented here today and others to still
    sort of fill in these gaps?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. I would offer on behalf of the wireless
    industry that I am not certain that those lower orbit
    satellites are going to deliver a mobile product that will be
    sustainable, you know, inside an automobile at 70 miles an
    hour.
        Mr. Veasey. Interesting. OK.
        Mr. Spalter. Many of our companies at USTelecom are
    advancing creative ways of partnering with certain satellite
    communities to reach last-mile geographies to ensure that there
    could be potential service. But we actually have to be very,
    very careful that we are prioritizing spending Federal
    resources for broadband deployment that can actually be
    sustainable and can help rural communities achieve benefits of
    things like 5G and other next generation technologies through
    wireline technology access that is just not going to be
    available through platforms like satellite.
        Mr. Veasey. OK, thank you.
        Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
    recognizes Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
    the opportunity to have this discussion before the public on
    this very important issue. And it is something that,
    unfortunately, the American public doesn't understand how
    important it is and how directly affected they are because
    everybody is somehow, someway, connected to one of these.
        And so I have a question. Ms. Bloomfield, why do you think
    a challenge process is necessary even if the maps are more
    granular?
        Ms. Bloomfield. So I think the granular maps is a really
    good start and I think the challenge process really allows us
    to make sure we have integrity in the program, again
    particularly when you are talking about either Federal support
    of someway, whether it is Universal Service or it is ReConnect
    through USDA or community connect programs, any of these
    programs, or when you are thinking about a policy change.
        So I think again it is that opportunity, and I don't want
    to repeat myself, but to do the sanity check, to be the
    validation process at the back end. So you have the process in
    the front end with the mapping and the standards and all of
    those pieces; it is the ability to do the validation on the
    back end to make sure that the information you have is what you
    were told you had.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK. Also, Ms. Bloomfield, when mapping
    broadband why is it important to consider latency and usage
    limits? Isn't tracking speed enough?
        Ms. Bloomfield. So I think again we go back to what is the
    consumer, you know, what are they going through. We know, you
    know, I represent small community-based telecommunication
    providers. You know, the number of folks that have actually
    have poor service a lot of times is because they bought the
    router on eBay.
        So there are a lot of different things that we need to be
    looking at, but, really, when you are thinking about
    particularly as we move forward and particularly as the
    Internet of Things becomes a more, a bigger part of our life
    and our economy, we need to make sure that folks are getting
    service that is in real time and that they are not stymied by
    usage caps that might impact the affordability of the product
    that they are receiving.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you.
        And then also to Mr. Assey, we agree we want to create
    these maps as soon as possible. How do you imagine the agencies
    will coordinate to get this done?
        Mr. Assey. Well, we have taken a giant step in August with
    the adoption of the order directing providers to move to
    shapefile reporting. I think we are working with USAC and
    waiting on guidance for some of the standards that are going to
    be required for that. But I think we are well on our way.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK, and the coordination, is that healthy?
        Mr. Assey. It is absolutely essential and it is one of the
    things that we are very gratified that the committee is
    considering putting its mark in and encouraging that type of
    coordination. I do think that the best thing that will
    encourage that coordination is actually the success of getting
    a better map, because then agencies will be incented to want to
    use that map and for everyone to be singing off the same sheet
    of music.
        Mr. Cardenas. OK, better map. Who wins if we don't have
    better mapping?
        Mr. Spalter. Certainly not rural America, certainly not the
    many, many hundreds of thousands enterprises and individuals
    and families and communities that still are in unserved
    communities that are considered to be served. Certainly not the
    public treasury, our fiduciary duty to use funds that are
    available through our taxpayers to their best and highest
    purpose.
        If we are not doing the right work on getting our maps
    right at the front end, I will assure you, through the Rural
    Digital Opportunity Fund or any other future broadband support
    program, if we do not have this granular location fabric to
    start we will be misapplying public funds and that would be a
    shame.
        Mr. Cardenas. Does this have a positive effect when it
    comes to public safety, health care, things of that nature,
    because now this is being integrated in every walk of life. It
    is not just out of convenience, you know, for convenience
    tools, you know, talking on the phone with your friend or what
    have you. We are talking about this is, you know, directly
    affecting people's ability to respond in emergency situations,
    et cetera, correct?
        Mr. Spalter. The growth of one of the most epidemic medical
    chronic conditions in America is diabetes and, unfortunately,
    many of those who are suffering from that condition live in
    remote, rural communities. If we are denying the ability to
    make sure we are pinpointing accurately, the resources that we
    need to get to those communities through, inspired by the
    legislation that is before us, we will be not serving not only
    broadband but not serving the health of Americans.
        Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Chairman, if I can just have a few
    seconds to take a point of personal privilege to thank my
    colleagues who are continuing to focus on these issues and
    introducing these bills. And for us to have this dialogue and
    debate about what the proper paths going forward, even though
    that on many occasions many of our talented staff are stolen to
    the private industry, we are still capable and we are still
    getting the job done. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
    Ms. Rodgers for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
    allowing me to waive on to the committee today and join you all
    in this important discussion.
        As technology becomes increasingly integrated into every
    aspect of our lives, our economy, our society, it is more
    important than ever to ensure that all Americans, especially
    those in the rural areas, have access to high-speed and an
    internet connection. Coming from Eastern Washington, living in
    Eastern Washington, now representing Eastern Washington in
    Congress, in too many of the areas that I drive when getting
    around the district and visiting the various communities,
    coverages remain static. I was reminded of it earlier this
    year. I was in a couple of communities just south of Spokane.
    Spokane is the second-largest city in Washington State and I
    was just 15, 20 miles south of Spokane in Rockford and
    Fairfield and they had nothing.
        So there is a growing and growing drumbeat that, you know,
    we--this needs to be a priority and I join in that. Because
    whether it is economic development, whether it is health care,
    telehealth, so much of the future of health care is around
    telehealth, education, our kids are doing more and more
    homework online and personalized education, you know, or health
    care, it is our future.
        So I, in August I hosted a couple of roundtable discussions
    in Eastern Washington, one in Colville, which is more north of
    Spokane, 70 miles north, and then one in Pomeroy that is even
    further south, and it was good. It was good to bring the
    community together, the elected officials, the ISPs, others,
    business owners, healthcare providers that are involved in
    trying to solve this issue in Eastern Washington. One of the
    main barriers that seems to be common right now is ensuring
    that we have the accurate maps and that this is so important as
    we have this discussion about how are we going to ensure that
    every area is covered.
        Earlier this year, I joined with Mr. O'Halleran in
    introducing the Broadband Data Improvement Act and it is one of
    several bipartisan bills that we are considering here today.
    And this bill tackles the inaccurate mapping on several fronts.
    One, by increasing the granularity of provider-reported data
    using shapefiles; two, by utilizing a three-pronged validation
    process including the use of third-party data and an on-the-
    ground accuracy verification; and third, ensuring a robust
    challenge process. Those are the three main areas. It also
    provides assistance to smaller providers to minimize the burden
    of the reporting requirements.
        And I just want to thank all of the witnesses today for
    being here today and for your work to improve broadband access
    for all Americans. I am encouraged by the variety and the
    priority that this committee is making to move forward in a
    bipartisan way so that we can ensure that the limited Federal
    funds that we do have, but that we have been prioritizing for
    this effort, reach the areas where the need is the most.
        I wanted to ask if you could talk just a little bit more
    about the importance of having a robust validation and
    challenge process to ensure the accuracy of our broadband maps
    in addition to increasing granularity. And, specifically, what
    role should third-party data play in this process?
        And, Ms. Bloomfield, I wanted to ask you that and then open
    it up.
        Ms. Bloomfield. So, first of all, thank you so much for
    your leadership. It has been very key. And as you listed the
    key points in your legislation, they are all things that we
    absolutely endorse and support and think are important.
        So when you talk about validation, you know, there are a
    lot of different ways to do it. You know, one of the things we
    have all talked about as a panel is how do you incorporate
    things like crowdsourcing, how do you actually gather that
    information from people served on the ground. I think that is a
    really interesting and intriguing idea. I would just say though
    that again, what you don't want to do is create a process that
    becomes really a burden where somebody has to chase down every
    complaint and respond.
        And, you know, how do we actually capture trends so that we
    don't get bogged down in that process and we can continue to
    move forward to make sure that the maps are accurate and people
    can continue to spend more of their time and energy actually
    building the broadband then reporting back through that
    process. So I think it is important, but I think it has to be
    done very thoughtfully.
        But again, I think that along with the challenge process so
    at the back end you can actually really do that verification
    and it is going to be very significant.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Anyone else?
        Mr. Spellmeyer. I would add, so I think a challenge process
    is vital. You know, the FCC did a one-time data collection and
    if we hadn't had a challenge process there, those maps that
    show all of Eastern Washington as covered would have been
    locked into place and used by the FCC. You know, on the
    wireless side we used shapefiles to build that last map, but
    without a challenge process to go out and test it we would have
    been stuck in a real mess.
        So the good news is that, you know, all of the legislation
    in front of us puts us in the right direction to fix it once
    and for all.
        Mrs. Rodgers. Great. Thank you all. I yield back.
        Mr. Doyle. OK, our time has expired. I thank the
    gentlelady. The Chair requests unanimous consent to enter the
    following documents into the record: a letter from the Western
    Governors Association, a letter from the National Rural
    Electric Cooperative Association and NTCA-The Rural Broadband
    Association. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Doyle. Let me thank all the witnesses for their
    participation in today's hearing. You have been a most
    excellent panel and we have enjoyed hearing from you.
        I want to remind all Members that, pursuant to the
    committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
    additional questions for the record to be answered by the
    witnesses who have appeared, and I ask each witness to respond
    promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
        At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]