[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
BROADBAND EQUITY: ADDRESSING DISPARITIES IN ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY
=======================================================================
VIRTUAL HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MAY 6, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-29
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-954 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
KATHY CASTOR, Florida DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
JERRY McNERNEY, California H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
PAUL TONKO, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York BILLY LONG, Missouri
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
TONY CARDENAS, California MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
RAUL RUIZ, California RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
SCOTT H. PETERS, California TIM WALBERG, Michigan
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois, Vice NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
Chair JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California DEBBBIE LESKO, Arizona
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia GREG PENCE, Indiana
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware DAN CRENSHAW, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
KIM SCHRIER, Washington
LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
NATE HODSON, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
TONY CARDENAS, California JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota (ex officio)
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 5
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 9
Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Washington, opening statement..................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Joi Olivia Chaney, Senior Vice President, Policy and Advocacy,
and Executive Director, Washington Bureau, National Urban
League......................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Answers to submitted questions............................... 258
George S. Ford, Ph.D., Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for
Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies.............. 22
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Additional material submitted for the record\1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 261
Francella Ochillo, Executive Director, Next Century Cities....... 41
Prepared statement........................................... 43
Chris Lewis, President and Chief Executive Officer, Public
Knowledge...................................................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Answers to submitted questions............................... 263
Submitted Material
Letter of April 6, 2021, from ACA Connects-America's
Communications Association, et al., to Hon. Rosa DeLauro, et
al., submitted by Mr. Doyle.................................... 112
Report of the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation,
``Broadband Myths: Are High Broadband Prices Holding Back
Adoption?,'' by Doug Brake and Alexandra Bruer, February 2021,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 117
Statement of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, et al., submitted
by Mr. Doyle................................................... 130
Article of April 22, 2021, ``Here's how we end the digital
divide,'' by Angela Siefer, Austin American-Statesman,
submitted by Mr. Doyle......................................... 137
----------
\1\ The additional material is included in a version of Dr. Ford's
statement that has been retained in committee files available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210506/112553/HHRG-117-IF16-
Wstate-FordG-20210506.pdf.
Article of April 19, 2021, ``Focusing on Affordability: What
Broadband Adoption Rates in Cities Tell Us About Getting More
People Online,'' by John B. Horrigan, Benton Institute for
Broadband & Society, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................... 139
Report of the Technology Policy Institute, ``Does Competition
Between Cable and Fiber Increase Adoption?,'' by Scott
Wallsten, April 2021, submitted by Mr. Doyle................... 142
Letter of May 5, 2021, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation to
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Ms. Clarke............... 154
Letter of May 5, 2021, from the National Digital Inclusion
Alliance to Mr. Pallone, submitted by Mr. Doyle................ 160
Letter of May 5, 2021, from Mary R. Grealy, President, Healthcare
Leadership Council, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by
Mr. Doyle...................................................... 166
Letter of May 6, 2021, from the Western Governors Association to
Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle................ 168
Letter of May 6, 2021, from Wade Henderson, Interim President and
Chief Executive Officer, and LaShawn Warren, Executive Vice
President for Government Affairs, Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted
by Mr. Doyle................................................... 175
Letter from Donna Rattley Washington, Founder, Student Internet
Equity Coalition, to Mr. Doyle, submitted by Mr. Doyle......... 179
Letter of April 23, 2021, from Clarence E. Anthony, Chief
Executive Officer and Executive Director, National League of
Cities, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle..... 181
Study by Free Press, ``Price Too High and Rising: The Facts about
America's Broadband Affordability Gap,'' S. Derek Turner,
submitted by Mr. Doyle\2\
Report of Reimagine Appalachia, ``Broadband Build the Future,''
submitted by Mr. Doyle\2\
Report of the Student Internet Equity Coalition, ``Student
Internet Equity Coalition Policy Proposal to Connect 29 Million
Middle and High School Students to Internet and Computer Access
at Home,'' submitted by Mr. Doyle.............................. 185
Letter of May 6, 2021, from Jonathan Spalter, President and Chief
Executive Officer, US Telecom-The Broadband Association, to Mr.
Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................... 187
Letter of May 6, 2021, from Grover G. Norquist, President,
Americans for Tax Reform, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted
by Mr. Doyle................................................... 191
2020 Communications Marketplace Report, Federal Communications
Commission, submitted by Mr. Latta\2\
Report on behalf of USTelecom-The Broadband Association, ``2020
Broadband Pricing Index,'' by Arthur Menko, Telcodata and
Business Planning, Inc., submitted by Mr. Latta................ 193
Article of October 10, 2019, ``Broadband adoption is on the rise,
but states can do much more,'' by Lara Fishbane and Adie Tomer,
Brookings, submitted by Mr. Latta.............................. 205
Study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic
Public Policy Studies, ``OTI's Cost of Connectivity 2020
Report: A Critical Review,'' by George S. Ford, Ph.D., July 20,
2020, submitted by Mr. Latta................................... 224
Study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic
Public Policy Studies, ``Subsidizing Broadband: Price,
Relevance, and the Digital Divide,'' by George S. Ford, Ph.D.,
July 7, 2020, submitted by Mr. Latta........................... 234
Study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic
Public Policy Studies, ``Are Broadband Prices Declining? A Look
at the FCC's Price Survey Data,'' by George S. Ford, Ph.D.,
October 26, 2020, submitted by Mr. Latta....................... 242
Report of the Technology Policy Institute, ``Learning from the
FCC's Lifeline Broadband Pilot Projects,'' by Scott Wallsten,
March 2016, submitted by Mr. Latta\2\
----------
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112553.
Report of the Advanced Communications Law Policy Institute at the
New York School of Law, ``The Value of Context and Rigor: A
Review of OTI's Cost Of Connectivity 2020 Report,'' by Michael
J. Santorelli and Alexander Karras, July 2020, submitted by Mr.
Latta\3\
Report of the Technology Policy Institute, ``Increasing Low-
Income Broadband Adoption through Private Incentives,'' by
Scott J. Wallsten, July 2020, submitted by Mrs. Rodger\3\
Letter of May 6, 2021, from Jeffrey Westling, Technology and
Innovation Policy Resident Fellow, R Street Institute, to Mr.
Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by Mr. Latta.................... 248
----------
\3\ The information has been retained in committee files and is
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112553.
BROADBAND EQUITY: ADDRESSING DISPARITIES IN ACCESS AND AFFORDABILITY
----------
THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2021
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:30 a.m., via
Cisco Webex online video conferencing, Hon. Mike Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Veasey, McEachin, Soto, O'Halleran, Rice, Eshoo, Butterfield,
Matsui, Welch, Schrader, Cardenas, Kelly, Craig, Fletcher,
Pallone (ex officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member),
Scalise, Guthrie, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Mullin,
Hudson, Walberg, Carter, Duncan, Curtis, and Rodgers (ex
officio).
Also present: Representatives Dingell, Blunt Rochester,
Schrier, and Pence.
Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Parul Desai, FCC Detailee; Jennifer Epperson,
Counsel; Waverly Gordon, General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,
Deputy Staff Director; Perry Hamilton, Clerk; Alex Hoehn-Saric,
Chief Counsel, Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry
Leverich, Senior Counsel; Dan Miller, Professional Staff
Miller; Phil Murphy, Policy Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Policy
Analyst; Kaitlyn Peel, Digital Director; Tim Robinson, Chief
Counsel; Chloe Rodriguez, Clerk; Kate Arey, Minority Content
Manager and Digital Assistant; David Brodian, Minority
Detailee, Communications and Technology; Sarah Burke, Minority
Deputy Staff Director; Michael Cameron, Minority Policy
Analyst, Consumer Protection and Commerce, Energy, Environment;
William Clutterbuck, Minority Staff Assistant/Policy Analyst;
Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office Administrator;
Jack Heretik, Minority Press Secretary; Nate Hodson, Minority
Staff Director; Sean Kelly, Minority Press Secretary; Peter
Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Emily King, Minority Member
Services Director; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Chief Counsel;
Tim Kurth, Minority Chief Counsel, Consumer Protection and
Commerce; Kate O'Connor, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications
and Technology; Clare Paoletta, Minority Policy Analyst,
Health; Arielle Roth, Minority Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Olivia Shields, Minority Communications Director;
Peter Spencer, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member,
Energy; Michael Taggart, Minority Policy Director; Evan Viau,
Minority Professional Staff Member, Communications and
Technology; Everett Winnick, Minority Director of Information
Technology.
Mr. Doyle. The committee will now come to order. Today the
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology is holding a
hearing entitled ``Broadband Equity: Addressing Disparities in
Access and Affordability.''
Due to the COVID-19 public health emergency, today's
hearing is being held remotely. All Members and witnesses will
be participating via video conferencing.
As part of our hearing, microphones will be set on mute for
the purpose of eliminating inadvertent background noise.
Members and witnesses, you will need to unmute your microphones
each time you wish to speak.
Documents for the record can be sent to Joe Orlando at the
email address we have provided to staff. All documents will be
entered into the record at the conclusion of the hearing.
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
First off, I would like to thank our witnesses for
testifying before the subcommittee today.
Equity and broadband access, affordability, and adoption is
more important than ever. As Congress works on President
Biden's American Jobs Plan, it is critical that we consider
solutions to our Nation's infrastructure challenges that not
only close the digital divide but address historic inequities
that have, for far too long, left behind Black, Hispanic,
Tribal, and low-income communities. Studies by Pew Research
show that communities of color lag predominantly White
communities when it comes to the adoption of broadband. Older
Americans and Americans in rural communities lag younger and
urban communities, respectively, in broadband adoption, as
well.
Due to this committee's good work, we were able to come
together and establish the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program,
which provides a monthly benefit to qualifying households for
internet service. We were also able to pass the Emergency
Connectivity Fund, which will help students get connected
through the E-Rate program, as part of the American Recovery
Plan.
The EBB program will become available to consumers on May
12th. It will provide a $50 monthly benefit to qualifying
households for emergency broadband connectivity during the
pandemic. The FCC has set up a portal to help folks navigate
this program and get emergency broadband at
getemergencybroadband.org. I am pleased to see that so many
broadband providers have applied to participate. It is critical
that more join this program, so that as many folks as possible
can take advantage of this benefit.
I have also been pleased to see that a number of ISPs
expanded access to low-income adoption programs during this
critical time. It is my hope that, as the committee continues
to work on closing the digital divide, that we can create a
permanent program to provide broadband connectivity to people
in need. These services are not luxuries. They are necessities
that everyone needs in order to participate in society.
We also need to look beyond programs that increase adoption
among folks that qualify for means-tested programs. Far too
many Americans lack access to affordable rates. Studies have
shown that adoption could significantly increase if all
consumers had access to more affordable service plans.
Proposals like Congresswoman Eshoo's to expand the availability
of municipal networks, or proposals to place open access
requirements on networks built with Federal funds could spur
competition and reduce prices for consumers.
I have always believed in the power of competition, and
study after study has shown that consumers pay more in markets
that are served by monopolies or duopolies. This is
particularly true in communities that have been left behind due
to redlining.
As we are working to fix the rural and urban divide, we
must also address the substandard service and, at times, the
lack of service in communities of color.
Finally, we need to address programs that expand digital
equity programs that provide outreach and digital literacy and
training skills. The opportunities and resources provided by
this technology are wasted if you don't know how to use them.
Too many Americans still lack the essential skills and are
missing out and, all too often, being left out of our
increasingly digitized society. It is important that we put in
place programs to address these skills gaps but also do the
important outreach necessary to engage these communities and
help them get online.
That is why I have been proud to work with our chairman,
Frank Pallone, and Majority Whip Clyburn on the Accessible,
Affordable Internet for All Act, and President Biden and Vice
President Harris on the American Jobs Plan. These proposals
represent the once-in-a-generation investment we need to
address these deep-seated digital inequities in our society.
Thank you, I look forward to the testimony of our
witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
First off, I'd like to thank our witnesses for testifying
before the subcommittee today.
Equity in broadband access, affordability, and adoption is
more important than ever.
As Congress works on President Biden's American Jobs Plan--
it is critical that we consider solutions to our Nation's
infrastructure challenges that not only close the digital
divide, but address historic inequities--that have for far too
long--left behind Black, Hispanic, Tribal, and low income
communities.
Studies by Pew Research show that communities of color lag
predominantly White communities when it comes to the adoption
of broadband.
Older Americans and Americans in rural communities lag
younger and urban communities respectively in broadband
adoption as well.
Due to this committee's good work--we were able to come
together and establish the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program
which provides a monthly benefit to qualifying households for
internet service.
We were also able to pass the Emergency Connectivity Fund
which will help students get connected through the E-Rate
program--as part of the American Recovery Plan.
The EBB program will become available to consumers on May
12th.
It will provide a $50 monthly benefit to qualifying
households--for emergency broadband connectivity during the
pandemic.
The FCC has setup a portal to help folks navigate this
program at get emergency broadband dot org.
I'm pleased to see that so many broadband providers have
applied to participate--it's critical that more join this
program--so that as many folks as possible can take advantage
of this benefit.
I've also been pleased to see that a number of I-S-Ps
expanded access to low income adoption programs during this
critical time.
It's my hope, that as this committee continues to work on
closing the digital divide--that we can create a permanent
program to provide broadband connectivity to people in need.
These services are not luxuries--they are necessities that
everyone needs in order to participate in society.
We also need to look beyond programs that increase adoption
among folks that qualify for means tested programs.
Far too many Americans lack access to affordable rates.
Studies have shown that adoption could significantly increase
if all consumers had access to more affordable service plans.
Proposals like Congresswoman Eshoo's to expand the
availability of municipal networks--or proposals to place open
access requirements on networks built with Federal funds--could
spur competition and reduce prices for consumers.
I've always believed in the power of competition--and study
after study has shown that consumers pay more in markets that
are served by monopolies and duopolies.
This is particularly true in communities that have been
left behind due to redlining.
As we are working to fix the rural-urban divide--we must
also address the substandard service--and at times, the lack of
service, in communities of color.
Finally, we need programs that expand digital equity
programs--that provide outreach and digital literacy and
training skills.
The opportunities and resources provided by this technology
are wasted if you don't know have to use them.
Too many Americans still lack these essential skills and
are missing out and are all too often being left out of our
increasingly digitized society.
It's important that we put in place programs to address
these skills gaps--but also do the important outreach necessary
to engage these communities and help them get online.
That's why I've been proud to work with Chairman Pallone
and Majority Whip Clyburn on the Accessible, Affordable,
Internet for All Act and President Biden and Vice President
Harris on the American Jobs Plan.
These proposals represent the once in a generation
investment we need to address these deep-seated digital
inequities in our society.
Thank you and I look forward to the testimony of our
witness.
Mr. Doyle. And I yield the remainder of my time to my good
friend from the great State of California, Ms. Eshoo.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this highly
important hearing.
I think the digital divide is a national embarrassment, and
we have to solve it. Community broadband is an important part
of the solution, because it is already working across the
country. Over 900 municipalities, Tribes, co-ops, and public-
private partnerships operate community networks that are--that
successfully connect millions of Americans, and they can afford
it.
But, unfortunately, 22 States have passed laws that limit
these networks. My bicameral legislation, the Community
Broadband Act, preempts these protections--these protectionist
laws to enable community networks in all states.
And I am really pleased that President Biden has included
community broadband in his infrastructure proposal, and I thank
you and Chairman Pallone for including my bill in the LIFT
Act--the LIFT America Act. So thank you for yielding time to
me, and I look forward to a productive hearing today, and I
yield back.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Eshoo follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Anna G. Eshoo
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this highly important
hearing. I think the digital divide is a national embarrassment
and we have to solve it. Community broadband is an important
part of the solution because it's already working across the
country.
Over 900 municipalities, Tribes, co-ops, and public-private
partnerships operate community networks that successfully
connect millions of Americans, and they can afford it. But
unfortunately, 22 States have passed laws that limit these
networks.
My bicameral legislation, the Community Broadband Act,
preempts these protectionist laws to enable community networks
in all States.
I'm really pleased that President Biden has included
community broadband in his infrastructure proposal, and I thank
Chairmen Pallone and Doyle for including my bill in the LIFT
America Act.
Thank you for yielding time to me. I look forward to a
productive hearing today and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair will now
recognize my good friend from the great State of Ohio, the
ranking member for the subcommittee, Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, good
seeing you again today, and thank you to our witnesses for
testifying today.
Last week President Biden addressed the Nation and outlined
a slate of new ideas and programs that, if enacted, will
radically redefine the role of government in our daily lives.
While many of the goals he outlined are important, it would be
a mistake for the government to fundamentally reshape entire
industries before understanding what the data and research says
is needed.
Let me be clear: We must continue to support policies that
will help all Americans get connected.
When it comes to broadband affordability, never have
consumers gotten more for less. Internet prices have
drastically dropped, and speeds and competition have increased.
According to the most recent Communications Marketplace Report
published by the FCC, the cost of the most popular plans have
decreased by 20 percent, while speeds increased by 16 percent
since 2015. And as a result of more Americans upgrading their
services, the average cost of the highest-speed offerings have
dropped by 37 percent while simultaneously increasing speeds by
27 percent.
Broadband subscriptions in urban areas have increased by
21.8 percent over the past 5 years, and despite the claims of
consolidation, the number of broadband providers has increased
over 25 percent from 2014 to 2019, with urban core areas seeing
an increase of 30 percent. This advancement is the result of
FCC policies that streamlined government regulations that have
promoted competition and private-sector investment, and low-
income programs and network upgrades. This did not happen
because of government intervention and burdensome mandates like
those that are being suggested by the Biden-Harris
administration. Yet, despite these improvements in broadband
offerings, some Americans still choose not to adopt broadband.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit the study
of the Technology Policy Institute for the record.
The COVID-19 pandemic shook our country and our way of
life, causing many hardships for millions of Americans. As an
internet connection became a daily necessity, Congress enacted
over $10 billion in funds to support broadband adoption by low-
income Americans and to help those who were struggling during
the pandemic stay connected. While that money has not yet been
made available, we must make sure it goes to those who are the
hardest hit.
We must study the landscape of what our country looks like
after the billions of dollars made available in funding is
distributed. Congress cannot continue to blindly spend billions
of hard-earned taxpayer money without knowing where the money
is needed and what problems are left to solve. As much of the
research on broadband adoption has shown, there is not a clear
indication of what factors contribute to non-adoption.
Policymakers must be clear-eyed on what the barriers are before
trying to propose solutions.
I expect we will hear a lot today about the need to put the
government in control of broadband rates so that more Americans
will be able to afford it. I would urge the committee to be
thoughtful about all the progress this country has made in the
past decade on broadband technology before rushing to radically
undermine the current system. We can and should meaningfully
boast--or, pardon me, boost broadband access and adoption by
all Americans. But throwing money at the problem without
understanding the facts will only waste taxpayer money and not
solve the problem.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time to try to
keep on schedule for today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to our witnesses for
being here today.
Last week, President Biden addressed the Nation and
outlined a slate of new ideas and programs that, if enacted,
will radically redefine the role of government in our daily
lives. While many of the goals he outlined are important, it
would be a mistake for the government to fundamentally reshape
entire industries before understanding what the data and
research says is needed.
Let me be clear: we must continue to support policies that
will help ALL Americans get connected. When it comes to
broadband affordability, never have consumers gotten more for
less. Internet prices have dropped dramatically, and speeds and
competition have both increased.
According to the most recent Communications Marketplace
Report by the FCC, the cost of the most popular plans has
decreased by 20 percent, while speeds increased by 16 percent
since 2015. And, as a result of more Americans upgrading their
services, the average cost of the highest speed offerings have
dropped by 37 percent, while simultaneously increasing speeds
by 27 percent.
Broadband subscriptions in urban areas have increased by
21.8 percent over the past 5 years. And despite the claims of
consolidation, the number of broadband providers has increased
over 25 percent from 2014 to 2019, with urban core areas seeing
an increase of 30 percent.
This advancement is the result of FCC policies that
streamlined government regulations that have promoted
competition and private sector investment in low-income
programs and network upgrades. This did not happen because of
government intervention and burdensome mandates like those
suggested by the Biden-Harris administration. Yet despite these
improvements in broadband offerings, some Americans still
choose to not adopt broadband.
Mr. Chair, I request unanimous consent to submit the study
of the Technology Policy Institute for the record.
The COVID-19 pandemic shook our country and way of life,
causing many hardships for millions of Americans. As an
internet connection became a daily necessity, Congress enacted
over $10 billion in funding to support broadband adoption by
low-income Americans and to help those who were struggling
during the pandemic stay connected. While that money has not
yet been made available, we must make sure it goes to those who
were hardest hit.
We must study the landscape of what our country looks like
after all of the funding recently made available is
distributed. Congress cannot continue to blindly spend billions
of hard-earned, taxpayer money without knowing where that money
is needed, and what problems are left to solve. As much of the
research on broadband adoption has shown, there is not a clear
indication of what factors contribute to non-adoption.
Policymakers must be clear-eyed on what the barriers are before
trying to propose solutions.
While I expect we will hear a lot today about the need to
put the government in control of broadband rates so that more
Americans will be able to afford it, I would urge the committee
to be thoughtful about all the progress this country has made
in the past decade on broadband technology before rushing to
radically undermine the current system.
We can and should meaningfully boost broadband access and
adoption by all Americans, but throwing money at the problem
without understanding the facts will only waste taxpayer money
and not solve the problem.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman yields
back. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the chairman of the
full committee, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. We are here today
to talk about equity in broadband and the very real disparities
that exist in broadband access and affordability. And these
disparities create a tremendous gap in the educational
outcomes, available health services, and job prospects between
households that have broadband and those that do not. And the
gap has become even more apparent since the beginning of the
COVID pandemic, as we have seen a wide range of services and
opportunities move online, including online schooling and
virtual meetings. And we increasingly become a digital-first
nation that has to ensure that everyone has the same ability to
access and use the internet to participate in society.
So for too long the term ``digital divide'' has been used
to characterize the differences in quality and speed of
internet networks in rural areas, compared to those in urban
areas, and there is no doubt that government must step in and
invest where the marketplace doesn't support the business case
for private broadband investment in any community in our
Nation.
But that is just the start. Studies have shown that, within
all sorts of different communities, broadband service isn't
always available or of equal quality. Certain communities
somehow always find themselves at the back of the line when it
comes to upgrades to the networks.
And it is also disappointing that there is a digital divide
between races and ethnicities when it comes to broadband
access. While 80 percent of White households have broadband
access, that is true of only 70 percent of Black households and
65 percent of Hispanic households. There was a Deutsche Bank
study that found that Black and Hispanic Americans are 10 years
behind White Americans in terms of broadband access, severely
hampering their long-term employment and earning prospects.
And it doesn't end there. Lack of access to home broadband
also harms scores in schools and dims the employment prospects
of students. So we are here to discuss how best to address
these inequities.
And it is not as simple as ensuring that broadband networks
are built to these communities. It is not just build-out. That
is a critical first step. But affordability is a major barrier
to broadband adoption for low-income communities. In fact, some
studies have estimated that, of the households that do not have
broadband, three times as many of them are located in urban
areas than in rural areas. So having a network that runs right
to your doorstep doesn't mean that these families can pay the
monthly cost of the service.
So we came together, Democrats and Republicans, in December
to pass the Emergency Broadband Benefit, which will provide
struggling families a discount of $50 off the monthly cost of
their home internet service. That is discount for--is $75 a
month for Tribal lands. And the FCC is set to roll out the
benefit next week. So I hope we can all work together to make
that program a success.
But, again, affordability is going to continue to be a
problem for some families even after that program ends, because
they may have the build-out, they may hook up, and they may be
able to afford the bill, but they don't know how to use the
Internet. So they have to be trained. So we have to ensure that
all Americans have the skills necessary for themselves and
their families for the jobs of tomorrow.
So these are all tough problems, but they are problems that
we can solve. Ensuring that all Americans can be part of the
digital economy will make our Nation stronger, more
economically competitive, and will help us continue to lead the
digital revolution.
And I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, as
Chairman Doyle said, about solutions, how we get there, and
look forward to both sides of the aisle working on legislation
to make this happen.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
We're here today to talk about equity in broadband and the
very real disparities that exist in broadband access and
affordability. These disparities create a tremendous gap in
educational outcomes, available health services, and job
prospects between households that have broadband and those that
do not. And the gap has become even more apparent since the
beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic as we've seen a wide range
of services and opportunities move online, including online
schooling and virtual meetings. As we increasingly become a
digital-first nation we must ensure that everyone has the same
ability to access and use the internet to participate in
society.
For too long, the term digital divide has been used to
characterize the differences in quality and speed of internet
networks in rural areas compared to those in urban areas. There
is no doubt that government must step in and invest where the
marketplace doesn't support the business case for private
broadband investment in any community in our Nation.
But that's just the start. Studies have shown that within
all sorts of different communities broadband service isn't
always available or of equal quality. Certain communities
somehow always find themselves at the back of the line when it
comes to upgrades to the network.
It's also disappointing that there is a digital divide
between races and ethnicities when it comes to broadband
access. While 80 percent of White households have broadband
access, that is true of only 70 percent of Black households and
65 percent of Hispanic households. A Deutsche Bank study found
that Black and Hispanic Americans are ``ten years behind''
White Americans in terms of broadband access, severely
hampering their long-term employment and earning prospects.
And it doesn't end there--lack of access to home broadband
also harms scores in school and dims the employment prospects
of students.
We are here to discuss how best to address these
inequities, and it is not as simple as ensuring that broadband
networks are built to these communities. That is a critical
first step, but affordability is a major barrier to broadband
adoption for low-income communities. In fact, some studies have
estimated that of the households that do not have broadband,
three times as many of them are located in urban areas than in
rural areas. Simply put, having a network that runs right to
their doorstep doesn't mean that these families can pay the
monthly cost of service.
We came together, Democrats and Republicans, in December to
pass the Emergency Broadband Benefit, which will provide
struggling families a discount of $50 off the monthly cost of
their home internet service. The discount is $75 a month for
those living on Tribal lands. The Federal Communications
Commission is set to roll out the benefit next week. I hope we
can all work together to make that program a success, but
affordability is going to continue to be a problem for some
families even after that program ends.
Finally, we must ensure that all Americans have the digital
skills necessary for themselves and their families, but also
for the jobs of tomorrow.
These are all tough problems, but they are problems that we
can solve. Ensuring that all Americans can be a part of the
digital economy will make our Nation stronger, more
economically competitive, and will help us continue to lead the
digital revolution.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about the
solutions that will get us there, and I look forward to working
with Members on both sides of the aisle to make it happen.
Thank you.
Mr. Pallone. So I think I have about a minute and a half
left. I can't yield it back, Mr. Chairman. I have to--I want to
yield it to Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chair for yielding and for your
opening statement.
I represent a district that is one of the most racially and
ethnically diverse in the country. It is also a low-income
district. Too many of my constituents are struggling just to
get by. Not having a broadband service at home has set them
even further back in today's world. Even for those who live in
areas where broadband has been deployed, many simply can't
afford the service. And there are many who don't have the
necessary digital skills to use broadband services. And this is
the case for many communities around the country.
There is a wealth of opportunities for anyone, if they
can--if they are able to close the gaps in broadband adoption
and invest in digital skills. That is why I have introduced the
Digital Equity Act. I am pleased that the bill will be
introduced and included in the LIFT Act, and I hope that we
will be able to move quickly to pass this critical legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNerney follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney
I thank the Chairman for yielding. I represent an area that
is one of the most racially and ethnically diverse areas in the
region. It's also one of the most low-income areas in the
region.
Far too many of my constituents are struggling to get by.
Not having broadband service at home has set them even further
back in today's world.
Even for my constituents who live in areas where broadband
has been deployed, many simply can't afford the service. There
are many who also don't have the necessary digital skills to
get ahead or even get by. And this isn't the case for just my
district, it's the case for many communities around the
country.
There is a wealth of opportunities that these individuals
could tap into if we are able to close the gaps in broadband
adoption and invest in digital skills and digital literacy
training.
That's why I've introduced the Digital Equity Act. I'm
pleased that the bill was included in the LIFT Act and I hope
that we will move quickly to pass the critical bill.
I yield back.
Mr. McNerney. And guess what, Mr. Chairman? I am going to
yield back 30 seconds.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The chairman yields back.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, ranking member
of the full committee, for 5 minutes for her opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
Mrs. Rodgers. Good morning, everyone. I want to thank our
witnesses for coming before our committee today.
Access to broadband in eastern Washington and across our
country has never been more important than during the COVID-19
pandemic to work from home, to educate our children, access
healthcare through telehealth, connect with our loved ones,
maintain our communities of worship, and even to do remote
hearings. We have continued our work to close the digital
divide for the most remote and underserved areas, which is so
important for me. I am grateful for the work of this committee
to pass mapping legislation that was signed into law, over a
year ago now, to update our maps so that we better target our
efforts.
In the United States millions of Americans do have access
to reliable connections, and much of this is possible because
of the critical investments made by broadband providers over
the last decade, which is why, during the pandemic, American
broadband networks rose to the challenge by increasing speeds
and capacity while facing unprecedented demands for access.
Unlike their European counterparts, American broadband
providers were never forced to reduce streaming speeds or
content quality. This is no accident. U.S. providers have
invested more than 1.8 trillion in broadband infrastructure in
recent decades and spent more than 3 times as much per
household per year as companies in the EU. These investments
have not only paid dividends in terms of fast speeds, high
performance, economic growth, and job creation but also in
creating competition and making broadband more affordable.
Thanks to competitive pressures, innovation, and a light-
touch regulatory environment, broadband prices have seen a
significant decline over the past decade. It is no surprise
that, over the last 6 years, we have seen an increase in
broadband adoption numbers across the United States.
These trends must continue. They must so we fully close the
digital divide in both rural and urban communities. It is
critical for families to be connected to have a more secure
future and a better quality of life. Healthcare, education,
economic opportunity are dependent on connectivity.
Just think about children who lost an entire year and
counting on education because schools are closed and they have
no internet access. What does the future look like for them? Or
their parents, including millions of women and working moms,
who dropped out of the workforce because remote work wasn't an
option for them?
We must rely on solutions that work to boost access and
unleash opportunities; solutions that support American
prosperity, ingenuity, and free enterprise; solutions like the
28 bills in the Boosting Broadband Connectivity Agenda that
would remove unnecessary barriers that stand in the way of
innovation and investment. There is bipartisan agreement that
all Americans should have access to broadband at affordable
prices, regardless of their address.
As a result of the pandemic, we all have recognized this
need--it has been underscored--and I was proud that Republicans
and Democrats came together to enact the 3.2 billion Emergency
Broadband Benefit program to help. This was the right way to
take action, given these circumstances. And it will help people
access reliable broadband.
This committee also recognized the valuable contributions
of private providers who voluntarily signed the Keep Americans
Connected pledge and committed not to disconnect anyone due to
their inability to pay.
Now we need to study these efforts on broadband adoption.
These policies proposed today include federally regulating the
rates that private companies can charge for broadband services.
The proposal today would prioritize, unfortunately, inefficient
government-run networks at the expense of private networks and
create arbitrary speed thresholds that favor fiber-only
projects, with no restrictions to prevent overbuilding in areas
where broadband already exists.
We all want to close the digital divide, but the only way
to truly achieve this is to lead with solutions that drive
results. Let's focus on what is going to get results, not on
more government-centralized power. Studies have suggested that,
for broadband affordability, private companies must have better
incentives to increase adoption. Research from the Technology
Policy Institute found that private companies have succeeded in
increasing broadband adoption, where digital literacy training
has failed.
And Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter this
study into the record.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Rodgers. We must closely inspect the impact that the
recently appropriated 3 trillion will have on the
communications industry and our economy, and in order to avoid
enacting burdensome policies. Let's start there.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Rodgers follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cathy McMorris Rodgers
INTRO
Good morning and thank you to our witnesses for coming
before the committee today.
Access to broadband has never been more important than
during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Because of the performance of broadband networks in the
United States, millions of Americans have access to reliable
connections.
... to work from home, educate their children, access
healthcare, connect with loved ones, and maintain their
communities of worship.
This was possible because of the critical investments made
by broadband providers over the past decade.
Which is why, during the pandemic, American broadband
networks rose to the challenge.
... by increasing speeds and capacity while facing
unprecedented demands for access.
EUROPE
Unlike their European counterparts, American broadband
providers were never forced to reduce streaming speeds or
content quality.
This is no accident. U.S. providers have invested more than
$1.8 trillion in broadband infrastructure in recent decades.
... and spend more than three times as much per household
per year than companies in the EU.
These investments have not only paid dividends in terms of
fast speeds, high performance, economic growth, and job
creation.
... but also in creating competition and making broadband
more affordable...
Thanks to competitive pressures, innovation, and a light-
touch regulatory environment.
... broadband prices have seen a significant decline over
the past decade.
It is no surprise that over the last 6 years, we have seen
an increase in broadband adoption numbers across America.
FAMILIES
These trends are only going to continue....
... and they must--so we fully close the digital divide in
both rural and urban communities.
It's critical for families to be connected to have a more
secure future and better quality of life.
Healthcare ... education ... and economic opportunity are
dependent on connectivity.
Just think about the children who lost an entire year and
counting of education because schools are closed and they have
no internet access.
What does the future look like for them?
Or the parents, including millions of women and working
moms, who dropped out of the workforce because remote work
wasn't an option for them.
WINNING THE FUTURE
We must rely on solutions that work to boost access and
unleash opportunities.
Solutions that support American prosperity, ingenuity, and
free enterprise.
Solutions like the 28 bills in our Boosting Broadband
Connectivity Agenda, that would remove unnecessary barriers
that stand in the way of innovation and investment.
There is bipartisan agreement that all Americans should
have access to broadband at affordable prices, regardless of
their address.
As a result of the pandemic, we recognized this need.
... and enacted the $3.2 billion Emergency Broadband
Benefit program to help. This was the right way to take action
given the circumstances and it will help more people access
reliable broadband.
The committee also recognized the valuable contributions of
private providers who voluntarily signed the Keep Americans
Connected pledge.
... and committed not to disconnect anyone due to their
inability to pay.
Now, we need to study these efforts on broadband adoption
before fundamentally transforming the broadband industry.
The policies proposed by our Democratic colleagues and the
Biden administration include federally regulating the rates
that private companies can charge for broadband service.
They would prioritize inefficient, government-run networks
at expense of private networks with a record of success .
... and create arbitrary speed thresholds, that favor
fiber-only projects, with no restrictions to prevent
overbuilding in areas where broadband already exists.
I am confident that we all want to close the digital
divide.
... but the only way to truly achieve this is to lead with
solutions that drive results--not more government centralized
power.
Studies have suggested that for broadband affordability,
private companies have better incentives to increase adoption.
Research from the Technology Policy Institute found that
that private companies have succeeded in increasing broadband
adoption where digital literacy training has failed.
[Mr. Chairman, I request unanimous consent to enter this
study into the record].
Before appropriating more money, we must closely inspect
the impact that the recently appropriated $3 trillion will have
on the communications industry, and our economy, in order to
avoid enacting burdensome policies.
Today, we will examine some of the sweeping reforms that
have been proposed by our Democratic colleagues.
... and consider the potential chilling consequences they
might have on investment, competition, and innovation.
I thank the Chair and yield back.
Mrs. Rodgers. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair would
like to remind Members that, pursuant to committee rules, all
Members' written opening statements shall be made part of the
record.
Now I would like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing.
Ms. Joi Chaney, executive director of the Washington Bureau
and senior vice president for advocacy and policy of the
National Urban League.
Dr. George S. Ford, chief economist, Phoenix Center for
Advanced Legal and Economic Public Policy Studies.
Ms. Francella Ochillo, executive director, Next Century
Cities.
And Mr. Chris Lewis, president and chief executive officer,
Public Knowledge.
We want to thank all our witnesses for joining us today. We
look forward to your testimony, and at this time the Chair will
recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their opening
statement. We will start with Ms. Chaney.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JOI OLIVIA CHANEY, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, POLICY
AND ADVOCACY, AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON BUREAU,
NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE; GEORGE S. FORD, Ph.D., CHIEF ECONOMIST,
PHOENIX CENTER FOR ADVANCED LEGAL AND ECONOMIC PUBLIC POLICY
STUDIES; FRANCELLA OCHILLO, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEXT CENTURY
CITIES; AND CHRIS LEWIS, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE
STATEMENT OF JOI OLIVIA CHANEY
Ms. Chaney. Thank you. Good morning, Subcommittee Chairman
Doyle, Subcommittee Ranking Member Latta, Committee Chairman
Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, and members of the
subcommittee. My name is Joi Chaney, and I serve as senior vice
president of policy and advocacy and executive director of the
Washington Bureau for the National Urban League. I bring you
greetings on behalf of Marc Morial, our president and CEO.
The National Urban League is an historic civil rights
organization dedicated to providing economic empowerment,
educational opportunities, and to the guarantee of civil rights
for the underserved in America. I am honored to testify today
about one of the most serious issues facing our Nation and the
Urban League movement, including the more than 2 million people
we serve through direct services: the digital and broadband
divide.
Rarely does an issue have implications across so many
indicia of equity, including racial justice, gender equity,
economic opportunity, healthcare, education, and workforce
development. In recognition of this, the Urban League developed
the Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion to
address a comprehensive set of goals and gaps: deploying
networks everywhere, that is addressing the availability gap;
getting everyone connected, that is addressing the adoption,
including the unaffordability and the digital literacy gap;
using the networks to improve how we deliver essential services
and, in particular, workforce development, healthcare, and
education, addressing the utilization gap; and finally,
creating new economic opportunities to participate in the
growth of the digital economy.
On the availability gap, as many of you have already
echoed, for millions of Americans there is no available
broadband network capable of allowing them to participate fully
in 21st century life. This is generally a rural America problem
that must be addressed, including for the millions of rural
Americans who are also people of color and who span the
economic divide. Rural is not, after all, synonymous with
Caucasian. That is why we applaud efforts by the Biden
administration with the American Jobs Plan, as well as members
of the Energy and Commerce Committee with the LIFT America Act
and the many bills that are contained within it.
As these bills make their way through Congress, however, we
charge you with embracing the full scope of the Latimer Plan by
addressing the full set of gaps contributing to the digital
divide. Only then will you meet the needs of the Nation,
especially for communities of color and communities earning
lower incomes.
Among those Americans for whom a broadband network is
available, there are still tens of millions who have not
adopted broadband in their home. Indeed, the adoption gap is
approximately three times larger than the availability gap. The
reason? Lack of affordability and lack of digital readiness. As
such, it does not help much to have lightning-fast broadband at
your door if you cannot afford to subscribe to it. This is why
we are so supportive of the Emergency Broadband Benefit. It
addresses affordability.
But our goal is not to return to prepandemic inequity once
the emergency is over. We need to fund programs that provide
long-term, sustainable support for the poorest Americans, a
disproportionate number of whom are men, women, and children of
color. We cannot, in this moment of big ideas and big
investments, solve for rural America's problem while leaving
behind urban America, or ask urban America to wait on market
principles. The stakes of the digital divide are too high for
that.
Hopefully, in Q&A we can address how we could pay for such
a program. Other--the other half of the adoption gap, digital
readiness, that is important, and the need for a digital
navigator, as well as the utilization gap.
But before I end, I wouldn't be the Urban League if I did
not address the fourth prong for us, and that is gaps in access
to wealth generation created by broadband and digital
technologies. For the record, industry must ensure job
opportunities are available for the country's growing Black and
Latinx communities at every level in technology and technology-
related industries. Entrepreneurs of color deserve a place in
the governance of these companies. They should have equitable
access as vendors and collaborators in building a utilization
of new digital infrastructure and the prolific wealth-creating
ecosystem that controls it.
To this end, the National Urban League urges Congress and
corporate America to aggressively and comprehensively address
digital-divide issues contained in the Latimer Plan and to
consider our recommendations for solving those issues. This
includes by considering and funding sustainable, long-term, and
a permanent broadband benefit.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Chaney follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much, Ms. Chaney. The Chair will
now recognize Mr. Ford.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. FORD, Ph.D.
Dr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. In the U.S.
today, over 90 percent of homes have access to broadband
internet service, nearly 90 percent have access to 1 gigabit
internet service, and nearly 90 percent of Americans have a
high-speed connection in the home. Almost all providers offer
low-income households a quality broadband connection for
between 10 and 20 dollars. Broadband is widely available,
highly subscribed, and mostly affordable. These statistics are
impressive.
And then there is the 10 percent with none of it. I
understand that is why we are here today. It is an important
issue. As you try to close this gap, the first thing to do is
to focus on the 10 percent, not the 90 percent. You will be
tempted otherwise, but maintain focus on the problem. Don't
mess up the 90 to get to the 10. We do not need dramatic reform
of the broadband network. We need to adjust incentives at the
margin.
The fact broadband is not deployed to every nook and cranny
of the country is unsurprising. Broadband networks are
expensive to deploy, especially in rural areas, where the
revenues can't cover cost. This is not a market failure. We see
the same lack of rural areas for nearly every business, and
even for government services. Rural markets are underserved
across the board, simply because the markets are small and cost
may be high. That is part of the charm: rural Americans don't
pay $200 a month to park a car, or $1,500 a month for a studio
apartment.
If you want broadband everywhere, then subsidies must cover
the spread between costs and revenues. We know this. We do
this. The FCC has billions to support broadband deployment in
underserved areas and a reasonable mechanism to distribute it.
I recommend continued support and maybe enhanced support with
the FCC in its efforts. In those efforts, the FCC provides
subsidy dollars only to unserved and some underserved areas,
and only to a single provider. That is the correct approach.
Subsidizing multiple firms or subsidizing competition is
irrational. Whatever benefits the State competition produces is
more than offset by the cost to other persons living outside
the subsidized market who are taxed to pay for the subsidized
competition. I am taxed to pay for a government-run network in
Chattanooga. I live in Alabama. If anyone tells you subsidized
competition is a good policy, I encourage you to make them
demonstrate by what economic mechanism that is so. Wishful
thinking is not a logical argument.
Why people don't accept--broadband is a more complicated
matter. While advocates tend to focus on price, price is not
the main reason people don't have broadband in the home. Far
more people are just uninterested. I can't blame them for that.
For some, a mobile or Wi-Fi connection is plenty adequate, a
valid choice. People are allowed to have their own preferences.
As for the racial digital divide, the differences in the
demand for broadband by some racial minorities persist, even
after adjusting for income, education, age, and so forth. Why
this is so is not, to my knowledge, fully understood. So
addressing such differences will be challenging. You can't fix
the problem when you don't know what is causing it.
Literacy programs have not proven effective. In any case,
it is worth investigation.
Native Americans have less access, which is well
established and warrants solution. And also lower demand.
As for price, almost all low-income Americans can get a
low-price plan today within a mechanism that will look much
like any subsidy program you create. Some qualified households
use these programs and some don't. Before making a long-term
commitment to a subsidy program, I recommend you figure out
why.
The Lifeline program has existed for decades, yet a
relatively small share of eligible households bother to
participate.
There are also murmurings of price regulation. Rate
regulation will rob the broadband providers of their motivation
to expand deployment and upgrade networks. Even when the
government offers broadband, the retail prices are the same as
private providers. It costs money to provide broadband, and
prices reflect that.
And it pays to remember the failure of cable regulation in
the early 1990s, a policy Congress abandoned only a few years
after it started. I am afraid, if you get too focused on price
as a solution to the adoption gap, you will be disappointed
with the results. It will work for some, but not all.
And speaking of government-owned networks, I recommend to
you a recent paper of mine on the law and economics of
municipal broadband published in the Federal Communications Law
Journal. It is a comprehensive analysis.
While I am not opposed to government broadband, per se, it
is an extreme policy by any standard, and should be limited to
unserved markets that even the subsidized private provider
won't serve. It is last on the long list of options, an act of
desperation. For obvious reasons, these systems often fail
financially, leaving the cost on the backs of constituents,
often in the form of higher electricity rates, especially
burdensome to the poor.
Government systems do not offer lower prices. Efforts to
say otherwise are poorly done. As I have shown in detail, once
you correct for a few obvious errors, such as using a price of
$10 in Idaho when the true cost is closer to $50 when you
include the necessary utility fee and what amounts to a 20-year
mortgage on a $3,000 connection fee, municipal systems charge
about the same price, if not a little higher.
And while there is talk of preempting State laws that limit
cross-subsidization of these networks, it is not clear you can
lawfully do so. It is a gamble, at best.
Mr. Doyle. Will the gentleman----
Dr. Ford. There is a lingering due process claim that is
yet to be litigated. But if it ever is, it might spell the end
of municipal broadband.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman needs to wrap up. You are 38
seconds past the 5 minutes.
Dr. Ford. I am through. Yes, cities play a regulatory role
in the broadband marketplace, and you cannot be both regulator
and competitor.
Thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Ford follows:\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Additional material is included in a version of Dr. Ford's
statement that has been retained in committee files available at
https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF16/20210506/112553/HHRG-117-IF16-
Wstate-FordG-20210506-U4.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Ochillo for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF FRANCELLA OCHILLO
Ms. Ochillo. Good morning, Chairman, Committee Chairman
Pallone, Ranking Member McMorris, Subcommittee Chair Doyle, and
Ranking Member Latta, as well as members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for making this issue a priority and inviting Next
Century Cities to be a partner in this hearing.
We are a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization of over 200
member municipalities across the U.S. We support mayors and
local officials who are working to ensure that their residents
have affordable and reliable broadband. We spend a lot of time
listening. We document local insights, and we fill in
information gaps for local leaders who had to tackle access and
adoption issues on their own.
In Vermont, for example, where 20 percent of residents
struggle with reliable access and affordability, towns form
alliances of two or more called Communications Union Districts
to help deploy their own broadband.
Six hundred miles away, the Detroit Community Technology
Project developed a digital steward model to train neighborhood
leaders to build and maintain their own wireless networks.
In Oklahoma, Osage Nation partnered with the City of
Pawhuska to create a public Wi-Fi system to ensure that
indigenous residents that were living in city limits were able
to get online.
All of these community leaders know that, wherever
broadband is ubiquitous, residents have power. They can access
information, they can start businesses, they can have access to
care, and age in place. Students can dream far beyond what is
possible in their hometowns, and people living with
disabilities can have better access to the technology that
improves their daily lives. Aside from supporting participation
in this democracy, broadband also keeps us connected to each
other.
But on the flip side there is a vicious cycle of
opportunity loss and economic starvation in the communities
that are on the wrong side of the digital divide. Residents in
these unserved or underserved areas are oftentimes limited by
their income or their geography. Lower benchmarks for
education, specialized care, and innovation stunts the overall
growth of the area. Gaps in access means that their workforce
is unable to fully participate in the high-skilled jobs in a
knowledge-based economy.
There are drastically different outcomes in the communities
where broadband is scarce and people are unable to adopt.
Research shows that indigenous, Black, and Brown residents are
among the most disparately impacted. And when they are locked
out of the benefits of digital citizenship, there is a compound
effect on a household, on generational wealth, on local, State,
and Federal economies, and society writ large.
The most economically resilient communities recognize
broadband as essential infrastructure. It supports local
efforts to fight poverty, it creates jobs, and it helps local
officials achieve more equitable outcomes for residents. There
are also long-term returns that cannot always be recorded on a
balance sheet.
But here we are, and this is urgent. There is a lack of
imagination on how we are approaching a nationwide strategy to
close the digital divide. This is an issue that requires
addressing access and adoption, not either/or. It requires
collaboration at every level of government, innovative
partnership ideas, and a willingness to embrace new models,
because we don't have any other choice.
Current broadband deployment strategies have failed too
many communities, leaving large urban and rural areas behind,
simply in the dark. And any comprehensive plan, it requires the
partnership from municipal, cooperative, mesh, and other
nontraditional networks that are willing to serve areas where
traditional providers have simply refused to go. Each model
allows communities to serve residents that have no other
option, and they also have public accountability in a way that
private companies simply don't, especially when the people who
build, design, and manage those networks are not only
residents, they use the service themselves.
Municipal networks, they also offer some of the fastest
speed and highest quality connectivity. They are also known for
transparent pricing, symmetrical tier service, and maintaining
affordability programs for low-income residents that are not
voluntary.
We also know that inaccurate broadband maps are sabotaging
our collective efforts. Without knowing who does and does not
have broadband, it is impossible to direct resources that--the
communities that are in the most need. Federal broadband maps
are well known to overstate deployment, and it is a problem
with serious consequences. Many States actually rely on FCC
data as the baseline to target funding at communities when they
are marked as unserved or underserved, but then local leaders
are forced to challenge those maps with their own data or speed
test rather than being invited in as data collection partners
in the first place.
Finally, investing in digital equity and inclusion
programs, that is central to increasing broadband adoption.
Broadband adoption is an indicator of economic growth and
prosperity in every State. Yet Federal broadband policy is
focused exclusively on broadband deployment, leaving local
governments and State governments to fend for themselves.
At Next Century Cities, we believe that the digital divide
is a problem that we can solve, and we also see equity as a
bedrock principle in any solution. But we are running out of
time, and it costs us something to have good ideas in
incubation. So I appreciate----
Mr. Doyle. I would ask that you wrap up. You are also half
a minute past your time.
Ms. Ochillo. And we appreciate you having this
conversation, and we look forward to an opportunity to work
together.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Ochillo follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lewis for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEWIS
Mr. Lewis. Chairman Pallone, Ranking Member Latta, Chairman
Doyle, and Ranking Member McMorris Rodgers, thank you for
inviting me to this important hearing today.
Our country is facing a unique opportunity about broadband
right now. We have bipartisan support in the Congress for
addressing the broadband digital divide. The country supports
Congress taking action, due to the way in which the COVID
pandemic has shown every household just how essential a robust,
affordable, and reliable broadband connection is to every
American.
The challenge in front of us is to make sure that the
policy actions that we take are comprehensive enough to address
all the drivers of the digital divide, because it is clear that
the policy and marketplace structures in the decade leading up
to the pandemic were inadequate to the task and left many
communities behind.
I have personally met and heard from individuals who have
been left out by the current policies and structures of
investment. When I was a staffer at the FCC, I was sometimes
asked by congressional staff if I could talk with a constituent
who was impacted by the high cost of rural deployment or the
digital redlining decisions made by a broadband provider. They
would share how all they wanted was for the high-speed
broadband that was available down the street or in the next
neighborhood to be extended to them. They would say they had
spoken to the provider, who had decided that they either would
not or could not extend service those additional few blocks.
And then I would have to share the unfortunate news that
there were no current rules at the FCC that could require the
company to extend service to them. These broadband connections
could be the difference between that constituent finding a job
or starting a business without leaving the community that they
love.
And in 6 years on the local school board in Alexandria,
Virginia, I saw the impact of poverty on educational equity.
Alexandria is a dense, small city--a fairly affluent city also,
but with a high poverty student population. A majority of our
students are Latinx and Black, and a significant percentage of
our families have emigrated from around the world. Alexandra's
public schools use technology to offer many options and support
for students to succeed and for parents to support their
students' education.
Teachers suggest online tools to preteach and reteach
topics outside of normal class hours to help students who are
working at a different level or a different pace. Parents can
closely monitor their child's performance in online platforms
and are encouraged to communicate with busy teachers over
email. Our alternative high school campus is over 10 years old
now, offering flexible hours and largely online classes for
students who need to work to support their families or are on
an accelerated program. These innovations are limited for many
families who can't afford the high cost of broadband in their
home from the one option available in our city.
These real-life examples are inequity--these real-life
examples of inequity disproportionately touch our most
marginalized communities, from rural and Tribal communities,
communities of color, and low-income households found in rural,
suburban, and urban communities alike. To fully close the
digital divide, we must do more than simply fund broadband
providers to build more. In my written testimony I provided
many ideas, but in the short time I want to highlight four key
ideas to directly address the challenge of affordability and
the inequities of digital redlining.
Congress recognized the affordability need when it
authorized the Emergency Broadband Benefit last year. However,
low-income Americans will still need support beyond the COVID
crisis. It is time for Congress to create a long-term solution
for low-income broadband support.
There are several ways that Congress can pay for these
critical supports, including through a reform of the Universal
Service Fund Contribution System to include broadband and
lowering the size of the fee on people's phone bills.
Congress could also create or supplement a long-term
benefit. Appropriations are an option, too, but would raise the
concern of predictability with the annual political process.
Whatever the funding mechanism, it must provide predictability
and sustainable, long-term funding.
Funding for devices for low-income families would also make
sure that parents don't have to choose between two kids'
homework needs or their own.
In addition to long-term, low-income broadband funding,
Congress should promote policies that encourage actual
competition in local broadband markets, such as open access
networks and broadband builds supported or led by local
government or regional co-ops.
The FCC should be charged to study and report on broadband
competition, including collecting actual costs and actual price
data where they are and where they are available.
Finally, we also need the FCC to be empowered to address
digital redlining. Several examples of redlining have been
studied and reported by journalists and nonprofits over the
years in cities like Cleveland, Dallas, and Kansas City.
Congress should begin this work by requiring the FCC to study
the full scope of the redlining problem, and take remedial
steps to ensure every household has access to robust,
affordable broadband.
Thank you for your work on this important issue, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. That concludes our
witnesses' opening statements. We are now going to move to
Member questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our
witnesses. I ask all of my colleagues to try to stay in that 5-
minute range for us. So I will start by recognizing myself for
5 minutes.
Ms. Ochillo, your organization has long advocated that
cities and municipalities can benefit from having the
flexibility to build broadband networks that fit their own
needs. What are these benefits, and how have cities and
municipalities that built their own networks responded to the
pandemic?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, thank you for the question. And one of
the things that we think is most important to say at the outset
is that we believe that communities should have the choice to
decide what type of network they need to have. Sometimes that
is going to mean partnering with the providers that are already
in their market. Sometimes that means they are going to have to
go it alone and build maybe a municipal network, an open-access
network. They might have to partner with other counties and
municipalities.
But we think that it is important that they actually have
choice, and that, especially when we are talking about
communities that have had to go it alone, specifically in
municipal networks, it takes a lot of community buy-in,
building resources, and planning to actually launch those
networks. But once they are up and running, they provide some
of the fastest service, some of the best speeds. And a lot of
the times they have accountability measures because the people
who are running those networks live in those communities.
And quite frankly, we know that the current model is not
getting to every household in our communities, so we think that
it is really important to be able to support, whether it is a
municipal network, a mesh network, an open access network, for
communities to actually be able to have choice to determine
their own broadband future.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Lewis, I know your organization also has advocated for
these types of networks. Do you want to add anything to that?
Mr. Lewis. Well, I certainly agree with Ms. Ochillo, the
choice of different types of buildings is important for local
communities, so that they can take the risk that is appropriate
to their communities' needs.
Mr. Doyle. Let me ask you this, Mr. Lewis. You talk about
digital redlining in your testimony. How can legislation like
the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, the LIFT
America Act, and the American Jobs Plan address digital
redlining?
Mr. Lewis. I think if the bill includes options for those
subsidies, or those--that funding to go to local governments or
local co-ops, it can certainly also help with redlining. As Ms.
Ochillo said, those communities usually are better at making
sure that everyone is served, because they live in those
communities, or those government officials live in those
communities. And so they have an incentive to make sure that
whatever is built is----
Mr. Doyle. Ms. Chaney, do you want to add anything to that?
Ms. Chaney. Sorry. No, I think the other witnesses answered
it appropriately, yes.
Mr. Doyle. OK, well, let me go back to Mr. Lewis, then.
In your testimony you talked about the need for a permanent
broadband benefit, and the need for additional measures to
increase affordability, long term. Do you think that we can
close the digital divide over the long term if we--without
addressing those issues?
Mr. Lewis. I am concerned that we won't. The cost of
broadband right now, just from what we see from the numbers of
how many options that people have, is really driven by monopoly
or duopoly prices. I think that doing the work to study the
prices and the cost of broadband long term, so that we can
really determine the impact of the market, and if that cost is
actually affordable, or if it is simply a cost that is going up
and up based on the choices of industries, is critically
important.
We have already seen in the last 3 years a 20 percent rise
in broadband costs, according to FCC data. That is far ahead of
inflation. So these prices need to be studied.
Mr. Doyle. How about you, Ms. Chaney? Do you have anything
you want to add to that?
Ms. Chaney. So, I mean, we absolutely think that a
broadband benefit is necessary. We also are--you know, we also
want to see competition addressed. We also want to see prices
come down.
But we know that, for the vast majority of those who need
it most, there will always be some amount of help that they
need. And we found this in other areas where we have a benefit
that--a need that has to be addressed that is fundamental, and
we believe broadband is as fundamental as running water,
electricity, all kinds of basic services.
And so, for us, we know that there are communities, in
particular communities of color, who will need assistance. And
so, for us, there has to be some kind of benefit that is made
available for them. And we think there have to be public-
private partnerships that make it happen.
Mr. Doyle. Well, thank you. The Chair will yield 24 seconds
back as an example and now recognize Mr. Latta, the ranking
member of the subcommittee, for 5 minutes to ask questions
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ford, we hear from our colleagues across the aisle and
in the administration that Americans pay too much for the
internet, and that high prices remain the top obstacle to
broadband adoption.
Similarly, the Open Technology Institute's Cost of
Connectivity Report tells us there is a broadband affordability
crisis in the U.S. The facts, however, seem to be at odds with
this claim.
Based on data from the FCC's annual Urban Rate Survey,
there was an average decline of 36 percent in broadband prices
between 2015 and 2020. This price decline coincides with
steadily increasing broadband subscribership over the past 5
years, according to the FCC's 2020 Communications Marketplace
Report.
Additionally, a study done by the Brookings Institute finds
the gap in broadband adoption rates between the high-income and
low-income Americans is narrowing, which shows that the
adoption gap is becoming less based on income disparity.
Mr. Ford, is it true that there is a broadband
affordability crisis in the U.S.?
And what are your thoughts about the OTI study?
Dr. Ford. I mean, I think certainly for some people there
will always be an affordability problem in low-income groups,
primarily, who struggle just to survive and eat. That is an
issue that you may need to address. And some of the other
witnesses have spoken to that. There are many plans today that
are very low-priced, 10 to 20 dollars. Comcast is at about $10
for a very capable broadband circuit for qualified low-income,
veterans, and other people that qualify for the program. So
that is a very low price.
I mean, if broadband is an essential service and someone is
not willing to pay $10 for that, then I think we have to
question whether or not it is an essential service for that
person. I think the essentiality and necessity varies by
person. We can't tell people what their preferences are about
broadband. Some people just might not want it.
I think that prices--my analysis--I have done an extensive
analysis of the FCC data on prices, and prices have declined as
quality has increased. I think that is hard to dispute, at
least if you want to look at the data properly.
As for the OTI report, it had several pieces, components to
it. One was that municipal networks charge lower prices than
private providers. I have a detailed analysis of that study. It
was incorrect in the way it set up the problem. It was
incorrect in the way it treated some data. And once you correct
the problems, you find there is really no difference between
municipal systems and private systems. In fact, if anything,
municipal systems charge slightly more. I don't believe that is
probably the case, but that is what their data actually show.
The case which I mentioned in my statement, for example,
shows that the--that they had a $10 price, and really it is
more about $50. And once you correct that error, you solve the
problem.
Internationally--and I noticed that was being floated
around yesterday, statistics from that report--the report
itself concludes on page 38 that, once you standardized the
prices for cost and speed, that U.S. providers, on average,
advertised similar prices for similar speeds as European
providers. So the study itself denies what statistics were
being thrown around yesterday.
Mr. Latta. With my last minute I am going to try to get a
couple of other questions in here real quick.
You know, what is your response for the decline in
broadband prices, and also the increases in subscribership in
low-income households?
Dr. Ford. Well, like most goods, over time they tend to
decline, as efficiencies and productivity enhancements arise.
And we have--people have options as to what they are buying.
You couldn't even imagine buying a 200-megabit circuit, you
know, 5 years ago. Now you can get one as a base-level product
for $40. That is a material decline in quality-adjusted prices,
for sure, if not prices alone.
The differences in consumption across racial groups is--I
can't explain it. I mean, it is persistent. It is shrinking. We
saw significant shrinks--a shrink in the gap last year, for
Blacks in particular. And that is something that just needs to
be evaluated. Those differences persist, even with accounting
for income and age and education and things like that. So it is
there. I am not sure why it is there, and it is probably worth
investigation.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired, and I also have some documents that I will ask
unanimous consent to submit for the record. But thank you very
much, and my time has expired.
Mr. Doyle. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Pallone, the full
committee chair, for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle. I am going to try
to get in three questions to each of three witnesses, so--you
know, if we can have a quick response.
But I did want to say that we know that studies have
documented the racial--digital divide in the country. And
during the pandemic, this often prevented kids from attending
school online or taking advantage of telehealth or making a
vaccine appointment. And I know it is not only the result of
digital redlining but also the cost of service that is too much
for many households to pay. And I just think we have got to
address this.
So, Mr. Lewis, is there a risk that, if we don't act to
resolve these inequalities, we leave households and communities
behind? That would be my first question.
Mr. Lewis. Absolutely, Congressman. Our policies can help
make up for inequities in our society, and--or they can create
inequities. In the past, communications laws have fought
redlining, for example, through franchise agreements or other
obligations at the FCC, franchise agreements at the local level
for cable, to make sure that telecommunications was built out
to everyone. Those were begun to be removed in the early 2000s,
and we never saw any replacement for them in the broadband
space. So policymaking can make up for these inequities or lack
of investment into specific communities.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
Ms. Chaney, we mentioned that we have this Emergency
Broadband Benefit, but it will run out eventually. And we have
heard a number of ideas today about ways to make broadband more
affordable. But--and during the pandemic, many providers
announced offerings and plans to help ease the divide. There
were about 600 companies signed up to offer now the Emergency
Broadband Benefit. But I just think more needs to be done.
So I want to ask, in your opinion, what else can Congress
do to ensure that we are connected, especially when this
Emergency Broadband Benefit runs out?
Ms. Chaney. Oh, thank you, Congressman. There's lots that
we can do.
I mean, first of all, we do believe that there should be,
like, a permanent or a long-term broadband benefit subsidy to
ensure that the extreme poor will be able to participate in a
21st century economy. And there are ways that this can be
funded, right, through annual congressional appropriations. But
there can also be some kind of fund that--a digital equity fund
that is created by a combination of appropriations and spectrum
auction revenues. And there can be other types of public-
private partnerships that are created to fund this and make
sure that everyone pays in.
You know, our goal isn't to sort of tell you exactly how
you have to do it. Ours is outcome determinative. We want to
make sure that, at the end of this, we have not left people
behind.
We had a briefing about 2 weeks ago that I think some of
your staff attended, where we talked about infrastructure
priorities for communities of color. And we had people
representing Asian-American communities and Latinx and African-
American. Every single group listed broadband at the top of
their list, and affordability, and addressing digital
readiness, as well as language inclusion at the top. And that
is because we know that, across all of our indicia of equity,
making sure that people have broadband is key and fundamental.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you. And then my last question is
of Ms. Ochillo.
We know that local government is very invested in making
sure that communities and the constituents have equal access
and opportunity to use high-speed broadband. So why do you
think that digital inclusion efforts have been so successful at
the local level?
And what can we do in Congress to support those efforts, if
you will?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, they have been supportive--they have
been successful at the local level because they don't have
another choice. I think that, you know, local officials are
some of the scrappiest people that I have ever met. They are
problem solvers. They run into the grocery store and to
schools, and they run into their constituents. They have a
different type of accountability and urgency in solving a
problem. So they have to gather whatever resources they have
available and whatever partnerships they can to actually make
something happen.
At the Federal level, we could do a lot more information
sharing, and centralizing that. At the FCC we could ask
questions about improving data to actually know who is
disconnected, and are we sending the money out the door to the
right places, because over and over again money keeps going to
the same people who keep cherrypicking who they get to serve.
And that is not working.
So we can talk in platitudes about everything is going
well, but the truth is that when you go into these
neighborhoods and you meet them at their town hall meetings, it
is not going well, and they need support.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate the fact
that all of you are so practical about what needs to be done,
because that is really the key.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. McMorris Rodgers, the full committee ranking
member, for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
everyone, for joining us today for this important discussion.
Mr. Ford, I wanted just to go back to the Emergency
Broadband Benefit again. That was a benefit that Republicans
and Democrats agreed to put into place in response to the
challenges that Americans were facing as a result of COVID-19
and the pandemic.
You know, one idea that we are considering today is making
that benefit permanent and appropriating 6 billion over the
next 5 years. Several companies currently voluntarily offer
low-income broadband programs such as Internet Essentials or
Connect to Compete for rates around $10 per month. And that is
not to mention such programs as lift zones, which connects 16
community centers to Wi-Fi in the Spokane area alone.
And despite these offerings, there is still too many
Americans who do not adopt broadband. So, Dr. Ford, I just
wanted to ask, what is the main obstacle, in your opinion, to
adoption?
Dr. Ford. Well, I mean, one of the main obstacles, of
course, is not having access, and we are attempting to address
that. I think the mechanisms in place--are in place to do that.
More funding may be necessary in certain areas. The evidence
that we have on that is a bit cloudy. But the number-one reason
people say they don't have broadband is they don't want it.
I think that you also have situations where the government
has funded anchor institutions and various places where people
can get free access, and that is a substitute for home access.
Mrs. Rodgers. What about price? Can you just----
Dr. Ford. Look, the demand curve sloped downward. So if you
lower price, you will increase quantity. The question is by how
much.
I mean, if you view this narrowly as a price issue, you are
going to be disappointed when you come back a couple of years
from now and you see that there is still people who aren't
adopting broadband and that this price solution didn't solve
the problem.
Mrs. Rodgers. Have you--so what are your thoughts on
appropriating six billion, making this program permanent, the--
--
Dr. Ford. I mentioned some things--OK, sorry.
Mrs. Rodgers. So what kind of impact----
Dr. Ford. I mentioned some things----
Mrs. Rodgers [continuing]. Do you think it would have?
Dr. Ford. I think it will have an impact somewhat like
Lifeline program has. It will have 25, 30 percent of the people
participating. You will have some increase in adoption, and you
will be disappointed----
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. That it didn't cure the whole
problem.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you.
In 2015 the FCC expressly declined to impose rate
regulation on broadband providers, saying that doing so was not
necessary and would undermine investment in broadband networks.
Former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said, ``Let me be clear. The
FCC will not impose utility-style regulation'' and specified,
``That means no regulation, no filing of tariffs, and no
network unbundling.''
Mr. Lewis, according to the most recent FCC Communications
Marketplace Report, prices for the most popular broadband plans
have fallen by 20 percent. Since former Chairman Wheeler made
that decision not to rate-regulate in 2015, at the same time
those plans now average 16 percent faster speed. Do you think
former Chairman Wheeler was wrong to refrain from imposing rate
regulation on broadband providers?
Dr. Ford. No----
Mr. Lewis. Congresswoman----
Dr. Ford. I think that would be very bad.
Mrs. Rodgers. Oh, I--actually, I was asking Mr. Lewis this
time.
Dr. Ford. Oh, I am sorry.
Mrs. Rodgers. Then I will let you go, Mr. Ford.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Congresswoman. I was grateful that
Chairman Wheeler, you know, enacted strong net neutrality
rules. And I think, as a compromise, he did not enact any sort
of rate regulation. But I don't believe that means that the FCC
should not be a cop on the beat when looking at the broadband
marketplace.
And right now, it doesn't have the authority to actually
look at the broadband marketplace and see what people are
actually paying. So, you know, we have had, traditionally in
this country, options for telecom utilities, where either we
have a monopoly system or we have competition. I am trying to
get us towards competition. But if we have monopoly pricing or
few choices for consumers in localities like we are seeing,
then that can lead to prices continuing to go up well ahead of
inflation.
Mrs. Rodgers. Mr. Ford, I will give you the final 20
seconds, if you want to----
Dr. Ford. Yes, rate regulation would not be helpful. I
mean, you are--rate regulation is going to affect the 90. What
you are trying to do is address affordability for certain sorts
of people. That is not going to solve that problem, and that is
going to reduce deployment and reduce upgrades in networks.
Mrs. Rodgers. OK, thank you, everyone. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 5
minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you, Chairman Doyle, and I thank
the witnesses for your excellent testimony.
My congressional district includes cities and communities
that have been economically depressed. A few years ago, as a
part of its economic revitalization plan, the City of Stockton,
California, set out to build an open access fiber network. The
project was put on hold because financing wasn't available. But
I would like to discuss the benefits a project like this would
have for communities like Stockton.
Mr. Lewis, how do open access fiber networks impact
competition in the marketplace?
Mr. Lewis. So open access networks, Congressman, can bring
in competition by lowering the barriers to building the core
infrastructure of the network, which is the most expensive part
of building out a broadband network, by getting the partnership
of local government or using subsidies to do it.
And then, when those networks are open, any provider can
use that infrastructure to offer service to the folks that the
network reaches. So this allows multiple providers to compete
on price, and hopefully see lower prices.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. What is the impact of open
access by the networks on broadband service for consumers?
Mr. Lewis. Well, my hope is that it would start with lower
prices, but it can also, hopefully, lead to competition in
other areas of the service. So in responsiveness and customer
service. Once a provider doesn't have a monopoly on a
territory, they really have to compete for the attention and
the loyalty of the consumers there.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
Ms. Ochillo, thank you for your advocacy and work on these
issues. How can open access fiber networks make communities
more resilient, or do you have any examples?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, I think it is always important. I want
to add one more thing to what Chris just mentioned. One of the
great things about open access networks is that, when the city
owns the--or the area owns the infrastructure, you get to
invest it--reinvest locally. So that money actually stays in
that local economy, which is something where the community
actually has equity in that project. So there is a natural
incentive to actually always make it something that is better.
And when you are talking about--I don't want to get into
specifics about what happened in Stockton, but I think one of
the things that is so ambitious is, when we are looking at
communities where you have large groups of either low-income
people, or also communities where it has suffered from years
and decades of disinvestment, it is so important that the city
actually intervene and actually provide affordable service that
is actually equivalent to the service that other people would
get.
So not just coming in for--it is advertised at 25/3, and it
is less than, but actual competitive service that is something
that might be even comparable to 100 symmetrical or even other
speeds that other people would pay for with a municipal or an
open access network.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, Ms. Ochillo, in your written
testimony you state that digital equity and inclusion programs
cannot be an afterthought.
Ms. Ochillo. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. I completely agree, and that is why I
introduced the Digital Equity Act, which would create two
Federal programs to address gaps in broadband adoption and
digital literacy and skills. Can you tell us why digital equity
and inclusion programs are so important, and why they are
something we should be prioritizing?
Ms. Ochillo. They are an imperative. I think that, when we
look back to even, like, the National Broadband Plan 10 years
ago, the FCC actually identified saying, look, broadband access
and adoption, they are both problems. And then, after that, it
was singularly focused on only solving the broadband deployment
problem.
So here we are, years later, when we actually know, not
just because of COVID, but we actually know that there are
large amounts of people who can get the infrastructure in their
neighborhood or even close to their front door, and we can't
get it across the threshold. So that means that we need to not
only address affordability, we also need to think about do they
have the digital literacy, do they have the device in their
home, do they have access to tech support?
And also, I want to point out this isn't just about the
economics of making sure that that person is trained. It is
making sure that they actually have a digitally literate
household, because that has a generational impact on the
opportunities that everyone that they touch has.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Thank you for that answer.
Ms. Chaney, if we don't rise to the moment and fully
address gaps in broadband adoption and access, what are the
consequences for marginalized communities that already have
been left behind?
Ms. Chaney. I mean, the fact of the matter is I don't know
of any community who is just saying that they don't want to
have--that is not--broadband. That is not the experience that
we had at the National Urban League. Our experience is that
people want to have access but they cannot afford it, or there
is such a barrier because they haven't been able to afford it
and they don't know how to use it, that they are almost afraid
to enter into that space.
But we know that, through your program as well as through
Federal efforts that could focus on having digital equity
inclusion, including the program at the Commerce Department, we
would be able to address those gaps and make sure that we have
digital navigators who are also--like the National Urban
League, like perhaps some of the other witness organizations
here, to try to close the gap and make sure people know how
they can get online, how they can utilize, and also making sure
that they are able to afford it. We think it is critical.
Without it, you simply--you can't compete in the current
market.
And on healthcare post-pandemic, it is exponential, the
amount of telehealth that is being used. So frankly, having
access to broadband is now not only a matter of quality of
life, it is a matter of life and death.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Guthrie for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thanks for--everybody,
Ranking Member Latta, for having this hearing, this is--the
witnesses for being here. This is so important. The digital
divide is real, and it must be addressed, and it must be
addressed with equitable solutions.
And I can tell you, I know I have a lot of urban and--more
suburban areas in my district, but also very, very rural areas.
And for areas to grow, they are going to have to have access to
broadband, access to this resource, just to grow businesses,
not to mention the fact that we are now having people get their
health through telecommunicating, and also through the
education with some of our schools not being fully open here.
So it is really important to do.
And some of you, if you have been here long enough to
remember--most of us haven't, but Ernie Fletcher, who was the
Governor of Kentucky in the early 2000s, was a member of this
committee. And he came in, and we did a big effort fighting
over tobacco settlement dollars and dedicated a lot of efforts
to trying to close the digital divide. There is a group called
Kentucky Wired that spent $1.5 billion, and they really focused
on the middle mile, not getting the last mile to our--to the
homes. But 1.5 billion had been spent, and still not complete.
I will tell you, there are conversations we have in this
subcommittee, or as I meet with different people that have
interests before the subcommittee, on just getting maps. I
mean, as much money as we spent, as much--as long as we have
been doing this, we are still focusing on maps. So I kind of
direct this to Dr. Ford, and just--we all want people to have
access to the broadband.
And the question is, the comparison between doing it
through the public sector and incentivizing through--obviously,
it is going to take public dollars to get where the market
doesn't work, and getting it to rural areas. But incentivizing
the private sector to do--would you kind of talk about the
difference in a government approach versus incentivizing a
private-sector approach, Dr. Ford?
Dr. Ford. There are a couple of ways that you can address
the problem of revenue not being adequate to cover costs. One
is to try to get the cost down. And there is some efforts to do
that with trying to clean up some barriers to entry that exist
in local government with respect to pole attachment fees, or
access requirements, and rights of way, and things of that
nature.
And there is also just the subsidy approach, which is to
pay the money to do it, which is pretty much what we do today.
I think that it is apparent, from an economic perspective,
that paying a network that already exists to extend its reach
at the margin is much more efficient than to overbill the
entire network in order to reach the 5 or 10 percent of the
people that don't have it. And a lot of times, with government
programs, municipal broadband, they overbuild the entire
market, giving people something they already had, for the most
part, just to get to the top 10 percent that don't have it. And
that is an extremely inefficient and costly way to go about
doing it.
Mr. Guthrie. So what are your thoughts--and if anybody else
wants to weigh in--and I am very interested on, you know, we
are really focused on fixed fiber to home. And when we have
mobile communications that are moving forward, particularly
with 5G networks--and there is some question about the
superiority of one over the other, or if they are equal. And so
can you use 5G mobile networks to get broadband where it needs
to be, or does it have to be fixed fiber to home?
And if the 5G does work, we are at a point where we were--
felt like we were falling behind, or could fall behind--I don't
think we are, but we certainly could fall behind China and
other areas in 5G, and we need to focus on it. And we are
spending a lot of money. We are spending a lot of money
getting--it is not a lack of the American people, taxpayers,
putting resources to broadband, if you just look at the last
few plans that have been passed.
So the question--I will start with Dr. Ford, but anybody
else that wants to add in: Would 5G, and really investing in 5G
and making mobile networks a better way to go than fixed fiber
to home, or an equal way to go?
Dr. Ford. I worry a little bit that 10 years from now we
are going to be kicking ourselves for deploying all this fiber
when half the people use mobile networks exclusively.
I think mobility is a superior product, in the sense that
it is mobile. It may not be superior in its capacity at the
moment, but 5G offers the opportunity for----
Mr. Guthrie. I have about 30 seconds left, if one of the
other witnesses wants to add in. If not, I will go back.
Yes, Mr. Lewis, I know--I will get the gavel in 20 seconds,
so----
Mr. Lewis. Congressman, it is important to remember that 5G
and fiber are--it is not a choice between one or the other. You
can't have quality mobile networks, including 5G, without
quality infrastructure for those 5G towers to connect to.
Mr. Guthrie. Oh, absolutely.
Mr. Lewis. And right now they have to connect almost every
couple of miles, or mile-and-a-half is the best----
Mr. Guthrie. We are talking fiber to home, though. That is
the difference of fiber to home versus----
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Guthrie. I am sorry, thanks. Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentlewoman from New York, Ms. Clarke, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member Latta, I want
to thank you for convening today's hearing. The topic of
broadband equity is an urgent concern, and I would also like to
thank our witnesses for virtually joining the committee and
sharing your testimonies.
Broadband is an essential utility, and consumers,
regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color, or national
origin, deserve affordable, reliable broadband.
Communities of color are more likely to have slower and
less reliable internet service. This disparity creates
significant barriers to accessing employment opportunities,
educational opportunities, healthcare resources, and diminishes
opportunities for civic engagement. The compounded issues of
availability and affordability are having a disproportionate
impact on communities that have been victims of housing
redlining from previous generations, and this can also be seen
in our digital world.
As the Electronic Frontier Foundation outlined in their
recent letter to Chairman Doyle and Ranking Member Latta,
``digital redlining is the formation of a first- and second-
class broadband infrastructure where wealthy communities easily
access 21st century opportunities with low-cost, fast internet
while everyone else is left behind.''
Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter the letter into the
record.
Congress must take----
Mr. Doyle. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Ms. Clarke. Congress must take urgent action to prohibit
the discriminatory deployment of broadband by internet service
providers based on income level of an area, the predominant
race or ethnicity composition of an area, or other focus. And I
will continue to prioritize the critical issue of digital
redlining and will commit to working with my colleagues to
draft legislation to address it.
You know, the COVID-19 pandemic has only underscored the
fact, with rapid adoption of the virtual space, that high-
speed, affordable broadband is a critical resource. It is a
necessity, and not a luxury, and it is our job, as Congress, to
remove the barriers to equitable access.
So, Mr. Lewis, I would like to ask you. Your testimony
outlines the many ways in which broadband has proven to be an
essential utility, like water and electricity. We are proud of
the inclusion of the internet as a utility in the CARES Act and
the FCC's recently-launched EBB program. However, these are
temporary solutions as the American people continue to recover
from the coronavirus pandemic. How can the Federal Government
establish a long-term policy for ensuring equity access to
affordable and high-speed broadband?
Mr. Lewis. Well, we need to learn from the past, as we did
with telecommunications for the phone. You need to have a long-
term benefit for low-income consumers to have supports to be
able to afford broadband. Hopefully, that will meet the price
that is coming from the industry. But we also need to study
those prices to make sure that those prices are competitive and
not monopoly prices.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Ms. Ochillo, in your testimony you
discuss the economic disadvantages impacting underserved and
unserved communities, both urban and rural. Can you please
elaborate on this and the broader negative impact that
inequitable broadband access has on our national economy?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, I think that, in general, there is this
idea that when people say ``digital redlining'' they
automatically assume you are talking about an urban area. And
we actually talk to municipalities on a weekly basis. We have
done so since April of 2020. We have talked to a new
municipality. And what we find out is that that comes up in
midsized and rural cities just as often, if not more so.
What we know is that the places that have widespread
access, they are the places that are able to attract
innovation. They can maintain their population. They could
actually allow residents to age in place. They have so many
more benefits and advantages than the places where broadband is
either unreliable or simply unaffordable.
And it would actually help if the Federal Government, in
terms of not only information sharing, thinking about all of
the agencies that are getting involved in broadband, whether it
is the NTIA, USDA, and all sorts of agencies, there should be
some sort of centralized information sharing and, actually,
building off of the things that we have learned from COVID,
because we know that people have, essentially, had to come up
with all sorts of creative solutions. And it would actually
help us to actually use those things to inform whatever is the
strategy moving forward.
Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I have got 13 seconds, and I am going to
yield them back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady for that. The Chair now
recognizes my good friend from Florida and fellow Pittsburgh
Pirate fan, Mr. Bilirakis.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Doyle. Gus, you need to unmute.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize. I had a hard time finding the mute button. My vision
is not the best.
OK, well, I have a couple of questions, and I appreciate
you all being here today and testifying.
Mr. Ford, I have heard proposals to change the minimum
broadband speed requirements from 25-down, 3-up to a
symmetrical or symmetric service of upwards of 100. Under the
current standard, my district is largely served, except for a
portion that I will address shortly. But under 100/100, there
would actually be large unserved areas around the Tampa Bay
area, the 18th largest metropolitan area in the country.
Are symmetrical speeds consistent with how consumers have
used broadband service?
Is this a realistic expected future consumer usage rate?
And that question is for Mr. Ford, please.
Dr. Ford. No, that is not the way broadband is consumed.
And I don't think the 100/100 proposal has anything to do with
trying to match the way people consume broadband. It is
motivated by other reasons.
Mr. Bilirakis. What is it motivated for, can you expand on
that a little bit?
Dr. Ford. It is basically motivated because that is what
fiber networks are generally designed to do, although they
don't have to. They often do because they have so much excess
bandwidth, so they offer symmetric circuits. So if you require
a--if you have a broadband definition of symmetry, particularly
at 100/100 or more a gig, symmetric gig, which some people have
proposed, then you are basically saying the only broadband is
fiber broadband.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK, thank you. Another question for Mr.
Ford.
The pandemic has demonstrated how important the internet is
for seniors and our disabled residents to stay in touch with
loved ones and take advantage of telehealth services. But these
groups in rural areas may not have access to broadband. In some
cases, they don't.
Additionally, I represent the small community of Lacoochee,
whose residents have been begging for internet access for
years, especially after local children had to access internet
on buses deployed around East Pasco, East Pasco County, to
connect with teachers for distance learning, even in our great
country.
Mr. Ford, how does it help our seniors, our kids, and the
disabled community in rural areas catch up on internet
connectivity by increasing minimum standards?
If you can, elaborate on that. I know you touched on it.
That would be good. It seems to me that the people who were
next in line under our current coverage standards will now be
pushed to the back of the line yet again. Is that true, what do
you think?
Dr. Ford. I mean, there is certainly the risk of that. If
you--if the funding of broadband in underserved areas is linked
directly to a symmetric 100-megabit circuit, then you are going
to have a higher-cost network and they are going to be less
likely to get it. So you could actually see it backfire against
the present goal of expanding availability and--by giving a
service that, really, nobody would use. If you gave them a 100-
megabit circuit, they are only going to use 5 percent of that,
probably, at max. So it pushes you into a technological
solution that may be more expensive than other solutions that
would solve your problem.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very much.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, let us not forget the work that
the providers did for our communities during the height of this
pandemic, keeping--and they are still doing it--keeping people
connected, even if constituents found themselves without the
ability to pay for services. They have gone above and beyond,
as partners, as we transition to the remote world. And their
important concerns should continue to be valued today, and I
know they are.
I want to put a plug in, because I have a couple of
seconds, for Withlacoochee Electric. It is a nonprofit, and
Withlacoochee has transformed this wonderful town of Lacoochee.
And Lacoochee is famous for many famous athletes, and what a
difference it has made when a little love is spread into a
community. But we have got to get broadband for those good
people.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back, and beat
'em, Bucs.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Gus. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
McEachin for 5 minutes.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you also
for convening today's hearing. And to our witnesses, thank you
for joining us.
Reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband services in
today's economy and the economy of the future is really the
fourth utility. Not unlike water, gas, and electricity,
communities who do not have fast, reliable, and affordable
internet services will be left behind, and the pandemic has
only underscored that fact.
Ms. Ochillo, thank you for being here today. In your
testimony you make the point that sound broadband policy starts
with better maps. I could not agree more. Making sure we are
allocating resources based on accurate maps has been something
I have been passionate about since I was appointed to this
subcommittee.
Well, I was heartened that we passed legislation and
funding last Congress that intended to fix some of the issues
we have seen in the past. However, I worry that some of these
issues we saw previously will persist if not addressed now.
In your opinion, what can we do to make sure our maps
accurately reflect where providers serve, and what lessons have
we learned from previous auctions?
Ms. Ochillo. So I want to say, first, thank you for the
question. I want to make sure that I am really brief.
Number one, we couldn't agree more. We are working on
studying maps across the United States. And what we learned
when we looked at every single--all 50 States and territories--
we learned there was a contradiction in every single one of
them between FCC data and the information that was collected
either from their State or local officials.
What we know is that, when we start out with the poison of
bad data, it ends up having this really insidious effect that
touches everything. And so I want to give you an example that
actually exists in Virginia that we found in our research. We
looked up Virginia back in--earlier in March 2021. Basically,
they had--it was House bill, I think, 1800, and it essentially
said--it was a legislative proposal that prohibits broadband
providers from having to submit any additional information that
was required--than what was required by the FCC.
And even after that, the agency that was managing the data
would only be able to publish anonymized information.
The problem is that, even when the FCC's data is bad data,
as the poisonous pot, when a State comes in and says, ``Hey,
can we make that data better,'' it is now curbing efforts at
the State. And then, when you get to the local level, you find
out, if you were marked as served, unserved, or underserved,
all of those things, that stain stays with you. It can either
close off opportunities for funding, it might change what you
are eligible for.
And so, when we are sending billions of dollars out the
door and, you know, even thinking about the auction, it is like
we are sending billions of dollars out the door and we can't
even identify whether unserved or underserved is the accurate
marker for the places that are going to be applying for
funding.
So we think it is a problem that needs to be addressed
immediately.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you for that.
Mr. Lewis, it is good to see you again, my friend. What can
we do to make sure that low-income communities and underserved
communities actually get the broadband services that they need?
Mr. Lewis. Thank you, Congressman. And it is good to see
you, as well.
Number one, we need to have a long-term benefit for low-
income consumers.
Number two, we need to do everything we can to promote
competition in the marketplace.
And number three, we need to remember that the cost to
consumers is not just the cost of the service. So consumers are
also paying a tremendous amount of money in fees on their
broadband lines right now, hidden fees, below-the-line fees.
They are paying for rentals of modems and other devices. And
then there is the cost of the actual device that they use, the
computer or the laptop that, you know, when you have a family
of four--these days, everyone is online at the same time--
requires multiple devices.
Mr. McEachin. Well, thank you for that. You know, when it
comes to those hidden fees and whatnot, do you have a
suggestion on how we should deal with those?
Mr. Lewis. I think it starts with transparency. You know, I
think Ms. Eshoo and others have worked for years to mandate a
level of transparency around below-the-line fees, and we
support that. But we need to have truth in billing and accuracy
in the fees that are charged and why they are being charged, so
that people get the actual prices, not just an advertised price
with fees added on to it later on.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Chairman, I have 24 seconds left, and I will say, go
Orioles. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman very much. The Chair now
recognizes my friend from the great State of Ohio.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, the
lack of broadband in rural America is not a new problem. It is
something that we have talked about for decades. And while I
acknowledge that affordability may play a factor in the
availability of broadband for some in urban and rural
locations, the lack of infrastructure and accessibility in
rural America in many places that I represent means that
broadband simply is not an option, period. You can't pay for a
service that doesn't exist, even if you have got the money.
However, I am appreciative of the efforts of many ISPs to
work with consumers and provide low-cost options to increase
broadband affordability in areas where broadband is available,
where cost is the true barrier to adoption. Particularly during
the COVID pandemic, many providers pledged, as we all know, to
connect as many Americans as possible, and did so without a
government mandate.
So, Dr. Ford, we all want to close the urban/rural digital
divide while fostering a healthy environment for competition
and innovation. However, there are efforts by the Biden
administration to have the Federal Government regulate consumer
broadband prices. We are also seeing various initiatives at the
State level to do this, as well. So do you think these rate
regulation efforts will effectively close the digital divide in
America?
Dr. Ford. It certainly won't close the urban/rural divide,
which you mentioned. It won't close it, it will--there is going
to be two effects. One is people may buy more at a lower price,
and the other is suppliers may supply less because of lower
price. And so these two things are going to work against each
other.
Mr. Johnson. What do you think is a better alternative to
Federal price regulating?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think you need to focus on the problem
that you are trying to solve. And in your case you are talking
about getting broadband deployed where it is not. That is not a
rate regulation matter. That is a reduce-the-cost-of-deployment
matter. That is a subsidize-the-spread-between-costs-and-
revenues matter, which is how you are going to get that problem
solved.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Dr. Ford. It is not this other stuff. Net neutrality isn't
needed for that, or any other regulations needed for that.
Mr. Johnson. Got it.
Dr. Ford. You just subsidize the deployment.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. Let me go to another question. We know
that U.S. broadband innovation has flourished under a light-
touch regulatory framework. In the immediate period following
the 2015 title 2 open internet order, which threatened
companies with burdensome public utility rules, including rate
regulation, we saw a significant decline in broadband
investment. Yet, after our return to the light-touch regulatory
framework under Chairman Pai's leadership at the FCC, U.S.
broadband companies increased their investment. Now they are
investing more than three times as much in broadband
infrastructure per household as their tightly regulated
European counterparts.
So do you think, Dr. Ford, that rate regulation is
necessary to keep broadband prices low?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think rate regulation can make price
whatever they want to, but you have to suffer the consequences
of it.
I think that, when you have got the vast majority of
Americans buying broadband, it is kind of hard to make the
argument that the price is too high, and you have got
affordability plans by almost every carrier. These things are
extremely expensive to build, these networks. And, as you
mentioned, we invest far more than Europeans do. And that is a
reflection of cost----
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Dr. Ford [continuing]. Of providing the service. So those
costs have to be recovered if you want network.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. You know, some of my Democrat colleagues
are proposing to increase the definition of broadband to 100
megabits, 100-megabit symmetrical service upload/download,
drastically increasing the areas considered unserved and
eligible for Federal funding. I am concerned that this will
mean funding will most likely be used to upgrade places that
already have broadband, while truly unserved rural customers
continue to wait at the back of the line.
It also mandates a certain technology that can provide
those symmetrical speeds.
So, Dr. Ford, should these unserved areas be forced to wait
until fiber technology can be built 6 to 10 years from now, or
should we fund technologies that can provide service as soon as
possible to unserved areas?
Dr. Ford. They need to have--if broadband is really
important, they need to get broadband as soon as possible at a
speed that satisfies the need. And 25/3 satisfies almost any
socially valuable need.
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I--well, I have a comment on that, but my
time has expired. And out of respect for my chairman, I will
forego that.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman very much. Let's see.
Next, Mr. O'Halleran, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
for this meeting today. I want to thank the panel for a great
discussion.
Broadband access is a problem in both Democratic and
Republican districts, and the-- [audio malfunction]. The fact
is that access to broadband in America's rural communities is
downright terrible. It is not even close to being where it
needs to be.
In Arizona, only 66 percent of the population has access to
broadband at the FCC's minimum speed standard. And that is not
competitive with the rest of America. In Apache County, the
download is 2.28, and this is a Google speed test. And the
upload is .80. The Navajo County, 6.71 download, 1.83 upload.
In Greenwood County, 9.68 download and 2.75 upload. And that is
where they have it. And again, everybody on this panel knows
that the--where it is accessible is not even near to be able to
be afforded or get into your home in these areas, the census
areas. This is especially true in Tribal communities, where
broadband deployment lags behind in nine Tribal areas.
High-speed internet access is required to participate in
our 21st century economy, as well to ensure that our children
receive a high-quality education, and not to mention
telemedicine and other health areas. Businesses need high-speed
broadband to compete. Workers need it to do their jobs.
Children need it to do their homework. The lack of broadband
results in poor health and educational outcomes for those who
live in rural and Tribal communities.
We must make a real investment to bring every community
online. Our top priority must be to reach every home in
America. Everyone must be able to get online, regardless of
where they live. This will require flexibility in how we expand
access to every neighborhood.
What works in cities might not work in most remote areas.
We can't have a system where the best technology is only
available in major cities and suburbs. Rural America needs to
catch up. Our children in those areas need to be able to
compete in the worldwide economy, and so do the businesses in
those areas.
My first question is to Ms. Ochillo.
I am concerned that, if we all fall short, or if we fall
short of our goal in connecting every household with broadband,
the communities that will be left out will be the rural and
tribal areas of my district and other districts like it. How
can Congress work with local governments in rural areas to make
sure 100 percent of households get online?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, I think it is important--thank you for
the question, Congressman. I think one thing that is important
is to actually make sure that we are tapping in to the actual
data collection and information that has been collected,
especially in the last year because of COVID.
Essentially, municipalities have had to set up their own
information tracking. So they are not only finding out about
access, they are also finding out about adoption. And we need
to make sure that we are able to send that information back up,
because usually we are relying on FCC information and trickling
it down. We need to make sure that that is actually stored
somewhere, and usable.
When we also think about things that are happening on the
ground, there are really cool partnerships that are happening
in places like Mesa and other places that, quite frankly, when
we actually find out what are the things that are working, we
can find ways to actually share it with other people within
even counties. So local officials can actually learn from local
officials to replicate those success stories in other places.
Mr. O'Halleran. So I have a comment here. You know, I have
been listening, and what I have heard is we are trying to make
excuses why we shouldn't do something, and to--instead of
finding ways that we can do something. And we need to start
thinking in that direction. I know, if we were a business, that
is what exactly we would be doing.
Mr. Lewis, there are some rural areas in my district where
building out broadband will be very difficult, and we may have
to consider options other than fiber optics to get it done. Do
you think we should prioritize speed or access?
And do you think there is a tradeoff between the two?
Mr. Lewis. Well, certainly, as technology develops, we hope
there will be more and more options for making sure that we get
the quality and the speed to everyone.
But I think it is important that, as a country, when we are
setting policy, that we are setting a standard that is--in
urban, rural, Tribal areas, that everyone has the same standard
for the quality of broadband, the speed of broadband that they
can get. And hopefully, over time, that will be able to be
provided by multiple different types of technology.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, I yield.
Mr. Doyle. OK, the Chair now recognizes Missouri's favorite
congressman, Billy Long, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
And Dr. Ford, I am--as we have this discussion here today,
I am reminded of the king that sent out one of his servants,
and he wanted him to come back and research all the history of
the world, all the knowledge of the world, he wanted every bit
of knowledge he could gather. So the guy goes off, comes back
in a year, he has got eight volumes. The king said that was
way, way, way too much. Get it down to one volume.
So he comes back another year, and he has got all the
information, knowledge of the world, in one volume. Way, way,
way too much. Come back with one chapter.
So he does that, the same thing, comes back with eight
paragraphs. Finally--says, ``That is way too much. I want all
the knowledge of the world, but I want it condensed.''
And he finally, coming back after another year, and he
said, ``There's no free lunches.'' And that is kind of what my
question or direction is going to go today, since we know there
are no free lunches.
When I hear talk about the government regulating broadband
prices, I wonder what the cost is going to be. As an economist,
could you discuss how this country has benefited from choosing
not to heavily regulate broadband, and what you predict the
impact would be if we decided to regulate rates?
Dr. Ford. Yes. Giving private providers the flexibility to
meet the needs of their customers and try to obtain customers
is very important to the development of the market. It
encourages the private providers to invest in the network and
to upgrade their networks.
When you constrain the firm, with respect to its prices,
then it has to try to do that in some other way. And that other
way may not be desirable. If you constrain its price, it may
reduce quality, it may stop upgrades, it may reduce where it
goes. I mean, there are consequences. It is not that you can
just change price and nothing happens. There is a response.
Firms are not passive recipients of regulation, and that would
be my one sentence, if somebody asked for the volume of the
history of regulation. Firms respond to what you do to them,
often in ways that you don't expect, and often in ways you
don't like.
But I don't think that the problems that we are talking
about today are going to be addressed or solved by rate
regulation. They are going to be addressed and solved by very
targeted policies to deploying broadband in rural areas and
dealing with the affordability problem for people who face it.
Mr. Long. Are you--staying with you here, Dr. Ford--are you
concerned about all the Federal broadband money crowding out
private investment?
And what impact is this having on the incentive for private
investment and the speed of deployment?
Dr. Ford. When you--well, it comes in many ways, but yes. I
mean, if there is money there, why not wait for it, or why not
just take it?
If you continue to invest in areas that are already built,
what you are going to see is the withdrawal of investment from
those areas. It is very hard to compete with a subsidized
competitor, particularly when they are your regulator, like the
government. So, you know, there is going to be that response,
and I think it could be detrimental.
I do think that, if we design very good policies, we can
avoid a lot of that. But about ham-handedness and getting a
little too excited about it can be detrimental.
Mr. Long. Isn't it true that the combination of increasing
broadband speeds and falling prices means that residential
broadband prices have dramatically declined on a megabit-per-
second basis?
Dr. Ford. On a megabit-per-second basis the prices are way
down, yes.
Mr. Long. Yes, that is what I thought. And the COVID-19
pandemic presented extraordinary circumstances for all
Americans. As a response, Congress enacted temporary programs
to provide relief to struggling families, including $3.2
billion in funding from the FCC's the Emergency Broadband
Benefit program, which just started accepting applications.
Now that our economy is finally starting to reopen, does it
make sense to make the Federal Emergency Broadband Benefit
program permanent?
And shouldn't we study the effectiveness of those subsidies
before we make them permanent?
Dr. Ford. I mean, I think there may be more cost-effective
ways to make broadband affordable for people who really need it
than that program was. I mean, that was, obviously, rushed in a
very panicked time.
I think there are better ways to do it, and I think there--
we could set up good incentives for firms to compete for those
customers, and that those customers are able to get affordable,
if not free, services that satisfy their needs.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The chairman now
recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. Soto, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman, for the opportunity.
America has been here before. There was a time as late as
the 1940s where so many families in rural America had no
electricity. And a young Member of Congress campaigning for
Senate named Lyndon Johnson promised farm families that
electric cooperatives could help them in their reliance--get
them off of oil lamps and wood-burning stoves. And America got
it done.
Can we imagine living in places without electricity across
America? That would be unspeakable. This is the challenge of
the 21st century: providing internet access to all Americans.
Because it is just as essential.
I was looking at the statistics and the staff analysis: 20
percent of Anglos have no access to home broadband, 29 percent
of African Americans have no access, 35 percent of my fellow
Hispanic families have no access to broadband. Whether it is
broadband, or whether it is other internet options to get us to
those last miles, to those isolated rural areas, such as Native
American Tribal lands, we need to get it done. That is the
charge of this committee. That is the charge of this Congress.
And then, when we see studies like the Deutsche Bank study
finding that Blacks and Hispanics are 10 years behind Anglos
with regard to internet access, it is an equity issue.
Then, when you look at the number of students, 15 to 16
million lack internet access. That became exacerbated by COVID-
19, and kids not being able to distance learn.
I think about areas like South Osceola County and rural
Polk County, where we have communities of Anglos, Hispanics,
African Americans, many of whom are living without adequate
access to internet, like a small Hispanic business that wants
to do--have a website that works, and be able to take clients
and customers online, but their internet is too slow. An
African-American student in a small city that couldn't distance
learn over the pandemic because he or she didn't have internet
access. Or the Anglo farmer in my district and--with a cattle
ranch or with a citrus grove that wants to use advanced sensors
and Wi-Fi for precision agriculture. It is out of reach for
these constituents and others. And as I mentioned, COVID has
only exacerbated these disparities.
So my first question is for Ms. Chaney.
Do you think that the American Jobs Plan and the goals of
this committee to boost internet access through those plans
will make a big difference to getting internet access to all
Americans?
Ms. Chaney. I think it will make a huge difference, so long
as it doesn't just solve for deployment, as long as it also
solves for affordability.
Congressman, I am from Florida, it is good to see you. Let
me just say that, in addition to the examples that you gave, I
would like to give some examples around women. I come from the
women's economic security space. We know what this pandemic has
done to women's employment. We know that when women make more
money, right, there is a lower wage gap when women have
flexibility in the workplace.
Having broadband in the home allows for flexibility. It
allows them to meet caregiving responsibilities. It allows men
to meet caregiving responsibilities and be able to work. It
allows them to work at night, pull an all-nighter. It allows
children to be able to pull an all-nighter, to be excellent.
And when they can take jobs that allow for flexibility, they
can usually earn more money. This is a critical piece for us to
address.
Mr. Soto. Absolutely, and I agree.
Mr. Lewis, we have heard a lot said today about how we
don't have enough info to act to increase internet access in
rural areas and communities of color. Do we have enough
information to get started on this?
Mr. Lewis. Congressman, absolutely, we do. We have years--
over a decade of efforts by policymakers and industry saying
they were going to close the digital divide. And in that amount
of time, millions and billions of dollars have been given to
industry, and they still pick and choose who gets
infrastructure built up to them.
We have to put some rules--build out requirements and rules
around anti-redlining into effect to make sure that, when you
serve a service area, whether it is in an urban community, a
rural community, a Tribal community, that you serve everyone in
that area.
Mr. Soto. Thank you so much.
Ms. Ochillo, we saw in the CARES Act supplemental--we
passed the first internet assistance program. Our staff
analysis says we could greatly expand access if families in
need could pay 10 to 15 dollars a month. Is this a key part of
the solution?
Ms. Ochillo. Very much so. We have to be able to provide
affordable service options.
And also we acknowledge that there are going to be families
that aren't even going to be able to afford the 10 or 15
dollars. Either way, that is something that we have to commit.
If we are serious about making sure that broadband gets to
every single household, that means that we are going to have to
serve the people near, the people far, the people who can
afford it, and the people who can't.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Walberg.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I
appreciate this hearing and all of the panel members that are
with us.
I would like to point out an important distinction between
underserved households and unserved households. I think we
discussed that, but I just want to punctuate the point.
Families in most urban areas can find at least one option,
albeit maybe not an ideal option in terms of cost or speed, but
at least there is something to build off of.
Most folks where I am seated right now and parked in my
district, not very far, just a--really, a few miles from where
my good friend and colleague Debbie Dingell's district is,
don't have a choice of even a single provider, let alone a
high-cost option. During my socially distanced live town hall
meeting a few days ago in Bedford Township, one constituent
told me the waiting list to check out a MiFi from the local
library was 4 months. That is not satisfactory.
At this moment, when digitization of our economy is
advancing so rapidly, our immediate focus should not be on
unsubscribed households, but more so on unserved households,
which data tells us are overwhelmingly in rural and Tribal
communities. For these folks, the number-one barrier to
broadband adoption isn't price, but lack of access in the first
place. That is because Americans can't adopt broadband in areas
where broadband hasn't been deployed.
Now our Democrat colleagues in Congress and the
administration have introduced plans to expand broadband
deployment, but most of their proposals, including the LIFT Act
and the Biden-Harris administration's infrastructure plan,
focus on upgrading technology in areas that are already served
and overbuilding existing high-speed networks rather than
connecting areas without any service at all.
In contrast [audio malfunction] for deployment we have to
discuss this.
Mr. Ford, how would proposals that focus on future-proof
networks and [audio malfunction].
Mr. Doyle. Tim, we are not able to hear you. Your audio has
cut off.
[Pause.]
Voice. Bad broadband.
Mr. Walberg. Can you hear me now?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, I think you are in one of those underserved
areas.
Mr. Walberg. Yes, it is a perfect example, isn't it, Mr.
Chairman?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Walberg. I am sorry about that.
Mr. Doyle. OK.
Mr. Walberg. But you can hear me now?
Mr. Doyle. Yes, yes, we can. Yes, we can.
[Pause.]
Voice. No.
Mr. Doyle. Well, no, we can't now, Tim.
[Pause.]
Mr. Walberg. If you can hear me, I just made my case.
Mr. Doyle. Well----
Mr. Walberg. I yield. I yield back. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. OK, the gentleman yields back, and we are going
to have to get some service out your way right away, Tim. I am
glad to see your car wasn't moving. But we will get--try to get
back to you, if we have some time, because you were cut short.
OK, let's see. Miss Rice, you are next. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Miss Rice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
all the witnesses for being here. You know, I am so glad, Mr.
Chairman, that we are having this hearing today. But I just
honestly am at a loss to understand that we are quibbling over
this issue, you know, access versus cost. The bottom line is
kids are being left behind and opportunities are being lost,
and that is going to have an enormously huge impact on the
competitiveness of this country, going forward.
Look, the inability for some families to afford internet
service has caused connection disparities along racial and
geographic lines, as we have spoken about. We all saw during
this pandemic when students who lived in one neighborhood had
extremely different outcomes with at-home learning than their
counterparts in a neighborhood just a few blocks over, all
because one student could get online while the other couldn't.
Affordability should not be a barrier to entry, and that is
why I think all of us in Congress should be proud that we--with
what the EBB program has done. And we will see how this goes,
as the application process begins.
So, Ms. Chaney, I would like to start with you. If you--
just a couple of questions. Can you talk again about how the
EBB program is going to help close the adoption gap?
Do you agree that encouraging broad provider participation
in the broadband benefit program will help maximize both
consumer choice and increase enrollment?
And do you believe that this benefit, this EBB program,
should be made permanent?
Ms. Chaney. Thank you so much, Congresswoman.
We absolutely support the Emergency Broadband Benefit
program. We know there are areas where it could be improved,
but ultimately we believe everyone should be very focused--and
certainly our affiliates will be focused--in working with the
FCC to make sure that what--that people know that this benefit
is out there, that they know how to utilize the benefit, and
they know how it would have vast improvements, you know, in
their lives and in their ability to compete in a 21st century
market and educational environment.
So we are very excited about that. We want to partner with
other organizations who are here, who want to do that outreach
work. And we welcome the participation of anyone who is engaged
in trying to make sure that program is deployed. And yes, we
think, if it is successful, we want to see where improvements
need to be made, but we do believe that having some kind of
permanent program is important. Because otherwise, what is
going to be the difference at the end of the emergency? People
will still need broadband service.
And what has not been talked about enough here, in my view,
is that--the fact that our world has changed, and we are not
just going to go back to prepandemic levels and standards and
norms. We are moving on. Everything will be more digitalized,
and more--there will be a lot more tele in all of the work that
we do.
And so I will yield, but I wanted to make that point. I
think it is really important.
Miss Rice. No, it is a really good point, Ms. Chaney. And,
you know, look, all of us know that we were talking about
access and affordability of broadband well before this
pandemic. But now what we can't do is ignore it, because the
pandemic has laid it bare for all of us to see, and it is
impossible to ignore, nor should we.
Ms. Ochillo, I would like to ask you to talk about
eligibility to receive a discount through the program. I have
just talked about different communities that are more likely
than others to lack broadband service at home. But one group
that doesn't usually receive much attention is older Americans.
Ms. Ochillo. Yes----
Miss Rice. A lack of home broadband for older Americans
makes it harder to get critical health information, make
appointments for telehealth services, and even vaccine
appointments. We have seen that in my district. So are you
aware of community digital inclusion efforts to ensure that
seniors are connected?
And can those programs be replicated in other places around
the country?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, there are several community programs
that are making sure that seniors are connected, not just in
New York but nationwide.
But I do think that one thing I want to drag in here is
that one of the reasons why is because of librarians. They are
actually one of the people who are my favorite. They are my
digital social workers. They make sure that people actually
stay connected when they aren't enrolled in school.
And one thing I want to point out: If we are talking about
economics, when we have people who are older adults, they are
living longer. People are not just going to have one career.
And usually that second career is going to require some sort of
online training to up-skill. So we need to not only think about
how do we get the K through 12 and the college students
trained. How do we make sure that people are ready for their
second career and prepared for that?
When we are talking specifically about the Emergency
Broadband Benefit, it is not only that people don't know about
it, it is that it is actually--most of the information
sometimes is online. So we have to actually get out into
neighborhoods to make sure that people find out that they are
actually eligible.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's time has expired. Let's see,
the Chair now recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Duncan. I thank the chairman for holding this important
hearing. And I support the idea of a broad, bipartisan effort
to address the need for rural broadband. I believe this means a
focus on doing what will last for the long term while also
getting the most bang for the buck. That will require investing
in fiber optic infrastructure in the ground that we can grow
with and grow the network with, again, so that we are not
paying for the same areas over and over.
We need to ensure that government isn't paying for the same
urban-center broadband networks over and over again. That means
emphasizing the work this committee has done to ensure that we
are utilizing accurate mapping to help push broadband where it
is needed: to rural areas in Appalachia and throughout the
South and the West.
There exist two or three organizations which I believe can
get us to rural broadband coverage most efficiently: electric
and telephone cooperatives, and private-sector telecom
companies. They have done similar things before, and I believe
they can do it again.
But let's let them plan for future growth--i.e., fiber
optic--and let them set competitive rates that allow them to be
profitable without being subsidized by the government, because
the Biden ask--a $100 billion plan that is being proposed--just
doesn't work. And there's numerous examples where these
Bidenesque plans have failed.
In Senator Bernie Sanders's backyard of Burlington,
Vermont, the city tried to build its own broadband network and
was unable to service the debt for the project.
In Provo, Utah, Mr. Curtis's area, when the city ran the
network, subscriptions were not enough to cover the debt, and
the city had to infuse up to $2 million a year from the city's
energy department surplus funds.
In Philadelphia, Chicago, Portland, Orlando, and others,
the experiment with government-sponsored broadband is a panoply
of recklessness and waste, with losses totaling in the
billions.
Another example, Salisbury, North Carolina, the city wound
up $32 million in debt and ultimately had to lease their system
to a private provider.
In Groton, Connecticut, the city wound up $27\1/2\ million
in debt, even after selling off their network for less than a
million dollars, and now their credit rating has been impacted.
Lake County, Minnesota, lost 40 million on that network.
Burlington, Vermont, tried to prop up their network, 17
million in funds, but ultimately only sold it for $6 million
because of lack of interest.
The examples are numerous, so why don't we focus on
incentivizing the private sector to do this?
And I agree with Miss Rice, who said, you know, access to
rural broadband helps with telemedicine and education and all
that. I think that is why we are all bipartisanly interested in
this effort.
Mr. Ford, I want to ask you, what is the quickest and most
affordable method to get broadband internet services to those
Americans identified as underserved, without wasting taxpayer
money? Because, with examples like I just mentioned, that is
exactly what it looks like will happen under this plan. Mr.
Ford?
Dr. Ford. I think that you are going to get existing
providers, public or private, I guess, to extend their networks
to unserved areas, if that is a possibility, and try to use a
mechanism that exists to do it. And I think the FCC has a
mechanism. There might be some quicker way to do it, but I am
not aware of it.
I think the FCC might be more open to some areas, but it is
clearly to try to exploit what network is there now, through an
extension based on subsidy dollars. That is the most efficient
way to do it, and not to overbuild existing areas, which just
doesn't accomplish the task.
Mr. Duncan. That is a great answer. Mr. Chairman, I want to
just point out to this committee that, when we needed to
electrify rural America in the post-Depression era, from the
1930s through the 1950s, and even on into the late 1950s, we
created a cooperative system, the electric cooperatives, that
actually provided that. And those companies have not gone
broke. In fact, they are member-owned, they meet an underserved
area, they continue to do a great job, and that model should be
what we, as Americans, look for to reach these underserved
areas.
And I would love to work with my colleagues across the
aisle to figure out how we can do this without having the
Federal Government pay for it, because that money comes from
the taxpayers. And there is example after example of
government-run systems which have been sold for pennies on the
dollar, which have had to raise taxes or use other funds to
help subsidize because they do not work. The private sector can
do it better than anyone, and that is where we need to focus
our efforts.
And with that, I will yield back the time I have.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. I see Mr. Walberg is
back.
Tim, I would be willing to give you 2 minutes because you
were cut off for about 2 minutes, if you want to ask a question
in 2 minutes. Would you like to do that?
Mr. Walberg. I would, if you can hear me. Can you hear me
now?
Mr. Doyle. We can hear you.
Mr. Walberg. I----
Mr. Doyle. We are going to run some fiber out to you, Tim,
shortly. So it is----
Mr. Walberg. Well, I am blessed with broadband at my house
now, finally, out in the rural community. But I was out in an
area I was talking about, so now I have rushed into town, to
Saline, Michigan, and I am at a bank parking lot. So now maybe
I am doing an OK job here.
Mr. Doyle. All right.
Mr. Walberg. Let me go back, Mr. Ford. How would proposals
that focus on future-proof networks and symmetrical speeds such
as the LIFT Act and the Biden-Harris infrastructure plan delay
broadband access in unserved areas and, in turn, hinder the
ability of Americans living in those areas to adopt broadband?
Dr. Ford. I think the purpose of those proposals--or the
effect of those proposals, I would say--is to increase the cost
of deployment, which makes it harder to deploy. It is going to
make the subsidy burden go up, because those networks are not
going to be deployed by the private sector because there is no
point in doing that. Our networks have proved resilient over
time, and upgrade when they need to.
So I think it is going to be detrimental to deployment in
rural areas.
Mr. Walberg. You know, I think it would, as well. Let me
jump to another issue, Mr. Ford. Would rate regulation help
close the rural broadband gap, or is competition and a light-
touch regulatory framework a better way to get broadband to
those who do not have it yet?
Dr. Ford. I mean, if the goal is to expand availability,
then rate regulation is a terrible idea. It just works against
it, plain and simple. And it also increases the burden on
society, from the taxation required to subsidize the
deployment, because now, to get--you have just made the
business case worse, so now you got to--now they are going to
ask for more money to deploy the network. So whatever you think
you are getting out of rate regulation, you just gave back in
taxation. So it doesn't--it just doesn't make any sense.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, thanks for your courtesy. I will yield back
my 12 seconds.
Mr. Doyle. OK, I thank the gentleman. Let's see. Next up we
have my good friend, the gentlewoman from California, and my
next-door neighbor in the Cannon Office Building, Anna Eshoo.
Anna, you have got 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a very
important hearing, and I thank you again for having it.
I have a few observations before I ask a couple of
questions. Mr. Ford has advanced something that I really have
not heard of before in all of the hearings that we have had on
broadband. And we all wish we had a nickel or a dollar,
because, on a bipartisan basis, affordability, access, who has
it, who doesn't--but this notion of people don't want it, I
don't find that to be a compelling argument. I haven't heard
Ms. Ochillo or Ms. Chaney from the Urban League mention that at
all within their membership. I think they are pretty darn close
to the ground. And so I don't--well, I don't find that to be a
compelling argument at all.
Now, the issue of rate regulation has been raised. I don't
know how many Members have read all the bills. Go back and read
them. You are not going to find rate regulation in any of them.
If you want to call affordability ``rate regulation,'' well,
tell your constituents that. Tell your constituents that. We
know, if someone can't afford something, they don't--access
doesn't mean a darn thing to them. So read the bills instead of
the talking points.
Now, Mr. Walberg described a very powerful case. He hits on
access, he hits on price, he hits on competition. The problem
that we have in the country is the following: Yes, we have the
private sector, terrific, they all have a business plan. They
are in business to make money, and we accept that. That is our
system. But in their plans they go only where they can make
money. So we have large swaths in our country, represented by
Republicans and Democrats, where people don't have access. And
if there is some access, they can't afford it. And there is the
lack of competition. So that is what we are trying to fix.
On this issue of municipal networks not working, you know
what? I could list all the ISPs that have failed. It would be a
much longer list. I will give you that list.
And on municipalities having the power to establish them,
we allow municipalities to have their own utility. I have one
in Palo Alto, California, the home of Stanford University. So
what is the problem with that? I just--it is a kind of a little
bit of political double talk.
Anyway, let me get to my question, first, to Ms. Ochillo.
To all of the witnesses, thank you. I have paid very close
attention to what--as you can tell, what all of you have said.
On the municipal networks, how do the prices work? Can you
give me or give us an idea of how much money people are saving,
or the affordability of it, and how does that compare with
private providers?
Just very quickly, because I talked----
Ms. Ochillo. Just very quickly----
Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. About my observations too long.
Ms. Ochillo. Municipal networks work a little bit--thank
you for the question. Municipal networks work a little bit
differently than private, in that they usually post their
prices for their service tiers online. It is hard to compare
municipal networks to private networks, because there is no
standardized tiers. So it depends on which State and which
company that you are looking at. But they are known for being
lower prices, higher speeds. And also, they are always--they
always have a low-income option for all of the residents.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you.
And to Chris Lewis, congratulations. I think it is the
first time you are testifying.
Mr. Lewis. Thank you.
Ms. Eshoo. Very good. In your written testimony, you
included a brief mention about how Arkansas recently changed
its mind and repealed its State law prohibiting municipal
broadband. What can you tell us about why the State made this
decision?
Mr. Lewis. In short, the community called for a change. You
know, Arkansas tried using subsidies that went to 2011, I
believe, and those carriers simply did not choose to invest in
all the communities. And so there were still people left out.
And so communities heard from their constituents that something
had to be done.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady's----
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr. Chairman,
thank you.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. Let's see, Mr. Curtis,
you are next. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As a newer member of
the committee, we have this unusual situation of being near the
last. And I cannot think of a single time where I hope my
colleagues are listening more than right now. And that is
because a little over a decade ago I became the mayor of Provo,
Utah. And as such, I inherited a struggling municipal broadband
network. So I have lived this.
The network failed, and it caused serious problems. Our
local paper described it as a millstone around our neck. And it
fell for a variety of reasons, most notably our inability--and
I hope people are listening--our inability to deal with the
fast-changing nature of broadband and the large capital needs
that happen on a recurring basis. And, as a result, taxpayers
over a decade later are still bearing the financial burden of
that gamble.
I saw firsthand the inherent problem with local government
stepping out of their core competency.
Let me be very clear. There are dramatic differences
between streets, sewers, parks, and yes, even municipal power--
and I had municipal power--and broadband deployment. When we
put our network in place, nobody could dream of a gig speed.
That was just 10 years ago. We upgraded it to a gig speed at
massive amounts of money. And today gig speed is now in the
rear-view mirror. You have got to be talking 10 gig.
So, despite our failures and the failures of other
municipalities with these networks, this plan still includes
infrastructure prioritization for funding of these networks.
Mr. Ford, can you speak to the track record of these
government-owned networks?
And do you understand what I am saying with the problems
with the municipality dealing with this?
We were called earlier by one of our colleagues
``scrappy.'' As a mayor, I want you to know I actually believe
that. I own that. But scrappy doesn't work with tens of
millions of dollars, and billions of dollars, in a core
competency they are just not capable of.
Mr. Ford?
Dr. Ford. I think you laid it out pretty clearly there and
may be a better witness than I am about the details of that.
We also heard earlier, from the Congressman from Florida, a
long list of the failures. And I mean, I hate that. I mean, I
have had one here near where I went to university, in Opelika,
Alabama, just recently. I hate that it works that way. It is
entirely predictable.
Mr. Curtis. Yes, and just because of time, I am going to
move a little bit.
After fits and starts, today the residents of my city have
had free access to internet for 7 years, free for all of our
residents. And I wish I had the time to discuss the layers of
complications that you have tried to describe today with why
people don't take advantage of that and why we can't get every
household to take advantage of it even when it is free. And
there are layers of complication that we are not really
discussing in today's hearing.
Now, let me switch gears just a little bit. My experience
that I have learned through this process is the single biggest
impediment to expanding network coverage and higher speeds and
more locations, quite frankly, is regulation. And it is not
just Federal, it is local regulation, pole attachments and
things like that.
In one of my counties, San Juan County, 90 percent of the
land is owned by the Federal Government, and it can take up to
9 years to permit across this Federal land. That is not doing
the project. That is just to get permitting in place.
Mr. Ford, I have got a bill that is called the Rural
Broadband Permitting Efficiency Act. I don't know if you are
familiar with it. Can you speak to how bills like this, how
bills like shot clocks and things like that, that some of my
colleagues have, could help us accomplish the goals we are
talking about today?
Dr. Ford. I think bills like that could be very important
to pushing broadband out, particularly at the margins, and even
outside that. I mean, if you have got a 9-year program, I mean,
that is not going to work.
And you also see that many areas--I have talked to many
providers who say, ``I just can't build there. I would like to,
but it just takes so long, and you put so much capital in and
you don't get to earn on it for years because of these
processes.'' So I think that could have a huge difference, and
it reduces the subsidy that is required in areas where that
doesn't solve the problem, because you reduce the cost of
deploying, so the bids will be lower in the FCC's auctions----
Mr. Curtis. In the last--just very quickly, is it even
possible to get where we want to get, where we all agree we
want to get, without permitting reform?
Dr. Ford. I think it would be very costly, and it will take
a very, very long time to get there.
Mr. Curtis. OK, I thank you. And in my last few seconds let
me just appeal to my colleagues.
I would love to come talk to you, even personally, about my
experience. Obviously, I have had some unique experiences. I
have some insight on this. I think we all agree on the same
goal, and I would love to share the insight I have with you on
how I think we can get there.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. OK, next is our vice
chair of the subcommittee, the gentlelady from California.
Ms. Matsui, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you very much for having this hearing. We have been
having--we have been talking about broadband for a very, very
long time. But, with the pandemic and all, we realize most of
America has realized how important it is. And there has been
many challenges here, but I also believe that there has been
many ideas that are already working that we need to expand on
further.
And we also have to look at communities and how important
they are too. In, for instance, my community, Sacramento, there
has been an additional commitment to really make sure everyone
who needs broadband has access to it because it is so, so very,
very important. In fact, when the CARES funding came, they used
a portion of it to distribute to 1,300 hotspots at libraries
serving more than 1,000 families. And those who received the
hotspot also got hands-on training to ensure they had the
skills they need to use these tools.
Now, thanks to updates included in the American Rescue
Plan, these libraries are now preparing to extend their
broadband service further into the community, reaching people
where they live.
Now, we have made progress. I think we already know now how
much more needs to get done. The high costs of broadband
service, digital redlining are still keeping American families
on the wrong side of the digital divide.
Now, I have mentioned libraries because they are anchoring
institutions, and I really believe in--Ms. Eshoo was saying how
important the municipalities are, and communities working
together. Anchor institutions are really powerful, and I look
at libraries because they are powerful forces of connectivity
by, you know, distributing the hotspots and providing onsite
digital training for those who need it. And this approach
realizes that connectivity alone is not enough to get families
online. Digital literacy and equipment training is a
fundamental part of increasing adoption.
Ms. Ochillo, what role can community anchor institutions
like libraries or schools or community centers play in
promoting digital literacy amongst underresourced households?
Ms. Ochillo. Thank you for the question, Congresswoman. And
when we are talking about librarians, they are--very often they
are the people that are actually--about 30 percent of people
who are living near the poverty line rely on their local
library for reliable access. So that is going to be the place
where they go for information on taxes, COVID relief, how do I
get in touch with, you know, whatever services that they need,
and they are also going to use librarians as a coach.
And especially in schools, a lot of the times we know that,
when students need reduced lunch and other social services,
schools are going to play an imperative role in being able to
identify who needs service.
Ms. Matsui. OK, and how have public Wi-Fi networks or other
community broadband access points helped cover the gaps in
service?
Ms. Ochillo. They are essential, because very often you
will have a large amounts of the community--look at COVID. We
knew that there were actually libraries that actually went in
and turned their equipment outward towards parking lots, to
make sure that people had reliable access points, because they
fill in the gaps.
So while--whether it is you trying to figure out a solution
with a provider, or your local government trying to figure out
a stopgap solution, very often schools and libraries are going
to be there to fill in the gaps. And also, they might be able
to help support ideation, where you can get people together to
say, ``Should we build a mesh network? Should we partner with
other people?''
Ms. Matsui. Well, they are trusted institutions. That is
why it is really--libraries.
Eligibility for Emergency Broadband Benefit expanded on--by
using--by including Pell recipients, students getting free or
reduced lunch, and those experiencing economic hardship from
the pandemic. There is still a need for a long-term broadband
subsidy to build on this work. And I believe that the
eligibility for EBB should serve as a floor for our future
work. And as we expand the reach of Federal support, we need to
ensure that those who are eligible for a qualifying program are
not forced to complete burdensome paperwork, especially if they
are without internet access.
Mr. Lewis, how can the Federal Government leverage existing
databases to reduce the burden on families seeking broadband
support?
Mr. Lewis. So hopefully we can learn from not only the
implementation of the EBB system, we can also use databases,
such as the SNAP database, other databases that can verify who
is applying, and get them expedited into the system.
Ms. Matsui. Right, and so it is a good way to reach out in
order to make sure that we are reaching the people who really
need it. So, OK, great.
Mr. Lewis. You want to meet people where they are, yes.
Ms. Matsui. Absolutely, absolutely.
Well, I am going to yield back 7 seconds, Mr. Chairman,
thank you so much.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady for that. Let's see, next
I believe we have Mr. Carter.
You are recognized for 5 minutes, Buddy.
Mr. Carter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to all
the panelists. This is certainly important.
But I have to tell you that I have got concerns. The
proposal that we are looking at now puts nearly $100 billion to
fund broadband build-out, and the emphasis is placed on
policies that lead to overbuilding in already served areas and
on government-run networks.
We heard during this hearing about existing examples of
cities that tried to build out their own municipal networks and
failed, after spending significantly--a significant amount of
money. Having cities which may be able to sustain a network
build out government-run systems can lead to additional strain
on local budgets. I too was a mayor at one time, and I know
what a strain it can be when you don't plan for the
maintenance, or for having to upgrade, and those type of
things. And that is a problem, a concern that--or a problem
that is often made with municipalities. So it is a concern for
everyone.
And the proposals that we have seen in this package focus
on the idea that throwing billions of dollars to the issue will
address the long-term needs of our communities. But I am
concerned that too much emphasis is being placed on throwing
billions of dollars into overbuilding and not enough on long-
term sustainability.
Dr. Ford, I want to ask you, these proposals that are
focused on injecting billions of dollars into communities
without the notion or any notion of overbuilding our long-term
sustainability, what kind of shortcomings do you see in
maintenance here?
Dr. Ford. Well, I mean, if you build these networks, they
are going to require--with government money, they are going to
require more and more and more and more government money over
time. I mean, we spend $80 billion a year maintaining our
broadband networks, the private sector. You don't get out of
that. As Congressman Curtis was talking about earlier, they are
very, very demanding of finances. And so you are going to be
talking about this every year, how much money you are going to
write.
Mr. Carter. How much does it cost to maintain a system like
this, any idea?
Dr. Ford. Oh, I don't know what the capital base of the
network is, but, I mean, $80 billion, at least, for nationwide.
So----
Mr. Carter. How do----
Dr. Ford [continuing]. Probably 10, 20 percent of your
capital base a year.
Mr. Carter. Exactly. And how are cities expected to pay for
it?
Dr. Ford. Well, normally they will tax. They will ask you
for it, which is the first task. Then they will raise
electricity----
Mr. Carter. You said it right there, they will ask us for
it.
Dr. Ford. Yes, absolutely. Yes. And in some cities that
have municipal electrics, they will raise the municipal
electric rates. That happens very, very often.
Mr. Carter. Right now the private sector's investment we
have seen in broadband over the last 20 years has been in
excess of $1.8 trillion. And the ISPs invest three times as
much per household than is--than the providers in Europe do. My
understanding is that each year the ISPs in America apply about
$80 billion into keeping these networks up to date. That is
just to keep them up to date, about $80 billion. But the
proposals that favor municipal or government-controlled
broadband seems like there is an expectation that it will
provide a better outcome.
Dr. Ford, do you think that government-controlled networks
are able to deliver better broadband?
Dr. Ford. Not in the long term, no. I mean, it is--there is
a lot of evidence that that is not true. And, really, it is the
long term that we are thinking about here. I mean, this is not
a 1-year process. This is a long process.
Mr. Carter. Well, let me ask you. Are there any examples
out there that you know of where government-owned networks
failed or had to be transferred to the private sector?
Dr. Ford. Oh, there are very, very many of them. I have
written about quite a few. We talked about them in this
hearing. There is a long, long list of financial disasters in
municipal broadband. And it is not that--it is not like
somebody else is paying. It is taxpayers that are being forced
to pay the cost of those financial failures. This isn't
voluntary, this is coerced participation in a financial
failure.
Mr. Carter. I tell you, again, in my experiences as a
mayor--I was mayor for over 8 years, and I can tell you that
this is just the type of thing that gets municipalities into
serious, serious trouble. And this is dangerous. I hope that,
you know, we do everything we can to encourage the private
sector to be involved in this and to get out of their way and
let them do what they do best.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back.
Dr. Ford. I like your poster.
Mr. Carter. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. Let's see, Mr. Welch,
you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lewis, I wanted to ask your thoughts on how we provide
an adequate and sustainable funding mechanism by any means--it
doesn't--whether it is government or otherwise--to address the
affordability issue that we did on a temporary basis with the
Emergency Broadband Program.
Mr. Lewis. Sure, Congressman. There are a variety of
options, I think, at the disposal of the policymakers that--you
know, we have a USF program that was built for the essential
communications network of the 20th century, phone, that can be
reformed for broadband. And I think that is one possible way.
There are other ideas out there, such as building a fund using
spectrum options or even through appropriations.
You know, I think the most important thing is that the
funding is long-term sustainable and reliable, so that low-
income families can feel secure that it won't go away.
Mr. Welch. OK, what is your view about some of the programs
like Comcast has for a low-cost option for folks who are on
that economic fringe, where they don't quite qualify for
whatever the Lifeline-type program would be but don't have the
money to be able to pay the full freight?
Mr. Lewis. I think it is great that they are offered, and
it is good that the trend is that more and more providers are
creating these low-income--low-cost offerings. It would be
great if it was required that every provider provide it for
someone who qualifies and also that some of the rules that make
it difficult for low-income families to subscribe to those low-
cost options are relaxed.
It can often--you know, the Comcast program, you know,
still may require a family to unsubscribe from something that
they couldn't afford, but were--in order--for a few months, in
order to subscribe to the low-cost program.
Mr. Welch. OK, thank you.
Ms. Ochillo, on the open access projects, that is an
operating principle. Would that help, as you view it, to
decrease the cost of broadband?
Ms. Ochillo. Very much so, because part of what we know is
that, when providers get Federal funding, there is really no
requirement for them to share their infrastructure. So,
essentially, if somebody even goes nearby, essentially, you
have to start all over again. When you have an open access
network, you have publicly owned infrastructure that everyone
else is tapping into. So you get the best of both worlds, in
terms of having community infrastructure that, essentially,
whatever profits generate from that stay in that community. And
then also, you get the competitiveness with providers plugging
into that network.
Mr. Welch. So how did--just--I want to answer my colleague
Mr. Carter's concerns about the private sector doing this.
These open access projects, in a way, feel like a road, you
know? Anybody can go on the road. It gets built, and then
everybody can use it.
But would--his concern about getting out of the way of the
private sector, would you see having these open access projects
as an impediment to the private sector being able to do what it
does do in some cases really well?
Ms. Ochillo. Not at all. And I think that, quite frankly,
we are seeing more and more examples of open access networks
that are working.
But one thing that I think we need to be really authentic
about this is the fact that there are always going to be
talking points to protect providers and, you know, their
investment, and how great they are at their jobs. But
essentially, the reality is, when you go out into these
neighborhoods, they also decide the places that they don't want
to go.
Mr. Welch. Right.
Ms. Ochillo. So we can't have this existential question
saying we want everybody to be connected, but then still fund
with public funds providers who choose not to go to places that
are--remain unserved.
Mr. Welch. Well, it is interesting. That has definitely
been a challenge we have had here, in rural Vermont.
I thank you, and I thank the panel for your excellent
presentations.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. Let's see, the gentleman
from Oregon, Mr. Schrader, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
[Pause.]
Mr. Doyle. Is Kurt with us?
OK, I don't see Kurt, so I think we are going to go to Mrs.
Fletcher.
You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Fletcher. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to
you and Ranking Member Latta for holding this important hearing
today, and all of the witnesses for taking the time to testify.
This has been a really interesting and useful hearing for all
of us. And I think, you know, we have heard across both sides
of the aisle that reliable, high-speed internet connection at
home is now essential for everyday life.
We have talked a lot about students. We have talked a lot
about the gap and who is getting left behind. But from
education to job searching and, you know, here in my home in
Houston, vaccine appointments are done online. So having access
to the internet in the modern world isn't a luxury, it is a
necessity.
And you know, access to affordable, high-speed internet
isn't universal. That is clear today. Whether it is due to the
cost of the locally priced plans, lack of existing
infrastructure, or digital literacy and skills gaps, so many
Americans find themselves at a disadvantage when it comes to
using the services that they need.
So, Ms. Chaney, in your testimony you mentioned that the
adoption gap is three times larger than the availability gap.
And I was wondering if you could talk a little bit about that a
little bit more today, and how the affordability has kind of
driven these dynamics.
Ms. Chaney. Absolutely. So, I mean, so much conversation,
we--most Americans understand that there is an availability gap
in rural America, but many of them don't realize that their
neighbors are--around them don't actually have access. That is
because we see people on their phones. We see people being able
to seemingly interact at a Starbucks or a library. The Latimer
Plan talks a lot about libraries. As well as Ms. Ochillo, we
believe they are heroes.
But when the pandemic happened, we realized just how
important that is, but how inadequate that is. Most of us--I am
looking around--are at home. We are at home, I am at home. And
so, if you--we are able to do our work from home. My mother is
in the other room. My stepson is in his room, doing his
homework. My husband is in our bedroom, doing his work. We are
all here together. If we didn't have that, we wouldn't be able
to keep up with our work responsibilities. We couldn't be able
to get a little side hustle, if you are retired and you want to
do a little work. We couldn't be able to manage the
responsibilities of child care and elder care while being at
home. We wouldn't be able to do any of the things that we are
doing here.
So we know that, for the vast majority of Americans,
numerically and disproportionately, those are Black and Brown
people. And so--and they are also very poor Asian-American
people who have no access.
Someone wanted to talk to health earlier today, and I
haven't talked about it enough, so I want to raise it here. In
terms of language access, the ability to access telehealth
means that, if you are a person who is having a difficult time
finding a person who speaks your language in your community
that you can get healthcare from, it means that through
telehealth you may have a service that has a translation
service. You may be able to find someone in another community
that you could not reach who might be able to help you. The
innovations are endless, and they will only grow.
So many people care about competition and innovation and
the importance of industry. That will only grow on the other
side of this pandemic as we find new ways to meet our modern
needs with what we have discovered about being able to be
online and be home and to be able to take care of the things we
need. So very important, three times as much.
So, you know, we don't have to have an equal response, but
we want to have an equitable response, which means we
absolutely must address affordability and digital readiness.
Mrs. Fletcher. Well, thank you, Ms. Chaney. I appreciate
that. And I definitely agree with the shout-out to the
librarians and to the libraries. They are such important hubs
across our communities. So I agree with that, and also with the
importance of connecting people and the opportunities that
access--for example, in telehealth--to finding people to
connect with that can really address particular needs is so
important.
So I want to ask, with the time that I have left, which is
getting shorter by the second, but with this Emergency
Broadband Benefit rolling out this month, what is the best
thing that we can do? And maybe I will direct this to Ms.
Ochillo.
What is the best thing we can do to sustain the momentum
that the Congress has created right now to expand adoption and
in collaboration?
And we have had some discussion of whether the EBB should
be made permanent. Maybe you could just weigh in on that with
the few seconds left.
Ms. Ochillo. Thank you for the question. And we need to
make sure that people who are eligible find out about the
program. So often we set up these really high expectations for
these programs, and then we don't tell anybody about them. And
I think there is this assumption in Washington, DC, that people
in other places actually know what happens here. So it is
incumbent upon all of us to make sure that people not only find
out about it but that we educate State and local leaders, who
we need as partners in this endeavor.
Mrs. Fletcher. Right. Well, thank you so much. And I have
gone over my time, so, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you so
much.
[Pause.]
Mr. Doyle. Oh, I am sorry, the gentlelady has yielded back.
I think we have called on all members of the subcommittee,
so now we have some Members that have waived on. And I think
first in line to waive on is Mr. Pence from Indiana. Is Mr.
Pence available?
Mr. Pence. Yes. Thank you, Chair Doyle.
Mr. Doyle. You are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pence. Thank you, Chair Doyle and Ranking Member Latta,
for holding this important hearing today. And thank you to the
witnesses for appearing before the committee.
For rural districts like the one I represent in southern
Indiana, the pandemic highlighted a clear division of
opportunity that exists between rural communities and our urban
counterparts. There is no doubt that each of us here have heard
stories of students sitting outside restaurants or gas stations
to access Wi-Fi to participate in remote learning when their
classrooms were closed.
Unfortunately, that was nothing new for Hoosiers living in
my rural communities. In my district, even before the pandemic
hit, I knew students that would drive to the local McDonald's
just to complete their homework because the broadband
connection to their home was unavailable. This situation was
not because their family didn't want to adopt internet service,
but because there was no service provider in their area.
Just the other week, I had an opportunity to sit down with
both Hancock Regional Hospital and NineStar Connect, a rural
broadband provider in Greenfield, Indiana. Together, this team
made extraordinary strides in making broadband connections to
unserved areas to make sure the community had access to
telehealth services. As a result, physicians at Hancock
Regional were able to develop a portable camera system for
COVID-19-infected patients to connect with infectious disease
experts located at neighboring hospitals systems. This
application is just one example of how telehealth is a wave of
the future for rural patients often living several hours away
from healthcare services.
As telehealth became more critical during the pandemic,
more and more physicians found that they could operate in the
same fashion as in-person visits for prescreening, post-follow-
up, or rehabilitation services, just to name a few. However,
these innovative techniques will only get us so far without
reliable access to a broadband connection.
Rural internet providers in my district, like New Lisbon
Broadband Company, Smithville Communications, and Decatur RAMC,
are community institutions on the front line of closing the
digital divide. Our efforts should be focused on leveraging
their expertise with Federal resources to more efficiently
deploy infrastructure into remote and unserved populations.
Rural patients, seniors, veterans, and other unserved,
vulnerable communities need to be our first priority when we
talk about broadband equity.
Mr. Ford, I am concerned policies being pushed by the
majority will shift the Federal attention away from areas that
are completely unserved, and towards areas that are looking for
faster speeds. Before we talk about 100 symmetrical upload and
download, let's figure out how to connect the remote parts of
our country that have been living on the wrong side of the
digital divide.
My question: How could proposals like the Democrats' LIFT
America Act and President Biden's infrastructure plans lead to
unintended consequences and exasperate the digital divide in
rural America?
And, in contrast, how would focusing finite resources on
unserved rural Americans help bridge the broadband adoption
gap?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think you made the point pretty clearly.
You are going to distract attention. And there are limited
resources for building network in this country. It is not like
you can just go get anybody in the world to string fiber. I
mean, those resources will get redirected to urban areas that
may be more profitable to upgrade than rural areas that may be
very expensive to deploy to.
I think the point of my testimony is to focus on the
problem, and that problem is getting broadband where it is not,
you know, and addressing the people that don't have it, or
don't buy it that do have access to it, and forget about the
rest, because you have got to prioritize where you are going to
focus your attention and you are going to focus your dollars,
unless there is just an infinite sum of money available. And
these days I am starting to wonder if that is the way people
think about it.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time is expired.
Mr. Pence. I yield.
Mr. Doyle. OK, let's see who is next on the waive-in list.
Ah, the gentlelady from Michigan.
Mrs. Dingell, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Chairman Doyle, and thanks for
holding this very important hearing, and thank you to everybody
who is testifying today.
We have talked at length in this committee about how the
COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the inequalities in broadband
access--to my colleague from Indiana, yes, both rural and
urban. I think we all experience that, it doesn't matter whose
district it is. And it has underscored the dramatic disparities
in access.
These services are an essential utility. And as such, every
American has a right to quality, affordable broadband. Now we
have got to put those words into action, and I look forward to
discussing what we do, as Congress, to achieve that goal.
Ms. Ochillo, in your testimony you briefly discuss the need
to hold providers accountable for serving whole communities to
combat digital redlining. Are there incentives or guardrails
that can be put in place to achieve this goal?
And how do we ensure that subsequent expansions in
affordable broadband to areas that these companies may not view
as profitable do not come at the expense of significant
compromises in quality or affordability to the consumer?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, thank you for that question, and I will
try and take it in two parts, quickly.
In terms of what can the Federal Government do to actually
implement guardrails, that is something that we can actually
put conditions on Federal funds. That is something that, even
if we say, moving forward, money that is going out the door
must be able--like, local officials should be able to enforce
you going to the entire area, not just picking and choosing
which parts of the areas are most profitable.
To your question about what guardrails are in place right
now: very little. You know, looking, like, historically over
the past at least decade, local officials have less and less
power when it comes to enforcing providers that are in their
network, in their district. So the thing is, it makes it very,
very difficult when they have very little regulatory teeth to
actually say, ``No, you can't stop at this neighborhood, you
need to go to the entire neighborhood.''
And so I think that, more than anything, we need to really
rethink how are we empowering local officials to do the
enforcement actions that maybe isn't happening all the time at
the Federal level.
Mrs. Dingell. Mr. Lewis, do you have any comments to add to
that?
Mr. Lewis. Not many. I agree, I think rules can be done at
both the local and the Federal level to make sure that there
are requirements to serve everyone in a service area. We used
to have them. Let's remember that. And the networks that
broadband was built on top of, the old cable and the old
telecom networks, had build-out requirements, either at the
local level with franchise agreements or at the FCC for telecom
networks, for phone networks. And they have been rolled back
over the years. So we have been successful at this in the past,
and we can learn from those lessons.
Mrs. Dingell. So I would like to pivot briefly to discuss
digital literacy. Mr. Lewis, can you briefly elaborate on how
promoting digital literacy is critical for our future workforce
needs?
And if Congress neglects to make a robust investment in
broadband access and digital literacy skills now, do you
foresee any potential long-term consequences for our workforce,
our communities, and our economy?
Mr. Lewis. It is extremely important. We need to make sure
that not only are we giving folks the broadband that they need
but that they are prepared to use it in a way that is helpful
to them and their communities' economic development. Digital
literacy training can not only help with basic skills of using
the technology but also in how to use it in a way that can
promote new businesses, entrepreneurship outside of your
community.
This is why we support the idea of the Digital--the Equity
Act that--I think it is called the Digital Equity Act--that
promotes, you know, communities making digital equity plans to
help do this work in your community, and specific to your
community.
Mrs. Dingell. Ms. Ochillo and Ms. Chaney, I have got less
than a minute left. Do either of you want to comment on that?
Ms. Chaney. I will just jump in to say we also--the
National Urban League also supports the Digital Equity Act, as
well as members of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
and others. And we support making sure that we have digital
navigators and investment in that program to make sure we meet
people where we are.
The only thing I would also mention is we have to make sure
people even know how they would use the internet. And I think
that is actually maybe a problem of yesteryear, literally, than
it is right now. I think all Americans, including many older
Americans, understand the benefits of broadband, whether they
are able to access their church services in a way that they
weren't before. People who were once sick and shut in are now
able to have community with people. I think that's ways and
discoveries that--again, I think there is a lot we need to be
learning now about where people are instead of judging where
they might have been before.
But absolutely, we have to make people aware of the
benefits of it. And I have no doubt that--I have never heard of
anyone not wanting it. It is usually that they cannot afford it
or don't have it available to them.
Mr. Doyle. OK, the gentlelady's time has expired. I see Mr.
Schrader is back.
So, Kurt, I am going to recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Schrader. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. Like
everybody else here, we are multitasking today, and I enjoyed
this hearing. This is a pretty critical here. And I would like
to ask a couple of basic questions, if I may, right off the
bat, maybe Ms. Ochillo to start with and then Mr. Lewis.
What is the basic level of service? Right now we are using
the 25/3 to--the idea being that that is adequate to make sure
we can have access to schools, access to healthcare, good
business access to conduct business. Do you agree that that is
an adequate basic level of service?
Ms. Ochillo. No, and I just want to say that we talk to
local officials on a regular basis, and one thing that
unanimously comes up is that 25/3 service, while it might be
enough--it might have been enough before the pandemic, when we
essentially had more than one individual using the same
networks and essentially needing to actually tax those lines,
it wasn't enough.
So we need to actually revisit whether or not the 25/3
benchmark even makes sense and why we keep sending Federal
money out the door. Public funds and networks that are not
going to be adequate 5 years from now--we need to be forward-
thinking about what is not only the service that we need right
now, but what is the service that we need 5 and 10 years from
now.
Mr. Schrader. Mr. Lewis, same question.
Mr. Lewis. I agree, 25/3 is not enough. As the uses of the
internet have changed over time, so has the standard for what
kind of broadband is needed. So while 25/3 may serve one person
well in streaming, you know, their favorite TV shows, it does
not serve a family of four who are doing real-time video
conferencing while their student is doing online education
supplements.
And so this is why, you know, thinking about the upload
speed is also very important. It is why you hear the talk about
symmetrical, because the more real-time video that we are
doing, the more the upload speed becomes important.
Mr. Schrader. Is there a speed you guys would recommend, a
minimum speed, based on what we learned?
Mr. Lewis. We have been promoting the idea of going at
least 100; 100/100 symmetrical would be great, but I
understand, you know, folks don't feel like that upload speed
is necessary yet. But we are getting to that point.
Mr. Schrader. What about----
Ms. Ochillo. Next Century----
Ms. Schrier. Go ahead.
Ms. Ochillo. I said Next Century Cities supports increasing
it, as well. However, it is not to the exclusion where we think
that unserved communities shouldn't get service until they can
get there. What we are looking for is that people can upgrade
their service, and some people might need to start at 25/3.
Mr. Schrader. OK, OK.
Ms. Chaney. Urban League agrees.
Mr. Schrader. What about the access--OK, thank you, Ms.
Chaney.
Ms. Chaney, what about the subsidies? I mean, there has
been some suggestion here today that, you know, a lot of these
companies already give a 10-to-20-dollar subsidy for low-income
folks in the city and in rural communities. Is that enough of a
subsidy to get people to sign on?
Ms. Chaney. Well, I mean, I guess we will find out, right?
I mean, so part of what we know is that, for many, they are
not going to be able to afford even that. And it will be a
barrier to them making the choice to actually endeavor to do
it. There are some people who are so poor that these are things
that they are making decisions about. What can they sustainably
get on? Is it worth investing all of the time to get on and
learn, if they think it is not going to be permanent for them?
So, yes.
Mr. Schrader. OK----
Ms. Chaney. Not the best answer, but yes.
Mr. Schrader. All right.
Mr. Ford, you talked about targeted and untargeted
subsidies. I tend to agree that we should target subsidies if
we are going to use Federal assistance for low-income folks,
not just for their access but to make sure they can maintain
the service. What are the targeted subsidies you think that
would be worthwhile?
Dr. Ford. Well, I think, in terms of targeting--and, you
know--process to design a subsidy scheme, but they should be
targeted to the sorts of people who are having affordability
problems and no one else.
And likewise, the subsidy dollars for expansion should be
targeted to areas that don't have broadband today.
That is--those two things, I think, from my understanding
of what this hearing is about, are at the top of the list of
problems that we see: a lack of access and the lack of
affordability. So targeting to those two things is going to be
the most important thing.
Mr. Schrader. OK, OK, well, I would agree with that.
We have got our work cut out for us, Mr. Chairman, and I
really appreciate the opportunity to have that hearing, and I
will yield back my remaining 20 seconds.
Mr. Doyle. I thank you, Mr. Schrader. I see Mr. Cardenas is
back with us too.
So Tony, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much. I took the committee to
downtown Los Angeles and back, and we are still going strong
here. So thank you for putting me back in the queue, Mr.
Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. Also to the
ranking member as well.
A lot has been covered today, but I want to reemphasize
that, when we are talking about access, for example, one UCLA
study estimated that 29 percent of Hispanic students and 27
percent of Black students didn't always have internet last
fall. We are talking last fall, in the middle of a pandemic,
where almost every student in America found out that they
couldn't go to school and they had to figure out how am I going
to learn, and they had to do it online.
But I don't--I want to also point out this, that that same
study mentioned that 20 percent of White students didn't have
access to internet. So I want to emphasize that, because a lot
of people think that some of us are in Congress and only
representing one community. I believe that every Republican and
every Democrat does believe in their heart that we represent
everybody. So when I speak about students not having access, it
breaks my heart to know that kids who look like me are
disproportionately not accessing it, meaning that they are less
likely to get the education that they deserve--and we need to
provide for them--than their White counterparts. But the White
kids are suffering as well. And I just wanted to point that
out.
Eligible households will receive up to $50 a month toward
their broadband service, and even a one-time discount of up to
$100 to purchase a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet from
participating internet service providers if, in fact, my good
colleague, Mr. Marc Veasey--with his leadership, his bill, the
Federal Communications--will provide that through the Federal
Communications Commission, if his bill were to pass. I just
wanted to point that out. That will go a long way for the
families of every color and students of every color across
America, especially rural America, where that last mile is just
not happening with the private sector.
In fact, this Friday I will be holding a virtual roundtable
and briefing for community partners and leaders in my district
to talk about this incredible benefit. And I thank Acting FCC
Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and her team for taking the time
to participate in it and to talk about this important program
and how crucial it will be for everyone to work together to get
the word out to communities across the San Fernando Valley and
across this country.
I am also aware that internet service providers have done
their part and really stepped up during this pandemic. I just
want to give a shout out to an exception--not the rule,
unfortunately--where Charter Communications had announced that
they are moving every single employee up to $20 an hour. They
are not waiting for the Federal Government to get the $15-an-
hour minimum wage--where it should be--they are stepping up.
But like I said, that is an exception. Those kinds of
efforts, coupled with Emergency Broadband Benefit, will surely
make a significant dent when it comes to the challenges of
affordability and adoption for low-income individuals of all
colors and all communities. But that is not enough.
Ms. Chaney, can you please elaborate on the need for making
the Emergency Broadband Benefit a permanent, sustainable
solution for low-income households and households of color?
Ms. Chaney. Oh, absolutely. I mean, first of all, let me
acknowledge that the importance of what Charter did also means
that people are having greater access to economic opportunity,
which is also important for the Urban League.
Let me say--echo what all of us have said. We need to make
sure that, at the end of this pandemic, at the end of this
emergency--God, we can't wait for that to happen--that people
aren't--that we are not reverting back, that we are not
squandering the lessons that we have learned and, frankly,
squandering the benefit of such an investment in an emergency
broadband program. You invest in all of it and then you just
drop it, and people go back to where they were before. That is
not, you know, a great idea.
We want to make sure that there is an emergency--there is a
long-term, permanent broadband program, but also that it is
sustainable, right? So we want to look at sustainable ways for
funding it and we want to make sure that it is continually
renewed and reviewed, so that we make sure that the products
that people are receiving are actually ones that meet their
current need.
So we want to keep improving the program, but it is very
important that it be extended.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you, Ms. Chaney. My time is short, so I
just want to point something out, as well, that I believe does
need to be pointed out.
Unfortunately, when people in America think about the
government spending money to help those who are less advantaged
to get to where they need to be, I just want to remind
everybody, 6 in 10 people in America who are on Social Security
are White. Six in 10 people in America who benefit from public
funds going to help them have a life of dignity are White. So
it is unfortunate that, in committees like this, we have to
emphasize that, unfortunately, the people who are
disproportionately disadvantaged happen to be people of color.
But I just wanted to point that out, that what we are doing
here today is going to benefit every American, regardless of
their background, regardless of whether it is rural or big city
or what have you, and that 6 in 10 people who benefit when we
make these good decisions are White. Thank you so much.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. OK, back to
the waive-on list.
Ah, from the great and powerful State of Delaware, the
gentlelady, Ms. Lisa Blunt Rochester, you are recognized for 5
minutes, although I would say Pennsylvania has a claim to the
president too. But Lisa, 5 minutes is yours.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And
we are small but mighty little Delaware. And thank you so much,
Ranking Member Latta, for calling this hearing. And thank you
to the witnesses.
This hearing is vital. In the wake of a pandemic, we have
seen a phenomenal growth in telework, telehealth, distance
learning, and the urgent need for digital literacy. And as the
cochair of the bipartisan Future Work Caucus and a member of
Majority Whip Clyburn's Rural Broadband Task Force, I know that
in order for us to leave no one behind, we must meet the goals
of bridging the digital divide, ensuring that America can
compete globally and that our citizens can live, learn, and
earn. Ultimately, we must ensure that high-quality broadband is
truly accessible for all.
And according to Delaware officials across our small but
mighty State, our rural, urban, suburban, and coastal
communities, when it comes to broadband, access--affordability
is a much larger issue for us than even the broadband
infrastructure. That is why I joined my good friend Mr. Veasey
of Texas in advocating for Emergency Broadband Connections Act
inclusion in the December COVID bill, which created the
Emergency Broadband Benefit.
And I want to announce to any Members who are still on and
to all of our constituents that the EBB enrollment will begin
May 12th. So please spread the word.
And now I am proud to colead with Mr. Veasey the Enhanced
Emergency Broadband Act, because all households need reliable,
affordable access to the internet. Our bill would provide $6
billion to make the Emergency Broadband Benefit even more
accessible to more low-income households. In Delaware, by
providing additional full coverage subsidies, more low-wealth
households can access the internet and potentially incentivize
companies to invest in these communities.
And my first question is, Ms. Chaney, if you could, just
briefly, briefly tell how might programs like the Emergency
Broadband Benefit incentivize more providers to serve low-
income areas that are currently underserved.
Ms. Chaney. Absolutely. I mean, I think that, as we see
people getting online and we see people utilizing and we see
the competition and the competitiveness that will come out of
that, I think that we will have more providers who are
interested in investing here and investing long term. And if
they know that it is not something that is going to be a flash
in the pan, it is something that is permanent, we will see that
growth there. I think that, you know, the market will
definitely work there.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much.
We know also that a significant part of the affordability--
the crisis is really about the competition among providers. And
unfortunately, in cities like Wilmington, Delaware, and some of
our rural communities like Harrington, we just see that there
is not enough competition, which keeps the prices high. I was
hoping that--Mr. Lewis, can you discuss the relationship
between digital redlining and competition?
And aside from reducing cost, in what ways can people
benefit from having increased competition among providers in
their area?
Mr. Lewis. Sure, Ms. Rochester. Where we see little
competition I think we are more likely to see digital
redlining, where a company may choose not to serve or--
sometimes digital redlining isn't just that they choose not to
serve a neighborhood, but they simply don't upgrade the
infrastructure there to get the newer, high-quality broadband
speeds and reliable networks. So competition, hopefully, will
drive them to want to serve those areas in order to get the
subscribers that are there. This is happening in urban and
rural communities and Tribal communities.
But it is really sad when it happens--when it happens in
urban communities, where there is the density but simply not
the value placed on those specific neighborhoods.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great, thank you. And in preparing for
today's hearing, my staff was really unable to gather
sufficient data on broadband access because the information is
not made public. I am proud to have supported the Broadband
Data Act to require the FCC to reform their existing broadband
deployment maps. But we also need more public data on broadband
pricing speeds and adoption.
Ms. Ochillo, in your testimony you stress the need for
better and more data as we work together to address the digital
divide. Can you talk about why it is crucial to have this data
and--for sustainable solutions?
Ms. Ochillo. Well, I was actually just looking--I had
something on my desk this morning, because I pulled Delaware's
statistics as I was just thinking about some things, and you
would be surprised to find out that the FCC says that 96
percent of rural Delaware residents have 25/3 access in their
area, which would surprise the local officials there.
And so I think that it is important for us to really
confront some of these numbers. When we have the Federal
Government saying, ``Oh, 96 percent of your area is served,
everything is fine,'' and then you get down to either their
town hall meeting, maybe you talk to a county commissioner and
they are saying, ``No, that is way off,'' I think we need to
find out what is happening in that disconnect.
And it is not enough for us to say, in theory, we need to
improve data. It is enough--we need to actually get it done.
And so we keep talking about possibly, you know, maybe we could
add pricing and, you know, hopefully, they will get more
granular and, hopefully, they will actually adopt our
suggestions to be able to correct their information. But we
need to get all of those things done now. And then we need to
actually supplement it with the information that is being
generated at the local and State level. Otherwise, we are going
to keep spending money that we can't target.
Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. My time has
expired.
And thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. Last, but certainly not
least--and I want to thank her for her patience--from the great
State of Washington, Dr. Schrier, you are closing up the
hearing.
Ms. Schrier. I am honored. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you to our witnesses. Thank you for holding this
hearing on a really important issue which has taken on even
more urgency and attention during this pandemic.
Sometimes it sort of takes that in order for everybody to
pay attention, because access to broadband now translates
directly to access to education and jobs and telehealth. And
while this has touched all populations, it is so much tougher
to address for rural America because there are areas where
there simply is no access. And it isn't just a matter of
affordability for an individual family or business.
My State of Washington is laser-focused on expanding
broadband connectivity, and recently our State passed a bill
that--by State Representative Ybarra, opening up retail
services to our public utility districts. And for those who
don't know, public utility districts are unique to Washington
and Oregon, and the mid-Columbia PUD networks currently provide
broadband access to about 70 percent of the population in
central and eastern Washington, which is mostly rural and
traditionally underserved.
But we still have a lot of work to do. In Washington State,
for example, we see strong availability in our urban areas, but
access to robust connectivity fades really quickly when you go
to suburban and then really dramatically to rural regions. And
it doesn't even stop there. Very few of our 29 recognized
Tribes in Washington have access to adequate broadband. So
Tribal communities, they have been historically underserved,
and it continues, and that is why it is so important to have
provisions like 500 million going straight to the Tribes in the
LIFT Act.
Now, we also know that partnerships are vital, and the
people closest to the problem also have the best solutions. And
I will be introducing legislation to create a year-long,
competitive grant program available to establish State
broadband offices, with the goal of creating public-private
partnerships to expand broadband connectivity. And these
partnerships can find really creative ideas for broadband
deployment and to close those gaps where the private investment
alone, it just will never pencil out.
So the hope is that great ideas imagined and implemented by
really smart State broadband offices partnering with private
industry could then be replicated and scaled up elsewhere in
the country.
So Ms. Ochillo, I wanted to ask of you, in your testimony
you noted public-private partnerships are key to innovation and
creativity, and that can get broadband to more remote areas.
And it has certainly worked well in Washington State with one
last year between Starlink and our State broadband office
bringing connectivity to the Hoh Tribe. I was wondering if you
could just give some examples from your own experience of
public-private partnerships yielding new innovation for better
connectivity.
Ms. Ochillo. Well, I think that they have been in lots of
different States. And one thing that you mentioned about the
State broadband office, some of the idea-sharing that happens
in those offices is the most important thing that can happen.
Look at the State of Colorado. Look at the State of
Minnesota, Georgia, just recently in New Mexico. When you
have--and even in your State, Washington, you have a great
State broadband officer who just added a--is adding a digital
equity officer. I think that it is really important for us to
have a place for local officials who are looking for ideas to
actually go for direction.
And then also, for ISPs that are looking to expand, they go
to State broadband officers to say, ``Who were the best
partners?'' So it is really important to have that place where
they can actually intersect, where you have an ISP who is
saying, ``We have got great ideas'' and a local official who is
saying, ``I want you here,'' where they can actually find out
here are funding options, here are possibilities.
So those are things that are happening in lots of different
States, especially yours.
Ms. Schrier. Yes, I have been so pleased with our State
broadband office because, when we talk about private industry
doing this, what they find is that what they do is end up just
putting faster fiber to areas that already have access instead
of going those extra miles to get people who don't have any
access. And it really--it is, like--it is investments there
where private industry won't do it. It just doesn't make sense
with dollars and cents. But that is where we step in and say
no, if we want to get this to rural America, just like we did
with electricity, this is where we invest.
So thank you very much, and I really appreciate that. I
yield back the rest of my time.
Mr. Cardenas. This is Cardenas. Will you yield?
Ms. Schrier. I would be happy to yield.
Mr. Cardenas. Is that OK, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Doyle. I guess so.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to take an
opportunity on her time to say thank you for having this
hearing, and what a closer. That public-private partnership
needed to be expanded upon in this committee. And that is how
you get things done.
And Utah, try it again the right way.
Thank you, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. You take all the time you need, Tony.
Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses for their
participation today. Your opening statements, your answering
the questions of all these Members, we really appreciate it.
I need now to request unanimous consent to enter the
following records--documents into the record: a letter from a
group of 40 undersigned business associations and corporations
in support of a long-term broadband benefit program; a study
from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; a
letter from Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Pacific
Advocates, and National Council of Asian Pacific Americans; op-
ed in the Austin American-Statesman by Angela Siefer, executive
director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance; a report
from the Benton Institute for Broadband & Society by John B.
Horrigan; a study from the Technology Policy Institute entitled
``Does Competition Between Cable and Fiber Increase Adoption?''
by Scott Wallsten; a letter from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation; a letter from the National Digital Inclusion
Alliance; a letter from the Healthcare Leadership Council; a
letter from Western Governors Association; a letter from the
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights; a letter from
the Student Internet Equity Coalition; a letter from the
National League of Cities; a study from Free Press entitled
``Price Too High and Rising: The Facts about America's
Broadband Affordability Gap'' by S. Derek Turner; a white paper
entitled ``Broadband Build the Future'' by Reimagine
Appalachia; a policy proposal from the Student Internet Equity
Coalition; a letter from the US Telecom-The Broadband
Association; a report from the FCC submitted by Ranking Member
Latta; a study entitled ``2020 Broadband Pricing Index'' by
Arthur Menko, Telcodata and Business Planning, Incorporated; an
article in The Brookings entitled ``Broadband adoption is on
the rise, but states can do much more'' by Lara Fishbane and
Adie Tomer; a study from the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal
and Economic Public Policy Studies entitled ``OTI's Cost of
Connectivity 2020 Report: A Critical Review'' by Dr. George S.
Ford; a study from the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and
Economic Public Policy Studies entitled ``Subsidizing Broadband
Price Relevance and the Digital Divide'' by Dr. George S. Ford;
a study by the Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal and Economic
Public Policy Studies entitled ``Are Broadband Prices
Declining? A Look at the FCC's Price Survey Data'' by Dr.
George S. Ford; a study from the Technology Policy Institute; a
study from the Advanced Communications Law Policy Institute at
the New York School of Law; a study from the Technology Policy
Institute entitled ``Increasing Low-Income Broadband Adoption
through Private Incentives''; a letter from R Street Institute;
and last but certainly not least, a letter from the Americans
for Tax Reform.
So without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the
hearing.\1\]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Free Press, Advanced Communications Law Policy, and March
2016 and July 2020 Technology Policy Institute studies, the ``Reimagine
Appalachia'' paper, and the FCC report have been retained in committee
files and are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=112553.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Doyle. I want to remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses who have appeared. I would ask each witness to
respond promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
And at this time, with my thanks and thanks to my ranking
member, Mr. Latta, this committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]