[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]