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


                    EMPOWERING AND CONNECTING COMMUNITIES 
                     THROUGH DIGITAL EQUITY AND INTERNET 
                     ADOPTION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 
                                 TECHNOLOGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                            JANUARY 29, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-125
                           
[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                    
55-869 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                           
                        
                        

                    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. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of California, opening statement...............................     6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, opening statement......................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................     9
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, prepared statement........................    85

                               Witnesses

Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion 
  Alliance.......................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Answers to submitted questions...............................    95
Joshua D. Edmonds, Director of Digital Inclusion, City of Detroit    16
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Rosalyn Layton, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise 
  Institute......................................................    26
    Prepared statement...........................................    28
Gigi B. Sohn, Distinguished Fellow, Georgetown Law Institute For 
  Technology Law And Policy......................................    36
    Prepared statement...........................................    38
Jeffrey R. Sural, Director, Broadband Infrastructure Office, 
  North Carolina Department of Information Technology............    52
    Prepared statement...........................................    54
Answers to submitted questions\1\

                           Submitted Material

Letter of January 29, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by 
    Clayton Banks, CEO, Silicon Harlem, submitted by Mr. Doyle       86
Letter of January 29, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by 
    Jenny A. Durkan, Mayor of Seattle, submitted by Mr. Doyle        87
Letter of January 29, 2020, to Mr. Pallone and Mr. Walden, by 
    Andy Berke, Mayor, City of Chattanooga, submitted by Mr. 
    Doyle                                                            91
Letter of January 29, 2020, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, by Katie 
    McAuliffe, Executive Director, Digital Liberty Federal 
    Affairs Manager, Americans for Tax Reform, submitted by Mr. 
    Doyle                                                            93

----------
\1\ Mr. Sural did not answer submitted questions for the record 
  by the time of publication.

 
   EMPOWERING AND CONNECTING COMMUNITIES THROUGH DIGITAL EQUITY AND 
                           INTERNET ADOPTION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
     Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in 
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, 
Hon. Mike Doyle (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke, 
Loebsack, Veasey, McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Matsui, Welch, 
Lujan, Cardenas, Dingell, Latta (Ranking Member), Shimkus, 
Olson, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Brooks, Walberg, and Walden 
(ex officio).
    Staff present: A. J. Brown, Counsel; Parul Desai, FCC 
Detailee; Jennifer Epperson, Counsel; Gordon Waverly, Deputy 
Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel, Communications 
and Consumer Protection; Jerry Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan 
Miller, Senior Policy Analyst; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; 
Alivia Roberts, Press Assistant; Jennifer Barblan, Minority 
Chief Counsel, Oversight and Investigations; William 
Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant; Michael Engel, Minority 
Detailee, Communication and Technology; Peter Kielty, Minority 
General Counsel; Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, 
Communication and Technology; Brannon Rains, Minority 
Legislative Clerk; and Evan Viau, Minority Professional Staff, 
Communication and Technology.
    Mr. Doyle. Well, good morning, everyone.
    The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.

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

    Yes, you bang that gavel and everybody gets quiet. That's 
pretty neat. The Chair will now recognize himself for 5 minutes 
for an opening statement.
    Good morning, and welcome to the Subcommittee on 
Communication and Technology's hearing on ``Empowering and 
Connecting Communities Through Digital Equity and Internet 
Adoption.''
    I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before us today 
to discuss this very important topic. Today, we will hear about 
the challenges of internet adoption that go beyond the lack of 
access.
    All too often, we talk about how many Americans don't have 
access to broadband and discuss the resources necessary to 
close that gap.
    But the far more insidious threats are those who have 
broadband available to them but don't sign up or those that 
don't have the basic skills to use digital technologies.
    Our witnesses today will discuss the range of challenges 
these folks face, the risks we face by leaving millions of 
people behind, and a range of potential solutions.
    Among the principal barriers faced by these communities are 
affordability, digital literacy, and access to devices.
    First off, internet access is expensive, and when cost-
constrained consumers are forced to choose between mobile and 
home internet, they often go mobile only. Millions of them, 
though, forgo both.
    Internet and mobile services can cost hundreds of dollars a 
month. That is the equivalent of a car payment. In effect, many 
of us are essentially buying our ISP a new car every five 
years.
    This a very serious challenge to adoption, particularly in 
households making less than $35,000 a year. Adoption numbers 
are even lower in low-income rural communities. So finding ways 
to close the affordability gap is just one part of closing the 
digital divide.
    Another key piece to this puzzle is digital literacy and 
training, and ensuring that people have the skills, 
understanding, and confidence to use technology and get 
connected.
    Organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance 
and their partners like Computer Reach, based in Pittsburgh, 
have long worked to provide digital literacy training and 
provide access to low-cost devices and technology.
    These programs help engage communities and provide folks 
with pathways not just to get connected but to leverage that 
connectivity to educate and empower themselves and their family 
members.
    So whether it's being able to apply for jobs, enabling kids 
to do homework, connecting seniors to telehealth services or 
veterans to support communities, these digital inclusion 
programs are often essential for opening people's eyes to the 
importance of, and the opportunities presented by, getting 
online.
    Increasingly, digital literacy isn't just the ability to 
use a computer but it's a fluency in technology, and as we look 
at manufacturing sectors, jobs that used to be based entirely 
on manual tasks are being supplanted by interacting with 
digital tools and systems.
    And employment in those sectors require a level of basic 
fluency just to get your foot in the door. The same is true for 
many other industries that are evolving as technology changes 
the way people work.
    In rural communities, where the adoption is low, these 
programs are particularly important. They can help up-skill the 
workforce with the basic tools to use digital technologies.
    We see this in factories in Pittsburgh with robotics, but 
we also see it in rural America with precision agriculture.
    While the nature of these industries hasn't changed, the 
tools people are using have and we need to ensure that folks in 
our communities have the basic skills to use them.
    I am not talking about high schooners. I am talking about 
people who have done these jobs most of their lives but haven't 
needed to use or interact with these new technologies.
    The same is true with telehealth services. For seniors who 
are homebound or who want to remain in their homes, these 
services are a lifeline.
    But for many of them, digital literacy and access to 
affordable devices remains a barrier to adoption of these new 
technologies.
    We also see this problem manifest itself in schools with 
the homework gap. Our educators are working to integrate 
technology into the curriculum. But many students lack access 
to home internet.
    When your teacher is assigning you homework that you--and 
you need to go online just to see what the assignment is or to 
complete it, lack of internet access is a cruel stumbling 
block.
    We have all heard stories about children sitting in cars 
outside of fast food restaurants and libraries to get on wife 
or parked in overlooks that can get a trickle of broadband.
    We can't afford to let this generation fall behind. These 
children are our nation's future and we need to find ways to 
close the homework gap for them and for ourselves.
    It is my hope that we can have a productive discussion 
about the challenges faced by all of our communities and come 
to some consensus on solutions that can help close the digital 
divide.
    As I have said before, I stand ready to work with my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with real 
solutions to address these challenges.
    I thank you all for being here today I really look forward 
to the testimony of our witnesses.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle

    Good morning and welcome to the Subcommittee on 
Communication and Technology's hearing on ``Empowering and 
Connecting Communities Through Digital Equity and Internet 
Adoption.'' I'd like to thank our witnesses for appearing 
before us today to discuss this important topic.
    Today, we will hear about the challenges of internet 
adoption that go beyond a lack of access. All too often we talk 
about how many Americans don't have access to broadband and 
discuss the resources necessary to close that gap, but the far 
more insidious threats are those who have broadband available 
to them but don't sign up--and those that don't have the basic 
skills to use digital technologies.
    Our witnesses today will discuss the range of challenges 
that these folks face, the risks we face by leaving millions of 
people behind, and a range of potential solutions.
    Among the principal barriers faced by these communities are 
affordability, digital literacy, and access to devices.
    First off, internet access is expensive, and when cost-
constrained consumers are forced to choose between mobile and 
home internet, they often go mobile-only. Millions though, 
forgo both.
    Internet and mobile service can cost hundreds of dollars a 
month. That's the equivalent of a car payment. In effect, many 
of us are essentially buying our ISP a new car every five 
years.
    This a very serious challenge to adoption, particularly in 
households making less than thirty-five thousand dollars a 
year. Adoption numbers are even lower in low-income rural 
communities.
    Finding ways to close the affordability gap is just one 
part of closing the digital divide. Another key piece to this 
puzzle is digital literacy and training--and ensuring that 
people have the skills, understanding, and confidence to use 
technology and get connected.
    Organizations like the National Digital Inclusion Alliance 
and their partners like Computer Reach, based in Pittsburgh, 
have long worked to provide digital literacy training and 
provide access to low cost devices and technology.
    These programs help engage communities and provide folks 
with pathways--not just to get connected, but to leverage that 
connectivity to educate and empower themselves and their family 
members.
    Whether it's being able to apply for jobs, enabling kids to 
do homework, connecting seniors to telehealth services or 
veterans to support communities, these digital inclusion 
programs are often essential for opening people's eyes to the 
importance of, and opportunities presented by, getting online.
    Increasingly digital literacy isn't just the ability to use 
a computer, but it's a fluency in technology. As we look at the 
manufacturing sector, jobs that used to be based entirely on 
manual tasks are being supplanted by interacting with digital 
tools and systems.
    And employment in these sectors requires a level of base 
fluency just to get your foot in the door.
    The same is true for some many other industries that are 
evolving as technology changes the way people work.
    In rural communities, or where adoption is low, these 
programs are particularly important. They can help upskill the 
workforce with the basic tools to use digital technologies. We 
see this in factories in Pittsburgh with robotics, but we also 
see it in rural America with precision agriculture.
    While the nature of these industries hasn't changed, the 
tools people are using have--and we need to ensure that folks 
in our communities have the basic skills to use them.
    I'm not talking about high schoolers, I'm talking about the 
people who have done these jobsmost of their lives but haven't 
needed to use or interact with these newer technologies.
    The same is true for telehealth services. For seniors who 
are homebound, or who want to remain in their homes, these 
services are a lifeline. But for many of them, digital literacy 
and access to affordable devices remains a barrier to adoption 
of these new technologies.
    We also see this problem manifest itself in schools--with 
the homework gap. Our educators are working to integrate 
technology into the curriculum, but many students lack access 
to home internet. When your teacher is assigning you homework 
that you need to go online just to see what the assignment is 
or to complete it, the lack of internet access is a cruel 
stumbling block.
    We have all heard stories of children sitting in cars 
outside of fast food restaurants and libraries to get on wi-fi 
or parked in overlooks that can get a trickle of broadband. We 
can't afford to let this generation fall behind. These children 
are our nation's future, and we need to find ways to close the 
homework gap for them, and for ourselves.
    It is my hope that we can have a productive discussion 
about the challenges faced by all of our communities and come 
to some consensus on solutions that can help close the digital 
divide.
    And as I have said before, I stand ready to work my 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle to come up with real 
solutions to address these challenges.
    Thank you and I look forward to the testimony of our 
witnesses.

    And with that, it gives me great pleasure to recognize my 
good friend, Mr. Latta, the ranking member of the subcommittee, 
for his 5 minute opening statement.

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

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
thank you very much for holding today's hearing and thanks to 
our witnesses for appearing before us today. We really 
appreciate your time for being here.
    One of the great stories that is a success out there that 
has provided a building block for internet adoption and its 
widespread deployment is the success of wife.
    As co-chair of the wife Caucus, I understand the role wife 
has played in bringing internet connectivity into millions of 
homes across the country.
    Under a light touch approach, the first set of flexible 
rules put in place in the early 2000s paved the way for an 
explosion of broadband expansion. This deregulatory framework 
helped democratize the internet so that millions can enjoy the 
benefit it brings.
    Since then, hundreds of billions of dollars of investment 
has poured in and new networks have been built across the 
country. Many companies have made great strides over the last 
decade to connect millions of low-income households to high-
speed broadband.
    While this committee's efforts have, largely, focused on 
promoting broadband deployment, the private sector has 
recognized that there is a great value in connecting the 
unconnected not only for its own business interests but for the 
communities they serve.
    Yet, some Americans remain unconnected. Over the last 
decade, we have focused on closing the remaining gaps in 
broadband deployment so that every American, no matter where 
they live, can have access to the internet.
    While, unfortunately, too many remain without an option at 
all, some who have access to the internet still do not 
subscribe.
    As I am sure we will hear today, there are a variety of 
reasons why some people choose not to adopt broadband service. 
We can debate these reasons and my hope is that the data and 
research can shed some light on that today.
    But as we consider the potential for new federal programs 
and legislation I urge caution that we are not focussing on a 
one-size-fits-all solution with the heavy hand from Washington.
    Our focus should be on putting consumers first by allowing 
them the flexibility to choose an internet plan that meets 
their needs, if any plan at all.
    I also ask that we carefully consider whether there is a 
need for an expanded federal role at a time when state and 
local governments continue to make strides providing willing 
consumers with the tools to connect to the internet.
    As we will hear today, many states are working hard to 
serve their communities in ways that the Federal Government 
could never do from Washington.
    To the extent more action is needed, it would be helpful to 
hear what state programs have been successful in providing 
options to consumers.
    While everyone operates in a resource-constrained 
environment, we should better understand the existing problems 
and solutions operating today before simply throwing more money 
at a problem that we might not fully understand.
    And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance 
of my time.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follow:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta

    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on broadband 
adoption. Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
    One of the great success stories that has provided a 
building block for Internet adoption and its widespread 
deployment is the success of Wi-Fi. As Co-Chair of the Wi-Fi 
caucus, I understand the role Wi-Fi has played in bringing 
Internet connectivity into millions of homes across the 
country. Under a light-touch approach, the first set of 
flexible rules put in place in the early 2000s paved the way 
for an explosion of broadband expansion. This deregulatory 
framework helped democratize the Internet so that millions can 
enjoy the benefit it brings. Since then, hundreds of billions 
of dollars of investment has poured in, and new networks have 
been built across the country.
    Many companies have made great strides over the last decade 
to connect millions of low-income households to high-speed 
broadband. While this Committee's efforts have largely focused 
on promoting broadband deployment, the private sector has 
recognized that there isgreat value in connecting the 
unconnected: not only for its own business interest, but for 
the communities they serve.
    Yet, some Americans remain unconnected. Over the last 
decade, we have focused on closing the remaining gaps in 
broadband deployment so that every American--no matter where 
they live--can have access to the Internet. While unfortunately 
too many remain without an option at all, some who have access 
to the Internet still do not subscribe. As I am sure we will 
hear today, there are a variety of reasons why some people 
choose not to adopt broadband service.
    We can debate these reasons--and my hope is that the data 
and research can shed some light on that today--but as we 
consider the potential for new Federal programs or legislation, 
I urge caution that we are not forcing a one-size-fits-all 
solution with a heavy hand from Washington.
    Our focus should be on putting consumers first by allowing 
them the flexibility to choose an Internet plan that meets 
their needs--if any plan at all.
    I also ask that we carefully consider whether there is a 
need for an expanded Federal role at a time when State and 
local governments continue to make strides providing willing 
consumers with the tools to connect to the Internet. As we will 
hear today, many States are working hard to serve their 
communities in ways that the Federal Government could never do 
from Washington. To the extent more action is needed, it would 
be helpful to hear what state programs have been successful at 
providing options to consumers. While everyone operates in a 
resource-constrained environment, we should better understand 
the existing problems and solutions operating today before 
simply throwing more money at a problem we may not fully 
understand.
    I look forward to learning more about those efforts 
currently underway and what the data can show us. Thank you 
again to our witnesses, and I yield back the remainder of my 
time.

    Mr. Doyle. The Chair is now going to recognize Mr. McNerney 
before Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes. We will yield to you.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY McNERNEY, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

    Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair for this.
    This is truly a bipartisan issue and I am looking forward 
to working with members on both sides of the aisle to make some 
progress here.
    My district is close to Silicon Valley. But the economic 
opportunities are starkly different between my district and 
Silicon Valley, which is 40 miles away.
    However, the seeds of opportunity are already being 
planted. For example, I recently visited a coding school and 
the startup incubator to see adults learning skills that are 
going to be able to provide them tremendous economic 
opportunity.
    It was truly amazing to see a darkened classroom with 
people working hard. The big shots walked in and they didn't 
even notice us. They didn't care we were there. They were 
interested in learning their coding skills. So that was 
impressive.
    Also, the largest city in my district--Stockton, 
California--has developed an AI strategy. So there are the 
seeds for improvement.
    But the reality is that many of my constituents still lack 
the digital skills to get ahead or even to get by in today's 
economy.
    Many don't even have broadband at home even though they 
often live in an area that has broadband deployed nearby. As a 
result, there is a wealth of opportunity for my constituents 
that remains, largely, untapped.
    And this is the case for many communities across the 
country, rural and urban. That is why I introduced H.R. 4486, 
the Digital Equity Act--legislation that would create a federal 
grant program to close gaps in broadband adoption and digital 
literacy. We are long overdue for closing these gaps.
    So I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, both 
rural and urban districts, do you have constituents that are 
being left behind the digital divide?
     If so, work with me to pass this legislation and open up 
economic opportunity and prosperity for every American.
    With that, I am going to yield to the gentleman from New 
Mexico, Mr. Lujan.
    Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney, and I want to thank the 
witnesses for testifying, to Chairman Pallone and Doyle, 
Ranking Members Walden and Latta, for today's hearing on 
digital equity.
    I want to focus on what FCC Commissioner Jessica 
Rosenworcel has called the cruelest part of the digital 
divide--the homework gap.
    We know that seven in ten teachers assign homework that 
requires access to broadband. Unfortunately, we also know that 
millions of students lack access at home or in their 
communities.
    As Mr. McNerney laid out, even if broadband is able to be 
connected to, it's unaffordable. It's unaffordable. It's out of 
reach. More students, though, who don't have any connectivity 
they find themselves in parking lots, at fast food restaurants 
or high schools across the country, sometimes sitting on the 
sidewalk in the dark of night because that's the only place 
they can get access to free internet. Keep up with the 
homework.
    If air travelers can have internet access at 30,000 feet 
flying across the world, why in the hell can't we connect on 
the ground to these rural communities? Nobody's been able to 
answer that question.
    Let's close the gap. Let's find some answers and let's find 
a way to work together in a bipartisan way.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back.
    It's now my pleasure to recognize Mr. Walden, the 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. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for doing 
this hearing. I think it's really an important one. We are 
going to hear some interesting testimony from our witnesses. We 
all appreciate you being here and sharing your wisdom with us, 
how we can connect America better.
    We all know that the internet has truly transformed the 
lives of people throughout the world. It plays a central role 
in how Americans conduct business, how we interact, how we make 
daily decisions. Under a light touch regulatory framework, the 
internet has really thrived, providing Americans access to 
numerous services, serving as the single most important driver 
of economic growth and job creation.
    While the internet has been, largely, adopted in a 
relatively short span of time if you think about human history 
and the enormous revolution the internet has brought, there are 
still millions of Americans who do not have access to the 
internet in their homes, as you're hearing from all of us, and 
especially those of us who represent these big sweeping wide 
open rural districts. But it's also an issue in urban cities as 
well.
    In some cases, it's because high-speed broadband had not 
been deployed, an issue this committee has focused on in a 
bipartisan way for many years.
    And while we have made progress in promoting broadband 
deployment, particularly in rural areas, we all know there are 
many Americans who remain unconnected, even if they do have 
access to broadband service options.
    Recognizing this issue, some companies have made important 
strides over the last decade to connect millions of low-income 
households to high-speed broadband.
    For example, the Internet Essentials Program, developed by 
one service provider, offers high-speed broadband at an 
affordable price and they've seen great success. It has 
connected 8 million people in over 2 million households, more 
than, I dare say, a federal program would likely achieve in the 
same period of time. It provides opportunity and access for 
low-income individuals.
    We must make sure that our policies allow for continued 
experimentation in the marketplace with ways to promote 
broadband adoption as well.
    It should be noted that where there are gaps in adoption 
state and local governments have also been a big part of the 
team and have provided good work to support and reach out to 
their communities.
    They have firsthand knowledge of the challenges that their 
communities face and we work with their resources. They have to 
find creative solutions.
    I am excited to have witnesses here today that can talk 
about some of the innovative work that's being done at the 
local level to address the adoption issue. I think it's an 
important one.
    Let us not put the cart before the horse. In many parts of 
the country, especially frontier communities like those in 
eastern Oregon, broadband availability remains elusive.
    Recently, we were in John Day, my staff and I, doing some 
meetings and it's in the really central part of my district in 
a pretty isolated area. I think the nearest stoplight is five 
hours away or something.
    I am not making that up, by the way. They had really 
limited internet service and intermittent internet service, and 
just to put it in perspective, when we finished our meetings we 
decided we better gas up before we left town and we had to pay 
with cash because the internet was down and they wouldn't 
process credit cards.
    More of an inconvenience, yes. Good thing we had cash. But 
it's no way to do business, and we have been working with USDA 
and others to get some money in there and figure out various 
problems.
     It's only been a decade since broadband deployment has 
exploded into an everyday necessity, and without first 
addressing the lack of broadband availability any federal 
resources put forward for broadband adoption could further 
enlarge the digital divide if not done carefully.
    Obviously, we still have issues with mapping that various 
FCCs have wrangled with for decades and we are all trying to 
get it right.
    To be sure, today's hearing will hopefully bring data to 
the discussion so we can get a better understanding of barriers 
to broadband adoption. I am happy we are following regular 
order and holding a hearing to examine the breadth of the 
issues on such an important topic.
    So with that, Mr. Chairman, thanks for doing this. We look 
forward to working with you on this and other communications 
issues, going forward, and again, thanks to our witnesses and I 
yield back a full minute.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Good morning, and welcome to today's hearing on broadband 
adoption and digital equity. I want to thank our witnesses for 
testifying before us today on this important issue.
    The internet has truly transformed the lives of people 
throughout the world. It plays a central role in how Americans 
conduct business, interact, and make daily decisions. Under a 
light touch regulatory framework, the internet has thrived, 
providing Americans access to numerous services, and serving as 
the single most important driver of economic growth and job 
creation.
    While the internet has been largely adopted in a relatively 
short span of time, there are still millions of Americans who 
do not have access to the internet in their homes. In some 
cases, it is because high-speed broadband has not been 
deployed, an issue that this Committee has focused on for many 
years. And while we have made progress in promoting broadband 
deployment, particularly in rural areas, there are many 
Americans who remain unconnected, even if they do have access 
to broadband service options.
    Recognizing this issue, companies have made great strides 
over the last decade to connect millions of low-income 
households to high-speed broadband. For example, the Internet 
Essentials program--developed by one service provider--offers 
high-speed broadband at an affordable price and has seen great 
success. It has connected 8 million people in over 2 million 
households, more than a federal program could likely achieve in 
the same period of time, and provides opportunity and access 
for low-income individuals. We must make sure that our policies 
allow for continued experimentation with ways to promote 
broadband adoption.
    It should be noted, that where there are gaps in adoption, 
state and local governments have done a great job providing 
support and outreach to their communities. They have firsthand 
knowledge of the challenges their communities face, and work 
with the resources they have to find creative solutions. I am 
excited to have witnesses here today that can talk about some 
of the innovative work that is being done at the local level to 
address the adoption issue.
    But let us not put the cart before the horse. In many parts 
of the country, but especially frontier communities like 
Eastern Oregon,broadband availability remains elusive. John 
Day, for example, is so limited in internet service that during 
one of my visits last year, the whole town had been 
experiencing internet outages intermittently for a couple weeks 
and we had to pay with cash at the gas station because they 
couldn't process cards, making it hard to do business.
    It's only been a decade since broadband deployment has 
exploded into an everyday necessity, and without first 
addressing the lack ofbroadband availability, any Federal 
resources put forward for broadband adoption could further 
enlarge the digital divide if not done carefully.
    To be sure, today's hearing will hopefully bring data to 
the discussion so we can get a better understanding of barriers 
to broadband adoption. I am happy that we are following regular 
order and holding a hearing to examine the breadth of the issue 
on such an important topic.
    I would like to thank the witnesses for being here, and I 
yield back.

    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields 
back.
    The Chair would like to remind Members that pursuant to 
committee rules all Members' written opening statements shall 
be made part of the record.
    Now it gives me great pleasure to introduce our witnesses 
for today's hearing.
    Ms. Angela Siefer, executive director, National Digital 
Inclusion Alliance--welcome.
    Mr. Joshua Edmonds, director of Digital Inclusion, city of 
Detroit, Michigan. Welcome, sir.
    Ms. Rosalyn Layton, visiting scholar, American Enterprise 
Institute--welcome.
    Ms. Gigi Sohn, a regular here on our panels. Gigi, it's 
good to have you here. She is a distinguished fellow with 
Georgetown Law Institute for Technology, law, and Policy. 
Welcome.
    And last but certainly not least, Mr. Jeffrey Sural, 
director of Broadband Infrastructure Office, North Carolina 
Department of Information Technology.
    We want to thank all of you for joining us here today. We 
look forward to your testimony. I will be recognizing each of 
you for 5 minutes to provide your opening statements.
    Before we begin, we have a--is the lighting system there to 
be seen? We have this lighting system that I want to tell you 
about. When you first start you'll notice a green light and you 
can continue speaking and you'll see the light turn yellow.
    That means you have one minute to wrap up your opening 
statement, and when that light turns red your Chair falls down 
through a chute.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. No, when your light turns red you should--you 
should stop talking.
    Anyway, so we are going to get started. So thank you very 
much and Ms. Siefer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes for 
your opening statement.
    Your microphone.

   STATEMENTS OF ANGELA SIEFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 
  DIGITAL INCLUSION ALLIANCE; JOSHUA D. EDMONDS, DIRECTOR OF 
    DIGITAL INCLUSION, CITY OF DETROIT, MI; ROSALYN LAYTON, 
VISITING SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE; GIGI B. SOHN, 
 DISTINGUISHED FELLOW, GEORGETOWN LAW INSTITUTE FOR TECHNOLOGY 
     LAW AND POLICY; JEFFREY R. SURAL, DIRECTOR, BROADBAND 
INFRASTRUCTURE OFFICE, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION 
                           TECHNOLOGY

                   STATEMENT OF ANGELA SIEFER

    Ms. Siefer. You have to press the button. That wasn't part 
of the instructions.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Siefer. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, Ranking 
Member Walden, esteemed members of the committee, my name is 
Angela Siefer.
    I am the executive director of the National Digital 
Inclusion Alliance. I am here representing NDIA and our 
affiliates, and Computer Reach in Pittsburgh also thanks you 
for us being here.
    Twenty some years ago, I was in--I was a grad student in 
Toledo, Ohio, and we were--I was setting up computer labs. I 
was teaching people how to use Word. I was organizing meetings.
    We thought of our work as bridging the digital divide. Our 
focus was on computers and computer training. In 1996, we were 
not concerned with internet access. If we had just two 
computers in the lab that were connected to the internet, we 
thought we were cutting edge.
    Today, folks on the ground who are bridging the digital 
divide are facilitating access to home internet service, 
devices, and digital literacy training. They are nonprofit 
organizations, libraries, governments, housing authorities, and 
more. They are the heroes.
    NDIA represents over 400 of these affiliated organizations 
in 41 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin 
Islands.
    NDIA's positions are based on our affiliates' on-the-ground 
experience and research. I would like to address a few myths 
today.
    Myth number one--there's a misstatement that's often 
repeated that the digital divide would be bridged if we just 
filled the rural broadband infrastructure gaps in the U.S.
    According to the Census' latest American Community Survey, 
about 14 million urban households in major metro areas as well 
as smaller cities and towns and 4 million rural households 
still lack broadband subscriptions of any kind including mobile 
data plan.
    What did 60 percent of the unconnected urban households, 
have in common with more than half of the unconnected rural 
households? They all had household incomes below $35,000. 
Households with incomes less than $35,000 make up 28 percent of 
U.S. households but they account for 60 percent of those 
without any broadband internet service.
    We do need to address the lack of broadband infrastructure 
in rural areas. But it's just one barrier to individuals and 
communities being able to fully participate in society today.
    The other common barriers, no matter where one lives, are 
the cost of internet service and devices, plus digital literacy 
skills.
    Simplistically equating the digital divide with just one of 
these barriers increases the division in our country.
    Myth number two--no worries, the excitement around 5G says 
that we will just--it will solve the digital divide. 5G will 
not solve the digital divide.
    Current broadband technologies were not deployed to all 
neighborhoods unless local governments mandated such. There's 
no reason to think 5G will be any different.
    Additionally, 5G as a broadband service requires 5G-capable 
devices. Low-income households struggling to pay for internet 
service will certainly not rush out to purchase a 5G-enabled 
device.
    Myth number three--well-intentioned individuals have stated 
that if we can convince non-adopters of the value of the 
internet they would certainly subscribe. Anyone who has 
resisted using the internet quickly realizes that the internet 
cannot be avoided when you apply for a job, register for 
classes, or even to find out what your Social Security benefits 
are.
    The greatest barrier to broadband adoption is not 
relevance. It is cost in digital literacy. Residential internet 
service in the U.S. is expensive.
    On the low end, internet service generally runs $65 to $70 
per month. That's a lot of money. Unfortunately, I can't 
provide more detail as to the cost of internet service because 
the data doesn't exist.
    We need the FCC to begin collecting data on the cost of 
home internet service and make it publicly available.
    In the U.S., digital literacy training is undervalued and 
underfunded. One-third of manufacturing workers lack proficient 
digital skills.
    Half of all construction, transportation, and storage 
workers lack proficient digital skills. There is no funding 
dedicated to digital literacy training in the U.S.
    It has been left up to local governments, libraries, and 
nonprofits to piece together resources to address the basic 
digital skills training that millions of Americans need to 
cross that digital divide.
    Piecing together funding is the wrong strategy for strong 
workforce. Now let me share some good news.
    Digital inclusion solutions in the U.S. have been crafted 
from the ground up. NDIA's affiliates are providing guidance to 
low-income parents, connecting to their children's teachers, 
teaching seniors how to use their electronic health records, 
helping veterans learn digital skills to acquire a job, and 
enabling disabled adults to participate more fully in their 
communities.
    We know that trust is an important factor. Technology can 
be quite intimidating. The most successful digital inclusion 
programs are rooted in the communities being served. What is 
missing?
    Digital equity planning at the state level and financial 
support for that planning plus the implementation. A good first 
start would be to pass the Digital Equity Act.
     We are also in need of increased awareness of the problem 
and the solutions. So thank you. This hearing is increasing 
awareness. You are increasing awareness.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Siefer follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
    We now recognize Mr. Edmonds for 5 minutes for your opening 
statement.

                  STATEMENT OF JOSHUA EDMONDS

    Mr. Edmonds. Honorable Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
committee members, my name is Joshua Edmonds and on behalf of 
the city of Detroit, I would like to express a sincere thanks 
for the opportunity to discuss digital equity and internet 
adoption, two issues that are critical for the residents that I 
serve.
    These issues transcend specific geographies and 
demographics and have a far-reaching impact on our great 
nations. Digital equity is a commitment for the least of us. It 
requires an honest assessment of what diverse populations need 
to achieve meaningful participation in a digital society.
    At the core of any digital equity initiative is the 
understanding of the plight of older adults, veterans, low-
income families, disabled residents, small business owners, and 
unemployed Americans, all seeking to engage in an increasingly 
digital world.
    As the city of Detroit's director of digital inclusion and 
as a digital inclusion policy fellow within the Poverty 
Solutions Initiative at the University of Michigan, I am 
responsible for developing a digital equity strategy that will 
sustainably increase internet subscribers while placing 
emphasis on digital skill training and resident device 
acquisition.
    I play a vital role in implementing digital equity 
initiatives for a city where one in four residents still do not 
have broadband access of any kind.
    Every American city has digital inequity of some type. Yet, 
none of us receive any federal funding beyond infrastructure to 
address the issue.
    On the topic of digital protection, over 200,000 residents 
utilize Detroit public libraries' wife networks, oftentimes in 
parking lots and after hours.
    This example is not specific to Detroit. Many residents in 
under served communities are unaware of how to protect 
themselves online. This is a problem with implications tied to 
our national security.
    For Americans with disabilities, this year marks the 30th 
anniversary of the passing of the Americans with Disabilities 
Act.
    Unfortunately, Americans with disabilities are less likely 
to have home broadband and technical devices. With more than 56 
million Americans living with a disability, investments in 
digital equity would ensure Americans with disabilities are 
afforded the same opportunity to digitally engage in today's 
economy regardless of their geographic location.
    On the topic of the census, due to our broadband 
challenges, the Associated Press listed Detroit as the toughest 
community to count in America. U.S. cities are at an increased 
risk of missing out on our share of the $1.5 trillion in 
federal resources.
    If the Federal Government is using the internet as a 
vehicle to determine population sizes to ultimately allocate 
funding, that same federal government should also provide 
resources for communities to boost broadband adoptions and to 
ensure an accurate count that's fair.
    Strategic partnerships can really help reduce the digital 
divide. At the city I also work directly with directly with 
internet service providers in varying capacities.
    While my role can be very challenging, most of the 
providers have been great partners. When the city recognized 
digital inclusion week this past October, Comcast was one of 
our first sponsors with additional support from Verizon and 
AT&T.
    This past holiday season when working with Los Angeles-
based social enterprise human IT and the Detroit Housing 
Commission, we were able to provide 75 families with three 
computers.
    I made one phone call to Comcast asking for them to provide 
those same 75 families with six months of free internet. They 
obliged.
    These are small examples of how local leadership has called 
on industry to fill in where the Federal Government is silent.
    In Detroit, we have developed public-private partnerships 
without any government funding. But it is an unsustainable 
model. We need federal resources to continue our work.
    If we were to receive federal funding we could do more 
robust outreach and incentivize more localized funding from 
philanthropic organizations.
    In conclusion, the city of Detroit has stories that are 
familiar to thousands of cities and towns across the United 
States that are starving for digital opportunities.
    Thank you for the opportunity to be heard on a national 
level. I hope my testimony serves as a launch pad that will 
spur digital equity investment that gives American communities 
the footing needed to compete in the digital economy.
    The digital divide is an indiscriminate issue that, 
ironically, connects all of us. We need leaders at all levels 
within all sectors to really work together on this issue.
    I realize I have 40 seconds left so I can return that.
    [Laughter.]
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Edmonds follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. You're to be commended, Mr. Edmonds. That's 
going to get you a long way in this committee.
    [Laughter.]
    Dr. Layton, you're recognized for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF ROSALYN LAYTON

    Ms. Layton. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
    I wanted to say I am a native of Pittsburgh and I would 
like to make a shout out to my friends and family in Da Burgh 
and I also want to say what I love seeing is a representative 
from Pittsburgh sitting next to the representative from Ohio.
    Normally, never the twain shall meet, but it's after 
football season and it's wonderful to be here and present to 
the committee.
    Mr. Doyle. I didn't know you were from Pittsburgh. You can 
take all the time you like.
    Ms. Layton. Thank you. Thank you.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Layton. Thank you. So let me begin by responding to 
some important points already made, and Mr. Edmonds, who--he 
highlights this problem of cyber crimes perpetuated against 
those he serves in Detroit, and this demonstrates the danger of 
policy focussing solely on price and not other important 
factors such as security.
    Now, consider the predicament of the European Union today. 
To meet regulators' low price requirements, broadband providers 
had to cost cut so severely that they ended up buying cheap 
unsafe Huawei equipment, and this effort to deliver low prices 
had put Europeans' privacy and security at risk.
    Now, fortunately, in the U.S. the FCC recently adopted 
rules restricting subsidies for equipment that's deemed a 
security risk. Nevertheless, there's at least another $20 
billion annually in federal broadband funds which is not 
scrutinized for security purposes, not to mention additional 
grants at the state and local level.
    Now, it's not only our network equipment that is 
vulnerable. Our national vulnerability database lists such 
commonplace items such as Lexmark printers and Lenovo laptops 
as products which can compromise a user's security.
    Now, that information may be listed in some federal 
database. But it's never communicated to the end retailer or 
consumer, which itself is a policy failing.
    Now, security is worth paying for and it matters to all of 
us. Another casualty of the European policy is network 
investment. In the last two decades, the level of private 
network investment in Europe has been cut in half. It was once 
one-third of the world's total. But today, it's 15 percent.
    Regulators have removed the incentive to invest and, 
unsurprisingly, the region is two years behind on 5G.
    Now, thankfully, the U.S. has maintained a high level of 
private investment which has generally increased year over 
year. Americans are less than 5 percent of the world's 
population but they enjoy more than 25 percent of the world's 
privately provisioned network resources.
    It's an amount that is approaching $90 billion annually, 
almost $2 trillion since 1996. This is a staggering success and 
it reflects a bipartisan consensus to focus on facilities-based 
competition.
    Now, a myopic focus on low prices is not only misguided, 
it's also unsafe. Moreover, it does not address complex 
problems we are talking about today, which require multi 
disciplinary approaches.
    However, there is one maxim which can help us. People adopt 
services, not networks. The demand for broadband is what 
economists call derived demand.
    Consumers adopt broadband for the services they get from 
the networks, not from the networks themselves. This is 
important because you can't fix with supply solutions what are 
inherently demand problems.
    Now, in the testimony today we are referencing many 
organizations such as NDIA, Pew, John Horgan from the 
Technology Policy Institute, who note that the gaps in 
broadband adoption can be attributed to age, income, and 
education.
    Now, closing these gaps is largely about empowering 
individuals, not favoring any one firm or technology.
    Now, the single best thing we can do for internet adoption 
and inclusion is to support our current growing economy. It 
continues to deliver increased wages, employment, and 
opportunity.
    When people have more money in their pockets, they can buy 
more of all goods and services including broadband. Now, I am 
thrilled that we are in the midst of a blue-collar boom where 
wages are rising fastest for the poorest and youngest among us.
    Moreover, we have a record level of employment for women 
and people of color. With historic tax cuts and deregulation, 
thousands of new opportunities have sprouted across the 
country. These empower people to seek new skills, better jobs, 
and ownership of a home, all of which are factors which 
increase the likelihood of adopting broadband.
    Now, I lament that 6 million households are not online 
today because of cost. But the good news is that things are 
changing quickly for the better and the FCC has taken actions 
which have increased the availability of broadband and reduced 
deployment costs under the fantastic work of Chairman Ajit Pai.
    These include $1.5 billion in Connect American funds to 700 
rural homes and businesses in 45 states, an additional $5 
billion for over 300,000 households, $1 billion to Puerto Rico 
and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and my favorite accomplishment of 
all is cutting $1 billion in costs by ending the reports that 
the FCC no longer uses.
    In closing, I encourage the committee to allow the 
flourishing of the exciting bottom-up solutions we've heard 
today and it's important that this committee would also focus 
on the issues of national importance, notably, spectrum and 
security, which are intertwined with our global race to 5G.
    And so I remind you to think about what needs to be done at 
the state and local level and not have an urge that every 
problem needs to be fixed by the Federal Government.
    Thank you for this time today.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Layton follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. The gentle lady yields back.
    It's now my pleasure to recognize Ms. Sohn for 5 minutes 
for your opening statement.

                     STATEMENT OF GIGI SOHN

    Ms. Sohn. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member Latta, and members 
of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify on 
two crucial issues--digital equity and broadband adoption.
    It's indisputable that broadband internet is an essential 
tool for participation in our society, our economy, and our 
culture. Many job applications and government services are only 
available online.
    Seventy percent of teachers assign homework that must be 
submitted online. Numerous TV shows and movies are exclusively 
online.
    Broadband internet access has fundamentally changed the 
nature of commerce, education, and health care. It enables 
unprecedented flexibility for Americans to choose where they 
live, how they work, and how they care for their families.
    However, 141 million people in the U.S. don't have fixed 
home internet at the FCC's outdated 25 down three up the 
broadband definition. That's nearly 43 percent of Americans.
    What's more alarming is that home broadband adoption rates 
aren't increasing. It's remained stable for the past three 
years. That makes this hearing even more important.
    The digital divide affects every region of our country, 
although communities of color and low-income Americans are far 
more likely not to have broadband.
    A recent study by the Pew Research Center showed 79 percent 
of white U.S. adults have home broadband while the same is true 
of only 66 percent of black adults and 61 percent of Hispanics.
    The study showed that 92 percent of Americans making 
$75,000 or more annually have home broadband. Only 56 percent 
making less than $30,000 annually do.
    The racial component of the digital divide is a byproduct 
not only of income inequality but of structural inequality like 
discriminatory housing and lending practices.
    This divide persists because of the high cost of broadband 
and computers in the U.S. Study after study shows this.
    Current research suggests that low-income people can only 
afford to pay about $10 monthly for broadband. Anything more 
competes with other utility bills and the cost of food.
    Meeting the goal of universal connectivity and providing 
fixed broadband about $10 per month requires a multi-pronged 
strategy, what my Benton colleague Jonathan Sallet calls and 
affordability agenda.
    It includes, one, price transparency. Carriers should be 
required to submit nonpromotional pricing information including 
equipment and other fees to the FCC, which should make that 
information public.
    The FCC or Congress should also restore the fixed broadband 
consumer disclosure label. Both will help consumers make 
informed choices about the price, quality, and value of their 
broadband service.
    Two, more competition. More competition means lower 
broadband prices. Even under the FCC's overly optimistic data, 
nearly 30 percent of the country has access to no more than two 
providers at 25/3 speeds and 95 percent has access to no more 
than two at speeds of 110.
    If we really want communities to lead, Congress should 
prohibit states from blocking communities that wish to build 
their own broadband networks and also give a bidding preference 
to open access networks when allocating deployment subsidies.
    These networks allow any broadband provider to provide 
last-mile service. An open access network in Utah gives 
residents of 15 cities a choice of 10 ISPs. Most Americans 
can't imagine that.
    Three, a strong Lifeline program. Congress should 
strengthen Lifeline and make it easier for the most vulnerable 
in society to access the program.
    It should make clear that Lifeline can support broadband 
service, restore the broadband provider designation to bring 
new competition to the program, and give USAC the resources it 
needs to expedite the hard launch of the national eligibility 
verifier. It will make eligibility determinations automatic for 
many applicants.
    Policymakers should also consider providing an additional 
subsidies so Lifeline recipients can purchase fixed broadband. 
The $9.25 subsidy doesn't go very far for broadband needed to 
do research papers, apply for jobs, and access telehealth 
services.
    Four, low-cost broadband for federally subsidized networks. 
The FCC disburses billions of dollars annually to mobile and 
fixed providers to build out their networks. It should require 
those carriers to provide a $10 a month high-speed broadband 
plan to low-income Americans.
    Five, support for access to and through community anchor 
institutions. Some community anchor institutions have adopted 
programs that extend learning beyond their walls. Libraries 
have been experimenting with mobile wireless hotspot programs 
which allow people to check out broadband hot spots for home 
use.
    Schools have been providing buses equipped with wife for 
students to use after hours. Congress or the FCC should clarify 
that these programs are eligible for e-rate funds.
    Finally, last but not least, Congress and the FCC should 
assist local communities' digital inclusion efforts. Local 
advocates are doing the hard work of educating residents about 
low-cost broadband options, providing digital literacy and job 
skills training, and distributing low-cost computers. Congress 
should pass the Digital Equity Act, which establishes grant 
programs to support state and local digital equity efforts.
    These funds will incentivize more states and localities to 
develop digital inclusion plans and will provide sorely needed 
funds to the small nonprofits doing the hard work of connecting 
their communities.
    Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Sohn follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Sural, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF JEFFREY SURAL

    Mr. Sural. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, and thank 
you to Ranking Member Latta and the subcommittee members for 
holding this hearing.
    My name is Jeff Sural. I am director of the Broadband 
Infrastructure Office at the North Carolina Department of 
Information Technology.
    Our office leads state initiatives to ensure all North 
Carolinians can access affordable reliable high-speed internet 
service.
    On behalf of Governor Roy Cooper and State Chief 
Information Officer Eric Boyette, I would like to thank you for 
the opportunity to share North Carolina's approach to ensure 
all individuals and communities have the capacity and tools 
needed to fully participate in a 21st century society and 
economy. The governor has made closing the digital divide one 
of his top priorities.
    My oral statement will focus on four key points.
    One, this is a problem. Two, its root causes have been 
identified. Three, it is solvable. And four, governments at all 
levels can and should lead.
    Policy, better data, grants, subsidies, and partnerships 
all work. In North Carolina, much like the rest of the country, 
not having the internet in your home makes it harder to see a 
doctor or nurse without leaving your house, harder to do 
homework outside the classroom, harder to start a small 
business, and in many cases harder to interact with your state 
and local government.
    In North Carolina, we recognize that adoption was a problem 
several years ago. In 2015, before writing the state's 
broadband plan, we surveyed 3,500 local leaders.
    When asked what their concerns were regarding the lack of 
broadband in their communities, the number-one response was the 
homework app.
    We wrote our state plan with equal attention paid to 
availability and adoption, focussing on the homework app. Our 
findings are validated by data collected nationally. The FCC 
estimates that 94.8 percent of North Carolina's households have 
access to broadband. Alarmingly, only 59 percent of those with 
access are adopting.
    The most recent report from the American Community Survey 
puts North Carolina's household adoption rate for all internet 
speeds at 78 percent.
    The survey also found that more than 726,000 North Carolina 
households do not have access to a meaningful device, meaning a 
laptop, a desktop, or a tablet.
    Based on our own research, we estimate that between one-
quarter to half a million students fall into the homework gap. 
We recognized there was a problem and so we first worked to 
identify the root causes.
    We found that broadband coverage is a key determinant of 
adoption. Of course, individuals can only adopt broadband in 
areas where it is available.
    But subscription costs is the main barrier to adoption for 
those with access, followed by digital literacy, access to 
devices, and relevancy.
    But why this is a serious problem is still misunderstood or 
under appreciated. Research shows that sheer availability of or 
access to broadband isn't enough to positively impact a local 
economy.
    Rather, it is the adoption of it. When people have it in 
their homes and use it in ways that positively impact their 
economic outlook, we begin to see a positive relationship 
between broadband and a community's economic health.
    In North Carolina, we are focused on tackling the barriers 
to adoption even as we invest in expansion of broadband 
infrastructure.
    In 2017, we formed the Digital Equity and Inclusion 
Collaborative to gather and learn from nonprofit, universities, 
and state agencies who are working to close the digital divide.
    Our office in the State Library of North Carolina won a 
$250,00 two-year grant from the Institute of Museum and Library 
Services to launch a pilot program at local libraries that 
provides equipment and digital literacy training to families of 
K through 12 students in need.
    We also partner with the state librarian and nine library 
systems to make equipment such as wife hotspots or computers 
available to students.
    In early 2019, our office partnered with the North Carolina 
Department of Human and Health Services Office of Rural Health 
to secure a grant from the Appalachian Regional Commission to 
identify the broadband and telehealth challenges and 
opportunities in 20 western counties.
    This partnership also funded an expansion of East Carolina 
University's successful tele-psychiatry program to four rural 
counties in eastern North Carolina.
    Our larger municipalities have been leading the effort to 
close the digital divide for many years. For example, in Durham 
a group of volunteers from various nonprofits and city agencies 
formed Digital Durham to close the homework gap in east Durham.
    And, of course, in Charlotte, the nationally-recognized 
Charlotte Digital Inclusion Alliance is working aggressively 
and innovatively to close the region's digital divide.
    North Carolina also boasts several nonprofits such as 
Cramden and RTP and E2D in Charlotte, both of whom refurbish 
used computers and distribute them to those in need as well as 
provide digital literacy training.
    Governments, particularly state governments, can play 
important leadership roles while pursuing evidence-based 
policymaking, convening stakeholders and educating the public.
    Competition drives affordability and innovation. We should 
continue to work on policies that incentivize competition. But 
where market forces are not working, successful evidence-based 
solutions include grants, subsidies, partnerships between local 
governments, nonprofit, and internet service providers.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak today about North 
Carolina's comprehensive approach to closing the digital divide 
and I look forward to answering any questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Sural follows:]
   [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    So we have now concluded our openings and we are going to 
move to member questions. Each member will have 5 minutes to 
ask questions of our witnesses. I will start by recognizing 
myself for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sural and Mr. Edmonds, when we talk about the 
challenges that our nation faces in deploying broadband 
nationally, I think everyone here can acknowledge that there 
are not sufficient private sector incentives to bring broadband 
to everyone and that the Federal Government has a necessary 
role to play.
    But when it comes to digital equity, your respective 
governments are working to close the digital divide. But do you 
see those efforts succeeding in the long term if the Federal 
Government doesn't play any role in that to help you address 
that challenge and what kinds of long-term harms do you see if 
we continue to let this problem fester?
    I will maybe start with Mr. Sural and then Mr. Edmonds, you 
can go next.
    Mr. Sural. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Great question, and, you know, I think the way that we 
incentivize the internet service providers and incentivize good 
corporate citizenship is through the purse strings, frankly.
    I mean, we have federal programs that fund deployment and 
those are--and we like those. We like money at the state level.
    But if they were tied or conducted in concert with some 
adoption programs I think that would be the way to really drive 
this issue home and make sure that there are digital literacy 
or other programs that would be available to those where these 
deployment dollars are going.
    For example, in North Carolina we do have a state rural 
broadband grant program and we have advocated that we tie in a 
scoring for those applicants and they can increase their score 
if they create some sort of adoption program.
    And it could be partnering with a nonprofit. Doesn't 
necessarily mean they have to run it. But something, and I 
think that's probably the first thing that we need to do.
    Mr. Doyle. Mr. Edmonds?
    Mr. Edmonds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the question.
    And locally, I would say that while we are able to 
essentially galvanize people around this issue, namely, the 
internet service providers and the private sector.
    One thing that we have to be cognizant of--really what we 
are actually partnering on, so while Comcast and, you know, our 
local internet service providers have really stepped up in a 
major way. We don't want to get into the position to exhaust 
their generosity and I don't think that's actually a 
sustainable play.
    When I had mentioned earlier in my testimony that we want 
to be able to be in the position to further incentivize. If we 
actually had some funding outside of good will I think that we 
would actually be able to do much more.
    So I don't believe in the long term what we are doing is 
sustainable. I think that it's commendable for all the partners 
at the table, and I do think that we will have an immediate 
impact, as we already are.
    However, from a sustainable way, as technology continues to 
evolve, we need to have something that we can look to from a 
long-term strategy that's actually going to make sense.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Ms. Siefer, you talked about the skills gap for digital 
literacy in our workforce in your testimony, and for industries 
like manufacturing and agriculture, tell us what are the risks 
to employees that lack these skills as these industries change 
and are older workers missing out on opportunities?
    How is this dynamic playing out in urban and rural 
communities?
    Ms. Siefer. Right. So we know that the jobs are out there. 
We know there are IT jobs or even the jobs that aren't 
necessarily defined as technical.
    They are called, like, middle skill tech jobs where you 
need to understand how to use spreadsheets. You can flip back 
and forth between applications. You can feel confident that if 
you don't understand one app, it is OK, because you will figure 
it out.
    So that's what we are missing. So those are the--it is a 
basic digital literacy skills but it's a continuum of skills. 
And so in order to help people be ready for those other jobs, 
which are out there, we know the jobs are there.
    That is one of the things that is so frustrating. We have 
the jobs. But our folks don't have the skills, is that we have 
to help them where they are because it is intimidating.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Ms. Sohn, you have said that deployment or some people have 
said that the deployment of 5G services will reduce the price 
of broadband and that it will connect rural communities and 
help close the digital divide in low-income communities.
    Do you really think those things are going to happen and, 
if not, why?
    Ms. Sohn. I certainly didn't say that. I think it's really 
important to emphasize that there is so much that is still 
unknown and untested about 5G.
    You know, the companies are not sure whether there is even 
a case for consumers to really benefit or whether this is an 
enterprise technology that allows for drones and self-driving 
cars and smart cities.
    So we don't know that. What we also don't know is what the 
price is going to be. You know, Angela Siefer talked about the 
price of devices, which we do know are going to be expensive. 
Samsung just introduced a $1,300 5G phone. But we have no idea 
what the monthly cost is going to be.
    But what we absolutely do know and what the executives--
what both Verizon and T-Mobile executives have admitted is that 
in rural areas, 5G is probably not going to be a whole lot 
better than 4G. That's about the best they are going to get.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    I would note to my colleagues that I am stopped with three 
seconds left and I hope that sets an example for the rest of 
you.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. I will now recognize my good friend, Mr. Latta.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you. I hope you're not talking to me 
about that.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Latta. But thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thanks 
to our witnesses.
    Dr. Layton, if I could start my questions with you? This 
committee has spent much time focussing on how to connect all 
Americans to accept broadband speeds.
    In my district of northwest west central Ohio, we still 
have areas that are completely unserved. So encouraging 
broadband deployment in rural America is one of my top 
priorities.
    In your testimony, you mentioned that regulatory 
discrimination costs our economy about $30 to $40 billion 
annually, money that could otherwise be spent on deploying 
broadband to our rural areas.
    Will you expand on this particularly, about how money alone 
won't solve this issue and what actions should Congress be 
taking?
    Ms. Layton. Thank you for that question.
    I would like to follow up quickly on the 5G issue as it 
relates to rural areas.
    What we can see with 5G now that which is in cities is it's 
largely what's called broadband substitution. People are 
cutting the cord. They canceled their cable subscription and 
are getting their broadband connection now through wireless.
    So this is going on in cities today, and when we look at 
rural areas one of the fastest ways that we can bring high-
speed broadband to the rural area is through the mid-band 
spectrum and there's an issue in front of the FCC right now on 
a C band auction, which will be the fastest way to bring high-
speed broadband to rural areas.
    With regard to this issue of regulatory discrimination, as 
an economist what I like to encourage policy makers is to think 
about broadband as a multi-sited market and ensuring that all 
of the participants are able to be involved in the broadband 
market.
    So, historically, we've had a policy which would minimize 
the participation of the large content providers.
    So, for example, in Netflix, which accounts for a large 
share of the traffic, they're not participating in the last-
mile infrastructure cost. So that's quite significant because 
that means the cost has to be recovered in another way.
    So it falls on the end consumer and part of the challenge 
today is, you know, when we talked about if it's too high, 
well, we are forcing end consumers to pay too much when large 
content providers are not participating.
    So in a free market, you would have more participation of 
the largest content providers and that would help defray some 
of the costs for the poorest users.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Sural, if I could ask you the next question here. I 
also found in your testimony when you were talking about the 
adoption problem out there that you said that, you know, it's 
two sides of a coin--the access side and then the adoption 
side--and then also about, you know, the pros and cons out 
there about why we really have to be out there talking about 
broadband and getting it there.
    On the pro side, you're talking about those who adopt the 
broadband are more likely to find jobs, learn new skills, 
successfully navigate social services, and those who do not--
than those who do not adopt them.
    Then on the con side, low adoption results in loss of 
opportunity, education, or economic income, civic, and 
cultural.
    And then when you summed up your testimony at the very end 
you also--I thought it was interesting you had said that, you 
know, competition drives that affordability and innovation.
    And so looking at the--your state and what you have done on 
leveraging existing resources and creating partnerships, how 
does North Carolina State Broadband Office connect with 
communities that need internet access?
    Mr. Sural. Well, we have a technical assistance team. So I 
have four members in our office that actually live in the areas 
where they work and they work and they work closely with local 
leaders to develop--planning all sorts of aspects of broadband 
on the deployment side and on the adoption side.
    And our office has really just started to tackle this 
adoption issue. We rely a lot on the research that's done 
nationally and the studies that have been published nationally. 
We did our own study, however, a few years ago called NC Light 
Up that's on our website and we did a controlled study with 179 
families.
    At the end and the conclusion of that study showed that 
even three months afterwards the families that were receiving a 
subsidy for the service, 89 percent of them kept the internet 
service.
    And so we are still looking at diving into the benefits for 
those types of families. But we--but our outreach is mostly 
with the local levels through either our technical assistance 
team or our homework gap report that we published.
    Mr. Latta. In my last 25 seconds, now, do you also have 
workshops then for folks out there?
    Mr. Sural. We just completed a round of workshops we called 
Broadband 101 and we went to all areas of the state and we had 
our councils of governments coordinate the local leaders and we 
taught about what they can do to enhance deployment and some 
adoption issues, and we have a collaborative, too.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I am ending on three seconds so I yield back.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. Good job.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair.
    Mr. Sural, do you believe more people should wear bow ties?
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Sural. Yes.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you.
    So I really appreciate your testimony concerning adoption 
as well as deployment. I think that's a key issue along with 
the cost of equipment and that's been raised several times. Is 
there any more you want to add to that--the adoption issue?
    Mr. Sural. On the issue of whether we--competition helps.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, whether deployment should precede 
adoption.
    Mr. Sural. I think that they can be done in concert. I 
mean, in our state at least we've been doing a lot on the 
deployment side of things.
    We even have, for example, in one county they received BTOP 
money. They have 90 percent of the households connected to 
fiber but only 59 percent subscription rate. So, obviously, 
there's something there and it depends. We are finding county 
by county it's different.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
    In your written testimony you discussed the economic impact 
of gaps in the broadband adoption and digital literacy. Can you 
expand on that and discuss the economic impacts that you have 
seen on the ground?
    Mr. Sural. So we have seen primarily, especially in our 
rural communities, more entrepreneurship. For example, the city 
of Wilson has done a lot and it's allowed them to say, hey, we 
are a connected city. They've attracted some smaller companies.
    So what we are seeing is on the individual level, 
particularly an opportunity for income enhancement and then we 
have some small businesses that are really starting to connect.
    There's a woman in southern Beaufort County who runs a 
agro-tourism business. Seventy-five percent of her marketing 
and ticket sales are over the internet. So when the internet is 
down, you know, she struggles. But it gives her an opportunity 
run a business in a very, very rural area of North Carolina.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you for that.
    Ms. Siefer, would you like to comment about the returns 
that we are likely to see from targeted federal investment in 
broadband adoption and digital literacy?
    Ms. Siefer. So the returns we are going to see are in every 
industry and in every aspect of our lives because I think one 
can think about how you use the internet and that impacts then 
everything you do, right.
    So education and health, work. It is in everything. So the 
impacts are going to just be astounding if we had everybody 
participating and think it's also important for us to think 
about how--that the internet is more valuable because so many 
people are on it, right.
    So that thing that you're using is more valuable if there's 
more people there. So if we have more of our low-income 
citizens participating and the disabled and the seniors and the 
youth, then what does that do to how the rest of us then 
interact online.
    Mr. McNerney. Yes. Well, in my district there's about 
64,000 individuals employed in the construction and 
transportation and storage workers. Why would federal 
investments in digital training help that group or how would it 
help that group?
    Ms. Siefer. It gives them more opportunities for jobs, 
right, because then they're not limited to that field. Yes, if 
they'd like to stay there, awesome. But their possibilities for 
advancement go up when they have more digital skills.
    Mr. McNerney. Yes, Ms. Sohn?
    Ms. Sohn. Could I just add thank you for the opportunity? A 
lot of skills that we, you know, consider to be sort of, you 
know, technical skills or some more mid-level skills, service 
skills, require internet skills.
    So, for example, when I take my car to Midas in Bethesda 
they're constantly complaining because they can't get enough 
people to work as auto workers to repair cars and those folks 
need digital skills.
    OK. It's not just a matter of, you know, fixing the engine 
anymore. You have to be able to use computers.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Edmonds, why do you think that the model of public 
partner--private partnerships is unsustainable in Detroit?
    Mr. Edmonds. I don't think it's sustainable because I think 
we might be motivated by different things. You know, when--the 
public sector we, obviously, aren't necessarily looking every 
single time at our residents as commodities, if you will.
    And I am not saying that that's what the private sector is 
doing but what I am saying is we have different 
responsibilities.
    And so when I am talking to my residents and wanting to get 
them online, I am not necessarily doing that about in a profit-
driven way.
    I am looking at this because these residents essentially 
matter to the future of our city and, ultimately, our country. 
And when we are engaging with the private sector it might be 
they have a--they have different objectives.
    We might fall in line under, you know, maybe someone wants 
to essentially highlight a partnership model that might be 
deemed innovative. But I am not really looking for innovation. 
I am looking for what's effective.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask for another 5 minutes.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. I have great affection for the gentleman but 
that request is denied.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Shimkus for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Thank you for being here. It's a great debate. We have been 
struggling with broadband deployment, especially in the areas 
that have been mentioned, for years.
    I think we are making a lot of success in the broadband 
portion through a couple of different agencies. We've got the 
USDA rural development program, which has been--I mean, I have 
just gotten an announcement this morning of coming to Hamilton 
County to help roll out more.
    We have the FCC in the last cycle with legislation to help. 
The state of Illinois has gotten on board now to talk about 
connecting. So all that is--you know, so this is kind of a 
natural extension to, OK, if you connect will they come or are 
they trained to come or do they have the connectivity.
    We do accept the premise that some people who get fiber run 
to their house will not want to be online, do we? I mean, I am 
from rural America and I am just here to tell you there are 
some people who don't want to be on the worldwide web.
    They don't want to be connected. They're worried about 
their privacy. They're worried about all this other stuff. So 
it's kind of like in the economist's point of view, 3.5 percent 
unemployment is de facto full employment if you take in 
economics and--because there are people always in transition.
    So we are never going to get 100 percent and we are not 
going to get 100 percent full deployment.
    But I was interested in this debate about with all these 
grant programs that we have, maybe--and I think, Mr. Sural, you 
mentioned it--why not in the application process kind of make a 
determination of well, tell us what you have done in the past 
to help this portion or tell us what your plan is to help 
educate and connect people as part of these application 
processes. That way you have another variable by which the 
decision makers can use to see how effective it was.
    When we did the stimulus bill years ago, one of the 
problems was it gave money but it just overlayed pipes without 
a business model. So this is kind of the other flip side. This 
is giving money without really a business plan for connecting 
or educating.
    Mr. Sural, back to you, too. I wrote down you're doing 
Broadband 101. We could probably use that class even though 
we've been on the committee for a long time.
    Mr. Sural. Happy to. Happy to.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes. Because it is curious, and I am going to 
a little--Ms. Sohn, I saw you roll your eyes. I love watching 
people's faces during testimony.
    I am a recent--I am getting ready to retire. This is my 
last year here, and as a member of Congress, I've been able to 
survive on my iPhone and my iPad without a laptop.
    So now I got to go to the real world and I am thinking, 
well, that might not be enough, you know, if I have to start 
doing spreadsheets and connecting. I might need--actually need 
to figure out how to turn a laptop on and do stuff.
    But that brings up this 4G/5G debate and whether 5G does 
actually represent some competition. Dr. Layton says yes. You 
rolled your eyes, saying, oh, I don't think so.
    So why the eye roll?
    Ms. Sohn. So my concern is that we don't make policy 
prematurely. OK. 5G is a marathon and not a sprint. I know 
there's a lot of talk about the race to 5G.
    But if you even ask the companies themselves they will say 
we are not 100 percent sure what the business model is for 
this. So that is my concern.
    I am not anti 5G. 5G is coming. But I think it would be 
unwise to make policy--broadband adoption equity policy based 
on what 5G might be.
    Mr. Shimkus. Yes, thank you. And I certainly want to give 
Dr. Layton a chance. But I do know that--and I caveated the 
question with--I mean, I am not on my laptop, right. I am on 
email, texting, searching the web to get information. So I am 
not full bore into the issue.
    But I do know that sometimes I have bad wife connection or 
a slow wife connection and I will go to 4G and get and I will 
turn off my wife signal.
    So Dr. Layton?
    Mic.
    Ms. Layton. Well, this whole hearing was worth for me today 
to hear Gigi say she doesn't want to make policy prematurely. I 
think that's great.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Layton. So I think to your whole point here, this is 
the whole point of view of why it's great that people should 
have more money in their own pockets, why we should allow 
enterprises to keep more of their own profits. Because every 
community has different needs and the more that you have your 
own resources you can decide how you want to spend it. You can 
decide how you want to invest it.
    So when you talk about, as you opened your question on the 
big question of the federal funding, there's money sprinkled 
across the whole place. If we looked at the whole thing, we 
could probably do it a lot more efficiently and a lot more 
effectively by the different agencies--USTA, Department of 
Transportation, FCC--working together in a more cooperative 
way.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member 
Latta, for convening this hearing today and I thank all of our 
witnesses for their attendance as well.
    I do appreciate that we are having this hearing today. I've 
worked throughout my time on this committee to advance internet 
adoption and connect Iowa communities. I also have a rural 
district as you might imagine in southeast Iowa.
    I partnered with my friend, Bob Latta, and that we got this 
very, very bipartisan bill through the Broadband Data Act last 
year and it passed the committee pretty overwhelmingly, as you 
know.
    But, clearly, there still are many challenges to ensure 
that all Americans are able to access and use the internet 
because in today's economy, as already has been mentioned, if 
you don't have reliable internet access you're probably going 
to be shut out of the digital economy.
    Whether your child is trying to do his or her homework or 
you're searching for a job or accessing telemedicine, or trying 
to operate a small business, it's truly never been more 
important--I think we can all agree on that--to be able to 
connect to the internet and the outside world.
    I just had a couple of quick questions. Both of these are 
for Ms. Siefer and Ms. Sohn. The FCC doesn't currently collect 
data about the costs of broadband service.
    The Broadband Data Act included some qualify of service 
metrics to be collected. But I would like to ask you how you 
think the collection of additional quality of service metrics 
like price data would impact if at all access to broadband.
    Let's start with Ms. Siefer at this time.
    Ms. Siefer. Having data on the cost of home broadband would 
draw attention and be able to create solutions specifically 
around those geographic areas that don't have affordable 
broadband.
    Right now if you try to go figure out how much broadband 
costs in any area it takes actually quite a bit of research. It 
seems crazy. It seems like we could just look it up on the 
internet.
    But you can't just look it up on the internet. What you 
will find are the introductory rates. You won't find what it 
actually costs. And so solutions that can then be created for 
particular neighborhoods, for particular regions, for 
particular counties that are struggling with the cost in that 
area.
    Mr. Loebsack. And I am going to get to that in my second 
question, too.
    Yes, Ms. Sohn?
    Ms. Sohn. So we've actually seen in the e-rate context the 
group Education Superhighway did a study that showed that once 
the FCC required price transparency prices for building 
networks to schools and libraries went down.
    So it would cause competitive pressure, plus consumers 
should know what they're paying for when they buy broadband, 
and if they do--if they're lucky enough to have competitive 
choices, then can compare and contrast.
    Mr. Loebsack. So my second question has to do with an 
article that was in the Wall Street Journal in December. It 
found that, quote, ``Americans in low-income neighborhoods and 
rural areas get slower broadband speeds even though they 
generally pay similar monthly prices as their counterparts in 
wealthy and urban areas.''
    And to both of you, again, the question is do you think 
that rural and low-income areas are receiving a different 
quality of service as a result of technical challenges or do 
you think there are other factors at play?
    And let's start with you this time, Ms. Sohn.
    Ms. Sohn. Look, those are not attractive communities to 
serve. So you get one provider. There's no competitive 
pressure. They can higher prices. I mean, you know, basically, 
if you're low-income or middle-class or live in a community of 
color you get screwed.
    Mr. Loebsack. Yes?
    Ms. Siefer. I think the other important point to always 
keep in mind is that in the U.S. internet service is a 
commodity, right. You're going to get the highest price for it 
as you can and none of us should be surprised. We are, like, 
yes, of course. This is a free market.
    But if that result is that we don't have enough competition 
and then we end up with particular individuals and families who 
can't afford it because the only option is an expensive option, 
and we as a society have to say that's not OK.
    Mr. Loebsack. And I might add that this actually happens 
not just in rural areas versus urban areas but even in Iowa 
City, where I live, if you're in a new subdivision, for 
example, you have limited options because not everybody wants 
to go into that subdivision until there are enough homes 
actually created and that's actually, you know, a fairly 
wealthy area, too.
    Ms. Sohn. That raises another question, if you don't mind, 
and that's the problem of exclusives in multi-tenant 
environments or condominium environments where a cable operator 
or a tel-co will basically have an exclusive and you're at the 
mercy of those providers.
    And I know the FCC is looking at this but they can't get 
rid--they can't ban those exclusives fast enough for me.
    Mr. Loebsack. Right. OK.
    Well, I was going to yield the rest of my time to Mr. 
McNerney but there's not enough time for a question and answer. 
But thanks, everybody. I really appreciate it.
    And I yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back his time.
    The Chair now recognizes my buddy, Mr. Olson, for 5 
minutes. Not a second more.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair, and welcome to our five 
witnesses.
    Mr. Sural, I have to start out with an apology. My wife is 
a Duke Blue Devil and that means that I have to inform you that 
on February 8th of this year, her Devils will go down to your 
Dean Dome and put a whooping on your Tarheels, to be repeated 
next month on March 7th at Duke Cameron Stadium.
    Sorry.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Olson. Just the way it is.
    Mr. Sural. Willing to wager a barbecue.
    Mr. Olson. And that's why I'm in my twenty-seventh year of 
marriage and my sixth term in Congress, Texas 22 is a booming 
suburb of Houston, Texas. We are the most diverse county in 
America ethnically.
    We have the richest population per capita of 254 counties 
in Texas. That means you would think we are preparing for 5G, 
looking forward to 10G in the future. Access to the internet is 
for everybody in Fort Bend County. If you thought that you'd be 
wrong.
    This past Thursday I was out in Deanville, Texas. Deanville 
is all about cotton, milo, livestock, and Deanville High School 
Blue Jays. I went by to see the Chamber of Commerce's small 
business awardee, a place that's called All We Need Farm.
    It's run by a woman--small business--named Stacy Roussel. 
She makes ice cream popsicles with goat milk from Nubian and 
Angora goats. She quit her job as a CPA in 2000 to pursue her 
dream of making these popsicles. She bought her first herd 
eight years later in 2008.
    She and her husband were so good in 2017 they won the 
American Dairy Goat Association product competition. The best 
goat milk popsicles in the entire country came from Deanville, 
Texas.
    Stacy's problem is she has no real access to the internet. 
On her street, her neighbors were there a long time before she 
was. They have cable access to internet.
    She has none of that cable. She can't convince somebody to 
come out and put that cable down. Satellites are too expensive 
and maybe there's a problem with latency issues.
    So my question, Dr. Layton, is how can Stacy break through 
and have internet access so she can thrive and grow her 
business? Any thoughts? Ideas? Barricades D.C.?
    Ms. Layton. This is in her location where she's in this 
part of----
    Mr. Olson. Yes. Yes. Yes. On a rural road. There, again, 
the neighbors have--because they were there, like, 10 years, 20 
years before her. They got cables laid. She can't get somebody 
to help her out. Again, satellites are too expensive for right 
now. She has to grow her business. She can't do that until she 
gets that access.
    Ms. Layton. Right. Well, I am not familiar with the 
requirements for deployment in this particular part of Texas. I 
would have to look into it.
    What I am encouraged to see is that, for example, I am very 
excited about the new high through-put satellites which are 100 
megabits per seconds. They are online--to come online I think 
in less than a year.
    The FCC has approved over a dozen new satellite programs, 
in low earth orbit. These should not be laughed at. They are 
very serious. They are being used around the world. I think 
that's a big deal. I would just come back to what regulatory 
barriers are there. I mean, and hats off to this woman for 
pursuing her dream.
    Mr. Olson. Yes, ma'am? Ms. Sohn, do you want to add to 
that?
    Ms. Sohn. Yes. This would be the perfect place for 
communities to build their own broadband and, unfortunately, in 
Texas is one of 19 states that prohibits their local 
communities from building broadband.
    I have cousins who live in Dallas. I often visit Austin, 
and I get similar complaints about the lack of broadband in 
places where you think it would be, and that's why community 
builds are so critically important and why Congress should 
prohibit those kinds of--prohibit states from stopping 
communities from deciding whether or not to serve people like 
your friend.
    Mr. Olson. Mr. Sural?
    Mr. Sural. And small business adoption and programs and 
also grants to small businesses. We had a program in North 
Carolina that allowed some manufacturing facilities to hook up 
to fiber. Provided a grant and they've expanded their 
operations and communicate with customers in China. So we need 
that, too.
    Mr. Olson. Final question for you, Dr. Layton. This is on 
NFL neutrality. January 6th of 1980, Houston Oiler Mike Renfro 
scored a touchdown in Three Rivers Stadium that was denied.
    Would you break from Chairman Doyle and admit the refs blew 
the call?
    Ms. Layton. On this one, I am forever a Pittsburgh Steelers 
fan. So I am sorry, I am not going to come over to that side on 
that question.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Olson. It was a touchdown.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. I would just like to say, 
Mr. Sural, it was mighty kind of you not to mention the Houston 
Astros in retaliation for his Duke statements.
    But the gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 
Veasey, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me for 
a magic 5 minutes.
    Mr. Olson, thank you. Roger Williams and I appreciate you 
mentioning Mike Renfro, who's a fellow Arlington Heights High 
School graduate out of Fort Worth, Texas. So thank you very 
much.
    Mr. Olson. Touchdown.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Veasey. It definitely was. Every time I see Mike out 
and about in Fort Worth, we joke around about that, about how 
it definitely was a touchdown.
    Mr. Edmonds, in your testimony you discuss the difference 
between the availability of broadband and usage. You set out in 
a table in your testimony displaying in the district that I 
represent that there is 100 percent availability of broadband 
which, according to your table, is higher than 27 of my fellow 
subcommittee members. But usage is 35 percent, which is 
twentieth out of 31 members.
    Can you explain how availability is so high but usage is so 
low?
    Mr. Edmonds. So, really, what--and to explain the context 
of that data as well, so that data was gathered by Microsoft 
where they actually began looking at the software updates.
    So anyone who was having a software update by way of 
Microsoft the area would have determined the speed. So it 
wasn't a survey. It was actually automatically pulling that 
data.
    The one thing that they did not include in that data piece 
was mobile broadband, so anyone who was doing updates over 
cellular networks.
    Now, the good thing is we have the data by way of the 
American Community Survey where we can--where we can reference 
that. But the disparity is still going to be pronounced.
    And so when we began looking at the availability and the 
usage, like, to summarize the sentiment that, you know, some 
other people have already covered today, just because you build 
a network doesn't mean people will come.
    And so when you begin looking at the availability we can 
have that all day. But, however, if we don't have the necessary 
means to get people online and to keep them online, I think 
that's what we are seeing in that.
    And so, for example, in the city of Detroit, if we were to 
look at poverty rates, and Detroit has, obviously, a pronounced 
poverty rate, we are seeing the role that cost plays and people 
having perpetual meaningful broadband adoption. You having it 
for one month is fine.
    But, again, for a year, day-in and day-out costs, some can 
afford that monthly. That's something where we are still 
struggling to get, especially when we begin looking at 
broadband packages in America.
    Now, cost being a big barrier but, again, we don't really 
have the necessary digital skills training as well. You know, 
one thing that I am going to echo Angela's sentiment where she 
expresses that people aren't willing to pay for things that 
they might not necessarily fully grasp. And so when we don't 
have any funding for digital literacy training, I don't see 
ways that we can essentially insulate people and put them into 
a pipeline of meaningful broadband adoption as well.
    So there's really an amalgamation of issues that are 
keeping people from getting online. But, again, there's not 
really any funding for us to address this.
    Mr. Veasey. Yes. That's really interesting, which brings me 
to my next question that I wanted to ask you. Have you--have 
you had a chance to look very closely at texting and calling 
versus actual internet usage in urban areas?
    And the reason why I say that is, like, if you were to 
drive through certain areas in my district, you know, most of--
most major retail concepts--new retail concepts--will skip over 
lower-income areas like some of the places that I represent in 
Fort Worth and Dallas. But the one new store that you will 
always see if you can drive through the community outside of a 
fast food place will be a cell phone place. The cell phone 
companies are well-represented in these areas because they see 
them as opportunities for big business.
    Do you think that it makes sense to start looking at 
whether it's unlimited data plans or what have you as a more 
viable way for communities to be connected--to be able to do 
things like homework and what have you, if it can be offered at 
a more affordable price?
    Mr. Edmonds. No. I always caution people about the tales of 
smartphones. You know, when I tell people that, you know, 
children just having smart phones they're missing out on the 
ability to type.
    Typing is a workforce skill. And so I see the value in cell 
phones and I really do. I think that's something that's great 
to be able to communicate. It's great for emergency response.
    But at the end of the day, we don't want to stymie our 
workforce by going with the solution that I think is, in many 
cases, misguided. When we begin also looking at cell phones, 
while, yes, there are a lot of cell phone stores, we also have 
the data that nearly 40 percent of Detroit residents are 
actually struggling with affording a perpetual data plan cost.
    And so while people might procure a cell phone device 
that's useful, wife is where they are essentially going. So 
applications that allow people to be able to send texts or send 
messages over wife are becoming much more popular. So someone 
can procure a device.
    But at the end of the day, those wife networks are--that is 
where the real value is. So you see people get those devices at 
those cell phone stores. But then they'll go to where they find 
those free wife locations such as McDonald's or a library.
    Mr. Veasey. Thank you. I have a lot more actually but my 
magic 5 minutes have elapsed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and if I start asking 
health care questions you will know that I am in the wrong 
committee because we've got two committees going on here today. 
Running back and forth between them.
    But, Dr. Layton, in your testimony you talk about consumer 
choice and how a flexible market can allow consumers to adopt 
the services they need.
    While America may have slightly higher broadband prices 
than other countries, what has this approach done for the 
quality of networks that we do have?
    Ms. Layton. So I think the main reason is that we have a 
higher quality. I mean, we are--we have many ways we are 
leading in a lot of network technologies of all kinds, wireless 
and wireline, and part of that relates to the investment 
incentives and the ability to have broadband at different 
prices. That's an important thing if you want next-generation 
networks.
    Mr. Long. Ok. Thank you.
    And do you--again, for you, Dr. Layton--do voluntary 
efforts to promote broadband adoption strike the right balance 
between preventing over-regulation and bridging the 
affordability gap?
    Ms. Layton. So I, personally, would like to see more 
flexibility in the marketplace. I think that hitherto we have--
the regulators have defined the parameters. We haven't focused 
enough on security and that's very important to consumers.
    The regulators have overfocused on speed. I think the point 
was made today that, you know, you may--your house may have a--
be passed by a gigabit network but you don't use the full the 
speed on that network.
    That was the Wall Street Journal article that was 
referenced before. Because depending on the application, you 
may not need the fastest speed.
    So there are different applications, different needs, and 
different prices. So that's why one single price doesn't 
reflect--it doesn't address the actual needs in the 
marketplace.
    Mr. Long. OK. And do they also help promote broadband 
deployment?
    Ms. Layton. Absolutely, because when a--when an operator is 
thinking about deploying, they are going to try to serve 
different needs. There may be enterprise needs. There are 
individual needs, families, single persons.
    They're not all going to have the same needs and they have 
to have different price points to meet those different needs. 
They need different packages. And so that part is why the 
flexibility needs to be there.
    We have overly relied on the FCC defining what the features 
should be. But that limits the ability of the consumers to 
define what's important for them.
    Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
    I was an auctioneer for 30 years before I came to Congress 
so I talk faster than most people. So I am going to yield back 
two and a half minutes of my five.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Doyle. Well done, Mr. Long.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking 
Member Latta.
    I am part of our recent work to secure funds for broadband 
development and ensuring the FCC's maps are accurate. The 
digital divide is more than just accurate maps and laying fiber 
in the ground.
    It's about access, affordability, Americans feeling 
empowered online with computer skills. And in my district and 
in rural America I believe that the competition of speeds in 
rural areas to be able to compete with the rest of the nation 
and the rest of the world should not be at the FCC's minimum. 
We shouldn't just be happy with getting some internet to 
people. It has to be competitive internet to people.
    According to a recent Pew Research Survey 10 percent of the 
U.S.'s adults do not use the internet. The survey found that 
the majority of these adults were either seniors--27 percent--I 
have a very large population of seniors in the district--had 
less than a high school education, 29 percent.
    I believe that higher speeds would help with that, being 
able to have people stay in high school and get a better 
education in rural areas. And were low-income earners, $33,000 
or less--18 percent--and lived in rural areas, 22 percent. And 
I also happen to have the largest Native American population in 
the lower 48 states.
    Closing the digital divide is a complex problem that 
impacts many constituents in my district. I look forward to 
finding bipartisan solutions to address these problems.
    The Arizona students recycling used technology program is a 
great example of increasing access to internet capability 
devices. Industry partners donate used hardware to local 
universities for students to refurbish their laptops and 
computers.
    Local libraries will then pair this equipment up with wife 
hot spots to help connect their communities. Hopefully, we can 
stop them having to go to McDonald's to do that in the parking 
lot.
    One testimonial from the Page Public Library describes this 
program as a fantastic service for the community and help many 
compete online job applications.
    Mr. Edmonds, you discussed the importance of public-private 
partnerships in the community to increase broadband access. Can 
FCC or NDIA programs do more with states to develop similar 
inclusion programs?
    Mr. Edmonds. Short answer, yes. I believe all--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. O'Halleran. Give me your long answer.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Edmonds. I believe all of us can do more and one thing 
that I always want to I guess keep at the forefront, the value 
of local leadership but also recognizing how diverse we are as 
America.
    So, you know, within your respective district you have 
different cities that maybe some of the solutions that I would 
propose in Detroit would be different and, you know, that's OK.
    But at the end of the day, we see that there is, you know, 
the private sector has a role. The public sector has a role. 
The Federal Government has a role.
    We all have different roles here, and I think that what we 
are seeing locally is that, you know, we are in our capacity 
doing the best that we can but we really aren't getting that 
leadership oversight that we need to say that it would, 
essentially, legitimize our cause more than what we are already 
doing.
    Mr. O'Halleran. So what can we do?
    Mr. Edmonds. Well, I would say at the onset, one, I think 
that it's great to recognizing this issue. Whenever we look at 
the digital inclusion three-legged stool, advocacy and 
awareness is oftentimes left out of that equation. And so just 
being great advocates, for one.
    But two, even making, like, digital readiness 
recommendations and kind of attaching funding to that. I think 
that's where we are a little anaemic on. Again, we could come 
to the--if we were able to come to the table and essentially go 
to the private sector and say hey, these are the resources that 
are made available to us; what would you be interested in 
supporting as well.
    That doesn't happen at this point. Right now we are just 
going to them directly and saying, hey, glad that you're here. 
We don't have any money but this is our issue. And so if there 
was any type of funding that was attached to this we could 
actually do some real damage here.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    Ms. Siefer, Arizona has a plan and a broadband office 
focused on digital inclusion efforts statewide. However, some 
states still do not have this type of plan.
    Would you discuss the importance of every states appointing 
a trusted official or a program to support broadband expansion 
in digital literacy in 10 seconds?
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Siefer. In 10 seconds.
    So most states don't have a plan. Everything that Jeff has 
described to you today everyone should know that that is not 
the norm. Jeff gets asked to speak, his staff get asked to 
speak because they are leading--they are leading it all, right. 
And yes, Arizona has--they have a staff member at the state 
library whose title includes the term digital inclusion.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, and I yield.
    Ms. Siefer. So, runs around the country, runs around 
Arizona helping folks. We should have that everywhere.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. Gentleman's time has expired.
    The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    This hearing is incredibly timely. I just recently, when we 
were in the district last week, visited a number of communities 
because we had a mayor's election in November and so I have a 
number of new mayors in small communities and visited both 
large cities like the city of Indianapolis that I represent up 
to smaller communities, little communities like Gas City, 
Hartford City--very small, under 5,000 people, and actually the 
issue of availability of broadband and availability of 
connection to the internet is something that is critically 
important to every community regardless of its size because it 
will determine--and I want to thank each of you for your 
testimony.
    It was all very, very helpful to learn and I hope that the 
mayors that I have recently visited with, you know, have 
learned that we do have, you know, positions like yours, Mr. 
Edmonds, in Detroit, positions like yours, Mr. Sural, in North 
Carolina, because I do think the leadership--and while Indiana 
is investing in--our Governor Holcomb is investing $100 million 
in next-level broadband to try to help communities, some of 
these new mayors weren't aware of that and weren't aware that 
our state legislature has decided to invest in trying to make 
it available.
    But I think one--we called--one of my staffers called a 
small telecom to talk about a small internet provider and to 
get to the second. He actually said, and this is something 
we've all heard, you can offer the horse all the water you want 
but if he ain't thirsty he's not going to drink it. I happen to 
ride and I know what he's talking about.
    And so the challenge that we do have as a country is trying 
to educate in many ways people I think, particularly senior 
citizens, more so than the younger people. They are growing up 
with it. It is something they are so accustomed to.
    But I want to, you know, spend a little bit more time on 
how can we focus on including the seniors. I went into one of 
the mayor's offices and there was a senior citizen sitting at a 
public access computer outside of his office and I thought that 
was great.
    I have been to my public libraries and have seen a number 
of people going. But yet, I was also at our state's community 
college system when people were getting laid off from their 
jobs.
    We were teaching them during the recession what a mouse was 
and how to use a computer, and I think people don't appreciate 
that that divide still exists in our country.
    So I want to focus with my limited time left how can we 
educate and do a better job of educating people? I really think 
it is more of an age issue than we all want to admit. Our young 
kids, it's second nature to them, more so than maybe it is 
using a pencil or a pen.
    And so how can we reach--what would be your one idea to 
help us? And I want to do kind of a lightning round. What would 
be your idea? I am sorry we are going to get to you last, Mr. 
Sural, but I want to get everyone's quick idea of how do we 
expand the literacy.
    Ms. Siefer. So the digital inclusion programs that are out 
there now are on the ground, created locally. They know what 
works, right?
    They work with those senior centers. They work with seniors 
and they know that it's whatever matters to that senior. What 
matters to that senior? Is it talking to their kids via 
Facebook? Then that's--then that's what you do it.
    Mrs. Brooks. Right. That's when my mother got on Facebook. 
Right.
    Ms. Siefer. That's right.
    Mrs. Brooks. And to Dr. Layton's point, it was what is 
the--what is the service they're trying to access, not the 
network.
    Ms. Siefer. Right. Well, in the state of Indiana--and I 
want to applaud you because you have been--Indiana has been 
really amazing around the supply side of things, making the way 
for the 5G networks and so on and understanding all of that.
    But you could also look at the state government digitizing 
the state services. In some respects the government itself 
becoming more efficient can provide a pull to the industries 
and consumers that they have to just become digital as a 
result.
    Mrs. Brooks. I agree.
    Ms. Siefer. That has--that has one outcome side of it.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
    Mr. Edmonds?
    Mr. Edmonds. So I actually engage seniors semi-regularly 
and we actually had a group of seniors where their library 
closed in their community, and they found my phone number and 
called me and said, hey, you know, our library closed--what can 
we do to connect.
    You know, we can't compete with the other kids who are just 
there all day. They take all the stuff. But what can we do, and 
I think so place-based recommendations are going to be huge 
here.
    Mrs. Brooks. OK.
    Mr. Edmonds. Finding a place where seniors really feel 
comfortable.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thanks. I want to keep--Mr. Sural?
    Mr. Sural. So my father is 78. He does not consider himself 
a senior citizen but he takes computer classes up at the 
library. So community anchor institutions are key.
    Mrs. Brooks. That's excellent.
    Ms. Sohn?
    Ms. Sohn. Community anchor institutions are excellent and 
passage of the Digital Equity Act so that the folks that Angela 
represents have the resources to educate everybody including 
seniors.
    Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you all for 
your work.
    Mr. Doyle. gentle lady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 
Ranking Member Latta. I thank our panelists for lending their 
expertise to us today. The American people deserve access to 
broadband devices and the internet. They deserve affordable 
services and they deserve today's hearing.
    Congressman McNerney, Lujan, and I recently introduced H.R. 
4486, the Digital Equity Act, to ensure every person is 
provided access to digital literacy they deserve in 2020 and 
beyond.
    Information is power and someone's income level or zip code 
should have zero impact on their access to broadband internet.
    They should not have to depend on smartphones as their only 
means to participate in today's economy. And so I thank you 
once again for being here to address the critical issue of the 
digital divide.
    I wanted to start with the issue of the census, because 
we've talked about access and everything else, and I see 
everyone nodding. Being a member of the Congressional Black 
Caucus's 2020 Census Task Force, I believe that every person 
should be counted. I also represent a historically hard-to-
count district.
    Let me start with you, Ms. Siefer. In your testimony, you 
discussed the U.S. Census Bureau's online data collection and 
digital inequity across the United States.
    Can you please expand on your suggestion that the Federal 
Government should do--should boost broadband adoption to ensure 
an accurate count?
    Ms. Siefer. Right. So we know that the census is going to 
be conducted it online. We know that they are going to be 
encouraging folks to fill it out online. And so how does that 
actually play out? It means that libraries are going to end up 
places that folks go.
    It means that those who don't have digital skills might 
just decide not to fill it out at all, right, that the--there's 
lots of ways that the community itself can respond but if they 
don't have the resources to respond then those individuals just 
won't--they won't get counted.
    Mr. Edmonds. Yes, and I would like to follow up with that a 
bit and just--kind of how I've been summarizing it and telling 
to people, well, if you don't essentially have the internet 
then essentially you don't count, and if you don't count then 
you don't matter.
    And we don't want to, obviously, send that message and it's 
a really, really bleak and hard-hitting message. But that's 
what needs to be said.
    And so when--even locally on the ground we are looking to 
galvanize every resource possible. It's working with rappers 
just as much as we are working with our local grocery stores, 
actually putting in kiosks any and everywhere. But one thing 
that--it's a bit bleak as well but maybe morbid optimism--
America has two options with the census.
    Either you prioritize digital equity at the onset and you 
do a good job in the census, or you don't, and then you're 
penalized for it. So, therefore, you would have to prioritize 
digital equity, moving forward.
    Ms. Clarke. OK. Did you want to respond, Dr. Layton?
    OK. Ms. Sohn?
    Ms. Sohn. Yes. I would just say, look, the reason that 
racial minorities are already way behind in broadband adoption 
is because of structural discrimination, because of 
discriminatory lending practices and housing practices. We 
don't want to exacerbate that by having them not be counted.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Sural?
    Mr. Sural. So a lot of scrutiny has been applied to the 
FCC's data collection and their mapping. But one of the things 
that's overlooked is that they rely on the 2010 census numbers 
to determine the number of households that are either served or 
unserved in the census bloc. So having accurate census numbers 
are key to determining where that funding from the FCC will go.
    Ms. Clarke. So we may be creating even--digging an even 
deeper hole in terms of mapping if those who don't have access 
right now are unable to participate in the 2020 census.
    Mr. Sural. Correct.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    My final question is to you, Mr. Edmonds. A lot of the 
conversation about bridging the digital divide is focused on 
rural areas. But I am curious about how this conversation plays 
out in low-income urban areas.
    Can you share more information about how many people in 
Detroit lack access to broadband and how--and share why they 
are unconnected?
    Mr. Edmonds. Sure. So over 40 percent of our residents 
don't have broadband. Twenty-seven percent of our residents 
don't have broadband of any kind and approximately 20 percent 
of our residents are only cell phone only households.
    And, really, you're seeing just--people are essentially 
getting in where they fit in and when you're looking at why 
people essentially aren't adopting, you know, cost is, 
obviously, the biggest barrier.
    Again, I am going to keep going back to how perpetual 
billing really disenfranchises people. Across America, from 
2012 to 2017 approximately 1,600 banks closed in rural and 
urban areas. Oftentimes those areas were low income, the 
residents had less years of education and they were 
predominantly African American.
    And when we begin looking at the role that banking 
institutions have played and for them to be going to online 
banking what role does that have to play with financial 
literacy and what role does that have to play pairing it with 
digital literacy training?
    I think that when we begin unpacking these issues and 
looking at it from a very, very nuanced perspective, we are 
seeing, again, there are so many factors that are keeping 
people online and they're essentially tied to other industries 
where we might not necessarily have the focus on at the moment.
    Mr. Doyle. gentle lady's time has expired.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Doyle. The Chair recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Also, my colleague, Mrs. Brooks, wanted me to make sure 
that we do understand that the census can be done on paper, 
too. I don't want to--don't want to forget that. We want to use 
it all sorts of ways as best as possible and I thank the panel 
for being here. I think it's an outstanding panel because of Go 
Blue's involvement.
    Mr. Edmonds--Mr. Edmonds, you are a--you're doing a great 
job. I think--I think you will help a lot of people come to 
understand and use it just because of the smile on your face 
and your energy that's there.
    Mr. Edmonds. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Walberg. Mr. Sural, do I understand you have some Go 
Blue background as well?
    Mr. Sural. I do. Go Blue. I was born in Ann Arbor.
    Mr. Walberg. And western Michigan, too?
    Mr. Sural. Western Michigan? In law school. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Walberg. Yes. Well, we can see the value of this panel 
here.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Walberg. Like many others on this dais, my district is 
very rural, a lot of it, and including myself. I have a smart 
TV. It tells me that every time I turn it on. But I can't use 
it as a smart TV.
    You can imagine the excitement of last week when I had 
Chairman Pai in my district with me and talking about key 
issues and then going out to the field and seeing broadband 
being stretched right near my Harley Davidson dealership and 
out in the country as well and a matter of a few miles from my 
house.
    So I am hopeful that soon I will be part of the real world 
and my hot spot and my wife won't be the only options that I 
have to connect.
    And those are issues we've been talking about, but another 
bipartisan issue that I want to address here and take note of 
is something that I've worked with Representative Clarke. I see 
she's not there right now.
    But a key issue called a tower act and I think it goes to 
the issue of being able now to see more broadband and fiber 
being stretched and pulled because of the good economy, because 
of good policies I think we are developing together and moving 
forward.
    But we need to have people who will be a high-skilled 
workforce able to put up the internet for us and understand 
that these can be excellent jobs--lifetime jobs--that have 
expandable opportunities to deploy fiber, 5G, et cetera, and 
that our HBCU and minority populations need to understand that 
clearly.
    Mr. Edmonds, you can help us with that extensively because 
we are talking about jobs that will be high paying but require 
in many cases less than a four-year education and allow for 
expanded four-year education if you want to do that by putting 
up those resources--those towers, et cetera.
    Dr. Layton, as you noted in your testimony, some research 
has shown that low-income Americans or Americans with lower 
education levels who had access to the internet thanks to a 
temporary subsidy often choose to remain connected at its 
conclusion. I think, Mr. Sural, you pointed that out as well.
    Dr. Layton, do you think that principle would translate if 
we are able to increase the number of people in the workforce 
for deployment in these areas as well simply by providing them 
exposure to broadband conceptually as well as higher incomes?
    Ms. Layton. The question is what is it--the subsidy or the 
training?
    Mr. Walberg. The subside and, ultimately, the ability to 
hear and see and be involved and understanding that it's now 
available to me.
    Ms. Layton. So I agree with what you're saying. I mean, I 
think you're absolutely right. You have the workforce issue.
    We have described that for some people that it is an 
economic issue and that we need targeted subsidies for those 
individuals and we also have a skills gap to address. So I 
support those things.
    Mr. Walberg. So in that line, Mr. Edmonds, I would also 
ask, I would assume that if we get people to understand that 
this is for me now and if we are going to put these in and they 
see the technology--the towers, et cetera--going into a 
neighborhood that that's an opportunity for employment as well.
    Mr. Edmonds. It absolutely is an opportunity for employment 
and one thing that I would like to, you know, highlight with 
these, these are Americans who are really willing and ready to 
work and to participate in the economy. If they were extended a 
fair hand they would excel in that.
    Mr. Walberg. Of course, that's what we want to see.
    My time has expired. I yield back.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Sural, of the various programs your office carries out, 
can you talk about what your state--how your state plays in 
digital literacy activities? Is that something primarily 
carried out at the state level or the local level?
    Mr. Sural. Thank you. It's carried out mostly at the local 
level. We have larger municipalities who have created digital 
inclusion working groups or collaborative.
    But at the state level, we saw that work being done in some 
of our larger municipalities and through some of our 
universities. HBCUs were recently mentioned.
    North Carolina Central has an active program that helps and 
serves Durham. And so what we did at the state level was we 
decided to get all those folks together for lunch one day and 
we ended up creating the statewide collaborative to learn from 
them, and then to take what they've done successfully and try 
to what we call R&D--rip off and duplicate--in other areas of 
the state, either in municipalities or the rural areas.
    Rural areas are particularly challenged with this issue 
because they just don't have those underlying resources or 
advocates like they do in the urban areas.
    Mr. Johnson. OK. All right.
    Well, in your testimony you talk about how North Carolina 
is piloting innovative ideas to create sustainable solutions 
for broadband adoption. Can you give us a few more specific 
examples of what those pilots may entail that other states 
aren't doing?
    Mr. Sural. Sure. Sure. And we received a grant from IMLS 
that I mentioned in my opening and it's $250,000. So that's 
important because we just didn't have the resources.
    I mean, we had smart people who were very charming and good 
at what they did. But without funding, we couldn't implement 
some of the ideas that we had. So thank you to IMLS for that 
grant.
    It's a two-year grant program and what we are going to do, 
the objective of that grant program is to create a play book 
for librarians; basically, something that we think we can scale 
not only across the state but across the nation.
    And so what we did was we set up digital literacy training 
and equipment and provided equipment to K through 12 students 
and families at the local library. We partnered with the school 
that had a one-on-one program so the student had a device but 
maybe no connectivity at home.
    We provided them with a wife hot spot or a cellular hot 
spot and then they came in for six training sessions with their 
parents and they sat down and we did digital literacy training 
at the library with the computers there.
    The issue is sustainability after the grant ends and how we 
allow that librarian, who is strapped for resources in the 
poorest of the poor counties in North Carolina to continue this 
program, and we are going to take lessons learned from that and 
we'll wrap it in and we'll have it in our report and, 
hopefully, we'll have that play book out for everyone. So 
that's just one of the--
    Mr. Johnson. OK. Well, how important is sharing information 
on various broadband adoption initiatives through other state 
government channels? How important is that in improving 
broadband adoption--the broadband adoption rate nationwide?
    Mr. Sural. It's critical. It's what we have now. The 
network that we have now is important. In 2015 when I started 
this job we had 12 states that were part of what we called the 
State Broadband Leaders Network that works with NDIA to 
coordinate some of our meetings and monthly phone calls.
    Today, there are 48 states involved. This is how active 
states have gotten just over in that short period of time and 
how they see the need and how they can--and they know now that 
they can lead and so they're doing that.
    Mr. Johnson. Well, I imagine using the breadth of different 
community centers and state offices provides a good platform to 
spread awareness of the different resources out there. So I 
commend you for what you're doing. Keep it up.
    Mr. Chairman, I don't talk nearly as fast as my colleague, 
Billy Long, does. But I will yield back the balance of my time, 
too.
    Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
    Seeing no one else looking for time, the Chair requests 
unanimous consent to enter the following into the record: a 
letter from Silicon Harlem, a letter from Seattle Mayor Jenny 
Durkan, a letter from Chattanooga Mayor Andy Burke, a letter 
from Digital Equity.
    Without objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Doyle. I want to thank the witnesses for their 
participation in today's hearing. I would remind Members that 
pursuant to committee rules they have ten business days to 
submit additional questions for the record to be answered by 
the witnesses who have appeared and I would ask each witness to 
respond promptly to any questions that you may receive.
    At this time, the committee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone

    Today's hearing focuses on promoting broadband adoption, an 
issue that affects every one of our districts whether they are 
urban, suburban, or rural. On this Committee, we have on many 
occasions discussed gaps in internet access and how to 
subsidize and incentivize building the infrastructure necessary 
to ensure that everyone has access to reliable, high-speed, and 
resilient internet service. But we must also consider the gaps 
in internet adoption-why people don't, or can't, subscribe to 
internet service when it is available to them.
    It is increasingly difficult to participate in today's 
economy without internet service, and yet millions of Americans 
who are wired for internet access aren't actually connected. 
The key reason most are not connected is cost.
    In New Jersey studies have found that nearly 17 percent of 
residents have no internet access in their homes. Of the 
families making $35,000 per year or less, only half have home 
internet connections. That means school kids in these 
households have to find public internet connections or wi-fi to 
complete schoolwork. And their parents are having to fill out 
job applications and complete educational courses on smart 
phones or at libraries. This certainly puts these families at a 
disadvantage.
    Fortunately, there are programs at the state, local and 
federal level that can provide assistance to people who have 
trouble affording internet access. But at the federal level we 
can and must do more.
    As we consider how to spend proceeds of future spectrum 
auctions, it is important that we invest in solutions to 
address these adoption issues. Members have introduced 
legislation to begin closing these adoption gaps. I'm hopeful 
we can work to find a way to make these proposals-or others 
that might come as a result of this hearing today-bipartisan.
    The internet holds incredible promise for the future, but 
as the technology continues to advance, we must make sure that 
people are not left behind. That's the concept of digital 
equity, and it is one I know we will all stand up for. I look 
forward to hearing more from our witnesses and to finding 
bipartisan solutions to these issues.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]