[Senate Hearing 117-705]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]





                                                        S. Hrg. 117-705
 
  RECENT FEDERAL ACTIONS TO EXPAND BROADBAND: ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS?

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

                                HEARING

                               before the

                         COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
                      SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 17, 2021

                               __________

    Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
                             Transportation
                             
                             
      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                       
                             
                             


                Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
                
                
                
                
                
                
                              ______

             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
 53-061          WASHINGTON : 2023
           
                
                
                
                
                
       SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                   MARIA CANTWELL, Washington, Chair
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi, Ranking
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 ROY BLUNT, Missouri
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts         TED CRUZ, Texas
GARY PETERS, Michigan                DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JERRY MORAN, Kansas
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
JON TESTER, Montana                  MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  MIKE LEE, Utah
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia                 Virginia
                                     RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
                    David Strickland, Staff Director
                 Melissa Porter, Deputy Staff Director
       George Greenwell, Policy Coordinator and Security Manager
                 John Keast, Republican Staff Director
            Crystal Tully, Republican Deputy Staff Director
                      Steven Wall, General Counsel
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hearing held on March 17, 2021...................................     1
Statement of Senator Cantwell....................................     1
Statement of Senator Wicker......................................     3
Statement of Senator Klobuchar...................................    40
    Letter dated March 16, 2021 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon. 
      Roger Wicker from Wade Henderson, Interim President and CEO 
      and LaShawn Warren, Executive Vice President for Government 
      Affairs, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
      Rights.....................................................    42
Statement of Senator Thune.......................................    45
Statement of Senator Blumenthal..................................    47
Statement of Senator Fischer.....................................    49
Statement of Senator Markey......................................    51
Statement of Senator Sullivan....................................    52
Statement of Senator Tester......................................    54
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................    56
Statement of Senator Sinema......................................    58
Statement of Senator Moran.......................................    60
Statement of Senator Lujan.......................................    62
Statement of Senator Blackburn...................................    66
Statement of Senator Capito......................................    68
Statement of Senator Young.......................................    70
Statement of Senator Lummis......................................    71
Statement of Senator Rosen.......................................    75
Statement of Senator Lee.........................................    78

                               Witnesses

Christopher Ali, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Media 
  Studies, University of Virginia; Knight News Innovation Fellow, 
  Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia University.........     5
    Prepared statement...........................................     6
Hon. Michael P. O'Rielly, Former Commissioner, Federal 
  Communications Commission......................................    17
    Prepared statement...........................................    18
Jon Wilkins, Partner, Quadra Partners............................    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    23
Justin Forde, Senior Director, Government Relations, Midcontinent 
  Communications.................................................    27
    Prepared statement...........................................    29

                                Appendix

Letter dated March 17, 2021 to Hon. Maria Cantwell and Hon. Roger 
  Wicker from Jonathan Spalter, President and Chief Executive 
  Officer, USTelecom.............................................    81
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Michael P. 
  O'Rielly by:
    Hon. Roger Wicker............................................    82
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    82
Response to written question submitted to Justin Forde by:
    Hon. Shelley Moore Capito....................................    83


  RECENT FEDERAL ACTIONS TO EXPAND BROADBAND: ARE WE MAKING PROGRESS?

                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 17, 2021

                                       U.S. Senate,
        Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room SR-253, Anteroom: SR-254, Russell Senate Office Building, 
Hon. Maria Cantwell, Chair of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Cantwell [presiding], Klobuchar, 
Blumenthal, Markey, Tester, Sinema, Rosen, Lujan, Wicker, 
Thune, Cruz, Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Lee, 
Capito, and Lummis.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

    The Chair. Good morning. The Senate Commerce Transportation 
Committee will come to order, and want to welcome our witnesses 
to today's hearing about ``Recent Federal Actions to Expand 
Broadband: Are We Making Progress?'' And we have a 
distinguished list of witnesses today to help us discuss what 
we have most recently done on a variety of broadband programs 
and access and increasing services, and also, ideas and 
frameworks for how we should move forward. So, we welcome the 
witnesses today to be here.
    The last year has been a very stark reminder about how 
important broadband connectivity is to Americans. As we have 
faced a pandemic, the Internet has become the place to go to 
work, to attend school, to see friends, to help visit the 
doctors, and do many of the day-to-day things that we have all 
had to do in our lives. We have had to struggle throughout the 
pandemic, but imagine what life would have been like if we did 
not have the Internet during that time period. For millions of 
Americans, they do not have to imagine, because some of them 
really did not have access to the internet.
    So, I know we are going to hear from our witnesses today, 
like Dr. Ali, who is saying that the diagnosis and 
understanding of our most recent spending, that still there is 
37 percent of rural Americans who could be paying more for 
Internet connectivity than their counterparts in urban areas. 
That truly is unacceptable. We need our rural communities to be 
on a level playing field. And as our other witnesses, Mr. 
Forde, will be with us, I think virtually, will also point out 
that what we do next has to be done right, otherwise, we could 
be in a situation where those who are currently lacking service 
could, after more spending, continue to lack service. We cannot 
allow that reality to happen.
    If we are going to make investments, which I think we 
should, we need to make sure that we are really going to cut 
the digital divide. The stories that I hear from my home state 
in Washington are heartbreaking. A principal from the Columbia 
School District, near Spokane, recently described the impact to 
remote learning to her school, only to find that close to 70 
percent of the students and their families lacked consistent 
access to broadband internet. Even those who did have access 
often lacked a strong enough signal for more than one of their 
children to attend virtual class, putting the parents in an 
impossible dilemma of who is going to go to school that day.
    And that problem did not stop within the households, 
either. Neighborhoods and multiple children trying to attend 
their digital classrooms, the signal failed to hold up, leaving 
them with many challenges. The principal's conclusion reads 
like a wake-up call for those trying to make policy in this 
space. ``The need for appropriate Internet and cellular 
coverage in Stevens County,'' the principal said, ``is glaring 
at us like a neon light.'' Well, I could not agree more that it 
is glaring at us, and we need to get the next phase right.
    Today, we are going to review some of the recent extensive 
programs the FCC developed and implemented. The Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund and RDOF auction; Congress created the 
ReConnect Broadband grant and loan program for rural counties; 
the NTIA Administration is working on rules for Tribal and 
rural grant programs from the December COVID package; and the 
American Rescue Plan, just recently signed by President Biden, 
a new Treasury program targeted infrastructure.
    I am pretty sure all four witnesses will remind us today 
that coordination, something that Senator Wicker has been 
resolute about, and helped us get some initial language into 
previous laws--that the lack of coordination between these 
programs and Federal agencies also needs to be strengthened, 
and I appreciate his previous legislation on that. So, I am 
sure all the witnesses are going to tell us that better 
coordination between these resources, also, is very important.
    We will also here how the FCC predicted that it might take 
as much as $80 billion to close the digital divide. And I know 
that we are going to hear a lot of different inputs about that 
this morning. My hope is that the Committee can develop a 
strong bipartisan framework to look at this issue as we move 
forward because, as our witnesses say, we cannot afford to 
invest this money, and then, still have communities without 
access moving forward. I hope that today we will hear from the 
broad depth of experience that each of our witnesses have, and 
they will talk about the necessary things before us, on getting 
access to those underserved communities.
    But I do think that affordability, resiliency, redundancy, 
and security are also part of our agenda here. These are 
important tools for an information age. This is how we live, 
and work, and socialize, and educate the next generation, so I 
hope we can get this right.
    Thank you all for being with us today. And now, I will turn 
to my colleague, Senator Wicker, for his opening statement.

                STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI

    Senator Wicker. Thank you, Senator Cantwell. Thank you for 
convening this important hearing and good morning to our 
distinguished panelists. I look forward to your testimonies.
    Last year brought challenges on a scale few could have 
imagined. The COVID-19 crisis changed life dramatically for 
almost every American. Many of our normal activities, such as 
work, school, spending time with loved ones, moved online to 
prevent further spread of the Coronavirus, including hearings 
of this committee. This generated a significant increase in 
broadband traffic and upended the average Internet usage 
patterns. According to one estimate, broadband traffic 
increased 51 percent last year.
    The good news is that broadband networks in the United 
States performed well, compared to other nations. Thanks in 
part to a light touch regulatory framework that promotes 
investment in broadband infrastructure, U.S. broadband networks 
have been able to accommodate the sustained surge in online 
traffic and bandwidth consumption during the pandemic.
    For its part, the FCC, under the Trump Administration, also 
took meaningful action to respond to the Nation's urgent 
broadband needs. This included the launch of the Keep Americans 
Connected Pledge, where providers voluntarily committed not to 
terminate broadband services for any residential or small 
business consumers because they were unable to pay their bills. 
The FCC also adopted temporary modifications to existing 
Universal Service Fund programs to support rising demand for 
Internet services.
    Along with these measures, the Commission completed the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Phase 1 Auction, which 
awarded $9.2 billion to providers, including over $495 million 
to providers in Mississippi, to deliver high-speed Internet 
services to 5.2 million unserved homes and businesses across 
the country. Today's hearing is an opportunity for witnesses to 
discuss how the FCC and Congress can ensure that winning 
bidders of the RDOF auction are in fact able to meet their 
buildout obligations and deliver high-speed broadband services 
as promised.
    The bipartisan CARES Act, enacted last March, and the 
bipartisan Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, enacted in 
December, also provided billions of dollars in Federal 
resources to broadband related programs. Together, these laws 
directed over $400 million to the FCC to expand access to 
telehealth services, $98 million to implement the Broadband 
DATA Act to improve the Nation's broadband maps, $1.9 billion 
to help small rural providers remove equipment from their 
networks, that pose a national security threat, and $285 
million to implement my Connecting Minority Communities Act, 
which provides connectivity assistance to Historically Black 
Colleges and Universities, and minority communities, through 
the newly established Office of Minority Broadband Initiatives 
at NTIA.
    These bipartisan laws also provided billions of dollars to 
the Department of Education in support of remote learning, 
billions to the FCC to help low-income Americans remain 
connected, hundreds of millions of dollars to the Department of 
Agriculture to connect rural areas, and over a billion dollars 
to NTIA to expand broadband to unserved areas and Tribal lands. 
Each of these efforts marked a critical step toward connecting 
all Americans and closing the digital divide.
    Importantly, these bipartisan laws include meaningful 
guardrails to ensure that broadband resources are spent 
prudently and avoid the mistakes of past stimulus efforts that 
ultimately led to significant waste, overbuilding, and millions 
of Americans still left unconnected.
    Of course, prudent spending starts with accurate broadband 
maps. Next week will mark 1 year since the bipartisan Broadband 
DATA Act was signed into law. The Broadband DATA Act directs 
the FCC to collect more precise data about where broadband is 
available and where it is not, and at what speeds. I am 
disappointed that the FCC is now projecting that it will take 
at least another year to comply fully with this law. I hope 
witnesses will discuss how the delay in developing new maps 
will impact the efficacy of existing broadband programs, as 
well as those created through last year's COVID-19 stimulus, to 
target resources to unserved areas and communities in need.
    Coordination and information sharing among Federal agencies 
responsible for administering broadband deployment programs are 
also essential to expanding availability. My Broadband 
Interagency Coordination Act was passed on a bipartisan basis 
and signed into law as part of last year's COVID-19 stimulus 
package. This will require the FCC, NTIA, and USDA to 
coordinate the distribution of Federal funds for broadband 
deployment, to prevent duplication and other mismanagement, and 
I thank the Chair for acknowledging our mutual interest in this 
subject matter.
    I look forward to witnesses discussing how coordination 
among these agencies can reduce overbuilding of existing public 
and private broadband investments. I would also point out that 
recently enacted legislation tasks the Treasury Department, the 
FCC, states, and localities with administering billions in 
broadband resources, without any safeguards to ensure proper 
handling of funds. For example, there are no requirements that 
the Treasury Department coordinate with the FCC or NTIA to 
prevent subsidized overbuilding, duplication of broadband 
benefits, and other wasteful spending. I am sure witnesses will 
want to discuss how this might impact ongoing efforts to 
provide universal broadband access.
    Finally, as most of the broadband resources Congress 
authorized over the past years remain unspent, I hope witnesses 
will discuss how we can fund future broadband initiatives most 
effectively, in order to address the remaining disparities in 
access to quality and reliable communications services 
throughout the United States.
    So again, Madam Chair, a very important hearing with very 
informed witnesses and I look forward to participating. Thank 
you, ma'am.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Wicker, and again, thank you 
for your leadership on the coordination issue and many other 
aspects of this debate and I, too, want to echo your concerns, 
you know, regarding the mapping. I think everyone of, probably, 
a hundred members of the U.S. Senate would do so. So, maybe 
after today's hearing we will discuss what else we need to do 
to get this information, because I have a feeling it is, pretty 
much, really available. Let us figure out the ways to get it 
sooner. I like your suggestion that time has passed.
    OK, so now to the witnesses, and again, thank you all for 
being here, both in-person and virtually, and we really look 
forward to your testimonies, and we are going to start with 
you, Dr. Ali.

         STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER ALI, Ph.D., ASSOCIATE

       PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF MEDIA STUDIES, UNIVERSITY

          OF VIRGINIA; KNIGHT NEWS INNOVATION FELLOW,

               TOW CENTER FOR DIGITAL JOURNALISM,

                      COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

    Dr. Ali. Great. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, 
distinguished members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation, thank you for the invitation to be 
here today to speak with you today, to speak about rural 
broadband policy and deployment. It is a great honor to be 
here.
    Today, I will argue for a new national rural broadband 
plan, one that incorporates what I called in my written 
testimony, The 5 M's of Successful Rural Broadband Deployment: 
Meaning, Money, Mapping, Municipalities, and Management.
    I applaud you for passing the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act which included $3.2 billion for the Emergency Broadband to 
Benefit Program, and the American Rescue Plan Act, which 
allocates $7.1 billion for broadband for schools and libraries, 
and $10 billion for state infrastructure projects.
    I am also excited about the reintroduction of the 
Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act last week. We need 
to build on this momentum and develop a decisive and coherent 
plan for rural broadband deployment.
    Some quick facts about broadband deployment in rural 
America. The FCC reports that 82.7 percent of rural Americans 
have access to broadband at speeds of 25/3. Current research, 
however, suggests that this number, the FCC has overestimated 
connectivity by upwards of 50 percent because of faulty data 
gathering methodology. Only 63 percent of rural Americans 
report having an Internet connection at home, but that number 
does not differentiate between technologies. For instance, 3 
percent of farmers still use dial-up and far too many rural 
Americans depend on DSL and satellite.
    Rural Americans pay upward of 37 percent more for their 
service than their urban counterparts, and that service is 
often suboptimal. Only 30 percent of rural Americans have a 
choice in provider, for speeds over 25/3. 25/3 is hopelessly 
outdated as a baseline. It cannot meet the needs of 
contemporary households and its asymmetry privileges download 
over upload, consumption over production, which hurts students 
and businesses alike.
    Last, rural Americans are frustrated, frustrated with the 
quality of their connectivity when they have it, and with the 
lack of connectivity when they do not.
    So, why is broadband availability in rural America such a 
problem? Rural broadband is a market failure. Private providers 
are unwilling, or unable, to provide basic service because of a 
lack of sufficient return on investment. It is important to 
note, however, that the same thing was said about electricity 
in the 1920s and telephone in the 1930s. But ambitious, 
forward-looking public policy solved these problems. Public 
policy has yet to solve the problem of rural broadband.
    I have heard it said that rural Americans do not need what 
my friend Jonathan Sallet calls ``high performance broadband''. 
That making this argument is trying to justify a Ferrari over a 
Toyota Corolla--luxury versus utility. Nothing could be further 
from the truth. We are not talking about a Ferrari and a Toyota 
when we talk about fiber versus DSL. We are talking about 
walking versus driving. High-performance broadband is not a 
luxury. It is not gold-plated. It is not a Ferrari. High-
performance broadband is as essential today as electricity and 
water.
    We need a new plan for rural broadband, one that will raise 
the definition to 100/100, so that rural Americans have 
meaningful connectivity, not just good enough connectivity. We 
need a plan that will allocate funding without privileging the 
loudest and largest providers and will hold companies 
accountable. It must fix mapping by relying on a combination of 
granular audited data and crowd-sourced information and provide 
a streamlined challenge process. A plan that recognizes the 
crucial role of states, municipalities, local providers and 
cooperatives, and celebrates local public investment. Last, a 
plan that cuts through the policy gridlock of the FCC, RUS, and 
NTIA by requiring meaningful and visible interagency 
cooperation.
    The FCC has estimated it will cost $80 billion to connect 
the country with high-performance broadband. This is what we 
must aim for. The exciting thing is, we have done this before 
with the Rural Electrification Administration in 1935. To 
connect the country with electricity, the REA championed the 
creation of local electric cooperatives. It also sent 
representatives on rural electrification tours, the REA Circus, 
it was called, to encourage local adoption.
    In a little over a decade, rural electrification soared 
from 48 percent to 96 percent. It was so successful that REA 
was tasked with rural telephony in 1949 and it went back to the 
same model, trusting local communities and local cooperatives. 
Today, hundreds of electric and telephone cooperatives, along 
with small local and regional providers, are doing the vital 
work of connecting their communities. It must be said, local 
broadband is the best broadband.
    Thank you for this opportunity to be part of this vital 
conversation, and I look forward to taking your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Dr. Ali follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Christopher Ali, PhD, Associate Professor,
   Department of Media Studies, University of Virginia; Knight News 
    Innovation Fellow, Tow Center for Digital Journalism, Columbia 
                               University
    Chair Cantwell, ranking member Wicker, distinguished members of the 
United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, 
thank you for the invitation to speak with you today about policy 
reform for broadband infrastructure deployment and investment in rural 
America. It is a great honor to be here. My name is Dr. Christopher Ali 
and I am an Associate Professor in the Department of Media Studies at 
the University of Virginia, and Knight News Innovation Fellow at the 
Tow Center for Digital Journalism at Columbia University. Previously, I 
was the Faculty Research Fellow of the Benton Institute for Broadband & 
Society and Academic Fellow with the Global Futures Council of the 
World Economic Forum.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ ``Christopher Ali,'' Department of Media Studies, 2021, https:/
/mediastudies.as.virginia.edu/people/profile/cfa2z.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony today is based on 5 years of research and writing 
about rural broadband policy and deployment in the United States, 
including in-depth policy analysis, field visits and interviews. This 
research will be featured in my book Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics 
of Rural Connectivity that will be released in September from MIT 
Press. Today, I want to share with you all what I'm calling the ``5 
M's'' of successful rural broadband deployment: Meaning, Money, 
Mapping, Municipalities, and Management. In doing so, I will also point 
out some of the flaws in previous policy attempts to close the rural-
urban digital divide, and share my hope that history does not repeat 
itself.
    I am excited to speak about the potentials and possibilities for 
policy reform to stimulate robust and meaningful broadband deployment 
in rural America, which represents a facet of what is known as the 
``digital divide.'' Other facets, as we know, include affordability, 
access to device, and digital literacy skills, which together are part 
of the larger concept of ``digital inclusion.'' \2\ Today though, I 
will talk about broadband infrastructure, which is a part of the 
digital divide specifically impacting rural America.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ NDIA, ``Definitions,'' National Digital Inclusion Alliance, 
January 18, 2017, https://www
.digitalinclusion.org/definitions/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I applaud you for passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act in 
December which allocated $7 billion for broadband access, including the 
$3.2 billion Emergency Broadband Benefit Package \3\ and the recently 
passed American Rescue Plan Act, which allocates $7.1 billion for 
broadband for schools and libraries and $10 billion for state 
infrastructure projects.\4\ We must now build on this momentum and 
develop a decisive and coherent plan for ``high-performance broadband'' 
\5\ infrastructure investment.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ ``The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021,'' Pub. L. No. 116-
260. H.R. 133 (2021), https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/
house-bill/133?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22Consolida
ted+Appropriations+Act+2021%22%7D&s=4&r=12.
    \4\ ``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021,'' Pub. L. No. 117-2. H.R. 
1319 (2021), https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/117/hr1319.
    \5\ Jonathan Sallet, ``Bringing High-Performance Broadband to Rural 
America'' (Chicago, IL: Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, 
2019), https://www.benton.org/blog/bringing-high-performance-broadband-
rural-america.
    \6\ For example, the recently proposed Accessible, Affordable 
Internet for All Act proposes a $94 billion investment in broadband 
deployment and access. Tony Romm, ``House, Senate Democrats Unveil $94 
Billion Bill to Close Digital Divide--The Washington Post,'' Washington 
Post, March 11, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/
03/11/house-senate-internet-broadband/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2017, Paul de Sa, Chief of the FCC's Office of Strategic 
Planning and Policy Analysis authored a report estimating that it will 
cost approximately $80 billion to connect the entire country with fiber 
to the premise. This is what we should aim for: achieving universal, 
high-performance broadband.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Paul de Sa, ``Improving the Nation's Digital Infrastructure'' 
(Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission, 2017), https://
www.fcc.gov/document/improving-nations-digital-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As we contemplate what policies are necessary to help this country 
recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, broadband must be one of our top 
priorities. We learned during the pandemic that access to high-
performance broadband is a matter of life and death for many Americans, 
with a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research finding that 
access to high-speed broadband is a major predictor of the likelihood 
to social distance.\8\ Right now, those without broadband or those who 
are under-connected, are struggling to make vaccine appointments, do 
their homework, apply for benefits, look for work, or connect with 
loved ones. Public policy has a role to play in making these 
connections happen, but we must also ensure that the mistakes of the 
past are not repeated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Lesley Chiou and Catherine Tucker, ``Social Distancing, 
Internet Access and Inequality'' (Cambridge, Mass: National Bureau of 
Economic Research, April 13, 2020), https://doi.org/10.3386/w26982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural broadband at a glace
    Briefly, the FCC recently reported that 95.6 percent of Americans 
have access to broadband at a speed of 25Mbps download 3 Mbps upload 
(depicted as ``25/3''). This includes 98.8 percent of those in Urban 
Areas, 82.7 percent of those in Rural Areas, and 79.1 percent of those 
on Tribal Lands (see Table 1).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Federal Communications Commission, ``2021 Broadband Deployment 
Report: In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and 
Timely Fashion (GN Docket No. 20-269)'' (Washington, D.C.: Federal 
Communications Commission, January 19, 2021), https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/FCC-21-18A1.pdf.


    Source: Federal Communications Commission 2021, 2020 \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Federal Communications Commission, ``2020 Broadband Deployment 
Report: In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and 
Timely Fashion (GN Docket 19-285)'' (Washington, D.C.: Federal 
Communications Commission, 2020), https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/FCC-20-50A1.pdf; Federal Communications Commission, ``2021 
Broadband Deployment Report: In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning 
Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability to All Americans 
in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion (GN Docket No. 20-269).''

    As we all know, the FCC's has grossly overestimated the number of 
connected Americans because of faulty data gathering. Most researchers 
suggest the FCC is off by upwards of 50 percent.\11\ So, we don't know 
the exact number of un-and under-connected rural Americans, but there 
are some things we do know.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Sascha D. Meinrath, ``Broadband Availability and Access in 
Rural Pennsylvania'' (The Center for Rural Pennsylvania, 2019), https:/
/www.rural.palegislature.us/broadband/Broadband
_Availability_and_Access_in_Rural_Pennsylvania_2019_Report.pdf; John 
Busby and Julia Tanberk, ``FCC Underestimates Americans Unserved by 
Broadband Internet by 50 percent'' (BroadbandNow, 2020), https://
broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-by-50-percent; 
Karl Bode, ``How Bad Maps Are Ruining American Broadband,'' The Verge, 
September 24, 2018, https://www.theverge.com/2018/9/24/17882842/us-
internet-broadband-map-isp-fcc-wireless-competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We know that only 63 percent of rural Americans report having a 
broadband Internet connection at home but we don't know the types of 
connections this may mean. For instance, 3 percent of farmers still use 
dial-up according to recent assessments from USDA (see Table 2).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ United States Department of Agriculture, ``Farm Computer Usage 
and Ownership'' (Washington, D.C.: United States Department of 
Agriculture, August 2019), https://downloads
.usda.library.cornell.edu/usda-esmis/files/h128nd689/8910k592p/
qz20t442b/fmpc0819.pdf.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: USDA, 2019

    We also know that rural Americans are frustrated with their 
connectivity, when they have it. The predominate types of connection in 
rural America are digital subscriber line (DSL) and satellite.\13\ DSL 
is broadband provided through a twisted pair of copper wires, not 
unlike traditional landline telephone service. Indeed, those companies 
offering DSL are the legacy telephone companies like AT&T, CenturyLink, 
and Frontier.\14\ While praised a decade ago for its then-high-speed 
download capacity, DSL has proven not to be up to the task of serving a 
country living, working, and studying from home. The mean download 
speed of DSL, for instance, is 10 Mbps and the mean upload speed is 1 
Mbps according to a study by Roberto Gallardo and Brian Whitacre (see 
Table 3).\15\ 10/1 is far below the FCC definition of broadband of 25/
3, and even further below the national average of 179.06 Mbps download 
and 64.89 Mbps upload.\16\ More to the point, a household of four, be 
they a family or college housemates, could not be on different video 
calls simultaneously. As a currently stay-at-home nation, we all 
require access to what Jonathan Sallet of the Benton Institute calls 
``high-performance broadband.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Roberto Gallardo and Brian Whitacre, ``A Look at Broadband 
Access, Providers and Technology'' (Perdue University: Center for 
Regional Development, 2019), https://pcrd.purdue.edu/files/media/008-A-
Look-at-Broadband-Access-Providers-and-Technology.pdf.
    \14\ AT&T is actually phasing out its DSL product. Doug Dawson, 
``AT&T Stops DSL Sales,'' POTs and PANs (blog), 2020, https://
potsandpansbyccg.com/2020/10/12/att-stops-dsl-sales/.
    \15\ Gallardo and Whitacre, ``A Look at Broadband Access, Providers 
and Technology.''
    \16\ ``United States's Mobile and Broadband Internet Speeds,'' 
Speedtest Global Index, 2021, https://www.speedtest.net/global-index/
united-states.
    \17\ Sallet, ``Bringing High-Performance Broadband to Rural 
America''; Jonathan Sallet, ``Broadband for America's Future: A Vision 
for the 2020s'' (Chicago, IL: Benton Institute for Broadband & Society, 
2019), https://www.benton.org/publications/broadband-policy2020s.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Gallardo and Whitacre, 2019

    Rural Americans are also fed up with satellite internet, which the 
FCC categorizes as a viable fixed broadband technology,\18\ but as 
anyone who has spent time in rural America and tried sending an e-mail 
over satellite Internet knows, satellite is nowhere near a complement 
to fixed wireless, cable, or fiber. By ``satellite'' here I am 
referring to geosynchronous satellite, such as that provided by ViaSat 
or HughesNet, and not the low Earth orbital (LEO) satellite networks, 
like Starlink, which has received so much press as of late.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Measuring Fixed 
Broadband--Tenth Report'' (Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications 
Commission, January 4, 2021), https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/
reports/measuring-broadband-america/measuring-fixed-broadband-tenth-
report.
    \19\ Jon Brodkin, ``ISPs Step up Fight against SpaceX, Tell FCC 
That Starlink Will Be Too Slow,'' Ars Technica, February 9, 2021, 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/02/isps-step-up-fight-against-
spacex-tell-fcc-that-starlink-will-be-too-slow/; Jon Brodkin, ``SpaceX 
Gets $886 Million from FCC to Subsidize Starlink in 35 States,'' Ars 
Technica, December 7, 2020, https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/
12/spacex-gets-886-million-from-fcc-to-subsidize-starlink-in-35-
states/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition to suboptimal technologies of connectivity, rural 
Americans also pay more for broadband than their urban counterparts. 
According to Broadbandnow.com a trusted site for broadband deployment 
information, rural Americans pay upwards of 37 percent more for 
broadband than those living in cities.\20\ 37 percent more, for 
broadband technologies that cannot measure up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ BroadbandNow, ``Digital Divide: Broadband Pricing by State, 
Zip Code, and Income 2019,'' Broadband Now, 2019, https://
broadbandnow.com/research/digital-divide-broadband-pricing-state-zip-
income-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A colleague and I just finished a study in Surry County, Virginia--
one of the least connected counties in the Commonwealth. We were 
interested in learning about life in a broadband desert. We talked to 
people who were spending hundreds of dollars a month for internet, 
because they were forced to toggle between satellite, mobile phone, and 
a mobile hotspot for connectivity. Still, many told us that despite 
multiple devices and hundreds of dollars, they could not participate in 
work calls over Zoom, stream Netflix or have their children participate 
in remote learning. As one respondent said to us: ``I'm spending about 
$400 a month . . . I can't stream anything. This is rural America is 
what it is.'' Said another respondent in Surry County, ``we desperately 
need the broadband.'' \21\ It is for reasons such as these why the Pew 
Foundation found that nearly a quarter of rural Americans say broadband 
access is a major problem.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Nick Mathews and Christopher Ali, ``Desert Work: Life and 
Labor in a News and Broadband Desert'' (Annual Conference of the 
International Communications Association, Online: Unpublished, 2021).
    \22\ Monica Anderson, ``For 24 percent of Rural Americans, High-
Speed Internet Is a Major Problem,'' FactTank: News in the Numbers 
(blog), September 10, 2018, https://www.pewre
search.org/fact-tank/2018/09/10/about-a-quarter-of-rural-americans-say-
access-to-high-speed-internet-is-a-major-problem/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So, why is broadband availability in rural America such a problem? 
In the language of economists, broadband is rural America is a ``market 
failure''--the private providers are unwilling or unable to provide 
service because of a lack of sufficient return on investment.\23\ There 
are simply not enough potential customers and they live too far apart 
to be served. Importantly, the same thing was said about electricity in 
the 1920s and telephone in the 1930s, but decisive and ambitious public 
policy solved those problems.\24\ Public policy has yet to solve the 
problem of rural broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ F.M. Bator, ``The Anatomy of Market Failure,'' Quarterly 
Journal of Economics 72, no. 3 (1958): 351-79; Christopher Ali, ``The 
Politics of Good Enough: Rural Broadband and Policy Failure in the 
United States,'' International Journal of Communication 14 (2020): 
5982-6004.
    \24\ Christopher Ali, Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural 
Connectivity (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, Forthcoming, 2021), https://
mitpress.mit.edu/books/farm-fresh-broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I identify five reasons why public policy has struggled to bring 
high-performance broadband to the majority of rural Americans, despite 
a decade of attempts and billions of dollars spent annually.
Meaning
    To begin, the FCC's definition of broadband is out of touch and out 
of date. As a reminder, the FCC currently defines broadband at 25Mbps 
download/3 Mbps upload.\25\ This definition was set back in 2015 and 
has not been updated, despite a current national average of 179/64.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Federal Communications Commission, ``2021 Broadband Deployment 
Report: In the Matter of Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced 
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and 
Timely Fashion (GN Docket No. 20-269).''
    \26\ ``United States's Mobile and Broadband Internet Speeds.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A particularly egregious component of this definition, is its 
asymmetry. The current definition of broadband privilege download over 
upload. Now, that may be great for binging Netflix but it is of no help 
to the business community, telehealth, or remote learning.\27\ One of 
the respondents for my book put it this way: ``Download is about 
consumption, upload is about production.'' \28\ Said differently, 
upload is about business and the business community is not served by a 
national definition of 3 Mbps upload.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Christopher Ali, ``The Presumption of the Connected,'' Benton 
Digital Beat, 2020, https://www.benton.org/blog/presumption-connected; 
Stuart Sweet, ``How Much Bandwidth Do You Need for Distance 
Learning?,'' The Solid Signal Blog, September 13, 2020, https://
blog.solid
signal.com/tutorials/how-much-bandwidth-do-you-need-for-distance-
learning/.
    \28\ Ali, Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity.
    \29\ Doug Dawson, ``Upload Speeds,'' POTs and PANs, October 30, 
2020, https://potsandpans
byccg.com/tag/upload-speeds/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What the 25/3 definition has done, however, is allow the previously 
mentioned dissatisfactory Internet access technologies--DSL and 
satellite--to count as broadband and therefore qualify for the tens-of-
millions of dollars a year in grants and subsidies provided by the FCC 
through the Universal Service Fund and the USDA through its loans and 
grant programs. To the particular detriment of rural Americans, the 25/
3 definition has become a ceiling to which too many of the largest 
providers aim to meet, rather than a floor to build upon.
    I join many other researchers and lawmakers who argue that we need 
an ambitious and forward-looking definition of broadband such as 
100Mbps download/100 Mbps upload.\30\ One that compels providers to 
abandon technologies like DSL and replace these wires with fiber or 
fiber-backed fixed wireless if they want to continue to receive Federal 
and state support. I look to the State of Minnesota for inspiration 
here. Minnesota's Border-to-Border grant program funds technologies 
that can reach and surpass 100/100.\31\ This allows the program to 
remain technologically neutral and also champion forward-looking 
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \30\ Sallet, ``Broadband for America's Future.''
    \31\ ``Broadband Grant Program,'' Minnesota Department of 
Employment and Economic Development, accessed March 14, 2021, https://
mn.gov/deed/programs-services/broadband/grant-program/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Money
    The second ``M'' of rural broadband policy is money. Between the 
FCC's High-Cost/Connect America Fund and USDA's loan and grant 
programs, roughly $6 billion annually is devoted to supporting rural 
broadband deployment.\32\ This has been the case since 2015. Yet, the 
rural-urban digital divide not only persists, but in many instances is 
growing, as rural Americans are stuck with outdated technologies like 
DSL and satellite, and urban Americans gain access to fiber. Why has 
this happened?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ Ali, Farm Fresh Broadband: The Politics of Rural Connectivity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When the FCC's Universal Service Fund, High-Cost Program was 
transitioned to the Connect America Fund (CAF) at the recommendation of 
the National Broadband Plan \33\ funding was simply given to the 10 
largest providers, known as ``price cap'' carriers, rather than 
distributed through a competitive auction. Funding amounted to $1.5 
billion a year for 6 years, with CenturyLink coming out as the largest 
awardee, netting $505 million a year.\34\ In exchange for over $9 
billion between 2015 and 2020, price cap providers only had to meet a 
speed threshold of 10/1, not the national definition of 25/3.\35\ As a 
result, CAF I and CAF II monies were spent on enhancing DSL rather than 
deploying fiber.\36\ In comparison, 175 small providers, known as 
``rate-of-return carriers'' received their own pot of funding through 
the Alternate Connect America Model (A-CAM).\37\ These providers shared 
$1 billion a year, had a minimum speed threshold of 25/3, and by many 
reports are deploying fiber in rural areas at a faster pace than their 
price cap carrier counterparts.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Connecting America: The 
National Broadband Plan'' (Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications 
Commission, March 17, 2010), https://transition.fcc.gov/national-
broadband-plan/national-broadband-plan.pdf; Federal Communications 
Commission, ``Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking: In the Matter of Connect America Fund'' (Washington, D.C.: 
Federal Communications Commission, November 18, 2011), https://
www.fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf.
    \34\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Connect America Fund 
Phase II Funding by Carrier, State, and County,'' 2015, https://
www.fcc.gov/document/connect-america-fund-phase-ii-funding-carrier-
state-and-county.
    \35\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Connect America Fund 
Phase II FAQS,'' Federal Communications Commission, June 14, 2016, 
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/connect-america-fund-phase-ii-
faqs.
    \36\ Doug Dawson, ``Big Telcos and Rural Customers,'' POTs and 
PANs, January 22, 2018, https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/01/22/big-
telcos-and-rural-customers/.
    \37\ Federal Communications Commission, ``In the Matter of Connect 
America Fund, ETC Annual Reports and Certifications, Developing a 
Unified Intercarrier Compensation Regime (WC Docket No. 10-90; WC 
Docket No. 14-58; CC Docket No. 01-92). Report and Order, Order and 
Order on Reconsideration, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking'' 
(Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission, 2016), https://
www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-reforms-high-cost-program-rate-return-
carriers.
    \38\ Federal Communications Commission; Doug Dawson, ``A-CAM--A 
Subsidy That Works,'' POTs and PANs, January 31, 2018, https://
potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/01/31/a-cam-a-subsidy-that-works/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As part of CAF II, price cap carriers were to meet various yearly 
benchmarks, but there was no discernable accountability when they 
failed to live up to their commitments. For instance, in 2019 both 
CenturyLink and Frontier missed targets in 23 and 13 states 
respectively.\39\ Nevertheless, they remained eligible for future 
awards and the FCC even gave them, and all price cap carriers, an extra 
year of funding.\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \39\ Jon Brodkin, ``CenturyLink, Frontier Took FCC Cash, Failed to 
Deploy All Required Broadband,'' Ars Technica, January 23, 2020, 
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/01/centurylink-frontier-took-
fcc-cash-failed-to-deploy-all-required-broadband/.
    \40\ Joan Engebretson, ``Carriers to Receive Seventh Year of CAF 
Support, Worth $1.5 Billion for Rural Broadband,'' Telecompetitor, 
November 17, 2020, https://www.telecompetitor.com/tag/connect-america-
fund/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With funds left over from the CAF II program, a reverse auction was 
held in 2018, and eligibility expanded.\41\ Funding amounted to $1.48 
billion or $148 million a year for ten years. This time, fixed wireless 
providers were the largest winners and a consortium of rural electric 
cooperatives pledging gigabit speeds through fiber optics came in 
third. ViaSat, a satellite provider, was the fourth largest recipient, 
winning $122 million ($12 million a year) despite promising only 
baseline speeds, and continuing to be plagued by issues of low speed 
and high latency.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \41\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Connect America Fund 
Phase II Auction (Auction 903),'' Federal Communications Commission, 
May 17, 2017, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/903.
    \42\ Federal Communications Commission 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The following year, when the FCC announced the creation of the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) in 2019, pledging $20.4 billion 
over ten years, spirits were high over the size of the fund.\43\ 
Critics, including myself, however, worried that history would repeat 
itself.\44\ As we know, upon completion of the first phase, the FCC has 
received harsh criticism. Specifically, the FCC was criticized for 
awarding SpaceX, through its subsidiary Starlink, $885 million for its 
LEO satellite network that has yet to be proven at scale.\45\ The FCC 
also received criticism for failing to adequately vet applicants, with 
some fixed wireless providers promising gigabit speeds when it is 
debatable whether the technology is up to the challenge.\46\ This 
criticism included a bipartisan-bicameral letter signed by 159 members 
of Congress.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \43\ Federal Communications Commission, ``In the Matter of the 
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (WC Docket No. 19-126) Report and 
Order'' (Washington, D.C.: Federal Communications Commission, February 
7, 2020), https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/02070806418528.
    \44\ Christopher Ali, ``Thoughts on Rural Broadband Subsidies for 
the New Decade,'' Benton Digital Beat, December 18, 2019, https://
www.benton.org/blog/thoughts-rural-broadband-subsidies-new-decade.
    \45\ Brodkin, ``SpaceX Gets $886 Million from FCC to Subsidize 
Starlink in 35 States''; Brodkin, ``ISPs Step up Fight against SpaceX, 
Tell FCC That Starlink Will Be Too Slow''; Cartesian, ``Starlink RDOF 
Assessment Final Report'' (Boston: Cartesian, 2021), https://
ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10208168836021/ FBA_LEO_RDOF_Assessment_Final_ 
Report_20210208.pdf.
    \46\ Mike Dano, ``Some Big RDOF Winners Lean Away from Fixed 
Wireless,'' Light Reading (blog), February 5, 2021, https://
www.lightreading.com/opticalip/some-big-rdof-winners-lean-away-from-
fixed-wireless/d/d-id/767204; Linda Hardesty, ``WISPA Claps Back at 
Fixed-Wireless Critics in RDOF Dispute,'' FierceTelecom (blog), 
February 23, 2021, https://www.fierce
telecom.com/telecom/wispa-claps-back-at-fixed-wireless-critics-rdof-
dispute.
    \47\ James Clyburn et al., ``Letter to Ajit Pai,'' January 19, 
2021, https://walberg.house.gov/sites/walberg.house.gov/files/
WalbergFCCRDOFletter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In summation, when it comes to money and funding, the FCC has all 
too often favored the largest and the loudest providers, over the 
hundreds of local, nimble, and dynamic providers, who combine fixed 
wireless and fiber to the home to connect their communities.
Mapping
    The third ``M'' in my rural broadband pentalogy is mapping. We have 
all, no doubt, heard the substantial and frequent criticisms of the 
FCC's broadband mapping methodology, but it is worth repeating 
here.\48\ Mapping should be the first step in planning and funding of 
broadband deployment, but as it stands today, we do not know who is 
connected, unconnected, and under-connected. In fact, we have a better 
map of the milky way galaxy then we do of who is un and under-connected 
in rural America. As I noted above, research suggests the FCC has 
exaggerated broadband deployment in the United States by upwards of 50 
percent.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \48\ Government Accountability Office, ``Broadband Internet: FCC's 
Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands'' (Washington, D.C.: Government 
Accountability Office, 2018), https://www.gao
.gov/products/gao-18-630.Bode, ``How Bad Maps Are Ruining American 
Broadband''; Karl Bode and Emanuel Maiberg, ``The FCC's New Broadband 
Map Paints an Irresponsibly Inaccurate Picture of American Broadband,'' 
Motherboard, February 23, 2018, https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/
article/8xdk8x/new-fcc-broadband-map; Eric Null, ``Why Can't the U.S. 
Government Make a Decent Map of Broadband Access?,'' Slate Magazine, 
March 28, 2018, https://slate.com/technology/2018/03/why-cant-the-u-s-
government-make-a-decent-map-of-broadband-access.html.
    \49\ Meinrath, ``Broadband Availability and Access in Rural 
Pennsylvania''; Busby and Tanberk, ``FCC Underestimates Americans 
Unserved by Broadband Internet by 50 percent.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The reason why we have found ourselves in such a state comes down 
to what information providers are required to report to the FCC on Form 
477.\50\ ISPs submit Form 477 twice a year and the information is used 
to create the FCC's broadband maps and to determine which areas are 
eligible for funding, such as for the RDOF program. Form 477 has three 
structural flaws. The first is data granularity. ISPs have to report 
connectivity at the census block level, not the address level. As a 
result, a census block is considered ``served'' with broadband as long 
as one edifice has broadband or the census block can be served by the 
provider within 10 business days. ``This lack of granularity'' I wrote 
in a recent peer-reviewed journal article, ``means the FCC has grossly 
overestimated how much of the country--rural or urban--has access to 
broadband.'' \51\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \50\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Fixed Broadband 
Deployment Data from FCC Form 477,'' Federal Communications Commission, 
2020, https://www.fcc.gov/general/broadband-deployment-data-fcc-form-
477.
    \51\ Ali, ``The Politics of Good Enough,'' 2020, 5994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The second flaw is data collection. The data is self-reported by 
providers, with little in the way of auditing. Worse, ISPs only have to 
report advertised speeds, rather than actual speeds, leading to an 
exaggeration of which areas have meaningful connectivity. This is 
particularly the case for providers using DSL and satellite networks, 
``where there is considerable discrepancy between the theoretical speed 
limit of a connection and the actual speeds received, based on factors 
such as distance from the network node and the age of the network.'' 
\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \52\ Ali, 5995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The third flaw returns us to the issue of meaning. The FCC treats 
DSL, satellite, fixed wireless, cable, and fiber, as interchangeable 
since they can all theoretically meet the 25/3 standard. But the 
difference between the technologies and the user experience are myriad 
and significant. Nevertheless, those connected on a rotting DSL network 
because of industry neglect, and barely seeing 1 Mbps download, are 
still considered ``served.'' \53\ As a result, not only do we not know 
who is unconnected, we also do not know who is under-connected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \53\ Doug Dawson, ``AT&T Stops DSL Sales,'' POTs and PANs, 2020, 
https://potsandpans
byccg.com/2020/10/12/att-stops-dsl-sales/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The implications for these bad maps are substantial. The most 
important implication being that if a census block is considered 
``served,'' it is ineligible for future funding from the FCC. While, 
the FCC does not consider satellite in its calculation of eligible 
areas for funding (because satellite covers 99 percent of the country), 
hundreds of communities are living in broadband purgatory, un-and 
under-connected in practice, but marked as ``served'' on the broadband 
map. These communities have been described as being in ``digital 
distress'' \54\ and ``stranded in the dial-up age.'' \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \54\ Roberto Gallardo and Cheyanne Geideman, ``Digital Distress: 
What Is It and Who Does It Affect? Part 1.,'' Medium, February 19, 
2019, https://medium.com/design-and-tech-co/digital-distress-what-is-
it-and-who-does-it-affect-part-1-e1214f3f209b.
    \55\ Jennifer Levitz and Valerie Bauerlein, ``Rural America Is 
Stranded in the Dial-Up Age,'' Wall Street Journal, June 15, 2017, 
https://www.wsj.com/articles/rural-america-is-stranded-in-the-dial-up-
age-1497535841.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    An example from my current research illustrates the gravity of the 
situation. My research team at the University of Virginia is in the 
midst of a study regarding Virginia county broadband plans, policies 
and deployment. We asked counties to self-report their level of 
connectivity. Our findings to this request echo those of previous 
studies that found massive discrepancies between the FCC's report of 
broadband deployment and the lived reality of rural Americans.\56\ To 
use but one example, the FCC reports Bath County Virginia as being 100 
percent served with broadband at speeds of 25/3. In addition the FCC 
reports that 100 percent of the county has access to at least two 
broadband providers. In comparison, Bath County reported to us in our 
Virginia County Broadband Survey that only 10 percent of the county is 
served with broadband at 25/3, and a full 90 percent is unserved. This 
amounts to a 90 percent difference in the FCC reporting and county 
reporting (see Figure 1).\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \56\ Meinrath, ``Broadband Availability and Access in Rural 
Pennsylvania''; Busby and Tanberk, ``FCC Underestimates Americans 
Unserved by Broadband Internet by 50 percent.''
    \57\ Christopher Ali, Abby Simmerman, and Nicholas Lansing, 
``Connected Commonwealth: The Role of Counties in Virginia Broadband 
Deployment'' (Media and Democracy Lab, Charlottesville, 2021).


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: Ali, Simmerman, & Lansing (2021)

    Progress, however, has been made. I have been encouraged by the 
incredible crowd-sourcing efforts conducted by Measurement Lab, and the 
state-level mapping initiatives such as what is happening in 
Georgia.\58\ Through the Georgia Broadband Deployment Initiative, 
Georgia worked with Lightbox, a commercial real estate data company, to 
create one of the most granular broadband deployment maps in the 
country. The public has access to aggregate data at the census block 
level, with the state has access to address-level data, demonstrating 
that better maps are possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \58\ Shara Tibken, ``States Couldn't Afford to Wait for the FCC's 
Broadband Maps to Improve. So They Didn't,'' CNET, February 23, 2021, 
https://www.cnet.com/features/states-couldnt-afford-to-wait-for-the-
fccs-broadband-maps-to-improve-so-they-didnt/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We desperately need to fix the maps and data collection 
methodology, and I am glad to see that there is so much movement in 
this space, from localities, to states, to the FCC's new Broadband Data 
Task Force,\59\ and congress's actions in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act of 2021 to implement and fund the requirements of 
the Broadband DATA Act.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \59\ Federal Communications Commission, ``Rosenworcel Establishes 
Broadband Data Task Force,'' Federal Communications Commission, 
February 17, 2021, https://www.fcc.gov/document/rosenworcel-
establishes-broadband-data-task-force.
    \60\ The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Municipalities
    The fourth ``M'' is municipalities. What I have learned in my 
research and in my field visits across rural areas of the Midwest and 
Virginia, is that local broadband is the best broadband. By this, I 
mean that telephone and electric cooperatives and small local ISPs, are 
the ones best serving rural communities. Cooperatives, for instance 
understand that return on investment cannot be measured in quarters, 
but in years and even decades. They are prepared to wait this long 
because they also understand that they are making an investment in 
their community. For municipalities, return on investment is measured 
not in profits returned, but in people connected. Local provision also 
means local accountability. There's a big difference when you can meet 
the owner of your broadband provider in the grocery store or they 
happen to be your neighbor than when the owner is based hundreds of 
miles away in Dallas or Los Angeles.
    ``Municipalities'' in this instance, can also be expanded to 
counties and states. Solving the rural broadband infrastructure gap 
will require an all-hands-on-deck approach, where no stakeholder should 
be left out or discounted. We know, for instance, that public funding 
from municipalities, counties and states is essential for network 
deployment, especially in rural areas. That 19 states currently 
prohibit or inhibit municipal broadband investment means they are 
forbidding municipalities from making an investment in the type of 
future they envision for their community.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \61\ Becky Chao and Claire Park, ``The Cost of Connectivity 2020'' 
(Washington, D.C.: Open Technology Institute, 2020), http://
newamerica.org/oti/reports/cost-connectivity-2020/; Baller Stokes & 
Lide, ``State Restrictions on Community Broadband Services or Other 
Public Communications Initiatives'' (Washington, D.C., 2019), https://
www.baller.com/wp-content/uploads/BallerStokesLideStateBarriers.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My favorite example of the power of local broadband, and an example 
to which I devote an entire chapter of my book, is from Rock County, 
Minnesota. Rock County is located in the southwest pocket on the state, 
bordering South Dakota and Iowa. With the support of the county Board 
of Supervisors in 2013, the County Administrator began to search for a 
provider to connect the county with fiber-to-the-home. Eventually, that 
provider partner was found in the form of Alliance Communications, a 
telephone cooperative from South Dakota. With a $5 million grant from 
the state of Minnesota, a county bond of $1 million, and the remainder 
covered by Alliance, Rock County has become one of the most connected 
counties in the state, with 99.93 percent availability for fiber to the 
home.\62\ An incredible story and testament to the power of local 
partnerships, local broadband, and state encouragement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \62\ Alliance Communications, ``Rock County Fiber-to-the-Home 
Project,'' https://mn.gov/deed/assets/rock-county_tcm1045-301887.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Management
    The final ``M'' is that of management. And by management, I mean 
policymaking at the Federal level. Today, we have three agencies that 
share responsibility for broadband deployment and planning: the Federal 
Communications Commission, the Rural Utilities Service of USDA, and the 
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, or NTIA. 
Each has an agenda and a mandate. Unfortunately, with so many chefs in 
the kitchen, communities are being left out. Here's an example, 99 
percent of borrowers from USDA's Telecommunications Loan Program also 
receive funding from the Universal Service Fund.\63\ In fact, USF 
funding is crucial because it may used as collateral to secure the USDA 
loan. Any changes in USF policy, therefore, requires USDA input. 
Despite a memorandum of agreement signed in 2014 between the USDA and 
the FCC, there is little interagency cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \63\ Lennard Kruger, ``Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the 
USDA's Rural Utilities Service'' (Washington, D.C.: Congressional 
Research Service, 2018), https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/
20181016_RL33816_76629ba2fb086f856e1d10a148ff0cf4aca53cbd.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Successful broadband policy management requires interagency 
cooperation and coordination. It also requires an agency to lead. The 
call for interagency cooperation is nothing new. The 2019 American 
Broadband Initiative mentioned interagency coordination 45 times.\64\ 
In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 included the 
Broadband Interagency Coordination Act of 2020, which mandated 
cooperation between the FCC, NTIA and USDA.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \64\ Sonny Perdue and Wilbur Ross, ``American Broadband Initiative: 
Milestones Report'' (Washington, D.C.: USDA, 2019), https://
www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/american_broad
band_initiative_milestones_report.pdf.
    \65\ The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, sec. 904.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Interagency cooperation is difficult to mandate and even harder to 
assess. What is more difficult than coordination, however, is 
determining which agency should be the coordinator.\66\ In 2017, for 
instance, congress considered HR 800: The New Deal Rural Broadband Act, 
which would have appointed USDA as the point agency for rural broadband 
planning and policy.\67\ In 2018, it took up HR 3994 the Access 
Broadband Act, which would have made NTIA the primary agency 
responsible, \68\ this act was reintroduced in 2019.\69\ Also in 2019, 
congress considered S.454: The Office of Rural Broadband Act, which 
would have made the FCC the point agency.\70\ Three years, multiple 
acts, multiple proposals for who should coordinate the country's 
struggling rural broadband policies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \66\ Christopher Ali, ``An Office of Rural Broadband: We've Heard 
This Before,'' Benton Digital Beat, March 18, 2019, https://
www.benton.org/blog/office-rural-broadband-we%E2%80%99ve-heard.
    \67\ Jared Huffman, ``New Deal Rural Broadband Act of 2017,'' HR 
800 (2017), https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/
800.
    \68\ Paul Tonko, ``ACCESS BROADBAND Act,'' H.R. 3994 (2017), 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/
3994?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%22HR+3994+the+Access+Broad
band+Act%22%7D.
    \69\ Paul Tonko, ``ACCESS BROADBAND Act,'' H.R. 1328 (2019), 
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/
1328?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22Access+Broad
band+Act%5C%22%22%5D%7D&s=7&r=1.
    \70\ Kevin Cramer, ``S.454: Office of Rural Broadband Act,'' 
webpage, Congress.Gov, February 12, 2019, https://www.congress.gov/
bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/454/committees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A National Rural Broadband Plan
    When articulated poorly, the 5 M's of rural broadband policy 
replicate and extend what I have called in my writings ``the politics 
of good enough.'' \71\ Said differently, our preference for rapidity 
has made us blind to issues of speed, latency, price, and deployment. 
The politics of good enough mean that anything is better than nothing 
in rural America and that if you want something better, you should move 
to the city. This logic has made us believe that 25/3 is good enough, 
satellite and DSL are good enough, high prices and low service are good 
enough. As I wrote elsewhere, ``'good enough' has become the enemy of 
great high-performance broadband.'' \72\ I've heard it said that rural 
Americans do not need high performance broadband. That making this 
argument is trying to justify a Ferrari over a Toyota Corolla: luxury 
versus utility.\73\ Nothing could be further from the truth. We are not 
talking about a Ferrari and Toyota when we talk about fiber versus DSL, 
we are talking about walking versus driving. High performance broadband 
is not a luxury, it is not gold plated, it is not a Ferrari. High 
performance broadband is as essential today as electricity and water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \71\ Ali, ``The Politics of Good Enough,'' 2020.
    \72\ Christopher Ali, ``The Politics of Good Enough,'' Benton 
Digital Beat, November 12, 2020, https://www.benton.org/blog/politics-
good-enough.
    \73\ Bronwyn Howell, ``The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: 
Subsidizing Toyotas or Ferraris?,'' AEIdeas, January 21, 2020, https://
www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/the-rural-digital-opportunity-
fund-subsidizing-toyotas-or-ferraris/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We need a new plan for rural broadband.\74\ One that will raise the 
definition of broadband so that rural Americans have meaningful 
connectivity, not just ``good enough'' connectivity. A plan that will 
allocate funding without privileging the largest providers and that 
will hold companies to their promises with decisive sanctions. A plan 
that will fix mapping by relying on a combination of granular audited 
data and crowdsourced information and that provides a streamlined 
challenge process. A plan that recognizes the crucial role of states, 
municipalities, local providers and cooperatives, and celebrates local 
public investment in networks in addition to public private 
partnerships. And lastly, a plan that cuts through the regulatory 
gridlock by requiring meaningful and visible interagency cooperation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \74\ Christopher Ali, ``We Need a National Rural Broadband Plan,'' 
New York Times, February 11, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/06/
opinion/rural-broadband-fcc.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The exciting thing is, we've done this before. The Rural 
Electrification Administration, created in 1935 and made permanent in 
1936, had at its disposal $100 million dollars ($1.8 billion in today's 
money) in its first year. It did not, however, spend the money on what 
we could call ``big power.'' Instead, it championed the creation of 
local electric cooperatives. It also sent its representatives on rural 
electrification tours--the ``REA Circus'' it was called--to encourage 
local adoption.\75\ This program was incredibly successful. It a little 
over a decade, rural electrification soared from 48 percent to 96 
percent.\76\ Rural electrification was successful in fact that REA was 
tasked with connecting rural America with telephony in the 1940s and 
1950s. Again, it went back to the same model, trusting local 
communities and local telephone cooperatives. Today, the hundreds of 
electric and telephone cooperatives that dot the country are the 
``unsung heroes of broadband,'' \77\ connecting their communities with 
state-of-the-art fiber optics and fixed wireless networks when the 
largest providers had written these areas off as a bad investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \75\ Richard Pence, ed., The Next Greatest Thing: 50 Years of Rural 
Electrification in America (Washington, D.C.: National Rural Electric 
Cooperative Association, 1984).
    \76\ Ronald R Kline, Consumers in the Country: Technology and 
Social Change in Rural America, Revisiting Rural America (Baltimore: 
Johns Hopkins University Press, 2000), 219.
    \77\ Christopher Ali, ``Cooperatives: The Unsung Heroes of 
Broadband,'' Benton Digital Beat, February 22, 2021, https://
www.benton.org/blog/cooperatives-unsung-heroes-broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There is precedent for connecting rural and remote regions with the 
necessities of modern life. Today, broadband is that necessity; it is 
not an option, it is not a luxury. While we must make sure the mistakes 
of the past are not duplicated, the history of connecting the 
countryside is a history worth repeating.
    Thank you.

    The Chair. Thank you, Professor Ali. Again, thank you so 
much for being here and for your insights, and that research. 
We hope you will share the details of that with the Committee. 
That is so helpful. Now, we will hear from the Honorable Mike 
O'Rielly, former Commissioner of the FCC. Mr. O'Rielly, 
welcome.

  STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL P. O'RIELLY, FORMER COMMISSIONER, 
               FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

    Mr. O'Rielly. Thank you. Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member 
Wicker, and members of the Committee, Happy St. Patrick's Day! 
Thank you for inviting me to share my views on the important 
subject of expanding high-speed broadband access in America. 
Thank you also for the Committee's indulgence last year, 
considering my re-nomination to the FCC, which did not exactly 
play out as expected, but I am very pleased to be here in this 
new capacity.
    For clarification, I do not currently represent any party 
involved in the issues of this hearing. While that may make me 
the worst consultant ever, the truth is my business is just a 
handful of weeks old.
    On topic, the availability of high-speed Internet allows 
users around the world to communicate, learn, work, conduct 
commerce, and so much more. And it has proven especially 
important during the COVID-19 pandemic, when American families 
have been isolated and quarantined.
    America's private broadband sector deserves enormous credit 
for the investment in upgrades it implemented, over the last 
many years, to handle the recent increase in Internet traffic. 
Our networks performed incredibly well, especially in contrast 
to other nations. The technology has proven immensely valuable 
for Americans with broadband access, and there should be little 
doubt that progress has been made to extend its reach, 
especially in bringing service to the most difficult corners of 
our nation, through many FCC programs that I had a hand in 
creating or reshaping. Simply put, the numbers of unserved 
households have shrunk precipitously.
    For those without access, however, much work remains, and 
the Commission is working hard on this front, including 
addressing the lack of accurate mapping, although the pace of 
mapping improvements needs to be accelerated considerably.
    Additionally, Congress recently has acted on many fronts to 
improve broadband deployment via new FCC programs. And a host 
of other Federal entities now administer broadband related 
programs, initiated through the Congressional funding, 
including the Department of Agriculture, NTIA, the Department 
of Education, and the Department of Treasury.
    On point, it should be universally accepted that subsidized 
overbuilding Federal programs increase the likelihood of 
duplicative investment, which, when it occurs, is extremely 
counterproductive and harmful on many levels. While I do 
believe coordination efforts in law will be of added value, 
coordination can be difficult to mandate and practice, and can 
mean a host of different things when multiple agencies are not 
on the same page, when it comes to the problem that 
coordination is supposed to solve. Congressional efforts on 
this front may need to be much more expansive, in terms of 
scope and demanded outcome, especially for agencies with a poor 
track record, or none at all.
    Like many, I am still analyzing the broadband related 
provisions in the latest COVID-19 law, but several provisions 
raise issues and concerns. Case in point, the new $10 billion 
program created within the Treasury Department that can be used 
for many purposes, including broadband facilities, appears to 
have few, if any, limitations. That should raise a host of red 
flags.
    In terms of broadband funding in a larger infrastructure 
bill, the draft efforts I have seen so far should raise 
multiple concerns. I humbly suggest that the massive funding 
levels, which will dwarf private sector and any current 
government investment, should be pared back to, perhaps, no 
larger than $20 billion or, if it is to remain at this level, 
be done in tranches.
    Beyond that, a number of troubling components should be 
fully explored and potentially amended by the members of the 
Committee, before any enactment. For instance, the asynchronous 
speed thresholds suggested by some, do not reflect expected 
usage of future growth, much less current levels. Ultimately, 
it means a great deal of the country will be deemed unserved. 
Funding will flow to the easier areas and the unserved areas 
will be, essentially, ignored again.
    Some of the policy cuts are also very problematic, like the 
preemption of state municipal broadband limits. Moreover, I 
have further concerns that recent Federal investment efforts 
will undermine the Commission's efforts to promote efficient 
subsidies.
    Aside from the broadband funding issue, many restrictions 
are preventing companies from deploying broadband to all those 
without access, specifically, some state and local governments 
and private company limitations, are acting as barriers to 
greater deployment. Providers can face fees to utilize existing 
communications infrastructure for poles, ducts, and conduits, 
or convoluted processes to gain rights away and zoning 
approvals. They also encounter limitations on the placement of 
expansion of wireless facilities. The Committee should clarify 
acceptable and prohibited practices and law, like was done in 
the bipartisan 2012 Spectrum Act.
    I also suggest, humbly, that you eliminate or revamp the 
ETC designation process, which is hindering deployment.
    In sum, broadband is a highly valuable service that can be 
life changing for many Americans. Exceptional progress has been 
made over the last few years, by the private sector and through 
various Federal programs, to extend existing networks and 
ensure service to those interested families. More work remains 
to be done in this area, but it needs to be accomplished 
through thoughtful and careful--thoughtfully and carefully, 
lest it causes more harm than good.
    I thank the Chair.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. O'Rielly follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Michael P. O'Rielly, Principal, 
    MPORielly Consulting, LLC, and Visiting Fellow, Hudson Institute
    Thank you, Chairwoman Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members 
of the Committee, for inviting me to share my views on the important 
subject of expanding high-speed broadband access in America. In a year 
that has presented many challenges--on many levels--it is a pleasure 
for me to return to familiar stomping grounds. May I also extend my 
appreciation for your continued public service to our nation, despite 
the unfair and inappropriate criticism often laid before this body.
Introduction
    There should be little disagreement that broadband technology has 
altered--and, in most cases, improved--American society. The 
availability of high-speed Internet allows users around the world to 
communicate, learn, work, conduct commerce, and so much more. These 
benefits have never been more apparent than during the Covid-19 
pandemic when American families have been isolated and quarantined. In 
fact, in some instances, including access to telemedicine/telehealth or 
testing and vaccine information, the technology has been a lifesaver.
    America's private broadband sector deserves immense credit for the 
investment and upgrades it implemented over the last many years to 
handle the recent increase in Internet traffic. Reports and anecdotal 
evidence suggest that companies experienced increases of 30 to 50 
percent in usage compared to the pre-Covid time period. Our networks 
performed incredibly well, especially in contrast to other nations, 
including countries in the European Union, which were forced to request 
that Internet content providers take measures to stymie Internet 
consumption and speeds in order to minimize challenges to overall 
network sustainability. It is because of our industry's foresight and 
network advances in prior years that U.S. broadband networks were 
generally able to sustain these capacity demands. And, the industry 
should be duly credited for forgoing revenue and fees during the Covid-
19 crisis to ensure connectivity to subscribers in financial need, as 
part of voluntary pledges to the government.
    Despite these positive experiences, many American families still 
have had to suffice with substandard broadband or are without the means 
to obtain service. In addition, a portion of the population has never 
sought to be connected at all. Addressing these issues was a high 
priority during my time in public service, especially at the FCC, and 
will remain so going forward.
Federal Broadband Investments and Challenges
    One of the Commission's highest priorities over the last decade has 
been to increase the availability of high-speed broadband. Without 
availability or deployment, all other issues pertaining to broadband 
access do not exist. While critics can and do argue over the speed 
thresholds or measurements used, there should be no doubt that enormous 
progress has been made, especially in reaching the hardest to serve 
corners of our Nation. Most American families now have broadband or 
will have the option to connect, thanks, in no small part, to the 
efforts of the professionals at the Commission to distribute 
approximately $4.5 billion annually in high-cost support from the 
Universal Service Fund (USF). From modernizing the Connect America Fund 
and removing obstacles to rate-of-return providers offering standalone 
service, to the approval of model-based support and the introduction of 
reverse auctions and the latest Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I, 
the FCC has been at the forefront of solving the broadband availability 
problem. But more work remains, and I am not aware of a single person 
who has ever suggested that the mission was or is near complete. 
Instead, the private-public partnership that has proven productive will 
need to continue to solve remaining connectivity gaps. And, governments 
must continue providing the necessary incentives for the private sector 
to continue to extend their networks and deploy new ones.
    Congress recently has acted on multiple fronts to improve broadband 
deployment. The added funding for broadband buildout to specific groups 
or targeted populations in various legislative efforts has the 
potential to serve important functions. Some of this money has been 
allocated to the FCC to operate or expand specific programs. Congress 
has also pushed for more precise broadband mapping, and deserves credit 
for these efforts.
    Moreover, a host of Federal entities, outside of the FCC, are now 
administering broadband-related programs, including the Department of 
Agriculture, the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration at the Department of Commerce, the Department of 
Education, and the Department of Treasury. While I sincerely hope that 
these programs will do immense good, I have concerns over how such 
funding mechanisms have been administered in the past and worry about 
their potential to undermine the Nation's progress in the future as 
well.
Coordination, Duplication, and Overbuilding
    Overlapping Federal programs increase the likelihood of duplicative 
investment, which can be counterproductive to the efforts' success. I 
certainly applaud Congress and the Committee, led by Senators Wicker 
and Klobuchar, for promoting coordination efforts via the Broadband 
Interagency Coordination Act as part of the 2021 Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. While I do believe these provisions will be 
helpful, coordination can be difficult to mandate in practice, 
especially when the scope of relevant agencies keeps changing. Consider 
that I held discussions years ago with the Department of Agriculture as 
it was establishing the ``ReConnect'' broadband loan and grant program. 
Sadly, its leadership had a weak grasp of what subsidized overbuilding 
is and why it is problematic. Coordination can mean a host of different 
things, and when two agencies aren't on the same page when it comes to 
the problem that coordination is supposed to solve, measures to 
coordinate agency actions may be ineffective. As a result, to avoid 
impeding private sector broadband efforts and potentially threatening 
the viability of smaller or mid-sized companies, Congressional efforts 
to mandate to coordination may need to be more specific and robust.
Harm to FCC programs
    I have additional concerns that recent Federal investments efforts 
could undermine Commission efforts to promote efficient subsidies. By 
distributing broadband subsidies through reverse auctions, for 
instance, and enabling mechanisms like price discovery and competition, 
the Commission reformed its programs to be more market-oriented and 
effective. At the same time, the administration of Federal grant 
programs by agencies with little broadband experience can undermine 
this progress. Since FCC subsidy recipients face the risk that another 
agency will subsidize a competitor, the value of their carefully 
targeted support may be insufficient, and recipients may be left unable 
to meet their obligations.
Obstacles to Buildout
    Despite the great desire of policymakers, providers, and users to 
ensure broadband access to those without, many restrictions are 
preventing that from occurring. Specifically, some state and local 
governments and private company limitations are acting as barriers to 
greater deployment. Providers can face high fees to utilize existing 
communications infrastructure--e.g., poles, ducts, conduits--or 
convoluted processes to gain rights-of-way and zoning approvals. They 
also encounter limitations on the placement or expansion of wireless 
facilities. The Committee could advance deployment by clarifying 
acceptable and prohibited practices. While I may be willing to push 
these entities further than others, any clarifications in law would be 
extremely helpful and preempt the constant legal squabbles.
Affordability and Adoption
    It is a simple fact that deploying broadband networks and offering 
services to consumers is an extremely costly and timely venture. 
Unfortunately, as companies set the proper price points to recoup such 
investments, the end consumer charges have proven to be more than some 
American families can spend. The precise populations at risk for being 
unable to afford broadband can be difficult to define, but we do know 
that communities of color and those economically challenged are more 
likely to be affected. There is also a certain portion of the 
population that sees no value or need to obtain broadband. Improving 
these situations are not a Republican or Democratic issue, but 
represent real problems that need to be properly addressed.
    For many years, I sought improvements to the Commission's Lifeline 
program. My views were not always accepted, and I believe that the 
program remains troubled. While a revised Lifeline could serve as the 
basis of a new effort to address the affordability and adoption issues, 
it is also possible that the recent Congressionally enacted Emergency 
Broadband Benefit Program could be a more appropriate model. 
Regardless, addressing these important concepts will require a more 
holistic and thoughtful approach than has been attempted in the past.
New Investments and Possible Additional Efforts
    Like many, I am still analyzing the broadband-related provisions in 
the latest Covid-19 law, along with those just introduced to enact a 
huge infusion of Federal broadband funding. My initial reaction is that 
the added E-Rate funds will be difficult to stop once the pandemic 
ends. This means that providers, who invested heavily in those areas, 
potentially risk losing customers, which may affect their ability to 
maintain, upgrade, and expand service. I also have concerns with the 
new $10 billion program created within the Treasury Department. There 
appears to be few, if any, limitations on how this funding can be used. 
That raises a host of red flags, and I'm hopeful that appropriate 
guardrails can be imposed later, with the recognition that they were 
not permitted under the reconciliation process.
    In terms of new legislative efforts as part of a larger 
infrastructure bill, these efforts also raise concerns that hopefully 
will be explored as part of the legislative process. If this proceeds 
forward, there are a number of troubling components, beyond the funding 
levels, that should be fully explored and potentially amended before 
any enactment. For instance, the speed thresholds seem very ambitious 
and could contradict the goal of connecting the truly unconnected, as 
opposed to updating those areas with service.
                                 * * *
    Broadband is a highly-valuable service that can be life changing 
for many Americans. Exceptional progress has been made over the last 
few by the private sector and through various Federal programs to 
extend existing networks and ensure service to those interested 
families. More work remains to be done in this area, but it needs to be 
accomplished thoughtfully and carefully, lest it causes more harm than 
good.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mr. O'Rielly, and thank you for 
mentioning St. Patrick's Day. I am assuming, with a name like 
O'Rielly, that maybe that is a relevant day for you. So, it is 
for the Chair, myself, and for the Ranking Member. So, thank 
you.
    We are now going to turn to Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Mr. 
Wilkins for joining us virtually.

       STATEMENT OF JON WILKINS, PARTNER, QUADRA PARTNERS

    Mr. Wilkins. Good morning. Thank you, Chair Cantwell, 
Ranking Member Wicker, and I look forward to my testimony 
today.
    Quick introduction, my name is Jon Wilkins. I am a co-
founder of a firm called Quadra Partners. We work extensively 
in broadband. Prior to that, for 4 years, I was with the FCC, 
where I headed up two of the large bureaus and offices there. 
Most recently, for about the last year and a half, I actually 
have been working with a large group of participants in the 
RDOF process, and I will try to share some of the lessons 
learned from that experience today.
    Let me just start first with one number, $80 billion. Dr. 
Ali mentioned it. In early 2017, the FCC released a staff 
analysis that did try to answer the question, what is the 
investment required to, once and for all, close the deployment 
gap? And $80 billion was the answer. There has been progress 
since then, but I think that a properly measured assessment of 
the problem today will show that the gap has also been growing 
and that we are still facing $80 billion problem, and so, that 
is the right number to use.
    The question then, of course, becomes if we are going to 
make an $80 billion investment, do we have the right pieces in 
place to spend it well today? And I think that answer is also 
yes. With that said, I mean, just the RDOF process alone, I 
think, sheds a couple important lessons. I will just quickly 
touch on them, and then, certainly take any questions.
    First and foremost, competitive award processes are 
absolutely critical. Reverse auctions are an excellent way to 
do it, and I will just say, the FCC is the leading agency, not 
just in the U.S. Government but, frankly, around the world, at 
running complex telecom auctions. I think there have been many 
concerns raised about RDOF. I, frankly, share some of those. I 
would be glad to take questions about it. But I just want to 
emphasize, I think the problems with RDOF request, frankly, 
design choices that were made by the Commission, with that 
auction specifically, but that the mechanism itself is a good 
one to use, going forward.
    Second, I want to touch quickly on financing support, 
capital formation, if you will. RDOF was $9.2 billion, but it 
was paid out over 10 years, and for all but the largest 
companies, that actually is not as helpful as it needs to be. A 
broadband project requires massive initial investment. The 
first 2 years of a project are almost all of the capital to 
actually construct the network. Over time, it can have a pretty 
good financial profile, but bringing that initial amount of 
capital at the beginning is critical, and I will just say that 
it is expensive. To lever up a funding stream like RDOF is 
costly, and really what it means is that money that could be 
going to broadband today, is going to banks and financial 
intermediaries. And therefore, I think, specific proposals, 
such as the Broadband Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act, 
co-sponsored by Senators Lujan and Peters, very good idea. As 
well, frankly, as proposals to have accelerated deployment, in 
exchange for accelerated funding, such as the Accelerating 
Broadband Connectivity Act, introduced last year by Senators 
Wicker, Blackburn, and Capito.
    I also want to touch briefly on affordability programs. We 
tend to think about these in our policy world as, sort of, 
separate silos. You know, E-rate over here, Lifeline over 
there, I-cost over there. If you are building a broadband 
project, those are all the same thing, which is total financial 
support for my business case. Predictable affordability support 
is actually very important to deployment, as well. Those 
business cases, when the programs are synchronized, are 
reinforcing. They all pull in the same direction, and they 
should not be viewed in competition, frankly.
    I do want to just briefly talk about the role of Federal 
coordination, not just within the Federal agency level, but 
with states and Tribal governments. The $80 billion investment 
is actually just the sum total of the situation in each of the 
states and Tribal areas. Each one is actually different. The 
economics to complete deployment are different. The provider 
base is different. State policy preferences are different, and 
the states have a very big role to play. I think that last year 
was a rough year for that kind of coordination. There were a 
lot of different things going on. RDOF process was extremely 
rapid. CARES Act introduced all kinds of new funding. It was 
not a good year for coordination. Going forward, it is 
important, if we are going to make substantial Federal 
investments in the future, having states prepare now is very 
important. And I think funding to support that has been a very 
good idea, and there needs to be a lot of coordination with 
states going forward, especially on mapping.
    So, just in summary, $80 billion is a very good investment. 
I actually wanted to thank Senator Klobuchar for introducing 
the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, along with a 
lot of co-sponsors on the Committee. That is doing justice to 
the size of the problem, and I do think, with implementation 
that learned some of the lessons of the recent past, it will do 
the job.
    And I just wanted to finally say, these are investments. 
One dollar of public support--public investment, is going to be 
matched by 3, 4, 5 or more dollars of private investment. That 
brings economic benefits and, of course, having high-
performance broadband in these rural areas brings economic 
benefits above and beyond anything else that we can do to help 
rural areas.
    So, with that, thank you and I look forward to the 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Wilkins follows:]

     Prepared Statement of Jon Wilkins, Co-founder, Quadra Partners
Introduction
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jon 
Wilkins, and I am a co-founder of Quadra Partners, an advisory firm 
focused on the broadband sector. Prior to that, from 2013-2017 I served 
as the Managing Director and then the Chief of the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau at the Federal Communications Commission 
(FCC). In those roles I was heavily involved in the Commission's work 
to promote broadband and close the digital divide. Prior to serving 
with the FCC, I was a management consultant for more than fifteen 
years, working mostly with companies on different aspects of the 
broadband market, dating back to the dawn of the broadband era at the 
end of the 1990s. In short, for my entire professional career I have 
been involved in the growth of broadband from both private and public 
sector perspectives.
    Of recent and specific relevance to the topic of today's hearing, 
over the past eighteen months I worked with a multi-state group of 
private and public entities to prepare for, and participate in, the 
recent FCC Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) reverse auction. I 
will provide in my testimony today some of the lessons learned from 
RDOF, both from the perspective of new types of providers seeking to 
offer broadband as well as with respect to potential improvements to 
funding award processes.
    U.S. telecommunications policy has recognized the importance of 
closing the digital divide for many years. Federal, state, and local 
governments have pursued a range of policies to promote universal 
access to broadband, and some progress has been made. Over the last 
decade, the FCC's high-cost fund has invested approximately $40 
billion, bringing broadband to millions of locations, primarily in 
rural areas. Over the last five years, the FCC's E-Rate program has 
successfully connected over 99 percent of U.S. schools to the high-
speed connections needed for modern digital learning. And over just the 
last few months, Congress has provided new support for broadband 
adoption and deployment that will help millions to afford broadband 
service now and have access in the future.
    Despite this progress, however, the need for high-quality broadband 
is increasing and the demands on our broadband infrastructure are 
growing at an astonishing rate. What was good broadband, or at least 
good enough, just ten years ago is now evidently inadequate. And while 
in large parts of the country--such as middle-and high-income 
households in city and suburban neighborhoods--our private provider 
market is largely meeting this need, for a significant portion of the 
U.S. population the lack of access to affordable broadband 
infrastructure has become an increasingly dire problem. The last year 
of pandemic disruptions to work, school, commerce, and almost every 
other aspect of life have highlighted the stakes in the starkest 
possible terms.
    What is very encouraging is the important shift now underway--as 
evidenced by today's hearing--to address the digital divide not simply 
as an issue of traditional telecom policy, but as a question of 
infrastructure investment and national economic development. This is an 
extremely important and welcome change, because both the national need 
to solve the broadband problem once-and-for-all, as well as the 
potential for successfully doing so, has never been higher. Each dollar 
of public investment in broadband can generate several times that 
amount in additional private investment, amplifying the economic 
benefits. In the remainder of my testimony, I will highlight several 
broadband-sector trends with policy implications and suggest some 
considerations for how best to build on the policy actions and 
investments of recent years.
Is $80 Billion Enough?
    In January 2017, an FCC staff whitepaper calculated that a total 
investment of $80 billion would be sufficient to reach the U.S. 
residential and small-business locations then regarded by the 
Commission as ``unserved'' by robust broadband infrastructure capable 
of at least 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream (25/3 Mbps). The FCC 
staff went on to estimate that approximately 85 percent of the 
locations reached for this $80 billion investment would be self-
sustaining and require no ongoing subsidy; for the final 15 percent--
equivalent to about 2 percent of all U.S. locations--the FCC whitepaper 
noted the need for an ongoing subsidy of approximately $2 billion per 
year, or about half of current Commission annual support amounts. The 
$80 billion investment and annual $2 billion support figures were 
calculated using detailed economic information and modeling 
capabilities available to the FCC's expert staff and were based on 
reaching all such unserved locations with fiber-to-the-premise (FTTP) 
connections.
    Some progress has been made in the interim, including ongoing 
deployments of projects funded by prior FCC awards, such as the 2018 
Connect America Fund (CAF)-II auction, as well as ReConnect grants from 
USDA and various state efforts. The recent RDOF auction will also 
result in support for additional deployments after the FCC completes 
its ongoing review of long-form applications. It is important to note, 
however, that far from all CAF-II and RDOF awards were for the high-
quality fiber networks modeled in 2017.
    However, despite this progress, as of March 2021, the total 
investment required is likely still at least $80 billion, and more 
likely somewhat higher. This may seem somewhat counterintuitive given 
investments over the recent years, but I believe it to be the case for 
the following reasons. First, the 2017 analysis used the FCC's best 
maps of broadband deployment available at the time, which are known to 
undercount the size of the unserved population. For example, as members 
of this Committee are acutely aware, the FCC's legacy approach treats 
all locations in a census block as served if a provider reports the 
ability to provide service to just a single location in the block; this 
alone leads to undercount by definition. In addition, location growth 
in some rural areas over the last decade is of course not captured by 
legacy FCC data. As a result of these basic data issues alone, when the 
FCC completes its current work to update broadband availability maps 
for the entire country as mandated by the 2020 Broadband DATA Act, it 
is widely expected that nearly as many unserved residential and small-
business locations will be identified in the new total count as was the 
case in 2017, even accounting for new deployments funded by private or 
public investments in the intervening years. The persistence of this 
gap is felt as a daily reality in communities across the country.
    Second, end-user performance requirements have clearly increased 
from the 25/3 Mbps level used for the FCC's 2017 analysis. Reliance on 
video-intensive, two-way applications--then viewed mostly as the 
province of niche gaming enthusiasts, now widely understood by most 
Americans in the form of video-conferencing services--has skyrocketed 
since 2017. Recent calls for higher minimum broadband performance 
definitions such as 100/100 Mbps and legislative proposals urging 
symmetrical upload and download speeds address this reality. Raising 
the bar on what it means to be adequately ``served'' would mean that 
some of the locations counted by the FCC in 2017 under the 25/3 Mbps 
standard would not meet updated performance requirements, increasing 
the magnitude of the problem.
    The size of the accessibility gap is therefore likely at least as 
large as it was assessed to be in 2017, and the $80 billion estimate 
remains a good, if perhaps low, one to use for policies looking forward 
to the rest of 2021 and beyond.
Policy Improvements To Get the Best Results from $80 Billion
    Like any financial projection, the FCC's 2017 whitepaper 
necessarily relies on certain assumptions in arriving at its $80 
billion figure. For example, the analysis assumes that the award 
process for such funds will be done efficiently, that is with dollars 
awarded that match the true subsidy need. The analysis also assumes 
that $80 billion will be available to awardees immediately, because a 
broadband project requires a significant portion of the required 
investment to be spent within the first two years. Finally, the 
analysis assumes that the networks generate customer revenues for 
service once they are built; in other words, the $80 billion figure is 
not the standalone total investment required (that amount is 
considerably higher), but rather reflects the difference between total 
customer revenues and total project costs.
    The good news is that existing policy mechanisms, as well as 
certain proposed new policy actions, could provide a sound national 
strategy for addressing all of these areas. However, I believe there 
are also a number of improvements that could be made to significantly 
enhance the likelihood that a public investment of at least $80 billion 
would truly close the deployment gap.
Economically Efficient Allocation: Auctions Are Not Self-Executing
    Any government support for broadband deployment should ultimately 
flow to specific projects via a competitive award process. The policy 
goal should be to reveal the true economic need (subsidy) for different 
projects in a given area and then award the lowest possible subsidy 
sufficient to meet the desired performance of the network. In concept, 
some form of reverse auction is an excellent solution to the problem.
    On the favorable side, what the RDOF-I (and earlier CAF-II) auction 
demonstrated was that there is interest in providing rural broadband 
from a wide range of entities, including traditional and 
nontraditional, large and small, private and public, incumbents and new 
entrants. More than four hundred bidding entities, representing an even 
greater number of underlying operating companies, participated in the 
RDOF-I auction, an astounding number. As one example, large numbers of 
rural electric co-operatives demonstrated the increasing interest of 
that industry in offering broadband to their members. Various other new 
entrants also see opportunities to serve rural markets. This in and of 
itself is a very positive and relatively new development, but it is not 
surprising. Given the increasing economic importance of broadband, 
these projects are of significant interest to local providers, 
investors, and state and local governments. The RDOF-I outcome showed 
that a subsidy boost is enough to persuade many types of providers to 
pursue building new broadband networks to unserved communities.
    However, a reverse auction is just a type of allocation mechanism; 
the results of an auction are greatly affected by the specific auction-
design choices made. Unfortunately, a number of the design choices made 
for the RDOF-I auction led directly to an outcome that has raised many 
questions, and many members of this Committee have voiced direct 
concerns. From a policy perspective, I would highlight three issues.
    First, the RDOF-I auction made distinctions among bidders on just 
two dimensions: network speed and latency. Though important, these are 
far from the only attributes of broadband infrastructure that matter to 
rural communities. Future auctions could consider factors such as more 
symmetric performance, scalability, long-term durability, resiliency, 
and reliability. For example, telecommunications industry veterans 
remember that ``five-nines reliability''--99.999 percent availability, 
meaning the network is down for less than six minutes per year--was the 
gold standard for the last century's networks. While promoting 
competition between different technologies is critical in many areas of 
telecom policy, the question in a reverse auction for subsidies is not 
``which technology is allowed to compete in the market?'' but rather 
``what is the performance profile of a network deserving public 
investment?''
    Second, an auction must reveal, at least approximately, the true 
economic needs of bidders. Simply put, some RDOF-I auction winners will 
receive support for networks that, by their own public statements, 
would have been deployed anyway. This is a fundamental flaw in auction 
design that must be fixed in future award processes.
    Third, an auction is fundamentally the result of competitive 
bidding by the entities that are allowed to participate. Though it is 
important not to set the table stakes for entry so high as to deter new 
providers, many of the concerns about the RDOF-I auction results 
indicate that more stringent requirements should be placed on aspiring 
bidders in future auctions. As an example, requirements could include 
more rigorous pre-auction demonstrations of actual ability to operate 
at the promised quality of service in a given geography, or operating 
experience with a given type of broadband network. States and 
localities could also be engaged to provide input into the 
qualifications of bidders seeking support in a given state.
Time Equals Money: The Capital Formation Problem
    RDOF also provides a useful illustration of a critical policy 
issue: the difference between upfront investment required versus the 
duration of time over which support amounts are paid. While the largest 
Federal programs such as RDOF win headlines for total award amounts 
(such as $9.2 billion for RDOF-I), those amounts are in fact paid out 
over ten years. This creates a ``capital formation problem'' for all 
but the largest companies, and especially for new entrants to the 
broadband market seeking to build larger projects.
    Simply put, it can be costly for a ten-year funding stream such as 
RDOF to be leveraged into the up-front capital needed for construction. 
Just because I may receive $10 million per year for ten years (assuming 
I don't run into any deployment problems), does not mean that an 
investor or lender will give me anywhere near $100 million today. In a 
reverse auction, these financing costs must be incorporated into 
bidding strategies, potentially causing participants to drop out 
earlier than otherwise necessary because a material portion of the 
funds intended for broadband deployment must instead be spent on 
financing. In other words, some projects will not be built despite 
their inherent economic viability over the long term.
    One initial improvement would be to shift to a shorter term for 
paying out support that better aligns with actual project needs. A ten-
year period is too long. In reality, many cable and FTTP projects can 
be built within two-to-three years, assuming adequate up-front planning 
and preparation, such as ensuring access to needed materials and labor. 
As one immediate upside, such a change would bring broadband to 
unserved areas more quickly, an important benefit in and of itself; 
indeed, many local stakeholders in rural areas strongly support 
proposals to incentivize accelerated deployment. At the same time, 
however, the government does have an important interest in maintaining 
oversight and control of projects at least until a viable network is up 
and running; handing over very large sums immediately is not good 
policy.
    Current proposals to add financing support in the form of loan 
guarantees or other credit support mechanisms also could be very 
valuable in addressing this capital formation problem. The core 
question is one of project risk: How much will the public take on, and 
how much must private investors be paid to carry? By taking on some of 
the risk, government credit support could allow broadband projects to 
be financed more like traditional long-lived infrastructure.
Cash Is Cash: Synchronizing Support for Access and Adoption
    While the $80 billion analysis correctly assumes that currently 
unserved residents have a strong demand for high-performance broadband, 
in many communities even reasonable commercial rates for broadband 
service may not be affordable for significant portions of the 
population. In addition, unlike broadband networks in cities and towns, 
rural networks typically have less opportunity to generate revenues 
from businesses. The financial structure of broadband deployment--large 
up-front capital costs but relatively moderate ongoing operating and 
maintenance costs--means that the economic viability of a project can 
be highly sensitive to adoption levels. Prospective providers must 
closely analyze not just the cost to build the network, but also the 
potential revenues. In some cases, uncertainty about the ability of 
local customers to afford service over time deters the pursuit of 
otherwise viable projects. This creates an unfortunate vicious circle, 
with the communities most in need of the economic development benefits 
of broadband least able to attract the needed investment.
    Fortunately, longstanding broadband programs such as E-Rate and 
Rural Health Care support for anchor institutions, as well as programs 
designed for low-income users, including new programs such as the 
Emergency Broadband Benefit, all are available to support the demand 
side of broadband projects. Indeed, it is often overlooked that even 
programs such as Lifeline could be important in both rural and urban 
areas, and proposed efforts to strengthen Lifeline's support for 
broadband data services would benefit communities across the country.
    An additional area of improvement could be to better coordinate 
these ``demand side'' programs with ``supply side'' programs such as 
RDOF, the USDA's various programs, and other Federal deployment loans 
and grants. As a simple example, the FCC, NTIA, and USDA could 
implement streamlining initiatives to allow a grant recipient from one 
deployment-support program to more easily be deemed eligible to 
participate in existing, or new, demand-support programs.
    Although in policy circles these programs are generally viewed as 
distinct, to providers of broadband service and their investors, all of 
these programs feed into a simple question: Are the risk-adjusted 
expected customer revenues and government support enough to justify the 
required investment? These programs therefore need not be viewed as 
competing with each other, nor as serving separate constituencies. 
Proper coordination combined with continued, sustainable funding would 
allow the sum to be far larger than the individual parts.
The Need for Federal Partnership with States and Tribes
    Federal support is vital, but states and Tribal governments also 
have a critical role to play in closing the deployment gap. The overall 
U.S. figure of $80 billion is of course simply the sum of the state and 
Tribal needs. Critically, the specific types of projects and providers 
best able to close the gap can vary significantly from state to state, 
as can state policy preferences. State and Tribal broadband programs 
can amplify and accelerate the impact of overall Federal efforts, and 
recent steps to include a significant level of funding and discretion 
in the American Rescue Plan for state broadband efforts are well 
designed to meet this opportunity. States also have a major 
contribution to make to the FCC's broadband mapping work. Many states 
have been rapidly moving forward with their own mapping efforts and 
they should be enabled to coordinate these efforts with the FCC's 
mapping work and participate as partners in that process.
    States and Tribes also have an important role to play in providing 
early planning and advance preparations of locally tailored strategies 
that will take greatest advantage of new Federal support. For example, 
even before any additional action by Congress, the FCC has over $11 
billion in Universal Service Fund support that can be awarded via the 
RDOF II process. However, even with rapid progress on mapping, the 
length of the required administrative process to finalize rules and 
auction procedures likely means that the RDOF II auction will not start 
until 2022, at the earliest. However, in advance of this states and 
Tribes can make sure that providers in their jurisdictions are fully 
informed about broadband mapping and community needs, are aware of 
Federal funding opportunities and requirements, and are supported in 
their bidding plans by reinforcing state policies. If Congress does opt 
to provide additional broadband infrastructure investments, the impact 
of early planning and preparations by states and Tribes will be even 
higher.
    It will be important going forward, however, that state, Tribal, 
and Federal efforts do not work at cross-purposes. For example, the 
FCC's unexpected and unfortunate decision late in the process to 
preclude from RDOF-I any areas receiving state funding, including for 
future deployment, caused significant uncertainty in many states, a 
problem that persists given doubts about the viability of RDOF winners 
in a number of states. Just as the various Federal agencies such as the 
FCC, USDA, and NTIA should work to better coordinate on the standards, 
timelines, and requirements for broadband funding awards, Federal 
entities should place greater emphasis on federal/state/Tribal 
coordination.
Spillover Effects, Including 5G
    As the FCC's 2017 whitepaper addressed, the fundamental 
justification for public investment in broadband infrastructure is that 
high-quality broadband generates significant economic benefits not 
fully captured by the operators of broadband networks themselves. The 
widespread and growing reliance on broadband across sectors including 
healthcare, education, and retail clearly illustrates this issue. A 
final point in this context: the fiber networks deployed to serve 
retail customers with FTTP in rural areas would directly support the 
deployment of 5G mobile services as well. Just as fixed broadband has 
now become essential to economic activity, true high-performance mobile 
broadband--the essential promise of the 5G-deployment push now underway 
by the Nation's mobile carriers--is becoming similarly essential. 
Upcoming FCC efforts such as the $9 billion 5G Fund reverse auction 
will be enhanced if participants know that essential fiber-based front-
haul and back-haul connections will be in available in rural areas. 
Investment in fiber now will pay future dividends in the 5G arena as 
well.
Conclusion
    Broadband communications networks are the critical infrastructure 
for today. Over the last ten years since the original National 
Broadband Plan, the Federal government has put in place the policy 
building blocks that, with some improvements and greater financial 
support, could ensure access to high-performance, scalable, resilient 
broadband to the many millions of Americans who lack it today. I 
appreciate the opportunity to contribute to the Committee's 
consideration of this important topic, and look forward to your 
questions.

    The Chair. Thank you, Mr. Wilkins. Thank you so much for 
your testimony and, you are right. We are going to ask you an 
RDOF question. We are going to ask the whole panel that. But 
first, we are going to ask Mr. Forde--is it Forde? Forde?
    Mr. Forde. Forde.
    The Chair. Mr. Forde, thank you so much for joining us, and 
we look forward to hearing your testimony, and I also thank you 
for--I really want to learn more about what you are doing to 
provide access to regional sporting events as part of your 
business. We may not get to that in our hearing today, but I 
will follow up with you later. But I think, to me, that is one 
of the great aspects of having broadband in communities, you 
can start providing content that other people may not be able 
to access, but creates a broader community. So, thank you so 
much for what you are doing. We look forward to your testimony.

                   STATEMENT OF JUSTIN FORDE,

             SENIOR DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,

                  MIDCONTINENT COMMUNICATIONS

    Mr. Forde. Chair Cantwell, thank you very much. Ranking 
Member Wicker, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting 
me here today to discuss Midco's experience with Federal 
broadband funding programs. My name is Justin Forde, and I am 
the Senior Director of Government Relations for Midco.
    More than 440,000 residential and business customers count 
on Midco services across five states: South Dakota, North 
Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin. The majority of the 
400 communities we serve are very rural. With most having 
populations closer to 500, then 5,000.
    We also serve thousands of acres, as you will see behind 
me, of prime Red River Valley agricultural soil, where farms 
are often miles apart. To be clear, what we do every day is 
rural broadband.
    The COVID-19 pandemic has put a spotlight on the importance 
of broadband connectivity for all Americans. At Midco, our 
private investment of over $457 million the last 5 years, has 
positioned us to fully serve the needs of our customers, our 
friends, and our neighbors as they integrated their lives from 
work, school, and home. We connected 2,500 families to free 
Internet in just a few short days in March. We partnered with 
school districts to connect even more students and signed on to 
former Federal Communications Commission Chair Pai's ``Keep 
Americans Connected'' pledge.
    The U.S. cable industry now offers 1 Gigabit service to 88 
percent of American households, and over 95 percent of the 
country has access to broadband service of at least 25/3. But 
we need to solve the challenge of connecting those who do not 
yet have Internet available, primarily in the most rural and 
hard to reach areas. There have been significant improvements 
to Federal broadband funding programs, but there remain 
important ways to improve them further.
    Our experience in Minnesota provides a powerful example of 
what is going right with these programs. We have invested over 
$44 million in 2020 alone, to connect more that 20,000 new 
homes. But there are communities adjacent to these areas that 
were not economical to serve. With the help of Minnesota's 
Border-to-Border State Grant Program, we extended our network 
to the areas surrounding those towns and continued to build out 
Gigabit speed networks.
    We have partnered with the FCC. With the help of a $38.9 
million award, through the FCC's CAF II program, we will reach 
more than 9,300 new locations. And with the help of a $4.96 
million award, through the FCC's RDOF program, we will reach 
6,500 previously unserved locations, with a wireline broadband 
network capable of 5 Gbps speeds.
    We are able to reach many of these rural communities 
because we edge out our Internet from our fiber network in our 
small rural towns to even more rural areas, as far as 50 miles 
away, using fixed wireless technology. I can personally speak 
to the benefits of fixed wireless. During the pandemic, my 
three kids went to school online, my wife used the Internet to 
run a small business, and I worked remotely for Midco, all via 
fixed wireless.
    Midco believes in the power of fixed wireless to bridge the 
digital divide, so much so, that we recently spent $8.8 million 
to acquire spectrum from the FCC's Citizens Broadband Service 
Radio auction. We know that fixed wireless is a viable solution 
for rural America.
    This leads me to my first recommendation for broadband 
support programs. It is critical, critical that they be 
technology-neutral and encourage broad participation. When 
providers can experiment with different ways of getting 
broadband service to very hard-to-reach places, more Americans 
get broadband service sooner.
    Second, awards through competitive bidding. The auction 
process determines what speeds can be most efficiently given. 
Provided an area provides the flexibility, areas can also be 
served with higher speeds, they will. In the recent RDOF 
auction, over 85 percent of the locations will get gigabit-
speed broadband.
    Third, stay focused, like a laser, on unserved areas. Both 
the FCC and RUS have taken positive steps to direct new 
broadband funding to where it is most needed. But these efforts 
could be thwarted by proposals to redefine areas eligible for 
funding. Recent suggestions that the definition of unserved 
areas should be changed from areas lacking 25/3 service to 100/
100, will have serious consequences in rural America. Many 
places that have high-speed broadband, including Gigabit 
service, will suddenly become unserved areas that are eligible 
for funding. Providers will seek to fund these areas, not 
because they are easiest to build and serve. Funds will be 
syphoned away from areas that do not yet have economic reach. 
Those lacking broadband service today, will still lack 
broadband service tomorrow, even after billions of dollars are 
spent.
    Fourth, continue to improve agency coordination to ensure 
funds are spent wisely. We have been awarded CAF II funding to 
reach areas of Dakota County in Minnesota and are fully on 
track with our deployment schedule. But recently, we learned 
that two other providers have been awarded CARES Act funding to 
serve the same area. That is three providers awarded Federal 
funds, to serve the exact same area. This is a very poor use of 
Federal resource.
    Fortunately, some progress is being made. The FCC is 
implementing mapping requirements, the Broadband DATA Act, the 
Access Broadband Act, and the Broadband Interagency 
Coordination Act should help boost coordination efforts. But it 
is critical that agencies distributing funding view this 
coordination as an essential part of the award process, not an 
afterthought when deploying funding.
    Finally, we recommend continuing to remove barriers to 
deployment. Obligations and costs placed on providers like us, 
must be reasonable, lawful, competitively neutral, and not 
unduly burdensome.
    I commend this committee for its focus on ensuring that the 
billions of dollars being spent on broadband benefit all 
Americans, including those in rural America.
    Thank you again for inviting me here today, and I look 
forward to working with you on these important issues.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Forde follows:]

    Prepared Statement of Justin Forde, Senior Director, Government 
                 Relations, Midcontinent Communications
    Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Wicker, and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for inviting me here to discuss Midco's experience 
with Federal broadband funding programs. My name is Justin Forde, and I 
am the Senior Director of Government Relations at Midcontinent 
Communications (``Midco''). Midco is the leading provider of Internet 
and connectivity, cable TV, phone, data center and advertising services 
in the Upper Midwest. We also operate a regional sports network, Midco 
Sports Network, which broadcasts live, local high school and regional 
college sports.
    More than 440,000 residential and business customers count on Midco 
services across five states: South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, 
Kansas, and Wisconsin. Midco communities range from just over 100 
people in places like Dodge, North Dakota, to our largest community, 
Sioux Falls, South Dakota, which has a metro population of nearly 
250,000. The majority of the 400 communities we serve are very rural. 
Many have less than 50,000 people, with most having populations between 
500 and 5,000.
    The COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on the importance of 
broadband connectivity for all Americans, and America's ISP networks 
delivered. At Midco, our investment of over $457 million in the last 
five years positioned us to serve the needs of our customers as they 
fully integrated their work, school and home lives. We also connected 
2,500 families to free Internet at home (including our rural, fixed 
wireless network), partnered with school districts to connect students 
needing service, and signed on to former Federal Communications 
Commission (``FCC'') Chairman Pai's ``Keep Americans Connected'' 
pledge.
    Collectively, ISPs have invested more than $1.8 trillion in capital 
over the last twenty--three years to get America connected. Light-touch 
regulatory policy from the FCC and Congress has enabled this work. The 
U.S. cable industry now offers 1 Gigabit service to 88 percent of 
American households, in both urban and rural communities. Currently, 
over 95 percent of the country has access to broadband service that 
offers speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. But we 
need to solve the remaining broadband deployment challenge of 
connecting those who do not have Internet available--primarily in the 
most rural areas that are difficult to serve in a cost-effective 
manner.
    Midco provides Gigabit services to more than 95 percent of the 
largely rural communities it serves. Many of our service areas are 
adjacent to areas that are not economical to serve without Federal 
assistance, and we have sought and obtained funding through Federal and 
state programs to assist with expanding to those areas.
    I'm here today to share our experience with those programs, 
including those administered by the FCC--we participated in the FCC's 
Connect America Fund (``CAF'') auction and the Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund (``RDOF'') auction--as well as the Department of 
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (``RUS''). I will say that there 
have been significant improvements to Federal broadband funding 
programs since I last appeared before this Committee in 2019, but there 
remain important ways to improve them further. With many billions of 
Federal funding dollars being focused on broadband expansion, it is 
more important than ever to get these programs right.
Midco's History of Innovation
    Before discussing Midco's experience with funding programs, I want 
to explain how we have innovated to provide broadband to rural 
communities in various ways. Innovation and foresight have shaped 
Midco's course for more than 90 years. We have made it our mission to 
ensure that our most rural communities are at the leading edge of 
technology. Across our footprint, our goal is always to continue to 
find ways to meet and exceed the communications needs of our customers.
    Founded in 1931, Midco began by operating movie theatres, and then 
entered the radio business. In 1954, our owners launched the first 
television station in South Dakota. From there, Midco evolved its 
service line to include cable television and phone service. On April 
15, 1996, in Aberdeen, South Dakota, a town of about 25,000 people 
then, Midco launched our broadband Internet service.
    Our commitment to innovation continues to motivate our business 
initiatives. We own and operate four data centers in North Dakota and 
South Dakota to give local businesses a cost-effective way to secure 
their critical data and IT infrastructure. We provide solutions for 
regional and national banking, healthcare, energy, and government 
customers, among many other industries. We combine our data center 
services with powerful network solutions through our wholly owned, 
operated and engineered Midco fiber network. Our data centers are 
directly connected to our fiber backbone, giving businesses access to 
some of the fastest Internet speeds in the country.
    Midco's willingness to evolve stems from our desire to serve the 
communities where we live, work and educate the next generation. In 
2017, we launched the Midco Gig Initiative--a commitment to bring 
Gigabit Internet speeds to our entire service area--from the region's 
smallest towns to its largest cities. In 2019, Midco Gig was available 
to more than 90 percent of our customers. That year, we announced our 
involvement in the 10G initiative, a commitment to invest $500 million 
over 10 years on a global cable industry standard that will provide 
ultra-fast multigigabit speeds in both directions, combined with low 
latency, unmatched reliability, and rock-solid security for a broad 
range of customers. Today, more than 95 percent of Midco's customers 
across our footprint are receiving service that exceeds 1 Gig speeds. 
In the coming months, we will announce a major upgrade that will give 
even more customers greater speeds.
    Our growth has included progress in reaching previously unserved 
areas, thanks in part to our partnership with the FCC through its CAF 
II and RDOF auctions and our partnership with the state of Minnesota 
and its Border-to-Border Program. Our experience in Minnesota provides 
a powerful example of what is going right with these programs and how 
well-designed programs can help companies like Midco expand their 
networks to new homes, including those that were previously unserved 
and difficult to reach.
    Midco invested $44 million in private capital in Minnesota in 2020 
and connected more than 20,000 new homes, including 7,500 homes in new 
markets. But there were communities in adjacent areas that were not 
economical to serve. With the help of Minnesota's Border-to-Border 
State Grant Program, Midco extended its network to some of those areas. 
For example, in Scandia, Minnesota, a town of approximately 4,100 
people, we built a Gigabit wired network that will improve access for 
the residents of Scandia for critical e-learning applications and 
health care resources, enable telecommuting options for residents, and 
make businesses and city institutions more efficient.
    We have also partnered with the FCC to expand to other previously 
unserved areas in North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota. With the 
help of an award of $38.9 million through the FCC's CAF II program, we 
are edging out our network to reach more than 9,300 new locations with 
100/20 speeds to serve previously unserved remote, rural areas. And 
with the help of RDOF, through which we were awarded $4.96 million in 
2020 to deploy broadband, we will reach 6,506 previously unserved 
locations across North Dakota, South Dakota and Minnesota with a 
wireline broadband network that will initially support a 1,000/500 
speeds offer, but is capable of 5 Gbps/5 Gbps speeds. The maps below 
show our planned 2021 expansion in Minnesota and South Dakota using a 
combination of wireline and fixed wireless service.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



Midco's Innovative Approach To Getting Broadband To Remote Areas
    We have been able to reach many rural communities with broadband by 
leveraging our extensive fiber backbone through our Midco Edge Out 
strategy. We ``edge out'' our high-speed Internet from our fiber 
backbone in urban areas to rural areas using fixed wireless technology. 
We use the initial fixed wireless expansion from our wired plant to 
meet consumers' immediate needs, and then leverage that expansion to 
justify a wired network buildout in the future. While some rural areas 
may support a wired build, other, more remote rural areas will continue 
to be served with a fixed wireless solution.
    For example, the Midco Edge Out strategy brought high-speed fixed 
wireless to the rural, ``bedroom'' communities surrounding Grand Forks, 
ND. The strong customer base and increased demand for broadband then 
allowed Midco to build out such communities with a wired, Gigabit 
network. We will then repurpose the fixed wireless equipment to serve 
other rural communities.
    I can personally speak to the benefits of the fixed wireless 
approach, as I am a Midco fixed wireless customer. I have been a fixed 
wireless customer for more than 10 years and Midco recently updated my 
service to our LTE, 5G-ready platform. I get my Internet from the top 
of a commercial tower in Grandin, North Dakota to my small farmstead 
six miles west of Argusville. During the pandemic, my three kids went 
to school online, my wife used the Internet to run a small business, 
and I worked for Midco remotely. Midco's fixed wireless allowed us to 
continue educating our children and working during the pandemic.
    My neighbors are also Midco fixed wireless customers. One of my 
neighbors runs a cattle ranch. He uses our fixed wireless to sell his 
livestock by auction where speed and capacity matter, and where many 
individuals are participating in the auction at the same time. He is a 
happy Midco fixed wireless customer running a vital and thriving 
ranching business in rural North Dakota.
    Midco believes in the power of fixed wireless to bridge the digital 
divide and enable our Midco Edge Out strategy so much that we spent 
$8.8 million to acquire spectrum in the FCC's Citizens Broadband Radio 
Service auction in 2020. This spectrum not only allows us to offer 
speeds of more than 100/20 Mbps at distances up to eight miles from the 
vertical asset, but it also gives us access to crucial mid-band 
spectrum to continue innovating.
    We know that fixed wireless technology is a viable solution for 
rural America. We know that we can reach remote, rural areas that are 
up to 50 miles away from our fiber network. We can also implement this 
solution relatively quickly and without the effort or expense of 
constructing fiber networks. Fixed wireless technology can also be 
deployed during the winter months, when harsh weather makes fiber 
construction impossible. This leads me to my first recommendation for 
Federal broadband support programs: it is critical that the programs be 
technology-neutral, encourage the broadest participation of qualified 
broadband providers, and be as flexible as possible.
    If broadband support programs are flexible, allowing providers to 
experiment and innovate with different ways of getting broadband 
service to hard-to-reach places, more Americans will get broadband 
service. It is not possible or practical to build a fiber network to 
every location in the country. Some are too difficult to reach, because 
they are geographically remote, and others are very hard to serve 
because of their topography--such as granite cliffs and protected 
national forests. People in those areas should not be constantly passed 
over for the opportunity to get broadband service because their area 
cannot support the kind of build that most Federal funding programs 
require. Setting high speed thresholds that can only be delivered by a 
fiber network build may sound helpful, but in practice will continue to 
leave many behind.
    In addition to keeping an open mind on how companies deliver 
broadband, based on our experience with the ReConnect program and 
participating in the CAF and RDOF auctions, we would like to offer a 
few other recommendations to ensure that future funding is used 
efficiently and effectively to expand the reach of broadband networks 
in rural America.
    Our second recommendation is to award funds through open 
competitive bidding. Using a ``reverse auction'' competitive bidding 
process, as the FCC has done with its CAF II and RDOF programs, will 
connect the most unserved homes, for the least per-home subsidy, at the 
highest speed possible in the area--given all of the variables. This 
gives the country the best bang for the buck. Letting the auction 
process determine what speed can be most efficiently provided in a 
given area--as the FCC did in the recent RDOF auction--also provides 
the necessary flexibility I mentioned while ensuring that areas that 
can be served at higher speeds will be. In the recent RDOF auction, 
which resulted in highly competitive bidding, more than 99 percent of 
funded locations will be receiving broadband with speeds of at least 
100/20 Mbps, with an overwhelming majority (over 85 percent) getting 
gigabit-speed broadband.
    Our third recommendation is to stay focused on unserved areas. 
Broadband programs should target funding to truly unserved areas, where 
private investment is not going to occur without government assistance 
but consumers need to be connected. In the past, some government 
broadband programs have allowed funding to be used in places that 
already have broadband service. Midco was overbuilt with our own tax 
dollars in Mitchell and Yankton, South Dakota. In Yankton, government 
dollars were used by a fiber company to overbuild two existing 
providers; and the new provider used those government funds to ``cherry 
pick'' a few business customers. We believe that scarce government 
resources should be targeted to those who will build out to consumers 
who do not yet have access to all the benefits broadband provides, for 
jobs, education and health care services.
    Fortunately, both the FCC and RUS took steps aimed at directing new 
broadband funding where it is truly needed. The FCC requires areas 
receiving new funding to be unserved and the ReConnect program requires 
that areas are only eligible if at least 90 percent of households are 
unserved. These steps were meant to guard against using government 
subsidies to overbuild private investment or broadband deployment 
funded through other Federal or state government programs, ensuring 
that any such programs will make meaningful headway in closing the 
Digital Divide.
    These efforts could be thwarted by proposals to redefine what it 
means to have broadband service available. When eligibility is 
restricted to areas that do not receive a basic level of broadband 
service, such as 25/3, we know that funding will be used to bring 
broadband where it did not previously exist. But when areas are defined 
as eligible for funding unless they have a higher level of service--
such as recent proposals suggesting an increase to 100/100--this means 
that many areas where we and others have invested heavily, including 
through public/private partnership programs, are suddenly considered 
``unserved.''
    Providers will naturally apply for funding to serve these newly 
eligible areas, because those are the places that are easiest to build 
and serve. This would mean that areas that already have robust 
broadband service would be newly eligible for funding to build even 
faster service, increasing the likelihood that funds would be siphoned 
away from areas that are not economical to reach, and have struggled 
for years to attract broadband deployment. The likely result would be 
that those lacking broadband service today will still lack broadband 
service tomorrow, even after billions of dollars in funding are spent. 
We believe these proposals should be reconsidered.
    Our fourth recommendation is to continue to improve agency 
coordination and enact guardrails to ensure funds are wisely spent. 
With several Federal agencies and a growing number of states dedicating 
funding to broadband deployment, it is increasingly important to ensure 
that all relevant agencies and to the extent possible, state programs 
that are awarding grants for buildout, are coordinating with each 
other. Close coordination is necessary to ensure that government 
support is being used to help solve the problem of the unserved and to 
help achieve the goal of universal connectivity. It is important that 
the FCC keep its broadband deployment map updated, including showing 
where and to whom funding has been awarded even if facilities are not 
yet constructed. Regularly sharing that map with all Federal and state 
agencies awarding broadband funding, so that everyone is working off a 
common data set in determining which areas are unserved, is also 
crucial.
    As one example, we have been awarded CAF II funding to reach areas 
of Dakota County, Minnesota. We have not yet started construction, but 
are fully on track with the deployment schedule established in that 
auction. Despite the fact that we have an enforceable commitment to 
build a network in that area, and the census blocks we have agreed to 
serve are easily available through the FCC's website, we recently 
learned that two other providers have been awarded CARES Act funding to 
serve that same area. Further, because the CARES Act funding comes with 
very few guardrails or regulatory requirements, such as providing voice 
service or being an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC), we will 
be competing on unequal footing. This is a bad result for everyone. It 
is a bad result for Midco and the providers winning CARES Act funds, 
because the area is not economical to serve for even one provider, and 
it is a poor use of taxpayer money, because scarce funds have been 
devoted to an area where multiple Federal funds were already committed. 
Had there been better coordination between the two funding sources, 
this result might have been avoided.
    Fortunately, some progress is being made, both with respect to 
coordination and ensuring that grant money is being wisely spent. The 
FCC is implementing the mapping requirements of the Broadband DATA Act 
to ensure that areas without broadband are more precisely identified, 
and implementation of the ACCESS Broadband Act and the Broadband 
Interagency Coordination Act should boost coordination efforts so that 
Federal and state funds are complementing each other's efforts to 
reduce the number of unserved areas. It is critical that in 
implementing these directives, agencies distributing funding view 
coordination with each other as an integral part of the award process, 
not an afterthought.
    RUS has also made improvements. During a recent round of ReConnect 
funding, the RUS not only did field tests to determine if existing 
service was present before making awards to certain areas of North and 
South Dakota prior to issuing grants, but also provided our company 
with specific information about why it was accepting or denying the 
submission we filed as part of the Reconnect challenge procedures 
showing that the proposed funded service areas already had access to 
broadband service. That is progress.
    Finally, we recommend removing barriers to entry and deployment. In 
addition to improving the programs themselves, it is appropriate to 
examine the regulatory landscape at the federal, state, and local 
levels to ensure that obligations and costs placed on providers--
whether they offer wireless or wireline service--are reasonable, 
lawful, competitively neutral, and not unduly burdensome. Eliminating 
regulatory barriers to deployment (such as permitting delays and the 
imposition of excessive pole attachment rates by municipalities and co-
ops), and encouraging equitable ``dig once'' policies, will help 
accelerate and lower the cost of broadband infrastructure buildout. 
Every dollar paid in excessive fees and taxes is a dollar that cannot 
be invested in broadband, making the rollout and upgrade of rural 
broadband slower and less ubiquitous.
                                 * * *
    I commend the Committee for its focus on ensuring that the billions 
of dollars being spent on broadband deployment benefit all Americans--
including those in rural America. Progress has been made with the 
existing Federal and state programs to target funding at unserved 
areas, largely by improving the design of those programs to better 
identify unserved areas and by defining broadband service in a way that 
prioritizes people living in hard-to-reach areas that may require a 
menu of technologies to serve each and every household. We hope that 
new programs, like those included in the American Rescue Plan, will be 
implemented with similar goals and guardrails in place. Thank you again 
for inviting me here today, and we look forward to working with you on 
these important issues.

    The Chair. Thank you. Again, thanks to all the witnesses. I 
am going to start, Mr. Wilkins, with you, but it is really a 
question for all the witnesses. You all talked about the RDOF 
auction. You all mentioned changes. Could each of the witnesses 
just tell me, you know, succinctly as you can, the two or three 
changes that you would make to the current system, as it 
relates to the next auction? Mr. Wilkins.
    Mr. Wilkins. OK, certainly. I think that one category is 
there should be some adjustments to the standards required to 
participate in the auction, and probably more precisely, on the 
geographic scope with which you can participate. I think that 
there is a well-intended desire to have a relatively low bar to 
entry in auctions. You want lots of participation. But I think 
it is going to prove quite unreasonable to allow some bidders 
to bid, essentially in states they have never operated in. I 
think that just the nature of the upfront process should be 
made somewhat more stringent. There is a balancing test for 
sure there, but I think it needs to shift a little bit more 
into a higher showing of ability to serve an area.
    The Chair. Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure. There are a couple things and things I 
sought and did not exactly make it into the cuts. One, I think 
that we should impose broadband penalties at a much higher 
lever than exists today. You can receive the funding, you know, 
go a couple years, and then, fail and pay--you know, pay the 
penalty if need be, or try to extract it out of bankruptcy, and 
that should be done, you know----
    Two is, it has to remain technology neutral and that was 
something that we fought for, and I think we maintained. But 
there is still a desire, and there was a desire in the 
structure, and people have said this publicly, to put the thumb 
on the scale, and that is problematic, in my opinion. It should 
not--there should not be a thumb on the scale of how you have a 
competitively neutral bidding process.
    And I would refer to my friend's quote, you know, the 
Ferrari one. Actually, it was mine. It was Lamborghinis and 
Chevys, and we must remember that the Chevy is a very good 
vehicle. And we are trying to figure out how to get broadband 
to those that have nothing, and I have sat in those kitchens of 
people who have nothing. And we are trying to figure out how to 
solve those.
    So, there are two ideas I would have--I did not win at the 
Commission, that I tried to.
    The Chair. OK. Dr. Ali?
    Dr. Ali. I echo a lot of what was already said. My concern 
was about making ineligible providers that received State or 
USDA support. I think what has happened is, it is forcing 
providers to make a very difficult decision. And it is also 
taking the legs out from under State programs, who have been 
quite aggressive. I look to Minnesota; I look to Illinois; I 
look to New York, who have been quite aggressive in funding 
broadband. Winners of RDOF, of course, cannot accept State 
funding.
    I will remind everyone that 99 percent of borrowers to the 
USDA Telecom program also receive USF support. This program is 
for the smallest providers, providing service for the smallest 
communities. All of these providers would be ineligible--are 
ineligible for RDOF support, as it stands right now.
    The Chair. So, you are saying more coordination?
    Dr. Ali. More coordination.
    The Chair. Yes, thank you. And, Mr. Forde, did you want to 
weigh in on this, changes to the RDOF auction that you would 
like to see? You mentioned a few----
    Mr. Forde. We were very happy with the results of the RDOF 
auction, certainly for us, as a taxpaying company. Sure, we 
would have liked to have won more in RDOF, but it saved $6 
billion for the taxpayer and we are thoroughly planning and 
will be deploying broadband out to some of those RDOF areas, 
really, in a very short period of time. So, we view it as 
highly successful and this will help us reach another 6,000 
addresses, shortly, here. So, very exciting to be getting that 
broadband out there to people who need it, quickly and 
efficiently.
    The Chair. Well, one thing that you mentioned that you were 
concerned about, and we are certainly--I think this is now--I 
was asking for specificity, now I am asking for theory here a 
little bit. And that is just the, you know, the speed, the 
uplink and downlink speed. As, I think, Dr. Ali, you mentioned, 
one is about consumption, one is about production. And I do--I 
am concerned about what we are putting out there, as it relates 
to making sure that we have a full vision now. Yes, the kids 
are streaming, or someone is--you know, as Mr. Forde said, he 
is working on his business, someone else is doing--so, the 
complexity in a household, of what you are doing. What do we do 
about this issue about the rate?
    And, obviously, many of my colleagues here, we are going to 
be discussing many things this year here about the economic 
development opportunities in rural America. We want to see more 
economic activity, which would mean that we would want to have 
service areas that could receive, you know, much more 
connectivity that would allow them on the uplink to provide 
more productive business activities. So, could--do you want to 
discuss that, starting with Dr. Ali?
    Dr. Ali. Absolutely, thank you for that question. I am in 
favor of the 100/100 symmetric definition. I think, you know, 
as we have learned, it allows people to work from home. It 
allows students to study from home. I am thinking particularly 
of my students who might have multiple roommates who are 
sharing a connection and have to do multiple Zoom calls. You 
know, a definition of 25/3 is not suitable for those students, 
nor is it for a family of four who are two parents might be 
working and two kids also going to K to 12.
    The other thing I will just add is that this symmetric 
definition is absolutely vital for business. I think 
particularly of precision agriculture. I spent a lot of time in 
rural Minnesota talking to precision agriculture companies and 
providers. They are uploading terabytes worth of data and doing 
an incredible amount of soil analysis, often times in real 
time, if possible. The technology is there. They need that 
ultra-fast symmetric upload speeds to enable them to make real-
time decisions about planting.
    The Chair. Yes. I see my time has expired, but Mr. 
O'Rielly, do you want to make a quick comment on that? And 
then, we will get the rest later, for the record.
    Mr. O'Reilly. Well, at precision ag, most of the data can 
go--it does not have to go at once. It can go at different 
times and so, you do not have to have related speeds. And in 
terms of the 100/100, the 25/3--the 25 that we have to exist 
today has been incredibly functional and I have seen data that 
suggests that you can have six Zoom calls happening at upload 
speeds of 5, 3 to 5.
    So, to go into 100 to fulfill a desire--and I know there is 
interest in expanding the speeds, but there has to be a 
limitation on how much we can afford to fund at one time.
    The Chair. We will get more from our other witnesses on 
this. I think this is a very important point on the economics 
of auctions. And so, anyway, Senator Wicker.
    Senator Wicker. Madam Chair, this is such important subject 
matter, and these are such excellent witnesses and we have so 
much to cover. I am almost tempted to move that we just have a 
weekend away from all the distractions and really get into 
this. Of course, our staff members are not able to do that. But 
this is such a crucial matter for us to talk about and so many 
great opportunities for us to move things along.
    Mr. O'Rielly, you have a--you come to us with a unique 
perspective. Last year, then Commissioner Rosenworcel, now 
Acting Chair of the FCC, said the broadband maps could be 
updated within just a few months, and then, recently--and 
sometimes I have had to eat my words, but recently, she said 
no, it would not be completed until 2022. Given your extensive 
knowledge of the internal functioning of the FCC and its 
broadband maps, how quickly do you think the Commission should 
be able to complete the new broadband maps, now that it has 
proper funding?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I apologize in the sense that I have 
been removed to know what she based her new data point on, in 
terms of the year timeframe. But I think it comes down to 
priorities, and this committee has given the FCC new priorities 
in statute. But here is one where, you know, if the 
determination is made by this committee, it should be one of 
the highest priorities, if not one of the, you know, one or two 
or three, that would be taken heat at the Commission.
    Senator Wicker. So, is it you testimony that, if the 
Commission makes it a priority, that it can be done within a 
matter of months?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I do not want to say that months, I 
cannot specify, since I am outside of the game, or outside of 
the conversation, to--but it does meet its deadlines. It had a 
past failure. It used to--when I worked in a different setting, 
they used to miss deadlines, and I found it very frustrating. 
But this Commission, the last couple Commissions, have met 
deadlines in an extraordinary staff time and effort. And so, if 
the demands are asked to award by this committee, they tend to 
meet them, and they could meet them if it was--and expedite the 
timeframe, which I think is absolutely critical and I support 
you.
    Senator Wicker. It is absolutely critical, and it is 
because it is holding us up if we do not get that. And this is 
not a partisan issue. We just need to dig into this and figure 
out what we can do, as members of the House and Senate, to move 
this along.
    Dr. Ali, do you have some insight for us on this topic?
    Dr. Ali. Thank you for the question. I would just say that 
I appreciate the need to bring in multiple stakeholders in this 
situation. I think that when the FCC initially considered 
mapping and remapping, we heard, you know, a big push from U.S. 
Telecom and that may have been it.
    I think one thing that we are learning about, with mapping, 
is the crucial, crucial role that states are playing. I am 
really energized at what is going on in Georgia right now, and 
the innovated partnership with a real estate data company to 
get that granular address level data. I think we are seeing the 
development of some pretty important best practices that can 
hopefully be implemented and might be able to speed up the 
process.
    Senator Wicker. Well, if we are not inside the FCC, and Mr. 
O'Rielly is not inside the FCC right now, how do we get the 
information? How do we know what is what?
    Dr. Ali. My opinion is----
    Senator Wicker. An outsider and an academic like you, help 
us to know what is attainable and how quickly?
    Dr. Ali. I confess, I do not know how quickly what could 
happen and what I am about to propose. But I do think we need 
to start thinking about data inputs from multiple stakeholders. 
This cannot just be about providers, but we need to have a 
crowdsourcing option, as well, and I know that the FCC is 
investigating that. But that is not an easy process. It is not 
easy to make all of these different layers on a map. As for 
speed, you know, I am going to trust FCC Acting Chair 
Rosenworcel that she knows best on how quickly this can be 
deployed. But I would, you know, encourage everyone to look at 
the importance of crowdsource data, the work that Measurement 
Lab is doing. And again, I think it was quite innovative that 
Georgia partnered with a real estate data provider, to be able 
to get address level data.
    Senator Wicker. Well, you know, I am sure the Acting Chair 
is listening right now, and I think Senator Cantwell and I want 
to know what we can do--what we can put on paper to have the 
President sign, that will help the FCC get this down quicker?
    I am not going to ask Mr. Forde, I am going to ask both of 
you to comment about his concerns, it is on page 10. But you 
listened to his testimony, but what areas that I find is 
eligible for funding, unless they have a high level of service, 
such as recent proposals suggesting an increase to 100/100, 
this means that many areas where investments have already been 
made, including through public and private programs, are 
suddenly considered unserved, therefore, will have duplication. 
Mr. O'Rielly, what do you think about that? Does that make 
sense?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I agree with his point. It does not make 
sense to do that, in terms in of policy. It will wipe out 
almost all of the work that the Commission has done.
    Senator Wicker. So, his conclusion is correct?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I believe so, yes.
    Senator Wicker. And Dr. Ali, what do you think?
    Dr. Ali. I am not entirely sure. I was--I am disappointed 
when a provider uses the 25/3 as a ceiling to meet, rather than 
a floor to buildupon, and I think too often we have seen 
providers use 25/3 as just meeting that ceiling and then, 
checking that box. I think that 100/100 definition would force 
providers to reconsider deployment strategies, and would start 
to phaseout, as we are already seeing, some of these 
technologies that we know cannot meet the needs and uses of 
contemporary Americans, especially a country of living, 
working, studying, communicating online.
    Senator Wicker. Think that through and take that for the 
record, whether we are going to start duplicating because now 
we have something that is a little easier to do, the 100/100. 
So, take that for the record. All right, and we will try to 
formulate that, so it is clear what we are trying to get to.
    Thank you both. I think these are all four terrific 
witnesses, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. I agree, and thank you, Senator Wicker. And we 
will--I just want to point out, I did have a conversation with 
Acting Chair Rosenworcel, who intimated she thought this was a 
4-month answer, to get on the mapping. But I remain committed 
with you. I think we should look at every avenue we have to get 
this data and information, including whatever the FCC is doing, 
or other ways. And proud that we have been able to do some 
crowdsourcing in the Northwest, but----
    Senator Wicker. I hope that that is correct. Four months 
sounds doable, and I think it is something the Senate expects.
    The Chair. That would be great.
    Senator Wicker. If it is indeed possible.
    The Chair. Yes.
    Senator Wicker. Thank you, ma'am.
    The Chair. So, thank you. Thank you, Ranking Member. 
Senator Klobuchar, you have been--your state has been 
mentioned. You have been mentioned. Thank you for your----

               STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA

    Senator Klobuchar. It is a very exciting day for me.
    The Chair. You have been----
    Senator Klobuchar. And it is St. Patrick's Day, so we are 
feeling good.
    The Chair. Good. Well----
    Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, thank you very much, 
Chairwoman, and thank you, Senator Wicker, as well, for both of 
your leadership on this. I think we all know the pandemic has 
put one big magnifying glass on this problem that we all know 
existed. And having been to Iceland, I just do not understand 
why they have better Internet than we have in America, but you 
can reach corners of Iceland over volcanoes and you still 
cannot reach, with high-speed internet, parts of Southern 
Minnesota or Northern Minnesota. So, that is how I go into 
this.
    I think it is so important, when we have got kids that are 
having to learn the mute button to learn to read, and parents 
with their toddlers on their knees and their laptops on their 
desk. And we know that this pandemic, as we see this lighthouse 
in front of us, that we are going to get through this, we still 
know that it has forever changed the way our people are going 
to communicate, and we cannot have haves and have nots.
    So, I will start with the bill that I am leading with 
Representative Clyburn. I am so proud we have six members of 
this committee on the bill. I will start with you, Dr. Ali. 
Could you talk about the need for forward-looking with 
broadband? You mentioned precision agriculture and the need to 
help small businesses, and why we need this kind of funding, 
for once and for all, to get through this.
    Dr. Ali. Absolutely. Thank you very much for the question. 
I like to think about--when we think about high-performance 
broadband, particularly in rural America, we have five pillars. 
We have got pillars for telehealth, education--we know that 
there is a grade point, one grade point between separating 
those students who have broadband and who do not. We know that 
folk are struggling to sign up for vaccines without a broadband 
connection.
    We also know that high-performance broadband attracts 
businesses. I was doing some work in Rock County, Minnesota 
and, for a brief point, they had attracted a shrimp company to 
come----
    Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I am well aware of this issue.
    Dr. Ali. And they were attracted there because they had 
fiber. They had fiber in the ground. In fact, Rock County is 
the most connected county in Minnesota.
    So, I think that, you know, for all of these reasons--small 
businesses, working from home, studying from home, the 100/100 
definition, but then, also the $80 billion for deployment is 
absolutely crucial.
    Senator Klobuchar. Right, and you mentioned how giving to 
underserved areas is so important. And, Chair Cantwell, I have 
a letter from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human 
Rights, which represents over 200 national organizations 
expressing support for a broadband infrastructure with Majority 
Whip Clyburn, The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act, 
which I would like to submit for the record.
    The Chair. Without objection.
    [The information referred to follow:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    

    Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Briefly on that, 
because I have questions of other witnesses, Dr. Ali, what this 
divide is, when it comes to race, when it comes to smaller 
towns, and the like.
    Dr. Ali. Well, we know--I think all too often we think 
about the digital divide as being one divide, as the divide 
between rural America and urban America. But as we have learned 
in the last year is, the real divide is intersectional. It is 
about race. It is about income. It is about geography. It is 
about affordability. It is about students.
    So, there are multiple digital divides. One of the ones 
plaguing rural communities the most is, of course, the divide 
of infrastructure. But that does not mean that there are not 
problems with affordability. That does not mean there is not a 
problem with availability and computer use and digital 
literacy. So, this needs to be--this is an opportunity for us 
to really attack all of these issues. The digital divide is not 
a zero-sum game----
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
    Dr. Ali.--where we fund one and not fund the other. It has 
to happen at the same time.
    Senator Klobuchar. OK, thank you. Mr. Wilkins, one of the 
bills we have out there that is bipartisan, 15 Democrats, 13 
Republicans, Senator Kramer and I have introduced, which 
focuses on Internet services to students, rural and low-income 
families, and that is a $2 billion fund. Could you just very, 
like in the 30 seconds here, mention the importance of that 
bill?
    Mr. Wilkins. Absolutely, and in my mind, that is especially 
important because it actually gets at the deployment challenge, 
as well. If you are building a broadband network in a rural 
area, you actually are very, very interested in the ability of 
families in that area to afford service on your network. And 
having that kind of funding to support that kind of distance 
learning in a very important part of the, frankly, the revenue 
side of a business case for deploying in rural areas.
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly, because some area, some 
providers are doing this, some are not. As you have pointed 
out, Mr. Forde, which I appreciate, and I appreciate your work 
in Minnesota. Last question is along the lines of what my 
friend, Senator Wicker, was talking about. This is our bill, 
and we are proud to have several others on it, as well. The 
Broadband Data Act, as he has mentioned, it has been passed. 
Just talk about how this would help us, despite everything good 
you have done in Minnesota, we still have areas that are not 
covered, and we have got to make the case for where we need the 
money and where we do not. Mr. Forde.
    Mr. Forde. Yes, thank you very much, Senator. Pleasure to 
do a lot of great work across the state of Minnesota. You know 
we are--I have an excellent GIS department. We stand ready to 
provide that data and we love working closely with the State of 
Minnesota and the Broadband Office. If there is ever a data 
discrepancy, right down to the address level, they call us. We 
certainly get that worked out, and make sure that we know the 
exact areas that lack access to broadband and really like the 
way that their office is very surgical, in attacking areas.
    They pulled out all of the RDOF areas from their latest 
grant round, to ensure that Federal funding would not be 
duplicated with their state funding. You have an excellent 
challenge process with their grants, as well. There was a grant 
that we applied for and the provider agreed to upgrade their 
service, and we did not get. There was another instance where 
we applied--or another provider applied for a grant for an area 
that Midco was going to build with capital in 2022, and they 
pulled that grant. So, that would just being using private 
capital.
    So, really like the way that they are really focused, right 
down to the address level, and work very, very closely with 
companies who have this data from excellent GIS departments, to 
ensure that the funding is targeted.
    Senator Klobuchar. Exactly.
    Mr. Forde. And I think, if we can implement some of those 
things at the Federal level, that will help.
    Senator Klobuchar. And I think Senator Wicker sees this. We 
have got to do both things at once because, once we get the 
money we want to target it. And good to see you, Former 
Commissioner, thank you.
    The Chair. Thank you for your leadership again, Senator 
Klobuchar. Very much appreciate. Senator Thune.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA

    Senator Thune. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I would say to 
my colleague from Minnesota, if she needs a St. Patrick's Day 
mask, I have an extra one of these around.
    Senator Klobuchar. That would be a Packers mask. Very nice, 
Senator Thune, and I noticed you have kept it on through the 
hearing. I really appreciate that. I will wear a Vikings----
    Senator Wicker. It is all he could find at the last minute.
    Senator Thune. Just for you. I want to thank you for 
holding the hearing and also like to welcome Mr. Justin Forde, 
from Midco Communications, which is based out of Sioux Falls, 
South Dakota, to today's hearing. And I noticed his backdrop, 
he looks like he is on top of a cable tower there, although, I 
think the background would be white, if it were current.
    But anyway, I want to thank all of the witnesses for their 
participation today and just indicate that, as has already been 
mentioned throughout the Coronavirus pandemic, reliable 
broadband services have been vital to many Americans' lives. 
And in recognition of this Congress acting in a bipartisan 
manner, provided USDA's ReConnect program, $100 million through 
the CARES Act, and an additional $635 million under the year-
end bipartisan Coronavirus relief package, which also gave NTIA 
over $1 billion to support broadband deployments in Tribal and 
rural areas. And at the same time, the FCC, under then Chairman 
Pai's leadership, awarded $9 billion through the RDOF Phase I 
program and will be making an additional $11 billion available 
for Phase II.
    It is my hope that this committee and Congress will take a 
pragmatic approach when considering additional measures to spur 
broadband deployment. And as we continue to work to close the 
digital divide, we need to work, I believe, in a bipartisan 
fashion, to ensure a proper oversight of the agencies 
responsible for distributing billions of taxpayer dollars to 
support broadband services. Really important, I think, that we 
get lead on the target.
    So, Mr. Forde, let me ask you, if Congress considers 
additional funding for broadband services, do you believe that 
funding should be additionally targeted to truly underserved 
areas?
    Mr. Forde. Absolutely. We have got to focus like a laser on 
those truly unserved areas and get service out to those folks 
as soon as possible. And we know where those areas are and we 
know how to reach them, quickly and in an efficient manner.
    You know, just to go back and talk about a few of the other 
things that some of our panelists have done here--you know, I 
have a family of five and they were all learning during the 
pandemic with speeds of 25/3. So, that is certainly sufficient 
for our family through this. That speed is not a--it is not a--
it is not the floor--the ceiling. I can get much more speed 
through that connection that I wanted to, should I choose to 
purchase it.
    In regard to the symmetrical speeds, you know, in our--
regardless of the technology we offer, whether it is fiber to 
the home, that hybrid fiber cable mix, or fixed wireless, it is 
about 14 to 16 times higher in the download speeds than the 
upload speeds. So, we are actually doing broadband on the 
ground. Our customers are not taking those symmetrical speeds 
that they need.
    Particularly, when we choose technology, we want to choose 
the connectivity that the farmer wants. A lot of farmers in 
these days do not want a fiber line to the farm. They want 
connectivity to the entire farm. In fact, we have a farmer that 
has two farms, 75 miles apart. He can use fixed wireless 
technology and get connections to both of those, for less than 
$100. The cost of running fiber to those would not be 
economical to us, or for the Federal Government to serve both 
of those farms, so he can see what is going on in each of 
those, each and every day.
    So, a lot of things going on out there. This in the back, 
as you mentioned, this is actually an elevator, 190 feet up 
behind me. I would also mention that the town below, about 350 
people, all of whom have Gigabit service. The farms, hundreds 
of them in the vast agriculture area out, could all get--also 
get 100/20 service out in those farms shortly, from Midco. All 
those areas, if the speed changes, would now become eligible 
for Federal funding.
    So, it is important to remember that the speed is here. It 
is available and ready to go, and we do not need to make these 
areas behind me, that already have broadband service in 
agricultural areas, delivered in the best way to serve those 
residents and customers that they want, is not implemented or 
changed by a Federal rule made in Washington, DC.
    Senator Thune. Well, and there are so many good--a lot of 
applications in agriculture, and so many other areas, that 
benefit from that technology as it is delivered into those 
rural areas in, hopefully, as you pointed out, the most 
affordable form.
    Mr. O'Rielly, just a comment, too, on the question, do you 
believe that funding should be efficiently targeted to truly 
underserved areas?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely. To the point I made earlier, and 
it has been made by Mr. Forde, is that if you do not target the 
funding, you will have exactly the situation he just described. 
Dollars will go to those areas that already have broadband, 
versus those that are unserved today. And they will be pushed 
on for another day, another day, another day, as they have been 
before. That is what happens when you raise the speeds. And I 
have mentioned this a number of times, when I was at the 
Commission, and I do now. If you raise the speeds to the levels 
we are talking about, almost everything gets wiped away. All 
the Commission programs, all the--most of those at USDA, all of 
those are going to be wiped away and we are at a new structure.
    Senator Thune. And just very quickly, I have introduced a 
bill last year that would capture revenue generated by spectrum 
auctions at the FCC to support broadband deployments in rural 
areas like those in South Dakota. Do you support proposals like 
this that take a more targeted approach to fund broadband 
services?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I do. The only thing I would mention they did 
last year is that sometimes the auctions can be cyclical or 
have different pluses and minuses. So, not every year is a 
balance. So, there is some concern there, but otherwise, 
absolutely.
    Senator Thune. OK, all right, good. My time is expired. 
Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you--thank you, Senator Thune. Senator 
Markey. If not--Senator Blumenthal, you are actually next, but 
we thought you were on your way. Are you ready, or should we go 
defer to someone else?

             STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT

    Senator Blumenthal. I could go, yes.
    The Chair. OK, you are up. Thank you so much. We wish you a 
happy St. Patrick's Day! OK, Senator Blumenthal, thank you so 
much for your questions.
    Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Madam Chair and really 
appreciate your holding this hearing. I know we share a very 
urgent interest in this topic and really am grateful for the 
opportunity to have excellent witnesses before us today. Thank 
you both, and all of our witnesses, for being here.
    I think that the fact of this hearing reflects our 
commitment to families desperately in need of broadband, and 
they need it right now. I also appreciate the leadership of my 
colleague, Senator Klobuchar, on the Accessible, Affordable 
Internet for All Act. I am proud to co-sponsor this bill, which 
would provide grants to expand broadband and promote real 
competition.
    In Connecticut, our Governor has set an ambitious but 
necessary goal of connecting every home to broadband in less 
than 6 years. I say necessary because, as this pandemic has 
shown, broadband is an essential need, not a luxury, not a 
convenience. We need to take broadband as seriously as we do 
access to electricity or water or any of the utilities that, 
sometimes, we take for granted, until we do not have them, as 
the people of Texas recently saw.
    The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act would be 
the fuel that states need to achieve the common sense goal of 
universal broadband access. And I want to offer Connecticut as 
a model for state leadership and public-private cooperation to 
close the homework gap.
    Professor Ali, Mr. Wilkins, the digital divide affects far 
too many households and far too many people in the heart of 
urban and suburban communities. It really cuts across all of 
our communities. The FCC's mapping and funding programs have 
long neglected their needs. Can you tell me more about how 
broadband grants would help states, specifically like 
Connecticut, to ensure that all households, including those in 
cities and suburbs, have access to high-speed broadband?
    Dr. Ali. Perhaps I will jump in first, Senator, thank you. 
I think it is a great question. And I think what you are 
pointing at, too, is the vital importance of state broadband 
offices as a fundamental middle point between Federal funding 
and their communities. States know their communities better and 
best. And I think this is some of the amazing research coming 
out of the PEW Foundation, what the best practice is for highly 
regarded state broadband offices that can really target those 
fundings. Not just toward rural, as he mentioned, but toward 
urban and suburban areas, as well.
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, Senator, thank you. And I would just add, 
again, I strongly believe that affordability and accessibility 
to an individual person out there, is just the same thing. It 
is I do not have the broadband that I need. And I do think that 
the role of states to more carefully tailor certain funding to 
what is actually true in their states is critical.
    I will just give you one example. In a more urban area, you 
might have apartment buildings that have a lot of folks that 
need affordability support, and that is the reason they have 
not been served with a good broadband. It is because the 
provider said, well, there is not enough, essentially, revenue 
demand there in that building. A state-tailored program, that 
specifically helps support those customers to be able to afford 
broadband, and ideally structures the program in a way that is 
predictable for a provider, but actually get a provider much 
more willing to serve that location. And I have heard there are 
many versions of that in different states of the country.
    Senator Blumnthal. I think, the point that both of you are 
making, and others have made today, but it really needs to be 
repeated, this issue affects suburban, urban, as well as rural 
communities, and overlooking the City of Hartford or Waterbury, 
Stanford, New Haven, big cities or their suburbs, is to ignore 
seniors and communities of color, which often lack access to 
broadband. It also ignores the digital divide that separates 
those communities from others, in our state. Even a small state 
like Connecticut can suffer from this kind of homework gap or 
digital divide. And I think the testimony today has a powerful 
exclamation point to that very urgent fact about the need for 
this kind of legislation.
    So, thank you all. Thank you for being here and adding to 
the immense resource this hearing will be for us. Thank you. I 
yield and now call on Senator Fischer.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

    Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. The Federal 
Government has a crucial role in promoting the availability of 
broadband services for all Americans, especially those in hard-
to-reach areas that lack that connectivity. Right now, 27,000 
households in Nebraska, they do not receive the broadband 
service that meets the FCC's current definition. Meanwhile, 
Congress has provided over $20 billion in broadband funding 
this past year.
    We must have clear organization and accountability measures 
in place to ensure we maximize the reach of Federal dollars and 
support these sustainable networks. For years, I have heard 
about the increased need for coordination between the broadband 
deployment programs at the FCC and RUS. And now, NTIA has a new 
grant program for state and localities to also buildup 
broadband. Mr. Forde, if I wanted to track where all this 
funding is going, is there a single map that I can look at 
today? And if not, would it make sense for the FCC to be tasked 
with mapping that, as well?
    Mr. Forde. Absolutely. You would have to visit multiple 
different websites, which we do on a regular basis, with, you 
know, all the different Federal resources, cities, counties, 
and compile that data. Takes a tremendous amount of work to put 
that together into our GIS department, so we know where folks 
are. We are constantly playing offense and defense, right? We 
may have grants that are from one agency that are trying to 
overbuild areas that we serve. Another area where finding an 
unserved area and sometimes it is a competition between whether 
we are going to go there with private capital, other Federal or 
state grants trying to reach there.
    Not an efficient process at all and, yes, the FCC can be a 
great help of making sure that all these agencies know where 
broadband is going, with government help, but also, where 
private sector funding is going, right? We have buildup plans 
for up through 2025. That is areas, that we are going to 
deliver broadband to with private capital. We need to make sure 
that the government entities are aware of that, and do not 
award government funding to areas that we would already be 
going to with private capital anyway.
    So, certainly there is a lot of things that we can do, and 
the FCC can do, to work with providers to make sure that we 
have got those maps right and there is coordination between all 
of those agencies. And I will also add the new CARES funding to 
that, as well. You know that money seems to be going out to 
state and local areas. No guardrails, no rules with that, and 
is being spent on broadband, and a lot of duplicative efforts 
going on there with that funding, as well.
    Senator Fischer. OK, thank you. Mr. O'Rielly, as the FCC 
updates its broadband coverage maps, what are your thoughts on 
whether the agency should create a map that tracks broadband 
funding, including what is available, where it has been 
awarded, and when it would be built out? Do you think that is a 
good idea?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I want to be careful awarding new jobs 
to my old--former colleagues, but I will say, yes, absolutely. 
We need to have better handle on how the funding is going out 
and going to these different programs. And I would say also, to 
compliment that, we ought not to be creating new, different 
pots of money for different agencies. It is one thing to say 
let us coordinate. It is another to maybe not stop just doing 
so. I think creating five or six different sources that are 
competing against each other, like Mr. Forde said.
    Senator Fischer. I agree and areas that already have that 
broadband available, to have more money put in there, I think 
it is misuse of taxpayer dollars. You know, if our goal is to 
make sure that broadband is available across this country and 
meet the needs of people no matter where they live, we need to 
know where it is and where it needs to be.
    Mr. Wilkins, in your testimony you stressed the importance 
of focusing on performance profile of a network, beyond just 
promoting competition among different technologies. What are 
the main elements of this performance profile that you think 
would make communication networks deserving of Federal funding?
    Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I think 
there are two that are most important. I think, first and 
foremost, is scalability and then, second is reliability. But 
on scalability, you know, I think it is worth just pointing out 
that the debate over speeds and who is overbuilding who at a 
given moment, really just reflects the debate we have been 
having for 20 years, right? What speed is the next step that 
needs to be better? I think a performance metric that says 
scalability is what matters, so that we can stop having the 
debate every 5 years about, well, what is the next increment we 
need to get to, is actually probably the wisest choice.
    The analogy, I would say is, you know, when we built the 
interstate highway system, did we overbuild the old, you know, 
local routes? Well, no, what we did was, Congress said that was 
the performance standard we needed, and that is what we did.
    Reliability, also, I would emphasize. You know, those of 
use that have been in telecom for a while remember back when 
the old Bell system said five nines reliability. You know, only 
down 6 minutes a year, is what was critical. I think that is a 
performance dimension of a network, that could get more 
emphasis in this sort of funding process.
    Senator Fischer. Do you think that the FCC and other 
agencies should be considering that when they are awarding this 
kind of funding?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, I mean--so, that is a very good example--
--
    Senator Fischer. And the amount of money we are talking 
about.
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, yes, I am sorry for interrupting. I think 
that is a great example of the kind of implementation change 
that can be made in future award processes, right? I mean, RDOF 
only rewarded speed and latency, and those are important, but 
they are not the only dimensions that matter, if we are talking 
about this size of an investment.
    Senator Fischer. Thank you very much. Thank you, Senator 
Blumenthal.
    Senator Blumenthal. If I could recognize Senator Markey 
next.

               STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS

    Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I 
am going to direct my first question to Mr. Wilkins.
    Mr. Wilkins, we clearly have a huge problem in our country, 
right now, where upwards of 12 million American children still 
do not have the Internet at home and we know who they are. They 
are largely black and brown. They are poor, immigrant children. 
And obviously, that is leading to a huge learning gap that is 
going to lead to an opportunity gap because this homework gap 
sits there and needs to be addressed.
    So, in the American Rescue Plan, my amendment--my program 
was adopted, that adds $7 billion for this year, in order to 
make sure that we have the funding for these young people at 
home. So, my question to you is, how important is that program, 
the $7 billion for kids, right now, given the fact that we are 
probably going to stay with the hybrid model for learning, for 
some extended period of time, and we know the kind of kids who 
are most negatively impacted? So, from my perspective, should 
the program be made permanent, and do you think it is going to 
make a big difference in helping kids to get access to the 
educational opportunities, which they need?
    Mr. Wilkins. Thank you, Senator. You are right, it is a 
hugely important program. I mean, first, I will just say, 
helping those children learn, very important. But I think, more 
in my specific realm of expertise, I would just emphasize how 
important that is for the deployment gap as well, and 
especially the idea of making it permanent.
    If you are looking to deploy a new broadband network, there 
might be one high school in the rural area or, you know, a set 
of families that, if they could afford your network, they would 
be more than happy to help you sustain it. But if you do not 
know that is going to be available for the long term, you 
cannot factor that into your deployment. So, very important, 
obviously, but the permanent status is very important, to 
support the deployment side, as well, I would say.
    Senator Markey. No, thank you. And again, kids can get it 
on their school desk for free. They can get it in the library 
for free. But for a lot of these kids, it is public education. 
They need it at home, as well. And that is why I think it is so 
important that the program was included in this package. And I 
think that students are not the only ones without connectivity. 
We have larger problems in our society, as well. I have 
introduced the National Broadband Plan for the FUTURE Act. It 
is legislation to update the National Broadband--the FCC had to 
construct 10 years ago, pursuant to my amendment that was made 
a part--law in the 2009 Recovery Act.
    Professor Ali, how important do you think it is that we 
update the National Broadband Plan, so we have a plan for the 
next 10 years, or 20 years, in our country?
    Dr. Ali. I think it is absolutely important that we do 
this. I will also add that, in 2008, under the Farm Bill, we 
were actually ordered to have a National Rural Broadband Plan, 
and that was authored by then Acting FCC Chair Michael Copps in 
2009, and then, 6 months later, we had the National Broadband 
Plan. This speaks to the importance of having different 
strategies for approaching and correcting the different types 
of digital divide. And maybe, then, also anticipating new 
divides that are going to come up along the way.
    Senator Markey. Thank you. And if I may, Professor Ali, 
just follow up on one other question, which is, the resiliency 
of our telecommunications networks. There is more than 4,000 
miles of fiber optic cables within the next 15 years that could 
be submerged. Senator Wyden and I are drafting legislation that 
will fund projects to strengthen our networks against climate 
change, while simultaneously reducing the carbon footprint of 
our telecommunications infrastructure. Could you talk about the 
importance of hardening our communications infrastructure in 
the country, against climate change?
    Dr. Ali. I am absolutely happy to, Senator. This is of 
vital importance. It is of vital importance for first 
responders, and it is of vital importance for those who may 
need help during this time. I think particularly of what 
recently happened in Texas and Hurricane Irma and Maria in 
Puerto Rico, of the vital need to have a robust and resilient 
telecommunications system, again, for first responders and for 
those impacted.
    Senator Markey. I could not agree with you more. That is 
just a preview of coming attractions, what has happened in 
Texas and in Puerto Rico. So, we just have to understand that 
our communications system is going to become more and more 
vulnerable if we do not harden it.
    So, thank you, Professor, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 
the recognition.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Moran? I do not know if he is 
joining us online? If not, Senator Sullivan.

                STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

    Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to 
thank the witnesses here. You know, I just came from an EPW 
Committee hearing on the issue of drinking water in America, 
now we are talking about broadband. And what I want to do, I 
want to focus on this issue of the truly unserved communities. 
Because when we talk about speeds and overbuilding and 
resiliency, and it is all important, but there are communities 
in America, in my state in particular, that, for example, in 
the previous hearing, do not have any running water. No flush 
toilets. American citizens, thousands of them. So, when we talk 
about infrastructure for upgrading water and sewer 
infrastructure, my view is you have got to start with the 
people who have nothing. Similarly, with broadband. I think the 
truly unserved, in my state people just do not have it. It is 
not about upgrading speeds. It is not about resiliency. They 
have nothing.
    So, the discussion here is really important. I know there 
is a lot of bipartisan focus on this. But I think, before we 
talk about upgrading speeds, and everything else, we have to 
get to the people who have nothing. And unfortunately, a lot of 
my constituents do not have anything.
    So, Mr. Forde, Mr. O'Rielly--by the way, Happy St. 
Patrick's Day--how do we get to that spot where we have all 
this money, but where we can focus our efforts on just making 
sure the most basic needs--anything, we hit that. because we 
have been doing broadband for a long time, but there are still 
communities, whether in Alaska or, I am certain other states, 
that have zero, and I think we have to prioritize these 
Americans first.
    Mr. O'Rielly, you want to tackle that one?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I would absolutely agree with your statement 
and it is what I spent my time at the Commission focused on. 
How do you deal with those that have absolutely nothing? And I 
have sat in the kitchens of the families who had to lose 
their--you know, their job was moving away, and they were 
allowed to telework, if possible, and they had no broadband to 
be served. So, they were basically unemployed because of it. 
And so, I have done that, and I absolutely agree with you.
    What happens when you increase the speeds--and we have done 
it a couple times? When I first got to the Commission, we were 
at 4/1 and then, when everyone wanted to go to 10/1, and then, 
Tom Wheeler, the former Chair, said we needed to go 25/3, 
because only that is table stakes. In doing so, we ignored 
everybody who had nothing, and that is how the debate is going 
right now. How do we go to 100/100, or things that people do 
not necessarily need in most instances, when people have--a 
good portion of people--and we can debate how many people, 
whether it is 12 million, 20 million, whatever. We can debate 
that, but we know they have nothing, and a lot of people in 
Alaska have fallen in that situation. That is what I cared 
about, and I would say, hold off on the speeds and focus on 
those--I go to Mr. Forde's point. Stay focused on the unserved.
    Senator Sullivan. So, thank you, and by the way, I thought 
you did a great job as Commissioner, so wish you were still 
there.
    Mr. Forde, do you have a view on this? I know you care 
about it. But again, this should not be a controversial topic. 
It should be, let us start with the people, who have nothing. 
It is the same with drinking water, right? Like, I cannot 
believe that I have to go to hearings and pound the table and 
say, I have thousands of constituents--by the way, some of the 
most patriotic Americans in the country, because they all serve 
in the military--and they do not have flush toilets or drinking 
water. Broadband is kind of similar, becoming similar.
    Mr. Forde, what do you think? What can we do here? I do not 
think it is terribly controversial, what I am talking about. 
But as Mr. O'Rielly said, the conversation quickly goes to 
bumping up the speeds versus focused on the people who have 
nothing.
    Mr. Forde. Absolutely. We could not agree more. We have 
seen, in some of the Federal programs, even when they have come 
out with at bidding round, there have been areas that have 
gone, in our footprint, that have really gone unbid, right? And 
those areas are the ones that still lack broadband. Billions 
and billions of dollars are awarded to other areas, and we go 
to work, you know, building those areas, while other areas 
remain largely unbid in some of these auctions. Nobody has even 
bid on them.
    Another in particular instance, which was very 
disheartening, in one of the states we served, they upped the 
speed limits from 25/3 to 100/20. One hundred percent of the 
applications went to areas that already had 25/3. So, $11 
million was awarded in Federal funding to those areas. They did 
not get one house closer to closing the digital divide in the 
entire state, because of the upping of the speed threshold from 
25/3 to 100/20.
    So, that is just what happens when you change those 
thresholds. Providers will build in the areas that it is easier 
to build to, closer to the areas that they serve. They do not 
stretch out to reach those areas that truly do not have it, and 
that is what we are seeing and why the digital divide is not 
being closed, and still leaving that small gap that is out 
there.
    Senator Sullivan. Well, Madam Chair, I think this is an 
area for bipartisan cooperation. I am sure Senator Tester would 
agree. But if we can work on this, because I do not think it is 
controversial and maybe the witnesses--and I am sorry I did not 
get to ask Professor Ali and Mr. Wilkins questions. But if you 
have ideas or language that can help us with this, I think it 
is really important and I do not think it is controversial. I 
think it is imperative.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. I 
definitely believe in an Alaska plan. I think Alaska is so 
unique it requires, you know, specificity to how we are going 
to achieve what we need to achieve. I know the FCC had 
something. I do not know how successful it was but look forward 
to working and talking to you about that.
    Senator Sullivan. Thank you very much.
    The Chair. Senator Tester.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

    Senator Tester. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank 
all the witnesses. I want to especially thank former 
Commissioner O'Rielly for being here today. Look, there were 
times that you and I disagreed in the past, but I am going to 
tell you, right up front, I appreciate your backbone, and this 
place needs more of that. So, thank you very, very much.
    Look, I come from an area--Senator Sullivan talked about 
it--where I have watched population decline year after year 
after year. I have watched small towns dry up and continue to 
dry up. And I am asked many, many times what can be the 
solution for rural America, as far as getting some people to 
live there again, and I think it is broadband. I do not think 
there is any doubt about it. And it goes back to what Senator 
Sullivan said, if you do not have the service, you are not 
going to get the economic value from that service. You are not 
going to get the population growth that I think, potentially, 
is out there in places like Montana, and many, many others.
    It distresses me greatly to hear Mr. Forde talk about the 
fact that there are three different Federal pots of money going 
to one area that may already be served, in his region. And I 
think that if we do nothing--if nothing else comes out of this 
committee, it is the fact that we need to get this money 
targeted because, quite frankly, that is a waste. And there has 
been hundreds of billions of Federal dollars go into broadband 
and yet, it does not seem like we are getting the bang for the 
buck out there, that we need to get.
    I do not want to pick on the legacy carriers, but I am 
going to tell you, in my office, that is where we get most of 
the complaints. It is from the legacy carriers. And I would 
just ask, and this is going to be like putting the ball on the 
tee for Mr. Forde, which is fine by me, but how do we make sure 
that the small providers get a cut? And I want to start with 
you, Mr. O'Rielly, with that question. How do we ensure the 
small providers get a fair cut? And then, I am going to go over 
to you, Mr. Forde.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, when I was at the Commission, I pushed 
very hard that we open up the universe. When I got to the 
Commission, we had a program that was only for legacy 
providers. I thought that was bad then. We moved away from that 
and we opened up the door for anyone who could provide 
technology neutral--whatever the solution may be for an area, 
to be able to serve the consumer that needs the broadband 
services.
    So, it is having broad acceptance. And that is where you 
see policies shifting, where people want to protect their own--
you know, their own needs. And that is problematic, from my 
viewpoint. But for the small providers, there can be things we 
have done in other universes, whether it be plus ups in terms 
of--you know, but it is more in terms of the area itself that 
needs more support, than it is in terms of the company 
themselves.
    You know, the big provider, as you say, you know, are they 
eligible? Should they remain eligible? Are they able to meet 
the obligations? And that is where the Commission has done 
fairly good work, in my opinion, first on the short from, and 
now, they are doing the long form on things like the RDOF 
program, to try to get to those issues.
    Senator Tester. Mr. Forde, do you want to respond to that 
question?
    Mr. Forde. Oh, I--you know, to piggyback on Commissioner 
O'Rielly, you know, our first foray, we have been long building 
broadband since 1996, all using 100 percent private capital. 
Our first funding that we accepted was actually in the CAF II 
auction. So, that--when that was opened up to all providers, 
that really gives us the chance to go out there and compete for 
funding in those areas that some of those other folks were in, 
when those became available. And really, you know, opens it up 
to as many people as possible to participate in these programs. 
So, we really liked that change. It led to our first, you know, 
time in accepting Federal funding for some projects.
    Senator Tester. OK. This is a question, I think, best for 
Professor Ali and Mr. Wilkins, and it deals with low Earth 
orbit broadband which, by the way, in rural areas is pretty 
damn appealing if it works. If it works is the question. And 
so, Mr. Ali, can you talk about low Earth orbit broadband and 
tell me if it is the panacea that I think it may be?
    Dr. Ali. Thank you very much for the question. I think that 
there is a lot of hype, right now, around low Earth orbit 
broadband, LEO broadband. We do not know what we do not know. 
We do not know if it works at scale, yet, for instance. We do 
not know what kind of speeds it will deliver once the network 
is at capacity. These are some issues that have been in doubt. 
So, there is some criticism toward the Commission to have 
funded at such a large degree, $886 million for a technology 
that has yet to be proven at scale and at capacity.
    Senator Tester. OK. Do you want to add on to that, Mr. 
Wilkins, at all?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, I will just add one thing, which is, I 
think it is interesting that, in some ways, it goes back to 
this deployment versus access question, which is, you know, a 
LEO network is actually, kind of, different from a deployment 
standpoint than we are used to thinking about it. It is not 
about building assets on the ground in a local area. Their 
assets are in space. However, the, you know, the economics, I 
understand it. There is sort of a somewhat high upfront cost to 
afford the terminal, and such. And that is where a demand 
subsidy, such as EBB, if that was permanent, for example, could 
actually, probably, go a long way.
    Senator Tester. OK. Thank you all. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Cruz.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS

    Senator Cruz. Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to each of 
the witnesses. Thank you for being here. Each of you, in your 
witness testimony, has touched on the importance of broadband 
mapping and understanding exactly what parts of the country are 
still unconnected. And I whole-heartedly agree with importance 
of having the whole picture, so that we can make smart and 
targeted investments.
    To that point, when one tries to look at the facts and 
figures, as to just how much money the Federal Government has 
spent on expanding broadband infrastructure and increasing 
connectivity, it can be maddening. It is almost impossible to 
get a full and complete picture. There are so many different 
programs, so many pots of money at so many different agencies, 
all making different grants, providing different subsidies, and 
it does not seem like there is one central authority keeping 
track of, or even coordinating, everything.
    Two questions, for each of the witnesses on the panel. 
First of all, what is your best assessment of what we have 
spent in the last decade focused on expanding broadband? And 
second, would you agree that this disparate system of programs 
is inefficient, and should there be one authority in charge of 
tracking and coordinating all the Federal efforts? And, 
Commissioner O'Rielly, why don't we start with you?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I will start with your second question, and 
the answer is, absolutely. I would argue the FCC is in the best 
position to do so, but you have the right to pick somebody 
else.
    In terms of the amount of money, I would have--there is so 
much money that has been added in the last 9 months, that if I 
think that--you know, $5 billion, about average from the FCC 
per year, $4.5 to $5 billion. There is money at USDA under the 
ReConnect of $600 million, and that has been about a three-or 
4-year program.
    So, I would have to add everything up and try to figure out 
how much money we are talking about. But to go to your earlier 
point, I do not want to use your time, but we--I asked, 
requested, a JAO study on the similar type of scenario for the 
amount of money going to broadband for E-rate or schools and 
libraries, at the time, many years ago. And JAO came back and 
said, ``We cannot really do it. It is too complex a question.'' 
And that is what we are facing right now, with all of the money 
coming in from different sources, and allowing the money to be 
very flexible for, like, Department of Treasury. It can be for 
so many different purposes including broadband. It is hard to 
track where the money is going.
    Senator Cruz. Professor Ali?
    Dr. Ali. Thank you very much for your question. I am doing 
some quick math here. Between then, let us say, $5 billion from 
USF, and then, USDA offers $1.4 billion in grants and loans, 
that has been over, let us say, since 2015, 2014. Plus, $7.2 
billion in the Recovery Act money, you know, cannot even add 
that quickly, but those are the numbers that I have come up 
with, plus all of these other pockets. So, we have spent 
billions of dollars and we are continuing to spend billions of 
dollars to make these connections.
    Senator Cruz. And is this the most efficient way to do 
this?
    Dr. Ali. I think that we know that this is a market 
failure. We know that public money has to be spent in order to 
connect the unconnected, as this is a policy priority. I do 
not--I think, early attempts at funding did not go well. I 
think handing money to the 10 largest telecommunications 
companies in CAF and CAF II, for low requirements--low buildout 
requirements, actually has put us in a position where a number 
of communities are, kind of, living in a digital purgatory 
where they have low-speed, but still high enough speed that 
they are considered served. And now, they are stuck while the 
rest of the country moves toward fast, high-speed fiber and 5G.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Wilkins, Mr. Forde?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, Senator, thank you. I would just--I agree 
with Commissioner O'Rielly and Dr. Ali's math on the current 
numbers. I would just emphasize, this in some ways is the whole 
idea behind that FCC analysis that came up with $80 billion in 
the current proposal in the Accessible Internet Act.
    You know, $80 billion is--if we invested in robust, 
scalable networks, we could actually be done with this sort of, 
ongoing, every year we spend more, and do not quite get closer. 
The specific analysis was $80 billion would build out 
everywhere, and then, you would have a very small remaining 
number of homes, probably in places like Senator Sullivan's 
Alaska, where you would need ongoing subsidy, but it would be a 
lot lower than what it has been. So, that would just be point 
1.
    And second, quickly, on the map, Senator. I think it is 
just important, just as your question indicates, the map should 
not be thought of as a static, an atlas, right? It is not that 
the Commission is going to say, ``OK, we are done. Here are the 
maps.'' It is really a dynamic database of what is happening 
with deployment. That is going to, by definition, need to be a 
living, breathing, dynamic event and would hopefully help get 
at some of the issues that you are raising.
    Senator Cruz. Mr. Forde?
    Mr. Forde. Could not agree more. As a smaller company, one 
of the things that all these different Federal programs have is 
they have different rules and qualifications. It takes a 
tremendous amount of time and effort to even analyze whether or 
not we can participate in them because of the regulatory 
burdens that go along with that.
    Having that all housed in one agency, such as the FCC, 
would make it easier for us to get our data. They know us. They 
know who we are. They know our capabilities and technical 
stuff. We do not have to share all that, spend all that time 
and effort analyzing these programs and figuring out whether or 
not they can work for us and participate, and would make more 
of them usable for us.
    Obviously, an unbelievable amount of money spent on 
broadband. Do not disagree with that. There is also a 
tremendous amount of money going to operating expenses for 
folks, who have a tough time running their network. We do not 
need any money to operate our network and we could--you know, 
so certainly, there are billions and billions of dollars out 
there in USF funding, too, that is added to this, going to 
people that need to operate their networks. So, I think 
companies that have the ability to operate it, should also be 
given some preference over those that do not, and do not need 
any more ongoing funding to operate their network.
    Senator Cruz. Thank you.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator. We now have Senator Sinema.

               STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA

    Senator Sinema. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to 
our witnesses for joining us today. My top priority in the last 
year has been working with local, state, and Federal partners 
to keep Arizonans healthy and safe from the pandemic. The 
pandemic has put a spotlight on the digital divide in this 
country, and I have supported efforts to expand broadband 
access in rural and Tribal areas, where the digital divide is 
widest, and ensure that Americans struggling economically can 
remain connected as the recovery continues.
    But broadband connectivity lets kids participate in 
distance learning, allows veterans to have telehealth 
appointments with their medical providers, and allows Arizonans 
across the state schedule their vaccine appointments online. 
And I am looking forward to working with my colleagues on this 
committee, to develop bipartisan solutions to get Arizonans 
connected, and to keep them connected. As we do that, we must 
ensure that we have accurate data about broadband, that Federal 
agencies are coordinating their efforts, and that Federal 
resources are being used appropriately.
    So, my first question is for Mr. Wilkins. Tribal lands and 
rural areas have some of the lowest rates of broadband 
connectivity in the country. And the most recent FCC Broadband 
Development report stated that more than 20 percent of Native 
Americans in rural Tribal lands, lack access to sufficient 
broadband capabilities. I supported the FCC's Tribal 
prioritized filing window for the 2.5 gigahertz band. And this 
window provided tribes an opportunity to access spectrum 
resources, to connect Tribal members. Many tribes in Arizona 
received licenses, including the Gila River, Hopi, Tohono 
O'odham, Havasupai, San Carlos Apache, and White Mountain 
Apache.
    But what are your thoughts on last year's Tribal priority 
window and going forward, what approaches should Federal 
agencies use, to help connect Tribal communities?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, thank you, Senator. I strongly support, 
essentially, programs to help Tribal communities make progress. 
I mean, the equity issues are very big, and I would just say 
that the economic issues around broadband are particularly 
pronounced. Just to give you a specific example, in the context 
of the RDOF auction, frankly, many of the geographic 
definitions for how money was awarded, made it very hard to 
actually pursue support in Tribal areas, essentially, because 
the population can be so spread out, relative to the way the 
funding is awarded. And that does make a wireless priority 
window, like what you are describing. I actually have an 
import, at least, you know, to go back to the previous 
discussion, make sure there is some ability to get broadband 
there.
    So, the problems are very real in Tribal areas, and 
especially around the economics of bringing in broadband. So, I 
think they are very well designed.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is for 
Professor Ali. In your written testimony, you discussed the 
persistent problems with the maps the FCC uses to determine 
which areas of the country have insufficient broadband. And, as 
you know, inaccurate maps complicate efforts to send Federal 
resources to the parts of rural Arizona that are not connected.
    Along with bipartisan members of the Committee, I supported 
the Broadband Data Act, which passed last year. And that law 
now requires better, more accurate maps, but it has not been 
fully implemented. So, what more needs to be done to ensure 
that we have maps that we can rely on when making decisions 
about billions of dollars of Federal investment?
    Dr. Ali. Thank you very much for the question, Senator. I 
absolutely agree that we need to fix the mapping before we 
start spending even more money, because these maps need to 
reflect those who actually do not have, who are un-and 
underconnected.
    I think we can look at some best practices from what some 
states are doing. I am buoyed by what I am reading about in 
Georgia, with this innovative partnership and I think these 
are, kind of, the out of the box examples that we can take to 
heart and learn from. But this also means bringing more 
stakeholders to the table, not just providers but bringing 
communities and counties and states to the table, as well, to 
have that serious conversation.
    Senator Sinema. Thank you. You know, my last question is 
both for Professor Ali and for Mr. Wilkins. Many Federal 
agencies put a role in expanding broadband access for 
Americans, including the FCC and the Departments of Commerce, 
Agriculture, and Treasury. And this, of course, we have heard 
has caused confusion for applicants, especially when the 
programs are inconsistent, or they occur concurrently.
    So, I have supported better coordination between Federal 
actors and the December Omnibus Bill that we passed required 
increased coordination and a one-stop shop for applicants. So, 
what are your thoughts on increased Federal coordination, 
between the FCC and other Federal partners, to help get 
Americans connected?
    Mr. Wilkins. Senator, maybe, I will start, because I know 
Dr. Ali knows a lot about the USDA side of this, as well. I 
would just say, in a way, the problem you are describing it is 
a critical one, but it actually comes from a good reason, which 
is there are so many new kinds of providers interested in 
bringing broadband to rural communities. And so, what you 
actually see is, traditionally a telecom operator, a small one 
or a big one, knows how to work the FCC, understands FCC 
programs, maybe not the USDA so much. A local, rural provider, 
an electric coop, was mentioned. They know all about working 
with the USDA and the FCC can be very hard. And then, in 
contrast, you know, a large company actually says to the USDA, 
``Boy a lot of your requirements are things that do not quite 
work for us, because we have all kinds of, you know, public 
disclosures we do as a big company''.
    So, it is different providers are used to working with 
different agencies and, coordination that actually just 
addresses that, making it much more of a smooth process for all 
the different kinds of providers that want to bring broadband 
to rural communities, that alone is a big reason to do, you 
know, what you are describing. And it will make a difference, 
going forward, if it is done well.
    The Chair. Thank--go ahead, Dr.
    Dr. Ali. I would just add, just really quickly, I 
absolutely agree on the need for coordination and the idea for 
one portal for all applicants. I also think that, in partner 
with coordination, we need to actually have a designated leader 
in this who should do the coordinating. I think we speak a lot 
about that. But the next level should be who should organize 
the coordination.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Sinema. Thank you. 
Senator Moran.

                STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS

    Senator Moran. Chairman Cantwell, thank you very much. Let 
me begin with Commissioner O'Rielly. Commissioner O'Rielly, 
thank you for your public service. My only complaint--perhaps 
my only complaint, at least public one, during your service is 
that you were not Kansan. Could not overcome that.
    Let me start with you and asking you, the maps have always 
been a topic of conversation that I have had with the FCC, you 
and others. We passed, President Trump signed the Broadband 
Data Act. The FCC is now required to collect granular shaped 
files and propagation maps that depict provider service and 
coverage areas. The concern then raised, or the explanation for 
why that might not happen is lack of resources, dollars. We 
have appropriated $98 million in the Consolidated Appropriation 
Act. Are there any excuses left to get us to the point in which 
we know what areas are underserved?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I do not think there are any legitimate 
reasons, but I would only say that--and I said this to Ranking 
Member Wicker, is that you have added new burdens on the 
Commission. Two new programs, one, you know, basically new E-
rate program, and the EBB. That is really time--that takes an 
awful lot of effort. And so, you are diverting resources, not 
because you cannot have people working on two different 
projects, but they all have to go through, you know, common 
reviewers, and there are only so many people at the top that 
have to look at everything. So, that was my point----
    Senator Moran. So, it is volume of work.
    Mr. O'Rielly. It is volume, but it is also a factor, to 
Senator Wicker's point, you know, was that--my point to him 
was, make this very clear. This is one of your top two, three 
priorities, and it has been. I have been very aware and in 
support of your point for when I was there.
    Senator Moran. No, you have, and I appreciate that. I mean, 
it is--it needs to be a priority because it determines what we 
do next.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes.
    Senator Moran. It would be irresponsible for us to 
authorize the spending of more money, the FCC to create more 
programs, and put it in the wrong place. The maps, then, in my 
view, determine the direction we go, and we should not go there 
until we have a map.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Which is somewhat troubling, I would think, 
to compliment. We have these other Federal programs that--what 
are they using? They are not using maps. If our maps--or, if 
the FCC's maps are flawed, they do not even use any. That is a 
problem.
    Senator Moran. Now you have stuck something else in my 
brain to worry about, which we will. Mr. Forde, Midco was named 
as one of the winning RDOF bidders in the reverse auction. That 
program is funded by the Universal Service Fund. Tell me about 
what concerns you have about the Universal Service Fund and its 
future?
    Mr. Forde. Well, I think, obviously, the Universal Service 
Fund, you know, again, if that funding is going out to provide 
broadband, then it should be going out to, as I just touched 
on, you know, to truly folks that are unserved. In our 
footprint, in the area that we serve, about $1.3 billion of 
that just went out to other providers for operating expenses. 
Again, we do not need that operating expenses and many of those 
providers are overbuilding areas that already have Gig service. 
So, certainly to make sure that that funding does not continue 
to go to folks that need it to operate, would be helpful, as we 
look at USF reform, and again, only goes to targeted folks that 
are truly unserved.
    Also, just wanted to note, it is a pleasure to work with 
you and be in Kansas. Thanks to your efforts, in addition to 
Senator Hoven and Senator Thune, working with the USDA's 
ReConnect Program, for the first time.--we usually found out 
about ReConnect grants, when they were awarded, but for the 
first time, this year, thanks to your work, we got a response 
and actually, some of our--and they held a challenge process to 
make sure that our areas, where we had been awarded CAF II 
funding, was not overbuilt by ReConnect. So, I just wanted to 
thank you for your work with USDA to make sure that we actually 
got a response to our challenges, for the first time ever, and 
that they were upheld. So, really appreciate your work to make 
sure that USDA's programs are working better and truly 
targeting unserved areas.
    Senator Moran. Thank you very much. Maybe I should ask you 
about what Commissioner O'Rielly said. Where does the map come 
from for the USDA to utilize? What information are they using 
to make that determination? And I also was going to give you--I 
thought I might get you to respond about the concern about the 
declining amount of dollars within the fund--within USF?
    Mr. Forde. Yes, again, I think that you know, the USDA, 
some of the information that they have had has been a couple 
years behind, as the ones actually out there and been deployed, 
and that has been problematic, from that effort. A lot of those 
grants need to, again, truly be focused on unserved areas. They 
also--that process has been very difficult to apply for. 
Companies have been limited, based on their structure. So, like 
us, it has not worked well for us, based upon our company's 
structure. It is targeted to more old, rural cooperatives and 
companies like that, which makes it problematic for us to apply 
for. So, appreciate your continued efforts to work on that 
issue, so----
    And in regard to the--go ahead. Sorry, Senator.
    Senator Moran. I am running out of time. I would conclude. 
I always want Chairman Cantwell to like me, so I am going to 
try to conclude in 2 seconds.
    Mr. Forde. Go ahead.
    Senator Moran. I would say thank you for your presence in 
Kansas. I also would highlight, and I do not have a chance to 
ask--time to ask the question, but we really need to have 
oversight on those RDOF winning bidders, and whether they are 
actually providing the service that they have committed to 
providing. Oversight seems hugely important to me and, again, 
maps are one thing, if we provide it the wrong place, but if we 
give money to somebody and they do not actually fulfill their 
commitment, that is another very damning circumstance. Thank 
you.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Moran. Very important point 
in this whole debate. I am going to run and vote and ask 
Senator Lujan to take over. I think he has already voted. So, I 
know that we have several other members who would like to ask 
questions. I know the Ranking Member was hoping to get in a 
second round of questioning. So, we are going to try to keep 
this going. We hope our witnesses can stick with us for a 
little bit longer. But, Senator Lujan, thank you for taking 
over. It is your turn to ask questions, and thank you for 
chairing while I am over running to vote.

               STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO

    Senator Lujan. Thank you so much, Chair Cantwell. To the 
witnesses, thank you so much for being here today. To our Chair 
and Ranking Member, thank you for calling this important 
hearing, and the full committee. An important conversation that 
we have to have across America, as we talk about expanding 
broadband infrastructure and, what I hope is a goal for all of 
us, to get to 100 percent connectivity of fast, affordable 
Internet in America.
    Recently, Kimble Sekaquaptewa, who is the Chief Technology 
Officer at Santa Fe Indian School, and a member of the New 
Mexico Homework Gap Team, shared a story with me. Back in 
August in New Mexico, when it is still very hot, in one 
particular Pueblo community, the school was delivering 100 
percent distance learning, as in most parts of America. And we 
know that a lot of homes still lack access to fast internet, or 
any Internet at all. And there was a student that was in middle 
school, in junior high, trying to do his best. He was trying to 
get the homework done, which meant sitting out in the sun all 
day to connect to Wi-Fi. He was there so long he got 
heatstroke, trying to complete his assignments.
    The American Rescue Plan's temporary E-rate support for Wi-
Fi hotspots and connected devices is an important stopgap, 
however, I believe that Congress must mobilize to advance long-
term solutions that bring resilient, redundant, and secure 
broadband into every home. And over the past year, the Federal 
Government has provided $16.7 billion for broadband buildout. 
Dr. Ali, is $16.7 billion enough to connect every American to 
resilient, reliable, and secure high-speed internet, yes or no?
    Dr. Ali. No.
    Senator Lujan. Last Congress I worked with Whip Clyburn to 
author and pass the Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act 
in the House, and was excited to co-sponsor this legislation 
when Senator Klobuchar reintroduced it here in the Senate. The 
bill would commit more than $80 billion to build high-speed 
broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved 
communities, to close the digital divide and connect America.
    This question is for Mr. Wilkins and for Dr. Ali. Mr. 
Wilkins, do you agree that $80 billion is the right ballpark to 
connect all Americans, yes or no?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Dr. Ali?
    Dr. Ali. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Now, with that being said, it is my 
understanding that that is based on a per capita formula, as 
opposed to looking at people in an area. Is that correct?
    Mr. Wilkins. Senator, that is essentially just the overall 
national number and local conditions can be very different, 
depending on what is happening there.
    Senator Lujan. Should local conditions be looked at when we 
are making plans to build out?
    Mr. Wilkins. Absolutely, and states and Tribal governments 
have a huge contribution to make.
    Senator Lujan. The Accessible, Affordable Internet for All 
Act also includes legislation I authored, which is the 
Broadband Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act, to provide 
$5 billion in Federal funding to make low interest financing 
available to communities, to support broadband development. Mr. 
Wilkins, how can financing help leverage Federal dollars to go 
further, to provide more Americans and New Mexicans with access 
to resilient, affordable high-speed internet?
    Mr. Wilkins. Senator, it is critically important. I think, 
as Dr. Ali mentioned, one of the important trends is smaller, 
local providers actually looking to bring broadband. Those 
companies need help with financing. If you are a big, public 
company, you can raise the necessary capital. Smaller ones, if 
they can, it is very expensive, and it means they spend more in 
financing than they do on building broadband.
    So, I think that it is a very real problem. I think that 
the simple math of a Federal loan guarantee, such as you are 
proposing in the BIFIA proposal, would do huge good for a lot 
of those capital raising efforts.
    Senator Lujan. Every year Congress hears promises about 
next generation technology and the ability to connect to 
everyone. First, it was 3G, then, 4G LTE, now 5G and low Earth 
orbit satellites. Now, do not get me wrong. These are amazing 
and important technologies. I have always believed that there 
should be canopies and layers associated with how we can 
achieve 100 percent connectivity in America, to power increased 
speeds and to connect the unconnected. Whether we are talking 
about geographical challenges, topography, where we have 
mountain ranges that we need to address, and especially in 
rural and Tribal communities, where easement constraints need 
to be addressed.
    Now, the problems arise when these services are the only 
option available in a community. I believe we have to plan for 
a future where broadband is redundant, resilient, and secure. 
You are going to keep hearing me say that. I think that is what 
we need to get to in America.
    So, I want to ask each of you a yes or no question. The FCC 
currently defines broadband as 25 megabits per second download, 
which is what the measure of speed is where people get all the 
incoming, if you will. If you are pulling content into you, 
that is the speed the FCC prescribes. And 3 megabits per second 
upload. So, if you are interfacing with the outside world, and 
now, with the use of Zoom, people are talking to more people 
using video and things of that nature. So, now we are talking 
about 3 up. There is a lot more use of connecting with people 
outside, as opposed to just getting the incoming. So, my 
question is, does the FCC's current definition of broadband 
meet current needs for a single household. Mr. O'Rielly, yes or 
no?
    Mr. O'Rielly. My apologies for--I would say it does a very 
good job. Is it complete? Probably not, but in terms of your 
point in the Zoom, 3 does an--you know, you can have multiple 
Zoom conversations. And I have seen that the most they have 
gotten is 5 megabits going up. The idea that it needs to go to 
100, I disagree with.
    Senator Lujan. Is 25/3 enough to meet the current needs for 
a single household?
    Mr. O'Rielly. You know, that is something for policymakers 
to consider changing. There are multiple reasons not to do so. 
Could it be improved? Yes. Yes, I think it is sufficient 
compared to those that have nothing, yes.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. O'Rielly, do you have Internet at home?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I do.
    Senator Lujan. What speeds do you have?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I have Verizon Fios and we probably have 150.
    Senator Lujan. 150?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Megs for download.
    Senator Lujan. And up?
    Mr. O'Rielly. It changes depending on, you know, how my Wi-
Fi system is working.
    Senator Lujan. Is it higher than 3?
    Mr. O'Rielly. It probably is higher than 3, but I have not 
done a test in quite a while.
    Senator Lujan. My point is, those speeds that you are 
talking about, are the speeds that are being prescribed with 
100 down and 100 up. I want everyone to have what you have.
    Mr. O'Rielly. But I am saying 100 up is--we have had this 
conversation most of this day. It blows through every program 
that has been out there, and it is to a point that we--that is 
far beyond usage expected in the decade.
    Senator Lujan. Far beyond usage. So, why would you pay for 
that?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I do not pay--I do not pay--I said----
    Senator Lujan. You subscribe to get--you do not get it for 
free, do you?
    Mr. O'Rielly. No, I subscribe to it.
    Senator Lujan. Yes.
    Mr. O'Rielly. My wife pays for it. But----
    Senator Lujan. Yes, you get what I am saying.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, I do.
    Senator Lujan. You went for that package because those are 
speeds that you believe, you need to be able to connect. And 
all that I am asking here is, you know, what is acceptable. I 
would love to chat with you more. Like, Mr. Tester, I respect 
your work very much. I did not always agree, as you know, but I 
definitely respect the work that you have done. So, I look 
forward to chatting more with you there.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Forde?
    Mr. Forde. Absolutely. I get 25/3 at my house. Three kids 
doing online distance learning, my wife is running a very large 
small business, I have been working from remotely. I receive my 
Internet from a high-speed fixed 5G fixed wireless connection 
from a tower 8.8 miles away from my house. Looks very similar 
to the screen behind me. Had absolutely no issues through the 
pandemic, through blizzards, all of those things. It has been a 
great connection. And I would like to remind, with that 
connection, that is not the ceiling. I can certainly purchase 
more if I want to, to receive higher speeds and higher 
internet.
    So, certainly more than sufficient for our family and it is 
also very, very affordable price of less than $50 a month. So, 
been a great tool for us to have throughout the pandemic, as 
well as my friends and neighbors who are all ranchers. A guy 
just ran a bull auction nationwide, people buying cattle from 
all over the country with the same speed and connectivity, so--
--
    Senator Lujan. So, Mr. Forde----
    Mr. Forde. Very much so. It works in rural America.
    Senator Lujan. I will assume your answer is yes.
    Mr. Forde. Yes.
    Senator Lujan. Dr. Ali, yes or no?
    Dr. Ali. No, I do not believe that it is satisfactory.
    Senator Lujan. Mr. Wilkins?
    Mr. Wilkins. No.
    Senator Lujan. Very much, appreciate that. The last 
question I have, as I am going to go to Senator Blackburn, is, 
Mr. Wilkins, how might have the overbuilding provisions and 
RDOF raised the cost of broadband in the long-term, or 
otherwise hinder the goal of closing the digital divide?
    Mr. Wilkins. Well, as I sort of commented in my testimony, 
I think overbuilding, in some ways, is the wrong way to think 
about the question of bringing broadband to an area that does 
not meet the standard that Congress says is necessary. And I 
think that a lot of the approaches used in RDOF, that really 
did--and many of the implementation details, frankly, made it 
pretty hard for a true new provider that was going to offer a 
much better service, to be able to bid effectively. And again, 
the question is not overbuilding, not overbuilding. The 
question is what is the performance level that we think is 
necessary in these rural areas?
    Senator Lujan. Appreciate that, sir. I would now like to 
recognize Senator Blackburn for her questions.

              STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, 
                  U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE

    Senator Blackburn. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. And I 
am trying to get to the floor to vote. I do have a couple of 
questions that I wanted to bring up and let us start right 
there.
    Mr. O'Rielly, let me come to you, and it is good to see you 
again. Talking about this 100/100, the symmetrical networks, 
talk about the impact that would have at the Commission. If we 
keep moving the goalpost, and say we are not going to deem an 
area as served, unless it meets this standard. So, just a 
couple of comments on that.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Sure, so it terms of 100/100 speed that has 
been talked about, the demand for the upload is far beyond 
where the current Commission standards are and would wipe out 
almost all of the areas in the United States. The majority of 
the United States would be deemed unserved and, therefore, you 
have recalibrate all the different programs. They would pretty 
much be wiped out and all those dollars would be gone, and that 
is why people talked about new spending.
    I say there is a second purpose, though, because it 
triggers the section 706, which I know you are familiar with, 
in terms of the regulatory burdens the Commission can impose to 
remedy that situation. That is one of the other problems with 
the speed threshold here.
    Senator Blackburn. OK, let me ask you, just a point of 
clarification there, would it deem it unserved or underserved, 
for all these other areas?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Right. It would depend on what the structure 
of the bill or law turned out to be.
    Senator Blackburn. OK.
    Mr. O'Rielly. But would likely be unserved, under that 
definition.
    Senator Blackburn. OK. All right. Thank you, thank you for 
that. Mr. Forde, you have talked some about what you have and 
how you have run businesses. Your neighbors that are ranchers. 
What percentage of your network usage, that you have talked 
about today, does downstream and upstream usage represent? 
Would you just ballpark that for us?
    Mr. Forde. Certainly. Again, we use, you know, three forms 
of technology to deliver broadband--the direct fiber 
connections, the hybrid fiber-cable mix, and the fixed wireless 
network. Throughout the pandemic, it has always been about 14 
to 16 percent higher download speeds than uploads, so--and that 
has not, you know, varied regardless of the technology used to 
deploy. So, you know, we will continue to use whatever tool is 
best for those folks, and we will provide whatever connectivity 
they need regarding all three of those.
    Senator Blackburn. OK, so an asymmetrical network works for 
you, correct?
    Mr. Forde. Correct, and that is what our customers are 
using and that is what our customers are asking for, and all 
three of those technologies are scalable. We would not deliver 
those to our friends and neighbors if we would not be able to 
scale those, both upload and download, based upon customers' 
needs and usage, so----
    Senator Blackburn. OK.
    Mr. Forde. Keeping in mind that they are all scalable to 
more, should our customers like them.
    Senator Blackburn. All right. And that is helpful to get. I 
think that is important. Meeting the needs, so that we get more 
people into served areas and out of unserved areas, and with 
the pandemic, whether it is access to healthcare, economic 
development, law enforcement, or education, the Internet has 
become an imperative for these communities.
    Let us see. Mr. Wilkins, I wanted to ask you about 
maximizing the use of Federal dollars to reach these unserved 
areas, that really have been overlooked, because of the 
significant expenditures of getting into those areas where you 
have so few customers on a mile, and they are with the fiber. 
So, how would you maximize those dollars? Would you approach 
it, as Mr. Forde has done, with a combination of delivery 
systems?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, well--so, I think it is first just to 
start with what is the investment Congress wants to make and 
what are the standards to set. I think it is, obviously, true 
that the less density you have in an area, for example, the 
harder it is to bring a certain quality of service.
    So, I think the first question is, what is the size of the 
investment? If there are areas where fiber actually does not 
work within the budget that is available, certainly other 
technologies, you know, are very viable. And I think, actually, 
Senator Cantwell mentioned, you know, the idea that you might 
have separate portions of a program focus specifically at 
extremely unserved areas. I mean, Senator Sullivan talks about 
Alaska. Those are very good ideas. They have existed in the 
past. They could be done better, I am sure. But to me, that is 
an implementation detail, after the question of what is----
    Senator Blackburn. Well, and yes, I think finding something 
that works in the area, and not necessarily fiber to the 
premise, which was the old way of approach, is something that 
is an imperative for us to consider.
    I will--I am at the end of my time. I will just say, you 
know, Mr. O'Rielly, I cannot believe we are still discussing 
maps. When I was in the House and we were working on this 
issue, cleaning up those 477 maps was a priority, and we could 
not get the Senate to work with us on that as a priority. So, 
hopefully now, we are going to actually see something done 
about the mapping and, also, closer attention paid to oversight 
of expended dollars to fight waste, fraud, and abuse. Be sure 
this money is being used to get people online.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. And definitely we 
are going to get somewhere on mapping. Trust me.
    OK, I think we may have Senator Rosen on our side. If not--
is Senator Rosen--OK. If not, Senator Capito.

            STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
                U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank all the 
witnesses and this is an extremely important, obviously, issue 
to all of us, particularly in a state like West Virginia, which 
I know you all are aware of.
    Let me ask you, something that Senator Klobuchar and I are 
working on a bill that I formulated as an idea that I saw from 
one of my very small Doddridge County, who decided that they 
were going to deploy, as a county, deploy broadband to 
everybody in the county. We are talking very rural here, and 
small. And I thought it was brilliant the way they decided who 
they were going to go to first. They are going to go to the 
students. Every student in that county will be connected 
through the efforts of the Board of the ReConnect Program of 
Internet service provider, City Net, and as the County 
Commission. And so, it is an all-hands-on-deck proposition.
    So, help me--in the bill, we do incorporate some 
suggestions for E-rate. In other words, reclassifying the home 
as a classroom. So, I would like to ask Mr. Wilkins what you 
think of that idea, and how do we achieve that? Because it is a 
classroom now, for so, so many of our students and families.
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, so, Senator, that is a great question. I 
literally worked on a business plan like that for an RDOF 
participant, actually a municipal sort of entity, that wanted 
to do exactly what you are describing, in a different state. 
And that question of, we are not sure that all the families in 
this rural area actually can afford the service, at the level 
we want to provide it, and we actually talked a lot about E-
rate, what might be available. And this was last year, and so, 
the discussion of, well, you know, classroom does not include 
the homes. Very real issue and, absolutely, if that was done, 
would actually improve the deployment cases in a lot of areas.
    Senator Capito. Because of the affordability issue that E-
rate would bring to those families? Is that the correct 
assumption?
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, so, I mean, in other words, if you are 
going to build a very high-performance broadband, you know, you 
might need to charge $75-80 a month. I mean, that is a very 
reasonable rate for high-speed broadband. And you know, there 
are many families, including in rural areas, where that 
actually might be too expensive. And so, as sort of a partial 
support, in the form of E-rate, it is sort of done through the 
school process for students, can be a great demand support, I 
guess is how a project finance person would think about it. But 
would have a very big impact in many areas.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Yes, that is something that we 
are pursuing, and we are going to move forward on that. Mr. 
O'Rielly, let me ask you a question on the RDOF procedure. We 
were able to get some local providers to add--I think we got a 
pretty robust response. The FCC came back with a fairly decent, 
large award that is going to be able to serve our state in that 
auction.
    Here is my deal. There are people--and I have written--I 
wrote to the FCC and you know what I am talking about. There 
are people who were awarded census blocks in that--there are 
entities that were awarded census blocks in that auction, that 
have not performed in the past. And I want to know from you 
what kind of teeth do we have in that RDOF? What kind of teeth 
should we put into that, in terms of claw back, or whatever, 
where we can make sure that we are actually getting what the 
proposed delivery is supposed to be?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, the FCC is, my understanding, is going 
through long form process right now, which means they are 
scrubbing the winning bidders for all of the detail, and 
requiring, you know, filing of numerous documents. And Mr. 
Forde can probably comment about how much material that they 
seek. So, they are going through that process to make sure that 
those can--you know, and probably will, you know, do a really 
good job, especially given the added pressure and focus by 
members and else wise. So, I expect that they will do a very 
good job.
    What I have suggested earlier, and something I did not--was 
not successful in adding to the program and it should have been 
something that we can do going forward, is to really bump up 
the penalties for missing the deadlines. Right now, I think it 
is, you know, $3,000 per violation and 15 percent of your 
funds. Well, some companies may be willing to do that for a 
couple years, and then, take the penalty. That is not 
acceptable in my mind, and we really could have--I did not win 
that argument, at the time, and I did not win a bunch of 
things. But that would be something that could improve the 
situation.
    Senator Capito. Well, I agree with you. It is totally 
unacceptable. It is unacceptable that anybody could take the 
dollars, move forward, in less than judicious fashion, and make 
a decision four or 5 years later, when the service has not been 
delivered, well, I will just go ahead and pay the fine.
    I mean, we have got to be better than this. I mean, we have 
seen this in the last--in some of these other programs where, 
at the end of the day, here we are still talking about the same 
thing, three and 4 years later.
    So, I really want to see some teeth in this. I am hoping, 
in the second--as they are looking at the long form, that they 
really are looking at past behavior, looking at people who do 
not deliver the service they say they are going to deliver 
right now, today, and that they do not allow those contracts to 
go forward. Because, in the end, they are not going to do it. I 
mean, you know, what is it? Past performance indicates, you 
know, future behavior. And I do not know why that is good 
enough in every other rule but not in this case. It is very--
you can tell, it is very frustrating for me.
    I do not know, Madam Chair, am I over my time?
    The Chair. Well, just by 11 seconds. That is OK.
    Senator Capito. Well, that is good. Thank you very much.
    The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Capito. You raise 
some very important issues. Senator Young.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA

    Senator Young. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner 
O'Rielly, last year, when you testified before this committee, 
we discussed your support for removing unnecessary barriers and 
maximizing competition in the Universal Service Fund auctions. 
So, as we sit here, almost a year later, one of the lessons 
learned from the first round of the FCC's Rural Digital 
Opportunity Fund auction, is that broad participation by 
providers means more consumers will be served with far less 
funding.
    As the FCC plans for the second round, and other programs, 
what steps can the Commission take to expand bidding by 
qualified providers, in order to extend broadband in rural 
Indiana and across other states and narrow the digital divide 
across the country.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, one thing we can do, and I talked about 
it in my testimony is, remove the ETC designation, or certainly 
revamp it, because that is a barrier that companies are running 
up against, in terms of the requirement to obtain it. And you 
saw this in RDOF round one, where a number of providers that 
people thought may bid, decided not to for that very reason. 
Where they were going edge out into a new state, and therefore, 
require new designation. They just were not willing to do so, 
and so, that is a problem.
    And you see where the Committee, and others, have done, you 
know, have fixed this. In the Emergency Broadband Benefits 
Program, there is basically an exemption for this purpose. So, 
it cannot be something that held the test of time if it is 
something that the Committee is willing to waive. So, I think 
that is something enormously helpful that can be fixed 
immediately.
    Senator Young. Very good. I may have some follow-up 
questions, but I will submit those in written form, that you 
can provide to me later.
    I am going to turn to 5G, we will call it, nationalization. 
The topic of this hearing is the deployment of broadband, and 
there are a lot of ingredients that go into making broadband 
available beyond Federal funding, including spectrum. Mr. 
Wilkins, as former Chief of the Wireless Bureau at the FCC, I 
think it is fair to say you have a good level of familiarity 
with spectrum policy. Are you familiar with proposals to allow 
DOD to either build out a national network for 5G, or let a 
private third-party network operator do the same? And I will 
say, I am curious if you have any thoughts about this kind of 
model being pushed by some companies, seeing that it has never 
been done here in the United States.
    Mr. Wilkins. Yes, yes, Senator, I am very familiar with it. 
I honestly find it a very perplexing proposal. Just a couple 
observations. The general idea of sort of government 
facilitated, government sponsored or run wholesale networks, 
has actually not worked anywhere in the world that I am 
familiar with. Going back 20 years to Australia for the fixed 
side, recently Mexico on the wireless side, I have not seen it 
work.
    The specific proposal, as I understand it, involves up to 
350 megahertz of DOD spectrum. That is actually more spectrum 
than any of the wireless carriers have today. You know, you 
have AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile with, frankly, less spectrum 
than that in total, supporting 100 million or more customers in 
all kinds of uses. And I just had not understood, actually, 
what the use is supposed to be for DOD to need that much 
spectrum, in that much of the country. And I think there are 
other details that also do not make sense, but I think at that 
simple, logical level, I just find it very perplexing.
    Senator Young. OK. Commissioner O'Rielly, I really want to 
ask you a question on an unrelated topic, but I would like to 
get your thoughts on that, if you can give me 30 seconds or 
less. In agreement, in disagreement, what reflections do you 
have on that topic?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I agree, actually, with Mr. Wilkins and I 
completely oppose the idea of a wholesale network where we 
would lease off spectrum to DOD or use DOD spectrum that they 
themselves would build the network or allow someone else to 
use. I think it is awful policy and it would contradict 
decisions that have been made by this committee, and the FCC, 
over the last many years. It should not be done, in my opinion.
    Senator Young. OK. So, if I can reinterpret what all of you 
said, you think it is a really bad idea.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, sir.
    Senator Young. OK. Commission O'Rielly, with so many 
Federal agencies and states in the process of awarding 
broadband funding, it seems like there is a high risk of 
duplicating efforts, and also, overbuilding private investment. 
So, I would love to be disabused of this, but with these 
constellations of funding programs and so forth, I am curious. 
Do you agree that using a challenge process to get the most up-
to-date information on broadband availability can help reduce 
this risk of overbuilding?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely, and it is not just a risk. It 
actually exists. Mr. Forde, talked about the situation he 
faced, I think, in Minnesota. I have seen the situation in 
Wyoming, that I wrote about when I was still at the Commission. 
So, the dollars are going to places that are already being 
served. So, you are having a subsidized competitor entering and 
competing against a private sector provider. It is really 
problematic, and we are going to see more of it as we have all 
these different pots of money competing against each other.
    Senator Young. I thank our panelists. Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you. Senator Lummis.

               STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS, 
                   U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING

    Senator Lummis. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 
you, Commissioner O'Rielly for teeing me up. That is exactly 
the problem. Sixty-five percent of rural households do not have 
access to high-speed internet, and I am talking about the kind 
needed to work or learn from home. So, the share of rural 
households without access to high-speed Internet is 20 times 
that of urban households.
    And talk about identifying a barrier, our past Governor, 
Governor Mead, engaged in a process called Endow, where he 
identified barriers to economic growth and diversification in 
Wyoming, and rural broadband, air service, and healthcare were 
the top three and rural broadband was number one. And then, it 
became even more exacerbated during the COVID crisis, because 
you had all of these people trying to become educated and 
working at home, in a state that has inadequate broadband 
services.
    So, thank you, Commissioner O'Rielly for teeing up my 
question. You worked extensively to coordinate investment in 
broadband during your time at the FCC, so you are familiar with 
the problems overbuild poses to rural and hard to reach areas. 
What do you envision is the best way to counter overbuild? And 
excuse me if you have already addressed that.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have a little bit, but I mean, there 
are many things that need to be done, but one is, you know, we 
need to know all the dollars that are going out and we need to 
have coordination. But it is more than coordination, because I 
have sat down with USDA in the past, and we talked about the 
different--they did not, at the time, understand what I was 
even talking about, in terms of subsidized overbuilding. That 
is a problem. When two agencies do not have the same 
commonality of a concept, and we never got that far.
    So, we never got any resolution to that. It was punted to 
somebody else and dealt with it and it has not been resolved. 
Ninety percent of the funds from USDA can go to a non-
overbuilding purpose, but 10 percent can be overbuilding. That 
is problematic in my viewpoint. But it is separate from the 
decision the CARES money went to, in Tongue River's situation, 
who, you know, was facing, you know, multiple providers. They 
had a challenge process that did not work effectively, and they 
did not have one in the state process, and the State's argument 
was, we had to get the dollars out, as soon as possible, to 
make sure we, you know, could receive funding.
    So, there are a lot of things that could be done just to 
rectify that situation going forward.
    Senator Lummis. Thank you very much, and Madam Chair, 
thanks for doing this hearing. This is really a critical issue 
in my state. Now, I know this question has come up several 
times during the hearing, but I have to point out that in 
Wyoming many communities, many communities--many do not even 
have 25/3 service. So, I am concerned when I hear about 
proposals to open up Federal funding for areas that do not have 
100/100.
    So, my question for Mr. Forde, do you think we should 
prioritize communities that still do not have even basic 
broadband, before upgrading speeds?
    Mr. Forde. Absolutely 100 percent agree. We have got to 
focus on those truly unserved areas left. We serve many of the 
neighboring states to you. So, we have got to get focused like 
a laser on those and get them broadband once and for all.
    Senator Lummis. Thanks. Commissioner O'Rielly, do you want 
to weigh in on that?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Absolutely agree with Mr. Forde, it should be 
the priority of the Commission, and it certainly should be 
reflected in the different programs that are created, that we 
address and have a laser focus on the unserved population. 
Whatever that number is, it could be---you know, we could 
dispute on how big it is, on different measurements, but that 
should be the priority of those, that have nothing. Those that 
Senator Sullivan talked about, and others have talked about, 
that have substandard broadband today, we should address and 
that should be the primary focus, in my opinion.
    Senator Lummis. Well, thank you both. That is music to my 
ears. Now, I can tell you, one of the major sources of red 
tape, holding telecom companies back from providing service in 
rural America, is the Federal permitting process. It holds both 
service in rural areas and Tribal governments.
    So, Mr. Forde, could you talk a little about the impact of 
Federal permitting processes, such as NEPA, in building out 
your network?
    Mr. Forde. Yes, we have a--obviously, in western North 
Dakota, very, you know, close to Wyoming there, we have had 
several issues. Took us almost a year to cross the Missouri 
River, due to needing multiple permits from the Army Corps and 
others, to deliver a new fiber pipe to some areas. Oh, and a 
booming energy economy we have in western North Dakota, where a 
lot of folks needed better connectivity out there, as we grew 
to be one of the top oil producing states, delayed broadband 
getting out there over a year. Similarly, crossing some Federal 
lands in that area also delayed that process.
    In the Black Hills, when Senator Thune was here with us 
earlier, again, next to Wyoming, numerous issues in getting 
service out there because of some of the Federal designations. 
Not being able to--for example, there was a road going up a 
canyon. There was no right of way for the road because the road 
was built on Federal lands. So, there was really no place for 
us to run the broadband, and hence, people up the canyon, no 
broadband.
    Senator Lummis. You are identifying the issues that are 
holding Wyoming back, and I am very grateful for your testimony 
today. And thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this 
hearing. It is just critical to my State of Wyoming. Madam 
Chair, I yield back.
    The Chair. Thank you, thank you. It is so critical to lots 
of aspects of the United States. I think we are going to have 
Senator Rosen online in a few minutes, but while we are waiting 
for her, I think I will just jump in here on a few points from 
earlier.
    Mr. O'Reilly, one of the issues that was brought up was 
just satellite services, and obviously, you were an advocate 
for that, at the FCC, I think.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I did not want it excluded from the 
front part. I thought they had the right to be able to prove 
that their technology should be considered. And what our draft 
rules at the time would say, ``No, we are not even going to 
consider it. They are excluded.'' And I thought it was only 
right that they be able to prove--they, supposedly, and I was 
not part of the--I was not brought into the process. They, 
supposedly, were able to prove that to the staff and then, were 
able to--on particular proprietor was able to bid in the RDOF 
and receive funding.
    The Chair. What do you think about that as an application 
for whatever you want to call it--the 2 percent, the some 
percent of America? I loved hearing from Mr. Forde today 
because, you know, in a lot of ways, the central part of 
Washington might be a little bit like that, but certainly not 
the far east into Palouse, and certainly not out on the Olympic 
Peninsula. We have mountains, we have forests, we have all 
sorts of problems. But, so what do you think about satellite--
--
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I have been in----
    The Chair.--for a solution to very hard to serve areas?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I have been impressed with what the plans 
have been by a number of the lower satellite offerings. I have 
experienced Starlink. I went--it took 3 minutes to set up, in a 
rooftop in DC, and the service is 150 meg, instantly. So, I was 
impressed by that.
    Now, to the point Mr. Ali--or, Dr. Ali has made, we do not 
know about the scalability. We also do not know if the business 
model will work, and then, you have costs in terms of the 
equipment. But in terms of, you know, filling a need of those 
that have absolutely nothing, and they call it, you know, 
basically, best of what you can get, kind of thing. I think 
that is very impressive and it will only increase over time.
    Who is going to succeed? I do not know. There are three or 
four or five different satellite providers. Everyone thinks 
there is room for probably two, but they will always say it is 
me and this other guy, and they will all disagree on who that 
is.
    The Chair. Right, I hear you on that one. So, to me, this 
issue about competition is an important one, because we 
obviously want to have competition, because competition does 
drive down cost. I mean, a lot of people would say, even within 
the urban environment, we do not have enough competition. That 
is one of the reasons why we have such high prices for 
broadband, overall. And then, there is the issue of where the 
market just is not working at all--market failure, as Dr. Ali 
has mentioned. And so, Dr. Ali, I wondered if you could focus a 
little bit on that, on the market failure side. I mean, to me, 
when you put in the Universal Service Fund, when you put in 
spectrum that was given previously, not the most recent ones, 
but you know, you have a lot that we have invested in already. 
So, how do we get efficiencies here? How do we get 
efficiencies?
    Dr. Ali. That is a great question, Senator, and Madam 
Chair, thank you. How do we get efficiencies when it comes to 
serving, or getting service to, the most unconnected? You know, 
one of the things I am thinking about, is in my home State of 
Virginia I have talked to a number of counties and they are 
excited. They actually won--they have a little bit of money. 
They are struggling to find a provider--a dance partner, as it 
were, and even though they have got these incentives in place.
    Something that is near and dear to my own heart is, you 
know, opening up opportunities for municipalities and counties 
to fund networks and organize networks themselves, in the form 
of municipal broadband. I think that that has proven to be a 
really interesting component, if we think about layering the 
different types of providers. So, I would love to see the 
regulatory barriers, in so many states, toward municipal 
broadband and county broadband be eliminated to allow counties 
and municipalities to drive their own future.
    The Chair. And how would that help with the other aspect of 
the dilemma where we have, you know, basically given green 
lights, or we have had broadband deployment, only to have it 
reach a community, but basically have the cost--you know, you 
have no takers because the cost is so high? What do we do in 
that case?
    Dr. Ali. Another great question. I would love to see a 
mandate where all providers have to have a low-cost option. I 
believe that Jon Sallett had said that $10 a month is what the, 
you know, lowest earning household can afford. Especially if we 
are thinking about making the Emergency Broadband Benefit 
Package permanent, maybe, at $50 a month, we need to make sure 
that there are plans, that there are tiers available that that 
can cover. So, I think that next step will be about pricing and 
making sure that those who are using these programs can 
actually afford services.
    The Chair. Well, I think this becomes even more complex 
with the world of, you had called it, you know 5 years ago, 
``cord cutting''. Now, I call it just, you know, more efficient 
adjustments to homes of getting what Internet service they 
want. So, I mean, we have a lot of transformation going on at 
the same time. That is why this is, I believe, challenging, 
just because you have so much transformation.
    And you also do not want to leave anybody behind to new 
applications. You do not want to preclude somebody from being 
the next center of focus. You know, we have an area of our 
State in the Columbia Gorge, which is a very challenged 
geographic area. Most beautiful area, it has got a national 
designation. But they were able to pull off very significant 
drone development, that ended up playing major roles for us in 
the United States. Very rural, hard to serve area, but they 
had, like, nine T1s back in the 90s and were able to pull off 
the kind of infrastructure that needed, for that rural 
community, to basically, you know, really produce quite, a very 
important aspect of technology development.
    So, we do not want to preclude that from happening. Yes, 
Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I was only going to say, I am not--I do not 
agree on terms of the mandate of the basic tier, was his 
suggestion, or in terms of rate regulation. What I do think is, 
maybe, is looking at the program that this committee set up, in 
terms of EBB, in terms of--it is almost a voucher program. And 
that being the supplement to, or, maybe, replacing the current 
LifeLine program.
    So, how do you directly get the benefit to consumers that 
may need the affordability issue? I think it is critical to 
address the affordability issue, but I think there are ways to 
go about it versus some of the government structure that my 
colleague may have----
    The Chair. Well, I hope we can--you know, I think Dr. Ali 
has mentioned some other--you know, he has mentioned rural 
electrification. There was a point at which we just said, we 
are going to get there, and we are going to get there the 
cheapest possible way we can get there, for the hardest-to-
serve population. So, I think we will have to look at that.
    I think Senator Rosen is available?

                STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN, 
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

    Senator Rosen. I am. Thank you, Madam Chair, for waiting 
for me to vote, I surely appreciate it. And thank you to all 
the witnesses, of course, for being here today and for what you 
do, what you are working on. And it is really important to this 
discussion to make sure that everybody has what they need to 
really thrive in the coming century and overcome all the 
challenges and obstacles that we have to face.
    And so, we need to be sure that we have proper definitions 
and good Federal investment. And we see that because, over the 
course of the pandemic, broadband has played a role in almost 
every aspect of our lives, from education to healthcare to 
work. Congress has responded. We have increased our focus on 
expanding broadband access efforts, of course, I have strongly 
supported.
    But how we define--how we characterize broadband access 
also has a significant impact on policy development and 
resource allocation. As we discussed a little during Ranking 
Member Wicker's question, defining terms like, unserved and 
underserved, those can have real significant implications on 
where we invest our Federal dollars and how we do bring 
broadband to everyone.
    So, in 2009, Congress defined under--unserved, excuse me, 
as any home or business that has broadband speed of less than 
10 megabits down, 1 megabit up, and underserved as, any home 
having speeds between 10/1 and 25/3. Twelve years and one 
global pandemic later, current FCC and USDA programs continue 
to use those same definitions to target critical dollars to 
deploy our broadband infrastructure. Despite the demands on 
connectivity, like, telemedicine, and just ever---the needs for 
ever increasing speed in everything that we do.
    So, for everyone on the panel, the pandemic has changed, 
for sure, what it means to be unserved, or certainly 
underserved, in terms of broadband access. So, should we 
revisit the definitions and update them on a regular basis, as 
no community gets behind? But of course, technology is 
constantly changing. What are more appropriate benchmarks, do 
you think, for us to use to define a community as it is served 
by its broadband network? So, Dr. Ali, I guess you could start 
us off and then, we could go down the line.
    Dr. Ali. Absolutely. Thank you very much for the question, 
Senator. As I have said, I am a big proponent of the 100/100 
symmetric definition. I think what they allows is that we are 
looking--we are connecting our communities with forward-looking 
technologies. We are connecting our communities with forward-
looking speeds, rather than wiring our communities to something 
that is just good enough for the time being, and then, leaving 
them to fend for themselves. So, I think 100/100 as a 
definition.
    Senator Rosen. Mr. O'Rielly?
    Mr. O'Rielly. To your answer, and I respect and agree with 
a lot of things you said, but I would not change the speed 
threshold, at this time.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. Mr. Wilkins?
    Mr. Wilkins. I think if the history of broadband shows us 
one thing is that we always tend to underestimate what is going 
to be needed a few years from now. I, therefore, think about it 
more as a question of what infrastructure can scale to meet 
future needs efficiently versus can we just pick a point today 
and say, this is now the right number? And so, I think the 
performance criteria we think about for these investments might 
want to consider scalability almost as a separate metric versus 
a given speed target on a given day.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. And Mr. Forde?
    Mr. Forde. We should keep them where they are at, until 
those folks, that are truly unserved get broadband. Those 
speeds are more than sufficient. Again, as we have mentioned 
before, the consumer, even during this pandemic, the number 
one, you know, driver of traffic is still, you know, 
downloading streaming services, such as Netflix. If downloads 
are still 14 to 16 times higher, regardless of the technology, 
it is just not something that the consumers are asking for, and 
not something we need to go by 100 symmetrical speeds for, at 
this time.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you. I would like to just follow up 
with one last question. And I want to talk about supporting our 
State's efforts. You know, I am proud to represent Nevada. It 
is a state with a mix of vibrant urban centers and vast rural 
areas. More than 80 percent of our land in Nevada is federally 
owned or managed. Deploying broadband, therefore requires 
substantial Federal and state coordination, cooperation between 
the numerous state and Federal stakeholders. So, for this 
reason, Nevada's Office of Science, Innovation, and Technology, 
their broadband office is on the ground advising communities, 
coordinating with Federal, state, and private industry.
    So, through both the COVID relief bill we passed in 
December, and the American Rescue Plan that President Biden 
signed into law last week, Congress has made significant 
investments to expand broadband across the country. So, I want 
to ask Dr. Ali and Mr. Wilkins, as we continue to build on 
those investments, how important is it to give states the 
flexibility they need, states like mine who have to deal with 
DOD and BLM and DOE, Department of Interior, you name it? We 
have unique challenges in every state to expand our broadband 
access and how can we help facilitate, better coordinate, 
across all areas of government and broadband deployment?
    Dr. Ali. That is a great question, Senator, thank you for 
asking it. I am a big proponent of the importance of state 
broadband offices, exactly like you just said in your home 
State of Nevada. I think that they can perform incredible roles 
as being, kind of, information wholesalers, and bringing 
different stakeholders together, and even identifying 
stakeholders who may not realize that they are stakeholders, at 
the time. So, I really think, you know, I would encourage every 
state to have a robust and well-funded state broadband office, 
to really diagnose the needs of their communities and counties.
    Senator Rosen. Thank you, and Mr. Wilkins.
    Mr. Wilkins. Senator, in the RDOF process, I worked with 
states ranging from California to Alabama and in between. And I 
would just say first, the current Federal environment, it is 
hard for states and their local stakeholders to navigate, just 
as you said. The opportunity is so important, though, if there 
are going to be substantial Federal investments, I mean, first 
point, those are not going to be probably until next year. 
Separate from the mapping, I mean, we are just at a point where 
Congress has not decided if new funds will be made available. 
Even things like RDOF II or 5G Fund I think are on track for, 
probably, next year, not this year.
    Having states have funds now, to start those plans, to 
amplify the impact of Federal investments somewhat down the 
road, is just a huge opportunity because challenges, state by 
state, are different.
    Senator Rosen. Well, thank you. I appreciate it and, Madam 
Chair, I see my time is over. Thank you so much.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, 
                     U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH

    Senator Lee. The recent American Rescue Plan, the same 
legislation just mentioned a moment ago, appropriated $350 
billion to state and local governments. The statutory texts at 
issue permitted this funding to be used to ``make necessary 
investments in water, sewer, or broadband infrastructure''. To 
my knowledge, there were no limits placed in the statutory 
texts around the vague broad phrase, investments in broadband 
infrastructure.
    Mr. O'Rielly, is overbuilding of broadband networks a 
possibility from this language? And how does overbuilding 
affect the overall broadband market, that is, how does it 
affect market competition?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Subsidized overbuilding, which this would be, 
absolutely is likely to come from this. We have already seen a 
number of entities raise their hand and say, I want that money 
to go for broadband purposes, in areas that they already have 
networks. So, it will depress the existing provider, 
potentially--in small instances or with smaller providers, 
potentially threaten their viability to serve. It could 
certainly steal the major businesses in the area, that they 
rely on to be the funding source for going forward.
    So, subsidized overbuilding is incredibly problematic for 
areas--these are areas that we--you know, we generally say that 
we are trying to target the unserved population, where you 
cannot have one, you know, one provider does not exist without 
subsidies. But here, you are talking about money going to 
wherever they want, within a state--incredibly problematic. 
There are no limitations. I am hopeful that they will appear 
and, maybe because of reconciliation they could not be added 
but it is incredibly problematic.
    Senator Lee. There are private sector business interests at 
companies that spend billions of dollars, in the form of 
investments, in their own broadband networks. Is that safe to 
say?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely.
    Senator Lee. So, what is the effect of Federal spending on 
private sector investment in this area? Is there a disincentive 
that is created by that?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely, and it also targets which 
markets they may go into, based on what the activity of the 
state is. So, if a state has been, you know, given carte 
blanche and, therefore, they are going to use these dollars for 
broadband, to overbuild, then you are going to see dollars go 
elsewhere and the consumers trying to compete with these two 
systems down.
    Senator Lee. Separate and apart from what it might choke 
out, is this increased Federal spending something that has the 
capacity to artificially divert resources toward inefficient 
purposes?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, absolutely, in some instances you would 
see the providers react and try to, you know, compete against 
this government network, in some instances, if it is--or 
whoever has been picked to be the winner, build out this new 
provider. And you may see them dedicate resources, and lower 
the cost in some instances, to try and compete against it and 
that would be an inefficient mechanism that the government is 
causing.
    Senator Lee. Let us talk about the video marketplace for a 
minute. Our current video marketplace is governed by Title 6 of 
the Communications Act, and it dates mostly back to a law that 
Congress passed back in 1992. But technology has, of course, 
changed rather considerably since 1992, and now, the same wire 
that used to just bring video into American homes, is also 
bringing a whole host of other services, as well. Would you 
agree that Congress really ought to be taking up reforms to 
Title 6, and that doing so could help in our efforts to bring 
more effective broadband deployment?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Yes, absolutely, I support--if I were to 
spend--you know, if I were still at the Commission, that was 
something I was going to spend more time on. I think it is 
absolutely critical that we recognize the vast number of 
competitors that are, you know, that are not regulated by Title 
6, competing against those that are, and the relief that should 
be provided to existing providers--legacy providers, existing. 
Those that have the network, you know, versus this streaming 
company's, and otherwise in other technologies, whether it be 
wireless, or else wise.
    So, I absolutely agree that Title 6 should be reformed and 
should be high on the priority list.
    Senator Lee. Do you have anything, within your priority 
list, of things that we ought to try to tackle first, in that 
area?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Oh, in that area? Yes, I would happy to be 
follow up with you, in terms of different ideas that we should 
look at, in terms of reform. There are a bunch of things that, 
you know, first priority would be, like, scrape away any 
existing regulation, or statutory obligation that makes, no 
longer, any sense.
    Senator Lee. Right.
    Mr. O'Rielly. Two, would be to completely revamp that title 
to reflect the current marketplace. And those decisions have to 
be reflected in other decisions the Commission makes, whether 
it be media ownership, whether it be how DOD--DOJ, excuse me, 
treats the marketplace, so those things can flow through in 
other instances.
    Senator Lee. And, Mr. O'Rielly, what are the top spectrum 
policy changes that you think Congress ought to undertake now, 
if we are to have an hope in being able to compete with the 
rest of the world in deploying next generation technologies?
    Mr. O'Rielly. Well, I do believe that the Congress and 
certainly the FCC, will have these fights going forward, but we 
are going to need to reallocate additional Federal spectrum, 
that is used by agencies, to commercial purposes. That has been 
a long going fight. You and I have talked about the valuation 
bill that you have been so leading the charge on, and so 
appreciative. But those fights are going to continue because 
the demand for wireless services is going to continue to 
increase. And the benefits from those networks, not only just 
in terms of consumer benefit, but also, the emergency 
communications and everything that goes from that, and the 
decreased need on the federally--the more efficiency needed 
from the Federal agencies is absolutely critical. And we are 
going to have that fight. And so, I would be decreasing the 
amount of spectrum allocated for Federal purposes.
    Senator Lee. Would it be an overstatement to suggest that 
our biggest single impediment there might well be the 
government's own misuse, mismanagement of its own spectrum 
allocations?
    Mr. O'Rielly. I think you worded it very well.
    Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    The Chair. Thank you, Senator Lee. Well, that is all the 
members, I believe that are scheduled to ask questions. So, 
unless somebody is going to pop up here on one of the remotes, 
that we do not know about. But certainly, want to thank you all 
for your testimony.
    We did not get to really a good debate round on shared use 
issues, but I am sure this last question, kind of, primes the 
pump for that. A lot to talk about there, including, how do we 
all get comfortable, when we talk about coordination of those 
agencies. And we also have to talk about the coordination of 
use agencies, which has not seemed to go so well in the last 
few rounds. And I do not really think we want to be the arbiter 
of last resort, the Congress. I do not think that serves us 
well. But, at the same time, I think we need to figure out how 
we are going to have engineers at various multiple agencies get 
on the same page.
    So, but we will leave that one for the record. We will get 
some comments on shared use and efficiencies in shared use and 
engineering--whatever we want to call it, ``engineering 
agreement'', something of that nature. How we get people on the 
same page, at least with the scientific data, so that we can 
all feel comfortable in moving forward.
    But this has been a very illuminating hearing. I thank the 
witnesses. We will keep the record open for two weeks, until 
March 31, 2021. Any Senators wanting to submit questions for 
the record, for the witnesses, should do so by that date. And 
we ask that you respond to us, to the Committee, by April 14, 
2021.
    With that, that concludes our hearing, and again, thank 
you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                                                  USTelecom
                                                     March 17, 2021
Hon. Maria Cantwell,
Chair,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Hon. Roger Wicker,
Ranking Member,
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.

Dear Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker:

    Thank you for holding today's hearing to examine recent Federal 
actions to expand broadband coverage and for your continued leadership 
to increase opportunity and economic activity through 21st century 
connectivity.
    USTelecom proudly represents broadband providers, suppliers and 
technology innovators in every corner of the country. Our broadband 
networks have been resilient and fully capable of carrying the surge in 
high bandwidth traffic during the last year, but this means little to 
the millions who lack broadband access or simply cannot afford service 
in the first place. We recognize the digital divide is not solely an 
issue of access, but of affordability and adoption as well.
    The Committee has made meaningful progress in tackling a range of 
connectivity policy issues, and I commend you for holding your first 
hearing not related to nominations this Congress on broadband 
deployment and Federal efforts to incentivize the closing of the 
digital divide.
    USTelecom and our members are staunch advocates for this critical 
direct spending on broadband infrastructure. The important Federal 
investments in broadband over the past few months can help achieve our 
shared goal, but only if this funding is spent with precision and 
coordination among all Federal and state government agencies.
    Additionally, thank you for including an analysis of actions taken 
to enhance Federal coordination among various programs as a priority in 
the notice for this hearing. As Congress considers additional resources 
in high cost and otherwise unserved parts of our country, we 
respectfully believe more can be done to avoid waste and prevent 
overbuilding existing support programs so that every new dollar reaches 
truly unserved communities as efficiently and quickly as possible.
    Two areas where I encourage the Committee to continue to focus 
include:
Updated and data driven, 21st century broadband maps
    Thanks to the Broadband DATA Act, updating and modernizing our 
Nation's broadband coverage maps is currently underway and incremental 
results should be available from the FCC later this year. These maps 
must guide the distribution of the historic and essential funding 
Congress has approved to reach the unconnected.
    We should also learn from past attempts to fund these areas that 
resulted in better broadband for a few, but no broadband for many. 
These investments must be made based on data to ensure this will be 
game-changing and connect the communities most in need.
Stringent interagency coordination
    The USDA, the Department of Commerce and the FCC, along with 
various stimulus grants over the years, have prioritized serving the 
highest number of eligible locations possible through their broadband 
programs. While this goal seems like a good one, the reality is it 
results in funding the same locations over and over again while leaving 
unconnected locations without connectivity.
    To ``avoid'' overbuilding, each program continually raises the 
definition of unserved, based on a minimum speed requirement. By doing 
so, new programs can essentially overbuild the same locations covered 
by previous programs by simply upgrading speeds to the locations that 
are less expensive and easier to serve. The fast get faster and the 
unconnected stay unconnected.
    Truly closing the digital divide means first connecting the 
unconnected, before increasing speeds for those who already have 
service. To accomplish this goal, we must ensure that all government 
broadband programs, both Federal and state, are using the same sets of 
data and minimum speed requirements when identifying unconnected 
locations. Explicit and binding interagency coordination will close the 
digital divide while ensuring the efficient allocation of funds by 
avoiding funding duplication.
    As Congress moves forward with this critical work, we should 
identify and modify whatever inefficiencies exist. We are glad today's 
hearing will focus on those issues most in need of improvement.
    We also hope the Committee will focus on what we know is the most 
efficient way to allocate finite resources: public private 
partnerships. Working together, government and industry innovators have 
shown how these partnerships are the most proven and efficient way to 
competitively distribute government funds to connect American 
communities.
    Broadband plays an essential role in any plan to lift Americans up 
and move our Nation forward. USTelecom members are committed to 
continuing to work side-by-side with government partners to build and 
invest in these networks, and bring high-speed broadband deeper into 
all corners of America. We look forward to working with you to ensure 
all in America are connected to world-class communications 
infrastructure.
            Sincerely,
                                          Jonathan Spalter,
                             President and Chief Executive Officer.
                                 ______
                                 
    Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to 
                        Hon. Michael P. O'Rielly
    Question 1. AT&T recently announced it would cancel its free 
wireless data services for all of its subscribers nationwide because of 
California's net neutrality law. In your view, has the performance of 
broadband networks in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic 
demonstrated a need for reclassifying Internet Service Providers as 
common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act? Why or why 
not?
    Answer. Absolutely not. It should be commonly accepted that, for 
the most part, America's broadband networks as a whole were able to 
withstand extensive pressure and increased use during the pandemic. 
This all occurred without the constraints of Net Neutrality rules and 
mandates. Indeed, America's broadband providers had years of market 
certainty combined with the absence of unnecessary and burdensome 
restrictions, which are the hallmark of Net Neutrality, to invest and 
build out their networks to meet and exceed consumer demand during the 
pandemic.

    Question 2. How does the cancellation of free wireless data 
services due to California's net neutrality law benefit consumers?
    Answer. I don't believe that it does. The elimination of zero 
rating services by AT&T in response to California's Net Neutrality 
restrictions highlights a disconnect between the supposed virtues of 
Net Neutrality and the practical market realities that service 
providers must face in trying to comply with such statutory or 
regulatory obligations. Zero rating services can bring enormous 
benefits to consumers and should not be rejected by consumer advocates 
or punished as anti-competitive or unfair to other providers.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 

                        Hon. Michael P. O'Rielly
    Question 1. In March 2020, Congress unanimously passed and 
President Trump signed into law the Broadband DATA Act. The FCC began 
implementing some of the required changes through the FCC's Digital 
Opportunity Data Collection. I applaud the recent actions of Acting 
Chairwoman Rosenworcel to implement the Broadband DATA Act and forming 
the Broadband Data Task Force at the Commission. Once the FCC completes 
their new broadband availability maps, would it be beneficial to have 
other Federal agencies--that administer broadband-related programs--
work off the same maps? Would this benefit coordination between the 
agencies?
    Answer. Absolutely. As currently provided by Congress, multiple 
Federal Departments and Agencies are allocating funding for broadband 
networks--and yet are all operating under different structures and 
procedures. This increases the likelihood that funding is being used 
for the extremely harmful practice of subsidized overbuilding of 
existing broadband networks rather than focusing on those Americans 
without access. Despite the well noted problems with the FCC maps, the 
awarding of other funding streams is less justifiable or defensible. 
Requiring every Federal Department or Agency allocating broadband 
funding to use a common set of maps would be a major improvement over 
current mechanisms.

    Question 2. In December, Congress created the $3.2 billion 
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBBP). This program will provide 
temporary relief to eligible households with a $50 monthly discount to 
help them afford their broadband service. I am happy to see that the 
FCC finalized the rules for this program in February and is expected to 
open the program to eligible households soon. Depending on how the EBBP 
is implemented, do you see this program improving broadband adoption? 
Do you believe this complements efforts by ISPs in providing low-cost 
service to underserved communities? In your testimony, you mention that 
the EBBP could be a more appropriate model to address affordability and 
adoption issues. What would be your recommendations on how the program 
should be implemented to address those two issues?
    Answer. Certainly the Lifeline program has faced considerable 
problem in structure and implementation and moving away from it as the 
sole affordability solution for technology cost makes a great deal of 
sense. Depending on how the EBB is implemented and received by 
recipients, I believe that the EBB could be looked as the start of a 
more permanent program to deal with Internet affordability and adoption 
issues. Such a program could nicely complement or possibly supplant 
programs operated by the private sector. If the EBB does gain necessary 
traction, it may need to be fined tuned with respect different Internet 
costs throughout our Nation to offer service. Additionally, a more 
seamless integration into other social welfare programs would make it 
more effective. And, it's funding source, from my opinion, should 
remain with the Federal government rather than being usurped into the 
Commission's contribution mess. As an aside, Internet adoption levels 
will always remain challenging, as cost is only one reason why some 
Americans do not subscribe for service.

    Question 3. In December, the FCC announced the winning bidders in 
the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) Phase I which built upon the 
lessons learned from both phases of the Connect America Fund (CAF). 
Thankfully, through the reverse auction, nine separate providers 
received support in West Virginia and my state is set to receive $362 
million in total support. As one of the Commissioners approving the 
RDOF auction, what are some of lessons learned from previous the high 
cost programs? What would be your recommendations to the current 
Commission to avoid the pitfalls of the past?
    Answer. While RDOF winning bidder long forms are still being 
reviewed, it is certainly appropriate to examine the lessons learned 
from the auction and its overall structure. In my mind, the key that 
made RDOF so significant is it's focus on those areas without any 
Internet access--i.e., the unserved. Much of the prior Commission work 
centered on upgrading service for those that had access. RDOF showed 
that there is great interest by the private sector in competing and 
bringing service to hard to serve areas--often at speeds much higher 
than anticipated. In addition, the program, like CAF II, rightfully 
allowed any technology meeting the Commission standards to participate 
rather than relying on incumbent providers, promoting competition among 
technologies and lowering overall program costs. This feature will 
continue to be debated going forward as there appears to be a fixation 
among some policy makers for fiber technology at any cost. My 
recommendation for future Commissions is to do the hard work, embrace 
reverse auctions, promote technology neutrality, and avoid the 
political race for higher speeds.
                                 ______
                                 
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to 
                              Justin Forde
    Question. The Rural eConnectivity Pilot Program (ReConnect) is the 
USDA's latest program to deploy broadband in rural communities and 
focuses on areas with the most need. As a member of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee, I have been able to secure funding for this 
program during the appropriations process because of the need I 
continue to see in my state. In your testimony, you mention that the 
efforts taken to close the digital divide could be thwarted by 
redefining what it means to be ``unserved.'' Could you expand on that? 
Why is it important to narrowly focus funding to areas that currently 
do not receive a basic level of service? If the ``unserved'' was 
redefined to a higher standard, is it more likely that precious Federal 
funding would be directed towards new broadband projects or would it go 
to upgrading existing networks?
    Answer. Efforts to close the digital divide could be thwarted by 
proposals to redefine what it means to have broadband service 
available. When eligibility is targeted to areas that do not yet even 
receive a basic level of broadband service, such as 25/3 Mbps, we know 
that funding will be used to bring broadband where it did not 
previously exist. To communities and households who truly have nothing. 
But when areas are defined as eligible for funding unless they have a 
higher level of service--such as recent proposals suggesting an 
increase to an arbitrary speed threshold like 100/100 Mbps--this means 
that many areas where we and others have invested heavily, including 
through public/private partnership programs, are suddenly considered 
``unserved.'' Providers will naturally apply for funding to serve these 
newly eligible areas, because those are the places that are easiest to 
build and serve. This would mean that areas that already have robust 
broadband service, including gigabit service, would be newly eligible 
for funding, increasing the likelihood that funds would be siphoned 
away from areas that are not economical to reach, and have struggled 
for years to attract broadband deployment. The result would be that 
those lacking broadband service today will still lack broadband service 
tomorrow, even after billions of dollars in funding are spent. We 
believe these proposals should be reconsidered. For example, in my home 
rural state of North Dakota, which shares some similarities with West 
Virginia on the difficulties and cost to deploy broadband in rural and 
remote areas, here is what happened with the USDA ReConnect program: 
ReConnect applications to USDA are flowing in for highly populated 
area's that already have broadband at speeds of up to 25/3 Mbps. 
Applications are not coming in for the area's that have 0/0. Thus 
redefining ``unserved'' will not close the digital divide and only lead 
to more applications from providers for customers for those who already 
have high-speed broadband.