[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
      RURAL BROADBAND--EXAMINING INTERNET CONNECTIVITY NEEDS AND 
                             OPPORTUNITIES
                            IN RURAL AMERICA

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             APRIL 20, 2021

                               __________

                            Serial No. 117-4
                            
                            
                            
   [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                          
                            
                            
                            


          Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
                         agriculture.house.gov
                         
                         
                         
                         
                           ______                       


                U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 47-123PDF               WASHINGTON : 2022                         
                         
                         


                        COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE

                     DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman

JIM COSTA, California                GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, 
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts     Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas                  AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice  ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, 
Chair                                Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia   SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut            VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York            DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine               RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands             TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois               DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York       JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands   JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona              CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California        TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California                MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida              TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California           RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota               MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California              BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa                   KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington              MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California            JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia

                                 ______

                      Anne Simmons, Staff Director

                 Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director

                                  (ii)
                                  
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Cammack, Hon. Kat, a Representative in Congress from Florida, 
  submitted map..................................................   130
Cloud, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas, 
  submitted maps.................................................   129
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California, 
  submitted statement on behalf of Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, 
  President and Chief Executive Officer, Wireless Infrastructure 
  Association....................................................   108
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota, 
  submitted fact sheet...........................................   110
Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa, 
  submitted comment letter; authored by Michael R. Romano, Senior 
  Vice President--Industry Affairs & Business Development, NTCA--
  The Rural Broadband Association................................   113
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia, 
  opening statement..............................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
    Submitted letters on behalf of:
        Berry, Steven K., President & Chief Executive Officer, 
          Competitive Carriers Association.......................   101
        Spalter, Jonathan, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
          USTelecomDThe Broadband Association....................   102
    Joint submitted letter on behalf of James D. Ogsbury, 
      Executive Director, Western Governors' Association.........   104
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from 
  Pennsylvania, opening statement................................     3
    Joint submitted letter on behalf of James D. Ogsbury, 
      Executive Director, Western Governors' Association.........   104

                               Witnesses

Prather, Jennifer L., Vice President and General Manager, 
  Totelcom Communications, LLC, De Leon, TX; on behalf of NTCA--
  The Rural Broadband Association................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
    Submitted questions..........................................   131
Johnson, Timothy R., Chief Executive Officer, OEConnect, LLC and 
  Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc., Hartwick, NY................    14
    Prepared statement...........................................    16
    Submitted questions..........................................   133
Robinson, Esq., Vickie S., General Manager, Microsoft Global 
  Airband Initiative, Washington, D.C............................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    22
    Submitted question...........................................   137
Park, Ph.D., Johnny, Chief Executive Officer, Wabash Heartland 
  Innovation Network, West Lafayette, IN.........................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29
    Submitted question...........................................   137


       RURAL BROADBAND--EXAMINING INTERNET CONNECTIVITY NEEDS AND

                     OPPORTUNITIES IN RURAL AMERICA

                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021

                          House of Representatives,
                                  Committee on Agriculture,
                                                   Washington, D.C.
    The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:11 
a.m., via Webex, Hon. David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the 
Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia, 
Costa, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Sablan, Kuster, 
Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran, Carbajal, Khanna, 
Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier, Panetta, Thompson, Austin 
Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, Hartzler, LaMalfa, 
Davis, Allen, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Hagedorn, 
Jacobs, Balderson, Cloud, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore, 
Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
    Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Emily German, Prescott 
Martin III, Anne Simmons, Ashley Smith, Paul Balzano, Caleb 
Crosswhite, Erin Wilson, and Dana Sandman.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                     CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA

    The Chairman. All right. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are 
here to deal with one of the most important issues that our 
nation is faced with, and that is bringing rural broadband 
internet connections to everyone, including our rural 
communities. And I want to make it clear how important this is, 
and this is a number one issue facing our Committee. And I 
honestly believe that we are up to the task of getting it done 
now. Our rural communities have waited long enough. We want to 
be that galvanizing force to say let's do it now without delay.
    Ladies and gentlemen, 24 million of our American citizens, 
24 million in our rural communities have no access to the 
internet at a time when it is critical. Ladies and gentlemen, 
let me tell you another reason why this is so dear and 
important to me. I was born in a rural area, grew up there on 
my grandparent's farm back in the day when we had no running 
water, but the urban cities had running water. We had to get it 
out of the well, get it out of the pump for everything. I was 
there when we had no electricity. We had the kerosene lamps 
when in the cities and the urban areas, they had electricity. 
Television was coming in. They could have the TV, radio, all of 
that. We in the rural areas did not. We are in that same 
situation now because our rural communities don't have access 
to the internet. And I am telling you, we have talented and 
gifted Members on this Committee, both Democrats and 
Republicans, who have talked to me. We have shared our passion, 
and I am convinced that we here on the House Agriculture 
Committee can be the vanguard to now pass the money we need, 
get it out there in our communities now.
    To help us solve this issue, we have assembled expert 
witnesses to come and tell us how we can do it now. They are 
experts in constructing and maintaining broadband networks in 
rural areas. And as I said, we are blessed to have the talented 
Members of Congress. I can think of no Committee that has more 
talent on it than ours. We can do the job because we are 
committed to do it.
    But in our rural areas where they have no internet, there 
is no telemedicine. There is no rural healthcare there. And 
what healthcare they have is at a disadvantage without the 
technology and the internet. Students in our schools in the 
rural areas are at a disadvantage without access to broadband. 
And ladies and gentlemen, this is where our wonderful world of 
agriculture produces the food we need, the clothing we need, 
our timber for shelter. All the basic necessities are done in 
the rural areas, and if we are not able to get our farmers 
technologically up to date, we will gradually, and maybe even 
quicker than gradually, fall behind our current position, which 
we are hanging on by our fingernails, as being number one in 
the world in agriculture. We won't be able to keep this much 
longer if we don't put internet connections into our rural 
communities.
    Let me just tell you, the benefits of what we call 
precision agriculture technologies that our farmers use, they 
have to have the access to the broadband to do it. Our fight 
for climate change, our farmers are moving with no-till 
farming, cover crops, but they are also moving into an arena 
now where a plethora of carbon markets are being established. 
We won't be able to manifest our movements in the climate 
change fight if our rural communities do not have that for more 
accurate planning, pest and nutrient management, for 
harvesting, for identifying new markets to sell their crops.
    And so, this meeting is designed to help me and our Ranking 
Member, Mr. Thompson, as well as those of you on this 
Committee, to find out what we can do and what we must do. We 
can do it, gang. We are here in the right place at the right 
time to be the leaders in Congress to finally make sure that 
everybody in our nation, including these 24 million in the 
rural communities, finally have rural broadband internet 
connections.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
    Good morning, we are here today to discuss the critical issue of 
rural broadband and to hear from our witnesses about their experiences 
constructing and maintaining broadband networks in rural America. As 
always, I'd like to thank my Ranking Member for his bipartisan 
cooperation and willingness to work with me on this issue. I think we 
have a fantastic opportunity to seize this moment and take meaningful 
action to close the digital divide.
    Rural broadband is critical for the growth and development of our 
rural communities. It's essential we act to finally close the digital 
divide that has kept so many of our rural communities from reaching 
their full potential. As we have seen laid bare throughout this 
pandemic, we cannot delay in our efforts.
    Rural broadband offers answers to many of the toughest issues 
facing rural communities today. The COVID-19 pandemic further 
highlighted the scarcity of health care resources in rural America. 
Access to quality high-speed broadband can not only provide rural 
residents with options for telemedicine, for health care facilities 
that require access to broadband it also allows for health care 
facilities to establish their operations in rural areas, bringing 
quality jobs and increasing the overall health and development of the 
community.
    Our nation's students and businesses also experienced many changes 
during the pandemic, with many becoming fully remote at some point in 
2020. Students without access to broadband, or the internet connected 
devices remote work relies on, were severely disadvantaged in their 
ability to learn and succeed. Many businesses also relied on their 
broadband connection to continue operating and stay afloat during the 
pandemic.
    Broadband also provides opportunities to help us reach our climate 
change goals. The benefits of precision agriculture extend far beyond 
the farm, but to use these technologies farmers must have access to 
broadband. Precision agriculture provides farmers with information that 
allows for more accurate planting, pest and nutrient management, 
harvesting and provides farmers with opportunities to identify new 
markets to sell their crops.
    I am excited to hear from the panel of witnesses that are before us 
today. Their experiences with building, expanding, and maintaining 
broadband networks in rural areas will help us identify how we can 
improve current broadband programs and target our investments to ensure 
communities have access to the resources they need to establish quality 
broadband services. I look forward to their important testimony.
    I'd now like to welcome the distinguished Ranking Member, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for any opening remarks he 
would like to give.

    The Chairman. And now, I certainly yield to my 
distinguished Ranking Member for any remarks he would like to 
make.

 OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                   CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA

    Mr. Thompson. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chairman, for years, the digital divide has left many 
Americans unable to access reliable, high-speed internet 
service with sufficient bandwidth to support all of the 
different programs or needs that we know that we have out 
there, from precision agriculture, to healthcare, to education, 
to commerce, and it has resulted in lost opportunities to 
expand businesses, to learn new skills, or even participate in 
daily activities.
    I see this constant frustration every day. I am fortunate 
to live in the service territory of a rural electric 
cooperative which offers quality internet service to my home, 
but just a few miles away, my neighbors are on the wrong side 
of the digital divide. I represent 14 counties in rural 
Pennsylvania, and I can tell you it is like this all across my 
district, with digital haves and have nots just down the road 
from one another. It is a checkerboard of connectivity.
    In the height of the pandemic, I heard one too many 
homeschooling horror stories that were the result of not having 
reliable access to the internet. A number of families were 
driving to the local library, sitting in a parking lot, and 
hoping to connect with the public WiFi within that building in 
hopes of completing assignments. COVID-19 laid bare the urgency 
of rural broadband, but the connectivity struggles in rural 
communities predate this pandemic, and they will not ease as we 
return to normal. As more of American life is being put online, 
more of it is being put out of reach for Americans without 
high-speed internet access with sufficient bandwidth, and those 
without are falling further behind.
    Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, too 
many communities are being left behind, and that is why today's 
hearing is so important.
    Broadband is not just needed in our homes; it is 
desperately needed on our farms as well. The demands of a 21st 
century farm economy depends on reliable connectivity. This 
Committee has done tremendous work on a bipartisan basis to 
address the digital divide, most recently with the broadband 
provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill. Those changes reflected 2 
years of work to develop policies and design programs which 
meet the unique challenges of rural communities. Unfortunately, 
those policies and programs are languishing. Changes and 
improvements championed by the Members of this Committee 
regarding eligible areas, long-term network viability, 
assistance for our most rural communities, program integrity 
and more, remain unfunded and unimplemented more than 2 years 
after they were signed into law. This is unacceptable, and it 
should be unacceptable to every Member of this Committee. We 
simply cannot do that if our best ideas are discarded.
    So, Mr. Chairman, today I am going to renew my request to 
the Appropriations Committee to move past the ReConnect Pilot 
Program and finally fund the programs which we wrote together 
in the last farm bill. ReConnect has served its purpose as a 
pilot program, and now it is time to deliver on policies and 
programs that we promised the American people 2 years ago.
    Now, I look forward to working with you as we engage our 
colleagues to tell the story of the 2018 Farm Bill and the 
improvements that we made. Now we have a great panel of 
witnesses today who understand the challenges and the 
complexity of operating rural broadband networks, bringing 
innovative solutions to life, and most importantly, serving 
their communities. So, welcome, Ms. Prather, Mr. Johnson, Ms. 
Robinson, and Dr. Park. Each of you has a remarkable story to 
tell of your work on behalf of rural communities across the 
country. I thank you for spending your time with us today, and 
I certainly look forward to your testimony.
    Mr. Chairman, 100 years ago, if the electrification of 
rural America was done with the same piecemeal and silos that 
we experience today in our work with broadband, I fear that 
many communities would still be in the dark.
    So, I would like to close on a personal note, Mr. Chairman. 
There was a lot of frustration on this side of the dais during 
the reconciliation markup, but you committed then to making 
broadband a priority, and making it bipartisan. And we are here 
today making it bipartisan and a priority. So, thank you for 
being true to your word. I look forward to working with you and 
Chairman Delgado, Ranking Member Fischbach, and all of our 
Members as we strengthen the case for the broadband investments 
needed in rural America and our rural communities.
    Thank you so much, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you, our Ranking Member Thompson. 
I appreciate that.
    The chair now would request that other Members submit their 
opening statements for the record so our witnesses may begin 
their testimony now.
    We have such a distinguished panel that is here, and I 
would just want to take a few minutes to tell you about them.
    First, I am pleased to welcome our first witness, Ms. 
Jennifer Prather. Ms. Prather is the Vice President and General 
Manager of Totelcom Communications, a rural broadband and 
telecommunications company headquarters in De Leon, Texas. 
Totelcom Communications is a community-based provider that 
employs fiber, wireless, and traditional copper-based 
facilities to deliver quality broadband to its customers.
    To introduce our second witness, I am pleased to yield to 
our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York and 
the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges, 
Energy, and Credit, Congressman Antonio Delgado. You are now 
recognized.
    Mr. Delgado. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking 
Member Thompson. It is my privilege to introduce our next 
witness and my constituent, Tim Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the CEO 
of OEConnect, LLC, and Otsego Electric Cooperative. Now, Tim 
and I have had many conversations back home in the district, 
both in person and virtually of late, about the critically 
important work of Otsego Electric Cooperative. He is a true 
leader in our community and has extensive knowledge about rural 
broadband access and affordability. Otsego Electric Cooperative 
provides broadband service to thousands of households in the 
most rural and underserved parts of upstate New York. The 
cooperative is located within the community it serves, and 
understands that broadband access empowers our rural 
communities. The cooperative also understands that rural 
broadband access and affordability go hand-in-hand. It has made 
these services available at a fair price. The COVID-19 pandemic 
has made even more clear that having reliable internet 
connection is a necessity, and Otsego Electric Cooperative has 
worked tirelessly to expand broadband access, making sure 
healthcare workers have service, helping students attend remote 
learning, and ensuring small businesses can enter the e-
commerce marketplace. I am proud that New York District 19 is 
represented here today by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, I look 
forward to hearing your testimony and learning more about how 
Congress can best support you in making sure that rural areas 
have equitable access to broadband. Welcome.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    And now to introduce our third witness, I would like to 
yield to Congresswoman Kim Schrier, our distinguished colleague 
from Washington.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to 
introduce Vickie Robinson, the General Manager of Microsoft's 
Global Airband Initiative, as one of our witnesses this 
morning.
    Ms. Robinson joined Microsoft in January of 2018 after 
nearly 2 decades in the service of the FCC in multiple 
leadership roles. At Microsoft, Ms. Robinson leads the Airband 
Initiative, which aims to close the digital divide and bring 
high-speed internet connectivity to unconnected communities in 
the U.S. and around the world. Ms. Robinson, I am so excited to 
listen to your testimony this morning, and I am looking forward 
to discussing the work Microsoft is doing to expand broadband 
access in our home State of Washington later on.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. And, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
    To introduce our fourth and final witness today, I am so 
pleased to yield to our colleague on the Agriculture Committee, 
our distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 
Thompson. I really appreciate the opportunity to introduce our 
next witness. He is a member of the Congressional District 4. 
He is a product of Purdue University and the Research Park--and 
the skills that he has, I think you are going to really enjoy 
his testimony.
    I want to give a little of his background, because I think 
that helps understand how well he understands the need for 
broadband at the last mile or in the agricultural arena, as 
well as advanced manufacturing. But he is currently the CEO of 
Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, or the short version of 
that is WHIN, and that is a consortium of about ten counties in 
north central Indiana, and they are devoted to developing the 
region into a global epicenter of digital and agriculture next 
generation manufacturing. And they are going to do that by 
harnessing the power of the Internet of Things, IoT.
    Anyway, prior to serving WHIN, Johnny found and he scaled 
up and led a successful exit of an ag company, Spensa 
Technologies, and he produced smart Internet of Things devices 
that were able to analyze the data and help growers better 
manage agronomic pests such as insects, weeds, and disease. So, 
Spensa was named by Forbes as one of the top 25 most innovative 
ag startups in 2017. So, Johnny has a lot of experience and a 
lot of knowledge in this arena. He has a B.S. and a master's 
and a Ph.D. from Purdue University in the School of Electrical 
and Computer Engineering.
    So, it is with great pleasure that I welcome Dr. Park to 
serve as a witness to our Agriculture Committee. Welcome.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. So, I am so pleased to have such a 
distinguished panel of witnesses before us today and I know we 
are all excited to hear what they have to say. Each of our 
witnesses will have 5 minutes and the timer should be visible 
on your screen and will count down to zero at which time your 
time will have expired. Ms. Prather, you are now recognized for 
our first 5 minutes. Please begin when you are ready.

 STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. PRATHER, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL 
 MANAGER, TOTELCOM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DE LEON, TX; ON BEHALF 
            OF NTCA--THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION

    Ms. Prather. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this 
opportunity to testify about one of my favorite topics, the 
importance of broadband infrastructure and how rural networks 
are deployed and sustained.
    I am Jennifer Prather, Vice President and General Manager 
at Totelcom Communications in De Leon, Texas. My remarks today 
are on behalf of Totelcom, as well as NTCA--The Rural Broadband 
Association, which represents 850 rural community-based 
providers of high-speed broadband and other advanced services 
throughout the most sparsely populated areas of the country.
    While high costs are the most imposing obstacle to 
deploying and maintaining broadband in rural areas, other 
barriers remain, too, to supply chain concerns and time 
consuming and expensive right-of-way and access delay issues. 
As Congress considers proposals to bridge the digital divide, 
we offer several specific recommendations with respect to any 
broadband infrastructure plan.
    First, we should build networks that are built to last. 
Over the last year, Totelcom saw an increase of more than 200 
percent in both download and upload demand. That represents 
almost 2 years of projected growth almost overnight. 
Fortunately, our fiber-based networks were built to meet that 
demand. Given that such demands keep growing over time, a smart 
infrastructure plan should aim for the best return on such 
long-term investments that meet future needs of consumers, and 
enable the deployment of a variety of broadband technologies. 
Putting resources towards infrastructure that must be 
substantially rebuilt in only a few years' time will be a 
waste, and risks leaving rural America behind.
    Second, we must coordinate broadband programs and direct 
funding to unserved areas to limit overbuilding of existing 
network investments. Any new broadband program must coordinate 
with existing Federal broadband programs at the FCC, Department 
of Agriculture, NTIA, and state broadband programs. 
Additionally, existing programs that have a proven track record 
of success and promote accountability should receive additional 
support to build upon those successes. For example, USDA 
financing and Universal Service Funds support have long worked 
in concert, directing all programs, both old and new, to model 
on this history of success not only avoids duplication and 
helps deliver high-speed reliable broadband, but it also 
recognizes the hard realities of both deploying networks and 
then delivering services in the most remote, sparsely populated 
areas of the nation.
    Third, it cannot be lost that networks must be maintained 
after they are built. No provider can deliver high-speed, high-
capacity broadband in rural America without the ability to 
justify and then recover the costs of sustaining broadband in 
high-cost areas. Funding should be provided for this purpose as 
well, to make sure rates for services in rural areas remain 
affordable to consumers on these networks.
    Fourth, there should be clear standards for what will be 
expected of providers looking to leverage Federal resources to 
meet the real-world needs of consumers and avoid using rural 
America as a test lab for unproven technologies. Those 
receiving any support should be required to show clearly that 
they meet those standards, and then use those resources to 
deliver better, more affordable broadband that will satisfy 
consumer demand over the life of the network in question.
    Fifth, any plans should promote local partnerships. Service 
providers, like Totelcom, are based in their communities and 
have deep, longstanding relationships with our local 
governments and anchor institutions. The best results can often 
be achieved when operators with significant experience in 
building networks and delivering communication services work 
together with stakeholders in the community to identify and 
respond to specific needs. Regardless of whether a provider is 
a cooperative or a commercial operator, we strongly urge 
policymakers to look local when it comes to identifying 
broadband solutions in rural America, and to leverage the 
expertise and experience of smaller, community-based providers 
like Totelcom, regardless of corporate form, in overcoming 
these challenges.
    Finally, barriers to broadband deployment must be addressed 
as any part of a holistic plan to promote and sustain 
infrastructure investment. Supply chain shortages and access, 
particularly with respect to Federal lands and pole 
attachments, can present significant obstacles to deployment of 
rural broadband infrastructure. Permitting roadblocks, access 
delays, and increased costs are especially problematic for 
broadband operators.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and for the 
Committee's commitment to broadband infrastructure investment 
in rural America. Our industry is excited to participate in 
this national conversation regarding broadband infrastructure 
initiatives, and we look forward to working with policymakers 
on a comprehensive infrastructure strategy to ensure that all 
Americans will experience and continue to enjoy the numerous 
agricultural, economic, educational, health, and public safety 
benefits of broadband.
    I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may 
have for me. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Prather follows:]

 Prepared Statement of Jennifer L. Prather, Vice President and General 
Manager, Totelcom Communications, LLC, De Leon, TX; on Behalf of NTCA--
                    The Rural Broadband Association
Introduction
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about the 
importance of broadband infrastructure to rural areas and how rural 
broadband networks are deployed and sustained. I am Jennifer Prather, 
Vice President and General Manager at Totelcom Communications in De 
Leon, TX. My remarks today are on behalf of Totelcom, as well as NTCA--
The Rural Broadband Association, which represents approximately 850 
rural community-based carriers that offer advanced communications 
services throughout the most sparsely-populated areas of the nation.
    NTCA members and companies like them serve approximately \1/3\ of 
the U.S. landmass; in most of these sparsely populated rural areas, 
they are the only fixed networks available, providing essential 
communications services to just under five percent of the U.S. 
population and critical connections for businesses, anchor 
institutions, and providers of wireless services across rural America. 
Indeed, small telecommunications providers connect rural Americans with 
the world--making every effort to deploy advanced networks that respond 
to consumer and business demands for cutting-edge, innovative services 
that help rural communities overcome the challenges of distance and 
density. Fixed and mobile broadband, video, and voice are among the 
services that many rural Americans can access thanks to the commitment 
of small, local providers to serving sparsely populated areas.
    Totelcom is a community-based telecommunications provider with 45 
employees serving a 1,182\2\ mile area with an average of 3.4 customers 
per square mile. Nineteen percent of our customers reside in just 2\2\ 
miles, while the remaining 81 percent reside in the other 1,180\2\ 
miles--so the population density of the more rural areas is just 2.75 
customers per square mile. We provide more than 4,500 total connections 
to customers, delivering voice services and broadband using a variety 
of methods. Using every available ``tool in the toolkit,'' we employ 
fiber-to-the-home technology and traditional copper-based facilities to 
provide broadband to most customers, and we also leverage fixed 
wireless point-to-point broadband to reach customers in some of the 
most remote portions of our service area.
    Our networks allow agricultural producers and other rural 
businesses to communicate with suppliers and sell to new markets, they 
enable education of our children on par with opportunities in urban 
areas, and they make our communities attractive destinations for people 
and businesses to relocate. Throughout the pandemic, our networks 
connected the local hospitals, supported health care delivery, and 
enabled thousands of Americans to work or learn from home. In rural 
America, that translates into economic development that produces and 
preserves jobs, not only in agriculture, energy, and other industries 
with a strong rural presence, but also in the healthcare, education, 
and other retail industries.
Unique Challenges of Rural Broadband Deployment
    Building broadband networks is capital-intensive and time-
consuming; building them in rural areas involves a special further set 
of obstacles. The primary challenge of rural network deployment is in 
crossing hundreds or thousands of miles where the terrain is diverse. 
The costs of constructing networks in areas where there are only a 
handful of customers per route mile or square mile are significant, and 
the ability to recover those costs is difficult when these communities 
and rural areas are so sparsely populated. To complicate further the 
unique rural challenges of distance and density, when crossing Federal 
lands or railroad rights-of-way in rural America, network operators 
must address environmental and historical permitting concerns or 
contractual obligations that can delay construction projects and 
increase their already high costs.
    Then, once networks are built, they must be maintained over those 
hundreds or thousands of miles--this requires technicians who regularly 
travel long distances to make service calls and customer service 
representatives trained to deal with questions about things like router 
and device configurations. Even the best local networks in rural 
markets are then dependent upon ``middle mile'' or long-haul 
connections to internet gateways dozens or hundreds of miles away in 
large cities. Reaching those distant locations is expensive as well, 
and as customer bandwidth demands increase--moving from Megabytes to 
Gigabytes to Terabytes of demand per month per customer--so too does 
the cost of ensuring sufficient capacity to handle customer demand on 
those long-haul fiber routes that connect rural America to the rest of 
the world. Indeed, especially as applications like video streaming 
increase and place greater strains on these connections, we incur these 
costs and make the investments that make it possible for firms like 
Amazon and Netflix and others to reach their customers in rural 
America.
    Small rural providers like Totelcom are eager to meet and overcome 
all of these challenges for the rural communities in which they live 
and serve, but it is important that they have the resources and 
regulatory stability to do so considering the importance of broadband 
to the current and future success and quality of life of rural America. 
Again, the delivery of broadband involves not only the one-time act of 
deploying a network, but the ongoing challenges of delivering services 
and keeping pace with user demand over the decades that the network 
will be operational. There is a great deal of understandable focus on 
the challenges associated with connecting every American to broadband 
in the first instance--and companies like Totelcom are front and center 
in this effort--but it cannot be lost that we need to take steps as 
well to make sure that these networks remain sustainable and that the 
services offered atop them remain affordable and relevant to customers 
for years to come.
Broadband Is Essential Rural Infrastructure
    Rural broadband has far-reaching effects for both urban and rural 
America, creating efficiencies in health care, education, agriculture, 
energy, and commerce, and enhancing the quality of life for citizens 
across the country. Totelcom serves many important community anchor 
institutions, including a rural hospital and related emergency medical 
services, a medical clinic that serves low-income populations in three 
area towns, five school districts, three public libraries, and nine 
public safety entities, including police and rural volunteer fire 
departments. In recent years, Totelcom has built broadband to a number 
of dairies in the area to provide the bandwidth necessary for state-of-
the-art smart dairy and farming practices, including radio-frequency 
identification, or RFID, tags on cows to track production and health. 
Totelcom also operates our own ``genius bar'' in the form of the 
Totelcom Learning Center, open weekly to assist customers in a one-to-
one setting in a comfortable environment. Customers can bring in their 
electronic devices and seek assistance with email, saving and sending 
pictures, and even social media.
    During the pandemic, we took the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC) Keep Americans Connected Pledge to keep customers connected, 
regardless of their ability to pay. Totelcom stepped up to help our 
community, and in the beginning of the lockdowns, worked evenings and 
weekends to accommodate the sudden and intense increase in demand for 
new connections--many at no additional cost to the consumer. We set up 
several rural WiFi hotspots for anyone to use; upgraded area medical 
and educational facilities' bandwidth at no charge; provided free 
installs to any customer with a K-12 or college student in the 
household; partnered with the local schools to provide free service for 
students in need; and assisted the county emergency management center 
in setting up a communications center free of charge. NTCA estimates 
that on average, small, rural providers incurred $80,000 in 
uncollectibles during the pandemic due to customers' inability to pay. 
For Totelcom, we estimate our uncollectibles and lost revenue as a 
result of all of these efforts to keep customers connected to be more 
than $300,000.
    As we look to future data needs of our customers and our 
communities, we have taken aggressive steps to focus on the anticipated 
increase in usage, including establishing a robust and reliable 
connection to a statewide fiber network that provides our ``middle-mile 
transport'' between our local communities and the rest of the world. We 
have also added a second connection to a separate internet point-of-
presence as part of our network resiliency plan in case of an outage or 
damage to our network's backhaul infrastructure. This puts our 
customers in a great position as data needs grow, as we have seen our 
average data usage increase over 750% in recent years. Due to this 
demand, we continue to pursue fiber deployment as fast as possible, 
even as we also look to employ new technology in our copper and 
wireless networks to increase the pace of bandwidth upgrades to our 
customers.
    The pandemic has highlighted the need to continue these investments 
as demand for bandwidth increases. Over the last year, while everyone 
began to work and learn from home, we saw an increase of more than 200% 
in usage, both download and upload. Due to our investments in our 
networks, we had the capacity to meet that demand. The speed and 
sustainability of deployment, however, will depend on both reasonable 
access to capital to finance construction and the availability of 
Universal Service Fund (USF) support to make sure user rates on these 
rural networks, once upgraded, are not astronomical and unaffordable. 
Again, while so many focus on the up-front financing aspects of this 
debate--which is important, to be sure--it is equally important that we 
not overlook the long-term viability of networks in these sparsely 
populated rural areas and the kinds of support mechanisms needed to 
sustain them and keep services affordable on them.
Much Progress, but Much More Work to Do
    Despite the progress discussed above, many parts of rural America 
still need better connectivity. The good news is NTCA members have led 
the charge in getting rural America connected. Nearly \2/3\ of NTCA 
member customers have access to 100 Mbps or better broadband and, on 
average, roughly the same proportion of customers are connected by 
fiber despite the very rural nature of the areas in question. But even 
as we believe the data show that there has been no better sector of the 
telecom industry when it comes to advancing rural broadband, seven 
percent of their customers still lack access to 10/1 broadband. In a 
country where the FCC has indicated that 94 percent of Americans 
already have affordable access to 25/3 Mbps service and many urban 
consumers and businesses benefit from 100 Mbps or Gigabit speeds, 
broadband access in rural America lags behind urban areas despite the 
best efforts, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit of NTCA's members.
    And, as I have noted earlier in this testimony, there is more to 
the equation than just building a network. It does no good to build a 
network if the provider cannot afford to operate it and repay the 
capital used to construct it--and even the very best network is 
certainly of little use if no one can afford to make effective use of 
the services offered atop it. Services must be activated and delivered, 
maintenance must be performed before troubles arise, ``middle mile'' 
capacity must be procured, and upgrades must be made to facilities and 
electronics to enable services to keep pace with consumer demand and 
business needs. In addition to these ongoing operating costs, networks 
are hardly ever ``paid for'' once built; rather, they are often built 
leveraging substantial loans that must be repaid over a series of years 
or even decades.
    All of these factors make the delivery of broadband in rural 
America an ongoing effort that requires sustained commitment, rather 
than a one-time declaration of ``success'' just for the very 
preliminary act of connecting a certain number of locations. 
Particularly when one considers that even where networks are available 
many rural Americans pay far more for broadband than urban consumers, 
it becomes apparent that the job of really connecting rural America--
and, just as importantly, sustaining those connections--is far from 
complete. Federal law mandates that the Federal USF ensures reasonably 
comparable services are available at reasonably comparable rates in 
rural and urban areas alike. This mission cannot be lost as we focus on 
deployment. The rural broadband industry and our nation as a whole has 
a great story of success, but we also have much more work to do in both 
deploying and operating networks--and this is where public policy plays 
such an important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in 
rural markets that would not otherwise justify such investments and 
ongoing operations.
Aiming Higher and Doing Better
    When it comes to solving broadband challenges, we as a nation can 
aim higher and do better than we have to date. Too many programs end up 
funding broadband that becomes irrelevant and unhelpful for consumers 
in short order. Instead of creating programs where the goal is simply 
that ``every provider can play'' on a ``technologically neutral'' 
basis, we must focus on the consumer experience and require the 
deployment of networks that in a decade or more will still deliver 
speeds and other performance capabilities that customers can rely upon 
in working or learning from home and that businesses feel will be worth 
the effort in considering relocation to a rural market.
    If broadband is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century, we 
should aim to build sustainable infrastructure rather than stitching 
things together in ways that require starting the effort all over again 
just a few years later. Put plainly, when we are choosing what kinds of 
new networks to build, we need more fiber to help promote better 
broadband and to further a 5G future. Driving adoption should also 
become an express complementary goal of any efforts aimed at tackling 
availability--we are not building networks for their own sake but for 
the use of as many consumers as possible, and providers should be 
charged specifically to promote digital equity and inclusion on 
networks as they deploy them.
A Holistic Approach to Broadband Infrastructure
    The critical role of communications infrastructure is as necessary 
to the present and future needs of rural America as is electricity and 
other infrastructure that enables the ordinary course of a thriving 
society. President Biden expressly recognized the importance of 
advanced communications networks by including broadband within his 
broader infrastructure initiative. NTCA applauds the apparent consensus 
that Congress is also making broadband an infrastructure priority and 
welcomes the opportunity to participate in a further discussion on how 
best to tackle this priority. Before turning to specific thoughts on 
paths forward, it may make sense first to outline a few key objectives 
for consideration with respect to any broadband infrastructure plan:

   Future-Proof Networks: Any resources provided as part of an 
        infrastructure plan should look to get the best return on such 
        long-term investments. For networks with useful lives measured 
        in decades--especially private investments that leverage 
        Federal dollars--this should mean the deployment of 
        infrastructure capable of meeting consumer demands not only of 
        today and tomorrow, but for 10 or twenty years. Putting 
        resources toward infrastructure that needs to be substantially 
        rebuilt in only a few years' time could turn out to be Federal 
        resources wasted--and would still risk leaving rural America 
        behind.

   Coordinate with and Leverage Existing Broadband Programs: 
        The plan should leverage what is already in place and has 
        worked before. Creating new programs from scratch is not easy, 
        and if a new broadband infrastructure initiative conflicts with 
        existing efforts, that could undermine our nation's shared 
        broadband deployment goals. Any new Federal broadband program 
        must coordinate with existing Federal broadband programs at the 
        FCC, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and 
        National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and 
        also state broadband programs. Additionally, existing programs 
        that have worked well and are successful in promoting both 
        accountability and proven results should receive additional 
        support to build upon their successes rather than having all 
        new funds directed only to new programs that may duplicate 
        efforts.

   Direct Funding to Unserved Areas: Prioritize funding for new 
        construction to unserved areas to limit overbuilding of 
        existing networks that are meeting Federal broadband standards. 
        We should focus funding on the areas most lacking in broadband 
        and seek to build the best kinds of networks in those areas--
        and we can then turn our attention to the areas next most in 
        need once that is complete. This approach will ensure the best 
        possible use of Federal resources in the form of targeting 
        funds for new networks to the consumers that need help most and 
        ensuring that the networks then built to serve those consumers 
        will last for decades thereafter.

   Hold Providers Accountable: There should be clear standards 
        for what will be expected of and achievable by providers 
        looking to leverage any resources made available through such 
        an initiative. Looking to providers with proven track records 
        in delivering real results makes the most sense, but whoever 
        receives any support should be required to show clearly that 
        they used those resources to deliver better, more affordable 
        broadband that will satisfy consumer demand over the life of 
        the network in question.

   Networks Must be Maintained: Any broadband infrastructure 
        plan needs to be carefully designed and sufficiently supported 
        to tackle the challenges presented. This is a question of both 
        program focus and program scope.

     From a focus perspective, any infrastructure plan 
            should aim toward getting broadband where it is not and 
            sustaining it where it already is; deployment of 
            duplicative infrastructure in rural areas that are 
            uneconomic--and may not even support a single network on 
            their own--will undermine the sustainability of existing 
            network assets.

     From a scope perspective, deploying and sustaining 
            rural broadband is neither cheap nor easy; we need to 
            recognize that finite resources are available to address 
            any number of priorities, but any plan that calls for 
            broadband deployment--especially in high-cost rural 
            America--should match resources to the size of the problem 
            to be solved.

   Leverage Community-Based Providers: Providers like Totelcom 
        live in or very close to the areas they serve--we know our 
        customers, we know the geography, and we know the business of 
        delivering communications services in these areas. As 
        policymakers look for solutions to deliver broadband in 
        unserved parts of rural America, small businesses based in or 
        near those areas offer the greatest promise for achieving 
        results quickly and effectively. Regardless of whether a 
        provider is a cooperative or a commercial operator, like 
        Totelcom, we strongly urge Congress and the Biden 
        Administration to ``look local'' when it comes to identifying 
        broadband solutions--and to leverage the expertise and 
        experience of smaller community-based providers like Totelcom, 
        regardless of corporate form, in overcoming these challenges.

   Promote Local Partnerships: Based in the small rural 
        communities they serve, service providers like Totelcom have 
        deep long-standing relationships with their local governments 
        and anchor institutions. The best results can often be achieved 
        when private operators with significant experience in building 
        networks and delivering communications services work together 
        with stakeholders in the community to identify and respond to 
        specific needs. Creating programs that encourage and 
        incentivize such partnerships and collaboration could unleash 
        broadband investment and help sustain those networks once 
        built.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Telecom Financing
The Strength of RUS Experience
    Deploying a communications network in a rural area requires a large 
capital outlay due to the challenges of distance and terrain. The 
number of rural network users (as compared with more densely populated 
urban areas) is too small to justify investment in many cases and pay 
the costs of deployment and ongoing operations through customer 
charges. As Congress considers the details of legislation to promote 
infrastructure deployment, the crucial role that USDA's Rural Utilities 
Service has long played in addressing rural broadband challenges must 
not be overlooked. Since the early 1990s, the RUS telecom programs have 
financed advanced network plant at a net profit for taxpayers and 
helped deploy state-of-the-art networks to rural Americans left behind 
by providers unable or unwilling to serve low-population-density 
markets. With rare exception, RUS, CoBank and Rural Telephone Finance 
Cooperative are the primary lenders that small, rural providers can 
turn to for outside financing. Not only does RUS help rural America 
remain connected, but its various telecom programs make loans that must 
be paid back with interest--creating a win/win situation for rural 
broadband consumers and American taxpayers.
RUS and USF Work in Concert
    While RUS lending programs finance the substantial up-front costs 
of network deployment, the USF High-Cost Fund helps make the business 
case for construction and sustains ongoing operations at affordable 
rates. More specifically, USF by law aims to ensure ``reasonably 
comparable'' services are available at ``reasonably comparable'' rates. 
Not to be confused or conflated, RUS capital and ongoing USF support 
serve distinctly important, but complementary rather than redundant, 
purposes in furthering rural broadband deployment. Ensuring that USDA 
financing and USF support continue to work in concert not only avoids 
duplication and helps deliver high-speed reliable broadband to the 
consumer, but it recognizes the hard realities of both deploying 
networks and then delivering services in the most remote, sparsely-
populated areas of the nation.
Farm Bill and Other Considerations
    Apart from infrastructure legislation, the pending expiration of 
the current farm bill affords opportunity to review the Farm Bill Rural 
Broadband Program--previously referred to as the Rural Broadband Access 
Loan and Loan Guarantee Program--that was first authorized in the 2002 
Farm Bill. Each subsequent farm bill has made extensive reforms to the 
program with the goal of greater accountability, efficiency, and 
effectiveness. Extensive rounds of program reforms in less than 20 
years means that the Rural Broadband Program has been almost 
continuously ``under construction'' since its inception, rendering the 
program inaccessible to borrowers for long periods of time. While the 
program is not perfect, it may be helpful to simply let borrowers use 
the Rural Broadband Program in current form with minor updates--and 
full funding--before undertaking another extensive reform effort. NTCA 
urges the Committee to continue to support the Rural Broadband Program 
that is subject to the farm bill reauthorization process at full 
funding levels as you formulate recommendations. Furthermore, we urge 
the Committee to continue its history of support for all RUS telecom 
programs, which are also vital to the ongoing deployment and 
maintenance of advanced communications infrastructure throughout rural 
America. While more resources for rural broadband deployment are 
needed, involving more government entities and programs in broadband 
financing should be undertaken cautiously to avoid duplicating efforts 
and undermining a coherent, cohesive approach to financing and then 
sustaining rural broadband networks.
Infrastructure Investment and Barriers to Deployment
    Infrastructure investment depends not only on financing but also on 
prompt acquisition or receipt of permissions to build networks. 
Barriers or impediments to broadband deployment must also be addressed 
as part of any holistic plan to promote and sustain infrastructure 
investment. Such roadblocks, delays, and increased costs are 
particularly problematic for NTCA members, each of which is a small 
business that operates only in rural areas where construction projects 
must range across wide swaths of land. Permitting and access, 
particularly with respect to Federal lands and pole attachments, can 
present significant impediments to the deployment of rural broadband 
infrastructure. Navigating Byzantine application and review processes 
within individual Federal land-managing and property-managing agencies 
can be burdensome for any network provider, but particularly the 
smaller network operators that serve the most rural portions of the 
U.S. landmass. The review procedures can take substantial amounts of 
time, undermining the ability to plan for and deploy broadband 
infrastructure--especially in those areas of the country with shorter 
construction seasons due to weather. Additionally, obtaining reasonable 
terms and conditions for attaching network facilities to poles that are 
owned and operated by other entities can result in long delays and 
costly fees charged to providers seeking to build out networks to rural 
communities lacking service.
    The lack of coordination and standardization in application and 
approval processes across Federal agencies further complicates the 
deployment of broadband infrastructure. From my experience at Totelcom, 
I can attest that when building new fixed wireless towers for 
deployment, the cost of the various permits and approvals normally runs 
higher than the actual construction of the tower. We have seen much 
agreement for some time now on solutions to simplifying the 
administrative barriers to deployment. The standardization of 
application, fee and approval policies and procedures across Federal 
land-managing and property-managing agencies to the extent possible 
should be a high priority.
    Finally, though small rural providers have long enjoyed productive 
working relationships with RUS, there is always room for improvement. 
Small carriers typically spend about 2 years and about $250,000 
securing loan approval from RUS. Some providers would love to take 
advantage of RUS's low financing rates, but the procedural barriers to 
borrowing from RUS send them to private lenders that offer higher 
rates. In particular, we look forward to working with this Committee to 
address some of the more time-consuming processes in the various RUS 
programs that could expedite approvals and deployment.
Addressing Supply Chain Concerns
    As numerous broadband infrastructure programs work now to help fill 
gaps in coverage across our country, and as additional programs are 
considered to help finally overcome persistent digital divides, it is 
important to monitor the status of the communications supply chain. We 
are currently hearing of shortages and increasing delays in order 
fulfillment--ranging from several weeks to up to 1 year--for critical 
communications equipment like fiber, routers, antennas, network 
terminals, and customer premise equipment due to a mix of pandemic-
related impacts and increased demand for broadband investment. To 
ensure that existing and new infrastructure initiatives are as 
successful as possible in responding to consumer needs and demands, we 
believe it is important that the Federal Government play a central role 
in working closely and directly with manufacturers, distributors, and 
other suppliers to avoid disruptions in the communications supply 
chain. Just recently, we placed an order for fiber pedestals that has a 
365 day lead time to delivery. As Congress is poised to make future 
investments to solve the digital divide once and for all, supply chain 
shortages must be addressed--or else the billions of dollars in funds 
intended for immediate broadband deployment risk being tied up in held 
orders and delayed shipments.
Conclusion
    Robust broadband infrastructure is crucial to the current and 
future success of rural America. But the characteristics that enable 
the unique beauty and enterprise of rural America make it very 
expensive to deploy advanced communications services there. Our 
nation's small, rural, community-based telecom providers are deploying 
faster broadband throughout their service areas, but no carrier--
whether cooperative or commercial, and regardless of size--can deliver 
high-speed, high-capacity broadband in rural America without the 
ability to justify and then recover the initial and ongoing costs of 
sustaining infrastructure investment in high-cost areas.
    A legislative infrastructure initiative offers a unique opportunity 
to provide the resources needed to make these investments, and 
mechanisms that ensure efficiency and accountability in the expenditure 
of funds are already in place. Our industry is excited to participate 
in this conversation regarding broadband infrastructure initiatives, 
and we look forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders 
on a comprehensive infrastructure strategy to ensure that all Americans 
will experience the numerous agricultural, economic, health, and public 
safety benefits of broadband. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, 
and for the Committee's commitment to broadband infrastructure 
investment in rural America.

    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Prather.
    And now, we will hear from Mr. Johnson, and you can begin 
when you are ready.

            STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. JOHNSON, CHIEF 
         EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OEConnect, LLC AND OTSEGO 
            ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., HARTWICK, NY

    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, 
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
    I am Tim Johnson, as I was introduced, the CEO of Otsego 
Electric Cooperative and OEConnect here in Hartwick, New York.
    Broadband is very personal to me. I had painfully slow DSL 
service at my home before my co-op entered the fiber business, 
and now I have 1 gigabit service and no spinning blue wheels.
    Otsego now provides broadband service to almost 3,000 
locations in our area. These are locations that were similarly 
ignored when Otsego began offering electric service over 75 
years ago.
    In 2017, Otsego announced plans to build a fiber-to-the-
home broadband system, and now we offer 100 percent of our 
members symmetrical speeds of up to 1 gigabit with no data 
caps. This project has been vital for our members during the 
worst pandemic, of course, in 100 years, and many services were 
activated at the height of the pandemic. We connected medical 
professionals, teleworkers, teachers, and students, including a 
family whose kids were doing virtual school in a neighbor's 
unheated garage, and electric cooperatives are playing a 
critical part in this effort, with more than 200 electric 
cooperatives deploying broadband solutions, and 100 more 
exploring the feasibility of projects.
    The electric cooperative industry, represented by the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, serves one in 
eight Americans and covers 56 percent of the U.S. landmass. 
Electric cooperatives are member-owned, so we are uniquely 
suited to best understand and solve rural broadband needs. We 
believe you can provide critically needed flexible funding and 
policies to support broadband in rural areas across the nation.
    The job is not done. We still have many locations that 
cannot access the internet with anything better than data-
capped, high latency prone satellite service. OEC would not 
have entered the broadband business without grant funding. 
Lower population density means construction and ongoing 
operational costs cannot be met without public funding sources. 
However, OEC and electric cooperatives in general have great 
advantages in expanding broadband. We have served these 
communities for over 75 years, and we have skilled manpower, 
equipment, and vehicles, and we own the rights-of-way and the 
infrastructure so we can control some of our construction 
costs.
    Balancing accountability and usability in all Federal 
programs is very important. It is critical to ensure that all 
award recipients are actually capable of deploying a network at 
the speed and latencies they promised. In the case of how the 
FCC distributes funds, vendors should be vetted before the 
auctions are held. When it comes to usability, programs like 
ReConnect and Community Connect have some positive attributes, 
but they can be slow and administratively burdensome for small 
organizations like Otsego. One fellow electric cooperative had 
to wait 517 days between finding out that they received a 
ReConnect award and the first construction approval. Broadband 
program rules should give greater weight to technologies that 
are expandable and proven to reliably provide at least 100/100 
megabits per second. For example, fiber-to-the-homes systems 
are more robust, time-tested, and future-proof than others. 
Additionally, consideration should be given to prioritizing 
community-based providers with existing presence in the 
communities they serve.
    Affordability is a critical issue, and programs like the 
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program are desperately needed by 
some of our members, but they are also needed on a permanent, 
ongoing basis. From the consumer perspective, there is no 
difference between having no access to broadband service and 
having access, but not being able to afford it.
    In addition to these points, my written testimony expands 
on several aspects related to improving broadband 
infrastructure, including improving our nation's broadband 
maps, the importance of building networks that can keep up with 
increasing speed and quality demands, and the critical need for 
a smart grid. Otsego is currently working on an innovative 
fiber-based metering system which could save us money and 
greatly increase metering functionality in the smart grid.
    In conclusion, national and state broadband programs 
already offer an opportunity to promote broadband development. 
As part of this effort, our cooperative is eager to continue 
the conversation about broadband programs, and we look forward 
to working with you to expand all the benefits broadband has to 
offer so rural New Yorkers and rural Americans will not be left 
behind.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your 
commitment to rural broadband. I look forward to working with 
you and answering any questions you may have.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Timothy R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, 
   OEConnect, LLC and Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc., Hartwick, NY
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify about rural 
broadband and its importance in our nation's rural areas. I am Tim 
Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of OEConnect, LLC and Otsego Electric 
Cooperative, Inc. (collectively ``OEC''), headquartered in Hartwick, 
New York. OEConnect is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Otsego Electric 
Cooperative, Inc. which is a member-owned and democratically controlled 
tax exempt nonprofit organization under IRC Section 501(c)(12).
    Otsego Electric Cooperative provides electric service to 4,900 
rural locations that investor-owned utilities initially ignored or 
bypassed many years ago. We serve some of the poorest, most rural parts 
of our state in what was formerly a thriving dairy farming area with an 
average of only about 6 meters per mile. History repeated itself in a 
sense when it became apparent over the past decade or so that adequate 
broadband service was not being made available to our members so, in 
early 2017, OEC announced plans to begin offering high-speed, 
affordable broadband service. This project now allows our members to 
fully participate in the 21st century economy and to continue to work 
and go to school during the worst pandemic in 100 years. OEC now has 
service available for 100% of our members with state-of-the-art fiber-
to-the-home service at speeds up to 1 Gigabit per second download and 
upload with no data caps at a very fair price. OEC has fiber passing 
more than 5,000 locations over a 700 mile fiber network. Every one of 
these locations is being offered the same superior level of service. To 
date we have activated almost 3,000 broadband and voice services and 
our subscribers have been ecstatic that we took the initiative to build 
this project when we did. It has provided blessings in many ways during 
the COVID-19 crisis. We immediately prioritized new service connections 
to doctors, nurses, other health care professionals and support 
personnel, teleworkers, and students when our state was shut down. 
While we are off to a great start, we have also faced many challenges 
and we believe you can provide critically needed funding and policies 
to support broadband in our area and in rural areas across the nation.
    OEC is part of a broader electric cooperative industry, represented 
by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) that 
serves one in eight Americans and covers 56% of the U.S. landmass. 
Electric cooperatives are owned by the members whom we serve and we are 
uniquely suited to best understand and serve our members' and our 
neighboring rural residents' needs. Most electric cooperatives are 
small businesses; they don't have investors or access to significant 
capital to help defray the costs of building and maintaining their 
infrastructure. These costs are borne directly by the farmers, 
ranchers, small businesses and other residents of the nation's rural 
communities--including those in 93 percent of the nation's persistent 
poverty counties.
Electric Cooperatives Play a Vital Role in Transforming Communities
    While our priority at OEC has historically been to provide 
reliable, clean, and affordable electricity to our members, our 
commitment to our communities extends well beyond that service. We also 
provide services that empower local communities to improve their 
quality of life. As mentioned, that includes participating in efforts 
to make sure they have access to a robust communications infrastructure 
including access to quality and affordable broadband that enables rural 
communities to thrive and compete in an increasingly connected, global 
marketplace. Economic development, the education of our students to 
compete with children from urban areas, agriculture, and healthcare all 
require robust broadband access in the 21st century.
    Many comparisons are drawn between the lack of access to robust 
broadband service today and the need for electrification in rural 
America 80 years ago--with the urban areas of the country well-served, 
and rural areas being left behind. In part because cooperatives are led 
by, and belong to, the communities they serve, there is an increasing 
number of electric cooperatives studying whether they should be part of 
the solution to close the digital divide. More than 200 electric co-ops 
in 37 states, including Otsego, are currently deploying diverse 
broadband solutions and as many as 100 more are exploring feasibility 
of broadband either on their own or through partnerships to bridge the 
digital divide and jump-start local economies. This cooperative 
commitment is vital for the \1/4\ of all rural Americans who still lack 
access to broadband, compared to less than two percent in urban areas.
Keys to Rural Broadband Expansion
    We need continued public funding immediately to help broadband 
expansion. OEC would not have entered the broadband business without 
grant funding and this is true for most electric cooperatives. The 
costs of construction, due to the lack of customers per mile, would not 
be recoverable within commercial lending requirements. The costs of 
operations are also much more difficult to cover due to the lack of 
density and therefore lower revenues. However, it is very important to 
point out that OEC and rural electric cooperatives in general have 
great advantages in expanding broadband. We are located in these areas 
so we are familiar with the terrain and existing infrastructure, and we 
are stable organizations that have served these communities for over 75 
years. Cooperatives have skilled manpower, equipment, and vehicles and 
we own the poles and rights-of-way so we can control some of our make 
ready costs--the process of ensuring poles are ready and in proper 
condition to have fiber hung on them--through planning and proactive 
maintenance schedules. Cooperatives have generally done a very good job 
of maintaining their poles, right-of-ways, and infrastructure so make 
ready costs--which can be 50% of the cost of building networks--can be 
greatly reduced. OEC treats all attachers equally for make ready 
purposes and pole attachment rates. In OEC's experience, total 
construction costs within our system were over 50% lower than the costs 
of building outside of our electric footprint on investor-owned 
electric utility systems. Further, there is no cross subsidization 
between OEC and our subsidiary, OEConnect, because that could create 
problems for our tax-exempt status. OEConnect leases fiber from OEC on 
commercially reasonable terms. While there is no one-size-fits-all 
business model for providing broadband, it is an area that has required 
a lot of time, resources and outside counsel to ensure we are doing it 
all correctly. Making funding available to cooperatives will help 
ensure that public funds will be used more efficiently. OEC has built 
over 100 miles of fiber beyond our electric system and make ready in 
those areas is double the cost of building inside the cooperative's 
electric service area. Cooperatives are member owned systems with 
elected directors so we are able to democratically decide where and how 
to build a broadband system that will best serve our members over the 
long-term.
    OEC was just awarded $7.18 million under the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) Rural Development Opportunity Fund (RDOF) to extend 
service into more areas. This funding will accelerate our ability to 
provide fiber-to-the-home service to more unserved locations that 
currently lack 25/3 Mpbs fixed, terrestrial service. We have been 
inundated with requests for service beyond our territory since the 
start of the pandemic so we know there is huge unmet demand and now we 
will be able to provide it to some of these folks. We need more 
flexible funding as the job is not done in our area and is desperately 
needed right now. We have had school kids sitting in neighbors' 
unheated garages and medical doctors who cannot access the internet 
with anything better than data-capped, high latency-prone satellite 
service. We have lists for many of these unserved and underserved homes 
and businesses and there are many more to get to. Without grant 
funding, however, we would not have extended service to our members or 
to most of these nonmember locations, if at all. Being a cooperative 
restricts our options to raise money and we are required to operate as 
an independent entity governed solely by our members. Cooperatives 
cannot issue equity or accept equity contributions from other partners 
and still maintain control over our projects.
    One of the major reasons that OEC entered the broadband business 
was for rural development to stem population loss from rural areas. If 
we did not address the problem, nobody else was going to do it and we 
would continue to experience decline. We believed that if we built 
fiber to these homes, people would decide to move here; or, if they had 
a second home already, they would stay longer; or, they would be able 
to engage in e-commerce and education while still living in our rural 
areas. This proved to be prescient. Our cooperative members and a good 
number of their neighbors--though hard hit by the pandemic just like 
everyone--have been able to continue to go to school, work, engage in 
e-commerce, and obtain healthcare when they would not have been able to 
otherwise.
Existing Programs
    OEC would like to see that the FCC is held accountable for valuable 
broadband funding by ensuring that the winners of all RDOF funds 
(including RDOF Phase I) are responsible bidders and capable of 
actually deploying a network at the speed and latency they promised to 
their awarded areas on time. Bidders should be vetted before the 
auctions are held and funds are awarded, not after. In addition, it is 
a mistake to group all technologies that can reach a certain speed 
threshold as equal. Certain technologies like fiber-to-the-home systems 
are more robust, time-tested, and future proof than others and public 
funds should be allocated accordingly. Otsego would also like to see 
the RDOF Phase II auction (``RDOF II'') accelerated and put into motion 
as soon as possible or, if other programs can be made available sooner, 
then use the RDOF II funds to supplement the funding. A reverse auction 
format should ideally be used for awarding funds but it is difficult to 
put auctions of this nature together fast enough with proper rules and 
controls. We need to incentivize and give greater weight to 
technologies that are expandable and proven to be capable of reliably 
providing at least 100/100 Mbps and the technology needs to be based on 
resilient assets that will last for the long-term to future-proof 
service. Additionally, thought should be given to prioritizing 
community-based providers with existing presence and ties to and near 
the communities they're seeking to serve. Unfortunately, this was not 
the case in the recent RDOF I reverse auction. Our national 
association, NRECA, has expressed concern with specific subsets of 
initial winning bidders in the RDOF I Auction. Specifically, NRECA 
issued a white paper expressing concerns regarding the substantial 
subset of bids in the RDOF Phase I auction awarded to fixed wireless 
Gigabit tier bidders and low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite providers 
bidding at the 100/20 Mbps tier.\1\ These technologies are not proven 
to deliver reliable service at these speed tiers, especially in rural 
areas. There is a high likelihood that some of these questionable bids 
will be deemed unqualified by the FCC. More thorough up-front vetting 
should be required in future auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ NRTC & NRECA, The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: Rural 
America's Broadband Hopes at Risk, filed February 2, 2021, available 
at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10202734510982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Programs to address rural broadband deployment also exist at the 
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities 
Service (RUS), including the ReConnect (grants/loans & loan/grant 
combos) program, Community Connect and others. These programs have some 
very positive attributes, such as the ability for an applicant to 
establish boundaries for its proposed funding area. However, the 
programs have limited funding compared to the FCC and they can be 
administratively onerous and burdensome which is why some, including my 
cooperative, have not participated in them. The onerous nature of the 
programs stem both at the agency and statutory level. Recently, our 
national association, NRECA, submitted comments to RUS laying out 
concerns with the ReConnect program and recommending changes before the 
funding window opens for Round Three of the ReConnect program.\2\ NRECA 
has also submitted comments \3\ to USDA for the rulemaking process to 
implement the USDA RUS Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Grant program, 
which was retooled when Congress reauthorized the Farm Bill in 2018 but 
has not been funded. Electric cooperatives participated in and 
appreciated the efforts taken to learn from some previous challenges by 
reshaping this program. In addition to representing a bipartisan, 
bicameral compromise, there are components of the farm bill broadband 
program that are more appealing including increased speeds (from 10/1 
Mbps to 25/3 Mbps) for areas to be eligible and prioritizing lowest 
density areas for grant funding. We support a plan to transition from 
ReConnect to the farm bill program, or otherwise exploring how to 
combine the two to ensure that USDA broadband programs are accessible 
to providers and meeting the goals of reaching rural Americans with 
broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NRECA Comments on The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Final Rule 
and request for comment on the Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Program. 
The Rural eConnectivity Program provides loans, grants, and loan/grant 
combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas (RUS-20-
Telecom-0023) (RIN: 0572-AC51), filed March 23, 2021, available at: 
https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/
regulatory-issues/pages/nreca-files-comments-with-rus-on-rural-
econnectivity-boadband-program.aspx.
    \3\ NRECA Comments on The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Interim 
Rules for the Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Grant Program (RUS-19-
Telecom-0003) (RIN number 0572-AC46), filed May 11, 2020, available at: 
https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/
regulatory-issues/Documents/
NRECA%20Comments%20RUS%20Broadband%20IFR%205-11-20%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Another recent change within USDA programs was enacted as part of 
the 2018 Farm Bill. Section 6210 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of 
2018 (Farm Bill) allows recipients of any loan, grant, or loan 
guarantee from Rural Development (RD) to use up to ten percent of the 
amount provided to construct broadband infrastructure in areas not 
fully served by a minimum acceptable level of broadband service. This 
provision will not only speed deployment of smart grid but will also 
help bring desperately needed vital broadband to unserved rural 
communities. It correctly recognizes the vital role of communications 
in managing the electric grid and the ongoing technology convergence 
between the utility and telecommunications industry.
Affordability
    The new Emergency Broadband Benefit Program at the FCC is a very 
positive approach to the high-cost low-income services across the 
nation but it will need to be made permanent. Once a network is 
constructed and broadband is available, there is also the issue of 
affordability for many who have had their employment income disrupted, 
or even worse, eliminated during the pandemic and otherwise. There are 
many who simply cannot afford to pay for service due to unemployment, 
underemployment, illness, disability or other conditions and we need to 
provide ongoing sustainable help for them. Students--especially minors 
who are too young to work--who live in these households cannot access 
equal educational opportunities and adults cannot work remotely at 
certain jobs without assistance that is more than the current monthly 
Lifeline Benefit of $9.25 through one of the FCC Universal Service Fund 
programs. The Lifeline program needs to be increased permanently and 
the funding for it needs to be revised to a level that moves the needle 
on affordability. The low-income, high-cost households are also being 
deprived of telemedicine and valuable consumer research opportunities 
when buying or selling goods and services. The marketplace is on the 
internet more than ever these days. From the consumer perspective, 
there is no difference between having no access to broadband service 
and having access but not being able to afford it. The result is the 
same and therefore affordability is a key component.
Data and Mapping
    The FCC has launched the Digital Opportunity Data Collection 
process to improve mapping and identify gaps in coverage as required by 
the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) 
Act, signed into law in March 2020. Congress needs to monitor these 
efforts closely to ensure that improvements to the broadband data 
collection and mapping are granular enough to get an accurate picture 
of where service is available and where it is not. Congress must also 
insist that this data be made available as soon as possible.
Building Broadband Networks for the Future
    Broadband is as needed in rural America as other infrastructure 
systems to support a healthy economy and community. Policymakers in 
Washington, D.C., have recognized the importance of rural broadband 
networks by including increased funding and new programs to promote 
rural broadband infrastructure.
    It is our strong belief that fiber service is the best and longest-
term technological solution for these households and businesses. 
Satellite, cellular, and fixed wireless, and other unproven solutions 
are inferior to fiber for various reasons and our rural residents 
deserve the same level of service that others in more urban and 
suburban areas have available.
    One of the key objectives for consideration with respect to using 
the limited resources made available is that any broadband funding 
plans should include clear expectations for whomever receives Federal 
or state support. Recipients should be required to construct networks 
capable of meeting consumer demand over the long-term and not just 
today's minimum speed. In other words, resources should be used to 
build networks which will be useful for decades. Spending Federal or 
state dollars on broadband networks that are still in experimental 
phases or will be obsolete in a few years doesn't make financial sense 
and will leave rural areas behind again. The highest speed and capacity 
solutions such as Fiber-to-the-Home projects should be given preference 
over other less robust technologies. Other considerations affecting the 
end-user experience, such as latency and data cap limits which lead to 
a higher cost and diminished ability to utilize the service, should 
also be considered in all broadband funding programs.
The Role of Public Investment in Reliable Rural Broadband Service
    As a nonprofit cooperative, we operate at cost and our access to 
capital is limited by what we ask our consumer member-owners to 
contribute through the rates they pay. Additionally, our rural nature 
lends itself to sparse population densities which means we have smaller 
groups of consumers to spread the costs of deploying service. Because 
OEC, similar to other electric cooperatives across the country, is a 
small nonprofit that operates at cost, we entered this business with no 
extra cash to spend on the project. This means we financed our portion 
of the broadband infrastructure investment with borrowed funds. We had 
resources to invest--mostly labor, infrastructure, and equipment--but 
we would not have been able to proceed with the project without public 
funds. We also will not be able to extend our service area to reach 
additional rural Americans who don't yet have robust service without 
additional public funds. Therefore, continued government funding to 
reduce the up-front capital investment and help make the business case 
to deploy robust broadband is necessary to achieve wide-spread 
expansion of high-speed access throughout rural America.
    As previously mentioned, there are currently Federal funding 
programs operating and geared toward this purpose at the USDA's Rural 
Utilities Service (RUS) and at the FCC. Programs at these agencies are 
complementary and equally important. Electric cooperatives have 
witnessed both success stories and challenges within these programs in 
pursuit of bridging the digital divide throughout rural America. 
Additionally, a few new targeted programs are to come online soon at 
the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) at 
the Department of Commerce, and we may see states and localities direct 
a portion of their Coronavirus Flexible Recovery Funds or the 
Coronavirus Capital Infrastructure Funds toward broadband.
    While there has been a lot of investment and activity, it is 
important to remember that the FCC estimated in 2017 \4\ that it would 
cost $80 billion to bring high-speed internet to remaining parts of the 
country that do not have access, and a 2019 U.S. Department of 
Agriculture report \5\ estimated it would require ``between $130 and 
$150 billion over the next 5 to 7 years, to adequately support rural 
coverage and 5G wireless densification.'' Sustained investment is 
required to truly close the digital divide. It is also very likely that 
new more granular broadband data and maps will find the broadband gap 
to be wider than currently estimated, requiring additional funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Federal Communications Commission Study: Improving the Nations 
Digital infrastructure: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
Daily_Business/2017/db0119/DOC-343135A1.pdf.
    \5\ United States Department of Agriculture: A Case for Rural 
Broadband: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-
rural-broadband.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Rural electric cooperatives are uniquely suited to partner with the 
government for these projects because of the existing infrastructure we 
have in place throughout our service areas and unique local control. As 
member-owned, locally operated, and democratically controlled entities 
we feel we can best determine the needs of our local service areas 
because our consumer-members have a direct say in the services we 
provide, and we will continue serving these areas we call home long 
after other companies have reduced the quality of their service or 
ceased investment altogether.
Conclusion
    As I have described, broadband is vital to the survival and growth 
of both the communities OEC serves and all of rural America. Much 
progress on broadband deployment has been made over the last few years 
and it's important that we address the public policy challenges I've 
shared to ensure that progress may continue. Electric cooperatives are 
well suited for this task and we are committed to deploying broadband 
in rural America and investing in these difficult to serve areas where 
other providers are not willing to deploy robust broadband networks.
    National and state broadband programs offer an opportunity to 
promote broadband development. As part of this effort, our cooperative 
is ready and willing to continue the conversation about broadband 
programs and we look forward to working with you to expand all the 
benefits broadband has to offer so rural New Yorkers will not be left 
behind.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your commitment 
to rural broadband. I look forward to working with you and answering 
any questions you may have.

Timothy R. Johnson, CEO,
Otsego Electric Cooperative and OEConnect.

    The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, thank you for that very 
informative testimony that you gave. You and Ms. Prather are 
really opening up with some very, very significant and 
important information.
    And now, I would recognize Ms. Robinson for your 5 minutes. 
Please begin.

        STATEMENT OF VICKIE S. ROBINSON, ESQ., GENERAL 
 MANAGER, MICROSOFT GLOBAL AIRBAND INITIATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

    Ms. Robinson. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and 
Members of the Committee, my name is Vickie Robinson, and I am 
the General Manager of the Microsoft Airband Initiative. It is 
an honor to testify here today.
    My life's work focuses on extending broadband to unserved 
and underserved communities. Prior to joining Microsoft, I 
served at the FCC for nearly 15 years in multiple leadership 
roles, and as acting CEO and General Counsel of the Universal 
Service Administrative Company, which manages the Federal 
Universal Service Fund.
    Microsoft's Airband Initiative is a mix of innovative 
technologies to extend broadband's reach to the last mile, and 
to give communities access to the skills needed to use it. We 
have committed to extending broadband access to three million 
people in unserved rural areas in the United States by July of 
2022. So far, we have extended broadband service to more than 
two million people in 26 states and Puerto Rico.
    I would like to share some insights from our experience. 
First, we have learned that one size does not fit all. We must 
use the right technology tools to reach Americans and meet the 
individual needs of their communities.
    Second, government funding is critical to bridging the 
broadband gap. Many internet service providers, including 
Airband partners, receive funding from the FCC, U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, and state broadband programs. Funding streams 
must be made available on a technology-neutral basis so that 
broadband providers can use solutions that are tailored to meet 
the specific needs of communities, and government must continue 
to gather and share data to provide accurate information about 
which communities lack access to broadband, and what the key 
barriers are to that access.
    Third, connectivity alone is not enough to bring people 
online. Even when a community has access to broadband, 
impediments remain for some populations to adopt and realize 
the benefits of it. These include the inability to afford 
service, the cost of a device like a laptop or desktop 
computer, or a lack of digital skills to fully make the most of 
new connectivity.
    To address affordability and adoption challenges, our 
Airband partners will use new Federal programs like the 
Emergency Broadband Benefit, which offers support for those 
that cannot afford broadband service or devices. They also look 
forward to leveraging the Emergency Connectivity Fund to help 
students, school staff, and library patrons stay connected. 
However, these are temporary programs to bridge the gap. A 
permanent solution is needed to address these challenges.
    According to the National Skills Coalition, as many as one 
in three Americans have few to no digital skills. To foster 
digital skilling in rural communities, we and our Airband 
partners are working with nonprofits like the National 4-H 
Council and Future Farmers of America to provide critical 
digital skilling resources to the community. Funding to support 
digital literacy and skilling is important to increase 
broadband adoption as communities come online.
    In closing, I want to emphasize that the power of broadband 
connectivity is not simply about connecting homes; it is about 
transforming communities. We transform communities by using the 
power of connectivity and technology to create new 
opportunities to work or start a business, open new doors to 
education, improve access to healthcare, and unleash the power 
of precision agriculture. As you work to make broadband funding 
available, we ask that you target funding to unserved and 
underserved communities, prioritizing the speed of deployment 
and allocating funding in a cost-effective manner to stretch 
Federal dollars as far as possible. We also ask that Congress 
and policymakers prioritize funding for deployment for people 
who are income-insecure, and ultimately find a permanent 
solution to address the cost of broadband service and devices. 
Finally, we ask you to support efforts to increase digital 
literacy and skilling to ensure that Americans can use their 
broadband service to transform their communities for the 
better.
    Thank you so much for this opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]

   Prepared Statement of Vickie S. Robinson, Esq., General Manager, 
         Microsoft Global Airband Initiative, Washington, D.C.
    Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives on 
broadband, particularly efforts to address longstanding connectivity 
needs in rural America. My name is Vickie Robinson, and I am the 
General Manager for the Microsoft Airband Initiative, which is focused 
on efforts to close the digital divide in the United States and around 
the world. Prior to joining Microsoft, I served at the Federal 
Communications Commission (FCC) for nearly 15 years in multiple 
leadership roles and served as Acting CEO and General Counsel of the 
Universal Service Administrative Co., an independent not-for-profit 
organization designated by the FCC as the administrator of the Federal 
Universal Service Fund. I'm here today to share our thoughts on 
broadband and closing the rural digital divide.
    Broadband is critical to everything we do, and we deeply appreciate 
the importance of broadband in enabling everyone to do more. Access to 
broadband is essential to meaningful participation in society, 
providing the foundation for enormous social and economic opportunity. 
For many, high-speed internet access is as ubiquitous as electricity 
and running water. From the comfort of our own homes, those of us with 
connectivity can attend courses and earn degrees, shop for countless 
products from around the world, and collaborate seamlessly with 
colleagues in different time zones. Less than a generation ago, those 
things were impossible.
    The challenge, however, as this Committee so rightly highlights, is 
that not everyone has access to a broadband connection and as a 
population, some haven't benefitted equally. This gap 
disproportionately affects communities that are traditionally 
marginalized, including but not limited to, people experiencing income 
and housing insecurity, racial and ethnic minorities, and people with 
disabilities. Rural areas are especially disadvantaged, as telecom 
infrastructure often fails to go as far as needed in low population 
density regions.
    The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare the fact that many people in 
rural and other under-connected communities are without broadband and 
unable to access distance learning, telemedicine, e-commerce, and other 
tools necessary for modern life. This challenge is heightened in rural 
areas: according to the FCC, more than 11 million Americans in rural 
areas do not have access to a fixed broadband connection. Of the 
Americans who do not have broadband access, rural Americans constitute 
78 percent. Microsoft's data analysis suggests that the numbers of 
unserved Americans in rural areas is even higher. Congressional passage 
and funding of the Broadband DATA Act should help to pave the way to 
accurately identify and address existing gaps in broadband coverage.
    As I discuss further below, Microsoft believes we can--and we 
must--do our part in the private-sector to help extend broadband 
coverage. There is also an important role for the Federal Government 
and Congress based upon our experience and insights with Microsoft's 
rural broadband initiative. With this in mind, we would recommend the 
Committee consider the following issues:

   Funding is critical. Broadband is costly to deploy in rural 
        areas and providers need funding to help to defray the cost of 
        the capital investment and extend networks into unserved and 
        underserved areas.

   One size does not fit all. Not all solutions are suitable 
        for all areas and it is best to rely on internet service 
        providers (ISPs) to determine what solution works best for the 
        communities they are working to serve. Microsoft Airband ISP 
        partners use a tool kit approach, and we rely on them to 
        identify what solutions work best. This requires a technology-
        neutral approach to funding broadband, which affords providers 
        the flexibility to tailor technology to the community providing 
        broadband quickly and cost effectively and without sacrificing 
        speed. The concept of technology neutral funding is not new or 
        novel. The Agriculture Appropriations reports highlighted the 
        concept when it appropriated funding for broadband for Fiscal 
        Years 2019-21.

   Pursue digital transformation. Communities embrace broadband 
        more quickly when doing so will help them to solve challenges. 
        For example, enabling telehealth or precision agriculture is 
        more likely to prompt further community use of broadband and 
        deliver transformational value. As such, policies that help to 
        unleash the power of connectivity and technology are critical.

   Digital skilling, broadband service and broadband devices 
        can drive adoption. Having access to a broadband connection is 
        essential to tackling the digital divide, but many Americans 
        also need digital skills to take full advantage of broadband as 
        well as a monthly broadband service and a broadband device in 
        the home.
Microsoft's Airband Initiative: Partnering with Other Stakeholders to 
        Close the Digital Divide
    In July 2017, Microsoft launched the Airband U.S. Initiative as 
both a call to action and our programmatic effort to help close the 
rural broadband access gap in the United States. The Microsoft Airband 
Initiative is not an initiative that we do on our own, and Microsoft is 
not itself a direct connectivity provider. We address the digital 
divide by working with a network of people and organizations toward the 
same goal--connecting people and bringing with that connectivity the 
opportunity for a better life. We partner with internet access 
providers, telecom equipment makers, nonprofits, and local 
entrepreneurs to advance digital equity: access to affordable internet, 
affordable devices, and digital skills.
    Our goal is to extend broadband access to three million people in 
unserved rural areas by July 2022. This marks an increase from our 
initial commitment of two million. Our partners include 14 internet 
service providers with projects in 26 states and Puerto Rico. As of 
January 2021, the projects extended broadband access to over nine 
million people, including more than two million people residing in 
previously unserved rural areas. As we bring communities online, we 
also are very focused on delivering technology solutions to expand 
access to virtual healthcare, help increase revenue and reduce costs in 
agriculture, facilitate online learning, and enable small businesses to 
reach more customers. These digital transformation efforts can help 
level the playing field for billions of people.
    Our partnerships typically involve a four-part approach focused on 
connectivity, digital skilling, digital transformation, and policy 
advocacy. This work has provided insights into closing the broadband 
gap.

   Connectivity. First, we focus on connectivity through our 
        ISP partners to accelerate access to broadband among unserved 
        and underserved communities. These projects are designed to be 
        commercially sustainable and are intended to scale.

   Digital Skilling. Second, digital skilling, from basic 
        digital literacy to leveraging computer applications and job 
        training, is a key component to broadband adoption. Therefore, 
        we provide digital skilling resources to support all our 
        Airband communities. These opportunities are spearheaded 
        through a collaboration with Microsoft Philanthropies, which 
        partners with nonprofit organizations that are focused on 
        serving rural communities, such as the National 4-H Council and 
        Future Farmers of America.

   Driving Solutions through Digital Transformation. Next, we 
        partner with private and public sector organizations, 
        nonprofits, and others to provide relevant solutions that are 
        enabled by broadband networks. Our objective is to help improve 
        productivity and livelihood within newly connected communities, 
        while driving sustainable development. For example, 
        connectivity enables healthcare facilities to deliver critical 
        telehealth solutions throughout the community at a time when 
        physical access to rural health facilities is diminishing.

   Policy and Advocacy. Last, our work is undergirded by policy 
        and advocacy efforts designed to address the immediate and 
        longer-term digital divide challenges, and in so doing, promote 
        a more inclusive world, where everyone has an opportunity to 
        participate in the digital economy.
Connectivity
    We have learned a lot from our work on broadband issues over the 
years and our more recent efforts to help bridge the digital divide 
through our Airband Initiative. Rural communities are left behind 
without broadband service, often because it is too costly to deploy and 
operate broadband networks in sparsely populated communities. 
Recognizing this, policymakers have perennially appropriated funding or 
established mechanisms to fund broadband deployment. Without funding 
from the government to address the cost of extending the network into 
unserved areas, we will not be able to quickly close the rural digital 
divide. We have also come to understand that broadband deployment 
funding should be made available in a technology neutral manner 
empowering broadband providers to craft the solutions that work best 
for the community and balance factors such as speed of network 
deployment and speed of broadband service as well as the cost of 
network build out and service to the consumer.
    The financial challenges of deploying broadband networks in rural 
underserved and underserved areas often demand that our Airband 
partners leverage government funding. Many of our partners are 
recipients of the FCC's Connect America Fund Phase II Auction and the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, as well as other funding mechanisms 
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state broadband programs 
that are funded through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic 
Security Act (CARES Act).
    Choosing the best technology solution is key to quickly expanding 
connectivity in unserved rural communities. In constructing projects 
across 26 states and Puerto Rico, our Airband ISP partners make use of 
a multi-technology and multi-frequency portfolio to connect the 
unconnected and determine technology choices based on the requirements 
of the various locations as well as the relevant broadband and 
narrowband use cases. Airband ISP partners embrace a multitude of 
technologies from fiber to wireless technologies leveraging multiple 
frequency bands like TV Whites Spaces (TVWS), Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service (CBRS), Educational Broadband Service (EBS), a wide range of 
mid-band fixed wireless, WiFi 6E on 6GHz, and millimeter waves. For 
example, Airband ISP partner Nextlink Internet uses a combination of 
fixed wireless and fiber optic technology to deliver high-speed 
broadband to rural customers across their growing footprint in the 
central region of the United States.
    The Airband Initiative and its partners are continuing to be 
creative and flexible to meet short-term and long-term connectivity 
needs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Initiative launched a 
public WiFi hotspot grant program to provide immediate relief where in-
home installation might not be possible in the short-term. Airband ISP 
partners and partner organizations like the Public Library Association 
and the University of Washington Extension campuses built over 300 
public WiFi hotspots across the United States. In the Central Valley of 
California, Airband partner Cal.net is working with school districts, 
community college systems, and other educational entities to provide 
affordable fixed wireless in-home broadband access to students who 
would not otherwise have access during the pandemic.
Digital Skilling Efforts in Newly Connected Communities
    Connectivity alone is not enough. There is a whole host of skills 
that many of us take for granted that are needed to navigate the 
digital world. These range from how to connect a device to the 
internet, basic skills in navigating the internet (conducting searches, 
using a mouse, setting up passwords and logins), to cyber safety. Yet 
as many as one in three Americans have few to no digital skills. 
Moreover, rural schools are less likely to have advanced computer 
science classes. That is why it is critical for broadband access to go 
hand-in-hand with useful digital skills that meet people where they 
are.
    To foster digital skilling in rural communities, Airband ISP 
partners are working with the National 4-H Council, the Public Library 
Association and Future Farmers of America to provide digital skilling 
resources to the community. Many partners host Microsoft digital 
skilling content on their website to provide access to content and 
online training that provides digital literacy, computing, and AI 
skills. For example, a collaborative effort between 4-H staff, after-
school mentors, and Airband partner Declaration Networks Group led to 
providing internet access and the tools needed for students to engage 
in virtual learning. As a result of the partnership, half of these 
students received internet service within 1 week. Now, they can connect 
with their after-school peers and mentors, while still accessing their 
schoolwork at home.
    Our partnership with PCs for People expands the breadth and depth 
of our digital skilling program and creates a hotline that will be 
available in English and Spanish to the customers of all our Airband 
partners. The hotline will answer basic digital literacy requests, as 
well as help partners navigate Microsoft online digital skilling 
training and LinkedIn employability training. This training can lead to 
remote job opportunities in ten career paths. On April 8th, Microsoft 
and LinkedIn announced that we are extending our global skills 
initiative through the end of 2021, providing free LinkedIn Learning 
and Microsoft Learn courses and low-cost certifications that align to 
in-demand jobs. Areas of focus include customer service, project 
management, data analysis, software development and more.
    Our work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to 
improve broadband access for our nation's Veterans and expand digital 
skilling opportunities to Veterans living in rural areas highlights the 
opportunity that skilling can offer. Last Fall, we held our first joint 
workshop with the VA for Veterans living in Decatur and Dubois 
Counties, Indiana, as an extension of new broadband connectivity made 
available in these counties by Airband ISP partner Watch 
Communications. The workshop included an introduction to Microsoft and 
LinkedIn's digital skilling and employability training as part of our 
cooperative effort to leverage new connectivity as a vehicle for 
training and workforce development.
Driving Digital Solutions in Rural Communities
    As we focus on the challenges of broadband deployment, we must not 
lose sight of the fundamental promise of connectivity--the benefits 
that come with digitally transforming our communities. As Airband 
partners bring communities online, we work to provide solutions that 
improve outcomes in education, healthcare, agriculture, and small 
businesses.
    For example, in rural Washington State, we have supported an 
Airband partner's efforts to help one of its customers, a local lumber 
company, increase its operational efficiency by leveraging connectivity 
and technology to make data driven decisions. Now, the company's 
operations are more efficient, and it is saving money due to the 
improved use of resources. In Texas, another Airband partner has 
connected dozens of schools to their respective Education Service 
Centers that offer distance learning courses such as English as a 
Second Language (ESL) and teacher instructional resources as well as 
access to Microsoft, Google Classroom, and filtering services.
    TechSpark is a Microsoft civic program designed to foster greater 
economic opportunity and job creation in rural and smaller metropolitan 
communities. In TechSpark regions, our Airband partners work to address 
the broadband needs of local businesses and the related needs of the 
surrounding community. For example, in North Dakota, we are 
collaborating with the Dakota Carrier Network on a pilot project to 
deploy a narrowband, Internet of Things (IoT) network that uses TV 
White Space and other wireless technologies to support precision 
agriculture solutions in the state, including supporting the North 
Dakota State University Agronomy Seed Farm.
    We're also excited to partner with Land O'Lakes, Inc. as part of 
our shared commitment to drive economic development and innovation for 
farmers and within rural communities. As part of our partnership, we 
are connecting member agriculture owners and Land O'Lakes facilities 
with Airband ISP partners to increase broadband speeds at these 
facilities, while providing broadband to the surrounding communities. 
To date, we've launched projects in Scircleville, Indiana and 
Uniopolis, Ohio; these pilot projects use fixed wireless broadband 
technology at speeds up to 100 Mbps, demonstrating the power of fixed 
wireless to close the rural digital divide. We will deepen our 
engagement in these projects by using the Microsoft FarmBeats platform 
for precision agriculture, and IoT applications for propane tank 
monitoring as part of these deployments.
Extending Access to Underrepresented Communities Often Involves More 
        than Building the Network
    Even when a community can obtain broadband connectivity, 
impediments remain for some populations to adopt and realize the 
benefits of broadband. These impediments could include an inability to 
afford monthly broadband service or the cost of a broadband device (and 
as noted earlier it could be a lack of digital skills). Our Airband 
partners encounter these challenges in the populations they serve and 
have sought to creatively address them. Their actions though, in most 
instances, offer only short-term solutions and these needs will 
ultimately go unmet if a permanent solution is not implemented.
    To encourage all community members to get onto the network, our 
Airband ISP partners are leaning into the new Federal broadband 
programs, like the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, that offer 
support for those lacking the ability to pay for broadband service and 
devices. Our partners participating in the Federal Universal Service 
Fund's School and Libraries Support Mechanism (commonly referred to as 
the ``E-Rate program'') are gearing up their operations in anticipation 
of fulfilling the needs of schools and libraries from the upcoming 
changes to the E-Rate program. In response to the pandemic, Airband ISP 
partners took action to ensure that customers experiencing financial 
difficulties due to the pandemic remained connected, signing on to the 
FCC's Keep Americans Connected pledge, while at the same time working 
feverishly to meet increased demand for service in the face of supply 
chain challenges. However, these are temporary programs to bridge the 
gap. A permanent solution is needed to address these issues.
    Tribal lands and Native American communities also face specific 
challenges when it comes to broadband access and use: remote locations, 
challenging terrain, and historical lack of service providers compound 
existing challenges. In addition, many of the residents on Tribal lands 
are income-insecure and particularly sensitive to the affordability 
challenge and therefore are reliant upon programs like the Federal 
Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism to secure broadband 
service. To drive adoption in these communities, access to affordable 
connectivity and devices, paired with digital skilling will be 
critical. Two of our Airband partners, Sacred Wind Communications and 
Native Networks, are squarely focused on serving Tribal communities. 
They have rapidly deployed broadband using a mix of technologies (2.5 
GHz, 5.8 GHz, CBRS, FTTH, etc.) to unserved and underserved Indigenous 
communities in Arizona, Washington, and New Mexico in response to the 
dire need due to the pandemic. Funding to address affordability 
challenges in Indigenous communities is critical.
    Building upon a recent partnership between Microsoft Philanthropies 
and the 1890 Universities Foundation, a 501[(c)(3)] organization 
created in 2016 by the nineteen 1890 Land-Grant Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), we are partnering with the 
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff (UAPB) to use connectivity in support 
of precision agriculture and digital skilling. Through our Airband 
partner Aristotle Unified Communications, we will bring connectivity to 
UAPB's demonstration farms to showcase precision agriculture for local 
growers and support research opportunities and members who do not have 
stable internet access once they leave the UAPB campus. In so doing, we 
will help unlock the power of connectivity for historically 
marginalized communities, but affordability will remain a challenge in 
the absence of permanent solutions.
Recommendations for the Committee
    The work of our partners highlights the importance of:

   providing funding for broadband deployment;

   taking a technology neutral approach to funding deployment;

   imparting digital skills;

   partnering to drive digital solutions; and

   ensuring that low-income consumers have access to a 
        broadband service and a broadband device at home.

    As we work together to design creative solutions to make broadband 
more accessible and affordable for all Americans, I'd like to put forth 
a few additional recommendations for consideration by this Committee.

   First, as permanent broadband funding mechanisms are 
        designed, we must ensure they are targeted to address a known 
        market need; for example, the need to deliver broadband access 
        to unserved rural areas and connect students without broadband 
        access for remote learning. Funding should be prioritized to 
        reach unserved or underserved communities. This will require 
        comprehensive and accurate broadband availability data and 
        mapping as we cannot solve a problem we do not understand.

   Second, funding amounts should be cost-effectively allocated 
        to technologies and deployments that provide the maximum value 
        through efficient use of funds. Through our learnings, we know 
        that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution to network 
        deployments and therefore encourage a technology-neutral 
        approach where a mix of technologies can be leveraged to 
        deliver broadband speeds.

   Third, broadband funding should provide a long-term 
        meaningful benefit to make in-home broadband service affordable 
        for income-insecure households.

   Last, given the urgency of the issue, preference should be 
        given to broadband solutions that will provide rapid deployment 
        of broadband networks and services. History has taught us that 
        technologies are deployed at different speeds, with wireless 
        technologies (e.g., mobile phones) being deployed much faster 
        than wireline technologies (e.g., electricity). We cannot leave 
        another generation behind. Speed of deployment must be a part 
        of the policy calculation.

    The term digital divide was coined over 2 decades ago. So, we have 
long known that communities are being left behind without access to 
broadband and unable to benefit from the multitude of services offered 
through the internet. The pandemic has made clear the value of 
broadband and the internet in our new digital world where, in many 
cases as we live our lives socially distant, there is no access to 
school, healthcare, commerce and jobs without broadband. At this moment 
in time, there is a unique opportunity to permanently fix the broadband 
deployment gap through leadership and smart investments maximizing the 
opportunity for all Americans.
    Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this broadband 
discussion. I look forward to your questions and welcome the 
opportunity to discuss how Microsoft can assist in advancing broadband 
access and adoption in rural America.

    The Chairman. Excellent, excellent testimony. Each of you 
have just given us valuable information. Thank you so much.
    And now, our final witness, Dr. Park, you may begin for 
your 5 minutes now.

       STATEMENT OF JOHNNY PARK, Ph.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
 OFFICER, WABASH HEARTLAND INNOVATION NETWORK, WEST LAFAYETTE, 
                               IN

    Dr. Park. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Johnny Park. 
I am the CEO of the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, or 
WHIN. I would like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to 
speak with you today.
    This invitation came about after a recent conversation we 
had with Congressman Baird. We shared that we recently had a 
successful test flight of a unique technology called the 
aerostat to serve rural broadband needs in our ten-county 
region in Indiana. He was struck by how valuable such 
alternative technology could be to helping solve the digital 
divide. He asked me to share this story with you.
    You see, WHIN is not an internet service provider, and 
broadband is not our primary business. In fact, we are a 
501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization, and our overarching 
goal is to build a regional ecosystem that can help our rural 
region attract globally competitive businesses to plant and 
grow in our Wabash Heartland region.
    Towards that goal, our principle strategy has been to 
accelerate the adoption of digital technology in our region, 
especially digital agriculture and smart manufacturing. As you 
might expect in Indiana, agriculture and manufacturing are 
mainstays of our rural economy.
    We began to develop our region as a very large Living 
Laboratory for IoT. Very simply, we introduced innovative and 
vetted commercial and near-commercial technology into the 
region, incentivized the local farmers and manufacturers to 
accelerate their adoption, and drive innovation from the real 
usage of technology. And it is working. After just over 2 
years, many farmers and manufacturers of all sizes in our 
region have adopted various technologies that they had not used 
before. But the spotty and inconsistent connectivity in our 
rural region was hindering our efforts, not to mention limiting 
all kinds of economic development and quality of life, as we 
all know.
    Which brings us to broadband. We began to recognize that we 
can approach broadband with the same Living Lab model. That is, 
introduce innovative, highly impactful technology, put it to 
real use, and drive innovation from real usage by sharing 
results so that solutions can be improved.
    So, as a first step, WHIN is launching an aerostat 
developed by RTO Wireless headquartered in Massachusetts. 
WHIN's aerostat is an 80 tethered balloon that is approved by 
the FAA to fly 1,500 in the air from a farm field in White 
County, Indiana. It is tethered with fiber connection and it 
has a payload capacity of 200 pounds that allows it to carry 
multiple wireless communication devices. Our single aerostat is 
expected to have a 50 mile radius coverage with LoRaWAN, which 
is a network protocol suitable for IoT sensor connectivity. For 
high-speed internet, we will utilize CBRS, which is going to 
take some testing, but we expect it to provide high-speed 
internet within a radius of 10 to 15 miles.
    The aerostat has many features that make it very attractive 
for rural broadband. Its transmissions are low latency. 
Aerostats can be deployed typically in 3 to 5 months from start 
to providing services. It is cost effective. It has excellent 
line of sight, solving the problem of difficult terrain and 
barriers that traditional solutions can't reach. It functions 
well in high winds, and environmentally, the aerostat is quite 
friendly, as there are no engines, just helium and the tether.
    So, you might wonder how WHIN's network will be put to real 
use as we are not an ISP. Our network is a resource that will 
be available to any ISP or WISP in the region who wants to use 
it to better serve their own customers, or attract new 
customers. Note that this is actually a way to accelerate 
adoption of state-of-the-art broadband in our region, and that 
is always our main goal. We are using innovation to close gaps 
quickly.
    So, how can this model help you? We know that with very 
large expenditures proposed and already made for rural 
broadband, you would prefer to get it right the first time. But 
technology evolves quickly, and so does the need in the 
marketplace. And while innovation is necessary, it adds 
uncertainty and complexity. WHIN's Living Lab model is a model 
for taking out some of that risk by testing and validating 
novel solutions in real conditions. We suggested to Congressman 
Baird that setting aside a portion of rural broadband funding 
for innovation and for models of advancing innovation could 
really help solve the digital divide sooner and more cost 
effectively.
    Thank you for your time today, and we deeply appreciate 
your work on behalf of rural America.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Park follows:]

  Prepared Statement of Johnny Park, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, 
        Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, West Lafayette, IN
    I would like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and 
the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today.
    This invitation came about after a recent conversation we had with 
Congressman Baird to catch him up on WHIN activities. He found out that 
we recently had a successful test flight for the aerostat we are 
deploying to serve rural broadband needs in our ten-county region of 
North Central Indiana. Ours is the first aerostat, by the way, to be 
deployed long-term for commercial rural broadband in the U.S.
    As we explained why we had included an aerostat in our network, 
Congressman Baird was struck by how valuable such innovative 
alternative technologies could be to helping solve the digital divide. 
We greatly appreciate his introduction on our behalf to Ranking Member 
Thompson.
1.0  Revisiting the Rural Broadband Problem To Make Room for 
        Innovations Like The Aerostat
    The aerostat is indeed a fascinating and potentially game-changing 
contribution to solving rural broadband and we are happy to tell you 
all about it. It is, however, but one innovation among many that will 
be needed to solve the digital divide.
    And innovation for rural broadband is in full swing. It is high on 
university research agendas. U.S. Ignite and the NSF are due to 
announce who will build out the next Platform for Advanced Wireless 
Research (PAWR), this one dedicated to rural broadband. The FCC has 
made CBRS and TV White space available, both high bandwidth spectrum 
eminently suited to rural applications. Industry, from Big Tech to gear 
companies to Elon Musk, are developing new products accordingly.
    And so is funding pouring out. Just about every major funding bill 
that has been signed into law in the past several years has included 
substantial dollars for rural broadband.
    But the digital divide remains: we can't get over the hump. The 
finish line is ever out of reach. So far, the innovation value chain 
that leads to solutions, even with help of major Federal investment, is 
not delivering, or at least not delivering fast enough.
    We also sensed from reading the report for the last farm bill a 
certain frustration on the part of Members with how to reconcile huge 
Federal investments with infrastructure that can become obsolete even 
before it is built. There is a quite natural longing for solutions, if 
and when they come, to be ``future proof'' and to be ``built right the 
first time.''
    Somehow, the enormous effort to solve rural broadband doesn't seem 
to be satisfying anyone, and that is certainly true in the very rural 
ten-county WHIN region of north central Indiana.
    In part, this could be a problem of unrealistic expectations that 
arise out of unchallenged assumptions and conventional wisdom. For 
example, that word ``infrastructure'' can lead to the misperception 
that telecommunications infrastructure should have the same kind of 
long and stable future as physical roads and bridges.
    There are indeed solidly physical aspects to telecommunications 
infrastructure, but unfortunately they are nothing like roads and 
bridges. Even the lowest, most physical layer in a network, like the 
glass of fiber, has intelligence built into it, such as the ability to 
transmit multiple wavelengths. This allows a physical medium to 
interface with the higher layers in a transmission whose functions are 
even more abstract, such as data, addresses, protocols, logic and so 
forth. In other words, there is no ``dumb,'' neutral, physical--only, 
part of a network, including fiber, that carries data inertly the way a 
concrete road carries cars.
    That is one reason that fiber is so expensive. And while it has a 
relatively long useful life, at least in the telecommunications world, 
fiber is fabricated to allow certain bandwidth limits that meet current 
standards. Standards have a purpose and value in extending useful life. 
But they can also limit innovation and make it harder to meet a growing 
need. Eventually, something has to give because the spectrum on which 
telecommunications depends is a fixed, limited resource. The only way 
to get more of it is to innovate technology to get more performance out 
of what is already there. This means standards have to change and 
replacement of infrastructure must follow.
    And by the way, the future of roads is that way, too. They are 
becoming smart as they are equipped with sensors. All infrastructure is 
going to look more and more like telecommunications infrastructure as 
the Internet of Things (IoT) barrels toward us from the future.
    Another expectation that deserves a hard look is the one around 
fiber being not only stable, but the key to solving the rural broadband 
problem. Wherever it is deployed, fiber is utterly necessary to 
broadband, but it is not sufficient to accomplish broadband service. 
This is because fiber rarely, if ever, delivers service directly to 
user equipment (UE). All mobile and most non-mobile network use 
requires some amount of wireless transmission, and however much fiber 
we lay, what the user experiences in service is only as good as the 
weakest link in the network. That link is wireless technology, which is 
historically weaker than fiber. Wireless technology is indeed a complex 
partner to fiber, embodying strength, weakness, opportunity and threat.
    Finally, there is the related and subtle expectation that what 
works for dense urban areas just needs to be stretched out to fit less 
dense, rural areas. In this view, rural areas are vast swaths of 
digital deserts: a lot of digitally-irrelevant empty space between 
users, as if a city had been attached to a rubber mat and stretched out 
over the countryside.
    The danger is that seeing rural America that way leads to 
implementing rural broadband that way. For one thing, rural terrain is 
not homogeneous, and it can be very unfriendly to terrestrial solutions 
of all sorts.
    Rural areas are also digitally diverse. There are small communities 
that are oases of density. Dense use can develop spontaneously when a 
festival pops up and tourists arrive, or at a Friday night football 
game when most of the population that is normally spread out across a 
county finds itself packed into an acre or 2, with cell phones 
ablazing. Rural residents tend to do a lot of driving and rely on 
mobile phones en route.
    Then there is the fact that rural areas are no longer digital 
deserts at all, because those seemingly empty farm fields are 
increasingly populated by sensors that need wireless service. Sensors 
that serve digital agriculture are typically low power and operated by 
batteries that must last for years. This means that traditional 
broadband won't work because it draws too much power and that is okay: 
sensors don't need broadband for their uplink. Their transmissions do, 
however, need backhaul. So IoT needs something different to complement 
broadband, and that service is going to be just as important to rural 
development as broadband.
    Rural broadband is also not starting from scratch. Recent 
investment has resulted in very useful and important deployment of 
fiber. That it hasn't always closed the gap to the user doesn't mean it 
was a poor investment. And some fixed wireless providers are upgrading 
to newly available spectrum like CBRS. They are also taking advantage 
of grain legs and other built structures typically found in rural areas 
to avoid building expensive towers.
    But in the WHIN region alone, there are 30 service providers, with 
widely varying levels of service, a multitude of technologies, and 
inconsistent plans to upgrade. A huge challenge to consistent rural 
broadband service is to incentivize the marketplace to provide the 
consistent, high-quality service the region needs.
    The bottom line is that rural connectivity needs are not always 
what they seem to be: they are complex, dynamic and don't lend 
themselves to one-size-fits-all solutions. Rural telecommunications 
will have to be solved creatively and strategically, with a variety of 
flexible and dynamic solutions that take into account not only the 
distances in rural areas, but also environmental and terrain 
conditions, the jumble of existing technologies, the variety and 
unpredictability of connectivity usage patterns, and the need for 
different kinds of spectrum for different problems.
    Among other things, this puts a lot of pressure on wireless 
technology to fill gaps and go where fiber can't without compromising 
service. Accordingly, as noted above, wireless technology has been 
enjoying a lot of attention. Notably, at the physical level at least, 
wireless technology is a less problematic target of investment because 
it is also less expensive to fabricate, deploy and redeploy than fiber.
    There is still plenty of room for even more innovation as the new 
spectrum, which is very different from conventional broadband spectrum, 
becomes operational. Wireless transmission is still affected for better 
and worse by physical issues like positioning, and in some bands, it is 
always going to be hampered by obstacles.
    And there is an opportunity to innovate fiber with different models 
of deployment.
    So what does this complex, vibrant view of rural broadband mean for 
this Committee and others who are trying to find traction to justify 
major investments in broadband infrastructure?
    First, the notion of rural broadband infrastructure must expand to 
include not only fiber but also whatever it takes to deliver 
performance and solutions to users, including fiber.
    For example, a percentage of fiber investment could be set aside to 
support innovation of wireless technology for rural applications 
including IoT; strategic and integrated use of fiber in conjunction 
with wireless technologies to achieve optimal performance; middle and 
last mile solutions that are sustainable; and, attention to ensure that 
rural connectivity solutions are designed to solve complex problems 
like e-learning, remote work, and telehealth beyond just providing a 
lot of bandwidth.
    We were very impressed to see the note in the House farm bill 
report that an Innovative Broadband Advancement Program had replaced 
the former Rural Gigabit Program, and to learn that it was signed into 
law. Even though the provision was not funded, it hit the high points 
of practical and cost-effective innovation, demonstration, methods of 
deployment in addition to technology, and flexibility. We commend the 
Committee for that vision.
    We realize that encouraging innovation in a complex technology like 
broadband, and in a complex service area like rural America, poses a 
different and difficult set of challenges to funding than are usually 
faced in infrastructure-related legislation. How, among all of the 
choices that are emerging, is an investor, including government, to 
know whether a solution works as intended? Whether it is necessary? 
Whether it solves the problems users care about? How much value will it 
return? Is there a sustainable business model? What are its unintended 
consequences? What will come closest, fastest, to solving the digital 
divide?
    How, in short, can we get innovation funded? And what makes an 
innovation in rural broadband a good investment? How is that 
determined? And by whom?
    WHIN's aerostat is an example of wireless innovation that can 
benefit rural broadband. It is being deployed with private grants funds 
and no public investment. That approach works because WHIN is itself an 
innovation: a community-based nonprofit with a regional development 
mission built primarily around scientific and educational purposes.
    Though aerostat technology is the reason we are testifying, it is 
but one example of innovative technologies that can accelerate rural 
broadband. WHIN is technology-agnostic. The model it has developed 
organizes innovation around cost effective, efficient, sustainable, 
rapid results and it has demonstrated the ability to accelerate 
digitalization, including both Internet of Things (IoT) and its 
enabling technology, broadband, in the vital rural economic sectors of 
agriculture and manufacturing.
    Private funding is flexible enough to fuel the development of such 
an innovative model and to demonstrate its value. But what WHIN is 
doing has useful lessons for others who are trying to solve the 
problem, including the Federal Government. For example, WHIN's model 
addresses ``future-proofing'' to some degree. It is a project worth 
continuing with public help, strengthening and scaling up the bold 
experiment that WHIN's private grant dollars have enabled. That is how 
public-private partnerships should work, aligning investment with the 
stages of a project's life-cycle that best fit what a funder is able to 
do within its purpose.
    We begin with a brief description of WHIN. Then we describe the 
aerostat as an example of how WHIN's unique Living Lab model is 
demonstrating innovation. We then conclude with a fuller explication of 
the model and its power to generally organize innovation around 
results.
2.0  About WHIN
    WHIN is the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network. With very generous 
initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc., our task is to build a 
regional ecosystem that can help our rural region attract globally 
competitive businesses to plant and grow in the Wabash Heartland.
    The WHIN region consists of Benton, Carroll, Cass, Clinton, 
Fountain, Montgomery, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, Warren and White counties in 
North Central Indiana. Its area is 4,321\2\ mile and includes a 90 mile 
stretch of the Wabash River. The region's population is 391,476 
(2019E).
    The region's average BEA Per Capita Income in 2019 was $42,276, 
about 75% of the national average. About 85% of the region's land area 
is farmland, primarily in corn and beans.
    The economic and population center of the WHIN region is in 
Tippecanoe County, and especially in Greater Lafayette, home of Purdue 
University in West Lafayette and a regional campus of Ivy Tech 
Community College in Lafayette. Greater Lafayette hosts vibrant 
manufacturing including Subaru's North American production plant; 
Wabash National, North America's largest producer of semi trailers and 
liquid transportation systems; a metals cluster including Arconic, 
Nanshan America, Oscar Winski, and ProAxis; a Caterpillar large engine 
plant; Evonik pharmaceuticals, and an aviation cluster including GE 
Aviation and Rolls-Royce, with SAAB on the way. About half of the 
region's population resides in Tippecanoe County.
    WHIN is not an ISP, and broadband, rural or otherwise, is not our 
primary business. And though, as a regional development organization 
WHIN has a very close working relationship with Purdue University and 
Ivy Tech Community College, it is a community-based 501[(c)(3)] whose 
own purposes are scientific and educational, as well as charitable.
    The WHIN innovation in regional development is that it not only has 
the 501[(c)(3)] purposes of science and education that are unusual in a 
community organization, those purposes structure its strategic 
framework. WHIN does serve the charitable purpose of supporting the 
quality of life projects and workforce development that are usually 
expected from organizations like ours. But the organization mainly has 
the not-so-modest and very specific grant obligation of making our 
region a globally-recognized center of IoT, the Internet of Things. 
WHIN is developing its region as a Living Laboratory for all of the 
technology related to IoT.
    Aerostat technology serves the I in IoT, which is to say the 
internet. As a means of accessing the internet, it is a prospective 
technology for rural broadband.
3.0  WHIN's Aerostat: A Case Study In Using WHIN's Living Lab To 
        Address Rural Broadband
3.1  How WHIN Chose Aerostat Technology for Its Living Lab
    WHIN identifies innovative IoT technology, puts it to real use in 
its regional Living Lab, and generates research and educational support 
from that use. The process begins with an extensive vetting process 
that examines both the prospective technology and the prospective tech 
partner that produces it.
    WHIN looks for promising technology that is commercial or near-
commercial, has a sustainable business model, can be deployed rapidly, 
will have immediate impact, and that can offer interesting test cases 
to move IoT adoption forward.
    WHIN began its association with RTO Wireless through connections 
both have in Silicon Valley. The company is headquartered in 
Massachusetts with a research office in California. It offers fixed 
wireless service on the east coast, but its principals are very 
interested in wireless innovation, specifically for rural broadband. 
RTO is a Microsoft Airband partner. It has strong connections with the 
military. When WHIN met RTO, it had begun a new venture to adapt 
military aerostat technology that has a long and successful record 
serving telecommunication needs on battlefields, for use in domestic 
applications, including rural broadband.
    The company was far enough along in the adaptation to be nearing a 
contract with AT&T to utilize an RTO aerostat for FirstNet services. 
FirstNet is the government-funded program developed after 9/11 to 
ensure that first responders can communicate when commercial 
communications are down because of a national emergency or natural 
disaster. AT&T has the contract and it, in turn, contracted with RTO to 
do the work necessary to prepare an aerostat for flight, including its 
payload of radios and antennas, as well as to provide flight operations 
support until AT&T's crew could be trained.
    Over time, that contract was executed and an RTO aerostat 
successfully tested at the famous Tuskegee Air Force base in Alabama. 
This test was conducted twice and closely tracked by the FirstNet 
program and the FAA. AT&T and RTO demonstrated that the aerostat could 
be operated safely, and earned the FAA's support for these emergency 
deployments. During Hurricane Laura in Louisiana, AT&T and RTO deployed 
the RTO aerostat and provided communications to emergency personnel.
    RTO previously conducted successful flight and telecom tests in 
Baltic, North Dakota, demonstrating a propagation map that far exceeded 
the reach of terrestrial towers in the WHIN region.
    Based on that information, WHIN recognized the disruptive potential 
of the aerostat and decided to deploy an RTO Wireless 
AeroSiteTM in its Living Lab, making it the first long-term 
deployment of the technology in the U.S. for commercial rural 
broadband.
3.2  Aerostat Technology and the RTO Wireless AeroSiteTM in 
        Particular
3.2.1  History and Use
    Aerostats have been in service since the early 1900s. Since 1978 
the United States has maintained eleven tethered aerostats sites along 
its southern borders on a 24/7/365 basis, operating as high as 18,000 
and carrying radar units for drug interdiction purposes, persistent 
surveillance and other applications. Aerostats have also been used for 
decades by the military for communications on battlefields.
    The demonstrated use of aerostats in these situations suggests that 
they would be an ideal technology for rural broadband because rural 
terrain, user density, and user mobility have much in common with 
military service areas.
    Beyond communications, aerostats could be an IoT solution for rural 
needs including forestry management (hyperspectral), fire and hot spot 
detection (thermal), imaging for precision agriculture, environmental 
monitoring, and livestock tracking and monitoring.
    Aerostats can be used for emergency and law enforcement situations, 
like the FirstNet service mentioned above. WHIN envisions the potential 
for aerostats to serve as an immediate solution for deploying rural 
broadband connectivity, as telehealth and remote learning needs are 
immediate. In the event that fiber or other networks overbuild the 
aerostat coverage area over time, then the permanent aerostats can be 
switched to emergency networks that get deployed during massive natural 
disasters or acts of terrorism or war.
3.2.2  Equipment 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The aerostat is a tethered balloon, filled in its center with 
helium for lift and compartments of air in the nose and tail that can 
be used to adjust its flight in various weather conditions. The 
aerostat's aerodynamic design helps stabilize it in flight.
    The aerostat is deployed in a fenced, secure, graveled compound 
located and sized to allow for a 45 cone of operational space around 
the tether that ensures the aerostat easily clears other vertical 
structures during launch and landing.
    The full AeroSiteTM system includes a mooring trailer 
that is custom designed to anchor the aerostat in flight, allow it to 
be launched and landed safely, and connect it with power and fiber.
    The mooring trailer also contains avionics to assist flight, launch 
and landing, as well as remote monitoring.
    The trailer remains on wheels and is portable but is anchored to 
concrete pylons for long-term deployment. The compound that serves the 
aerostat contains a telecom cabinet, generator, equipment storage shed, 
and the helium truck. The compound needs fiber service and commercial 
power.
3.2.3  Performance Advantages and Constraints
    The aerostat's tether contains fiber as well as power and its 
payload consists of radios and antennas. It can therefore provide both 
access and backhaul.
    At an altitude of 500-2,500, depending on model and payload 
design, the aerostat's altitude offers two significant performance 
advantages. First, it can position radios and antennas at an optimal 
altitude to provide line-of-sight communication that exceeds that of 
typical terrestrial towers, while maintaining low latency that avoids 
the lag and other problems associated with high latency at higher 
altitudes. High latency is a problem with satellite technology, for 
example. Greater line-of-sight benefits rural broadband by enabling 
signals to reach behind treelines and other obstacles in often-
difficult rural terrain.
    Second, the aerostat's higher altitude means that its radios and 
antennas operate in free space, which gives them greater range than 
they have on the ground. Aerostats generally extract more value from 
gear.
    The main performance constraint is weight: unlike terrestrial 
towers, the number of radios and antennas an aerostat can carry in its 
payload is capped. That means that capacity, the number of customers a 
single aerostat can serve, is also capped, making aerostats unsuitable 
for high-density areas like cities. But as long as the payload capacity 
of an aerostat is aligned with the density of its intended service 
region, which is typically low in rural areas, this constraint is not a 
disadvantage: a single aerostat can serve a much larger area than a 
single terrestrial tower. This CapX/OpX efficiency is what gives 
aerostats their business model advantage.
    The other main performance constraint has to do with up time. 
Aerostats must be brought down monthly for a few hours for service and 
helium top-off. Though designed to fly in winds up to 80 mph, depending 
on the model size and actual payload, aerostats may have to be grounded 
in exceptional weather conditions. Also, as tethered balloons, 
aerostats fly under Section 101 of FAA regulations, meaning that they 
are subject to visual flight rules and must stay below the cloud 
ceiling.
    With their low carbon footprint, minimal soil disturbance, and 
relatively quiet operation aerostats are environmentally friendly. 
Aerostats would not be typically deployed closer together than 20-25 
miles, and at flight altitudes of 500-2,500, they are not visually 
distracting.
3.2.4  Operational Considerations
    Though the aerostat itself is unmanned, it requires 24/7 remote 
monitoring on the ground. Manned operations contribute to the 
aerostat's OpX, but that is mitigated if aerostats are deployed in a 
network, allowing a single operator to serve multiple aerostats.
    Launch and landing require a team that is well-trained, but only 
needed occasionally. Though this also contributes to OpX, the team is 
mustered infrequently. An analogy would be volunteer firemen. In WHIN's 
case, Purdue University is close by and has an aviation program. It is 
eager to supply student interns to assist, as they will benefit from a 
unique opportunity to gain skill in this technology.
    Helium is expensive and deflation is to be avoided to keep OpX in 
line. Normally, only a top off should be required month to month
3.2.5  What Is Involved in Deploying an Aerostat
    The overarching consideration for deploying an aerostat is that it 
is regulated by a variety of entities, including local ordinances 
governing zoning and land use, the FCC controlling telecommunications, 
and the FAA controlling use of airspace. There are two main differences 
in the process for aerostats compared to terrestrial towers. First, 
aerostats are new and the governing mechanisms don't always account for 
them. Second, the FAA has much more to say about aerostats than it does 
about terrestrial towers.
    For regulatory approvals, it is very important to become familiar 
not only with requirements but timelines. The permits often depend on 
each other, and not taking steps in the right order will cost time.
    That said, WHIN, which had no experience standing up a commercial 
network, coordinated with RTO on the site selection and permitting 
process. RTO brought experience standing up commercial towers but had 
only deployed aerostats in emergency situations where much permitting 
is waived. WHIN and RTO used their collective resources to work through 
the ordinances and processes that agencies required to construct a 
communications site and a ``tethered balloon'' deployment. Even with 
these challenges, WHIN still managed to go from needing to select a 
site to maiden flight in 6 months. That time frame is not possible for 
a terrestrial tower, which can take well over 1 year to construct and 
require the ground frost to be thawed.
    Specific aerostat ground needs are modest compared to a tower, with 
no structure construction required. Most of the construction is in 
grading and finishing the compound and access road, and fencing. The 
site must have access and easements for power and fiber. An ideal 
location is a farm field where the compound can be distanced from power 
lines and vertical structures.
3.3  WHIN's Specific Configuration
    In selecting both site and aerostat model, WHIN's goal was to be 
able to at least touch the edges of six counties with broadband service 
and provide LoRaWAN to the entire region with a single aerostat. The 
intended spectrum is CBRS, with the ability to swap in other spectrum, 
including very high frequency. The performance goal is 100 Mbps/20 Mbps 
within a 15-20 mile radius, with capacity to be determined, but 
sufficient to support a business model
    The recommended model was an AeroSiteTM 800, which is an 
80 balloon with a 200 lb payload capacity, and tether for a flight 
altitude of 1,500.
3.4  WHIN Plan for Operations
    As of the end of March, WHIN's aerostat had completed a successful 
test flight. The LoRaWAN payload is presently being configured, and 
that will be tested in early June. The next radios to be added to 
payload will be 5.8 GHz radios that have been used for many years in 
rural broadband networks. After 5.8 GHz testing is completed, WHIN will 
replace the 5.8 GHz radios with CBRS radios and begin testing. WHIN 
will be testing various antennas on all the wireless technologies on 
the aerostat.
    In the meantime, WHIN is contracting with local service providers 
to provide retail services for the aerostat. WHIN is working with a 
service provider to provide sufficient backhaul and radio equipment for 
multiple wireless service providers to be able to utilize the aerostat.
3.5  WHIN's Research Plan
    Over the next year, WHIN will test and produce use cases including 
business plans to determine:

  1.  The propagation maps that are possible from the aerostat for 
            LoRaWAN, 5.8 GHz and CBRS networks

  2.  Service capacity for each configuration

  3.  Use of the aerostat for backhaul

  4.  The motion of the aerostat and its influence on performance and 
            compliance with any wireless standards, such as CBRS 
            restrictions on movements of certain antennas that are 
            cause by the aerostat

  5.  How operational considerations impact the business model

    WHIN is also deploying terrestrial assets in conjunction with 
existing commercial terrestrial assets to facilitate testing and 
provide a variety of real world network configurations and ground-
truthing.
    WHIN is seeking funding for a second aerostat to both elaborate the 
business model and to do technical testing with a network of aerostats.
4.0  The WHIN Living Lab Model
    WHIN is able to deploy the aerostat in real operations and test its 
performance thanks to a model it has developed called Living Lab. The 
model has its roots in a problem WHIN had to solve for itself. In order 
to meet its grant requirements, it had to find a way to accelerate the 
adoption of IoT, and, even more specifically the sensor side of IoT, by 
growers and manufacturers in its ten-county region.
    But of course it turned out that IoT is an all or nothing 
proposition. It can't solve problems unless all of its parts are 
present: data measurement (sensors), data transmission (broadband), and 
data analytics/applications (the component that integrates the data 
into an action plan or solution).
    Because commercial sensor technology comes equipped with data 
analytics, we were left with a two-part problem.

  1.  Sensor technology is at the stage of development where its next 
            customers, especially in rural markets, don't know yet that 
            they need it, or at least not with the urgency that would 
            lead to rapid adoption.

  2.  Broadband, on the other hand, is already at urgency and beyond in 
            rural markets. The problem with broadband isn't adoption, 
            it is a combination of affordable availability and slow 
            deployment.

    Technology is always in a process of continuous improvement, or the 
addition of value, by its stakeholders. At different points along this 
innovation value chain, there are different stakeholders. Early on, it 
may be a university and the NSF. At another, it is a startup and a VC. 
At another it is a user with her wallet. Each addition of value 
involves investment.
    We aren't accustomed to thinking of users as adding value, but as 
noted in the introduction, they have perhaps the most value of all to 
contribute because only they are the arbiters of whether a technology 
should stay or go. Of whether it has any value at all.
    What WHIN's two IoT problems have in common is that somewhere in 
their value chains, there is a barrier to real use. For sensor-
technology the barriers are related to adoption. For broadband, they 
are related to being available and accessible. Looked at that way, 
WHIN's problem was to eliminate barriers.
4.1  Connecting Products to Real Use
    Lowering the barriers to adoption is such an important need for 
WHIN that it has its own part of the Living Lab called WHIN Alliance, 
consisting of the growers and manufacturers who are willing to adopt if 
WHIN makes it easy.
    A key barrier to easy adoption is the time and effort it takes to 
identify and assess not only a technology but the company itself. As we 
saw with the aerostat, WHIN has a process for vetting that is very 
thorough.
    We lower another barrier by subsidizing the initial cost of 
adoption, requiring tech partners to also provide a discount. If WHIN 
has done a good job of vetting, the users will benefit and be willing 
to assume future costs. Once a technology is in wider use, the Alliance 
serves as a community of users helping each other learn to solve 
problems in a new way, reducing yet another barrier to adoption. And 
WHIN remains in the picture to facilitate and advise.
    The good news is that lowering these barriers is indeed 
accelerating the adoption of IoT in the WHIN region. Thirty-nine 
growers representing nearly 155,000 acres have become Alliance members 
in the last 2 years, benefiting from WHIN's weather station network, 
automated optimization of ag operations, robotic soil sampling, remote 
grain health monitoring, and aerial imaging. Seventeen manufacturers of 
all sizes have benefited from automated preventive maintenance 
technology in a little over a year. Additional technology is in the 
pipeline for both agriculture and manufacturing members and the 
Alliances are growing.
    WHIN tends to measure the success of its model by the willingness 
of Alliance members to stay active and begin to invest their own 
dollars in WHIN's vetted IoT. That won't happen unless farmers and 
manufacturers are seeing value. The majority of members are being 
retained in the Alliances from year to year and they are adding new 
technology.
4.2  Connecting Tech Companies to Real Use
    One key barrier to innovation is when there is no way to do product 
validation, which requires real use. And the more expertise that can be 
brought to bear on resolving problems the validation uncovers, the 
better the result in both quality and speed.
    Purdue University's presence in the WHIN region is of immeasurable 
value to discovery and innovation. They are leaders in sensor 
development, and in creating the next generation of digital agriculture 
and digital manufacturing. They are a tremendous source of expertise.
    WHIN's Alliance model brings tech partners into the region who are 
learning from the real use of their products, whether that is early 
stage product validation or later stage mature product innovation.
    Purdue and the Alliances give tech partners every reason to develop 
a permanent physical presence in the WHIN region: it is there that they 
can develop and innovate most quickly and effectively. We have already 
seen this to be the case. Digital ag company and WHIN tech partner, 
Solinftec, moved its global headquarters from Brazil to West Lafayette 
because of the WHIN relationship and proximity to Purdue. All of the 
other tech partners have also added jobs because of increased business 
in the Alliance. Some had no previous employment presence in Indiana at 
all.
    The tech partner relationship also leads to accelerated 
commercialization of promising near-commercial technologies, helping 
startups succeed, plant and grow. Two of WHIN's tech partners began as 
startups in the Alliance and are now further along in their lifecycle.
    Thus the Alliance model fulfils another WHIN goal: helping 
globally-competitive businesses plant and grow in our region, which is 
to say, to create good jobs.
4.3  Connecting Researchers and Educators to Real Use
    Funding for university research is highly competitive. WHIN's 
Living Lab offers Purdue faculty something no other university enjoys: 
access to a wealth of real world data. The Living Lab actually reverses 
the conventional science-to-practice model.
    A key aspect of WHIN's 501[(c)(3)] status is that our scientific 
and educational purposes must also be fulfilled for the public good. 
WHIN accomplishes these purposes by requiring its Alliance members and 
tech partners to license data to WHIN. WHIN maintains the data in 
anonymized form in a data lake, with a data portal that makes it 
accessible to interested faculty and students.
    The intent of WHIN's data sharing is to spur the contribution of 
university research and innovation toward making the region a global 
center for IoT. In fact, WHIN data that is generated from sensors can 
help inform research that is not specifically related to the sensor 
side of IoT. Because IoT is a complex of data measurement, data 
transmission, and data analytic technologies, researchers in any one of 
those areas can benefit from real world data. And because IoT is about 
the physical world, researchers interested in what the physical world 
has to say for itself could benefit from real world data. And because 
IoT is changing and guiding human experience, there is a sociological, 
ethical, communicative, and even philosophical interest in what is 
actually, objectively, happening. IoT will increasingly touch most of 
human experience.
4.4  Connecting Products to Real Use--the Broadband Challenge
    The digital divide points to a different problem with connecting 
technology to real use. There is a third variable as the economics of 
technology innovation and deployment works against adoption.
    But building a network doesn't have to be a billion dollar project. 
It is possible to build small scale networks and connect them to a 
commercial network with the right technology, incentives, and 
relationships.
    The Living Lab has all of those. As the aerostat story shows, a 
single piece of gear can make a difference, and WHIN's model is able to 
incentivize industry partners to come together to help, from fiber to 
retail operations.
5.0  Urgency
    Just how important is WHIN's digitalization project?
    According to the pivotal 2019 USDA report, ``A Case for Rural 
Broadband: Insights on Rural Broadband Infrastructure and Next 
Generation Precision Ag Technologies.'' (https://www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf), the 
digitalization of agriculture can help growers by:

   Integrated decision-making based on actionable data and 
        information=better decisions, more precise supply chain and 
        resource allocation

   Automation of processes through the Internet of 
        Things=increased efficiency, reduction of repetitive manual 
        tasks, improved precision

   Technology to support human tasks=improved speed, accuracy, 
        ability to access information and control remotely

   Better connectivity=e-commerce, access to more markets, 
        online platforms that are not limited to geography, ability to 
        differentiate products

   Quality of life applications=telehealth, distance learning 
        (including workforce development like developing coding skills)

    The report concludes, ``While digital technologies are already 
creating value within the agriculture industry today, realizing the 
full potential of these technologies, according to USDA, could create 
$46-$65 billion annually in additional gross benefit for the U.S. 
economy. In other words, if broadband internet infrastructure, digital 
technologies at scale, and on-farm capabilities were available at a 
level that met estimated producer demand, the U.S. could realize 
economic benefits equivalent to nearly 18 percent of total production, 
based on 2017 levels.''
    The impact of increased digitalization in manufacturing has also 
been found to be critically important. ``State of renewal: Charting a 
new course for Indiana's economic growth and inclusion.'' 
(indianagpsproject.com) was released in February 2021, by the Brookings 
Institute, in collaboration from the American Enterprise Institute and 
is the outcome of the Indiana GPS project.
    The GPS study was commissioned by the Central Indiana Corporate 
Partnership (CICP) with funding from Lilly Endowment, Inc., to identify 
data-driven strategies to promote growth and prosperity in the state. 
Specifically, those strategies were to be focused on increasing the 
number of good jobs so that every Hoosier can support a family.
    The study picked up on some very important and interrelated data 
points. A leading indicator of the potential for good job growth is 
productivity. The most impactful variable for lifting productivity is 
technology, specifically information technology, which since the mid-
1990s accounts for \2/3\ of productivity growth nationwide. The number 
one recommendation in the report for creating new good jobs is 
therefore to accelerate digitalization, including closing broadband 
gaps as broadband is critical infrastructure both for itself and for 
digitalization.
    This is of utmost importance to Indiana, a state that has suffered 
from negligible growth in productivity between 2007 and 2019, and whose 
2019 productivity gap relative to the nation was 20%. Not surprisingly, 
given the interrelationship between productivity and digitalization, 
Indiana's firms are found to be investing too little in IT, ranking the 
state 37th in the U.S. in annual per worker IT expenditures in 2016, 
the most recent year for which the data is available.
    The report concludes that digitalization leads to economic 
dynamism, productivity, and competitiveness, with productivity a kind 
of first among peers as it affects competitiveness and, because of 
multiplier effects, economic dynamism.
    Thus WHIN's model of accelerating digitalization in jobs-rich 
manufacturing has only become more urgently needed. And WHIN's 
inclusion of product-rich agriculture in its digitalization project 
gives ag a new role in impacting jobs as well. The ag tech companies 
WHIN is working with to digitalize agriculture are creating new, good 
jobs in Indiana. As part of the advanced services sector, those 
companies are just as important to Indiana's growth and prosperity as 
manufacturing.
    WHIN now finds itself in the position of being the pilot for the 
number one recommendation in front of Indiana policy makers and 
officials for moving the state forward. It is a responsibility we do 
not take lightly.
6.0  WHIN's Value Propositions and Why It Is So Important to Strengthen 
        and Grow Its Model
    One of the great gifts of the LEI grant that created WHIN is that 
it meant that WHIN is a 501[(c)(3)]. Being a not-for-profit 
organization enables WHIN to function as an agnostic problem solver, 
with no allegiance to any particular technology except that it has to 
be IoT or related to IoT. This enables us to work holistically, with 
the purpose of problem-solving, whatever it takes, and not simply 
validating that something works.
    That makes us a very new kind of stakeholder in technology 
innovation that, from a position outside of the innovation value chain, 
is able to disrupt the chain in the interest of both adoption/
digitalization and innovation simultaneously to get problems solved.
    WHIN may be outside of the innovation value chain, but its way of 
disrupting adds great value. WHIN disrupts by separating real use from 
adoption and then accelerating the use ahead of adoption.
    Real use, which is normally delayed until adoption, is the only way 
to answer the questions that measure real value: does the technology 
work as intended? Is it something the market needs? Does it solve a 
problem users care about? How much value will it return and how 
quickly? Are there any unintended consequences? And most of all, will 
someone pay to use it?
    This last point is key. WHIN describes itself as accelerating 
adoption and it is. But it doesn't do that with its initial investment 
in reducing the cost of adoption. Adoption doesn't really happen until 
the user is paying for the technology, until they have literally bought 
in. In the first years a technology is deployed in the region, WHIN 
assumes the risk that adoption may not ultimately occur. Indeed, for 
technology laggards like farmers and manufacturers, for whom seeing is 
often the shortest route to believing, what WHIN offers is basically an 
extended road test.
    WHIN's ability to take on the risk is enabled by its own investors.
    And the risk is worth it. Real use is what uncovers problems, and 
WHIN's model of doing that earlier can mean the difference between an 
inexpensive adjustment and complete failure of the product. The earlier 
a problem is found, the less likely it is to damage the trajectory of 
product development. Indeed, even failure can be innovation's best 
friend, as long as it occurs early. Failure is the source of much 
critical learning. This is called ``fail fast'' in technology 
development and it helps ensure that companies adapt quickly and move 
on without spending more time on something that isn't working.
    Another trend in tech development is to send products to the market 
early, when they are ready to do a meaningful task but could still 
benefit from additional features. The products can often be easily 
updated through software updates and, in the meantime, the user has the 
benefit of the features that are available, and the tech company can 
ensure the product is keeping pace with user needs. This solves the 
problem of long development cycles aimed at perfection which can mean 
that, by the time the product is perfect, user needs have changed and 
the product is obsolete before it gets out of the lab. The principle is 
to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.
    More generally, these trends reflect how the private-sector is 
adapting to the rapid pace of technological change during the 
development phase, which also requires substantial investment. In 
effect, the companies are protecting their investment in development by 
accelerating real use.
    Indeed, the strategies can be seen as a form of ``future 
proofing.'' The concept of useful life that is the usual target of 
``future proofing,'' is based on a rigid innovation value chain model 
that positions the user at the end of product development, after all of 
the value has been built in. When users need change, which is the main 
source of obsolescence, the product loses use value.
    But if real use is distributed all along a product's value chain, 
the product can better keep pace with need and, as a bonus, uncaught 
problems are less likely to interfere with future development and 
value. Distributing the risk all along the value chain makes it more 
likely that, barring a revolutionary shift in technology, the product 
will last longer.
    That is what is proven in the private-sector to handle accelerated 
change for single technologies.
    WHIN's Living Lab model takes those strategies further. First, it 
creates a community of users in a very large lab with diverse 
conditions that enables a much more robust test for even single 
products.
    And, because it is operated by WHIN, which is agnostic to any 
particular technology, the model is able to accommodate complex 
technologies like broadband, which depend on entire systems of products 
to solve a problem. WHIN is able to help design and test complex 
solutions, in the quest for what is cost-effective and sustainable, 
beyond simply knowing whether an individual component performs 
according to spec.
    For investors all along the innovation value chain from the NSF to 
VCs to the USDA investing in broadband deployment to users themselves, 
early certainty--in whatever degree--reduces risk, and makes it 
possible to release investment earlier throughout the innovation value 
chain. This keeps innovation and digitalization moving forward.
    Finally, and most important, it should not be lost that WHIN's 
Living Lab, by being Living, necessarily includes the community itself 
in finding the right solutions. Grounding the innovation of technology 
in real use also keeps it grounded.
    The Living Lab is the right model for the right time: a way to 
manage both complexity and rapid acceleration of change in broadband 
and all of the aspects of digitalization, and a way to connect 
technology to what is humane and real.
                        PowerPoint Presentation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          [Ron Burns, Matt Gremelspacher, Blain Hizer--Grain and Hog 
        farmer.]
        
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
        
 
    The Chairman. Very good. Thank you.
    As I said, Committee Members, as you can see, what a 
bountiful amount of very valuable information we have already 
heard. And now, we are going to get into our questions for our 
panelists. At this time, Members will be recognized for 
questions in order of seniority, alternating between Majority 
and Minority Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each 
in order to allow us to get as many questions in, and my goal 
is to make sure we hear from each and every Member here. So, 
please cooperate with me when I have to bring the hammer down 
so we can be fair to everyone, because everybody has something 
to say here.
    Also, please keep your microphones muted until you are 
recognized in order to minimize the background noise.
    And now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
    Panelists, as Chairman of this Committee, my goal is to see 
if we can not get rural broadband out to these 24 million 
people that don't have it. We can do it, and I want you all to 
help me and advise me on how we can do it to reach my goal of 
having internet rural broadband in place for access for these 
24 million of our fellow Americans in rural areas by December 
the 31st. Sometimes you have to set a deadline, measure what 
you want to do.
    So, please, each of you, if you could just tell me what it 
is we need to do. You all know how much money it would take. 
Give us what you think the amount of money we need, and tell 
me, can we do that? That is our goal.
    And, I will start with Ms. Robinson--no, Ms. Prather first. 
I am sorry.
    Ms. Prather. Thank you, sir.
    The Chairman. How much money would it take? What must we do 
to get rural broadband to these 24 million people by the end of 
this year, December?
    Ms. Prather. Thank you, sir.
    First of all, you are right. This is an extremely expensive 
issue. I do want to state, too, that it is a two-fold issue. It 
is not just the initial deployment, which is very much 
necessary and where these programs can be very beneficial, but 
it is also a matter of being able to maintain those networks 
over the life of those assets that we are putting into the 
ground.
    I do want to be certain that while we have communities that 
have waited this long for broadband infrastructure, that we 
don't cheapen what we give them. If it has taken this long to 
get broadband, we want to put something in the ground that will 
last many, many decades because I don't know when we would get 
back to them to upgrade that. So, I think using these sure 
methods of providing sustainable broadband, and then the 
government using programs that can help sustain the network in 
an area where there are just not enough customers to do so is 
what will get us there.
    Thank you.
    The Chairman. Ms. Robinson, how much money would it take? I 
need you all to help us guide this. Nobody knows better than 
you. If we wanted to say we could get this to these 24 million, 
how much money are we talking about? You are the experts, and 
you would know. Give us an estimate so when we go and put our 
bill together, we will know how much money we need to have 
allocated to put broadband up to reach these 24 million. That 
is the question.
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    There are estimates that suggest that the cost to actually 
reach those who are unserved is anywhere from $60 to $80 
billion. I submit, however, that it is hard to rely on such 
estimates because we haven't first done the hard and necessary 
work to accurately map where those gaps exist. And so, that is 
the first order of business is actually mapping the gap, and 
Congress has enabled the FCC to be able to do that by funding 
the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L. 116-130). So, that is the first 
step is actually mapping and getting a clear sense of where 
gaps exist.
    I would then submit that once you have that, you will have 
a number. You then need to think about how do you stretch those 
Federal dollars as far as possible. In giving your deadline, 
think about which technology tools can be used to actually move 
quickly. So, as you are thinking about funding for deployment, 
it is important that the policymakers prioritize what is cost 
effective to actually stretch Federal dollars, and then second, 
the myriad of technology solutions that are available in the 
market can be brought to bear to move quickly.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Park?
    Dr. Park. So, our expectation is about $150 billion, but 
again, that is without laying out, as Ms. Robinson said, 
various novel technologies that are emerging nowadays.
    So, our recommendation, again, is to promote innovation and 
deploy those emerging technologies, gather data quickly, and 
replicate those success stories in other regions in the nation. 
And it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for sure. Rural is 
very diverse, and we need to embrace the diversity by making 
sure the right type of technology is deployed in those 
situations.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and now I recognize our Ranking 
Member for his 5 minutes.
    Thank you all.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Prather, in your testimony you said that: ``We must 
require the deployment of networks that in a decade or more 
will still deliver speeds and other performance capabilities 
that customers can rely on.'' Can you talk more about the 
importance of long-term performance and perhaps discuss some 
prior funding failures the Committee should be aware of?
    Ms. Prather. Yes, sir, thank you so much.
    You are right. We have every indication that demand is only 
going to continue to grow at really intense rates of expansion. 
We currently provide service with numerous technologies today. 
I utilize fiber, I utilized fixed wireless, and while we are 
deploying maybe some of those other ways to get speeds out 
faster, we see those as stepping stones. We do not see them as 
the end game.
    If you look at any wireless infrastructure out there, it 
also tries to get back to a fiber backbone as fast as possible, 
because they have to offload that data somewhere that can 
handle it. As we are looking at building networks, we also look 
at reliability. Just as an example, last week we had a fixed 
wireless tower that got hit by a bolt of lightning. That 
happens out here. We lost every single piece of equipment on 
it. So, when we are looking at deploying infrastructure, that 
creates a lot of customer disruption as well. Out here, we get 
a lot of hailstorms, high wind, things like that. So, we want 
to look at infrastructure that can handle those issues as well. 
We obviously lost a lot of customer units in that storm as 
well. We have to replace those. We didn't have any problems 
with our fibers.
    So, we look at what can take the capacity that is going to 
be needed, and then also what will be reliable once it is 
built.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
    Dr. Park, you have a different take in your written 
testimony, expressing a preference for flexibility in network 
design and rapid turnover technology. How can we make sure that 
planning for obsolescence doesn't become settling for 
obsolescence, especially when building networks through 
necessary bureaucratic government programs?
    Dr. Park. Thank you.
    So, our suggestion is that we promote a Living Lab model, 
such as WHIN, where, certain parts of progressive regions, we 
use that as a test case. Without trying out this emerging 
technology put to real use, it is really, really difficult to 
assess how valuable, how reliable, and how scalable and how 
cost-effective those technologies are. And we often find really 
great, innovative ideas to move forward beyond that.
    So, we would recommend, again, having a portion of the 
funding dedicated to innovations like WHIN to promote use of 
emerging technologies as a way to advance this innovation in 
much-needed technology in broadband.
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Dr. Park.
    Ms. Prather, in your testimony you also encouraged full 
funding of the Rural Broadband Program authorized in the 2018 
Farm Bill. Why is it important to stakeholders to get the Rural 
Broadband Program up and running before the next farm bill?
    Ms. Prather. Great question, I think two-fold. There are 
some very good ideas in that program. Tying the speed to the 
length of a grant, and then also, we want to see what that 
would do. Since it hasn't been fully funded, we haven't got to 
see how well it works. So, I think it is important to see how 
well it works currently before more changes are made.
    Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, congratulations and thank you for your 
leadership of your electric cooperative.
    You had mentioned in your written testimony the number of 
advantages rural electric co-ops have, including the governing 
body who really--I mean, it is customer-owned, so you know the 
area, you know the topography, you know the customers are 
there. And I was--can you just expand just briefly on--you had 
noted that 50 percent of the cost of building out networks, you 
already have covered with employees and equipment and vehicles 
and rights-of-way, those kinds of things.
    Mr. Johnson. Right. I was referring to--thank you, Ranking 
Member Thompson.
    Yes. We were referring to make ready costs, which can 
constitute a large portion of expense in construction. We own 
rights-of-way, currently maintain electric rights-of-way for 
the purpose of electric service. Adding fiber to those rights-
of-way is not as big a lift for us as it is for other entities. 
We already are there. We have the poles and we know where 
problem areas are, and the right-of-way is clear and trimmed so 
that we can get in quickly and string a robust network. We have 
skilled workers. Our linemen can easily be cross-trained, if 
necessary, and we can bring in workers who can use their skills 
to run the strand. We strand all of our fiber with steel strand 
to make it more resilient in the event of outages and----
    Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    My time has expired.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Costa.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is, as 
you noted, an important hearing, not just for our Agriculture 
Committee, but for rural America. And I think most, if not all 
of us, have portions of our Congressional district, as has been 
noted, that are challenged when it comes to having access to 
broadband. About 15 percent of my district does not have 
access, and it is a problem, to say the least.
    Some of the witnesses, I would like to ask you. As we are 
talking about whether it is $60 to $70 billion as one has 
noted, or as much as $150 billion, that is a big discrepancy 
and difference in terms of cost for implementation. I would 
like to understand that better.
    But how can Federal efforts complement existing focus that 
our states and in some cases, our local governments are 
pursuing to get connected to broadband? Who would like to take 
that?
    Ms. Robinson. I am happy to respond.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the question.
    To the first part of your question in terms of the 
discrepancy, a lot of that is going to be based on what kind of 
technology solution you are talking about using. Everyone 
recognizes that fiber is the gold standard in terms of speed, 
but one tradeoff for fiber can be cost. And so, while you are 
talking about the estimate from $60 to $80 billion to the $150 
billion estimate, a lot of that is going to be driven on what 
technology solutions that you are bringing to bear. So, I 
wanted to raise that point.
    And to the second----
    Mr. Costa. So, your recommendation on that point in terms 
of to ensure the broadband strategy is tech neutral, how do we 
include an effort to make it inclusive both for fiber and for 
wireless broadband technologies?
    Ms. Robinson. I think that the Agriculture Appropriations 
Committee has already kind of baked this in terms of the 
appropriation by recognizing that technology neutrality is an 
important concept to bake into funding. So, that is critical 
and we see that the existing Federal programs that are in 
existence today are also technology neutral by virtue of who 
the awards have gone to. So, I think continuing to do that is 
important.
    It is also important to have coordination, to your second 
point, amongst what is being done at the Federal level, what is 
being done at the state level and the local level so that the 
policymakers can have an aggregate view of the various programs 
that can be brought to bear. There may be grants, loans, tax 
credits or other mechanisms to ensure that you can get 
broadband access deployed, but then also ensure that 
affordability is addressed as well.
    Mr. Costa. What is a realistic timeline in closing the gap?
    Ms. Robinson. The first step----
    Mr. Costa. Twenty-five percent, yes.
    Ms. Robinson. I think the first step is, again, 
understanding the scope of the problem. If that work can wrap 
up fairly quickly, then we can be in a position to actually 
move quickly to close the gap. But moving quickly will require 
that toolkit approach that we referenced--I referenced in my 
testimony and that has been brought up through witnesses as 
part of our opening statements. Recognizing that if you want to 
move quickly, say, we started the Airband Initiative, we had a 
bold goal of closing the gap in its entirety by July of 2022. 
If we bring all of our resources to bear using all technologies 
at our disposal, it is possible, but you first need to 
understand the real scope of where those gaps exist.
    Mr. Costa. This is really a part of a worldwide 
competition, but in terms of the technology, is it important to 
note that we are still at the cutting edge and that the United 
States has the best technology to deploy broadband on these 
hard to serve areas, the 25 percent of rural America that 
doesn't have it?
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, I believe that we are first, and 
we should continue that spirit of innovation to bring all 
resources to bear to quickly and completely close the digital 
divide. We are absolutely poised to do that as a country.
    Mr. Costa. Does anyone else care to comment?
    Dr. Park. I absolutely agree. Again, this innovative 
broadband investment program is really the spirit, right. We 
were really impressed to see the note in House farm bill report 
that had replaced the former Rural Development Program. It 
really hit the high points of practical cost-effective note in 
innovation, demonstrating the technology, and methods of 
deployment in addition to technology and flexibility. So, we 
really commend the Committee for that vision.
    Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Absolutely. Thank you very much.
    The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, you are now 
recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I have a question for Ms. Prather. More attention and 
Federal funds have been dedicated to broadband deployment in 
recent years, but districts like mine and many others that look 
like mine still don't have access. I am just wondering how we 
can more quickly and efficiently deploy those resources? Can 
you talk about that a little bit?
    Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you.
    I think that is a very good point, and to some of the 
credit of my other witnesses, we know that some of those 
problems deal with the maps that are currently out there 
showing where is served and where is unserved. To piggyback on 
an earlier question, that is a great place for the state and 
local offices to step in as well, to do some of that more 
granular help where there is a problem at the Federal level to 
show what is served and what is unserved.
    I think these programs--there is also a lot of money that 
has already been put to the FCC that has not actually gone out 
the door yet, so we have areas that have maybe been 
appropriated to, but the money has not gone out yet. ReConnect 
funds haven't gone out yet. There are holdups in some of those 
processes that the work has been planned but is not actually 
getting done yet.
    I know a lot of my colleagues have had challenges with some 
of that Federal funding, and I don't know if that, the log jam 
seems to be sitting with some reviews and some processes. 
Things that we can do at the Federal level to get that money 
out the door much closer to when it has been promised will help 
in those situations.
    Mr. Crawford. While I have you, let me ask you this.
    You mentioned supply chain disruptions in your testimony. 
Can you talk a little bit more about those challenges that you 
are experiencing? How are your supply chains arranged, and what 
can the Federal Government do to help improve that?
    Ms. Prather. Sure. That is a very real problem, both with 
our fiber optic cable and with the electronics used at the 
customer level and at our level. All of those things have some 
pretty serious delays. Last week, we ordered some fiber 
pedestals that have a 365 day lead time. And I know some of my 
fellow colleagues in Iowa see that with fiber as well.
    It may be a little above my pay grade to know what 
government could do, but I will say any sort of incentives to 
produce that domestically would definitely help in those 
situations.
    Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you.
    Let me ask Ms. Robinson, we know that rural areas are 
diverse in their topography. Some might be mountainous, some 
might be heavily wooded, some might be flat, some might be all 
of those. I have a very diverse geography and topography in my 
district, and given the diverse landscape, how do you think we 
should think about technology solutions for broadband 
deployment, and what do you think the best technology--what 
technologies do your Airband partners use to connect Americans 
in rural areas and remote areas?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    I can give an example by an Airband partner who will be 
deploying in their area--WISP [inaudible] internet access 
company. They are actually using a bevy of different 
technologies, including fixed wireless, but also fiber. And so, 
I think the key to your point, recognizing that rural areas are 
not homogenous, they vary, continuing to support policies and 
funding that allow providers to use whatever technology tool is 
going to work best in a given scenario is really key to closing 
the broadband gap once and for all. So, I would say more of the 
same.
    I do think it is also important, as you are thinking about 
these technologies and the companies that are deploying them to 
meet the need, that they show that they can meet not only the 
needs of today, but the needs of tomorrow. So, have a guide 
path, as it were, to being able to continue to be useful in 
meeting the needs of modern life.
    Mr. Crawford. Thank you so much. I appreciate the witness's 
testimony. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, I recognize Ms. 
Spanberger for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate you holding a hearing on a topic that is so near and 
dear to my heart, and that is rural broadband access.
    Broadband access or a lack thereof is as vitally important 
as access to electricity was a century ago. And I believe it is 
really imperative that we meet the challenges of ensuring 
universal broadband access this century with the same urgency 
and determination that our country met that challenge of 
electrification a century ago.
    A lack of broadband connectivity hurts the ability of 
students to complete their homework, businesses to recruit new 
employees, farmers to take advantage of the latest precision 
agricultural technology, and the list goes on and on. And, I am 
delighted that we have the witnesses here today who understand 
and have lived that perspective.
    So, my district is one of the districts across the country 
that has been able to benefit from the USDA's ReConnect 
Program, with multiple communities and rural co-ops in my 
district receiving millions of dollars in funding to expand 
high-speed internet connectivity to previously underserved 
areas. While ReConnect has helped to expand broadband access 
for severely underserved areas, many communities in my district 
still lack internet service that meets the FCC's minimum speed 
standard for broadband, 25 megabits per second for downloads, 3 
megabits for uploads. And the COVID-19 pandemic has really 
proven that high quality broadband access needs to keep pace 
with technology and increased demands for services, such as 
video conferencing, for example.
    As we make investments in our digital infrastructure, it is 
important that we do so with that in mind. So, on that note, 
Ms. Prather, I would like to begin with a question for you, a 
slight follow-up to the question that my colleague, Mr. 
Crawford asked. From your perspective, would you say that 
communities receiving at least that 25 megabits download, 3 
megabits upload are underserved, and would a household 
utilizing the service of 10 megabits per second downloads and 1 
megabit per second upload be able to utilize some of the 
technologies that have proven so vital during this pandemic, 
such as video conferencing?
    Ms. Prather. Thank you. That is an excellent question, and 
I am going to give you a real-world example.
    So, we serve a bunch of dairies in my area. Obviously, 
dairies take up a lot of space. That is going to be a very 
rural place. Also, a lot of them here are kind of at the far 
ends of some really rough dirt roads, okay? So, we know that 
they are doing a lot of smart dairy practices, too, some really 
cool stuff. They put radio tags on the cow's ear. It can tell 
them a lot about the health and the production of the animal. 
They upload all of that to the vet. We are currently serving 
these dairies with 25/3 fixed wireless. We are doing that 
because to get fiber down those rough country road rights-of-
way is a long process. So, in the intermediary, we have 
deployed fixed wireless to them.
    Now, this year you have kids coming home, doing their 
schoolwork from home. You have other family members trying to 
work from home. The dairies trying to upload all of that 
information to the vet, and it is simply not enough. During the 
pandemic, we spent pretty much 24 hours a day giving more 
bandwidth to schools, hospitals, these dairies, all of our 
customers. We had really an unprecedented amount of growth 
between people moving to rural areas to get out of the cities 
and then the ones already here, we were increasing bandwidth as 
fast as we could. Those people on those 10/1 services were 
upgrading every single day because it simply wasn't enough.
    Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Ms. Prather, and I 
have visited dairies in my district where we witnessed the 
exact same thing, that incredible use of technology that is 
really only as valuable as their ability to upload or download 
the data.
    Mr. Johnson, I have a brief question for you as follow-up. 
In your testimony, you discussed the many advantages of the 
Section 6210 of the 2018 Farm Bill compared to the existing 
ReConnect Program, including increasing the speed thresholds 
for eligibility to 25/3. In your opinion, regardless of which 
program is funded or how we proceed with delivering this 
broadband internet, how important is it for USDA to ensure that 
funds are available to communities that have broadband speeds 
above 10/1 but below 25/3?
    Mr. Johnson. I mean, we are strong believers in the fact 
that for future resiliency, we need to exceed 25/3 and go to 
100/100; 25/3, we feel, may be inadequate. We have seen since 
the advent of the pandemic increases in volume demands of up to 
40 percent overall among our membership. Some of our members 
are exceeding 1 terabyte per month, which is extreme. This is 
because most are on Zoom calls almost all day long, the 
students are, those who are going remotely. So, we feel 
strongly that the push should be towards 100/100.
    Ms. Spanberger. Wow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I 
have gone over. Thank you for the additional 25 seconds, and I 
yield back. Again, thank you to our witnesses.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Spanberger.
    Now, Mr. DesJarlais from Tennessee.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 
panel.
    I worry that President Biden's infrastructure plan, 
including the Administration's proposal for broadband, will 
undermine the system of private competition that our country 
thrives on. Ms. Prather, the President had indicated that he 
believes that Americans pay too much for broadband, and that 
private providers, like you, might be subject to rate 
regulation. How would Federal regulation of broadband rates 
affect your ability to serve your customers?
    Ms. Prather. Thank you. I think my biggest concern there 
would be how that type of legislation would interact with 
current programs. As you may be aware, the FCC is about to 
introduce the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that gives 
$50 a month to consumers to help pay for broadband. My company 
is going to participate in that, and I think it is going to be 
a great thing for providers and consumers.
    I think the biggest factor is also going to be the 
sustainability and predictability. When we can plan for what 
all programs we are utilizing and how long they are going to 
last, that is what makes the competition between our companies 
benefit the consumer the most.
    Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, I don't necessarily agree with 
the President's approach to rural broadband. I do believe there 
are things that Congress can do to lower the cost of broadband.
    Ms. Prather, in your testimony, you mentioned a tower where 
Federal permits cost more than the tower itself. Can you 
explain what happened and what can we do about it?
    Ms. Prather. Absolutely. So, as we are deploying especially 
things dealing with spectrum--and this also happens in Federal 
lands. I don't have as much of that, but when we are dealing 
with spectrum, there are a lot of reviews that have to be done, 
and those are not bad things. But sometimes the cost of that 
and the time of that can sit on someone's desk for months or 
even years. And so, when we are trying to deploy these 
networks, we have to plan these large, large asset investments.
    I am lucky that where I am at, we can construct year-round. 
Some of my northern neighbors can only construct 4 to 6 months. 
So, it is even more critical for them. But the time can take 
years to be approved. I don't know if that is just too many 
papers sitting on someone's desk, and then you are right. 
Sometimes the cost can absolutely exceed the cost of building 
that tower. The time is longer than the construction, the cost 
is more, and I don't think that was ever anyone's intent.
    Mr. DesJarlais. All right. Thank you for your testimony.
    Mr. Chairman, that is all I have, and I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, I recognize 
Mrs. Hayes from Connecticut, 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thank you to the 
witnesses today for your attendance and your expertise in this 
area.
    Connecticut is no stranger to the digital divide, 
especially my district. A 2018 survey found that 23 percent of 
Connecticut residents did not have internet access at home. 
Twenty-one percent of those homes without access were White 
households, 35 percent were Hispanic households, and 34 percent 
were African American households. These problems are especially 
acute in the northwest corner of Connecticut. In fact, there 
are 100 miles in our state's northwest corner that have no 
access to high-speed internet providers. This is especially 
troublesome, as our district tries to rebuild from the economic 
impacts of COVID-19.
    Since the onset of the pandemic, Litchfield County in 
Connecticut has seen an influx of new residents, primarily from 
New York. These new residents represent a tremendous 
opportunity for our state, which in past years has seen an 
exodus of young families, threatening our long-term economic 
impact and employment base, particularly in rural areas. State 
and municipal leaders are hoping these new families will make 
northwest Connecticut their permanent home, but it is hard to 
imagine how these families can stay if telework is not an 
option for them.
    Ms. Prather, can you speak to the importance of rural 
broadband connectivity in ensuring young families can live and 
work in rural areas like Litchfield, Connecticut?
    Ms. Prather. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    I think you bring up a great point. We are really seeing a 
rural renaissance, and you may be seeing the same thing, of 
these young families coming back to the rural areas for the 
quality of life. However, if they can't Netflix, if they can't 
work from home, if they can't do their online college 
education, they are not going to come back.
    I think another important part of that is also the digital 
education that sometimes is necessary in some of these 
communities. For example, we started a Totelcom learning center 
in our community to help teach people how to stream and how to 
do some of these things online. I think without that, they 
don't understand how maybe to even utilize the access that is 
there.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
    But availability is not the only problem. The choice of 
broadband providers is also a persistent problem in my home 
State of Connecticut. Roughly 18 percent of Connecticut 
residents have only one option of a provider, despite the fact 
that 84 companies operate in Connecticut. In Cheshire, a 
community in my district, the choice for high-speed internet 
comes down to two providers. For some, while there maybe 
surface level choice of providers, it is cost prohibitive, with 
only 30 percent of people in Connecticut having access to a 
plan that is below $60 per month, which is 20 percent lower 
than the national average of 51.5 percent of Americans who have 
access to a low-price internet plan.
    Can you talk about how rural broadband programs and 
ReConnect loans and grant programs enhance broadband options 
for Americans in rural areas, and is there anything we can do 
to further incentivize services to rural areas with very few or 
limited options?
    Ms. Prather. Yes, that is a great question.
    So, it is two-fold. One, the Federal programs can help 
deploy those networks, but then in order to maintain an 
affordable service over the life of that network, that is why 
programs like Universal High-Cost Funds step in and help make 
the business case for a provider to be there. In order to 
sustain that maintenance and keep their rates low, that ongoing 
support is needed.
    Mrs. Hayes. Thank you so much for your time today, and this 
is something that is very close to constituents in the 
northwest corner of my state who have no access or limited 
access. Even myself, when I travel throughout my district, I 
have to plan around the fact that I know that I will be offline 
for several hours the farther out in my district I go. So, this 
is very important.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this 
conversation, and with that, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes, and now, Mrs. Hartzler 
from Missouri.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
holding this very important hearing.
    Like many of my colleagues, I would add and say that this 
is probably one of the highest priorities and needs in my 
district in rural Missouri is that we have to get rural 
broadband. But as we have heard here in Congress over the 
years, we have been investing in this program for years. There 
are multiple programs with multiple funding streams, different 
speeds, different requirements, and I think it is--and it would 
behoove us to have a time of analysis and making smart 
investments, going forward, rather than just quickly passing 
another funding bill. And I really appreciate the comments from 
you, Ms. Robinson, about the first step should be to receive 
the information from the FCC DATA Act, the Broadband DATA Act, 
and could you talk about that a little bit, about why it is so 
important that we determine really where the needs are first 
before we act and establish a new program?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman. 
We can't begin to solve the problem unless we understand the 
extent of the problem. And so, from our perspective, getting 
clear guidance around what exactly is the scope of the problem 
we are trying to get our arms around is a condition precedent, 
or at least needs to be done in parallel as Congress and 
policymakers consider funding options.
    And so, for us, we know that there are gaps based on 
Microsoft's own usage data, which is publicly available, where 
we look at the speeds at which our services are being 
downloaded and see that there is a considerable gap between 
what the FCC's numbers suggest and what our data--and not just 
our data, but other data sources like Broadband Now suggest 
that the scope of the problem is.
    And so, doing that work has to happen quickly, and should 
happen at least at minimum in parallel with any consideration 
and all considerations about how to solve the problem from a 
deployment standpoint in terms of getting the necessary 
resources to once and for all close the digital divide.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Sure, thank you so much.
    So, in the 2018 Farm Bill, I led the initiative to increase 
the standard of service rural Americans should receive through 
the USDA farm bill broadband programs, and making sure that 
they have 25 megabits download and 3 megabits upload in the 
speed. Yet, we have heard and we have the current program--the 
ReConnect Program only has 10 megabits and 1 megabit 
requirements, and yet, Mr. Johnson, you had shared that you 
think, going forward, we actually need 100 megabits and 100 
megabits should be the standard. And I agree with the Chairman 
that we should let the ReConnect Program pilot expire, and 
fully fund the program that we authorized in the 2018 bill, 
which has higher speeds.
    But Mr. Johnson, could you just once again reiterate what 
you think the standard should be and why you think it should be 
100/100 now, not 25/3?
    Mr. Johnson. The standard of 25/3 with heavy usage, 
multiple--we ran our household during the shutdown and the 
pandemic, four Zooms going on at once, and I never saw a 
spinning circle, and that is in a 1 gigabit household. Granted, 
I believe in a 100 megabit/100-megabit household, you will have 
the same standard applied. These are fiber-based technologies, 
and other technologies have not been proven to be able to carry 
this amount, this load and demand on the networks.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
    And being a CEO of a rural electric cooperative, I wanted 
to switch gears and ask you to share a little bit about the 
importance of the ability to refinance the RUS loans. And you 
may or may not have those loans, but I know a lot of rural 
electric cooperatives in my district do, and I am cosponsoring 
a bill that during this pandemic would allow rural electric 
cooperatives to refinance those loans and take advantage of 
that lower interest rate and to waive the fee for the 
refinancing. Because we know many of our rural electric 
cooperatives have lost service. It has been expensive for them, 
and so, if this passes and you have that ability, do you think 
co-ops could perhaps use that additional revenue, not only to 
make up their losses, but perhaps to have more capital to be 
able to invest in rural broadband?
    Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. There are--as we know, there are 
200 cooperatives operating broadband systems now or deploying 
them, and 100 more looking at it. The feasibility of these 
projects would be pushed forward with the opportunity to 
reprice outstanding debt so that new capital would be freed up. 
So yes, it would be very beneficial.
    Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
    I yield back. I appreciate it.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler, and now, I 
recognize Mr. Delgado of New York.
    Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be with 
all of you virtually, and I appreciate the testimony of all the 
witnesses today.
    I do want to spend a little time talking to my friend and 
constituent, Mr. Johnson, about your work at OEC and Otsego 
Electric Cooperative.
    I think the big picture of what I want to start off with is 
I know you announced plans to offer high-speed affordable 
broadband service back in 2017. Could you speak a little bit 
more about just the demand within the community? I think it is 
important to just hear a little bit about the demand and how 
great the actual need is for this basic necessity at this 
point, as COVID has made plain. Can you just speak a little bit 
to the demand within the community?
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman.
    The demand that we--we operated a satellite business, 
broadband business before we got into the fiber business. We 
could see when we were operating that business that there was 
huge unmet consumer demand for better service. So, we had 
numerous customers buying hundreds of dollars of additional 
data cap space monthly. It was a very profitable business for 
us, actually. We have now gone out--completely out of that 
business because we could see that when a customer is paying 
$300 a month in additional data cap demand, we can provide that 
service for $49.95. So, we saw the pockets where the service 
was needed and were able to design and deploy a system very 
quickly that filled those gaps.
    Mr. Delgado. Excellent.
    Mr. Johnson. And actually, to add to that, during the 
pandemic, during the shutdown, fortunately we were able to work 
as essential workers, and we were absolutely inundated with 
phone calls, praying, asking for immediate service if we could 
get it to people. As a result of that, we have accumulated 
quite a list of people in our service territory--well, outside 
of our service territory, but adjacent to us that are in 
extreme need.
    Mr. Delgado. Right. So, that list is significant. That list 
is significant, and extreme need, as you put it.
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Delgado. I do want to speak--I think in your testimony 
you highlight some of the challenges and opportunities for 
Congress to support rural broadband access, and you mentioned 
that some cooperatives haven't fully utilized rural broadband 
programs through the USDA Rural Utilities Service. Can you 
speak more about how Congress can make that process easier? 
What some of the challenges might be when it comes to our 
cooperatives utilizing the Rural Utilities Service?
    Mr. Johnson. Right. I think the simplicity of the 
application process could be improved. There is a point system 
that is used for desirability of projects. Many of these 
territories that we were looking at had no favorable points. We 
had households that didn't have service, but we didn't have 
libraries and community service centers and hospitals. These 
are literally--as Ms. Prather mentioned, these are people at 
the end of dead-end roads and dirt roads where nobody else 
goes. So, those point systems are not helpful. Awards have been 
known to be slow to arrive, so time passes as you wait to see 
whether your application has been approved, and then even after 
approval, you wait a long time, over a year for money.
    Mr. Delgado. Yes, good to know. Last, on the question of 
mapping, I have introduced the Community Broadband Mapping Act 
(H.R. 2400) which would go a long way in getting us better, 
more accurate data, and it would make funding available to co-
ops, among other local groups, for broadband data gathering.
    Can you speak a little bit about, in your experience, the 
challenges that we confront in the absence of accurate 
broadband data collection? What, from your vantage point, would 
be the best approach to collecting this data?
    Mr. Johnson. GPS is the best way to go to find these and 
identify these locations, and funding to help with the expense 
of doing that would be extremely useful. That is a--and also 
feasibility programs. The funding to pay for feasibility 
programs would be very helpful as well. Cooperatives are 
nonprofits. We don't accumulate capital. We cannot accumulate 
capital, so anything that we do in this space, we go to a 
lender and ask for permission to use funds for this purpose. 
So, any funding to help with that is very useful.
    Mr. Delgado. Excellent. I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Delgado, and now, 
Mr. Allen of Georgia.
    Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate you 
continuing to hold hearings. Obviously, I believe this is the 
most important hearing in our Committee in this Congress.
    I would like to highlight two of the most important 
broadband issues in my district. One county in my district, 
Jenkins County, has faced many challenges with AT&T for years 
now. According to the RDOF maps, well over 80 percent of the 
county is unserved. However, when Planters Telephone 
Cooperative attempted to service this area, they eventually had 
to suspend their efforts due to AT&T. This is unconscionable. 
Every year that my constituents do not have internet service, 
they and their children are falling further behind in both 
economic and educational development. What is worse is that 
these constituents have absolutely no recourse. If another 
company attempts to provide internet service to these people in 
Jenkins County, all AT&T would have to do is prove that one 
single household has internet service at a 1 to 10 upload/
download speed, and they would continue to have exclusive 
service rights. Meanwhile, 99 percent of the county remains 
living with less internet access than many third world 
countries.
    Another cooperative in my district, Altamaha EMC has had a 
nightmare experience with the USDA ReConnect Program over the 
past 2 years. They originally applied for funding under the 
ReConnect round 1, but were wrongfully deemed ineligible 
because of an incomplete service area validation survey. Once 
they applied again for round 2 funding, after waiting over a 
year, through no fault of their own, USDA refused to prioritize 
their second service area validation survey. It seems to me 
that with mapping of broadband access currently under the FCC's 
purview, we may have the wrong people in the wrong seats on the 
bus. I don't believe the FCC's original purpose was ever to 
serve as a mapping agency. Perhaps we should consider moving 
the responsibility of mapping broadband access to a Federal 
agency that is actually built for that purpose. USDA's National 
Agricultural Statistics Service is one that comes to mind, or 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is another 
option.
    Dr. Park, could you explain the marginal advantage of 
satellite internet access versus fiber optic, and in what 
scenario is it more feasible or practical to use?
    Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman.
    So, fiber is the gold standard. There is no question about 
it. It is reliable; it is proven. But it is costly, and it is 
also--it takes time. And I don't believe rural regions that 
have such a diverse geography and patterns can be served all by 
fiber. So, we really need to think about how other wireless 
technology can complement the broadband technology.
    No question, broadband is a necessary infrastructure for 
serving rural broadband. We must think about other 
complementary technologies, such as CBRS and other LTE 
standards that really allows other providers to take advantage 
of technologies to rapidly deploy these technologies to a 
region.
    Mr. Allen. Dr. Park, obviously I have one county next to 
Jenkins County where every household is served by EMC, and each 
household can get fiber optic run to their home through the 
Universal Fund. Yet, in Jenkins County, because AT&T is for-
profit, they can't get internet service.
    So, Ms. Prather, I would like to ask you and any of the 
other panelists that would like to speak to the point I made in 
my comments, that as far as mapping, it seems like we are 
running up against a wall every time we try to do something 
with broadband. And this government is spending tons of money, 
yet this is probably the biggest economic engine available to 
rural America in the history of the country. Ms. Prather, would 
you like to comment on that?
    Ms. Prather. Sure, I would. Thank you.
    I think that you make some very, very good points. One 
thing I would say is that the FCC has been undertaking more and 
more mapping initiatives, but they want to wait until it is 
perfect to get it out the door. Instead, the information that 
they have, we need to get out and start utilizing it.
    And you make a great point about it is no good if we don't 
have some way to verify what is there. I will say that is one 
good thing from the USDA, what they do is that they can bring 
people to the local level and actually test that. So, if you 
have an area that is deemed served, we can go out and test to 
see if that is really the case and then update that. Because we 
don't want to build just to those minimum standards today. If 
we are going to put money forth and build a project, we want to 
use those futureproof technologies and build for the future.
    Mr. Allen. Well, thank you, and I am out of time. I yield 
back. If any of you would like to comment further on what I 
have said, please submit those to us in writing. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, you are now 
recognized.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the 
Committee holding this important hearing.
    This past year has brought countless challenges, but one of 
the many that stands out is the critical need for universal, 
affordable broadband access all across America. This need was 
understood long before COVID-19, but the pandemic brought this 
issue to the forefront in stark terms. Internet access was 
critical for successfully quarantining at home and staying 
healthy, for attending work and school remotely, to talking 
with your doctor through telemedicine appointments. But 
unfortunately, far too many Americans, including many in my 
district, rural parts of my district, still must deal with low 
quality, slow speed internet connections, or some have lack of 
internet access at all.
    The most recent USDA Census of Agriculture found that 13 
percent of New Hampshire farms did not have internet access, 
and we know that that lack of connectivity inhibits farmers 
from fully engaging in the important USDA programs.
    Even looking beyond these challenges facing farmers and 
producers, we know that broadband connectivity is critical for 
everyone who lives in a rural region, and that is why I am 
proud to be a member of Majority Whip Jim Clyburn's Rural 
Broadband Taskforce. Last month, our task force introduced the 
Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (H.R. 1783), 
authorizing $94 billion to build out our broadband 
infrastructure nationwide with a special focus on areas with 
little or no access. Additionally, as a Member of the House 
Energy and Commerce Committee, I have worked with Chairman 
Pallone on the LIFT America Act (H.R. 1848), including over 
$100 billion to develop broadband infrastructure to guarantee 
100 percent of Americans can connect to secure, high-speed 
broadband.
    We have a lot of work ahead of us in order to reach our 
goal, but I firmly believe that we can make bipartisan 
progress. So, let's use the hard lessons of the pandemic as the 
impetus to close the digital divide and ensure that every 
American will have a reliable connection.
    Mr. Johnson, I appreciate hearing about your work and 
challenges in upstate New York. I think there is a lot of 
commonality with my district in New Hampshire. From your 
perspective, how can Congress be most helpful to cooperatives 
like yours in getting us to 100 percent broadband access, and 
are there particular challenges that we should triage before 
others?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
    Yes, Otsego sees--as I mentioned, we know where the gaps 
are, and we are submitting as a provider information and data 
to the FCC now that they have on hand. So, accelerating their 
process of data mapping, and then distributing those for 
funding opportunities. FCC RDOF auctions are very useful. They 
take time to put together, but if they can be accelerated, that 
is what we need. That is the simplest, in our opinion, funding 
and the fastest funding that can be made available out there to 
get the job done. Now that is--co-ops are uniquely positioned 
to be able to do this.
    Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Thank you.
    Ms. Robinson, I am glad to hear about the Airband 
Initiative that is doing to increase the pace of broadband 
access. Could you comment on the importance of broadband map 
accuracy, and how more accurate data can help you identify 
target areas of greatest need?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
    To your point, Microsoft has been at the forefront of 
really challenging this issue and challenging us as a country 
to get the maps right so that we can understand the scope of 
the problem. We think that there is a lot of good that is on 
path to be able to get us to that point with the implementation 
of the Broadband DATA Act, action dictated by the FCC to 
actually begin to start help coordinating. That needs to happen 
quickly. We need to have multiple sources of other information, 
be it at the Federal, state, or local level, and pulling them 
all together in order to understand the scope of the problem.
    It is also important to leverage the power of technology to 
ensure that what we are seeing in these maps is actually 
accurate. Use the power of the Cloud, use machine learning to 
validate what is being seen, and then actually make sure that 
this information is publicly accessible so that, again to the 
point that is being raised as part of the hearing, is that 
there could be an error between what the FCC or some other map 
is saying in terms of an area being served and unserved, and 
what is the truth on the ground. And so, you need a way to 
validate and make sense of that disconnect, and so, doing 
things to bring in multiple data sources to do that is the key 
to addressing this issue in a meaningful way.
    Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much. My time is up, and I yield 
back, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Mr. Baird of Indiana, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can't tell, Dr. 
Park, how pleased I am to have him here.
    But one of the things that you do in your testimony and 
that we have heard a lot about is the cost of going that last 
mile. You make reference to what you are talking about, the 
aerostat as being a Living Laboratory. You encourage us to 
invest a certain portion of our research dollars in innovative 
kinds of things. So, you are not--or WHIN is not an internet 
provider. In fact, you must work with internet providers, and I 
think that is a point here that needs to be understood, because 
it is a way to get out to those more rugged geographic areas, 
those last miles.
    So, I would appreciate just having you elaborate on that, 
because you are working with internet providers. So, I would 
appreciate your perspective on that.
    Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman Baird.
    So, again, just to remind everybody, WHIN is a nonprofit 
organization. We are a community, regional organization, and we 
are not an ISP. But our goal is to accelerate the adoption of 
technology in our region. And in that vision, broadband was a 
necessary and very difficult challenge that we had to face. So, 
we are using the Living Lab model of vetting new and 
commercially available technologies, bring them to put to use 
in our region, and really drive innovation and adoption out of 
the usage, and by sharing the data with others so that the 
solutions can be improved.
    And this model has really worked well with agriculture and 
manufacturing sectors, as we have developed many partnerships 
with tech companies who are providing innovative solutions in 
digital ag and precision ag and next generation manufacturing. 
And we are approaching this, the broadband, because we believe 
broadband is also a technology that needs to be deployed, 
adopted, and have a business model for sustainability.
    So, we are using our region as a way to accelerate the 
innovation and adoption, and so that we can share the 
information with other regions so they can learn from each 
other.
    Mr. Baird. So, if you would continue on in that 
conversation, so if there were cooperatives in the region or in 
that ten-county area that was providing landlines or providing 
fiber, they could be on the end of the line or you could be on 
the end of their line and try out some of these other 
technologies without investing in a lot of towers or a lot of 
fiber. Is that true?
    Dr. Park. That is correct. In fact, we are working with a 
local fiber company, and we are also working with a wireless 
internet service provider to provide the end-user customer 
services. So again, WHIN is not an ISP. We bridge the gap. We 
bring those technologies. We work with local ISPs and WISPs 
that perhaps have not had a chance to fully leverage and 
utilize the new technologies. So, we are really lowering the 
risk by vetting first and have them utilize these new 
technologies to see how these technologies can help serve their 
existing customers better, and also attract new customers in 
our region.
    Mr. Baird. And so, it is a way to get the--you mentioned 
the high-speed internet, a 10 or 12 mile radius, and then a 50 
mile radius for some of the other technologies.
    Dr. Park. That is correct. Yes. I just want to mention one 
quick thing. We have a saying that we not only want every home 
in our region to have broadband access, but we also want every 
stalk of corn to have connectivity as well. Rural broadband is 
a very complicated issue, and I think one of the biggest 
barriers, in my opinion, is that there hasn't been a viable 
business model for providing broadband in rural America. I 
think the emerging IoT application in agriculture will really 
drive the economic incentive for the private-sector to invest 
in rural connectivity, and we really want the private-sector to 
be incentivized for sustainability.
    So, it needs to be both the high-speed internet, also the 
connectivity for sensors. And while we are building this 
infrastructure, I encourage people to consider building it 
together so that we can incentivize this next generation 
operations to be incentivized.
    Mr. Baird. Thank you, and I see I am out of time. I really 
wanted to get to Mr. Johnson, but I appreciate all the 
witnesses being here. I think this is a very important subject, 
and I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman.
    And now, Mrs. Bustos of Illinois, you are now recognized.
    Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much 
for holding this hearing today.
    There is no doubt that every single Member of Congress on 
this Committee, we are all on the same page as far as agreeing 
that rural broadband is extremely important to the regions we 
serve, to our nation. And I think we are probably--we see it 
similarly, and we also want to make sure that we are spending 
taxpayer dollars as efficiently and as effectively as possible. 
Something that is very important--I am on the Appropriations 
Committee also, and this is something very, very important to 
me, and I know to the Members as well.
    So, to be efficient and effective with these essential 
resources, something that we need to make sure that we are 
keeping an eye on is to make sure that we are looking at what 
is most needed out there to minimize the Federal agencies from 
competing against one another in terms of funding rural 
projects. It is nice to be in demand that there is kind of this 
universal feeling that we got to address broadband, but we do 
have to make sure that we are not overlapping what is going on.
    So, Ms. Prather, I have a question for you. As a community-
based provider who has benefitted from Federal programs, can 
you talk a little bit about the importance of coordination 
between broadband deployment programs?
    Ms. Prather. Absolutely. Thank you, ma'am.
    You are absolutely right. We have to build these things 
efficiently and using the most effective use of taxpayer 
dollars. I mean, that is why it is important to remember that 
these different programs sometimes do serve different purposes, 
and they are all needed. We do need RUS and USDA to provide 
that up-front financing for these really expensive asset 
builds. I think it is important to note that we want to build 
it once. If we are going to build something, we don't want to 
have to redo it in a few years. We know what the growth 
projections look like. That is not a question to anyone. So, we 
want to build networks that are going to be able to sustain 
that growth for the life of that network.
    It is also important to note that if you are in an area 
where without Federal support one network can't survive due to 
the lack of people in the area, it is important that there is a 
program like Universal Service to maintain affordable rates 
over the life of that network as well. All of these programs 
can work in concert.
    I think it is important to note, too, that like you said, 
whoever has the data on what is needed and where it is 
currently being used, other agencies should coordinate. I am 
not here to say who should be in charge of that, but whoever 
has the best data is the one that we should look to, to seek 
what is available and what is still needed.
    Mrs. Bustos. Dr. Park, I see you nodding your head. Do you 
have any other thoughts along these lines?
    Dr. Park. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    I think WHIN is a unique organization that can serve as 
that coordination effort that you just mentioned about, because 
we are neutral. We don't provide internet service to end-
customers. We are in the best interest to bring this technology 
to services to our regional folks as quickly as we can. So, we 
work with 30+ ISPs in the region. We work with Federal 
Government. We work with state agencies. We work with local, 
regional economic developers. We work with farmers and 
manufacturers who are main stakeholders in the region.
    So, there is a unique place for an organization like WHIN 
to play to coordinate this massive effort that is going to 
happen across the United States.
    Mrs. Bustos. Dr. Park, how do you see increased investments 
in rural broadband through fiber-to-the-home and fixed wireless 
impacting our growers and our producers? You said that that is 
among who you are working in your part of Indiana, but can you 
talk a little bit about how you see that impacting especially 
their bottom lines?
    Dr. Park. Well, the recent USDA report was clear that the 
impact of connectivity in farmland is going to tremendously 
increase the bottom line for agricultural production, no 
question about it. So, again--but we have to be careful. Having 
internet to residential applications versus having connectivity 
to sensors in the farmland, they are two different 
infrastructures. So, we--but if we build it together, it is 
much more cost effective. We are not going to have millions of 
people in rural areas, but we are going to have a vast amount 
of farmland that is ripe for digital agriculture, precision 
agriculture revolution, and that is where, in my mind, where 
tremendous opportunity lies.
    So, we cannot forget the opportunity of precision 
agriculture in conjunction with meeting the needs of our rural 
American residents.
    Mrs. Bustos. All right, and the clock is at 0. Very well 
done. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
    Now, Mr. Jacobs of New York, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all 
those that testified today. Very helpful and insightful.
    In the eight counties I represent in western New York 
State, this is the issue that is the common denominator of need 
for each and every one, and a lot of good issues have been 
raised already.
    I agree with what has been said in terms of this time 
during COVID, highlighting our dependence on rural broadband or 
internet and that it is no longer an amenity but a necessity, 
and certainly, we have seen it in telehealth. I have certainly 
heard it, the challenges that many of my constituents have had 
and their children in terms of having to learn from home and 
remote learning and hybrid learning that they have gone 
through, and I think unfortunately we will see in the years to 
come those communities, many of whom I represent in rural 
America, will have suffered more by the absence of being in the 
classroom because they did not have sufficient internet access 
at home to really be able to learn to the level that they 
needed to, and there was learning lost this year.
    I would also say that a former colleague mentioned the 
opportunity I see here in terms of a rural renaissance and a 
small-town America renaissance through investment in high-speed 
internet, because I think people are appreciating again the 
value in space, the value in small community, the value in 
quality of life, and I think that we have a lot of that to 
offer. I think people are wakening again to it.
    I had first just a question regarding the Biden 
infrastructure proposal prioritizes support for broadband 
networks owned and operated or affiliated by local governments, 
nonprofits, and cooperatives, providers with less pressure to 
turn profits, et cetera. However, many communities like mine 
are not--most of my communities are not served by providers 
like cooperatives. So, I just was curious if anybody wanted to 
weigh in on whether this policy is the right way to go to 
prioritize nonprofits versus the broad-based providers that do 
this sort of thing.
    Ms. Prather. Yes, I will answer that. Thank you.
    I do think we are missing a big piece here. For example, my 
company is a small community-based telecommunications provider. 
We were formed as a community-based shareholder-owned company. 
We are now privately held, but we are in this community because 
we want to be here. As the current plan stands, my company 
would not be able to participate whenever we do the exact same 
things as other co-ops across the state. Texas has 43 small 
providers. About half are co-ops, half are commercial entities 
like mine. I am not here because I am trying to increase my 
stock price. I don't have one. I am not here because I am 
seeing what kind of VC multiples I can get. We are here because 
we live in this community. We serve our friends and neighbors, 
and so, no matter the corporate structure, I think those local 
community-based providers really provide a great benefit in 
putting broadband in these communities.
    Mr. Johnson. If I may, Congressman?
    Mr. Jacobs. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Johnson. I just wanted to add, I think cooperatives are 
partnered with many of these other entities as well, so it 
hasn't excluded everyone else and should provide the impetus, I 
should say, for cooperation among many different entities.
    Mr. Jacobs. Could you elaborate what would be an example of 
how you would partner?
    Mr. Johnson. In discussions with it, and I am sure Ms. 
Prather has run into this as well. Some of the cooperatives 
across the country have made partnerships with private 
providers, small town telcos are a very good example that are 
privately held. Small organizations, somewhat nimble have very 
similar roots in their communities, very long-term roots, and/
or perhaps they just partner on the basis for fiber transport 
where they buy their wholesale access to the internet, so to 
speak.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you very much.
    Dr. Park. If I may?
    Mr. Jacobs. Yes, go ahead.
    Dr. Park. Just really quickly, again, I just want to 
reemphasize my earlier statement that WHIN, again, non-internet 
service provider, nonprofit organization that is focused on 
regional development, because we are technology agnostic, we 
are product agnostic, our end goal is to provide services to 
our regional stakeholders. So, I believe there is a unique role 
that organizations like WHIN can play by leveraging our 
community partners and their resources and putting them 
together.
    Mr. Jacobs. Thank you all very much for those answers. Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona, you are now 
recognized. Mr. O'Halleran.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Yes, I am now unmuted.
    The Chairman. You are unmuted. There you go.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
the panel for their great conversation today.
    I greatly appreciate this Committee's focus on closing the 
digital divide, which still impacts far too many Americans in 
rural America and Indian Country. In rural Arizona, only 66 
percent of the population has access to broadband at the FCC's 
minimum speed standard, which is way too low for us. 
Consistently, constituents across Arizona note that access to 
reliable high-speed broadband is a top priority for them. 
Inequities in broadband access results in poorer health and 
educational outcomes for those of us who live in rural and 
Tribal communities. There is clearly more work to be done to 
expand broadband access nationwide. We must continue working 
together and across the aisle to help implement these new 
programs and improve existing programs as well.
    I am pleased to see that today's witnesses include various 
sectors of the rural telecommunications sector, who are 
offering different solutions to providing access to high-speed 
internet.
    I will say this. If we don't get it in rural America, we 
are going to continue to have a problem with losing residents 
instead of keeping them where we need to make sure we produce 
the food of America, the transportation links of America, the 
natural resources of America, and most importantly, the quality 
of life of people that live there, whether it is healthcare and 
telemedicine, because of the lack of specialists; whether it is 
the ability to get a competitive education for our children; 
and whether it is being able to have an active economic 
development process that can compete across our nation.
    Ms. Robinson, it is my understanding that Microsoft has 
been working with Sacred Wind Communications to bring broadband 
to 57,000 Navajo families. Could you discuss how USDA can play 
a role in promoting the development of new technologies to 
serve large numbers of rural communities?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    Yes, we are working with Sacred Wind, and what we have 
noted is that their role in reaching Tribal communities has 
become even more important now. I think in terms of what the 
Department of Agriculture could do to continue to support a 
company like Sacred Wind with a unique mission to close the 
digital divide is to ensure that its application processes are 
clarified and streamlined. I know that Sacred Wind has 
previously sought funding from the Department of Agriculture 
and Rural Utilities Services, and they have spoken to us about 
some of the challenges inherent in that process. So, continuing 
to find ways to clarify that critical plan that can be 
leveraged to close the digital divide in Indian Country is 
critical for companies like Sacred Wind, clarifying and 
streamlining.
    But then I would invite the Committee to continue to think 
about ensuring the funding of deployments can be done in a 
technology neutral way. Companies like Sacred Wind are using 
fiber and fixed wireless to meet these needs in Navajo Country, 
but also I would encourage the Committee to consider and 
recognize the importance of adoption. When you are talking 
about access on Tribal lands, you have a disproportionate 
amount of people on the reservation who are income-insecure. 
And so, just getting access to these areas is not enough. We 
need to also ensure that we have mechanisms in place so people 
can actually adopt the service.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
    Mr. Johnson, you had mentioned that you do not use any of 
USDA's programs. Can you expand upon the barriers, and what do 
you believe would be most helpful in expanding broadband access 
to co-op membership?
    Mr. Johnson. Right. We do not--the administrative 
application process was daunting and expensive, time consuming, 
survey necessities, et cetera, and the point system didn't fit 
our areas that we needed to serve. In addition, if we were 
already receiving funding for particular areas, we were 
disqualified from receiving ReConnect. Not that we would want 
to be paid twice for the same development, but there were 
overlaps in mapping that would have prevented us from competing 
for some of the funding that was available. The slowness of the 
funding, the slowness of the process, that is always difficult 
for small organizations such as cooperatives to deal with. We 
are asked because of that to perhaps once we are awarded 
funding, our members come to us and say all right, we heard you 
got your funding. You have been approved. Why haven't you 
started spending money? So, we have to go out and borrow it.
    The Chairman. Time has expired.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you and have a good day, everybody.
    The Chairman. Thank you.
    Mr. Mann of Kansas, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for making 
this a priority for the Committee, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, in 
this town there are a lot of areas that people are divided on, 
but there seems to be bipartisan support for doing better when 
it comes to rural broadband and connectivity. We all know that 
is a priority for everyone here. It certainly is a big priority 
for me and the big 1st District of Kansas. We cover a large 
swath of the rural part of my state, and we hear a lot of 
concerns a lot of time.
    It is not just concerns with how it is, but what it 
prevents us from doing be it telehealth, be it taking the next 
steps in production agriculture and all of those things, so 
thanks for the panel and our witnesses for being here today.
    My question is for Ms. Robinson. Is it my understanding 
that Microsoft's Airband Initiative is working in Kansas to 
connect rural underserved communities to broadband, so I 
especially appreciate that work. It is also great to see your 
experience addressing rural broadband in the public-sector at 
the FCC and administering the Universal Service Fund. Based on 
your variety of experience, how do you think we can involve 
more private-sector investment in our rural communities, and 
what limits more involvement in the private-sector today as you 
see it?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, and we are proud 
to work with NeXT Link as they expand broadband access to rural 
consumers in the great State of Kansas.
    I think that the key to solving this problem is doing more 
with public and private partnerships. This is not something 
that any one sector or one part of the country can tackle by 
itself, and so, being able to provide more certainty around 
business models that are required to actually--that can 
incentivize private-sector to actually do investments to show 
that this is something that the business model can pencil out 
in rural America will be key.
    A part of that business model penciling out will be making 
sure that there is actual funding in place to support, and that 
can be leveraged alongside private-sector investments. So, 
those two things need to work together, and it is certainly 
part of our formula as we approach these issues in trying to 
tackle the rural digital divide.
    Mr. Mann. Okay, well wonderful. Thank you.
    My second question, different vein, is for Dr. Park.
    Dr. Park, can you talk more about the performance and 
weather capabilities of an aerostat? As we discuss the vital 
importance of broadband, we have to consider that high winds, 
lightning, those sorts of natural disaster sort of things are 
prevalent in Kansas and in other areas as well. Any perspective 
that you would have on how those would perform under those 
kinds of conditions?
    Dr. Park. Thank you for that question.
    Yes, so aerostats can withstand high wind up to 80 miles 
per hour, and if there is a major, major storm, aerostats can 
be lowered within hours, so it can be pretty safe. And while it 
is down also, Congressman, aerostats can be deployed to overlap 
coverage and provide redundancy. So, in areas where storms are 
localized, any aerostat lowered will have adjacent aerostat 
provide the redundant coverage in its area.
    Mr. Mann. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. No further 
questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back, and thank you all very, 
very much.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Carbajal, of California.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Prather, you mentioned in your testimony that your 
networks connected Americans to vital institutions and services 
which help drive economic development and produce and preserve 
jobs in rural America. Specifically, in response to COVID-19, 
you noted that Totelcom took action to increase broadband 
availability, to lower installation costs for students who were 
remote learning. Access to broadband has been a barrier for 
many families during this pandemic to ensure kids can continue 
to attend school remotely.
    In my district, this has been no different. For example, 
the Martinez family was driving around from parking lot to 
parking lot to find access to WiFi. It has shown us the digital 
divide that exists in our country, and the work we have ahead 
to bridge these gaps. Can you please explain how Totelcom's 
experience responding to the pandemic will impact its future 
operations, and what innovations and partnerships were 
particularly helpful for you to meet the increased need for 
remote learning in rural America?
    Ms. Prather. I would love to. Thank you, Congressman, for 
the question.
    So, we did a couple of things. First of all, any customer 
that called in and had a student K-12 or college in the 
household got free installation. We got them connected as fast 
as possible. But the bigger thing that we did was we partnered 
with all of our local school districts. We told them we know 
you have students who are learning at home and cannot afford a 
connection. If you will just give us an address, we will go 
connect those students. We won't make them sign anything. We 
won't bother the family. We will work with you to provide 
access for any students who needs it. Even when the schools 
went back to in-person learning, if we have students who are in 
a home with someone at high risk or the student was at high 
risk, we kept that going. We are seeing a lot of funds go out 
to the FCC's E-Rate Program right now, and we would love to 
continue those kinds of partnerships. We did that through no 
cost to the school. We really just ate all those services, 
because it was the right thing to do for our communities that 
we serve. But we would love to see that on an ongoing basis to 
partner with those schools, to serve their students that need 
access at home and cannot afford it.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Prather.
    Ms. Robinson, in your testimony, you discussed the 
importance of and the need for basic digital literacy in 
bridging the digital divide. Can you please explain what 
Microsoft and its partners are doing to make sure these 
programs and opportunities can be accessed by minority 
communities, particularly those where English may not be a 
first language?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much for the question.
    We believe that digital skilling is critical to driving 
adoption. You can't assume that if you build it, people will 
come. People need to know and be informed about how to use 
connectivity as a tool for empowerment.
    So, working closely with our philanthropy group and various 
nonprofits, we are providing digital skilling resources that 
actually meet the needs of community, including providing 
access to materials that are bilingual in nature, so that you 
are able to shift and meet the needs and provide skilling 
resources that are responsive to the needs of the specific 
community. We don't have a one-size-fits-all approach, but they 
are very much tailored by working with people on the ground, 
and also focusing on historically marginalized communities 
specifically where research shows that there tends to be larger 
gaps from a skilling and literacy perspective.
    Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
    Just to note, that nice orchid next to you probably comes 
from my district where most of the flowers in the United States 
are grown domestically. So, thank you very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Feenstra of 
Iowa, you are now recognized.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member 
Thompson.
    Mr. Chairman, first I ask to submit for the record a letter 
from NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, which discusses 
some considerations the Federal Communications Commission 
should take in considering for its review of a long-form 
application for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Could I 
submit this for the record?
    The Chairman. So ordered, Mr. Feenstra. Thank you.
    [The letter referred to is located on p. 113.]
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to thank each of our witnesses for their testimony 
today. We all know that in today's world, access is key to 
reliability, affordability, and high-speed internet is critical 
to daily life and necessary for rural Americans to not fall 
behind. Whether it be telehealth, running a small business, 
education, precision agriculture, all require connectivity.
    In rural Iowa, I constantly hear about the need for better 
connectivity in many areas. However, we also have a good story 
to tell in other parts of rural Iowa where carriers have been 
able to deploy futureproof networks that have closed the 
digital divide for the communications that serve, like the one 
being completed by Premier Communications throughout northwest 
Iowa.
    I am glad that we are taking the time today to examine what 
has worked successfully in deploying rural broadband, and where 
there are opportunities to make improvements.
    Ms. Prather, as I stated, I believe it is imperative that 
rural Iowans have the same quality of internet service as 
people that live in cities. Like your company, many carriers in 
Iowa have been able to deliver this type of service in rural 
Iowa. You mentioned in your testimony that you use various 
types of technology to serve your customers, but that you 
prefer fiber, given its reliability to meet customer needs now 
and into the future. Some claim that certain technologies can 
perform at speeds that have not yet been proved, or based on 
that claim, many folks, including me, worry that not all 
providers who were awarded funding under the FCC's Rural 
Digital Opportunity Fund will have the technical, financial, 
and operational capabilities to deliver the services they have 
pledged to deliver, regardless of the technology they are 
using. This is why I joined a letter earlier this year to the 
FCC to ensure that money from the Rural Digital Opportunity 
Fund is used wisely and effectively.
    Ms. Prather, as a provider who utilizes multiple types of 
technology in your networks, can you talk about the constraints 
to using other types of technology besides fiber in rural 
areas, and how they might have concerns? Additionally, can you 
talk about the scalability of futureproof capabilities of fiber 
networks as demand for faster speeds and more capabilities 
increase?
    Ms. Prather. Absolutely. Thank you for the question, 
Congressman, and thank you for your support regarding that 
letter and that initiative.
    I, too, have worries about some of the money that has gone 
out the door and what is going to be able to be provided. As 
you said, we utilize multiple technologies. I know what I can 
get out of those different technologies today. You make a great 
point about the reason that we like fiber the most is that it 
can meet those demands. When we were hit with this sudden surge 
and intense surge in demand due to COVID, our fiber network was 
ready to handle it.
    You make a great point about the reliability and 
scalability. I have already talked today about how weather 
affects our fixed wireless assets. We don't have that same 
problem with fiber optics.
    Another point is that whenever we need to change out and 
upgrade some of those radios on our fixed wireless towers, we 
then have to also upgrade every single customer unit. That is a 
lot of disruption for the customer. It is also a lot of expense 
that you may not think about when you initially deploy that 
type of technology, but the ongoing maintenance is much greater 
in some of those other networks.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Ms. Prather. I have one more 
question for you, Ms. Prather.
    So, when we look at Federal dollars that are going to be 
used for rural broadband, my concern is that we use them in an 
efficient way that we can put in the ground or use that one 
time that they can serve for the next 20 or 30 years, because I 
look at it as infrastructure. When we look at speeds, what 
speeds are critical when you think out 10 or 20 years? I mean, 
I am looking at 100 upload and download speeds. What are your 
thoughts on the speeds, and when we start looking out 10 to 20 
years from now, when we are investing all these dollars 
federally, what do you think is the best speeds for those 
dollars?
    Ms. Prather. That is a great question.
    I think we know how to predict this a little bit. 
Currently, our speed and our capacity doubles with my customers 
about every 14 to 16 months. So, when you look at 10 to 20 
years, that creates a great amount.
    Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Ms. Prather.
    I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Sure.
    Ms. Craig of Minnesota, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott, for yielding 
and for holding this really important hearing here today.
    I would first like to briefly ask unanimous consent to 
insert into the hearing record a copy of the American 
Connection Project Broadband Coalition's What We've Done: 
Accomplishments. The American Connection Project Broadband 
Coalition represents more than 140 companies and organizations 
who are working together to bring high-speed internet access to 
all Americans. It is comprised of a number of Minnesota-based 
companies and institutions, such as Land O'Lakes, the 
University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic. Mr. Scott, 
unanimous consent?
    The Chairman. Yes, unanimous consent.
    [The fact sheet referred to is located on p. 110.]
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    Addressing the issue of rural broadband deployment 
expansion and funding is one of my top priorities as a Member 
of Congress from Minnesota's 2nd District. I am also a member 
of Whip Clyburn's Rural Broadband Taskforce, and I am strongly 
pushing for us to include a version of the Accessible, 
Affordable Internet for All Act in our upcoming infrastructure 
package. The proposal would invest over $94 billion to build 
high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved 
communities to close the digital divide, and ensure Americans 
have internet connectivity to start businesses from anywhere, 
learn and work from home, access virtual healthcare, and stay, 
of course, connected to our loved ones. It is my hope that Whip 
Clyburn's bill will again be included in this infrastructure 
package.
    With these comments in mind, I would like to direct my 
first question to our panel on the topic of healthcare, which 
we have seen during the pandemic is increasingly dependent upon 
access to the internet. All four of you mentioned healthcare in 
your testimony to us, and Ms. Robinson, you mentioned 
specifically how connectivity enables healthcare facilities to 
deliver critical virtual solutions throughout the community at 
a time when physical access to rural health facilities is 
declining.
    Can you expand upon these thoughts just a little bit more, 
and provide the Committee with a few more policy ideas you 
might support to expand access to healthcare in our rural 
communities?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much for the question. I want to 
also mention that Microsoft is a member of the American 
Connection Broadband Project, and so we support it because it 
is super important as a way to ensure that we can continue to 
invest in rural economies.
    So, healthcare is critical and broadband is an enabler of 
that, as referenced in my testimony and your question, we know 
that many healthcare facilities are actually leaving rural 
America, and people should not be penalized or suffer because 
they happen to choose to live in a specific place and not have 
access to first-class medical services. And so, from our 
perspective, continuing to provide funding to enable use of 
telehealth applications is critical, as the Committee and 
policymakers think about how best to use and to amplify funding 
that is going towards deployment of broadband. Really thinking 
about innovations and applications in that space is critical to 
ensuring that we can continue to meet the healthcare needs of 
all citizens, including citizens living in rural areas.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, and of course, thank you to 
Microsoft for being a part of that wonderful program.
    I would like to just follow up with you a little bit more. 
I know one of my colleagues really asked about how we improve 
our broadband mapping. You argue that funding should be 
prioritized to reach those unserved and underserved 
communities, but that is going to require comprehensive and 
accurate broadband availability data and mapping. I also happen 
to sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the 
Communications and Technology Subcommittee, and I have sort of 
gone around asking why we have had such challenges mapping 
accurately in the past.
    But I have introduced the Broadband MAPS Act (H.R. 1044), 
which would establish a taskforce at the FCC to help with 
providing us accurate maps so we can make sure that the dollars 
we are appropriating are getting to exactly the right places.
    What else, in your opinion, do we need to do to help 
improve the quality of our maps, and to really and honestly 
determine which areas lack access to broadband?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the follow-up question.
    So, continuing implementation of the Broadband DATA Act is 
important, and we support your Act and anything else that is 
going to get us in the direction of getting more accuracy in 
those tools. I think critical to this effort is leveraging 
multiple sources of data. It can't just be one data source. 
States and local governments are great labs to show, and 
oftentimes, they are close to the problem and can be an 
important resource as policymakers try to map the gap, as it 
were.
    I would also say use the power of technology, the Cloud and 
machine learning to be able to validate data sources that are 
being used to evaluate the problem are critical.
    Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Ms. Robinson.
    And my time has expired, so with that, I will yield back.
    The Chairman. Now I will recognize Mrs. Fischbach of 
Minnesota.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
just want to thank the chair for having this meeting today on 
such an incredibly important subject, and thank you to all of 
the witnesses for taking the time to join us today.
    Access to broadband internet has become so much of a 
necessity, and even more so important right now during COVID. 
But also, it is important to the ag industry, healthcare, as 
Congresswoman Craig was just pointing out, and to education and 
to everyday life. And it is a necessity now, and high-speed 
internet is a key to the world, and you need it to succeed in 
today's modern world.
    Farmers need the connectivity for their machinery and their 
field work. Families need the connectivity for doctor's 
appointments and schoolwork. Small businesses need the 
connectivity to engage with suppliers and customers around the 
world. And in my large rural district, the need for broadband 
connectivity is very, very real. One in five farms do not have 
access to high-speed internet connection. I even have 
constituents that are out of range for both reliable cell 
service and broadband connection. That is why I am glad this 
Committee is prioritizing broadband, and I hope we focus not 
only on investing in the infrastructure, but also making sure 
broadband makes it right to people's doors. And it is up to us 
to make sure that the programs are actually doing what they are 
intended to do, and the taxpayer dollars are used wisely and 
efficiently.
    With millions of Americans still lacking high-speed 
internet connection, this issue transcends politics, and so, I 
appreciate that we are all here today hearing about what the 
needs are for broadband.
    But I do have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. 
Prather, I have heard delays between when providers are awarded 
the RUS funding and when they receive those dollars for 
broadband deployment. Can you speak to some of the issues and 
problems that may have been causing those delays?
    Ms. Prather. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question.
    So, not being behind the curtain, I am not sure I know 
exactly what some of those causes are. However, you made good 
points about there is quite a lag, sometimes, between when 
awards are given versus when they are actually dispersed. We do 
feel like sometimes that has to do with reviews of the 
applications, and so maybe the reviewing applications 
beforehand can go a little faster. I am not sure if that is 
because there is not enough staff to review the numbers that 
they get in now that broadband has become such a hot topic, but 
anything that could be done to maybe put a deadline on when 
some of that money has to go out the door or those reviews can 
be done. Anything that helps the planning of when we can 
receive those funds would be very beneficial.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, and Ms. Prather, so that's 
streamlining the approval process, are there other suggestions 
that you might have, because that is one of the big concerns I 
have is that making sure that we have those dollars, let's make 
sure we are using them properly.
    Ms. Prather. Yes, yes, anything to be done to streamline 
permits, anything that is done in an area that has been 
disturbed before, I think there are streamlines that could be 
done to maybe--to utilize past work and not have to reinvent 
the wheel.
    Mrs. Fischbach. And Ms. Prather, you mentioned in your 
testimony the challenges of acquiring access to Federal lands 
and obtaining the required review permits. We talked a little 
bit about that for construction, but access to those lands and 
construction. Can you elaborate on those challenges, those 
particular challenges?
    Ms. Prather. So, I don't actually have a lot of Federal 
land in my territory, but other NTCA members do have those 
challenges. Just the access, the permitting process, it is very 
expensive as well from what I understand, and so, those delays 
are just difficult, especially when they are trying to plan for 
a shortened construction season.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Well, and thank you, and maybe Mr. Johnson 
has something to add on those issues?
    Mr. Johnson. No, she made the point very well. That is very 
true that these are costly, take a lot of time, and delay 
projects.
    Mrs. Fischbach. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the 
witnesses for their information, and I yield back. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And now, we recognize Ms. Schrier of 
Washington.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening this particular hearing. Broadband access is a 
critical issue in my district, and in Washington State. In 
fact, my district has a lot of rural territory, and these areas 
do not have the same access to broadband as urban and exurban 
parts of the district, or there may be a possibility that you 
can't afford it.
    In small Washington State communities, limited rural 
connectivity for both internet and telephones means that 
residents and public agencies can't reliably hold meetings or 
meaningful public discussions. It creates a two-tiered system 
like we have been hearing about where part of our country has 
access to everything, information, technology, jobs, and the 
rest is kind of left behind. And lack of broadband access has 
exacerbated it by based on wealth or geography or even between 
the haves and the have nots, and the pandemic has made this 
digital divide even more transparent.
    So, the free market didn't get electricity to every home. 
It was the Rural Electrification Act in 1936 that brought 
electricity to rural America, and likewise, we can't count on 
the free market alone to get broadband to rural areas. It is 
really Congress's responsibility to act, and that is why we are 
here.
    So, during this pandemic, we have seen how the divide has 
played out in terms of education, remote work, and 
telemedicine. It has hit harder in rural areas. So, that is why 
I will soon be introducing legislation to create a year-long 
competitive grant program available to established state 
broadband offices with a goal of improving and rolling out 
broadband connectivity. And the idea is to find the best ideas 
and then roll them out to the rest of the country. And these 
are things like mapping and data collection that we have heard 
about, evaluating broadband costs and local community needs, 
ways to use different technologies, increasing network 
resiliency from natural disasters, and most relevant to today's 
hearing, assisting underserved farmers and growers with access 
to technology to increase productivity.
    And so, I have a question for Vickie Robinson from 
Microsoft. Can you share some of the partnerships that you, 
that Microsoft has developed to expand rural broadband and 
advance precision agriculture research and deployment?
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, and thank you for the wonderful 
introduction earlier, and thank you for the question.
    For us, it has never been about connectivity, it is very 
much about what connectivity can enable. And one of the great 
things and what we see is a marriage between connectivity and 
technology is to the precision agriculture opportunity.
    So, by way of one example, I would like to talk about our 
work in Washington State with Nelson Farm, where we have 
leveraged the power of a Microsoft platform, FarmBeats, to 
really provide data-driven smart farming by bringing together 
the power of the Cloud and machine learning to actually enable 
farmers to do better farming, so they can know how to monitor 
soil--soil monitoring, and other planning, and it is all driven 
by data. So, for us, this work is critical in rural America, 
and we believe that not only farming, but other Internet of 
Things applications are critical in order to meet the needs of 
farmers, which are really the lifeblood of our community, if we 
think about it, in terms of the food that we eat and the jobs 
that are created.
    And so, we would say do more of the same. We support your 
proposed legislation as another tool in the toolkit as a way to 
meet the needs of this constituency, and we appreciate the 
space and your commitment in this work.
    Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Ms. Robinson, I am so glad you 
mentioned FarmBeats, because I know everybody on this Committee 
is excited about precision ag as a way to really limit the 
resources, whether that is inputs, fertilizer, water that we 
need to have successful agriculture.
    I have one more question, and I wanted to touch on the 
important work going on in Washington State to provide free 
temporary emergency internet access for Washingtonians who 
don't have broadband service to their homes, and I know 
Microsoft Airband has partnered with the Washington State 
Department of Commerce and Washington State University on this. 
Can you talk about this initiative and its success in 
Washington State?
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, happy to do so.
    So, for us, in-home broadband connectivity is always the 
gold standard, but in the pandemic, we wanted to be nimble and 
be able to meet immediate need. And so, through the partnership 
that you referenced, we were able to deploy hundreds of WiFi 
hotspots so that you can use, what our anchor institutions like 
libraries in order to get access that was vitally needed during 
the pandemic.
    They are also good from a resiliency standpoint, and so, we 
will continue to do investments and believe it is a good tool 
to complement broader in-home broadband access activity.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
    And now, we will hear from Ms. Letlow, our newest Member 
from Louisiana, for her very first question.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member 
Thompson, Members of the Committee, and witnesses. I am honored 
to join this distinguished Committee and to have the 
opportunity to represent the farmers, ranchers, and loggers of 
the 5th District of Louisiana.
    Agriculture is the backbone of my district, and is one of 
the largest economic engines for the area. From rice to cotton 
to soybean to corn, my district has been blessed with the 
fertile soil to grow just about anything.
    It is fitting my very first hearing is on an issue so 
important to the 5th District and my state. In this day and 
age, having a reliable and affordable internet connection is 
crucial to success for businesses and schools, especially in 
rural America. Bridging the gap on rural broadband connectivity 
is a top priority that Congress should address on a bipartisan 
basis.
    Broadband access affects everyone, Republicans and 
Democrats alike. In fact, I live in a rural area and see 
firsthand the major challenges of not having high-speed 
internet. The congressional district I represent makes up close 
to 20 percent of the Louisiana population, covers the largest 
geographic area, and represents a diverse economic base. 
Recently, the Louisiana Governor created a purposeful, 
statewide office of Broadband Development and Connectivity, 
headed by Veneeth Iyengar. Veneeth and I have been 
communicating about some of the most pressing issues facing 
rural Louisianans.
    In April 2019, a report to USDA was drafted evaluating 
rural broadband infrastructure and next generation precision 
agriculture technologies. In that report, the convergence of 
broadband and agriculture was cited in reducing water usage by 
20 to 40 percent for farmers, reducing chemical application up 
to 80 percent, and making farmers more competitive in our 
markets.
    The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role in 
bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules, 
like many Federal broadband grants, are being rewritten to 
reflect the pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband 
access. However, I have heard that the application process is 
quite cumbersome.
    My question is to Ms. Prather and the other witnesses. What 
specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease 
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
    Ms. Prather. Thank you, Congresswoman, and first of all 
real quick, congratulations on your new committee appointment.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Prather. Like you, my area is very agriculturally 
based, and every day we wonder about how we can help that 
agriculture community thrive.
    We did work on some ReConnect applications, and to be 
honest, the biggest problem for us was that some of the mapping 
of what speeds were available in certain areas was not 
accurate. We did not have the time to do the necessary work to 
prove what was available and not available, so for us, we were 
unable to participate in those programs because of some bad 
data that we didn't have a chance to fix.
    So, anything that promotes a validation process would at 
least help with that.
    Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much.
    Any of the other witnesses?
    Mr. Johnson. I have added a couple of comments earlier on 
yes, the application process could be simplified and 
accelerated, perhaps by adding more staffing at RUS and USDA.
    I also commented on the fact that I don't believe that the 
speed requirements for the funding is adequate and future-
proof.
    I also forgot to mention, the loan grant combination. 
Grants are essential. The loan funding already having pretty 
low interest rates is not as attractive as getting a grant, to 
be real honest.
    Dr. Park. Congresswoman, if I may, from my perspective, it 
is very essential to have adequate speed, no doubt about it. 
But think of the quality of life increased from having no 
access to 25 meg versus increasing 25 to 100. And I believe we 
should prioritize serving currently unserved regions. So, if 
there is a choice between serving unserved to 25 and from 25 to 
100, I believe we should prioritize the former.
    Ms. Letlow. Great. Thank you so much to the witnesses.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Panetta of 
California.
    Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and 
thanks to all the witnesses for your time and your preparation, 
and of course, your testimony.
    Look, ever since--well, in my limited time in Congress, I 
can tell you one of the most bipartisan issues that I have come 
across is rural broadband. I got to say, though, it is very 
unfortunate that it took a pandemic to get it to this far along 
in Congress, and I have to say that it is unfortunate that it 
has taken a pandemic to highlight many of the issues we are 
experiencing in my Congressional district. Obviously, we are 
taking plenty of steps to try to address these challenges, from 
San Benito County and looking at fixed wireless, to a small 
town in southern Monterey County, San Gerardo. They gave them 
hotspots but they can't do it because of the geography. Then 
you have a place like Big Sur in which they can't necessarily 
lay down fiber or wires, so they are pivoting to look at 
satellites. And then you have a small town of Happy Valley up 
in Santa Cruz county that were using the already previously 
installed telephone lines, but those things are getting 
degraded and dilapidated, and they are losing internet services 
at this time. And then you have a town like Salinas that has a 
lot of internet service, but not enough, especially for certain 
communities, and that is why there was a picture that went 
viral of a couple of kids outside a parking lot in Taco Bell 
trying to link up their wireless to do homework, according to 
them.
    Look, I think we have to continue providing hardware to 
schools for our students, but unfortunately, hardware is 
useless when you can't have a signal. So, I also appreciate the 
USDA for what they are doing in the ReConnect Program to bridge 
the gap, especially in rural areas. However, the definition of 
rural doesn't apply to a lot of areas not just in my district, 
but in the State of California.
    So, I think it is important that we have these types of 
conversations because I do believe we are at a point right now 
where we are going to see major investments in the next farm 
bill, in the American Jobs Plan as well. But obviously, it 
takes more momentum and this type of hearing adds to it, so I 
appreciate that.
    So, Mr. Johnson, let me talk to you. Obviously, 80 years 
ago Americans decided that rural America needs to be 
electrified, needs electrification. Give me your opinion as to 
how you feel basic universal broadband would equal that 
sentiment of the electrification of rural areas that we had 80 
years ago.
    Mr. Johnson. I think the sentiment is there, as you 
mentioned in your earlier remarks. Thank you, Congressman. This 
is a critical issue and I think generally agreed upon by 
everyone involved and affected by it.
    The need for it is immediately seen by electric 
cooperatives. We are located in these spaces. We have poles, 
infrastructure, rights-of-way that are already here, and our 
members have come to us. In our case, our members came to us 
immediately when I took this job in 2016. That was job number 
one for me was what are we doing about losing our population? 
What are we doing about getting access for teleworkers? And 
with the onset of the pandemic, we saw that this was something 
that was not just a like to have, it was a need to have, and we 
were able to respond quickly. And I believe most electric 
cooperatives are in that position.
    Mr. Panetta. Great, thank you.
    Ms. Robinson, my next question is for you. I introduced 
legislation recently called the BOOST Act (H.R. 1362) to 
provide tax credits for next generation broadband equipment to 
receive wireless and satellite internet signals. However, there 
are still obviously some questions about the reliability and 
speed of those signals. How can we ensure new technologies are 
reliable, and what have you found to be the most promising 
outside of wired fiber when it comes to this type of 
reliability and that technology?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
    So, in the first instance, I think doing things like Dr. 
Park has alluded to, like test beds, is a great way to kind of 
vet out and explore technologies. I think providing tax credits 
to support that kind of effort to vet out technology is 
critical to this space.
    In terms of what is promising and what we see our partners 
using, I would note that one of our partners, RTO Wireless, is 
working with Dr. Park to use technologies like aerostats. We 
believe that does hold a lot of promise for being able to close 
the digital divide, but we also see things like Citizen's 
Broadband Radio Service, low-Earth-orbiting, the possibilities 
are endless. It is really about using the right tool for the 
right use case, be it broadband or narrowband.
    Mr. Panetta. Thanks again. Thanks again to the witnesses. I 
yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you, and now, Mr. Hagedorn from 
Minnesota.
    Mr. Hagedorn. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this 
hearing, and thanks to the witnesses, and also, thanks to our 
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.
    This is a very important hearing. I mean, when I was 
running for Congress and then wanted to be on this Committee, 
one of the main reasons was simply to sustain rural America. 
There are a lot of disadvantages out there in the rural 
communities as compared to the bigger cities, and I think we 
need extra attention and focus, and this is certainly one of 
them.
    Having access to the internet and broadband services like 
this is just a basic infrastructure issue. I think we have 
heard from many of the Members and witnesses that would say it 
is nothing different than electricity or water or sewer or 
anything else, roads and bridges. Because if we don't have this 
access in rural communities--and I live in a small town of 
3,000. We have a lot of rural folks in the farming community 
around me. You don't have that opportunity for education, 
business, and then, of course, telemedicine, which has become 
so important, particularly to some of our elderly residents 
that can't get out and about as much. So, I think if we want to 
continue to preserve rural America and our rural way of life, 
this is something that we have to tackle.
    Now, I am very, very interested in the fact that these 
witnesses have talked about the differences in some of the 
broadband capabilities. I want to talk about that in just a 
second. I do appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle really stepping up. This is a pretty bipartisan 
committee, and this is a very bipartisan issue, and it is great 
that we are all working together for this common goal.
    But I guess I will start with Ms. Prather. If you need 
broadband for really important things, telemedicine, education, 
businesses that can't--have to be online all the time, should 
we be striving for the fiber to get that last mile to the home 
through fiber, and what are the basic differences between that 
and the wireless that is available today?
    Ms. Prather. Thank you, Congressman, and I just want to 
say, I am coming to you today from rural America from a town of 
2,500 people, so much like you described where you are from as 
well.
    That is a great question, and I do think there is a place 
for all of these technologies. When we talk about test beds, I 
think that is a great way to test these things out, but I would 
be concerned about testing that out in a place that doesn't 
have connectivity today, because should it not work out that 
well, should it not be as reliable as a fiber optic technology, 
we don't want to leave those customers behind even longer than 
they have already been left behind.
    You know as well as I do, in rural America, we don't have a 
metro area covering our weather, for example. So, when we have 
spring storms coming through, our customers are reliant upon 
their internet service. I use Twitter to see what storms are 
coming in the storm chaser reports. There is no other way to 
get that information. So, I think it is really--it is public 
safety and to have a reliable connection like that.
    We also know that every sector of rural America is using 
more and more connectivity, whether it is agriculture, 
education, telehealth, everyone is expanding all at once. And 
so, when you have a limited amount of resources to put towards 
rural America, you want to use something that will last for 
decades.
    Mr. Hagedorn. I appreciate that. I mean, my experience in 
getting around the district and talking with folks and some of 
the companies that provide these services, and right in my 
hometown of Blue Earth, you have Bevcomm and I know how 
important they are to the local community and how they help 
out. So, I think if we have an opportunity to choose whether or 
not we are going to go with our local providers, the people 
that can deliver that very, very high quality, I think we 
should do that as opposed to maybe a company that is from far 
away that really doesn't have that much interest in the 
community, other than providing a service.
    I mean, I think of Christensen Communications that was in 
the Daily Minnesota about 8 months ago, and when all the kids 
had to go to digital learning, all of a sudden there were a lot 
of people in town that didn't have access to the internet. They 
were capable of getting it, but they didn't. And that company 
stepped up and actually provided it to them.
    So, I think sometimes the rural electric cooperatives, the 
local cable companies, and others are really going to look out 
for what is going on in our small communities and our rural 
areas, and the jobs that they provide are also important, too. 
So, hopefully if it comes down to either/or, we can go as local 
as possible. That would be my recommendation.
    But thank you for your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, we will go to 
Mrs. Axne from--Mr. Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands, 
you are recognized.
    Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I 
thank the witnesses as well.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on this 
very important issue. As many of you know, and maybe some of 
you don't know, I represent the Northern Mariana Islands, which 
is situated approximately 6,000 miles from San Francisco, and 
maybe 8,000 miles from Washington, D.C., which receives 
broadband through undersea fiber optic cables, actually two 
fiber optic cables. The Department of Commerce, the 
Commonwealth government Department of Commerce, published a 
survey in 2014, a rather old survey, but about broadband usage 
on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. These are the three populated 
islands. And at that time, even approximately 53 percent had 
access to broadband, but seven in ten of the households without 
broadband claimed the monthly cost is the biggest impediment or 
deterrent to their having broadband.
    This has actually been made worse in the pandemic when 
schools had to go into virtual. We were able to locate money 
and have MoFi or MiFi--the first time I heard of this word--
MoFi or MiFi secured them on boxes and they would go out to the 
villages and that is when students were able to access the 
internet.
    But so now in 2021, cost remains the biggest deterrent to 
broadband access, along with dark spots in connectivity and the 
threat of typhoons disrupting the undersea cables and therefore 
interrupting service. And as a matter of fact, a storm did 
damage to one of the fiber optic cables, and we were with no 
connection at that time for days actually.
    So, of the five active USDA broadband programs in Fiscal 
Years 2019 and 2020, the Northern Mariana Islands did not 
receive any funding, and as you can imagine, we are talking 
here about rural. We are talking, in my district, we are just 
talking about completely rural, completely removed.
    So, Ms. Robinson, your testimony focused on the fact that 
one size does not fit all, and I agree with you. So, the 
Northern Mariana Islands, along with other territories or the 
States of Hawaii and Alaska, have unique challenges when it 
comes to broadband. So, what can the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture do to not only bolster infrastructure in the 
Pacific, but also make it affordable, fill the dark spots of 
connectivity, and provide futureproof--strengthen the undersea 
cable?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
    I think it is super important that the Committee think 
about tackling this issue from two different angles, first from 
a deployment standpoint, making sure that you use a variety of 
different tools in order to meet the needs. You talked about 
the fact that the cables went down. Having access to different 
technologies is important from a redundancy standpoint so that 
if something goes down, you have competition within the market, 
you are able to meet that need and continue to ensure people 
have critical access to broadband connectivity. And so, as you 
think about funding deployments, doing so in a way where it is 
technology neutral and optimizing first technologies that are 
cost effective, that has a benefit of providing more tools 
within a given geography, but also, it should help on the side 
of the affordability, the actual service itself.
    And so, I think it is important that the Committee think 
about both sides of the coin for both the deployment itself 
being cost effective, but also ensuring that you can build upon 
things that are now focused on addressing things like you 
talked about, the homework gap. And you now have a temporary 
benefit and thinking about how to attack affordability from a 
long-term, permanent perspective will be really critical as the 
Committee thinks through, and we as a nation really think 
through, how we get people not just access to the internet, but 
actually connected to the internet.
    Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you. It is just, one of the islands 
I represent is just 30 miles from Guam, and Guam, of course, 
besides having more economic activity, Guam has the military, 
and therefore, there is more ways for Guam to connect with 
fiber optics through the ocean. As a matter of fact, our fiber 
optics come from Guam.
    But my time is up, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 
you for holding this hearing.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sablan, and as you know, I am 
well aware of your unique crisis and challenges in Northern 
Mariana Islands, and certainly appreciate Ms. Robinson for 
pointing out how we can approach your unique situation.
    Now we--I believe it is Mrs. Cammack. You are now 
recognized, 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
and thank you to all the witnesses for being here virtually. I 
know it has been a little bit of a lengthy day, but thank you 
for hanging in there with us.
    One of the first action items that my office took on this 
year was in-depth discussions with constituents throughout the 
district and various stakeholders about this very topic of 
rural broadband, and constituents have really shared with me 
over the years how the gaps in broadband and technology have 
impacted almost every aspect of their daily life. Farmers 
struggle to implement precision technology. Our teachers and 
students have struggled on the education front. People have 
struggled to work from home. Doctors have struggled to stay in 
touch with their patients, and small businesses have struggled 
to deliver goods and services due to a lack of connectivity.
    Now, at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into 
the record the following FCC broadband deployment map 
illustrating my district's gaps in fixed wireless service.
    Now, you can see here----
    The Chairman. So ordered, thank you.
    [The map referred to is located on p. 130.]
    Mrs. Cammack. Oh, there we go.
    The Chairman. No, I said so ordered.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
    As you all can see from the yellow and lime green basically 
covering this whole area that is my district in north central, 
northeast Florida, that we lack connectivity pretty much across 
the entire district and region. And according to the FCC's 
latest broadband deployment report, over 90,000 constituents 
across my district struggle to obtain basic access of speeds of 
25/3. In fact, the town of McIntosh in my district has sadly 
been recognized as the worst connected city in Florida. And in 
2021, it is just simply unacceptable.
    So, jumping in to some of the questions, I wanted to start 
with Ms. Robinson, and I know you have answered this before, 
but just if you could recap and maybe expand a little bit. In 
your view, what are some of the key steps being taken to 
produce maps that more accurately reflect broadband service 
across the country? Because that is one of our biggest 
challenges is just identifying the very basic baseline of how 
can we get a starting point and measure success and quantify 
it, moving forward?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
    I think the first step has happened. Congress has passed 
the Broadband DATA Act, which is a critical first step in the 
journey to get a better view around what is actually the scope 
of the problem that we are dealing with. Not only did you pass 
the Act, you actually funded it. Congress has actually funded 
that, and so now, the FCC is doing the important work of 
actually implementing that Act, and we understand that they 
have put together a task force that is really--will be really 
critical to ensuring that they have multiple data sets to 
inform their view around sizing the properties of the gap, be 
it at the Federal, state, local level. So, that is important 
work doing that coordination. And I would also submit 
coordinating with Tribal entities and other actors as well.
    There are also data sets that could be leveraged from the 
private-sector. Microsoft itself has looked at this problem 
based on our usage data, meaning the speeds at which our 
customers are being able to have from a customer experience 
perspective, download, or have interactions with our products 
in the marketplace. And we see that there are gaps there. And 
so, as we as a country try to get our arms around that, it will 
be critical to bring these various data sets together, use the 
power of the Cloud and machine learning to actually validate 
inaccuracies, and then make that available to the public for 
comment as well.
    So, things are moving in the right direction, so I would 
say more of the above, but also challenge to continue to use 
resources from the private-sector as well as part of this 
exercise.
    Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you Ms. Robinson.
    The next question that I have is for Dr. Park. A common 
complaint that I hear over and over again is grants have been 
received by different stakeholder entities within our district 
and our region, and for one reason or another, the service just 
never seems to reach its intended audience. So, these 
municipalities, these different groups get stuck with this 
program, and they are still left with no service. So, how can 
we make sure that Federal programs don't trap customers with 
ineffective technology?
    Dr. Park. That is a great question.
    I would say that, previously some of the technologies, I 
mean, specifically with wireless technology, I don't think it 
was lack of standard, first of all. There was no standard 
established, and there was really no dedicated spectrum or 
frequency for serving residents. But now that has changed, so 
there is now LTE standard that allows wireless technology to be 
upgradeable without doing further improvement on the customer 
premises equipment, and with the CBRS, there is now a dedicated 
spectrum that allows wireless technology providers to provide 
services without interference.
    So again, I think those innovative technologies----
    The Chairman. Thank you. Your time has expired, but thank 
you very much.
    Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
    The Chairman. And now, we have Mrs. Cindy Axne of Iowa--oh, 
and it is her birthday. Happy birthday to you. Well, Frank 
Sinatra I am not, but happy birthday to a dear friend, Mrs. 
Cindy Axne of Iowa. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
for our witnesses for being here today.
    No better topic to be discussing on my birthday than 
broadband, something that Iowa is desperately in need of. I am 
so glad we are having this.
    I don't need to rehash exactly what all of my colleagues 
are saying about the fact that we need to make sure that 
everybody in this country has broadband. Listening to 
Representative Cammack there in northern Florida, it is no 
different than it is in Iowa, and of course, this pandemic only 
exacerbated the issues that we are facing when we don't have 
connectivity across this country.
    I have had the opportunity to spend the last couple of 
years working with the Rural Broadband Task Force to put 
together our bill that is being included in the infrastructure 
package to bring broadband investment of $100 billion across 
this country and to address my colleague, Kat Cammack's 
concern, also getting to those mapping issues. So, a very solid 
bill.
    One thing we have spent a lot of time talking about in this 
task force is that we have to futureproof it to make sure that 
we have got agreement with providers to continue to support it 
so that nobody falls behind again.
    As we look to investments like this, I would like to focus 
a bit on how we can better coordinate and share information 
across the Federal broadband programs. I think we have about 50 
different programs right now, and we have state programs. I 
spent a decade in state government actually talking about this 
way long ago, and I am glad we have the ACCESS BROADBAND Act 
(H.R. 1328) which we passed last year, of course, to help us 
with this. But we have a lot more work to do.
    And when I was working at the state, as I mentioned, the 
lack of coordination across those programs was literally one of 
the biggest issues that was so frustrating for us, to make sure 
everybody had broadband, and I am glad that the task force that 
we put together points out that we have to have required 
coordination between Federal and state programs.
    So, Mr. Johnson, I believe you said in your testimony that 
your co-op has used FCC broadband funding, but not USDA's 
programs. I am wondering if you could share one thing that you 
think the FCC does well that we could bring over to the USDA, 
and vice versa?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
    The simplest answer to that, and most direct, is that it is 
easier. It is simpler. The maps are generated in the RDOF 
program by the FCC. They distribute them to everybody. They 
specify available grant dollars that will be available, and 
they conduct a reverse auction according to strict rules. It is 
a fair playing field for everybody. We feel that fiber and 100/
100 service should be favored as it is, but the fact is the 
application is much simpler. The process is simpler.
    Mrs. Axne. So, you are--any thoughts on what the USDA is 
doing or could be doing better, or is that the one suggestion 
we should be taking from the FCC?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes, I mean, there are others. Their loans 
grant packaging is, relatively speaking, not as desirable to 
us. The applications themselves give a point system allotment 
to passing libraries, community centers, things of this nature, 
and we are talking about rural here, so that is where--our 
libraries are in the communities that are already served, so 
putting extra points into a system where that type of farm 
should be--perhaps get extra points, if you understand what I 
mean.
    Mrs. Axne. I like that idea.
    Mr. Johnson. And I think the process is slow. The funding 
that is granted, once it is awarded, it takes--we have a 
specific co-op that it took over 500 days to get their first 
money. That is too long.
    Mrs. Axne. Okay. Thank you.
    Ms. Prather, I would ask the same question to you. You 
talked about providers spending 2 years and I think $250,000 
just to get a loan from the USDA. Is that one of the biggest 
things that we need to address is the efficiency of it, or do 
you have other suggestions that we could move from one program 
to another to help us?
    Ms. Prather. That is another great point, and I would 
second what Mr. Johnson said. It is a much more difficult 
application process. We actually have some private loans 
because those were much easier to get than going through the 
full RUS process, absolutely.
    Mrs. Axne. Well, thank you.
    One thing I think everyone in broadband has heard a ton 
about is the issues with mapping. Rep. Cammack brought it up. 
The FCC is currently updating their maps, and there are other 
efforts in states like Iowa as well.
    Last question. Ms. Prather or Mr. Johnson, do you think we 
could benefit from improving the coordination of maps we use to 
determine where to put the funding, and could we get a really 
good set of maps there that both the USDA and FCC and NTIA 
could all use together?
    Ms. Prather. Very quickly, I think using one definition for 
underserved or unserved would go a long way in helping that 
coordination, too.
    Mr. Johnson. I agree. Yes. I think one agency perhaps could 
be the clearing agency for all the data.
    Mrs. Axne. So, if I am hearing you all correctly, we need 
coordination in moving this forward. It will create a more 
efficient and effective structure to roll this out across the 
country. Is that correct?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Ms. Prather. Yes.
    Mrs. Axne. Thank you. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Austin 
Scott, my friend from Georgia.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I 
want to say thank you to the people who are testifying here. I 
am sorry that I had to step off briefly. I am on the Armed 
Services Committee, and we are having a lot of discussions 
about Afghanistan, as you can imagine, and I know other Members 
are in those meetings as well, so just--thank you for 
understanding what--some of the other things going on up here.
    Dr. Park, you alluded to something that I think is going to 
be a big part of our debate, going forward, and it is the 25 
megabits versus 100 megabits. We have some extremely 
influential people who have legislation to change the 
definition from 25 to 100. Could you allude on what you were 
talking about a little bit more, zero to 25 versus 25 to 100, 
and the importance for rural America of keeping it at the 25?
    Dr. Park. I am not advocating to keeping it 25, but my 
point was that if we had a choice between serving a person with 
nothing to 25 and improving----
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay.
    Dr. Park.--the speed from 25 to 100, it should absolutely 
be the former. We do not want to set a policy to hinder some 
operators and providers to reach currently unserved people from 
providing 25. Yes.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Fair enough.
    Okay. So one of my concerns is we have watched an extreme 
population shift from rural America to urban America, and part 
of that has got to do with industry and jobs. I mean, people 
are moving closer to where they work, and obviously, if you are 
manufacturing in the United States today, if you are in any 
type of industry in the United States today, access to the 
internet is just as important as access to water, access to 
power, access to labor, and so my concern is if you change the 
definition from 25 to 100, then all of a sudden a lot of people 
who are already served at that 25 megabits will take precedence 
over people who currently have little to no service at all.
    And so I think that is just a definition that we, as the 
Agriculture Committee, those of us who represent rural America, 
need to be very careful of, in that it seems like it is not a 
big change, but when it comes to the money that is set aside 
for rural America, and broadband for rural America, it is going 
to make a lot of other people eligible for it, and my fear is 
that it shifts the focus from rural America to areas which are 
already served with the 25 megabytes a second. But thank you 
for clarifying that. I think you have very interesting 
technology with the blimps. And the tether--is the tether--does 
the tether actually have fiber in it, or are you linking 
wirelessly to a tower?
    Dr. Park. Yes, it is tethered by the cable--fiber, so it is 
fiber is connected to the aerostat, and from the aerostat there 
is a wireless antennae--radios that is transmitting signals 
down.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. Fair enough. And so, Ms. 
Prather, you talked about the middle mile. The Agriculture 
Committee, in the last farm bill, we put language in there to 
support the middle mile, and that build-out. Unfortunately, the 
Appropriations Committee did not put funding in there for the 
additional build-out of the middle mile. Could you speak to how 
important it is in the build-out of the wholesale 
infrastructure to rural broadband?
    Ms. Prather. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, that is a great 
question, and a very important part that we have not talked 
about very much today. While it is important to serve those 
last mile consumers, if you don't have enough backhaul to get 
back to the internet at large, you are going to hit a roadblock 
there, and they are still not going to get that service. And 
not only that, but allowing companies to build-out maybe even a 
redundant middle mile network can be very beneficial. We 
actually hopped onto a benefit from another provider through a 
different program that allowed us to have multiple accesses to 
different internet presences. We go to Dallas, and we go to 
Austin. So things happen, fiber gets cut. If something happens 
between us and Dallas, all of our traffic can go to Austin. So 
that is a very important part of the puzzle too.
    Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you all for what you are 
doing, and, again, we need to watch the definitional change 
from 25 to 100. I think that would shilf some of the funds that 
have been set aside for rural America to have that build-out to 
25 from the truly rural areas to the more metropolitan areas. 
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my 
time.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now, Ms. Alma Adams 
of North Carolina. You are now recognized.
    Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member 
Thompson, for hosting the hearing today, and thank you to all 
our witnesses for their testimony. While my district is 
substantially urban and suburban, I understand the urgency and 
importance of this issue. Even in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and 
particularly in low-income areas of my district, we have 
broadband deserts which don't have access to quality high-speed 
internet. Our work here in Congress is helping to address this. 
The City of Charlotte recently announced that it will be using 
$3 million in funding from the CARES Act to make important 
investments to promote digital inclusion and equity across our 
city, so I know how important it is that we bridge these 
divides, and ensure that all Americans have access to 
broadband. And so, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you and Ranking 
Member Thompson for convening the hearing today to talk about 
how we can tackle these troubling disparities facing rural 
communities.
    According to the Census Bureau, about 30 percent of rural 
America is comprised of historically marginalized communities, 
and, as we know, the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare inequities 
across our country, and one such inequity is the disparity in 
Americans' access to dependable and affordable broadband. This 
particularly impacts our students, who have had to learn from 
home, and our universities, specifically our HBCUs, and our 
minority serving institutions, who had to get equipped quickly 
to operate in a virtual world. So, given that so many of our 
HBCUs are in the South, and are a part of rural America, it is 
vital that they be included in any rural broadband 
conversation.
    Ms. Robinson, is there anything that Microsoft and your 
Airband ISP partners are doing to address the needs of these 
groups in rural America? In particular, I am interested to hear 
more about the recent partnership between Microsoft 
Philanthropies and the 1890 Foundation. So could you speak more 
about that partnership?
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the 
question. From our perspective, working to connect anchor 
institutions is a key way to actually extending out and meeting 
the needs of the whole community, particularly when you are 
talking about working and trying to reach historically 
marginalized groups, and that is a key priority for us as we 
build out and do this work in rural America. And so, as a part 
of our recent partnership with the 1890 Foundation through 
Microsoft Philanthropies, I am pleased to share that we, as a--
from an Airband perspective, will be working with the 
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff to extend connectivity for 
precision farming. And that is really exciting to think about 
how--thinking about the mission of that--of land-grant 
universities, like University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, to 
show the power of connectivity, and support related research in 
that space.
    But not only are we working to provide connectivity to 
enable precision agriculture, as part of that work, from an 
Airband perspective, we also want to ensure that when staff, 
members, and faculty leave the campus that they also have 
access to conductivity because we understand that often it is 
the case they may have connectivity on campus, but when they 
get home, they are in a broadband desert, as you talk about. 
And so, working through our partner, Aristotle Unified 
Communications, we are excited about that work, and the 
learnings that we will be able to take to replicate that across 
the country.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Let me move on 
quickly. To the rest of the panelists, what role do you think 
1890 land-grant institutions can play in helping to provide 
connectivity in rural communities?
    Dr. Park. Well, thank you for that question. So one of the 
unique roles that WHIN plays is by working very closely with 
Purdue University. As we gather data, and as we work with these 
innovative technologies and put them to use, we have access to 
how it is performing, the data we are collecting, and we share 
that with researchers and educators in the university, again, 
to advance the innovation further. So I think it is a critical 
partnership, as we move forward, to solve this digital divide 
together.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. We have about 45 seconds. Is there another 
response from another panelist? Okay.
    Mr. Johnson. We have cooperated with research that is being 
conducted at Cornell University regarding the feasibility of 
nonprofit developments in some of the hard-to-reach areas, and 
we feel these partnerships, and this data, and this research is 
very valuable.
    Ms. Adams. Okay. Ms. Robinson, Native American communities 
on Tribal lands have lacked reliable access, so can you speak a 
little bit about that? You just have about 15 seconds.
    Ms. Robinson. Absolutely. It is a key issue, and we have 
various partners that are stepping up to meet the to expand 
connectivity on Tribal lands, including Sacred Wind 
Communications, who is serving access to Navajo Country in the 
State of New Mexico, as well as Native Network, who is 
extending broadband access in the States of Arizona and 
Washington, again, specifically focus on closing the gap for 
indigenous communities.
    Ms. Adams. Right.
    Thank you, ma'am. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Adams. 
And I thank you for lifting up the important role that our 1890 
land-grant African American colleges and universities are 
playing. They are playing a very important role, and certainly 
will be playing an important role in our efforts to bring 
broadband to all of our rural communities. Thank you for that. 
And now, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, you are now recognized for 5 
minutes.
    Mrs. Miller. Yes. I would like to thank the Chairman, the 
Ranking Member, my colleagues on this Committee, and our 
witnesses for coming together to discuss such a critically 
important topic. As a farmer myself, I know how important rural 
broadband is to advance the future of American farming. The 
agricultural industry continues to become more technologically 
sophisticated, and reliable connectivity is essential to make 
sure American farms can utilize new technology. I know this 
firsthand.
    Of course, American farmers aren't the only ones who need 
better rural broadband. As our world becomes more 
technologically centered, the digital divide becomes more stark 
in rural America. The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly 
highlighted this digital divide. In healthcare, Americans 
increasingly use telehealth to access healthcare. Those who are 
lacking reliable internet connections struggle to access this 
option. Additionally, many schools closed their doors, and 
started online instruction, and families found themselves 
struggling to get their children online to do their work. 
Eventually the pandemic will end, but the need for reliable 
broadband connectivity will continue. I am committed to working 
toward expanding broadband access, and I am glad to be 
discussing this issue today.
    Dr. Park, you described rural areas as digitally diverse in 
your testimony. Can you explain that? It is a notion that I 
think a lot of people might not understand if they have not 
spent time in rural communities. How does that make rural 
networks different from urban networks?
    Dr. Park. Thank you for that question. So we all know that 
urban is obviously uniformly dense, and can support high 
concentrations of towers. The urban problem for broadband is 
congestion of the network, right? In rural areas, broadband 
service is challenged by areas that are sparsely populated, 
with a few areas that have high numbers of population. And 
density within the area could also change over time. For 
example, county fairs last a couple of weeks, creating 
temporary pockets of density that need service. There are--
migrant and seasonal workers come and go, and they bring kids, 
and they need education. So, to solve this in the urban way, 
rural networks would have to greatly overbuild to handle the 
worst-case scenario. So we think a technology like an aerostat 
can help, because it covers a large area with a fixed capacity, 
but really does not care where the people are in the area, as 
long as that total count remains fairly constant.
    I would also say, again, IoT is another very important 
source of diversity in rural areas, because agriculture is such 
an important part of the rural community, and with the sensor-
based technology that needs its own connectivity on the 
farmland. So the bottom line is that the rural connectivity 
needs are not always what they seem to be. They are complex, 
dynamic, and then don't really lend themselves to one-size-
fits-all solutions.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And, Dr. Park, towards the end of 
your testimony you mentioned the Indiana GPS study, and shared 
some interesting insights from it, mainly that closing the 
digital divide and accelerating digitalization are keys to 
prosperity. Can you talk more about that report, and more about 
what digitalization means to rural communities, please?
    Dr. Park. Sure. So, that report came about in a very 
critical time in the State of Indiana, and the key finding of 
that report was that Indiana is actually lagging its 
productivity compared to the national average, and its number 
one recommendation to resolve that issue was digitalization, 
meaning more of adopting technologies in farms and advanced 
manufacturing sectors. How do we accelerate the adoption of 
technologies so that these industry sectors can grow quickly 
and increase productivity? And so, obviously, in order to 
digitalize these industry sectors, we need connectivity, so 
they come very much hand-in-hand with our state's new priority 
of digitalization, and really making this infrastructure as 
robust as possible.
    Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Dr. Park, and I yield back the 
balance of my time.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now Ms. Plaskett of 
the Virgin Islands.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much to the Chairman and to 
the Ranking Member for convening this hearing, and I really 
want to thank our guests for being here as well, and sharing 
some incredible information with us. This has been really 
helpful as we continue the discussion of broadband deployment, 
and how it fits in with the Biden Administration, and the jobs 
bill that we are all working on right now to move America 
forward, and to build back better.
    I wanted to ask Ms. Prather or Mr. Johnson, can you talk 
about the cost of broadband network deployment versus 
maintenance? What are the resources most helpful to communities 
or providers to ensure good network maintenance? I think 
especially about, in my district of the Virgin Islands, 
maintenance is so key when we have tremendous issues of natural 
disaster and weather that may cause broadband deployment--and 
not just the deployment, but eventually the maintenance of 
broadband, to be problematic.
    Ms. Prather. That is a great question, and I will take a 
crack at it from our perspective. You bring up a great point 
that there are two distinct costs with deploying quality 
broadband network, that initial investment to get the network 
to the consumer, and then that ongoing maintenance. These 
networks are built to last for decades, and so if we have the 
ability to make the business case for a service provider to be 
there, and to continue to make those investments in the 
customer service and the maintenance, that is what creates the 
ability for a network to last as long as it should.
    Mr. Johnson. I could add, if I may, thank you, 
Congresswoman, that the startup costs for construction are the 
heaviest lift. Operations, of course, will be ongoing. 
Hopefully the business model will support by pricing, and 
having the availability of extra benefit programs, like the 
emergency programs and Lifeline, which should be enhanced, 
would also help cash flow to these businesses. We operate at 
cost to an electric cooperative, so, as a nonprofit, we have a 
slight advantage in that respect.
    Ms. Plaskett. Can I ask you, Mr. Johnson, in talking about 
the startup, I know that this Committee has talked quite a bit 
about how to extend broadband, but when I think about places 
like the Virgin Islands, or my colleague also on the Committee, 
Mr. Sablan, one of the concerns we have is that we really need 
to support--incentivizing companies and others, particularly 
private-sector, to deploy in communities in which payment costs 
are not going to be as robust. What are some of the mechanisms 
that we as legislators can put into some of this legislation to 
incentivize, and to support service providers and others to go 
into areas where it may not be as cost effective or profitable?
    Mr. Johnson. Right, and I think that the grant approach is 
the way to go in these situations, where high costs and low 
revenue potentials are out there in the region that is to be 
served. So grant availability is critical, and operational 
expense subsidies as well. Otherwise, it can't be sustained. As 
I mentioned, the affordability options, such as the emergency 
broadband project, that should be made permanent, perhaps in 
the form of enhancing the Lifeline benefit that is available 
now.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. One last--another question I had 
was the relationship between, in areas in which municipal 
broadband exists, and it is there with ISPs, with internet 
service providers, have you seen instances in which that 
conflict sometimes, which naturally may exist, has been 
overcome? And, before answering that question, I just want to 
reach out to Ms. Robinson with Microsoft. It is been so good to 
hear your testimony. I am excited about some of the work that 
you are doing in Indian Country, and hopeful that you could 
potentially have a conversation with those of us from the 
Territories about how Microsoft can be supportive in areas 
outside of the mainland. That would just be a fantastic 
discussion.
    Ms. Robinson. I would love to have that discussion, and 
thank you for the question. I will point out that we are 
working in Puerto Rico, so we are--and we are keen to work 
outside of the mainland, in terms of solving this problem, 
because we realize that it is a national problem, and it is not 
restricted to the mainland, so we would love to continue the 
conversation around what more we could do to expand broadband 
access to the Territories.
    Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. All right. Thank you, and now we will hear 
from Mr. Balderson of Ohio.
    Mr. Balderson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank 
you for everyone being here. My first question goes to Dr. Park 
and Mr. Johnson. Dr. Park, you may answer first, then Mr. 
Johnson can follow. Are there technologies that we should 
deploy in specific areas? Are there technologies we should not 
deploy in certain areas? And final is, is it more effective to 
use a one-size-fits-all approach, or should we be more granular 
with our technology deployment?
    Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I think 
it comes down to really balance, right? Fiber certainly has a 
lot of advantages, as we talked about, but it does have 
disadvantage of being costly, and also it takes time, longer 
time, to deploy, typically. And so it is really about is it 
more important to deploy in areas that are currently unserved 
rapidly, right--I think the key is rapidly--to perhaps provide 
25 mbps service, 50 mbps services using alternative 
technologies like aerostat. And I am--I am not proposing, 
again, one technology is--solves everything, so I think there 
is a way to coordinate with local partners, because each region 
has its own unique profile, its regional partners, and so we 
have to let the regional partners work together to provide 
adequate technologies to provide the service that is needed.
    Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I would urge 
deployment of fiber. The FCC's approach has been to give 
additional credit in bidding processes to those entities that 
can provide faster service. We also need to look at the 
reliability of the network that is being built. Many of these 
other technologies, cellular as well, are dependent upon fiber 
access. So, as the old saying goes, cellular follows fiber. So 
that is the proven and robust tech that is out there. Would be 
very long-term, and easily expandable for future needs.
    Mr. Balderson. Thank you. My next question is for you, Mr. 
Johnson. Your network is fiber network to some pretty rural 
country. How did you decide that fiber was the right fit for 
your needs, and what role did Federal systems play in that 
decision?
    Mr. Johnson. Right. Thanks, Congressman, again. Our 
experience here was that fixed wireless was inadequate. We have 
rolling hills, and lots of deciduous trees with leaves, so we 
had latency and service interruptions, and the same applied for 
satellite. We had weather issues. We ran a satellite broadband 
business. We had people buying data--additional data, so they 
were spending $200-$300 a month in some cases, those who were 
high-tech workers, and those high-tech workers are exactly who 
we want to keep in our region. So fiber became the default 
decision, and the long-term decision, so that we could support 
these other--perhaps other cellular towers, and other things 
that may develop.
    Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I 
yield back my remaining time. Thank you.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And now I recognize Mr. Lawson of 
Florida for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 
welcome everyone to the Committee. In the staff report, they 
said that if millions of farmers, I guess in the rural areas, 
had access to the internet and broadband, that it could 
increase their bottom line by maybe $40, $45, $60 billion. And 
to the staff, I need someone to explain that to me, because I 
know for the last several years we have had issues with 
hurricanes and so forth, and as Congresswoman Axne talked about 
in the area about how they needed access.
    I understand a great deal that--a little bit about 
education, giving education outlets to them, but I am trying to 
see if someone there can tell me, because most farms are 
located quite a distance from other farms in certain areas in 
what some people consider to be remote areas besides rural. How 
is this access going to increase the bottom line of farmers? 
And that is open to the panel.
    Ms. Prather. Well, without actually seeing a farmer, I 
can't tell you maybe the very specifics of it, but I will give 
you an example. Like I talked about earlier, we have a lot of 
dairy farmers in the area, and I know other agriculture happens 
the same way. They are able to upload information to their 
providers to make things happen much more efficiently than--
like you said, they are a long way from town--having to go into 
town to talk about what they need. They can do all of that 
electronically, and have instant access to their vets, to their 
other consultants, to other resources. So they are not spending 
as much time trying to do an information trade, but could make 
it happen automatically. We also have cattle ranchers who are 
able to participate in online auctions, so they can stay on 
their farm, and do other chores and things that they need to 
do, while still participating in the auctions of their cattle.
    Mr. Lawson. Well, does anyone else want to comment on that 
from the panel?
    Ms. Robinson. I would be happy to comment on that, and I 
appreciate the question. I think when we think about how having 
access can be transformative for farmers is that, if you are 
able to connect the farm, but also the farmlands, it enables 
farmers to lean in to use technologies like Internet of Things 
to do things like smart farming, data driven farming, that--if 
there is--if you are able to do that by pairing connectivity 
and technology, that can translate into improved productivity, 
and your bottom line, because you are able to use the power of 
data to marshal your resources as you go about doing the work 
of farming. So I would say that in a very specific way, and 
then just more generally, there is lots of scholarship on--
anecdotal information to suggest that broadband connectivity is 
directly correlated to growth and improvement from a 
socioeconomic standpoint when you have it in communities. So I 
would offer these things as datapoints that may be relevant to 
your question.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you. And I have a question for Mr. 
Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you can recall how rural electric came 
about all over the country, and the significant impact that it 
had on many of them. And I guess I might have been one, living 
in a rural area, because I could remember when we got 
electricity, when my brother and I were staying up all night to 
see what--when the light was going to go out, because we 
weren't really used to having electric light, and it came 
because of rural electric. What is the significant cost is 
going to be to get broadband into all of these particular 
areas? Now, there was a cost in getting electricity out into 
rural areas. And I know my time is--but what is going to be the 
cost to get it into a rural area, broadband, on the average 
person who participates with----
    Mr. Johnson. I guess I am not real clear on the question, 
what the cost would be on a monthly basis, you mean, or an 
aggregate basis nationwide?
    Mr. Lawson. Well, it would be on an average basis for the 
actual person, the same as rural electricity, how it came down.
    Mr. Johnson. Right, yes. I mean, electric cooperatives, as 
you know, operate as nonprofits, so we offer service at cost, 
and that is our objective with our pricing, and that is why we 
pursue as many grants as we possibly can to fund this 
opportunity. Low interest loans are helpful, and that is what 
funded REA, but this is a grassroots movement. Our members 
demand the service, they demand comparable service to what is 
available in urban and exurban areas, so we address their 
needs, and do the best we can to get to them.
    Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I 
yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. And now Mr. LaMalfa of California.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and for 
our panelists here today. As is the craziness around here, I 
had to step out for a while here, but I appreciate your 
information you can impart to us here, just for a second, Ms. 
Prather was--I think mentioned earlier about the--we were 
talking about the challenges of acquiring the access to Federal 
land in order to move broadband infrastructure in, and the 
reviews, and permits, da da-da da-da, it takes forever. Like 
doing stuff, as far as trimming trees on Forest Service land. 
It is just a terrible process. So if you have any input you 
would like--with us on how we can further streamline that in 
the future, but I think that question has been posed today, so 
I also wanted to talk about the--building things correctly the 
first time, okay? Now, in the 2008 Recovery Act, we had some 
missteps back then, so this is both for Mr. Johnson and Ms. 
Prather, and--sorry about that.
    So the Federal Government has spent billions to build 
broadband, some of whom are still operating right now, and--so 
we know that service could be substandard, and we know that 
many are only a little--halfway--about halfway through their 
agreements. So how do we step it up and make sure that 
broadband, when it is not only on the way--that it will stay in 
place, and at a good quality of service, through the lifetime 
of the loan and the grant process? So Ms. Prather and Mr. 
Johnson?
    Ms. Prather. That is a great question, thank you, 
Congressman. I think it is very important, like you said, to 
try to tie that service to the life of the asset. If we are 
going to put these assets in play, we want to make sure that 
they are still available for their useful life over decades. I 
think there are some really great ideas out there about tying 
the length of loans and grants to what you are providing. That 
goes along in hand with--what speed we consider unserved may be 
very different from a speed that we want to build to. Just 
because we have a certain minimum standard of speed--we may not 
need to change that from what is being served, but why would we 
want to build to that minimum threshold? So making sure that, 
as we make more grants and funds available, that we really are 
looking to the future, and building towards what we need.
    I think your second point is excellent, about--we want to 
make sure that those networks can sustain themselves. That is 
an important component of Universal Service, and that that is 
what affords an affordable rate over the life of that network. 
Mr. Johnson mentioned Lifeline, the High-Cost Program, all of 
those programs affect a different component, but work in tandem 
to keep those rates affordable, and those networks sustainable.
    Mr. Johnson. I would only add, Congressman, that I think 
that--especially in the example of the FCC, regarding the Rural 
Development Opportunity Fund, we need to vet bidders before 
they bid. It is too late in the process to make an award to a 
bidder that is unqualified, and is subsequently denied access 
to the funding. We need it to be done ahead of time, ReConnect, 
same thing, be it ReConnect, all the USDA funds, need to have 
vetting before awards are made.
    Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Thank you on that, both of you. Mr. 
Johnson, previously there was a discussion about--a member-led 
decision process could be perhaps more productive, or 
efficient, so why would the members want to shoulder more of 
this investment, especially as complex as this can be?
    Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Congressman. Yes, the members see that 
this is an essential service now, that--it has now gone from 
what we previously thought maybe was a luxury to an absolute 
necessity, especially with the onset of the pandemic. Many of 
the kids were at home schooling, workers were put back home out 
of work, unless they were able to telework. Patients needed 
access for telemed, et cetera. So it is a grassroots--in our 
case we saw grassroots. My directors spoke to me when I first 
came on board and said, look, we have to solve this problem. 
People are--tourists are coming to our area, are getting out of 
their cars, and looking at their phones, and saying, good Lord, 
I don't have a single bar here. So we knew that there was an 
issue, and that is--the members demanded the action. We took on 
what we thought we could handle, in terms of financing, and our 
members have been ecstatic that we have made that effort.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Let us stretch back on--Mr. Johnson, for a 
moment to the USDA, and the Rural Utilities Service kind of 
touches on one of my hot points with dealing with agencies. 
Procedural barriers to working with them, can you elaborate a 
little more on the barriers, and how we can address them, and 
if there is still time, Ms. Prather too?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes. We have seen procedurally barriers--
entity barriers in that we need more flexibility on the type of 
entities that would qualify for financing. Most cooperatives, 
of course, qualify, but we work with subsidiaries and partners 
also that may not be the traditional form of a rural utility, 
or a rural electric cooperative. And I pointed out some of the 
application issues, that they are quite burdensome, and work on 
a point system, require a lot of documentation and data 
gathering that make those options quite expensive, and somewhat 
prohibitive for small organizations.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Do you have anything to add on what you see as 
those procedural barriers?
    Mr. Johnson. On, procedurally, I don't have a lot more to 
add on that, no. I don't.
    Mr. LaMalfa. I am sorry, sorry, I was throwing that to Ms. 
Prather. Sorry, Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
    Ms. Prather. I think--nothing to add.
    The Chairman. Just submit your question for the record.
    Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. I have given you a little extra time here, 
but we want to be fair to everyone. Now I recognize Mr. Johnson 
of South Dakota for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman, 
and this is an issue of great interest to me. Before coming to 
Congress I was the Vice President of a broadband engineering 
and consulting firm based out of Mitchell, South Dakota. We did 
a lot of wireless builds, we did a lot of fiber builds, about 
8,000 miles a year of fiber optic cable, serving the most rural 
communities in the country, so I have listened with interest to 
what our witnesses have said today.
    What is interesting is we talk about $80 or $100 billion in 
some of these packages to deploy toward broadband. Obviously, 
at the conceptual level, that is good news. It is welcome news. 
We want to get America connected. As somebody who has been in 
the industry, I have a little bit more concern about our 
ability to actually deploy that in a time- and cost-efficient 
manner, and so I want the take on some of the--from some of the 
panelists about that. And just to give my colleagues on the 
Committee some context, I mean, the first RDOF auction, which 
really transformed the rural broadband industry, put a 
tremendous amount of money on the street, more than $9 billion, 
that really had an impact on people's ability to get a hold of 
fiber optic cable, get a hold of wireless parts. It really 
flooded the zone with a tremendous, and, of course, much needed 
investment. I mean, as we talk about an investment, perhaps ten 
times that large. Should we keep particular things in mind, 
panelists, about the timeframe that should be deployed over, 
and whether or not that is the most efficient, effective way to 
do it? And I suppose I could probably call you guys in order, 
or you will be talking all over one another. Ms. Prather, do 
you want to go first? Go ahead.
    Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think you 
bring up some very good points, and you are right, the RDOF 
auction has done a lot of good, but also does cause a lot of 
concern. You are right in--we need to do everything we can to 
get the money out the door so it can be put to use. One of the 
concerns I think we have is that if you want accountability, 
you have to have some sort of verification. I think we need 
more verification on the front-end, that what providers are 
promising to do we think they can actually do, and then we also 
need that verification on the back-end to ensure that what we 
have put out there to be done is actually getting done.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Do you have any concerns, 
ma'am, about--I will be honest, I don't believe we could spend 
$100 billion on broadband in the short-term without a degree of 
waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency that I don't know that 
Congress has the appetite for. Am I wrong about that?
    Ms. Prather. No, I completely agree with you. I think not 
knowing where money is going, and sending so much of it out at 
once will cause duplication. I also think that a timeline issue 
is going to be that supply chain, that if we can't get the 
fiber and the electronics in to do it--or the radio equipment, 
whatever it is, all of it is in a crunch now, and if we can't 
get it, we won't be able to deploy it.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. Very good. Just going 
down the witness list, and Mr. Johnson, your thoughts?
    Mr. Johnson. I agree with much of what Ms. Prather said. 
There are definitely supply chain issues, with your follow-up 
question, that could affect everything. But I do know that many 
of us have pre-ordered. Regarding, like, RDOF, we had already 
ordered a lot of our--and have our equipment available and 
ready to go, and that is really why we ask for faster 
application processes, faster programming review, vetting of 
bidders, and then let us say, for instance, RDOF, although we 
were awarded RDOF money, and we knew we won our bids back in 
November, we still don't have a dollar. So we need those things 
to move on.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. Well said, Mr. Johnson. 
Ms. Robinson?
    Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the question. So in terms of 
how you structure the actual programs from a funding 
perspective, I think it is important, if you want to talk about 
being cost-effective, that you use a toolkit approach. And we 
have seen that done--to your remarks, and based on your own 
experience in the FCC's work as part of the Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund, but also the Connect America Fund II auction, 
so that is important, using the right tool for the right use 
case will be critical, because we are talking about finite 
dollars. We have seen figures thrown out there, but we don't 
even know if that actually reflects the real scope of the 
problem, so being laser focused on being cost-effective, in 
terms of the funding that is going out, and prioritizing speed 
of deployment will be key.
    I would also say, to your second point about concerns about 
the sheer amount of dollars that are going out, it is important 
to structure these programs in a way where you are ensuring 
accountability, and not just on the audit side, but on the 
application side, which has been raised by other panelists. And 
so, I think if you are able to kind of bring those two things 
together, those various factors together, that there is a way 
to do it, but we do need to be mindful that the dollars are not 
infinite, they are finite, and so we need to be precise as to 
meeting the need--prioritizing unserved areas first, in terms 
of where funding is going.
    Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
your indulgence, and, Dr. Park, if you have comments to add, 
please submit them for the panel in writing. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. I 
understand Mr. Cloud is here from Texas. If so, you are 
recognized.
    Mr. Cloud. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. I 
appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this hearing. I 
appreciate this topic, and one that we can find broad 
bipartisan support on in general. Of course, the Constitution 
provides for us, as the Federal branch of the legislature, to 
make investments in infrastructure, so this is critically 
important to what is going on, especially in these areas where 
the initial investment is just going to be prohibitive, when it 
comes to the free market, to make that initial investment. I do 
think it is important, as it has been talked about quite a bit, 
that we talk about the discussion of defining what it means to 
be rural broadband.
    Too often--we have the ReConnect Program, where 10/1 is 
still considered broadband. I don't know anyone who would 
consider that as broadband. Of course, you talk about going 25/
3, and it makes a big difference when it comes to grant 
programs. Here, I will show you. This is basically where I 
live. The blue is what is considered broadband, according to 
25/3, but most people wouldn't consider that broadband. Their 
experience at 25/3 is that, if you have a student who is doing 
distance learning, someone running a business from home, and 
maybe your ag workers trying to upload data, or whatever, that 
you are going to--or if you have a neighbor who is streaming 
Netflix, it is going to put a weight on what is going on. And 
so this is the difference it makes when you consider what most 
people would consider broadband today.
    [The maps referred to are located on p. 129.]
    Mr. Cloud. It is quite a difference, and I think it is also 
important to note that when we are talking about 25/3 or 100/
10, that is really kind of the aspirational benchmark, in a 
sense. That is what people are getting on a good day, when the 
bandwidth is there, and often the daily experience is not that, 
and--as was mentioned, because of the lack of accountability, 
often, in providing service to meet those. And I know we have 
indeed had major issues with that with our lone provider of 
broadband in our community. They have become renowned in our 
community for poor service, and poor customer service, and very 
inconsistent technical service.
    I am wondering how we can better prioritize the economic 
sustainability of this, as been mentioned. Of course, coming up 
with a business model that works--once we make that initial 
investment, anything we can do to turn this over to the 
business sector ensures sustainability. If they are able to 
have a business model that makes it work, that is better. As we 
all know, we are $28 trillion in debt, our interest spending is 
about to outpace our military spending, so our discretionary 
spending is getting smaller and smaller as each day passes. So, 
first, to make that initial infrastructure investment, but then 
there has been talk about turning this into a program that 
would continue to be a burden on the Federal Government. I am 
not sure if that is going to be sustainable nearly as well as 
the private-sector would be if they are able to produce some 
sort of sustainable business model. So I am wondering what 
ideas that you all have for that. I know there are a number of 
technologies that have been discussed when it comes to 
satellite, when it comes to aerial sat balloons, when it comes 
to, of course, the gold standard of us having fiber optic 
cable. But could you speak to the technologies that are 
available, and what we can do to--and empower a sustainable 
profit motive in the industry? And maybe we start with Ms. 
Prather?
    Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think you make 
a good point, and what we are dealing with here are rural areas 
that do not have enough density of population, regardless of 
the technology used to sustain that business case. That is 
where programs that have proven successes, like the Universal 
Service Fund, come into play.
    Mr. Cloud. Right.
    Ms. Prather. That is a self-funded program. And, yes, it 
does need tweaks, but that helps provide that business case to 
be there, regardless of technology, to maintain that 
[inaudible] work over the life of the asset.
    Mr. Cloud. Dr. Park, I believe you spoke to different 
technologies that are available. Could you enlighten us as to 
maybe some other options that are coming online? What should be 
in that mix as we are weighing the landscape?
    Dr. Park. Yes. So we talked about aerostat, but it is one 
technology out of a lot of interesting and innovative 
technologies coming in the pipeline, each of which have a 
different strength and weaknesses, but one that is going to 
prove out in the marketplace is the one that really is 
sustainable economically. So I agree that we need to search for 
the technology that is incentivizing private-sector that allows 
the most for the rural region residents, as well as the 
precision ag applications, to be there so that those incentives 
are aligned to really make this business model possible.
    Mr. Cloud. Thank you very much. I wish I had time to get 
around to everybody, but, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the 
opportunity. Thanks so much for having this hearing. I yield 
back.
    The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so very much. What a 
hearing. Thank you. I think we have reached our all of our 
Members. Is there anyone else before we adjourn? All right. I 
can't thank you enough. I have so much to say, but what I want 
to do is I want my Ranking Member to give his concluding 
remarks, what a hearing. Ranking Member, I know you agree.
    Mr. Thompson. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for convening this hearing. It could not have come at a better 
time. I thought our witnesses were outstanding, and quite 
frankly, I think our Members were asking insightful questions.
    The Chairman. Yes, they were.
    Mr. Thompson. And, before I go too much further, I want to 
thank all of our staff for the preparation, working to help us 
prepare to have this hearing. They have done a great job. Now, 
what we heard from our witnesses today is that the need across 
rural America is great. We also heard about ways we can 
simplify complex programs to improve access, and participation 
by those providers and communities who we are desperately 
trying to reach. Today's panel has left me with a lot of good 
ideas for improving access to the assistance USDA provides, and 
I hope we are able to work on those together.
    As this debate on an infrastructure package heats up, there 
is going to be a lot of debate around these halls around what 
is in and what is out, which policies will save the world, and 
which ones will ruin America. Now, just this morning I was 
reading an article about the ``war over how to fix the 
internet'' that talked about the lobbying and the jockeying 
that is starting to happen here in Washington. Unfortunately, 
this discussion happening light years--this discussion is 
happening light years away from the people that we are actually 
trying to help, the men and women in rural communities across 
our districts. Truth is, we can't effectively make those 
choices here. I want us to put the tools in the hands of people 
like Mr. Johnson, Ms. Prather, Ms. Robinson, and Dr. Park, who 
are living and working in rural communities, who are shaking 
hands with the people they serve every day. They are the ones 
who know best about what their communities need today, 
tomorrow, and 10 years from now. I think the USDA has the right 
framework. We built broadband programs during the last farm 
bill which promote fast, future-proof networks that will stand 
the test of time, but still recognize that every community has 
unique geography and diverse needs, and that is why I am 
pushing so hard for them to be funded. I believe their work 
will meet the moment.
    Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening, you have been a man 
true to your work, and I believe you called yourself the 
Broadband Chairman, and I look forward to working with you as 
the Broadband Ranking Member on the Committee that perhaps we 
should rename the Rural Broadband Committee. And I look forward 
to working with you, and all of our colleagues, in the coming 
weeks and months to meet these challenges. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back.
    The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And, first of all, 
Ms. Jennifer Prather, Mr. Tim Johnson, Ms. Vickie Robinson, and 
Dr. Johnny Park, thank you, thank you, thank you, for you all 
have really opened out eyes to much of what we were only dimly 
aware of what we must do, but we must do it. And I want to 
thank my Ranking Member, I want to thank our Republican 
Members, our Democratic Members, for their attentiveness, for 
now, over a 4 hour hearing, and you all can see the enthusiasm 
that our House Agriculture Committee has for this. And we are 
doing a fantastic and marvelous job thanks to a great, 
marvelous staff. And, Ranking Member, can you and I, and 
Members who are left, give our staff a resounding round of 
applause for bringing these witnesses to us?
    Now, let me just say at the outset, folks, we have to move 
on this. We have 24 million of our people not connected to the 
internet, which means, in the rural area, we have our farmers 
not connected to the internet. That has to change. Let me tell 
you, I was just on a phone call last week with our friends 
overseas in the European Union, and they are moving ahead. They 
are looking at how we are lagging behind. And not only that, I 
have done research. China is moving at a more rapid pace than 
we are, in terms of internet connection. And let me tell you 
something, China is after us. There is no mistake about it. 
China wants to take our place as having the foremost leading 
agriculture industry in the world. We cannot let that happen. 
But the key to it, if we do not connect our farmers with access 
to internet, they are not going to be able to compete. These 
are not just any 24 million people. They are our farmers, the 
heart and soul of our agriculture industry. We will not be able 
to solve climate change. We will not be--our food insecurity 
will be heightened. The quality of life in our rural 
communities will continue to go downward.
    Now, we must get together, and this is why I appreciate my 
Ranking Member, because we know that we have to put together a 
piece of legislation that addresses everything that we have 
heard. There is nobody in Congress better suited right now to 
provide this. With all due respect to our President, to the 
infrastructure bill, that is wonderful, but that bipartisanship 
is vital. We have that here, and that is why this is important 
for us to lay the foundation. We have heard from you on the 
level of money it is going to take. I think we should put that 
deadline there to say that we can do this by the end of the 
year, and put it out there so the American people can see.
    I don't know what is going to happen with the President's 
infrastructure bill, but I do know this. If we do not move 
ahead right now and put together this plan, bring the money 
in--we brought the experts in to tell us what to do, and what 
it is going to cost. We have monies already out there that we 
can consolidate, I believe. For example, President Trump has 
put out $6 billion with the FCC. Where is it? We have money 
going through the various pockets of the appropriation process. 
All I am saying, folks, is that we have to understand the 
critical nature that our nation is in with our situation, where 
our rural communities are not connected to the internet, and we 
are deciding right here today to be the answer for that. And I 
want to thank everyone for coming and giving--the questions 
that our Members asked were so on time, so everybody can see 
this House Agriculture Committee is totally committed to doing 
everything we can to make sure that these 24 million people in 
our rural areas are connected. And my own personal goal is I 
believe we can do this by the end of this year. It gives us 8 
months, but we can do it, believe you me. With that, I will end 
my remarks with a great thank you, and God bless you, and we 
are going onward and forward. And I believe I have some things 
to say to end, is that correct? All right.
    Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's 
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive 
additional material and supplementary written responses from 
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing 
of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
    [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
  Submitted Letters by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress 
                              from Georgia
                                Letter 1
  on behalf of steven k. berry, president & chief executive officer, 
                    competitive carriers association
April 20, 2021

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chairman Scott and [Ranking Member] Thompson:

    Competitive Carriers Association \1\ (``CCA'') commends the 
Committee for holding today's hearing on ``Rural Broadband: Examining 
Internet Connectivity Needs and Opportunities in Rural America,'' and 
respectfully requests that this letter be included in the hearing 
record. As Congress considers a generational investment in our nation's 
infrastructure, CCA commends policymakers for including access to 
broadband as a top priority. CCA strongly urges Members to recognize 
that the digital divide cannot be closed by fixed broadband services 
alone, and to support ubiquitous access to mobile broadband services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ CCA is the nation's leading trade association for competitive 
wireless providers and stakeholders across the United States, and our 
members range from small, rural carriers serving fewer than 5,000 
customers to regional and nationwide providers serving millions of 
customers, as well as vendors and suppliers that provide products and 
services throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mobile networks and technologies support scores of everyday uses by 
Americans today, with access becoming even more essential in the 
future. As technology continues to advance, we are on the cusp of 
innovations only imagined by previous generations. Mobile wireless 
connectivity will be the technology that brings those innovations to 
life. American agriculture, like so many industries, has been 
revolutionized by technology and the growth of the Internet of Things 
(IoT), which can only be supported by advanced mobile wireless 
networks. Precision agriculture is creating opportunities for farmers 
once unthinkable only a generation ago. Every stage of the American 
food chain, from cultivation to consumer, will be enhanced by IoTs. 
Smart farming, supported by widespread mobile wireless connectivity, 
has the potential to change nearly every facet of farm life, boosting 
yields, reducing costs and waste, and adding billions in value: from 
planting and seeding, irrigation observation and management, pest 
maintenance, and offer live-streamed crop fields viewing, real-time 
data analysis, and remote livestock health monitoring.
    Wireless-connected farm equipment is more precise in its abilities, 
using mobile broadband connections to yield more accurate work product 
in fields, structures, and pasturelands, providing the ability for 
farmers to intervene remotely and immediately as they manage their 
operations. It offers technological solutions to critical seasonal 
labor shortages, allowing farmers more freedom and flexibility to 
maximize their time and resources. Connected tractors and other farm 
machinery can be remotely serviced by technicians trouble-shooting from 
afar, rather than requiring in-person visits, saving time and even 
identifying maintenance issues before they become disruptive problems. 
Drones utilize mobile connections to monitor crops, irrigate and spray 
fields, paddies, and orchards. Mobile telehealth is not just a service 
for humans--the vital signs of herds and flocks can be remotely 
monitored across ranchlands, in milking parlors, grazing fields, or 
coops, offering real-time health and well-being statistical data to 
farmers. Narrow-Band IoT (NB-IoT) sensors are being used to provide 
more detailed weather forecasts, with data from the sensors compiled 
into ``hyper-local'' weather forecasts giving farmers greater certainty 
while conducting their operations and the ability to tailor their crop 
management, labor, and supply chain more acutely. Autonomous vehicles 
such as self-driving cars and trucks, will one day transport 
commodities off the farm and on to processing and storage centers, 
grocery stores and restaurants, relying on a seamless mobile wireless 
connection to more safely and efficiently traverse from rural America 
and onto urban and suburban centers, with tracking devices making sure 
products reach markets with demand in peak condition. Farming in 
America is quickly becoming as high-tech as any manufacturing assembly 
line or distribution center, yet too often, America's farmers are 
lacking the key element of this technological revolution: mobile 
broadband connectivity.
    Specifically, a lack of mobile broadband connectivity will hinder 
the agricultural IoT revolution from being realized. The machines, 
tools and devices being created for the future of farming, from the 
massive to the handheld, are not intended to be static in nature. They 
cannot run solely on a fixed connection, at any speed; rather they will 
operate on the advanced mobile technologies being deployed by wireless 
carriers. Even now, mechanized farm equipment is being adapted to 
operate on mobile 4G LTE networks which can support many IoT 
applications and will be the technological bridge to 5G.
    Failing to invest in the technology needed to advance rural 
America's agriculture operations just as we are on the cusp of a 
technological revolution threatens to negate much of the investment the 
Federal Government and private companies have conducted and committed 
to in rural America. Policies that do not advance wireless deployment 
in rural America curtail the future, because the future of products and 
services across every aspect of American's lives will depend on robust 
and ubiquitous wireless connections. Advanced wireless services that 
connect the IoT will enhance education, medicine, finance, 
entertainment, travel, manufacturing, homes, businesses, and 
especially, agriculture. Mobile wireless is the only service with the 
potential to connect all Americans with these innovations and can have 
the benefit of providing immediate connectivity in areas lacking 
service until other technologies are deployed.
    Further, consumers are demonstrating that given the opportunity to 
embrace these new technologies brought on by advanced wireless 
services, they will do so. A Nokia market survey of thousands of IT 
decision makers across the United States and the United Kingdom 
revealed 77% percent of respondents find the idea of connected 
machinery appealing and 5G mobile wireless is the preferred 
connectivity by consumers for these technologies. Mobility will 
continue to be a catalyst driving economic growth in rural America, and 
any infrastructure efforts that do not ensure ubiquitous mobile 
broadband could create a new digital divide of technological denial for 
consumers as the latest innovations that rely on mobile broadband will 
not function in rural America without connectivity.
    The goal of connecting all Americans with broadband is commendable 
and is rightly a bipartisan priority as Congress considers 
infrastructure policies. To meet the moment of this extraordinary 
opportunity to spur broadband development and provide all Americans 
with services needed to compete for the next generation, Congress 
should support mobile connectivity in addition to fixed services.
    CCA appreciates the opportunity to submit our views and looks 
forward to working with you and the entire Committee on these important 
issues.
            Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
Steven K. Berry,
President & CEO,
Competitive Carriers Association.
                                Letter 2
 on behalf of jonathan spalter, president and chief executive officer, 
              ustelecom the broadband association
April 20, 2021

  Hon. David Scott,
  Chairman,
  House Committee on Agriculture,
  Washington, D.C.;

  Hon. Glenn Thompson,
  Ranking Minority Member,
  House Committee on Agriculture
  Washington, D.C.

    Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:

    Thank you for holding today's hearing focused on rural broadband 
and expanding connectivity in rural America.
    USTelecom proudly represents broadband providers, suppliers and 
technology innovators in every corner of the country. Our broadband 
networks have been resilient and fully capable of carrying the surge in 
high bandwidth traffic during the last year, but this means little to 
the millions who lack broadband access or simply cannot afford service 
in the first place. We all must recognize the digital divide is not 
solely an issue of access, but of affordability and adoption as well.
    Like you, we believe there is still much work ahead to achieve our 
shared goal of universal and affordable connectivity for all in 
America. Even as the cost of broadband in the United States is 
decreasing--too many still remain without broadband connectivity. That 
is why we applaud the initial emergency broadband program that Congress 
has passed--and urge you to pursue even bolder and bigger steps to 
provide support on a long-term basis after the pandemic passes.
    It is critical to engage across all sectors--public, private, and 
nonprofit--to ensure support to help all unserved communities get and 
stay connected. We can start with the estimated 17 million school-age 
children who have no broadband connection at home.
    USTelecom and our members are staunch advocates for the critical 
direct spending on broadband infrastructure, as well as the important 
Federal investments in broadband over the past few months that can help 
achieve our shared goal of universal connectivity. This will only 
happen if funding is spent with precision and coordination among all 
Federal and state government agencies.
    As Congress considers additional resources in high cost and 
otherwise unserved parts of our country, we respectfully believe more 
can be done to avoid waste and prevent overbuilding existing support 
programs so that every new dollar reaches truly unserved communities in 
rural America as efficiently and quickly as possible.
    Three areas where we encourage the Committee to continue to focus 
include:
Updated and Data Driven, 21st Century Broadband Maps
    Thanks to the Broadband DATA Act, updating and modernizing our 
nation's broadband coverage maps is currently underway and incremental 
results should be available from the FCC later this year. We know many 
of the Americans that lack broadband do not appear on any map today, 
simply because their neighbor has service available. This updated map 
must guide the distribution of all of the historic and essential 
funding Congress has approved to reach the unconnected--including those 
carried out by the states. Duplicative mapping efforts are 
counterproductive and costly.
Stringent Interagency Coordination
    The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and the 
Federal Communications Commission, along with various stimulus grants 
over the years, have prioritized serving the highest number of eligible 
locations possible through their broadband programs. While this goal 
seems like a good one, the reality is it often results in funding the 
same locations over and over again while leaving remaining unconnected 
locations without connectivity.
    To ``avoid'' overbuilding, each program continually changes the 
definition of unserved, based on an ever increasing minimum speed 
requirement. By doing so, new programs can essentially overbuild the 
same locations covered by previous programs by simply upgrading speeds 
to the locations that are less expensive and easier to serve. The fast 
connections get faster while the unconnected stay unconnected.
    Truly closing the digital divide means first connecting the 
unconnected. To accomplish this goal, we must ensure that all 
government broadband programs, both Federal and state, are using the 
same sets of data and uniform minimum speed requirements when 
identifying unconnected locations. Explicit and binding interagency 
coordination is critical in this regard, as is ensuring the efficient 
allocation of funds by avoiding funding duplication.
Public-Private Partnerships
    We hope the Committee will focus on what we know is the most 
efficient and proven way to allocate our finite resources and produce 
connectivity results: public-private partnerships to connect 
communities, particularly in rural parts of our country. Recent policy 
proposals are pushing a bigger role for government, municipalities and 
certain nonprofit cooperative organizations in solely running the 
country's networks--even beyond areas where there are recognized access 
gaps.
    Putting government's thumb on the scale in favor of government-run 
networks is the wrong approach to universal connectivity. Broadband 
deployment is hard and expensive work, and the cost of maintaining and 
upgrading state-of-the-art communications networks to meet modern 
performance demands can strain taxpayer funds. The surest way for 
government to help finish the connectivity job is by deepening its 
partnership with private broadband innovators to serve communities 
(already happening everyday all over the country, by the way) while 
lowering the barriers to deployment that saddle projects with red tape 
and wasteful delays.
    Broadband plays an essential role in any plan to lift our families, 
neighbors, and enterprises up and move our nation forward. USTelecom 
members are committed to continuing to work side-by-side with you, and 
with partners throughout government to build and invest in these 
networks, and bring high-speed broadband deeper into all corners of 
America. We look forward to working with you and the Committee to 
ensure all in America are connected to the power and potential we know 
our world-class communications infrastructure delivers.
            Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
Jonathan Spalter.
                                 ______
                                 
    Joint Submitted Letter by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in 
    Congress from Georgia; Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in 
 Congress from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of James D. Ogsbury, Executive 
                               Director, 
                     Western Governors' Association
April 21, 2021

 
 
 
Hon. David Scott,                    Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman,                            Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture,      House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;                    Washington, D.C.
 

    Dear Chair Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:

    In light of the Committee's April 20, 2021 hearing on internet 
connectivity needs and opportunities in rural America, attached please 
find Western Governors' Association (WGA) Policy Resolution 2020-08, 
Broadband Connectivity.
    In the policy resolution, Western Governors highlight the 
importance of high-speed internet for rural communities and discuss 
infrastructure challenges that complicate broadband deployment in the 
West. To address these issues, the Governors recommend improvements in 
broadband data and mapping and investments in scalable infrastructure.
    I request that you include this document in the permanent record of 
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' policy positions and 
recommendations on this important issue.
    Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me 
if you have any questions or require further information. In the 
meantime, with warm regards and best wishes, I am
            Respectfully,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
            
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
                               attachment
Policy Resolution 2020-08
Broadband Connectivity
A. Background
  1.  High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\ 
            is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a 
            modern-day necessity for businesses, individuals, schools 
            and government. Many rural western communities lack the 
            business case for private broadband investment due to the 
            high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers 
            in potential service areas. This has left many rural 
            businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage 
            compared to those urban and suburban areas with robust 
            broadband access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed 
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per 
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.

  2.  Broadband connectivity promotes economic prosperity and 
            diversity. Broadband connectivity is a key element of 
            innovations in precision agriculture, telehealth, remote 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            work and distance learning across the West.

  3.  Many broadband applications that promote rural, economic and 
            community prosperity rely on speeds greater than 25/3 Mbps. 
            This is especially true for functions that upload large 
            amounts of data, such as telehealth, e-learning and 
            business applications.

  4.  Western states have unique factors that make planning, siting and 
            maintaining broadband infrastructure especially challenging 
            and costly. These include vast distances between 
            communities, challenging terrain, sparse middle mile and 
            long-haul fiber-optic cable, and the need to permit and 
            site infrastructure across Federal, state, Tribal and 
            private lands. Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories 
            face particular broadband deployment challenges due to 
            factors involving distance, cost and applicable 
            technologies.

  5.  Western Governors and states are taking significant action to 
            accelerate broadband deployment in rural communities. These 
            actions include direct investment of state funds, reduction 
            of regulatory hurdles, and promotion of public-private 
            partnerships to deliver digital connectivity to unserved 
            and underserved areas.

  6.  Many western states have sought to expedite broadband 
            infrastructure deployment by adopting ``Dig Once'' 
            policies, granting non-exclusive and non-discriminatory 
            access to rights-of-way and facilitating efficient ``co-
            location'' of new broadband infrastructure on existing 
            structures.

  7.  A number of Federal agencies directly support rural broadband 
            deployment projects and data collection in western states. 
            These include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), 
            U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National 
            Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 
            and Economic Development Administration.

  8.  Federal land management agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest 
            Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau 
            of Indian Affairs (BIA), play a crucial role in permitting 
            and siting broadband infrastructure in western states.

  9.  Both the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFS recently 
            launched online mapping platforms identifying 
            telecommunications infrastructure sites on Federal lands. 
            This information can be used to inform private and public 
            broadband infrastructure investments.

  10. High-quality data is necessary to ensure that public broadband 
            deployment efforts are cost-effective and prioritize areas 
            that either wholly or significantly lack access. Under its 
            current Form 477 reporting protocols, the FCC considers a 
            census block ``served'' if a single residence in the block 
            has access to broadband. This practice overstates broadband 
            availability in larger, rural census blocks common in 
            western states. The FCC's use of ``maximum advertised,'' 
            not ``actual,'' speeds when mapping broadband coverage 
            further distorts reporting on the service customers 
            receive.

  11. Whether or not an area is considered ``served'' has significant 
            effects on its eligibility for Federal broadband 
            infrastructure support. Inaccurate or overstated data 
            prevents businesses, local governments, and other entities 
            from applying for and securing Federal funds to assist 
            underserved or unserved communities.

  12. S. 1822, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological 
            Availability (DATA) Act (Pub. L. 116-130), was enacted in 
            March 2020. This law requires the FCC to change the way 
            broadband data is collected, verified, and reported. 
            Specifically, the FCC must collect and disseminate granular 
            broadband service availability data from wired, fixed-
            wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband providers. The 
            FCC is required to establish the Broadband Serviceable 
            Location Fabric, a dataset of geocoded information for all 
            broadband service locations, atop which broadband maps are 
            overlaid, to report broadband service availability data.

  13. Given the number of Federal agencies and programs involved in 
            supporting rural broadband deployment, it can be 
            challenging for small, rural providers and communities to 
            identify and pursue appropriate deployment opportunities. 
            Businesses, local governments, electric and telephone 
            cooperatives, Tribes and other rural entities can also face 
            burdens in applying for and managing Federal funds. These 
            barriers include areas being incorrectly identified as 
            ``served'' on broadband coverage maps, excessive 
            application and reporting procedures, and significant match 
            or cash-on-hand requirements.

  14. Wireless spectrum is a valuable resource that can help support 
            innovative and cost-effective connectivity solutions in 
            western states.

  15. Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are vital elements of Internet 
            infrastructure that enable networks to exchange traffic 
            with each other. IXPs help promote low-cost data 
            transmission and improved overall local Internet 
            performance in the areas in which they are located.

  16. Electric and telephone cooperatives have invested in broadband 
            infrastructure across the West. In certain states, these 
            cooperatives are the entities principally providing 
            broadband to rural communities, often at relatively low 
            costs to their members.

  17. The FCC's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report estimates that 27.7 
            percent of Americans residing in Tribal lands lack fixed 
            terrestrial broadband coverage, compared to 22.3 percent of 
            Americans in rural areas and 1.5 percent in urban areas. A 
            2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report \2\ 
            asserts that the FCC overstates broadband coverage on 
            Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Government Accountability Office: FCC's Data Overstate Access 
on Tribal Lands. September 2018.

  18. Tribal Nations, the majority of which are in western states, face 
            many barriers to the deployment of communications services. 
            These include rural, remote and rugged terrain; areas that 
            are not connected to a road system; minimal access to 
            middle mile and long-haul fiber-optic cable; and difficulty 
            in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across 
            some Tribal lands. These factors can all increase the cost 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure.

  19. Tribal Nations also face challenges securing funds through 
            Federal broadband deployment programs. A separate 2018 GAO 
            Report \3\ included a review of four Federal broadband 
            programs (three FCC, one USDA), and found that from 2010 to 
            2017, less than one percent of funding has gone directly to 
            Tribes or Tribally owned providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Government Accountability Office: Few Partnerships Exist and 
the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding 
Barriers Tribes Face. September 2018.

  20. Access to wireless spectrum is another crucial issue for Tribal 
            Nations. In February 2020, the FCC opened a priority filing 
            window for rural Tribes to access 2.5 GHz spectrum in 
            advance of an upcoming spectrum auction. This spectrum is 
            well-suited to provide low-cost broadband service in rural 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            areas.

  21. Federal programs often direct broadband infrastructure funding to 
            community anchor institutions such as schools, libraries 
            and health centers. These anchor institutions can help 
            leverage additional public and private investments in 
            surrounding rural areas. Holistic funding approaches that 
            support infrastructure deployment ``to and through'' 
            community anchor institutions can help promote connectivity 
            for students, patients and community members.

  22. Western Governors appreciate USDA Rural Development's efforts to 
            promote broadband connectivity across the rural West. 
            USDA's many offerings, including the ReConnect Program, 
            Community Connect Grants, and Distance Learning and 
            Telemedicine Grants, all help promote prosperity and 
            quality of life in western states.

  23. Western Governors have provided significant feedback on the 
            design of the ReConnect program, launched in December 2018. 
            Notably, Western Governors recommended that the ReConnect 
            Program, ``prioritize communities that either wholly or 
            severely lack access to broadband,'' and, ``reward project 
            applications that will deliver speeds that ensure rural 
            communities can prosper now and into the future as their 
            data transmission needs expand.''

  24. The ReConnect Program contains a requirement that areas 
            designated to receive support through the FCC's Connect 
            America Fund Phase II (CAF-II) can only pursue ReConnect 
            funding through the entity that is receiving CAF-II 
            support. This restriction limits deployment of adequate 
            broadband capability in many rural areas.

  25. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the importance of reliable 
            broadband connectivity as businesses, schools and health 
            care systems have transitioned to digital platforms and 
            practices. The transition to digital learning has been 
            particularly difficult for many rural and low-income 
            communities and K-12 schools due to lack of broadband 
            connectivity at home. Western states have employed creative 
            strategies to address student connectivity and ``homework 
            gap'' issues within our communities. These efforts include 
            using parking lots and school and transit buses to launch 
            public [WiFi] hotspots.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
  1.  Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            recognize that the current definition of broadband--25/3 
            Mbps--does not correspond with the requisite download and 
            upload speeds necessary to support many business, education 
            and health care applications that promote economic and 
            community prosperity. We support efforts to adopt a higher, 
            scalable standard that more accurately reflects modern 
            innovations and bandwidth demands.

  2.  Regulations affecting broadband infrastructure permitting and 
            siting vary by state and can create additional obstacles to 
            private and public investment. Where possible, Western 
            Governors should work together to minimize this barrier.

  3.  Western Governors recommend the FCC, USDA and other Federal 
            agencies involved in broadband deployment pursue strong 
            partnerships with Governors and state agencies. Improved 
            coordination related to broadband coverage data collection 
            and verification and public investment can help ensure that 
            public funds are directed to areas in most need of 
            assistance.

  4.  Western Governors encourage the BLM, BIA and USFS to pursue 
            strategies to prioritize reviews for broadband 
            infrastructure permits on Federal lands. We support efforts 
            to improve permitting timelines for broadband 
            infrastructure co-located with existing structures and 
            other linear infrastructure, such as roads, transmission 
            lines and pipelines. We encourage improved planning and 
            permitting coordination between public lands management 
            agencies, as telecommunications projects in western states 
            can cross multiple Federal lands jurisdictions. DOI and 
            USFS's online mapping platforms identifying 
            telecommunications infrastructure sites on their lands will 
            be helpful tools to accomplish this goal.

  5.  Western Governors are encouraged that new data and mapping 
            platforms established by the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L. 
            116-130) incorporate state-level data wherever possible. 
            State broadband offices and representatives can offer 
            invaluable information and on-the-ground perspectives 
            regarding broadband coverage in western states. We 
            encourage Congress to provide the FCC with the necessary 
            funds to implement the Act.

  6.  Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            address application barriers for businesses, local 
            governments, cooperatives, Tribes and other entities 
            involved with broadband deployment in rural communities.

  7.  Western Governors appreciate the USDA and the FCC's efforts to 
            promote on-farm connectivity and the growth of the 
            precision agriculture sector. We encourage both agencies to 
            engage with Governors' offices, state broadband 
            representatives and state departments of agriculture as 
            they pursue policy and program initiatives to support 
            advanced agriculture technology development and adoption.

  8.  Western Governors recommend that adequate wireless spectrum be 
            allocated to support advanced and emerging agricultural 
            technologies.

  9.  Western Governors emphasize the growing importance of IXPs in 
            promoting cost-effective, reliable broadband service in 
            rural areas. We encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            promote investment in rural IXPs via applicable broadband 
            deployment programs, legislative proposals addressing 
            infrastructure, and other methods.

  10. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to continue 
            expanding the eligibility of electric and telephone 
            cooperatives to pursue USDA and FCC broadband deployment 
            program support, as cooperatives' existing infrastructure 
            and access to rights-of-way can help promote low-cost 
            connectivity solutions for rural communities.

  11. Western Governors urge Federal agencies and Congress to pursue 
            policy, programmatic and fiscal opportunities to improve 
            broadband connectivity on Tribal lands. This includes 
            designing Federal programs in a way that promotes 
            partnerships between Tribes, states and various broadband 
            providers. We recommend that Federal broadband programs 
            allocate a designated portion of their available funding to 
            supporting projects on Tribal lands.

  12. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to 
            leverage community anchor institutions in rural communities 
            to spur connectivity to surrounding areas. We support 
            efforts to advance ``to and through'' policies that provide 
            flexibility to incentivize additional private or public 
            broadband infrastructure investment beyond connected 
            community anchor institutions.

  13. Western Governors encourage USDA to address the ReConnect Program 
            eligibility criteria related to areas designated to receive 
            satellite support through the FCC's CAF-II auction. This 
            will enable many communities to pursue ReConnect 
            connectivity solutions that will support increased data 
            transmission needs into the future.

  14. Western Governors request that FCC, USDA and other Federal 
            entities prioritize scalable broadband infrastructure 
            investments that meet communities' increased bandwidth 
            demands into the future. Funds for equipment maintenance 
            and upgrades are essential to ensure Federal broadband 
            investments continue to provide high-quality service.

  15. Western Governors request that Congress and the FCC leverage 
            states' on-the-ground expertise by providing substantial 
            block grant funds to address rural connectivity challenges. 
            We support the use of state block grant funds to address 
            general broadband infrastructure issues and respond to 
            connectivity challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.

  16. Western Governors support efforts to promote flexibility within 
            the FCC's E-Rate Program in order to deliver home 
            connectivity solutions for unserved and underserved 
            students, and respond to connectivity issues associated 
            with the COVID-19 pandemic. We encourage the FCC to support 
            bus [WiFi] and other creative efforts that seek to address 
            the homework gap.
C. Governors' Management Directive
  1.  The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional 
            committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other 
            entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of 
            this resolution.

  2.  Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the 
            Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the 
            objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors 
            apprised of its progress in this regard.

          Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend 
        existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult 
        www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a 
        resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Statement by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress 
from California; on Behalf of Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, President and 
                                 Chief 
         Executive Officer, Wireless Infrastructure Association
    The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) is the principal 
organization representing the companies that build, develop, own, and 
operate wireless facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our 
members include infrastructure providers, wireless carriers, equipment 
manufacturers, and professional services firms. WIA is focused on 
ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make 5G a reality. Our 
mission is to enable wireless broadband access everywhere. The wireless 
industry is committed to making 5G wireless broadband available to more 
Americans than ever before and appreciates the support of Congress to 
expedite deployment, especially given the unprecedented COVID-19 
crisis.
    The United States has led the world in mobile wireless 
communications, having won the race to 4G. This victory was made 
possible by a strong, unified commitment between industry and 
government to deliver greater connectivity across the country and spur 
American technological innovation. Now, it will again take continued, 
dedicated efforts by both the wireless industry and the Federal 
Government for the U.S. to ensure that all communities are able to reap 
the benefits of robust wireless services. Congress and the FCC have 
already taken great strides to promote the deployment of mobile 
broadband, but additional help is needed.
    I commend this Committee for its focus on rural connectivity. Rural 
access continues to be a challenge, and I know this all too well having 
previously served as the Administrator of the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service. During my tenure, we made 
historic investments for deploying broadband in rural America, but much 
work remains. Increased investments, developing accurate coverage maps, 
and reducing regulatory costs will all help to bring better broadband 
to more communities.
    This Committee has an extraordinary opportunity to ensure 
connectivity to all communities. As Congress drafts an infrastructure 
bill, it should ensure that funds can be used for operational expenses, 
such as leases, as well as capital expenses; infrastructure can be 
deployed expeditiously; and recipients are held accountable for 
outcomes. It should be truly technology neutral with the end in mind: 
building infrastructure with the most cost-efficient means to get the 
most bandwidth to the most consumers.
    Most critically, it needs to include mobile 5G broadband, or 
Congress could inadvertently grow a rural mobility digital divide in 
which many rural residents would be limited to accessing the internet 
through a wired connection in the home or farmhouse. This situation 
would lead to many of the same problems we are seeing in rural 
communities today. All broadband technologies, including wireless, are 
needed to ensure that rural communities have robust connectivity. 
Defining broadband as a connection offering symmetric, 100 Mbps 
download and 100 Mbps upload bandwidth (100/100) is not technology 
neutral as it excludes 5G mobile service from being delivered to rural 
consumers. With currently technology, only fiber to the premise 
supports that 100 Mbps uploads speeds, which few consumers ever use or 
need given current applications. But it does preclude mobility, which 
nearly every rural consumer wants and needs, given the long distances 
they must traverse.
    Robust wireless connectivity enables one of the most important and 
innovative applications: precision agriculture. By increasing the use 
of precision agriculture, the U.S. can, among other things, improve 
food security, meet the growing demand for food, reduce the 
environmental impact of agricultural practices, reduce food waste, 
improve the profitability of U.S. agriculture, increase skilled labor 
demand to support the farm, and increase U.S. competitiveness 
internationally. Not incidentally, precision agriculture technologies 
and the data they generate are also the key to farmers' participation 
in carbon markets, an important objective of this Committee.
    WIA member John Deere has been delivering leading-edge technologies 
to agricultural producers since its inception and continues to do so 
today. John Deere says that its innovations and technologies have been 
shown to improve agricultural productivity by as much as 15 percent.
    Clearly, precision agriculture is critical to the future of 
agriculture operations. The key point this Committee needs to consider 
is that to enable precision agriculture, it is essential that mobile 
wireless broadband coverage is extended to all areas of the U.S., 
including the most rural and remote portions of the country. It is 
imperative to have reliable connectivity across operations on farmlands 
and ranches. The 100/100 standard would preclude broadband 
infrastructure legislation from enabling precision agriculture directly 
because it would only provide fiber to the farmhouse and not the 
fields.
    In June 2019, the FCC created a task forced to provide 
recommendations on policies aimed at delivering connectivity so 
American agriculture producers can use and benefit from precision 
agriculture. The Connectivity Working Group within the task force has 
made several very important preliminary recommendations thus far. One 
recommendation is for the FCC to include up to $500 million in 
incentives and subsidies from the $9 billion allocated for the 5G Fund 
for Rural America. These incentives and subsidies would be used for the 
creation of edge computing, private 5G systems, and precision 
agriculture applications so that the critical infrastructure and tools 
needed to deploy precision agriculture can be developed and deployed. 
In addition, the task force recommended that the FCC provide incentives 
to network service providers for high-speed, low latency, and mobile 
coverage of agricultural fields and pasturelands as a provision within 
the 5G Fund for Rural America. The Working Group made many other 
important preliminary recommendations, and I urge all Committee Members 
to read the full report.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * Editor's note: the March 12, 2021 Federal Communications 
Commission Precision Agriculture Task Force report entitled, 
Accelerating Broadband Deployment on Unserved Agricultural Lands 
Working Group Interim Report, is retained in Committee file; and is 
also available at: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-
ag-accelerating-deployment-wg-interim-report-03122021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you again for your focus on these important issues. There is 
undoubtedly more work ahead, and we look forward to working with this 
Committee to advance the connectivity that has become so essential in 
all our lives.
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Fact Sheet by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress 
                             from Minnesota
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 ______
                                 
  Submitted Comment Letter by Hon. Randy Feenstra a Representative in 
    Congress from Iowa; Authored by Michael R. Romano, Senior Vice 
  President--Industry Affairs & Business Development, NTCA--The Rural 
                         Broadband Association
February 1, 2021

  Marlene H. Dortch,
  Secretary,
  Federal Communications Commission,
  Washington, D.C.

  RE: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, WC Docket No. 19-126; Connect 
            America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90; Auction 904, AU Docket 
            No. 20-34

    Dear Ms. Dortch:

    NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (``NTCA'') hereby submits the 
attached whitepaper, ``Evaluating the Capabilities of Fixed Wireless 
Technology to Deliver Gigabit Performance in Rural Markets,'' to aid 
the Federal Communications Commission (the ``Commission'') in its 
review of long-form applications in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund 
(``RDOF'').
    Consumers in areas to be served by winners of the RDOF auction have 
waited too long for the opportunity to receive high-performance 
broadband service. As they sit on the cusp of finally realizing the 
benefits of better broadband, it is important that the Commission take 
careful steps now to ensure this happens. As one example, prior to the 
RDOF auction, the Commission acknowledged in particular that those 
proposing to offer Gigabit-level performance in rural areas using fixed 
wireless or DSL technologies faced a ``high burden'' to demonstrate 
they could do so. Even as the Commission may have allowed certain 
parties to bid in the auction at such levels using these technologies 
based upon a preliminary review, the Commission rightly noted that 
``distance limitations, spectrum bands attributes, channel bandwidths 
requirements, backhaul and medium haul requirements, tower siting 
requirements, capacity constraints, required upstream speeds, required 
minimum monthly usage allowances, and other issues raised in the 
record'' required evaluation to confirm a provider's capability to 
offer broadband at the Gigabit level in rural areas like those in the 
RDOF auction.\1\ Since the auction, parties ranging from Members of 
Congress to reputable and experienced wireless internet service 
providers have called upon the Commission to undertake a careful review 
of such proposals and to ensure that winning bidders promising such 
levels of performance can in fact deliver to rural consumers what has 
been promised.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction Scheduled for October 
29, 2020 Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for 
Auction 904, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, 35 
FCC Rcd 6077, 6115-16 (2020), at  106.
    \2\ See, e.g., Letter from Reps. James E. Clyburn and Tim Walberg, 
Sens. John Thune and Amy Klobuchar, and 156 other Members of Congress 
to Chairman Ajit Pai (dated Jan. 19, 2021); Ex Parte Letter from Skyler 
Ditchfield, Chief Executive Officer, to Chairman Ajit Pai, et al., WC 
Docket No. 19-126 (dated Jan. 14, 2021), at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As the Commission moves now to examine winning bidders' 
capabilities to perform through the long-form application process, the 
attached whitepaper is presented as a roadmap to help the agency in 
articulating and then employing technical standards to assess the very 
kinds of factors noted above in discrete service areas. This kind of 
disciplined due diligence by reference to sound engineering principles 
and transparently stated objective standards will be essential to 
ensure that projects moving forward are capable of performing as 
promised for the benefit of those consumers waiting for better 
broadband.
    Specifically, the attached whitepaper sets forth a series of 
parameters for reference in evaluating the proposals of winning bidders 
to use fixed wireless technologies for delivery of Gigabit-level 
services in RDOF markets. Of particular note, as the paper describes 
and justifies in further detail:

   Mid Band Offerings: Although mid band spectrum holds promise 
        for better rural broadband generally, there is no viable path 
        currently to use such spectrum for the offering of Gigabit-
        level service specifically in rural markets and for meeting 
        other RDOF performance requirements (such as the offering of 
        voice telephony and access to 911) in light of: (a) the limited 
        amount of capacity available in most of these bands; and/or (b) 
        the potential for interference from devices such as home WiFi 
        routers because most of this spectrum is unlicensed or subject 
        to shared use. Any long-form applications proposing to rely 
        upon mid band spectrum specifically for delivery of Gigabit-
        level service in the context of RDOF should therefore be 
        rejected.

   High Band Offerings: In more densely populated areas, some 
        high band spectrum (e.g., millimeter wave (mmW) deployments 
        have been reported as being capable of delivering Gigabit-level 
        service. These deployments, however, do not easily translate to 
        rural environments such as those at issue in the RDOF auction 
        for the reasons the Commission itself has previously noted. To 
        determine whether a given long-form application proposal based 
        upon use of such mmW spectrum can indeed deliver Gigabit 
        speeds, the following factors must therefore be carefully 
        evaluated and verified in light of specific conditions in the 
        area to be served:

     Each and every location must be within approximately 
            500 feet of its specific serving tower/antenna.

     Each and every location must have a clear and 
            unobstructed line-of-sight to that serving tower/antenna, 
            and the transceiver must be mounted outside (rather than 
            indoors) at each customer premises.

     The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector 
            must be adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream 
            capacities of all users served by that tower or antenna.

       In assessing capacity in that area, it will be essential 
            to measure the ability 
              to perform in light of the RDOF requirement that a 
            provider engineer its 
              network to serve at least 70% of locations as if 
            subscribed by the final mile-
              stone.

       A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1 
            or less should be ap-
              plied, consistent with how many wireless internet service 
            providers and 
              others architect their networks today.

     Each tower/antenna or sector must have sufficient 
            backhaul capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF 
            customers anticipated, taking into account again the 
            reasonable and realistic oversubscription ratio.

     Congestion that would occur between nodes of a mesh 
            network will need to be assessed in addition to the 
            potential for radio frequency and backhaul congestion.

    Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. We hope that 
this paper provides a useful ready-made roadmap of technical standards 
and sound engineering principles upon which the Commission can rely as 
it reviews long-form applications to confirm that proposals will 
deliver Gigabit-level services promised to consumers leveraging 
ratepayer resources.
            Sincerely,

/s/ Michael R. Romano

Michael R. Romano,
Senior Vice President--Industry Affairs & Business Development,
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association.

CC:

Travis Litman
Ramesh Nagarajan
Joseph Calascione
Austin Bonner
Carolyn Roddy
Michael Janson
Kirk Burgee
Jonathan McCormack
Audra Hale-Maddox
Kris Monteith
Alexander Minard
Suzanne Yelen
                               enclosure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Evaluating the Capabilities of Fixed Wireless Technology to Deliver 
        Gigabit Performance in Rural Markets
February 2021

Larry D. Thompson, PE
Chief Executive Officer
Vantage Point Solutions, Inc.
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary
Gigabit Broadband and RDOF
The Wireless Sandbox

    Wireless Network Design Considerations

Delivering Gigabit Service over Wireless

    How Much Spectrum is Needed?
    Available Wireless Spectrum for Gigabit Services
    RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using Mid Band Spectrum
    RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using mmW Bands

Summary/Conclusions
Author Biography
Introduction and Summary
    The current pandemic has accelerated the profound impact that the 
Internet is having on nearly every area of our lives, including 
education, retail, healthcare, public safety, and entertainment. The 
Internet continues to transform how we communicate, the size and scope 
of our global economy, and even our political system. We are on the 
cusp of the next Internet evolution--the Internet of Things (IoT). Over 
the next 10 years, the Internet will evolve into a network that 
overwhelmingly connects ``things'' rather than people. Customers will 
continue to demand faster speeds and higher capacities as telehealth 
becomes more commonplace as a means of medical care, as education 
increasingly migrates online, as Ultra High-Definition television 
(UHDTV) becomes commonplace, and with the dramatic growth of connected 
devices of all kinds needing Internet access.
    The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tenth Measuring 
Broadband America Report \1\ shows that the average speed was 
determined to be 146.1 Mbps in October 2019. This speed has increased 
by an average of 54% annually since the FCC's Eighth Report just 2 
years ago.\2\ Over the past four MBA reports, the average annual 
increase has been over 35% in both the download and upload speeds. At 
this rate, the average broadband download speed will exceed 1 Gbps 
within the next 6 years as shown in Figure 1. In January of 2019, 
NCTA--The Internet & Television Association claimed that 80% of all 
households can currently order gigabit service.\3\ This is largely 
because over 80% of the United State population is urban.\4\ However, 
the FCC believes there are 23.1 million Americans that cannot receive 
the FCC's currently-defined minimum broadband standard of 25 Mbps down 
and 3 Mbps up.\5\ The researchers at Broadband Now believe this number 
could be as high as 42 million.\6\ Whatever the precise number, it is 
clear that millions of Americans have been stuck on the wrong side of 
the digital divide despite a decade of programs intended to reach them, 
which makes it all the more important that new funding programs verify 
that recipients will deliver the services promised for these users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FCC's Tenth Measuring Broadband America (MBA), Fixed Broadband 
Report, January 4, 2021.
    \2\ Ibid, page 7.
    \3\ https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/america-is-now-a-gigabit-
nation#.X_vnzVAGcIc.link.
    \4\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-
areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html.
    \5\ FCC's 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, May 29, 2019.
    \6\ https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-
by-50-percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Average Upload Speeds--Based on FCC MBA Reports
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    The FCC should be applauded for recognizing the trend toward higher 
speed broadband services and developing a weighting system that favored 
the networks that have higher speeds and greater capacity in the Rural 
Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction (FCC Auction 904). On its face, 
the auction could be seen as an overwhelming success, since more than 
85% of the locations awarded were awarded at gigabit speeds. However, 
as the layers are peeled back and the technical underpinnings of 
varying proposals are analyzed, there is substantial question as to 
whether these speeds will actually be delivered in some cases and 
applications.
    As one example of such analysis, this paper considers specifically 
the extent to which fixed wireless services may be capable of 
delivering Gigabit-level services in the kinds of sparsely populated 
rural areas that the RDOF auction primarily seeks to serve. Most of the 
RDOF winners that were successful at the Gigabit tier \7\ proposed 
using Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) technology--although many of them 
left the door open to use fixed wireless services. Others appear to 
have contemplated using, and received permission to bid using, fixed 
wireless technology specifically to deliver Gigabit level services. 
While current FCC Form 477 data (among many other resources) confirms 
that FTTP networks have been delivering gigabit services to urban and 
rural customers for many years, there is no comparable track record 
with respect to fixed wireless technologies. This makes it all the more 
important to take a careful look, based upon objective engineering 
criteria, at whether and to what degree fixed wireless networks can 
deliver Gigabit level services--especially in rural areas where 
serviceable locations can be several hundred feet to miles apart. This 
paper concludes that there are significant technical (and related 
economic) questions that must be confronted in delivering Gigabit 
broadband using fixed wireless technologies in the predominantly rural 
areas covered by RDOF and the FCC therefore needs to perform a careful 
analysis pursuant to objective and well-accepted technical engineering 
criteria during the long-form process prior to approving such claims of 
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ For RDOF purposes, a Gigabit service is 1,000 Mbps downstream 
and 500 Mbps upstream (RDOF Gigabit-Level Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    More specifically, as explained further herein, engineering 
analysis by reference to objective technical standards indicates that 
fixed wireless networks will face difficult, if not insurmountable, 
challenges to provide RDOF Gigabit services \8\ in very select 
circumstances when attempting to service distant, non-town rural 
subscribers that were primarily the subject of the RDOF auction. U.S. 
Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), as well as 46 
of their Senate colleagues, have previously highlighted the need for 
such analysis in a Letter to Chairman Ajit Pai, whereby they observed 
that, ``If a party is incapable of delivering broadband as promised, 
the American ratepayer loses twice over--first for having contributed 
sums that did not go toward the deployment of broadband as hoped, and 
then again as those ratepayers who reside in the area that ended up not 
receiving the promised service . . . It is important for the FCC to be 
responsible for USF resources and ensure that those parties receiving 
support can deliver on the commitments they make.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ See FCC 19-104, Order on Reconsideration--FCC Takes Steps to 
Enforce Quality Standards for Rural Broadband, adopted October 25, 
2019, available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-
enforce-quality-standards-rural-broadband, (``FCC Quality Standards 
Order on Reconsideration''), on the Order, DA 18-710, WC Docket 10-90, 
adopted July 6, 2018, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/DA-18-710A1.pdf, (``FCC Quality Standards Order'').  51 of 
the Order states: ``For speed, we require that 80 percent of download 
and upload measurements be at or above 80 percent of the CAF-required 
speed tier (i.e., an 80/80 standard).''
    \9\ Thune/Klobuchar RDOF Senate Letter of December 9, 2019 to 
Chairman Pai, available at https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/_cache/
files/ec9ab287-8920-4353-b46e-1396ccdf103e/
F68789196918856CBDF441B3B801C99E.rdof-letter-12.9.19.pdf, (``Thune/
Klobuchar RDOF Senate Letter''), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the review of the long form applications, we believe it 
essential for the FCC to consider technical and related economic 
criteria such as those analyzed herein to determine whether and to what 
degree each applicant will be capable of delivering Gigabit level 
service based upon its proposed network design. When considering any 
proposed wireless network designed based on mid band spectrum, it would 
be difficult or impossible to conceive a scenario where a wireless 
network in this band could reliably provide RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Services. The only band that would have enough capacity to accommodate 
even just a small handful of gigabit users would be the 5 & 6 GHz 
unlicensed bands. When using these bands, the wireless provider is not 
protected from interference from other wireless users and devices such 
as common home WiFi routers. This is not an acceptable solution, 
especially when considering the RDOF broadband services must also 
provide voice services and access to emergency services such as 911.
    Meanwhile, when considering any proposed wireless network designs 
based on millimeter wave (mmW) technologies for any RDOF bidder to 
satisfy their Gigabit service commitment, the FCC should verify the 
following:

  1.  All customers must be within about 500 of their specific serving 
            tower/antenna.

  2.  All customers must have clear line-of-sight to that serving 
            tower/antenna.

  3.  The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector must be 
            adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream 
            capacities of all users served by that antenna or tower.

      a.  The RDOF 70% subscription requirement must be considered in 
            analyzing 
                the capacity of the service tower/antenna or sector.

      b.  A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1 or 
            less should be 
                applied.

  4.  Each antenna and/or sector must also have adequate backhaul 
            capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF customers 
            anticipated with a reasonable oversubscription ratio such 
            as 4:1. In most instances this will require the towers/
            antennas to be served with a fiber network.

  5.  When considering mmW mesh networks, in addition to the preceding 
            factors, the FCC should also evaluate the congestion that 
            would occur between the nodes of the mesh network as well 
            as the potential radio frequency congestion and the 
            backhaul congestion.
Gigabit Broadband and RDOF
    When considering the most effective and efficient use of resources 
for broadband network investment, it is necessary to understand current 
and future user demands to ensure the planned network can meet these 
increasing demands over its economic life. In addition to cost, 
performance factors such as speed, latency, capacity, and reliability 
are of course important factors. Some networks may have lower initial 
cost but be less reliable and less scalable to meet future customer 
demands or have higher operational expenses. Some technologies 
meanwhile may not be able to meet certain performance levels 
altogether--or maybe only under limited or ideal circumstances. Such is 
the case for those proposing to use wireless technologies to meet the 
gigabit speed tier in the kinds of rural areas subject to the RDOF 
auction.
    The FCC has defined the gigabit speed tier for purposes of the RDOF 
auction as 1 Gbps downstream and 500 Mbps upstream with 2 TB of monthly 
usage allowance (defined hereafter for purposes of this paper as 
``RDOF-Level Gigabit Service'').\10\ From a network engineering 
perspective, the only logical interpretation of this requirement is 
that the end-user should be able to simultaneously use 1 Gbps in the 
downstream direction and 500 Mbps in the upstream direction. The 
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), however, 
appears to believe that Gigabit service could be half-duplex (meaning 
it would be acceptable to limit customer use by permitting 
communication in only one direction at a time at full capacity).\11\ In 
this scenario, only 1 Gbps of total network capacity would be needed to 
serve this end-user, since one would assume that the same capacity 
could be used for the upstream as with the downstream. Considering the 
large number of users and devices in a home today that are actively 
using the Internet and the FCC's desire for broadband services that 
will meet and keep pace with user demand, we presume that the FCC's 
intent was not to approve ``one way at a time'' service and limit use 
to ``upstream or downstream only'' and that the channel should 
therefore have an aggregate throughput of 1,500 Mbps (upstream plus 
downstream), which would allow the required capacity to be utilized in 
both directions at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ In the Matter of Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, WC Docket No. 
19-126, Released Feb. 7, 2020 (``RDOF Order''),  31.
    \11\ In an June 2, 2020 Ex Parte entitled, ``Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket 
10-90, Notice of Ex Parte Presentations,'' WISPA argues in response to 
technical concerns raised by one of its most prominent members, 
``First, GeoLinks suggests that 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service needs at least 
1,500 Mbps aggregate throughput. That assumes simultaneous or 
inflexible uploading and downloading.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All successful bidders in the RDOF gigabit tier must provide RDOF-
Level Gigabit Service to all customers in the awarded Census blocks 
within 6 years.\12\ While this time frame is necessary to accommodate 
construction, it means that the FCC, affected customers, and other 
stakeholders may not know whether RDOF-Level Gigabit Service will 
actually be delivered as promised for years to come. By the time it is 
apparent that an RDOF recipient cannot meet its FCC commitments, these 
customers--already languishing in unserved areas--will be left behind 
once again, and it may very well be too late to include these areas in 
a second phase of the RDOF auctions. Because of this, it is important 
for the FCC to ensure, prior to distributing funds (or ideally prior to 
even making awards), that every RDOF awardee, regardless of technology 
choice, has a reasonable chance of success based upon its technical and 
operational capabilities evaluated against a backdrop of objective 
engineering criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ RDOF Order,  45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FCC conducted only a limited review of the technology during 
the short-form process because it did not have ``more information about 
exactly where the applicant will win support and how many locations it 
will serve.'' \13\ At the same time, the FCC's own data indicate 
whether and to what degree certain technologies are and are not being 
used to deliver certain tiers of service today in varying kinds of 
rural and urban applications. Indeed, WISPA argued that ``The record 
also indicates that equipment that may support RDOF Gigabit speeds 
under certain conditions has since been developed and is being 
commercially deployed today.'' \14\ This statement may be true (subject 
to the conditions and contingencies contained within it), but even just 
a cursory examination confirms that the ``certain conditions'' to which 
WISPA referred that ``may'' permit fixed wireless service to deliver 
gigabit speeds rarely exist when considering residential broadband 
deployments in the kinds of rural areas included in the RDOF auction. 
This makes it all the more important that the FCC only award RDOF 
support where an objective review against published and well-accepted 
standards of conditions on the ground confirms that there is a 
reasonable expectation of meeting the RDOF requirements based on the 
technology proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction Scheduled for 
October 29, 2020, Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures 
for Auction 904, June 11, 2020 (``RDOF Auction Procedures Order''),  
125.
    \14\ WISPA Ex Parte titled, ``Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, AU 
Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket 10-90, Notice of Ex 
Parte Presentations,'' June 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The FCC should therefore continue its policy of awarding RDOF areas 
only to those that can be ``reasonably expected to be capable of 
meeting the relevant public interest obligations.'' \15\ Using this as 
a standard and based upon a review of commonly accepted engineering 
standards, we conclude in this paper that fixed wireless technologies 
will face serious challenges at best to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit 
Service in the kinds of areas subject to the RDOF auction. At the very 
least, the FCC should utilize published criteria and analyses like 
those employed herein to review the long form applications and 
ultimately articulate in detail why it believes any given auction 
winner will be capable of delivering RDOF-Level Gigabit Service using 
fixed wireless technologies given what the standards otherwise 
indicate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures and Certain 
Program Requirements For The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction, 
Released March 2, 2020,  53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wireless Sandbox
    Immutable laws of physics permit only three primary ways to improve 
wireless throughput. This can be done by (1) improving the signal-to-
interference-plus-noise ratio; (2) improving the efficiency of the 
spectrum by using higher order modulation and coding techniques which 
can be leveraged when the signal is strong and largely free of noise 
and interference; or (3) increasing the amount of spectrum available to 
a customer through adding more spectrum, segmentation (cell splitting), 
or using sophisticated and expensive techniques such as high-order 
multi-input multi-output (MIMO) and/or beamforming.
    All wireless providers share the frequency spectrum or ``airwaves'' 
with many other wireless providers--even some that may be operating in 
the same frequency band. In addition, all wireless spectrum transmitted 
from a given antenna or sector is ``shared'' amongst all customers 
served by that sector. Because of this, there are strict rules that 
govern how the wireless operator can use this spectrum. Some of the 
rules include:

   Frequency Band--A wireless operator is authorized to operate 
        in specific frequency bands. These frequency bands may be 
        licensed (``licensed spectrum'') to this operator for their 
        sole use within a defined area or the spectrum may be 
        unlicensed (``unlicensed spectrum'') which is shared by many 
        users or devices. More recently, the FCC has allowed the use of 
        ``lightly licensed spectrum'' which can be shared by many users 
        in a more controlled environment where each provider must 
        coordinate their use of the spectrum with others using the same 
        spectrum.

   Radiated Power--The maximum transmit power allowed is also 
        controlled by Federal regulation. The radiated power must be 
        closely controlled to allow the wireless provider enough power 
        to provide service to a customer, but not so much to interfere 
        with another provider that may be operating in an adjacent 
        area. Generally, higher powers are allowed when operating in 
        licensed spectrum rather than unlicensed spectrum. Higher 
        transmit powers generally increase the signal-to-noise ratio 
        (SNR) of the radio frequency signal, which allows faster 
        throughput, but may also cause the signal to continue 
        propagating into neighboring areas causing interference that 
        pollutes the desired signal in these areas and impairs the 
        throughput other customers.

   Modulation and Other Factors--The type of modulation, 
        coding, and other factors are also often governed and 
        controlled by the FCC or other standards bodies.

    The importance of both wireless spectrum and radiated power of a 
wireless system can be understood with a simple analogy. If we assume 
the transmit power of the wireless system is like the water pressure in 
a garden hose (i.e., the higher the water pressure, the farther the 
stream at the end of the hose) then the wireless frequency spectrum 
would be like the diameter of the hose. In order to deliver more water 
(similar to more speed in a wireless system), one can either increase 
the water pressure or increase the size of the hose. Since the FCC 
closely regulates the amount of radiated power (water pressure) then 
the next logical thing to consider for increasing wireless speed and 
throughput is to increase the amount of spectrum (size of the hose).
    To enable wireless providers to offer faster broadband, the FCC has 
been aggressively making more spectrum available for broadband use. New 
technologies, such as beamforming, higher-order MIMO, and higher order 
modulation and coding techniques have helped providers use the spectrum 
more efficiently. Nonetheless, despite the infusion of additional 
spectrum capacity into the broadband marketplace and more sophisticated 
techniques, the physics of radio wave propagation is always a limiting 
factor to realizing a solid connection, much less an advanced 
connection capable of delivering higher performance, especially in 
rural areas with trees, hills and customers thinly spread out--like 
those in the RDOF auction.
Wireless Network Design Considerations
    As mentioned previously, wireless networks transmit their signals 
over airwaves that are shared by many providers and users. There is a 
fixed and finite amount of network capacity for the users sharing the 
same spectrum, so as more users demand more capacity, data on the 
network will travel slower for each user. Most have experienced slower 
Internet on their wireless devices when in a crowded city or at a 
large-scale event like a concert where many people are trying to use 
the wireless network in that area at the same time. In simple terms, 
the wireless signal from an antenna or ``beam'' is used by all users 
served by this antenna, such that the wireless capacity is necessarily 
divided amongst all these users and leaving less capacity for any one 
user than would otherwise be the case.
    The importance of oversubscription to wireless network design (or 
the design of any network with elements of shared capacity, for that 
matter) cannot be overstated. Understanding the concept of 
oversubscription is essential to understand the actual broadband 
capability of a wireless network. If there are 20 users sharing an 
antenna, and each user has subscribed to 100 Mbps service, even as 
simple math would indicate the potential for 2 Gbps of capacity use (20 
* 100 Mbps), it is unnecessary to design the system for that level of 
capacity because experience confirms that not all users will typically 
require their full speed at the same time. To account for this, network 
engineers use the concept of ``oversubscription.'' In essence, 
oversubscription defines how many times you ``resell'' the same network 
capacity where it is shared among multiple users of that network. Over 
the last 20 years, acceptable oversubscription ratios have been 
declining as network traffic migrates from its once ``bursty'' nature 
of short web browser sessions to more continuous applications like 
video. Today, it is not uncommon to design a wireless network with an 
oversubscription ratio of 4:1 or less. Applying an oversubscription 
ratio of 4:1 to the example above, only 500 Mbps of capacity rather 
than 2 Gbps would be needed (in that antenna or sector) to serve the 20 
customers (each subscribed to a 100 Mbps broadband package). When fewer 
customers share the same antenna resources it is less likely that 
customers will experience problems from spectrum sharing.
    To increase the wireless speed and capacity that can be offered to 
their customers, wireless operators often try to reduce the number of 
customers served by an antenna (or sector or beam). This is often done 
by increasing the number of towers serving a given area which is often 
referred to as ``network densification.'' Network densification in 
rural areas can reach a point of diminishing returns, however, since 
the transmitted power from tower manifests itself as noise and 
interference in a neighboring area serviced by a different tower. To 
help minimize the interference in the neighboring areas, the power must 
be reduced, the antenna height reduced, or additional downtilts applied 
to the antennas. Reducing the power often results in decreased speed 
and signal quality. Reducing the antenna height may put the signal at 
the mercy of obstacles found in rural areas such as hilly terrain, 
trees, buildings, or other obstacles, which most likely will block the 
signal altogether or, at a minimum, decreases speed and signal quality. 
This means that any effective wireless network design in a rural area 
must take careful account of the trade-offs between power, potential 
for interference, antenna height, and topography.
    Three basic architectures are used in wireless network design. 
These are Point-to-Point (PtP), Point-to-Multipoint (PtMP), and mesh. 
PtP systems are generally used for applications such as wireless 
backhaul or connecting two buildings together. They often rely on 
directional antenna on each end to focus the signal and typically 
consist of more expensive equipment. Because of the focused beam, they 
can often achieve longer distances than PtMP systems. PtP systems are 
not generally used for residential broadband, however, since each user 
would require its own dedicated antenna on the central tower, which is 
impractical for technical and economic reasons. Residential wireless 
broadband is therefore most often provided using PtMP systems (a signal 
antenna at a central site that serves multiple end-user terminals) and 
occasionally mesh systems.
    Mesh systems can often extend the reach of a wireless network since 
each ``node'' on the mesh network acts as a relay point to extend the 
signal before the next wireless ``hop.'' This can provide benefits, 
especially when operating in the mmW bands where the distance is very 
limited and there is a need for the intermediate mesh nodes to boost 
the signal for the more distant users. These mesh nodes are often 
placed on rooftops of houses in a neighborhood. Since mmW cannot 
penetrate objects (trees, buildings, etc.), if you cannot see your 
neighbor's roof from your roof, then neither can a mmW signal ``see'' 
the next node. There may be some instances where the neighbor's roof is 
visible, most rural locations are not within sight of other locations--
being out of sight of neighbor is, in fact, a bragging point for many 
rural citizens.
    In the instances where a mesh network could gain some distance, the 
overall network capacity suffers since each node on the mesh must not 
only carry the capacity of the user which it serves, but also all the 
other users that are transmitting their signals though that node. When 
the capacity for several users is aggregated through a signal mesh 
node, the speed of each user is reduced. Those customers closest to the 
fiber backhaul connection point could possibly achieve the desired 
speeds, but the customers added farther out on this ``daisy chain'' to 
meet build-out requirements, could experience degraded service as the 
links between the mesh nodes become congested. Another downfall of mesh 
is that they rely on continued support of mesh nodes at neighboring 
locations. Situations and sentiments change about technology and 
neighbors may come and go. A new occupant may want nothing to do with 
the mesh node on their roof and can instantly cripple multiple end-
users downstream by removing it.
    It is against this backdrop that we can review the conditions under 
which it may or may not be practical to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit 
Service using a wireless network.
Delivering Gigabit Service over Wireless
    Since an adequate amount of spectrum is critical to deliver gigabit 
services to end-user customers and the wireless spectrum is highly 
regulated, we must first determine if an entity proposing to deliver 
RDOF-Level Gigabit Service via a fixed wireless solution has access to 
adequate spectrum to do so. Without the needed spectrum, its efforts 
will be futile.
How Much Spectrum is Needed?
    When considering the amount of wireless spectrum needed, one must 
consider both the upstream and downstream needs. For RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Services, this is 1 Gbps downstream and 500 Mbps downstream. This would 
mean that the wireless channel would need to support 1.5 Gbps for a 
single user. Since the network will need to be designed to support more 
than one user, the sector or antenna capacity would need to be greater. 
If we assume, for example, that a provider would need to support a 
modest eight users at the RDOF Gigabit level with a 4:1 
oversubscription ratio,\16\ then the sector or antenna would need to 
support 3.0 Gbps (1.5 Gbps  8/4). This is 3.0 Gbps of actual 
throughout, not ``Over the Air'' (OTA) capacity as often quoted on 
vendor datasheets. Actual throughput is much lower than OTA throughput 
as will be discussed later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Preseem's ``Fixed Wireless Network Report'', Fall 2020 Edition 
shows that approximately 75% of all WISP networks employ an 
oversubscription ratio of 4:1 or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The broadband speed that a frequency band is capable of is often 
referred to in terms of ``spectral efficiency.'' Spectral efficiency is 
measured in ``bits per second per hertz'' (bps/Hz). A wireless system 
with an average spectral efficiency of 2 bps/Hz would be capable of 
delivering 20 Mbps, on average, to an end-user in 10 MHz of spectrum 
(10MHz * 2 bps/Hz = 20 Mbps).
    The most advanced MIMO techniques enable modern wireless networks 
to achieve an average of 2 to 4 bps/Hz across their coverage areas. 
Giving the wireless system the benefit of the doubt and assuming that 
the deployed wireless system could achieve a spectral efficiency of 5 
bps/Hz, a provider would need 300 MHz of spectrum for a single user and 
approximately 600 MHz for eight users with a 4:1 oversubscription 
ratio. The challenge then becomes finding 600 MHz of spectrum to use. 
(It is also worth noting how highly conservative these assumptions are; 
to support twice this number of customers, for example, approximately 
twice this amount of spectrum would be required.)
Available Wireless Spectrum for Gigabit Services
    There are three general areas of spectrum are used to deliver 
wireless broadband services. These are the low band, mid band, and high 
band (often referred to as the mmW band). The spectrum available for 
broadband in the low band is so limited that it would not be possible 
to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services, so we will focus only on the 
mid band and mmW bands. The portion of the mid band of interest here 
ranges from 2 to 6 GHz and the portion of the mmW frequencies range 
from approximately 30 to 80 GHz.
    The frequency bands that can be used for broadband can be seen in 
Table 1. The FCC has made a variety frequency bands in the mid band 
available over the years and is taking significant steps to make more 
available. However, as can be seen in Table 1, the broadband operator 
may be the secondary user of the spectrum (such as CBRS and C-Band) or 
is unlicensed which is shared with many other users and devices (such 
as the U-NNI band). The broadband provider also rarely has access to 
the entire spectrum in the band and often must operate in smaller 
blocks of spectrum within that band (shown in the ``Allocation'' 
column). As we will see later, this presents challenges when attempting 
to use mid band spectrum for high-capacity broadband services.

       Table 1--Portion of Radio Spectrum Available for Broadband
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Total                           How
 Band Name      Frequency       Spectrum      Allocation      Licensed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Low Band Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 MHz      600 MHz         70 MHz         2x5 MHz Blocks  Licensed
700 MHz      700 MHz         104 MHz        2x[1, 5, 6, or  Licensed
                                             11] MHz
                                             Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Mid Band Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCS          2.3 GHz         30 MHz         2x5 MHz Blocks  Licensed
ISM          2.4 GHz         85 MHz         10, 20, or      Unlicensed
                                             40MHz Blocks
BRS/EBS      2.5 GHz         190 MHz        6, 16.5, 49.5,  Licensed
                                             50.5 MHz
                                             Blocks
CBRS         3.5 GHz         150 MHz        10 MHz Blocks   Lightly
 (secondary                                  (PAL)           Licensed
 use)
C-Band       3.7 GHz         280 MHz        20 MHz Blocks   Licensed
 (secondary
 use)
U-NII        5 & 6 GHz       1,525 MHz      10, 20, 40, or  Unlicensed
                                             80 MHz Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              mmW Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMFUS--Auct  28 GHz          850 MHz        425 MHz Blocks  Licensed
 ion 101
UMFUS--Auct  24 GHz          700 MHz        2x40 MHz        Licensed
 ion 102                                     Blocks
 (secondary
 use)
UMFUS--Auct  37/38/47 GHz    3,400 MHz      100 MHz Blocks  Licensed
 ion 103
V-Band       60 GHz          5,000 MHz      2,160 MHz       Unlicensed
                                             Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Figure 2 graphically shows the relative amount of available 
spectrum in the various bands. The pie sections in Figure 2 are to 
scale and include all the available spectrum in that band. In most 
instances a single provider would have access only to a relatively 
small portion of the larger band. Frequencies in the mid band were 
generally allocated to providers as small channels. While some 
providers may have several of these channels in the mid band for a 
given geographical area, they are not always contiguous in the 
frequency spectrum which makes it more difficult or even impractical to 
combine the channels for achieve higher throughputs.
Figure 2. Broadband Spectrum
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using Mid Band Spectrum
    In the conservative examples discussed earlier, one would need at 
least 300 MHz (single wireless customer), but more likely 600 MHz or 
more, to serve a small handful of customers with RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Service. It would be difficult to find that much frequency in the mid 
band that would have enough spectrum available for a broadband provider 
to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services to even a modest number of 
customers. The only band with possibly enough spectrum would be the 5.8 
GHz and proposed 6 GHz bands which are expected to have 1,525 MHz 
available. But even if these bands might offer enough capacity to 
deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services to a confined number of customers, 
they present other challenges--these bands are unlicensed and thus 
shared with others with no interference protection, including nearly 
all common WiFi routers. When considering options to satisfy the RDOF 
requirements, sound engineering principles must be applied along with 
equipment that can be deployed in a cost-effective and practical 
manner. This widespread shared unlicensed use would make it impractical 
for a provider to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit Services on a consistent 
basis. The 5.8 and 6 GHz bands are part of the Unlicensed National 
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) service where higher power is 
permitted for PtP \17\ networks, but these require large parabolic 
dishes (or equivalent antennas) at both ends to provide service farther 
than a few kilometers. However, these antennas and power levels are not 
available to PtMP operations, which would be needed to serve 
residential customers in rural areas, and large-scale use of point-to-
point for point-to-multipoint applications would be absurd. Costs of 
employing PtP or PtMP networks in rural areas would resemble the costs 
of FTTP drops--but providing only a fraction of the capacity in the 
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Per 47 CFR  15.407(a)(3), ``fixed point-to-point U-NII 
devices operating in this band may employ transmitting antennas with 
directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction 
in transmitter conducted power. Fixed, point-to-point operations 
exclude the use of point-to-multipoint systems, omnidirectional 
applications, and multiple collocated transmitters transmitting the 
same information.'' There is good reason for this--allowing high power 
without these exclusions, even if automatically frequency coordinated, 
will raise the noise floor for everyone and will only lead to limiting 
of available channels for everyone and further overcrowding of the 
band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Aside from these two bands, there is nowhere else within the mid 
band spectrum that a wireless provider could amass enough spectrum. 
Sometime in the future, it may be possible to aggregate enough spectrum 
across multiple licensed bands to provide higher speeds approaching a 
Gigabit consistently, but the technology has not yet been deployed to 
do so and it is unclear when it will in fact become available. 
Furthermore, even if it were available, the distances over which a 
customer could be served would be limited by the shortest reach of all 
the aggregated frequencies.
    Much attention has been giving to the recent CBRS and C-Band 
auctions with respect to rural broadband. We agree that these bands 
will be critical to providing improved broadband to rural customers 
that have been on the wrong side of the digital divide. However, our 
purpose here is to identify the mid band spectrum that can deliver RDOF 
Gigabit Services, which is significantly more challenging than a couple 
hundred megabits per second that might be achievable under certain 
conditions using the CBRS and C-Band. The total amount of spectrum 
available in the CBRS band, when including both the licensed and 
lightly licensed portions is only half of what would be needed to 
deliver RDOF Gigabit Services to a single customer. Furthermore, the 
maximum amount of spectrum that could be secured by any one bidder was 
only 40 MHz. Because of this, CBRS is not a realistic option for 
delivering RDOF Gigabit Services.
    C-Band, on the other hand, may have enough spectrum to deliver RDOF 
Gigabit Services to a very small pocket of customers that are very 
close to the tower if a provider had access to the entire C-Band 
spectrum (280 MHz). However, it would be very unlikely that one of the 
RDOF winners could have secured enough of the 280 MHz in any given 
area. Furthermore, the RDOF areas are generally outside of the top 46 
PEAs, so there is no requirement for this C-Band spectrum to be cleared 
until December 5, 2023. This would likely not be soon enough for the 
RDOF awardee to deploy a wireless network using C-Band spectrum in time 
to meet their first build-out requirement.
    Likewise, the EBS band consists of only 116.5 MHz of spectrum if 
the bidder were able to secure all three of the EBS licenses. Not only 
is this not enough to deliver RDOF Gigabit Services, but the auction 
has not yet occurred. It would not be appropriate to award RDOF areas 
to a bidder that was counting on the possible success in a future FCC 
auction. It is important that any spectrum that a bidder is relying on 
to deliver any RDOF services be secured prior to the FCC awarding them 
the RDOF areas.
    Some believe that additional mid band spectrum will be released by 
the FCC and eventually stem this inevitable capacity insufficiency. 
However, it is important to recall again that over 85% of the mid-band 
spectrum currently available, or even contemplated for use for fixed 
wireless broadband, is shared-use. Shared-use spectrum has been 
allocated by the FCC to two or more different purposes and fixed 
wireless uses are often the secondary user and must protect the 
existing services of the incumbent. To do this, fixed wireless 
providers have modest permissible power limitations. To compound these 
mid band problems, nearly \2/3\ of the spectrum is governed by the U-
NII \18\ (generally, ``Unlicensed'' or ``Part 15'') service rules, and 
thus comes with much lower permissible power \19\ and lower associated 
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ See 47 CFR  15[.]
    \19\ Compared to up to a few thousand Watts (depending upon sector 
arc) that is permissible for 2.5 GHz EBS/BRS--which represents only 
13.4% of mid-band spectrum potentially available to independent 
operators, and of which the large majority of current licenses are 
controlled by T-Mobile, only up to 50 Watts per channel is permissible 
for ``lightly licensed'' 3.5 GHz CBRS, and only up to 4 Watts is 
permissible for Unlicensed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is also no guarantee that enough of this shared-use spectrum 
will continue to become available, especially in the exponentially 
increasing volumes necessary to support future demand demands. Despite 
the efforts of the FCC to free-up scarce mid-band spectrum such as in 
C-Band and 6 GHz, it is far-fetched to believe that unimpaired bands in 
a necessarily shared-use arrangement among primary and other secondary 
users in such coveted spectrum can be found and freed-up indefinitely, 
and in the exponentially increasing volumes necessary within the narrow 
and finite mid-band range, to match exponentially increasing fixed 
demand volumes--and that is even if one accepts that the coverage range 
limitations of mid-band spectrum could suffice for non-town, rural 
fixed applications.
    In short, for Gigabit level service to become viable as a 
widespread commercial broadband solution in rural areas over fixed 
wireless technologies, there are at least four important technical 
barriers that must be addressed first: (1) more mid band spectrum would 
be needed (even beyond that identified as being in the pipeline now); 
(2) more contiguous channels of capacity would be needed for individual 
providers within those bands; (3) new equipment would need to be 
developed to aggregate spectrum within or across those bands; and (4) 
power and range limitations arising out of shared uses of such 
unlicensed spectrum.
RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using mmW Bands
    If such technical challenges persist in the offering of Gigabit 
services in rural areas leveraging mid band spectrum, it is logical to 
ask whether mmW spectrum, which is already being used to achieve higher 
speeds in densely populated, more urban environments, might be extended 
to offer Gigabit speeds in rural areas instead? While vendor claims and 
product specifications in the lead-up to the RDOF auction sought to 
justify promises of capability to deliver Gigabit speeds in rural 
markets based upon limited deployments in urban areas, careful 
engineering analysis against objective technical standards shows where 
these claims fail.
    We showed previously that a few hundred MHz would be required to 
support just a handful of customers receiving RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Services. While, as discussed above, there is no such capacity readily 
available and acceptable for use within mid band spectrum, there would 
appear in theory to be enough spectrum available to do RDOF Gigabit-
Level Services in the mmW band. More specifically, the bands that could 
be used include:

   Upper Microwave Fixed Use Service (UMFUS)

     ``24 GHz band''--24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz 
            (Auction 102)

     ``28 GHz band''--27.5-28.35 GHz

     ``37 GHz band''--37-38.6 GHz

     ``39 GHz band''--38.6-40 GHz

     ``48 GHz band''--47.2-48.2 GHz band (Auction 103)

   V-Band

     ``60 GHz band''--57-71 GHz (Unlicensed)

    These mmW bands have channel widths ranging from several hundred 
MHz of spectrum to a few GHz of spectrum, which is in theory more than 
enough needed to provide RDOF Gigabit-Level Services.
    But a rigorous and disciplined technical analysis cannot and must 
not stop there. An essential and immutable characteristic of spectrum 
is that the higher it is in frequency, the less propagation and 
penetration power it will have. Frequencies in the mmW band can only 
propagate to very short distances before decaying to unusable levels 
when used in wireless networks. In addition, these frequencies are 
highly susceptible to fading due to diffraction by rain and moisture, 
and even to absorption by oxygen molecules. The result is that their 
usable reliable range--even on a clear day--is measured in the hundreds 
of feet, not in miles. This, along with the fact that they do not 
penetrate buildings or other obstacles such as foliage and must have an 
unobstructed Line-of-Sight (LOS) path makes high frequencies very 
undesirable for serving rural customers. Because mmW cannot penetrate 
walls, it is necessary that the customer install an antenna on their 
house or a nearby structure (such as a pole) that has clear LOS to the 
provider's transmitting antenna. Using indoor customer equipment 
similar to what can be used at low and mid band frequencies is not 
possible when using mmW bands. Because of this, customer installs are 
typically more challenging and often require a professional 
installation. They can also become unreliable or stop working 
altogether if the LOS is partially or fully lost due to an obstruction 
such as new building or tree growth.
    Applying such considerations to the areas auctioned off in the RDOF 
highlights the technical impediments to any proposals or vendor claims 
of capability based upon use of mmW bands. The areas to be served 
through the RDOF awards are some of the most rural areas in the 
country. Many of these census blocks are a few miles across and were 
auctioned off as part of larger census block groups, which could have 
been 10 miles across or more. Some of these census blocks or census 
block groups have smaller clusters of homes within them, but most of 
the Census block groups have multiple Census blocks that contain 
sparsely populated customer locations. Because of this, it is likely 
that the wireless equipment will need to provide broadband service 
several miles from central tower sites; otherwise nearly every customer 
would require his or her own tower given propagation limitations.
    Realities on the ground in rural America only compound the 
challenges of using mmW spectrum to deliver high-speed broadband and 
confound the claims of vendors based upon laboratory or limited urban 
conditions. To make it more difficult to deploy mmW wireless systems in 
rural areas, it is also common for homes to be behind a 
``shelterbelt.'' Shelterbelts are lines of tall trees planted around 
one's property to block prevailing winds from wreaking havoc on one's 
home, and in colder climates, to prevent drifting snow on the downwind 
side. Customers living in rural areas must intentionally plant 
shelterbelts to protect their homes, especially necessary during the 
colder months. Consequently, where there is not already dense tree and 
foliage growth we often find shelter-belts. In either case, there is a 
strong possibility that trees will obstruct the radio path--which is 
especially devastating for higher frequency bands like mmW. This is a 
realistic example of the less than perfect conditions that will be 
encountered by many RDOF awardees which will further reduce the 
distance at which a single user may expect wireless broadband service.
    In its RDOF auction comments arguing for the ability for fixed 
wireless providers to submit gigabit-level bids, WISPA identified 
equipment from four vendors that claimed to be ``producing and 
distributing inexpensive equipment that can enable Gigabit service.'' 
\20\ Yet, the very vendor data sheets included with the comments in 
fact highlight some of these challenges that companies will face when 
used to serve customers in rural markets. As described previously, the 
equipment would need to support a minimum of 1.5 Gbps (to account for 
both the downstream and upstream to provide RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Services) for a single user, which some of the equipment is unable to 
provide. In addition, the short distances over which the materials 
indicated that the equipment can provide broadband reveals the 
challenges these vendors will have providing services in the kinds of 
rural areas presented in the RDOF auction.\21\ More specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ WISPA ``Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association'', AU Docket No 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket No. 
10-90, March 27, 2020.
    \21\ Ibid, Appendix A.

   Siklu Multihaul--Operates in the 60 GHz band. The base 
        station has an aggregate throughput of 1.8 Gbps and end-user 
        terminals have an aggregate throughput of 1.0 Gbps. Not only is 
        that not enough total capacity available to provide the needed 
        1.5 Gbps to meet the RDOF Gigabit-Level Service requirement but 
        the equipment has a typical reach of only 900-1,300 
        (approximately \1/4\ mile), which even putting aside LOS 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        concerns, hardly squares with densities in many rural markets.

   Adtran Metnet--Operates in the 60 GHz band and others. Has a 
        range of 1,640 (approximately \1/4\ mile) at a capacity of 1 
        Gbps at the end-user in a mesh configuration.

   IgniteNet MetroLinq--Operates in 60 GHz band and others and 
        claims to enable an Over the Air (OTA) rate of 4 Gbps per 
        sector. However, as one of the most prominent wireless Internet 
        service providers itself has noted, it is not uncommon for the 
        actual equipment data capacity to be \1/3\ to \1/2\ of the OTA 
        line rate.\22\ In addition, even with its highest gain and 
        largest CPE antenna available (35 cm) the range is limited to 
        only 2,270 (0.43 miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Geolinks Ex Parte, ``Competitive Bidding Procedures and 
certain Program Requirements for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,'' 
AU Docket No.20-34, May 29, 2020, page 2.

   RADWIN TerraWin--Operates in the 60 GHz band. Operates in a 
        mesh network configuration and claims to have up to 3.6 Gbps 
        throughput per user. No distances are given but does not claim 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        to be a solution for rural areas.

    This kind of equipment is often used for 5G small cell wireless 
backhaul or connectivity in densely populated areas where a single base 
station can reach several customers within a short distance (typically 
around 1,000). In addition, as noted previously, there must be clear 
line of sight between the tower and each customer, which is often 
difficult, if not impossible, in rural areas due to the terrain, trees, 
and shelterbelts. Even though the vendors above quote longer distances, 
they are not able to RDOF Gigabit Service on a PtMP basis to even a 
small number of customers at these distances. When using mmW PtMP 
systems, the distance the customer could be from the provider antenna 
would be limited to only be a few hundred feet--likely around 500 if 
they are to ensure reasonable reliability.
    These are not theoretical difficulties; practical experience in 
deploying mmW networks illustrates these challenges: Scott Mair, 
President of AT&T Operations, referred to AT&T's experience with its 
mmW deployment at a recent conference \23\ by saying, ``. . . 
millimeter wave provides unique characteristics in terms of bandwidth 
and speed. And that is going to play a part. But the millimeter wave 
and the propagation properties of that, take your pick anywhere, 200, 
300, 350 yards, is really not going to fulfill a coverage layer need 
for 5G.'' \24\ Even after deploying in 36 cities, Mair went on to say, 
``And for the most part, it's enterprise use cases and maybe what I 
would call venue-specific use cases that we're using it for at this 
point.'' \25\ These venue-specific places were not rural areas, but 
Mair said they were ``Entertainment districts and stadiums, health care 
and manufacturing plants are kind of the business side, if you will, 
the enterprise side, with a lot of promise. And in those areas, I mean, 
the economics work really well, dense traffic specific use cases.'' 
\26\ In short, AT&T has found that mmW-based services work well in 
dense traffic areas, but not in the kinds of rural areas at issue in 
RDOF. Neville Ray, President of Technology at T-Mobile has said 
regarding the mmW deployments currently underway for 5G, ``Verizon's 
mmWave-only 5G plan is only for the few. And it will never reach rural 
America'' he added, ``Some of this is physics--millimeter wave (mmWave) 
spectrum has great potential in terms of speed and capacity, but it 
doesn't travel far from the cell site and doesn't penetrate materials 
at all. It will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G 
hotspots in dense urban environments.'' \27\ Qualcomm, which makes many 
of the underlying hardware used for 5G and mmW equipment has similarly 
indicated, ``mmWave best accommodates dense urban areas and crowded 
indoor environments . . .'' \28\ Hans Vestberg, Verizon Communications 
Chairman and CEO, has likewise said of mmW, ``We all need to remind 
ourselves this is not a coverage spectrum because we will do it as far 
as the economic is sustainable, of course.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ AT&T Inc at Barclays Global Technology, Media and 
Telecommunications Conference, December 9, [2020].
    \24\ Ibid, page 6.
    \25\ Ibid, page 6.
    \26\ Ibid, page 7.
    \27\ Neville Ray blog post, April 22, 2019, https://www.t-
mobile.com/news/network/the-5g-status-quo-is-clearly-not-good-enough.
    \28\ Understanding mmWave: Faster connectivity highways for 5G, The 
OnQ Team, November 28, 2018, https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2018/11/
28/understanding-mmwave-faster-connectivity-highways-5g.
    \29\ Q1 2019 Verizon Communications, Inc. Earnings Call, April 23, 
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary/Conclusions
    Wireless networks play an important role in connecting customers--
but when it comes to assessing the justification for expending public 
or private funds for broadband deployment, it is equally important to 
take a realistic picture of the capabilities and limitations of such 
networks. The broadband speeds promised by future wireless technologies 
may sound promising, but marketing claims and tests under ideal 
conditions are no substitute for a rigorous and disciplined technical 
analysis of what such networks can and cannot deliver.
    The promise of wireless solutions deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level 
Service appears difficult to justify in most rural applications. Apart 
from some very limited circumstances presenting ideal conditions as 
summarized herein, the technical and related economic hurdles will be 
substantial, if not insurmountable.
    Mid band spectrum may have adequate reach to provide service to 
customers in rural areas, but there are significant challenges with 
current technologies and spectrum to provide even 100 Mbps service to 
sparsely populated areas, much less the Gigabit services promised in 
the RDOF auction. The spectrum is very desirable for wireless broadband 
services but there simply is not enough of it available to accommodate 
most RDOF winners. Use of the crowded unlicensed bands, such as 5.8 
GHz, should be rejected due to reliability issues associated with 
unlicensed frequencies, especially when considering the RDOF voice 
requirements that must provide reliable access to emergency services 
such as 911. In short, considering objective engineering criteria, 
there is no viable path currently available to offer reliable RDOF-
Level Gigabit Services in rural America leveraging mid band spectrum.
    Providing RDOF Gigabit services in the mmW band presents different 
challenges--but challenges nonetheless. The mmW band has adequate 
spectrum to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services, but the spectral 
characteristics are not well suited to provide rural broadband as was 
the subject of the RDOF auction. In most areas, using mmW would require 
each rural resident to have his or her own wireless tower. Most of 
these towers would be required to have fiber connections to deliver the 
needed broadband capacity to the network connection point.
    When considering any proposed wireless network designs based on mmW 
technologies for any RDOF bidder to satisfy its Gigabit service 
commitment, the FCC should verify the following:

  1.  All customers must be within about 500 feet of their specific 
            serving tower/antenna.

  2.  All customers must have clear line-of-sight to that serving 
            tower/antenna.

  3.  The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector must be 
            adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream 
            capacities of all users served by that antenna or tower.

      a.  The RDOF 70% subscription requirement must be considered in 
            analyzing 
                the capacity of the service tower/antenna or sector.

      b.  A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1 or 
            less should be 
                applied.

  4.  Each antenna and/or sector must also have adequate backhaul 
            capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF customers 
            anticipated with a reasonable oversubscription ratio such 
            as 4:1. In most instances this will require the towers/
            antennas to be served with a fiber network.

  5.  When considering mmW mesh networks, in addition to the preceding 
            factors, the FCC should also evaluate the congestion that 
            would occur between the nodes of the mesh network as well 
            as the potential radio frequency congestion and the 
            backhaul congestion.
Author Biography
Larry D. Thompson, PE, Chief Executive Officer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                  Larry Thompson is a licensed 
                                professional engineer and has been 
                                designing satellite, wireless, and 
                                broadband wireline networks for more 
                                than 30 years. Larry received his 
                                bachelor's degree in physics from 
                                William Jewell College and his 
                                bachelor's and master's degrees in 
                                Electrical Engineering from the 
                                University of Kansas. Prior to founding 
                                Vantage Point Solutions in 2002, Larry 
                                held several engineering and management 
                                positions with TRW's Space and Defense 
                                sector, CyberLink Corporation, and 
                                Martin Group. Larry is currently the 
                                CEO of Vantage Point Solutions, which 
                                has over
400 employees and is a national provider of engineering and consulting 
services. Over the years, he has assisted many wireless and wireline 
companies successfully manage their technical, regulatory, and 
financial challenges.
    Larry serves on the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee 
(BDAC), he is a frequent speaker at state and national conferences and 
a frequent expert witness at utility commission and legal proceedings 
relating to telecommunication technology and regulatory matters.
About Vantage Point Solutions
    Better Broadband means Better Lives. Vantage Point Solutions, Inc. 
helps providers bring this promise to life through comprehensive 
engineering and consulting solutions tailored to the unique needs of 
the companies, Cooperatives, and communities we serve.
    Headquartered in Mitchell, South Dakota and with six additional 
offices across the country, Vantage Point works with broadband and 
telecom providers in more than 40 states. Our 400+ employees include 
ten licensed professional engineers, three attorneys, and industry 
leaders in technology and advocacy. With professional engineers and 
regulatory experts under the same roof, we are able to understand the 
big picture for any individual company decision or broader industry 
policy.
    Vantage Point is an employee-owned company. As such, we hold 
ourselves to a high standard for both service delivery and business 
ethics. These high standards extend to our industry involvement, where 
we are staunch advocates for the broadband deployment everywhere tied 
to the responsible use of broadband investment.
                                 ______
                                 
Submitted Maps by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress from 
                                 Texas
[https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-
summary?version=jun2020&type=nation
&geoid=0&tech=acfosw&speed=100_10&vlat=28.80600185677126&vlon=-97.13230
612770428&vzoom=7.323845130384493]
Broadband Connectivity in East Texas--100/3 megabits per second (mbps)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



Broadband Connectivity in East Texas--25/3 megabits per second (mbps)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Editor's note: the interactive map data could not be retained 
        for these maps as the supplied hyperlink did not contain the 
        location information.
                                 ______
                                 
 Submitted Map by Hon. Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress from 
                                Florida
[https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-
summary?version=jun2020&type=cd&geoid
=1203&tech=acfw&speed=25_3&vlat=29.71954418351038&vlon=-82.04261442386
144&vzoom=8.360689971205383]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



          Editor's note: this is an interactive map. The sidebar chart 
        information shows the statistics when hovered over by pointer. 
        The charts' data is retained in Committee file.
                                 ______
                                 
                          Submitted Questions
Response from Jennifer L. Prather, Vice President and General Manager, 
        Totelcom Communications, LLC; on behalf of NTCA--The Rural 
        Broadband Association
Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress 
        from Nebraska
    Question 1. Two-thirds of my home state is rural and more and more 
dependent on enhanced broadband connectivity. Anecdotally, there are 
broadband connection gaps in rural areas where the FCC shows coverage. 
University of Nebraska researchers developed a simple plug-in device 
and survey to scientifically measure and map household broadband 
connectivity over time, but have not found Federal funding or programs 
that support broadband mapping.
    Could this approach help measure and map connectivity in rural 
Nebraska and other frontier states that have become so reliant in 
recent months on enhanced broadband connections for education, health 
care and rural economic expansion including on-farm applications?
    Answer. While these measures may help with gathering data, there 
are a number of important caveats to consider. As an initial matter, 
simply plugging such a device into a laptop or tablet will not in and 
of itself necessarily render an accurate performance test. If the 
laptop or tablet is old, if the test is conducted distantly from the 
router on a bad WiFi connection, or if there are multiple users within 
the home all at the same time making significant use of it, these 
factors can all render a result that does not accurately reflect what 
is provided to that location. Thus, such efforts at ``crowdsourcing'' 
information can be helpful, but they do not provide dispositive or 
conclusive indications of what is actually available at any given 
location.
    Moreover, it is important that all efforts to map broadband 
connectivity do so in coordination with the Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC), which is tasked with developing a national broadband 
map under the Broadband DATA Act passed by Congress to address this 
issue. Congress just provided millions in funding to the FCC for this 
very purpose, and work is underway to use that funding to develop 
better maps. It is important that all broadband programs use the same 
map so that we efficiently use limited funds and do not risk 
undermining investments made in rural areas, many of which are 
federally supported through the FCC's Universal Service Fund.

    Question 2. As we consider deploying more resources to address 
rural broadband challenges, how can we be certain that the resources 
provided to USDA are being put in communities which are truly 
underserved, given the current service gaps?
    Answer. USDA has carefully administered its programs, specifically 
the ReConnect program, to minimize the potential duplication of the 
work of other RUS programs, the FCC's Universal Service Fund High-Cost 
program, and other Federal and state programs. However, we support USDA 
taking further steps to ensure close coordination between all broadband 
network support programs, so that it avoid deploying duplicative 
government-funded networks in rural areas that will not even support 
one provider on its own. We recommend that USDA's Rural Utilities 
Service formally establish a rule to clarify the ways in which its 
program funds may interact with funds already awarded under other 
programs.
Question Submitted by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress 
        from Texas
    Question. Ms. Prather, you commented on the ``procedural barriers 
to borrowing from RUS'' programs.
    Can you describe how these barriers affect NTCA members in greater 
detail and offer suggestions to the Committee for how to address those 
``time consuming processes'' and to ``expedite approvals and 
deployment?''
    Answer. Carriers must secure approvals to cross government and 
privately-owned lands, and the processes for doing so can be very time 
consuming and expensive--further delaying broadband installation. NTCA 
is aware of a number of ReConnect awards that have sat for months, and 
in some cases well over a year, awaiting clearance of historical 
preservation requirements. This is particularly frustrating as, in many 
cases, the approval relates to placement of communications facilities 
along roadways in previously disturbed land. In such cases where the 
network is being placed in areas where other construction of some kind 
has already occurred, there would appear to be no good reason for the 
sizeable delays associated with approvals. Addressing this problem 
should be of the highest priority if Congress wants to see more 
accelerated deployment through RUS programs.
    Moreover, the standardization of application, fee, and approval 
policies and procedures across Federal land-managing and property-
managing agencies should be a high priority, and Congress should ensure 
that agencies have the resources to timely complete reviews and are 
given reasonable but firm timelines for doing so. Furthermore, Congress 
should look to implement the recommendations of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's 
final report issued in January 2018. NTCA--The Rural Broadband 
Association participated in the development of these recommendations, 
which address streamlining of environmental and historical reviews and 
application review periods, among other pertinent recommendations in 
removing further regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.
Question Submitted by Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in 
        Congress from Minnesota
    Question. Ms. Prather, you noted that operating on or crossing 
Federal lands poses challenges that can delay construction and drive up 
costs. In particular, you noted the Byzantine application process for 
permitting and access on Federal lands.
    Can you elaborate more on those challenges for NTCA members and 
what the Committee might do to streamline delays and reduce 
construction costs for rural network operators, particularly with 
respect to lands and processes controlled by the Department of 
Agriculture?
    Answer. Carriers must secure approvals to cross government and 
privately-owned lands, and the processes for doing so can be very time 
consuming and expensive--further delaying broadband installation. NTCA 
is aware of a number of ReConnect awards that have sat for months, and 
in some cases well over a year, awaiting clearance of historical 
preservation requirements. This is particularly frustrating as, in many 
cases, the approval relates to placement of communications facilities 
along roadways in previously disturbed land. In such cases where the 
network is being placed in areas where other construction of some kind 
has already occurred, there would appear to be no good reason for the 
sizeable delays associated with approvals. Addressing this problem 
should be of the highest priority if Congress wants to see more 
accelerated deployment through RUS programs.
    Moreover, the standardization of application, fee, and approval 
policies and procedures across Federal land-managing and property-
managing agencies should be a high priority, and Congress should ensure 
that agencies have the resources to timely complete reviews and are 
given reasonable but firm timelines for doing so. Furthermore, Congress 
should look to implement the recommendations of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's 
final report issued in January 2018. NTCA--The Rural Broadband 
Association participated in the development of these recommendations, 
which address streamlining of environmental and historical reviews and 
application review periods, among other pertinent recommendations in 
removing further regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress 
        from Louisiana
    Question 1. The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role 
in bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules, like 
many Federal broadband grants, are being re-written to reflect the 
pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband access. However, I 
have heard that the application process is quite cumbersome.
    What specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease 
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
    Answer. While Totelcom is not currently a USDA borrower, many NTCA 
members participate in its various telecommunications programs and 
report delays throughout the application and approval process 
generally, but particularly as they relate to environmental and 
historical reviews. One solution would be for USDA's Rural Utilities 
Service, given its expertise and history of success in advancing rural 
communications networks, to play a more active role in working with 
State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation 
Offices to ensure timely completion of required reviews. NTCA offered 
further recommendation to USDA in its comments regarding the matter of 
USDA's ReConnect regulations (RUS-20-Telecom-0023 RIN No. 0572-AC51), 
including recommendations to improve the contract bidding approval 
processes and implement a timeline by which reviews must be completed.

    Question 2. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have 
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications 
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally 
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many 
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure 
investments to address access is important, it is also important we 
ensure that access is affordable.
    For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended 
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing 
broadband to rural areas.
    Answer. We recognize that even where services are available, that 
does very little if a consumer cannot afford to pay for those services. 
It is worth noting in the first instance that the FCC's High-Cost USF 
program, while mission-critical in promoting both availability and 
affordability of services in rural areas, aims for baseline voice and 
broadband rates pursuant to a formula that sets the target rates much 
higher in rural areas than what urban users pay on average. This 
almost-always-overlooked fact means that even with USF support and 
subsidies, as a matter of long-settled Federal policy, every rural 
resident is paying more on average for voice and broadband services to 
start than urban Americans. Moreover, low-income consumers obviously 
face additional challenges when it comes to adoption. While the FCC's 
Lifeline USF program is available to help such consumers purchase 
broadband, the subsidy is too low to make a meaningful difference on 
most broadband bills, especially in rural areas where it costs more to 
deliver broadband services. Totelcom is supportive of the FCC's 
Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) that was enacted in December 2020 to 
provide eligible consumers with at least $50 a month to purchase 
broadband service. We are participating in the program so that every 
consumer in our service area who wants broadband service will have it.
    As its name makes clear, however, the EBB is a temporary program 
designed to help consumers pay for service during emergencies. The EBB 
will provide good opportunities to learn what works best to overcome 
challenges to adoption by low-income consumers, and those lessons will 
hopefully then be applied to permanent solutions with more predictable 
and sufficient funding.
Response from Timothy R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, OEConnect, 
        LLC and Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Question Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress 
        from California
    Question. Mr. Johnson, the 2018 Farm Bill included significant 
updates to communications application process at the Forest Service.
    Can you comment on the implementation of these reforms and any 
additional changes the Committee or the Forest Service should consider 
to further improve timely access to Federal land for NRECA members and 
other broadband providers?
    Answer. In 2020, NRECA generally supported the improvements made by 
the Forest Service to streamline the communications application and 
permit approval process. However, electric co-ops continue to 
experience unreasonable delays. A few examples of these delays and 
potential solutions are below.
    Several co-ops with existing powerline rights-of-way crossing 
Federal lands are facing a year or more to obtain approvals to attach 
fiber cable to already authorized and permitted electric facilities. 
Simply put, electric co-ops are seeking approval to hang a single fiber 
cable onto existing power poles. However, the Forest Service is 
considering this activity a new special use, outside of the original 
permit for the utility rights-of-way. Therefore, electric co-ops must 
undertake a new, full environmental review and permitting process with 
no end in sight. This is happening in the George Washington, Huron-
Manistee, and several other National Forests. These delays are having a 
significant impact on the ability to provide and expand broadband 
access to rural communities. The irony is that in some cases, the new 
fiber will provide improved internet access to the local Forest Service 
field office, which they desperately need.
    Part of the issue is that there are no existing categorical 
exclusions (CE) within the agency's environmental procedures to cover 
fiber installation within existing easements. Some projects may 
beneficially fall within the November 2020 Forest Service's expanded 
categorical exclusion if the installation occurs on less than 20 acres 
of National Forest System lands. However, given this administration's 
review and potential rewrite of the overarching Council on 
Environmental Quality's NEPA rule, there seems to be a considerable 
amount of confusion and reluctancy of Forest Service staff on whether 
and if this applies.
    This is my long way of saying that the agency should establish and 
implement a CE for fiber installation along existing rights-of-way on 
an accelerated permit issuance timeframe and ensure staff are given 
clear applicability guidelines to streamline the approval process. 
Waiting over a year for a permit to attach a single fiber wire to an 
existing pole unnecessarily impedes the ability to bridge the digital 
divide, provide equitable opportunities, and jump-start local economies 
of rural communities.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress 
        from Nebraska
    Question 1. Two-thirds of my home state is rural and more and more 
dependent on enhanced broadband connectivity. Anecdotally, there are 
broadband connection gaps in rural areas where the FCC shows coverage. 
University of Nebraska researchers developed a simple plug-in device 
and survey to scientifically measure and map household broadband 
connectivity over time, but have not found Federal funding or programs 
that support broadband mapping.
    Could this approach help measure and map connectivity in rural 
Nebraska and other frontier states that have become so reliant in 
recent months on enhanced broadband connections for education, health 
care and rural economic expansion including on-farm applications?
    Answer. Collecting the necessary data to truly gauge the extent of 
the digital divide has been elusive and has been a hindrance to meeting 
our national goal of universal broadband access. This has been 
exasperated by the FCC's focus on ``advertised'' speeds versus the 
``actual speed'' a consumer experiences, which is often lower. While 
actual speeds can sometimes be lower due to valid factors such as 
customers' computers or routers, internet traffic, etc., we are aware 
of countless experiences where some providers are overly reliant on 
``advertised'' speeds that their networks actually cannot deliver to 
all their consumers on a reliable basis. Last year Congress adopted the 
DATA Act requiring the FCC to implement more granular and accurate 
broadband data collection and mapping. Unfortunately, funds were not 
appropriated until the December 2020 end of year funding and stimulus 
bill. The agency is moving forward with implementation and Acting 
Chairwoman Rosenworcel is aiming for adoption of a new data collection 
program by the end of the year. As proposed, the new system would 
improve upon the current system in several ways. In addition to 
requiring providers to submit more granular data, the FCC will seek to 
verify data by comparing it against other data sets, such as state 
broadband data. Most importantly, The FCC will implement a challenge 
process by which a consumer, or a nonprofit or even locality on behalf 
of residents and businesses, can challenge a broadband provider's claim 
of service at their location. Third party speed testing services, such 
as those run by Ookla or Mlabs, will play an important role in this 
challenge process and ensuring consumers receive the level of service 
promised by providers. We are hopeful this new broadband data regime 
will provide the level of specificity needed. Congress should exercise 
ongoing oversight to make sure that the data collected is of sufficient 
granularity and accuracy.
    Currently, carriers that receive Federal Universal Service Funds 
(USF) from the CAF II and recent RDOF Phase I broadband auctions are 
required to run speed tests on a regular basis, starting in about year 
3, until the end of their funding obligation. Early on, such devices 
were a separate add on. Many co-ops have found customers hesitant to 
permit their broadband provider to add a device that will allow testing 
that will be shared with the government. As a result, there has been 
investment in integrating speed testing mechanisms into customer 
premise equipment, such as modems and routers. The FCC has discussed 
sharing the testing data collected from USF program recipients with 
state agencies so they can benefit from the data. While this would only 
be a subset of providers it would still be very useful to policymakers.

    Question 2. As we consider deploying more resources to address 
rural broadband challenges, how can we be certain that the resources 
provided to USDA are being put in communities which are truly 
underserved, given the current service gaps?
    Answer. All USDA broadband programs currently include extensive 
rules and in the field verification and challenge processes to ensure 
areas/applicants that are awarded funds are eligible and in need of 
broadband funds. We understand the need and desire to ensure efficacy 
of Federal broadband program. However, the intense focus put on seeking 
out hypothetical bad actors in programs can make them cumbersome, 
bureaucratic, and unattractive, especially to small businesses such as 
cooperatives. One challenge that can prevent communities from 
benefiting from these programs is the asymmetrical challenge process 
that exists in the current ReConnect program. The current challenge 
process disadvantages applicants because they never get to learn what 
provider or where the challenger is saying there is adequate existing 
service. This makes it next to impossible to modify an application so 
that it would qualify, which further emboldens incumbent providers to 
continue filing challenges that overstate their service quality and 
coverage abilities, and results in unserved areas being denied vital 
robust broadband for years. Congress should ensure the challenge 
process is not asymmetrical in this way and implement adequate 
flexibility in the programs to allow program administrators to consider 
and respond to new situations that arise.
Question Submitted by Hon. Troy Balderson, a Representative in Congress 
        from Ohio
    Question. Mr. Johnson, your testimony described USDA programs as 
``administratively onerous and burdensome.''
    Can you elaborate on how regulatory and procedural burdens fall on 
NRECA members who seek assistance through USDA's broadband programs, 
both those who are considering applying and those who have applied? 
What can the Committee do to help alleviate these burdens for 
applicants and streamline participation in USDA's programs?
    Answer. Since my cooperative, OEC, is not participating in USDA 
broadband programs, NRECA helped with the following answer to provide 
the broader electric cooperative experience. Before going over some of 
the main regulatory and procedural burdens, let me say that USDA has 
been responsive to concerns in many cases. In each round of the 
ReConnect program USDA has made improvements. The agency recently 
sought comment and updated the program rules for Round three and we 
anticipate updated rules to be released in late summer. Discussions 
with USDA officials have left NRECA and member co-ops are cautiously 
optimistic that additional positive changes will be implemented.
    Approved applicants face varied environmental and administrative 
burdens, including contracting, construction, and material challenges. 
For example, under current rules, environmental approvals are required 
to be done sequentially. ReConnect awardees can spend up to a year or 
more obtaining required environmental approvals. Allowing a winning 
applicant to file for approvals concurrently would allow for parallel 
evaluation thus speeding the process along and leading to faster 
deployment.
    Broadly, a good amount of administrative challenges may trace back 
to CFR 1753, most of which haven't been updated since the 1980s and 
1990s. Because of this, they are largely written specifically for small 
telcos. The result is they keep RUS from having appropriate leeway 
responding to nonstandard situations or requests, causing delays and 
added costs and electric co-ops not being able to participate. In this 
case, ``nonstandard'' means literally anyone that isn't organized or 
run like a small telephone company/co-op.

   One simple compliance example: RUS Telecom compliance 
        reports require ``standalone'' financials from `xCo-op', which 
        only show lease revenue for the fiber from `xCo-op subsidiary' 
        and no retail internet customers. The report then flags awardee 
        as out of compliance.

     Co-ops are subject to state laws in how they set up 
            their retail broadband business, which vary from state to 
            state. There are mixed business case reasons for having 
            fiber in their system--it's not 100% for smart grid or 100% 
            for retail broadband. Some co-ops may lease to their own 
            subsidiary, others may lease or trade with other business 
            entities to help get service to those who don't have it.

   Flexibility in using 515 contracts for contractors.

     Current rules require at least 50% of the employees 
            working on the project be employed by the lead contractor. 
            Many electric co-ops rely heavily on outside contractors, 
            and often subcontractors, particularly for fiber deployment 
            and installation. This is especially critical when under 
            program build-out deadlines.

   Construction: difference between telecom and electric 
        programs

     Example: ``Their [telecom program] construction 
            contracts require that the contractor provide all 
            materials. The electric program allows electric co-ops to 
            purchase its own materials and provide them to contractors 
            for projects, which lowers our cost and controls quality 
            for us. For the ReConnect contract, we have to issue the 
            materials to the contract and have their bond cover the 
            materials we provided them, which creates issues for the 
            contractor bonding company who is bonding against defective 
            materials and any shortage of materials among other 
            things.''

    Fellow cooperatives hear about the myriad challenges and delays, 
combined with the expensive up-front costs to apply for and comply with 
grant reporting requirements that they determine it is not feasible or 
worth it to apply.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress 
        from Louisiana
    Question 1. The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role 
in bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules, like 
many Federal broadband grants, are being re-written to reflect the 
pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband access. However, I 
have heard that the application process is quite cumbersome.
    What specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease 
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
    Answer. The application and review process for ReConnect is 
cumbersome. As was mentioned in response to an earlier question many 
USDA program regulations were written in the 1980s and 1990s. As such, 
many of the application processes and software also are out of date 
making the process more cumbersome. I will go through a few examples of 
specific challenges that could be updated to streamline and simplify 
the application process, some of which are potentially software issues. 
Applicants are required to input extensive financial data to show they 
have the financial viability to complete the proposed project. However, 
the current application user interface requires financial information 
to be entered line by line instead of using an upload function like for 
an excel document.
    There are also difficulties in the ability of the application 
software to accept applications from equal partnerships. Despite rules 
that encourage partnerships, the system requires one entity to be the 
lead applicant which contradicts the letter and spirit of a 
partnership. Partnership negations can be complex and agreements 
delicately worded. These agreements can be upended by a lack of 
flexibility in the software that can upset the partnership balance. 
Partnerships should be allowed to apply as true and equal partnerships.
    USDA has made many improvements since the ReConnect program was 
launched. In the first round the portal repeatedly crashed and 
interested entities couldn't submit applications and some missed the 
application deadline as a result. One recommended solution was to 
accept paper versions of the applications and [are] a `just in case' 
option.

    Question 2. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have 
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications 
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally 
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many 
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure 
investments to address access is important, it is also important we 
ensure that access is affordable.
    For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended 
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing 
broadband to rural areas.
    Answer. Collectively, electric cooperatives serve 92% of persistent 
poverty counties as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau so we are 
acutely aware of affordability. Affordability must be a consideration 
in closing the digital divide. The current FCC administered low-income 
program, Lifeline, provides a nominal subsidy of $9.25 a month. This 
amount does not move the needle to address affordability for low-income 
consumers. Otsego is participating in the temporary Emergency Broadband 
Benefit Program (EBB) established in the December stimulus. The EBB 
provides qualifying low-income households with $50, $75 on tribal 
lands, towards their monthly service bill. The significantly higher 
subsidy in the temporary EBB program will prove informative in whether 
this level of subsidy is effective in addressing affordability. What we 
already know for sure is that a permanent program to address 
affordability will be required.
    We feel the better approach would be to update and enhance the 
existing FCC Lifeline program to make it more effective in addressing 
affordability.
Response from Vickie S. Robinson, Esq., General Manager, Microsoft 
        Global Airband Initiative
Question Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress 
        from Louisiana
    Question. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have 
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications 
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally 
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many 
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure 
investments to address access is important, it is also important we 
ensure that access is affordable.
    For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended 
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing 
broadband to rural areas.
    Answer. Thank you for this important question which gets to the 
heart of the digital divide. In our efforts to address this challenge, 
the Microsoft Airband Initiative has adopted three important pillars: 
(1) access to affordable broadband, (2) access to affordable devices, 
and (3) access to digital skilling. Each of these pillars are essential 
to ensuring that everyone is able to participate in the digital age. 
However, before addressing these pillars, it is important that we have 
accurate data that reflects the state of the broadband gap, and 
Congress makes sufficient funding available to extend broadband 
networks and connections to rural and other areas that are unconnected 
and unserved. Such funding should be distributed on a technology 
neutral basis allowing broadband providers and communities to determine 
which technologies best meets their deployment and service needs and 
preference should be given to broadband solutions that provide rapid 
deployment of networks and services.
    In order to address the three adoption challenges noted above, the 
Federal Government should establish a permanent program that provides 
annual funding. While the Federal Communications Commission's Emergency 
Broadband Benefit (EBB) program authorized by Congress is a temporary 
program, it provides a meaningful example of the needed elements of a 
permanent program. The EBB provides internet service providers with a 
monthly reimbursement up to $50 for broadband service provided per 
eligible household and up to $75 for households on Tribal lands as well 
as a discount on laptops, desktops, or tablets. A permanent program 
will help to ensure that consumers can afford a broadband subscription 
and device. Permanent Federal funding must also include funding for 
digital skilling to ensure that everyone has the ability to use their 
broadband connection and device. Also, we believe that a successful 
permanent program will be easy for consumers to access and use.
Response from Johnny Park, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, Wabash 
        Heartland Innovation Network
Question Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress 
        from Louisiana
    Question. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have 
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications 
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally 
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many 
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure 
investments to address access is important, it is also important we 
ensure that access is affordable.
    For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended 
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing 
broadband to rural areas.
    Answer. This is an excellent question and gets to heart of the 
issue for low density rural areas. The problem is the business plan, 
which is especially challenging if fiber is the only option being 
considered. Wireless solutions can be quicker, much less expensive to 
deploy and offer options for difficult terrain.
    Our overall recommendations to reduce cost are (1) be proactive in 
deployments, (2) use fiber strategically, (3) take advantage of new 
options and innovation in wireless technology.
Be proactive in deployments
    Even if all service is provided by the private-sector, parishes and 
counties should still pay attention to deployments, especially after 
Federal auctions that award funds to companies who bid to provide 
services in the parishes. Know the rules, get to know the service 
providers that will be coming, work with them and existing providers to 
help them stand up networks efficiently, using existing fiber and 
wireless networks, existing vertical assets, and other resources when 
possible. Also make sure the deployments happen timely.
    Find ways to incentivize service providers to work together.
Use fiber strategically
    Fiber's business plan depends on density, and there are often high-
density pockets even in rural areas. This can be leveraged. For 
example, fiber-to-the-home in a small town, or run to a large anchor 
tenant like a grain operation, can work affordably. That fiber can then 
be used to backhaul a wireless solution to the surrounding countryside 
where density is low.
    Fiber doesn't have to be buried: it can go up on lines. Engage 
partners with assets that can be used to reduce the capital cost (e.g., 
rural energy and telephone co-ops.)
Don't be afraid of wireless: it can be great for middle and last mile 
        solutions, and even backhaul
    Though fixed wireless has historically struggled to match the 
performance of fiber, this has been due in large part to the wireless 
industry having no access to the high-quality bands that support LTE 
and 5G-quality solutions. Lower quality spectrum has also meant lower 
quality gear. The best gear goes to better bands because that is where 
the mobile business is.
    The FCC has recently made new, very high quality spectrum 
available, including CBRS, that is ideally suited for rural areas. This 
has not only helped with bandwidth and performance, it has created a 
new market for higher quality wireless gear companies: they can adapt 
their gear easily to the fixed wireless industry, creating affordable 
high quality gear.
    This opens the door to strategic, mixed use of fiber and wireless 
to solve specific problems as described above.
    As well, wireless gear can go on existing vertical assets like 
grain legs, saving capital cost.
    There is also a lot of innovation happening right now in the 
wireless world. The aerostat that WHIN described in its testimony is 
designed for rural applications. Its altitude also allows for wireless 
backhaul to small towns.
    And there are other companies that are offering affordable last 
mile solutions with creative use of spectrum and network design.
    WHIN's Living Lab is testing new approaches to affordable rural 
broadband that utilize these strategies, and we are happy to share 
results.