[Senate Hearing 117-438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-438
OVERSIGHT OF THE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA,
AND BROADBAND
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,
SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 9, 2022
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
55-621 PDF WASHINGTON : 2024
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND 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
Lila Helms, 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
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, MEDIA, AND BROADBAND
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico, Chair JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ranking
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota ROY BLUNT, Missouri
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TED CRUZ, Texas
BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts JERRY MORAN, Kansas
GARY PETERS, Michigan DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois TODD YOUNG, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana MIKE LEE, Utah
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
JOHN HICKENLOOPER, Colorado Virginia
RAPHAEL WARNOCK, Georgia RICK SCOTT, Florida
CYNTHIA LUMMIS, Wyoming
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on June 9, 2022..................................... 1
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 3
Statement of Senator Wicker...................................... 8
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 13
Statement of Senator Fischer..................................... 14
Statement of Senator Schatz...................................... 16
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 18
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 20
Statement of Senator Moran....................................... 22
Statement of Senator Cantwell.................................... 24
Statement of Senator Lee......................................... 26
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 28
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 30
Statement of Senator Cruz........................................ 32
Statement of Senator Sullivan.................................... 36
Statement of Senator Hickenlooper................................ 39
Statement of Senator Markey...................................... 40
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 42
Witnesses
Hon. Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.................... 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Appendix
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Alan Davidson by:
Hon. Raphael Warnock......................................... 47
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 49
Hon. Kyrsten Sinema.......................................... 50
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan........................................... 52
Hon. John Hickenlooper....................................... 54
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 56
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 60
Hon. Roy Blunt............................................... 64
Hon. Dan Sullivan............................................ 67
Hon. Marsha Blackburn........................................ 68
Hon. Todd Young.............................................. 70
Hon. Mike Lee................................................ 71
Hon. Ron Johnson............................................. 74
Hon. Shelley Moore Capito.................................... 75
Hon. Rick Scott.............................................. 78
Hon. Jerry Moran............................................. 79
OVERSIGHT OF THE
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2022
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband,
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray
Lujan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lujan [presiding], Cantwell, Klobuchar,
Blumenthal, Schatz, Markey, Peters, Baldwin, Tester, Sinema,
Rosen, Hickenlooper, Warnock, Thune, Wicker, Blunt, Cruz,
Fischer, Moran, Sullivan, Blackburn, Young, Lee, Capito, and
Scott.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. The Subcommittee on Communications, Media
and Broadband on Oversight of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration. I want to thank Ranking Member
Thune for being a part of this important hearing and the work
that he continues to do every day.
And I want to thank you, Administrator Davidson, for your
willingness to provide testimony and be available today. Thank
you for your work. Now, the last time the Senate Commerce
Committee heard testimony from anyone at NTIA was June 13,
2018, nearly 4 years ago. The years since have transformed our
understanding of broadband, telecommunications, and the promise
of technology.
In New Mexico and across the Nation, work, school, health
care, and connecting with loved ones moved online faster than
we could have ever anticipated. This shift highlighted how
dangerous and disadvantageous the lack of access to high speed
and affordable broadband can be. New Mexico families know the
difference between fast internet, slow internet, and no
internet.
And unfortunately, a lot of families across America know
the difference, too. As a Nation, we will no longer tolerate
stories of working families unable to access work, students
forced to drive miles just to do their homework at a
McDonald's, patients cutoff from essential health services.
Now, Congress recognized this in a bipartisan manner, and
we all worked to fix it. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act made a $65 billion investment to expand broadband access--
affordability and access. This is the single greatest
investment to expand broadband infrastructure we have made as a
Nation.
Congress chose the National Telecom and Information
Administration, and everyone watching today is going to hear
about the NTIA quite a bit if they don't already know what it
is, to oversee the majority of these ambitious goals. However,
NTIA's responsibilities range far beyond broadband access.
As the coordinator for the Federal Government's use of
spectrum, NTIA manages Federal participation in a limited and
valuable public resource critical for aviation, defense, and
scientific discovery. Effectively, managing Federal spectrum is
essential to ensuring Americans have access to emergency
services, telecommunication devices, and in many cases, access
to broadband at home.
The NTIA also plays a critical role in public safety,
supporting FirstNet, next generation 9-1-1, and our Nation's
first responders. Administrator Davidson has already proven
that he is well equipped to lead NTIA during this historic
moment, and I look forward to his testimony. Now, in this
capacity, I have three points I want to urge the
Administration--or Administrator Davidson to consider as we
begin the first Senate oversight hearing of the NTIA in the
117th Congress.
First, NTIA must stay focused on closing the digital divide
for all Americans. Broadband access relies on both availability
and adoption. For some communities, affordability has been and
will remain the most pressing obstacle for ensuring adoption.
For others, ensuring availability through high quality future
proof fiber is the solution. And for others, deployment of
wireless technology capable across challenging terrain must be
prioritized.
No single solution is going to work for all Americans, and
I am glad to see that the Administrator understands this,
recognizes, and that is how we are moving forward. Second, NTIA
must work closely with the FCC, with USDA, with OMB, and other
agencies to accomplish its mission.
BEAD is the newest, but there are 133 Federal programs
administered across 15 agencies that support broadband access.
Administrator Davidson, your leadership in guiding the
Administration toward developing a cohesive broadband strategy
is critical. NTIA, in coordination with the Office of the
President, has a responsibility to ensure that the Executive
Branch effectively presents its priorities for tech and telecom
to Congress. We have seen the risk when internal conflicts
offsets progress and coordination breaks down.
Spectrum management, mapping, affordability, each of these
priorities require NTIA to be an effective partner with
Congress and its sister agencies with an effective leader
within the executive branch. Now third, NTIA must ensure
investments in connectivity are made effectively, efficiently,
and in the best interests of the community they serve.
NTIA's mission to support a secure, private, free, and open
communication is critical for protecting consumers. Industry
has made significant private investment to close the digital
divide. Despite the Federal Government's many programs to
provide broadband access, we still fall short.
Digital equity is essential. We must do more in rural
areas, tribal nations, and in urban areas with a history of
digital redlining. In a report released just last week, GAO
recommended NTIA identify key statutory provisions that limit
the reach of broadband. NTIA should offer legislative proposals
to address those limitations.
I look forward to continuing to work with you,
Administrator, and your team as this report is developed and to
clear any hurdles standing in the way of a comprehensive
telecommunications strategy, including both broadband and
spectrum. The programs you are administering are championed by
many members of the Subcommittee on both sides of the aisle.
I want to thank the Administrator for continuing to work
with us to identify challenges and find solutions. This is our
chance to get this right, to close the digital divide, and to
have a lasting impact on the prosperity, health, and well-being
of our Nation.
Without effective Administration by NTIA, we will not reach
this goal. And with that, I want to turn this over to our
friend, Ranking Member Thune, for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding the
hearing. It is an important hearing. Last time this committee
conducted its oversight responsibilities of the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration was in 2018
when I was still serving as Chairman of the Commerce Committee.
So I appreciate Assistant Secretary Davidson appearing
before the Subcommittee today. Despite NTIA's critical role in
advising the President of both domestic and international
telecommunications and information policy issues, NTIA has not
been authorized--reauthorized, I should say, since 1992.
Kind of hard to believe. Since that time, the digital
landscape has changed rapidly and the agency's role in
expanding communications services has increased significantly.
Ranking Member Wicker and I put forward a proposal this
Congress to reform NTIA's functions and structure.
Having a regular reauthorization or authorization, I should
say, of NTIA would ensure that the necessary Congressional
oversight of NTIA's budget and activities occur routinely, so
it is my hope that this committee can work together on
advancing that legislative effort. NTIA plays an essential role
in maintaining American leadership in 5G expansion.
Next generation telecommunications services like 5G will
require the identification of more spectrum, both licensed and
unlicensed, including spectrum currently allocated for Federal
use. We need to build on the successes of the MOBILE NOW Act
and Beat China for 5G Act in order for all Americans to reap
the benefits of these advanced wireless services.
Chairman Lujan and I introduced the Spectrum Innovation Act
to free up additional mid-band spectrum, and I look forward to
working with Chair Cantwell and Ranking Member Wicker on
advancing that legislation through this committee and getting
it signed into law. Freeing up additional spectrum also
requires proper coordination between NTIA, the FCC, and other
affected Federal agencies.
And I was pleased to join Senators Wicker, Blackburn, and
Lujan introducing the Improving Spectrum Coordination Act. This
legislation will ensure our Federal partners are effectively
managing our Nation's airwaves. In addition to its work on
expanding wireless services, NTIA will be a major driver in
fulfilling the Commerce Department shared goal with Congress in
expanding fixed broadband Internet services to all Americans.
Last year, through the Infrastructure Investment Jobs Act,
the Congress provided billions of dollars to NTIA to deploy
broadband services to unserved areas throughout the United
States. When Congress was debating the IIJA, I raised a number
of concerns with NTIA's ability to effectively and efficiently
manage such a large program given NTIA's past history in
expanding rural broadband services.
The last time Congress provided NTIA broadband funding, a
fraction, a fraction, I might add, of what is responsible for
managing today, the agency struggled with implementation, faced
staffing challenges and overbuild existing broadband networks,
resulting in billions of taxpayer dollars being spent with
little to show. And today, I remain deeply concerned about the
direction NTIA is taking with respect to broadband deployment.
Last month, NTIA released its notice of funding opportunity
for the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment or the BEAD
program. The NOFO contains many troubling components. Congress
directed NTIA to use the FCC's new maps in determining which
areas are unserved, and I would encourage NTIA to make their
funding allocations based on final FCC maps, not preliminary
ones that may be no better than the bad maps that we have had
spent years trying to correct.
Should you choose to move forward with the FCC's initial
maps before any challenge process occurs, NTIA runs the risk of
misallocating dollars, making it all the more likely that
states will overbuild existing networks at the taxpayers'
expense. The NOFO also favors certain applicants, which puts
the Government in charge of picking winners and losers. It is
puzzling that NTIA is prioritizing Government run networks and
nontraditional providers. These are entities with no proven
track record in deploying broadband networks.
NTIA should work on allowing states to adopt a technology
neutral approach and allow equal participation from all types
of broadband providers as long as they have met the objective
technical, financial, and operational standards to deploy
networks.
Finally, at a time when this Administration and Democrats'
inflation crisis is at a record high, the last thing any agency
should be doing is pursuing extraneous political goals that
will ultimately increase the costs for providers who are
deploying networks.
Just as other Federal agencies seem intent on doing under
this Administration, I am disappointed that NTIA is seeking to
score political points with certain constituencies by favoring
open access networks, promoting burdensome labor standards, and
focusing on other climate change initiatives.
I have heard firsthand from the folks who are building out
networks in my home state of South Dakota about the challenges
they face with respect to supply chain shortages and increased
construction costs, and the inclusion of any of these
unnecessary requirements will only exacerbate that problem.
I would strongly encourage you to work with states on
reducing the amount of regulatory burdens so that we can
maximize the impact of this funding and connect as many
Americans as possible. Thank you again, Assistant Secretary
Davidson, for coming before the Subcommittee today. I look
forward to discussing many of these issues with you. Mr.
Chairman, thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Thune. Now, I would like to
introduce our witness for today's hearing, the Honorable Alan
Davidson, Assistant Secretary for Communications and
Information, Administrator of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration at the United States Department
of Commerce.
The Senate confirmed Administrator Davidson to his position
on January 11, 2022. He is an Internet policy expert with over
20 years of experience as an executive, public interest
advocate, technologist, and attorney.
He previously served as the first ever Director of Digital
Economy at the U.S. Department of Commerce. I want to thank
Assistant Secretary Davidson for joining us today, and I look
forward to your testimony. And at this time, I will recognize
Mr. Davidson for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN DAVIDSON, ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION,
NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. Chairman Lujan, Chair Cantwell,
Ranking Member Thune, and members of the Subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to speak with you at this historic
moment for NTIA. By law, NTIA serves as the President's advisor
on telecommunications and information policy.
Today, NTIA's programs are expanding broadband Internet
access and adoption in America, promoting the use of spectrum
by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine
for continued innovation and economic growth. NTIA has many
responsibilities, as you have noted.
But this morning I will highlight our priorities and update
you on the progress that we have made since I was confirmed by
this chamber in January. Our top priority is closing the
digital divide. We have been talking about the digital divide
in this country for over 20 years.
Now, Congress, through the bipartisan infrastructure law
and the leadership of many on this subcommittee, has finally
given us the tools and our colleagues the tools to structurally
address this problem.
The law provided, as you know, $65 billion to help deliver
affordable, reliable, high speed Internet to every American.
NTIA was allocated $45--$48 billion of that total. I am pleased
to report, as Senator Thune noted, ahead of our statutory
deadlines on May 13, NTIA published funding notices for three
programs totaling over $45 billion in funding, our State grant
or BEAD program, the Middle Mile program, and the Digital
Equity program. Those notices are the product of months of hard
work.
They incorporate feedback from a wide array of
stakeholders, along with Members of Congress, Governors,
mayors, and other officials all working to close the digital
divide. Those notices are just the start of our efforts. I am
even more pleased to report that as of this week, 36 states and
territories have submitted letters of intent to participate in
the BEAD State grant program.
So we are off to the races now. In addition to these
programs, NTIA has been implementing the broadband funding
authorized in 2021. We have awarded more than $277 million in
grants for the broadband infrastructure program and another $83
million for tribal broadband connectivity. We expect to
announce a total of over $1 billion in tribal broadband and
connecting minority communities funding awards this summer.
NTIA's second major focus area is ensuring access to
spectrum. That includes meeting Federal--critical Federal
mission needs, while coordinating with the FCC to support
advanced wireless technologies and commercial needs for
spectrum. NTIA is committed to working toward a national
approach to spectrum that is well coordinated, that is evidence
based, and that promotes innovation to meet current and future
demands on spectrum. We have made great progress on this front
already.
In February, FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel and I launched the
Spectrum Coordination Initiative to improve coordination on
spectrum management and a national spectrum strategy between
our organizations. We have also launched a joint task force to
update our interagency memorandum of understanding for the
first time in 20 years.
And I am pleased to report that the Chairwoman and I have
spoken, and we are committed to having an updated version of
that MOU in place--in hand by the end of the month--the end of
next month. Finally NTIA supports secure, private, free, and
open communications around the world.
We are working to bolster our Nation's cyber security,
strengthen public safety communications, protect privacy, and
advocate for America's vision of free and open communications.
We are encouraging the adoption of Open RAN technology and
enhancing supplier diversity for secure 5G infrastructure
around the world, NTIA's leading efforts to enhance public
safety communications and next generation 9-1-1, as well as
supporting the first net authority for our Nation's first
responders.
We are protecting American interests globally by engaging
with standards and coordination bodies, including efforts this
year to support Doreen Bogdan Martin's election as Secretary
General of the ITU. Let me just close where I began, which is
with the digital divide. Generations before us brought
electricity and water to rural America. They built the
interstate highway system.
This is our generation's moment, to close the digital
divide and ensure that everyone in America has the connections
that they need to thrive in the modern digital economy. Thank
you for your time and your support and I look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Davidson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary for
Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Chairman Lujan, Chair Cantwell, Ranking Member Thune, Ranking
Member Wicker and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to speak with you today at this historic moment for NTIA.
By law, NTIA serves as the President's advisor on
telecommunications and information policy. Today NTIA's programs and
policymaking are expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in
America, promoting the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that
the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic
growth.
I am honored and humbled to lead NTIA at this pivotal moment. We
have been given a historic opportunity--thanks to bipartisan support
from Congress--to close the digital divide, create good-paying jobs,
promote equity and fairness, and enhance American competitiveness.
NTIA has many responsibilities, but today I will highlight our
priorities and update you on the progress we've made since I was
confirmed by this chamber in January.
Priority number one is closing the digital divide. Gaps in
broadband availability and in adoption, even where the infrastructure
is available, mean gaps in opportunity: fewer opportunities to learn
and work from home, remotely visit doctors, or stay connected with
family and friends. Achieving an equitable future means ensuring that
homes and businesses have high-quality connections at affordable
prices, and the means to use them.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provided $65 billion to help
deliver affordable, reliable, high-speed Internet to every American and
help close the digital divide. NTIA was allocated $48.2 billion of that
total.
To achieve these goals, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created
or expanded four programs at NTIA. The $42.5 billion Broadband Equity,
Access, and Deployment Program will fund infrastructure buildouts
needed to connect every American to reliable, high-speed, affordable
Internet. The law also provides NTIA with $2.75 billion for a program
to address digital inclusion and equity, and $1 billion for a program
to expand middle mile infrastructure. Our active Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program received an additional $2 billion to help further
our efforts with tribal communities.
I am pleased to report that on May 13th--ahead of our statutory
deadlines--NTIA announced $45 billion in funding by issuing the first
Notices of Funding Opportunity for three of these programs: the
Broadband, Equity Access, and Deployment Program, the Ensuring Middle
Mile Broadband Infrastructure Program, and the State Digital Equity
Planning Grant Program. In drafting the Notices of Funding Opportunity,
NTIA faithfully implemented the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. NTIA
reviewed and incorporated feedback from the broad array of stakeholders
who commented in response to our Request for Comment, as well as input
that we received from Members of Congress, Governors, Mayors, and other
elected officials throughout the country who are all working close the
digital divide. I am even more pleased to report that, as of this week,
36 states and territories across the country have submitted letters of
intent to participate in the Broadband, Equity Access, and Deployment
program.
In addition to these Bipartisan Infrastructure Law programs, NTIA
is working to implement the separate $1.5 billion in broadband grant
funding included as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2021. We have awarded 13 grants totaling more than $277 million as part
of the Broadband Infrastructure Program and have made another 33 awards
for $83 million from the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. On a
rolling basis this summer, we expect to announce a total of over $1
billion in Tribal broadband and Connecting Minority Communities Pilot
Program awards.
NTIA's second focus area is ensuring access to spectrum. NTIA
serves a critical role in ensuring the most effective and efficient use
of this scarce Federal resource across the Federal government. That
includes meeting critical Federal mission needs while coordinating with
the Federal Communications Commission to support advanced wireless
technologies, so we can realize the promise of next generation services
and connected devices. As I stated during my confirmation hearing, I am
committed to working toward a coordinated, national approach to
spectrum use, promoting evidence-based approaches to spectrum
allocation, and leaning on innovative new technology to ensure we meet
current and future demands.
We have made great progress already on this front. In February, one
of my first acts as Assistant Secretary was establishing the Spectrum
Coordination Initiative in conjunction with FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel.
The Initiative's purpose is to improve coordination on spectrum
management between our agencies, including regular high-level meetings
and renewed efforts to develop a National Spectrum Strategy. At our
inaugural meeting in March, we launched a joint task force for the
purposes of updating our interagency Memorandum of Understanding for
the first time in 20 years. I am pleased with our progress to date. We
continue to meet monthly to ensure that spectrum policy decisions
foster economic growth, ensure our national and homeland security,
maintain U.S. global leadership, and advance other vital U.S. needs.
Finally, NTIA supports secure, private, free and open
communications around the world. We are working to bolster our Nation's
cybersecurity, strengthen public safety communications, protect
privacy, and advocate for America's vision of free and open
communications. We are playing a leading role in the U.S. government's
efforts to increase market competitiveness and enhance supplier
diversity for secure 5G infrastructure, and working to accelerate the
adoption of Open RAN technologies in the United States and globally. I
also want to thank you for your work to advance the U.S. Innovation and
Competition Act, which would provide $1.5 billion in funding for the
NTIA-administered Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund.
NTIA is also leading efforts to enhance public safety
communications and Next Generation 911, as well as supporting the
FirstNet Authority for our Nation's first responders.
And we are working to ensure that our global communications systems
remain a positive force offering access to information, connection with
community, and economic opportunity. That includes support for the
election of Doreen Bogdan-Martin to Secretary General of the
International Telecommunication Union as a key U.S. government
priority.
All of these are ambitious goals. Given technology's growing role
in our lives, these priorities are about far more than communications
policy. They are about creating new jobs for Americans. They are about
public safety and national security. They are about improving equity
here at home. They are about competing on the global stage.
This is an exciting and historic moment for NTIA. I look forward to
working with this Subcommittee to execute our mission and deliver on
these promises to all Americans.
Thank you for your time, and I look forward to your questions.
Senator Lujan. Administrator, thank you so much for that
opening statement. Next, I want to recognize the Ranking Member
of the Full Committee, Senator Wicker, for his opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MISSISSIPPI
Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I will insert
my full statement in the record at this point, without
objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Roger Wicker, U.S. Senator from Mississippi
Good morning. Thank you, Senator Lujan and Senator Thune, for
convening this important hearing.
I am pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson back to
the Commerce Committee today. It has been a long time since we had a
Senate-confirmed head of the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and I am glad we have one now and
are able to resume these hearings.
NTIA advises the President on telecommunications policy, both
domestic and international. It is responsible for a range of important
activities, which include administration of broadband grants, Federal
spectrum management, participation in international telecommunications
forums, and development of Administration policy on issues like
privacy, copyright, and cybersecurity.
Congress recently gave NTIA a significant task: administering $48.2
billion to close the digital divide. The majority of that money--$42.45
billion--will go to states to award funding for broadband providers to
deploy broadband in unserved and underserved communities. The remainder
will go toward expanding broadband deployment on Tribal lands,
promoting digital equity and capacity, and developing middle-mile
networks.
It is vital that NTIA carefully administer these programs to ensure
they achieve their intended purposes. Past NTIA efforts have wasted
precious tax dollars overbuilding existing networks while doing little
to expand broadband to unserved communities. We cannot repeat these
mistakes.
Last month, NTIA released its Notice of Funding Opportunity for
three of these programs, including the broadband deployment program. I
am encouraged by the inclusion of some specific provisions, such as
requiring states to use the FCC's updated broadband maps when
determining unserved and underserved locations, and encouraging states
to streamline their permitting processes for accessing poles and rights
of way. These provisions should help prevent overbuilding while making
deployment cheaper and faster.
However, I am concerned by other provisions, which I fear could
undermine the program's success. First, NTIA is unclear on whether it
will wait for the FCC to resolve challenges to its maps before
allocating funds to states. This could cause some states to get more
money than they need at the expense of others. Next, NTIA fails to take
a technology-neutral approach to deployment, which could increase costs
in some areas. NTIA also prioritizes government-run broadband networks,
as well as other ``non-traditional'' providers that lack a record of
successful deployments. Further, NTIA requires states to develop middle
class affordability plans, which the agency does not define and could
lead to rate regulation by states. Finally, NTIA adopts a number of
other unnecessary requirements, particularly on labor and climate,
which will increase the burdens on states and providers.
I look forward to discussing this program with Assistant Secretary
Davidson. I am especially interested in hearing why NTIA made certain
choices in developing its Notice of Funding Opportunity and how the
agency thinks this program, as structured, will help bridge the digital
divide.
NTIA also manages Federal spectrum use. This role includes
identifying ways to make Federal spectrum use more efficient, with the
goal of making additional spectrum available for commercial use--an
important task as we try to promote continued investment in next-
generation networks. But disputes between Federal agencies and the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) over spectrum have become
prevalent in recent years.
I welcomed the new Spectrum Coordination Initiative between NTIA
and the FCC, which was announced in February, and I hope Assistant
Secretary Davidson will discuss how this endeavor will promote more
efficient and effective spectrum management policies for Federal and
non-federal users.
Finally, Congress has not reauthorized NTIA in decades. The last
reauthorization occurred in 1992, when key components of the current
NTIA portfolio, like Internet governance and cybersecurity, were not
prevalent or even in existence. It is time for Congress to do a
comprehensive review of NTIA's structure and responsibilities to ensure
it is equipped for our digital age. Last fall, I joined Senator Thune
in introducing the NTIA Reauthorization and Reform Act. I look forward
to hearing Assistant Secretary Davidson's views on this legislation and
learning what additional tools NTIA needs from Congress to fulfil its
mission.
I thank Assistant Secretary Davidson for his testimony. And with
that, I will turn back to Senator Lujan.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Senator.
Senator Wicker. Let me just make a make a couple of points
and maybe that will substitute for questions I might ask and
yield that time back. Congress gave NTIA a big job,
administering $48.2 billion to close the digital divide. That
money, $42--$45 billion of that money will go to states toward
funding for broadband providers to deploy broadband in unserved
and underserved communities.
We need to get it right this time. And the remainder will
go to tribal lands promoting digital equity and capacity and
developing middle mile networks. It is vital that NTIA
carefully administer these programs to ensure they achieve
their intended purposes.
Past NTIA efforts have wasted precious tax dollars,
overbuilding existing networks while not reaching the goal of
expanding broadband to unserved communities. Can we all join
hands and agree that we do not need to make those mistakes
again? Last month, NTIA released its notice of funding
opportunity for three of these programs, including the
Broadband Development Program.
I am encouraged by the inclusion of some specific
provisions, such as requiring states to use the FCC's updated
broadband maps, updated broadband maps when determining
unserved and underserved locations, and encouraging states to
streamline their permitting process for accessing poles and
right of way, a major problem in the past.
These provisions should help prevent overbuilding while
making deployment faster and less expensive. However, I am
concerned by other provisions which I fear could undermine the
program's success. First, NTIA is unclear whether it will wait
for the FCC to resolve challenges, resolve challenges, to its
maps before allocating funds to the states. This could cause
some States to get more money than they need at the expense of
others.
Next, NTIA fails to take a technology neutral approach to
deployment, which could increase costs in some areas. NTIA also
prioritizes Government run broadband networks as well as other
nontraditional providers that lack a record of successful
deployments. Further, NTIA requires states to develop middle
class affordability plans, which the agency does not define,
and could lead to rate regulation by the states, something we
have specifically prohibited in debate on the floor and in the
legislation.
NTIA adopts a number of other unnecessary requirements,
particularly on labor and climate, which will increase the
burdens on states and providers. I look forward to discussing
this program as we proceed with Assistant Secretary Davidson,
who has always been very accommodating when we have attempted
to speak with him.
I am especially interested in learning why NTIA made
certain choices in developing its notice of funding opportunity
and how the agency thinks this program as structured will help
bridge the digital divide. I welcome the new spectrum
coordination initiative between NTIA and FCC.
You have testified there is an MOU in the offing, and I
hope the Assistant Secretary will discuss how this endeavor
will promote more efficient and effective spectrum management
for Federal and non-Federal users. And then, don't you think it
is time to reauthorize the NTIA since the last reauthorization
was done some 20 years ago and so much has changed.
But the rest of the statement as we have already done, Mr.
Chairman, and I am very grateful for you accommodating my
schedule.
Senator Lujan. I want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator
Wicker. It is always an honor to work with you and thank you
for being here today. Now, I am going to wait to ask my
questions because I know there are many demands on our
colleagues today, so I will reserve my time for the end here.
So with that, I will turn it over to Mr. Thune if he is ready
for questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me just start
by getting at some of these issues that have been raised by the
Ranking Member and as well as in my opening statement. Contrary
to the infrastructure law's prohibition on the regulation of
broadband rates by NTIA, the NOFO for the BEAD program
disregards Congress intent--Congress's intent and heavily leans
into regulating broadband rates.
For instance, states must include a middle class
affordability plan to ensure that all consumers have access to
affordable, high speed Internet available for the useful life
of the network assets at, ``reasonable prices.'' Aren't these
types of price controls defacto rate regulation? And how are
these directives consistent with the statutory prohibition on
rate regulation?
Mr. Davidson. Senator, thank you for that question. I will
just start by saying, first of all, the heart of this is that
we believe that affordability is a critical component of what
we are trying to achieve here. The statute tells us that it is,
and we know that affordability is not a luxury, it is a
necessity. If we build access and people cannot afford,
families can't afford to get online, then we will not have met
our goal.
We have looked at different ways to make sure that we are
promoting affordability while still giving states the
flexibility to approach it in the ways that are appropriate for
their state. And there is a lot of flexibility in here. We have
got three different ways that we promote affordability. We have
got a low cost option. We have talked about this middle class
affordability mechanism.
We also ask that states when they do their grant making,
consider affordability. I think those are all very appropriate
that give states a tremendous amount of flexibility. We expect
that different states are going to approach this different
ways. Nowhere in here do we set a price for broadband, and we
believe we are consistent with both the letter and the spirit
of the statute in that regard.
Senator Thune. The NOFO also requires states to ensure that
prospective subgrantees do not impose unjust or unreasonable
network management practices. That is a quote. As you know, net
neutrality requirements were not included in the infrastructure
law. So can you clarify the intent of that provision? And will
you make it clear that states are not authorized to impose net
neutrality requirements on subgrantees as a condition of a BEAD
award?
Mr. Davidson. First of all, we do believe that, you know,
consumers should have control over the broadband that they pay
for. But as I have said in testimony before, we believe that
there are other agencies and organizations, parts of Government
that are the right place to approach the net neutrality issue.
The FCC Chairwoman, when she testified in her confirmation
hearing, indicated her intent to do so. Congress could take
that up. This is not our role. And there are several reasons we
included that prohibition, if you are getting Federal funding
and building a federally funded network, against unreasonable
network management practices. But we know that net neutrality
is a much broader concept than that, includes other kinds of
requirements, and we do not believe that this is a net
neutrality requirement.
Senator Thune. And you will make that clear to states that
they are--imposing net neutrality requirements isn't going to
be a condition?
Mr. Davidson. We have an extensive program of technical
assistance and engagement with states that were ongoing and
certainly would answer that question that way.
Senator Thune. In the BEAD NOFO, there are detailed
reporting requirements on subgrantees who do not use a
unionized workforce on a project labor agreement, which will
not only disadvantage providers who don't use union workforces,
but also is unworkable for providers in many rural communities,
like those in my home state of South Dakota that simply don't
have a unionized workforce.
So bidders and subgrantees must comply with Federal labor
and employment laws. And as long as they do so, they should not
face unnecessary burdens. If NTIA keeps this requirement, the
overall cost of deploying broadband services is going to
increase, resulting in fewer individuals being connected, and
as I mentioned, creates lots of problems in a state like South
Dakota where we don't have unionized work force. So would you
consider eliminating these reporting requirements?
Mr. Davidson. Well, Senator, I appreciate the question.
Thank you. We expect that this--that we are going to be
creating tens of thousands of jobs and we do want to make sure
that the workers on the front lines of building these networks
have safe and good paying jobs. That is the intent behind these
reporting requirements and other efforts that we have in there
to make sure, as we are required in the statute, to consider
some of these labor issues.
And I will just say, it is an enormous Federal investment.
And we have felt, I have felt an obligation to make sure that
all Federal laws are being obeyed, including and especially
employment and labor laws.
Senator Thune. Well, and that is, they have to comply with
Federal labor employment laws. But what I am talking about are
these additional burdens above and beyond it. And I--my concern
is that the dollars are going to discriminate against states
like South Dakota, where we don't have unionized workforce.
And so I am going to ask you again if you consider limiting
any of these reporting requirements so that these dollars that
are going out the door are not going to be in any way precluded
for states, like states the state of South Dakota, where we
just simply don't have that----
Mr. Davidson. And I will say, we do not intend to preclude
people. We understand that different states have different
approaches. This is not intended as a bar on people in those
situations, and we are very open to the idea of how to--if
there are particular pain points. We do feel that this was not
an undue burden.
And, you know, we are open to conversation and willing to
continue to discuss it. We don't think it precludes people in
your state, providers in your state from participating in the
program. We do think we want to make extra sure, and it should
be no surprise that this Administration cares deeply about
workers, and that we will continue to push--to promote the
interests of workers.
Senator Thune. And I--and the fact that you don't think it
precludes, is fine. It should not preclude people in my state
and so we are going to be paying careful attention as the
program rolls out to make sure that as decisions are being
made, that these are not factors that are going to create
discriminatory conditions with respect to certain places in the
country. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. Thanks.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, sir. It is always an honor, Mr.
Thune. Next, we will hear from Senator Klobuchar. Senator, five
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr.
Davidson, welcome back. Thank you. Enjoyed talking to you this
week. The bipartisan infrastructure law, as you well know,
invested $65 billion for broadband infrastructure. I worked
hard on this piece of the bill with Representative Clyburn, as
did Chair Lujan.
So I want to thank him for his work on it as well. How is
the NTIA making sure that the rules are not overly burdensome
to get this money out for small community based providers
looking to participate in the program? Because for--in my
state, a lot of the small providers over time have been the
ones that actually been building out. So, please answer.
Mr. Davidson. Well, thank you. First of all, I will just
say we welcome the wide variety of providers, including small
providers and small entrants. We have tried to build the
program in a way that welcomes them and make sure that the
requirements for them is very much on our mind, making sure
that we had the accountability that we needed in the program,
which is essential if we are going to spend American money,
taxpayer money, wisely.
But we also wanted to be sure that it was welcoming to new
entrants. So you will see in our notices that we made clear
that many different types of providers are going to be part of
this program and are welcomed in this program. And we look
forward to any conversation with you about places where--any
places where we see any burdens, undue burdens on those
providers.
Senator Klobuchar. Thanks. And one other thing on that,
Senator Wicker and I worked on the Broadband Agency
Coordination Act that we passed in 2020, focused on making sure
we are sharing information across the lines of Government for
building out and with private sector. How is that going,
sharing information?
Mr. Davidson. Yes, sharing information with other parts of
the Federal Government. I will say we are in close coordination
with other parts of the Federal Government around broadband
particularly. There are--we have an MOU that we have signed
with the other major entities, the other agencies, major
agencies that are giving out Federal funding in broadband.
We have got regular meetings, I will tell you a lot of
regular meetings among all of the interagency groups that work
on this together. We are thinking about common data standards
and working to make sure that--you know, from the point of view
of the American people, they don't care whether it is the FCC
or the NTIA or the USDA that they are getting money from it,
they just want to see the money going out the door for
broadband, and we are committed to working together to make
that happen.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Senator Cortez Masto and
I have legislation to modernize 9-1-1 system. We have made
improvements over the years. But you believe we need to do more
when it comes to modernization, when how people are traveling,
the kind of technology they have, and when there is an
emergency, it is not like the old days.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. It is absolutely an area where we
need to raise our game as a country in modernizing 9-1-1. We
need to develop the tools to help people reach 9-1-1, the way
they communicate by text on their mobile phones, smartphones,
as they travel. And while work has been done in this area, we
know that it is actually a multibillion dollar investment to
help the 9-1-1 centers across the country that need this
urgently. So I just can't help but say, you know, we hope that
there will be more activity and action to provide the funding
to do that work.
Senator Klobuchar. Well thank you. As Chair of the Next Gen
9-1-1 Caucus, appreciate that and look forward to working with
you.
Mr. Davidson. And thank you for your leadership.
Senator Klobuchar. Of course. Last, competition
legislation. Senator Grassley and I have a bill that we are
ready to bring to the floor. We have been promised a floor vote
in early summer here can make the digital economy more
competitive. Right now, we have four major gatekeeper
monopolies that are--with vertical dominance on their
platforms, and they buy stuff and then they are self-
preferencing it, above other competitive businesses.
In our bill, basically put some rules of the road in place
with broad support across the spectrum, everyone from Senator
Warner to Senator Durbin and Senator Graham to Senators Hawley
and Booker and Warner and Hirono and Blumenthal of the Commerce
Committee, and Senator Lummis of the Commerce Committee, and
many others.
Secretary Raimondo has endorsed the bill when she was in
front of the Committee. Given your expert--Mr. Davidson, your
expertise in technology, do you agree that we should modernize
our competition laws to deal with the problems of gatekeeper
power?
Mr. Davidson. I will just say, it is essential that we have
a competitive--that we have fair competition in our economy. It
is essential for our economic growth and our competitiveness. I
am very happy to agree with my boss, Secretary Raimondo, and
say that in her support of your effort as the Justice
Department wrote in support as well. And I just thank you for
your leadership in this area. We need it.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear from
Senator Fischer.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
Davidson. I appreciate you being here today. NTIA has important
responsibilities managing our Federal airwaves and expanding
broadband access, especially now with the passage of the
bipartisan infrastructure law. The agency's new BEAD program
has the monumental task, first and foremost, of building out
reliable broadband service to all unserved individuals
nationwide.
In Nebraska, we have fewer than ten people per square mile,
and in the Panhandle, it drops to fewer than six. Companies
serving the most rural locations already will be operating on
thin margins. I have some concerns about the multitude of
scoring preferences and requirements NTIA has included in the
program such as for labor unions, multiple pricing tiers, and
requiring consideration of Government owned networks.
With each of these added objectives, you are making margins
thinner, and you are increasing costs, which means less money
for deployment. Will you commit to awarding funds to applicants
with the best ability to complete broadband deployment in the
program's 4 year timeframe?
Mr. Davidson. The answer is yes that is the intent behind
what we have done. We agree that, and we built this program
with the intent that it is implementable, right. The only way
that we are going to succeed at our mission of getting high
speed, affordable broadband access to everybody is if there are
economically sustainable and viable projects and providers that
come in and meet those.
So I think your point is very well taken. We have weighed
carefully the requirements that we put on. A lot of these
things are reporting requirements, not requirements that will
preclude people from being part of it. And while we know some
of them do add to the work that people have to do, we think
that those are appropriate things for Federal--people receiving
Federal money to have to do.
Senator Fischer. But do you agree that that should be the
number one priority? Number one consideration is to get this
broadband deployed. You and I had that conversation yesterday
where I said, ``I am hearing from people all across the
state.''
I was in the state last week traveling and hearing from
people all across the state, they go, well, when are we going
to get this, right? You know, you say that broadband is going
to be deployed. Broadband is going to be deployed not just to
rural Nebraska, but we have places in the City of Omaha that
need help as well.
And so to get it deployed, you know how long is it going to
take? And when you require more reporting, that to me, it puts
more roadblocks in to getting broadband to people's homes.
Mr. Davidson. Well, I will tell you, it is a great point.
We strongly believe that our top goal is to get broadband out
and get it out quickly. We have talked about some of the
challenges in that. I am very excited, for example, we spoke
about the Middle Mile program and our ability to get that out
very soon because we don't have to wait for some of the other
things that are going to take longer with the mapping and other
issues.
And I agree. And I will just say, if you hear of pain
points or particular things that are really--appear to be
slowing us down and keeping it making it harder for people, we
would like to hear them. We have taken our best shot at trying
to balance these requirements.
And the number one thing that we do want, and we do want
states to do, is reward those who can reach people, reach the
most people with the most affordable and best broadband that
they can. That is the core of the part--of the of the grant
making scheme. And if we--you know, we welcome a chance to work
with you on that.
Senator Fischer. Did you do any kind of cost benefit
analysis on what those reporting requirements, the additional
preferences would have on funding?
Mr. Davidson. We did look at different--it is a great
question. I think we did. Of course, want to make sure that
anything that we added in terms of requirements would enable us
to still meet our goal. Again, our goal of meeting--of
deploying to everyone. And we did look at the cost of different
kinds of additional requirements and we felt that we have
struck the right balance here.
And when you think about things like the low cost option,
we were quite careful about providing flexibility for states,
putting those in. And our understanding is, our belief is that
people are going to be able to do these things and still
deploy. But we welcome the chance to work with you on it.
Senator Fischer. Do you think you are going to add any
additional preferences to the BEAD program? When you said you
looked at some other requirements that may be out there, do you
think you are going to add more or are we set where we are at?
Mr. Davidson. We believe we are set. I think there are
areas that we----
Senator Fischer. Until I send you a list of things that are
irritating to Nebraskans?
Mr. Davidson. Well, I will say that there are two things.
It is a great point. We tried to build this in a way that
people could really build to the program. There are issues that
we have not fully tackled in the notices that we put out. We
intentionally--I mean, they are very long, but they could have
been longer. And so, for example, the definition of high cost
areas.
Senator Fischer. Thank you for that.
Mr. Davidson. Yes. So, right. Exactly. There are things,
the definition of high cost areas, we would like to do more on
permitting, on pole attachments. Those are guidance and
technical assistance that we can provide or things that are not
necessarily requirements but areas where we want to do more
work. And so you will see more technical assistance. You will
see clarifications coming up from us. We know--I would be
shocked if we got it all right. So we are--you will see that.
But this is meant to be the core of the program.
Senator Fischer. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Fischer. Well, I want to
recognize and thank the Chair of the Full Committee for being
with us today. Chair Cantwell, thank you so much for being with
us. Next, we will hear from Senator Schatz. Senator Schatz, you
are recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Davidson, good
to see you again. Congress set aside at least 3 percent or $90
million of the $3 billion in the tribal broadband connectivity
program for the benefit of Native Hawaiians. In June 2021, NTIA
released its notice for the first $1 billion portion of the
program, explaining that it would allocate at least $30 million
to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands, DHHL, and would be
done processing applications by November 2021. So let's just
sort of level set. Do you agree that Congress appropriated $90
million to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands for the purpose
of broadband deployments?
Mr. Davidson. I do agree. I agree there is a 3 percent set
aside. And when you do the math that is $90 million.
Senator Schatz. OK. And you are committed to getting that
$90 million to the Department of Hawaiian Homelands?
Mr. Davidson. We are committed to getting that money to
Hawaii.
Senator Schatz. OK. So what is a reasonable time-frame to
expect NTIA to award the first $30 million of statutorily
required resources?
Mr. Davidson. I don't have a full answer for you. I can say
we are committed to working with you and your staff. Since we
have spoken, I think we have been able to provide them with
even more information and we are happy to, glad--we are working
very hard to do it as expeditiously as possible. It does depend
a little bit on the meeting the requirements of the, the legal
requirements that we have, but we are working to get it
expeditiously.
Senator Schatz. Yes. And we have had this conversation. I
mean not in a hearing context, but I just want to clarify a
couple of points here. I understand the first application
coming from the Department of Hawaiian Homelands was--had some
challenges. And we have communicated to the Department to kind
of make sure that they can sync up with NTIA. These are two
agencies that haven't worked together before.
The Department of Hawaiian Homelands, in answering at least
some of the questions, consider themselves unable, per their
lawyers, to answer these questions because the questions
specifically were about partners, and they can't select
partners in advance because they are a State agency subject to
the State procurement code. So some of their inability to
answer those questions was on the advice of their own lawyers.
Then on the advice of your lawyers, you say, well, this is
insufficient.
Fine, let's massage all this. I think this is all workable.
And I am not interested in assigning blame. I am interested in
this--what we are hearing is that they may have to wait a full
year to reapply. And I just don't see--I get the sufficiency
challenge and I get what your general counsel is saying. I
don't think there is anything in statutory law that requires
you to make the State agency wait for a full year to apply for
the first tranche.
And I am just wondering if we can--you know, I am going
back to DHHL and saying do what they say, right, work with
them, find partners that know how to receive and administer
Federal funding in this fashion. As you know, we brought in
some expertise from the University of Hawaii.
So we are working our side. What I want to hear from you is
some flexibility, because what we are hearing is, you got to
come back next year. And there should be a little grace here
for a new program and a new State agency, and that has never
worked with this particular Federal agency before.
And so it just, it strikes me as a little draconian to make
the Department of Hawaiian Homelands wait another year to apply
for the first tranche, which was supposed to be awarded
actually last year.
Mr. Davidson. So, we really want to work with you on this.
I can--what I can promise you is the maximum flexibility that
we are allowed under law. And I have instructed our staff to
give us--to lean into this problem and to find out if we can do
what you have asked for. And I think it is very reasonable. And
we do want to make sure--this money is going to go to the
tribal communities in the State of Hawaii. Absolutely.
Senator Schatz. OK. And I don't mean to trap you here, but
this is what I am a little worried about. I am worried that
NTIA has zero expertise in tribal matters first, but or very
little, and second in native Hawaiian matters. Native Hawaiians
are not a federally recognized tribe. The Federal Government
has a trust obligation, not a treaty obligation, to native
Hawaiians.
And so to the great extent that your lawyers are informing
you that Native Hawaiians are a tribal Government, that is a
foundational legal error. And so I want you to push them and
say, how much do you actually know about the Department of
Hawaiian Homelands? Are you treating them like a State agency
or are you treating them like a tribe? Because this will get me
a little hot, right.
This will get me a little irritated to think that I am
interacting with the State agency, both through my perch on the
Commerce Committee and as a Chairman of the Committee on Indian
Affairs, and you guys don't even know the basics about the
relationship between the Federal Government and Native Hawaiian
people.
And so you are not supposed to know that, but your lawyers
are. And so we have got a lot of work to do here, and I am not
going to be satisfied if they just come back to you and say,
well, next year is all the flexibility that we can provide.
Mr. Davidson. Message received.
Senator Schatz. Thank you very much.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Schatz. I want to echo
that concern as well. That is the basis of all my questions,
Administrator, and across America this has to be done
correctly. Otherwise, there is going to be no infrastructure,
not just with broadband, no infrastructure that will be
completed in a timely manner. So I very much appreciate the
line of questioning from our chair there. Next, we are going to
hear from Senator Blackburn. Senator Blackburn, you are
recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
Davidson, thank you for your time yesterday, and thank you for
being with us today. When you were addressing Senator Fischer,
you said you wanted to hear about the pain points and know
where those were. And we discussed some of these yesterday.
Let's continue to drill down on some of them today. We
talked about the money, and you have heard from others this
morning about the money coming out of the Infrastructure and
Jobs Act and how difficult it is for people to get certainty on
these distribution amounts, the burdensome permitting process.
If you want to talk about a pain point that is a pain point
because it is making it difficult for them to deploy the
broadband and close that digital divide. And then also the
timelines that are called for in the bill.
And as you know, these are points where there is a problem.
So how is the NTIA planning to work with the state, with the
local officials, and with agencies like the EPA to streamline
some of this permitting and to deal with these timelines that
are really a pressure point?
Mr. Davidson. Thank you for the question. I think it is
imperative, as you said, for us to be working closely with
states and communities to make sure that we can implement this
program effectively. Probably the most important thing that we
are building right now at NTIA is a team of people who are
Federal program officers who will be out in the states, working
in each state, assigned to each state, making sure that the
programs are successful and that providers can navigate these
issues. So we are----
Senator Blackburn. Do you have those individuals that are
going to be working in the state, do you have them employed by
the NTIA at this point in time? And are----
Mr. Davidson. We have--I am sorry, go ahead. I am sorry,
ma'am.
Senator Blackburn. Do you have them employed and are they
out there working with the state?
Mr. Davidson. So we have, I would say--the intent is they
will be NTIA employees. We probably have, I would say, roughly
half of them. We have got----
Senator Blackburn. Prioritizing the areas where you are
putting them?
Mr. Davidson. A lot of it--I will just be honest, a lot of
it depends that we are recruiting and making sure that we can
get good people in-state. So if folks know of great people in
your state that we should be hiring, we would love to hear it.
I will say we do have some great people actually based in
Tennessee, in Nashville, so.
Senator Blackburn. Well, let me move on. I wanted to talk
with you about the Davis-Bacon requirements. We have talked
about this for a moment, and Senator Thune brought it up to
you. You were evasive on how you plan to work with states that
are right-to-work states. Can you, for the record, say how you
are going to do that? And would you--do you need to submit that
protocol in writing to us?
Mr. Davidson. Thank you for the question. I would say, as I
said before, that we do take these labor issues very seriously
and we want to make sure that we are protecting workers----
Senator Blackburn. Are you prioritizing union labor, yes or
no?
Mr. Davidson. These are not requirements for states. There
are reporting requirements for States, but they are not
requirements for states. And so I would say, and I am not a
labor expert on Davis-Bacon, so I am--I apologize. I think
there we probably have to get back to you on exactly what
reporting you would want to see from us. But I will say that
what we have done here is not a requirement that we think goes
against--requires any state to go against the State law.
Senator Blackburn. I am going to read--OK, here is the
notice and what it says, that providers, and I am quoting
reading from the law, ``must give priority to projects based on
a demonstrated record of and plans to be in compliance with
Federal and employment laws, and that they are required to give
preferential weight to projects based on the strength of
showing in their application on this factor. The factors
include things like using a directly employed workforce as
opposed to subcontractors, compliance with Davis-Bacon using
project labor agreements, commitments to union neutrality, and
more.'' So this is why we are concerned about how you all are
going to preference, how you are going to prioritize union
labor, and we are--I am going to be very watchful.
Our state is a right-to-work state. And if you read this,
Mr. Davidson, it appears that what you are doing is putting in
place the ability to preference union states and to disregard
and not give any kind of priority to states that are right-to-
work states. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the additional time.
I yield back.
Senator Lujan. I thank you, Senator. Next, we will hear
from Senator Baldwin. Senator Baldwin, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Mr. Davidson, I lost my voice
since we talked yesterday, so I have asked the Subcommittee
Chairman to read my questions on my behalf.
Mr. Davidson. You sounded great yesterday.
Senator Baldwin. I know. What the heck happened?
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Now, Mr.
Davidson, thank you for appearing today. As we discussed
yesterday, nearly 650,000 Wisconsinites lack access to high
speed, affordable broadband service. Through--though the funds
were made available in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, we have an opportunity to connect every Wisconsinite to
the Internet service they need to participate in the modern
digital economy, and I look forward to working with you to
ensure these historic investments are deployed successfully.
Now, the first question.
I was proud to author a section of the infrastructure bill
that requires construction materials used in the federally
assisted infrastructure projects to be produced in the United
States. As NTIA works through implementation, I want to make
clear my concern that blanket waivers to Buy America erode
critical market signals that incentivize domestic investment.
The blanket waiver issued by NTIA in 2009 for the Buy
America requirements included in the American Recovery
Reinvestment Act--allowed Chinese telecommunication companies
to increase market share in the United States. In order to
prevent such a mistake from occurring again, I would like to
ask you, will you commit, following the OMB's guidance, that
only time limited, targeted, and conditional waivers will be
sought by the NTIA for the Buy America requirements?
Mr. Davidson. I certainly will commit to following the OMB
guidance here. And I would say, we strongly believe that a huge
benefit of this, of the broadband infrastructure law is the
fact that it will promote U.S. jobs and promote U.S.
manufacturing. And so we are eager to support those things. I
will say we do know that there are technical--there are
challenges in telecommunications networks at times in that.
And there will be moments where there will be waivers
needed. We will follow the guidance on those waivers. And our
belief is those waivers should be rare. They should be--the bar
needs to be high, and the waivers need to be carefully
tailored. And I believe that will be the way that OMB
approaches it.
Senator Lujan. It will be important to work with Senator
Baldwin's office if that is encountered, I think, to make her
fully aware from the start.
Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. We welcome a chance to work with
you on that.
Senator Lujan. I know we are both looking forward to the
FCC's progress on improving its broadband maps. We need
information on existing last mile infrastructure to ensure that
we aren't overbuilding and to identify where broadband access
is still needed.
And yet the same kind of approach has not been taken with
middle mile infrastructure where we have even less information
than we do on last mile connections. I am eager to work with
you on this issue. Now, given the relative lack of information
on middle mile, how will NTIA evaluate Middle Mile Grant
applications to ensure that they go to areas that most need
them?
Mr. Davidson. This is a very important question. And I was
glad that you raised it in our conversation. It is one that we
would like to keep working with you on and keep thinking about.
It is essential that as we spend these middle mile dollars, and
we do view them as a force multiplier, something that will
really help us with affordability and our--and the
effectiveness of our last mile efforts, that we do it wisely.
There is a provision in the statute that requires--that says
that the middle mile should also use the FCC maps.
But there is also, the problem is, of course, one of timing
and the Middle Mile program will be going out very rapidly. We
will be getting applications in September. The statute also
includes a fallback for how--for using other mapping tools. We
will be pressing for that.
The other thing that I think we can do that is really
important here, and you had hinted at this when we talked, is
really making sure that we are collecting the data so that when
people apply for these programs and then when they are grantees
of these programs, that they must also share their mapping data
with us so we can make it part of the broader NTIA mapping
collective that we have.
Senator Lujan. Just like roads, bridges, and ports,
broadband is infrastructure that is necessary to build a
strong, resilient economy. Businesses in rural Wisconsin need
to be able to see progress made on broadband infrastructure to
plan for the future.
I would like to know more about how NTIA plans to
communicate with the Committee and the public about
implementation of the BEAD and Middle Mile Grant program. The
question is how will Wisconsinites be notified of broadband
buildout in their areas and how will you keep us in Congress
apprised of your progress in implementing these infrastructure
grant programs?
Mr. Davidson. It is an excellent point. We view this as an
all of Government, all-hands-on-deck moment to build this
infrastructure. That means we know we have to work with State
Governments, but we also know we have to work with local
communities.
We have requirements in our notices that states must
consult with communities. We have given them a lot of guidance
about what that can look like. We also, I will just say at NTIA
believe that telling the story of this infrastructure building
is going to be an essential component of it, reaching out to
the public, engaging them.
We have already we have a very extensive program that we
have started already, webinars, outreach events, staff
traveling to do events out in districts. And I just, I will say
it is a blanket invitation to all of you. We would welcome the
chance to visit with you in your states. But I think engaging
the public in this will be essential and it is something we are
investing energy in already.
And the last thing I will say is that our NOFO and the
statute do require that people who are recipients of this
funding publicize it, talk about it, make sure that people in
the area, the service area, know about this service that is
being provided. So we are going to lean into that.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Davidson, the final question. In
rural Wisconsin, locally owned and operated telecommunications
cooperatives are often the only source of internet. These
cooperatives' participation in the BEAD program will be vital
to its success in Wisconsin.
The BEAD notice OF funding opportunity makes clear that
providers seeking grants from the BEAD program should not be
favored based on form of organization or commercial status. How
does the NTIA plan to enforce that principle across each
state's plan so that commercial and cooperative providers are
allowed to apply to the program on equal footing?
Mr. Davidson. Well, I would just say we strongly believe
this is, again, an all hands on deck moment. We need all of the
different kinds of forms of organizations that will contribute
to this. We know that in different states it is going to look
different. We have put it into the notice, and we will
continue--we will be holding feet to the fire on that front
with the states. And we welcome a chance to work with you if
you see any places where there are issues in Wisconsin or
anywhere else. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin, for those
excellent questions. Senator Moran, you are recognized for your
questions.
Mr. Davidson. And a well read, too.
STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MORAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM KANSAS
Senator Moran. Fortunately, I haven't lost my voice. And I
want to begin first with a critique. A nicer word than
criticism, it is a critique. I was a part of the bipartisan
effort in regard to infrastructure. A couple of the arenas in
which you were operating were issues that received significant
attention from the bipartisan group of Senators.
One would be the low cost option for Americans in poverty,
which was included in our report. But you have--in our
legislation, but you have taken that further to a middle class
affordability option. And I am interested in knowing your
justification, your legal justification. The second has been
mentioned at least while I have been in the room by several
Senators, and that is Davis-Bacon. And to me it ought not
matter whether you are for this option, this additional option,
or you are for or supportive of Davis-Bacon. It is so tiresome
to me to have agencies time and time again not follow the
letter of the law or the intent of Congress.
And it discourages bipartisan effort. If the end result is
that the things that we negotiated among ourselves in a
bipartisan fashion are then altered by the Administration, by
any Administration. And I want Congress to have more bipartisan
discussions and outcomes, not less.
But if we go through the process only to find that the
conclusions we reached are not the conclusions that the agency
reached, you are diminishing the interest in that effort. And
so I think we will have a better chance to have this
conversation in the appropriations process, but I raise this
topic for you as a genuine concern.
And the bipartisan group continues to meet, and with almost
every instance of those meetings are complaints among all of us
are criticism of the Administration for not doing what we said
in the legislation. So I don't--I would guess this may be a
more Republican complaint, but it is not totally a Republican
complaint when we see the results of what we thought we had
accomplished. I would raise just a couple of questions.
One, taxation. You had a recent conference, I saw you
answered a question about this issue of the grants being
taxable, and I think the answer is--your answer was, it is an
issue of ongoing conversation within the Administration. So
what are the potential solutions to these grants not being
subject to a 21 percent tax rate?
Mr. Davidson. So, thank you. Thank you for the question.
And I will just say, by the way, we really appreciate the
bipartisan nature of the bill, and we are--and the bipartisan
support that we have seen for the goals of this program to
connect everybody in rural, urban America, everywhere across
America with high speed, affordable internet. So we are eager
to continue to work with you on those issues.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Mr. Davidson. On the particular taxation issue, it is an
issue that we are concerned about and making sure that we are
not--you know, certainly we did not believe that the intent of
Congress was to give out this money and then immediately take a
big portion of it back in taxes. It is being worked by people
far more expert than me within the Administration who are
colleagues, particularly at the Treasury Department and at the
White House, who are thinking about this. In terms of the
solutions, I am not sure I am the right person to ask, but I
will tell you, they include things like Congress.
Senator Moran. Which is really a good answer based upon the
critique I just gave you. In this case, I think I don't know
that there was any conversation among us on this topic. I don't
know that there is anything in the record of our debate and
discussions that would suggest an answer. But I think common
sense tells us what you just said earlier. This was not the
intention.
The FCC maps continued to be a problem. Every time we have
an FCC Commissioner or the Chairwoman in front of us, this is a
major portion of what we all ask. But, you know, Secretary
Raimondo in an Appropriations subcommittee hearing committed to
me that there will be no Kansan who doesn't have broadband
service when this money is spent. And I am worried. I see your
eyebrows go up.
I appreciated her answer to my question, and what bothers
me is that we don't have the maps and the things that you are
potentially using to make decisions I don't think are
necessarily accurate. You are in a time pressure to move
forward, but the end result of this cannot be one more time
that we have failed to see that broadband is available across
the country in places where broadband is not available today.
And if the end result is after one more Congressional
effort and X billions of dollars, again, that we still come
back with people who are served with terribly slow speeds or no
broadband at all, then we have failed.
Mr. Davidson. I could not agree with you more. That is very
much how we have approached this entire process of producing
these notices. This was the idea. The intent is to reach
everybody, high speed, affordable Internet service. On the
issue--the maps are essential, and we wholeheartedly agree they
are going to be the biggest gating item for us. They are going
to be the biggest thing slowing us down. We want to move fast.
The thing that we have to get right first is the maps.
Senator Moran. What is the date expectation on the maps?
Mr. Davidson. I think the FCC Chairwoman has said that she
will have a first draft of the maps in the fall. And the--and I
say first draft, because we already heard from several Senators
who talked about the importance of making sure that, and we
have heard from states and communities that want to have at
least a chance to evaluate those maps and potentially do
challenges to those maps if they feel like they are erroneous.
And we want to make sure there is the flexibility to do that.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator. And Administrator, I
want to associate myself with the last question of Senator
Moran, with one exception. I received the same commitment for
New Mexicans. And so I think you are going to hear from us
bipartisanly with every one of us that received these
commitments that we expect them to be carried out. And so we
look forward to working with you and the team, the Secretary,
to make sure that happens. Next, I will recognize the Chair of
the Full Committee, Chair Cantwell, for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
The Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lujan. You are
doing a great job on such an important subject for all of our
colleagues, as you can see by attendance, and obviously, the
COVID pandemic laid bare how important broadband connectivity
was for Americans. So, Mr. Davidson, thank you for being here
this morning and for your leadership at NTIA. I wanted to ask
you about the broadband middle mile issue. Obviously, last mile
deployment depends on middle mile infrastructure. And without
sufficient backhaul structure, the network providers will be
unable to service the last mile needs into their networks, and
this is in addition to 5G and 6G rollout. So, we have about $1
billion there. Do you think that there will be a need for more
resources on broadband middle mile?
Mr. Davidson. Well, first, I will just first echo your
comments, and we have had this discussion before. We believe
that middle mile is an essential piece here, a real force
multiplier to make--to increase affordability, competition, and
make our last mile efforts much more effective. We are grateful
to have the $1 billion program and we think it is going to be
very effective. I will just say that I anticipate it will be
wildly oversubscribed and we will see by September if that is
true.
The Chair. Thank you. I know my colleague, Senator Capito,
and I are working on this. She has some innovative middle mile
solutions in her state that I think have been really
illuminating to how successful this partnership can be, and so,
I look forward to continuing to work with her on that.
On the mapping point, it is clear now that there are ways
for us to really get an understanding of who does not have
connectivity. So, there are unserved areas, which people would
say are some of these rural areas.
And then there is the underserved, which really means you
might, in that zip code, have people who are purchasing
broadband services, but it doesn't mean it is affordable. How
do you think that these maps will help us paint that picture
more accurately for people?
Mr. Davidson. You rightly indicate the maps in the past
have not been good because they have not been granular enough,
right. So we have really looked at like, for example, census
blocks. And if one person in a census block had service, the
entire census block, maybe thousands of people, were considered
served.
So we know that we have radically missed it. Now, Congress
wisely gave resources and appointed the FCC as the mapping lead
here, which we are working with them very carefully. And I
think the maps that come out from the FCC will be much more
granular at the location level, and that will give us much
better insight into, especially where we believe there are
pockets of, you know, broadband deserts all across America that
we will need to see.
The Chair. Thank you. You know, our colleagues, Senators
Wicker and Klobuchar, worked on some of what I would call
administrative leadership on broadband issues, a little more
concentration of focus by NTIA on this.
Recently, I know that my colleagues here, Senators Lujan
and Wicker and Thune, also worked on a spectrum issue because
there are various agencies within the Administration that have
different views and different issues on spectrum. How well
equipped is NTIA to play a more leadership role in sorting out
some of these overlapping issues with agencies?
Mr. Davidson. It is essential that we are well coordinated.
And I will say, so far so good but I may need to get back to
you. I think, no, I don't mean to make light of it. I think
that we are making good progress. And I think you mentioned
both broadband and spectrum, but in both areas, I feel like we
have had an opportunity to work really closely with our
colleagues in broadband, particularly.
We have got the largest pool of resources now. And so we
are able to leverage what we are doing to help other agencies
that are working on this. In spectrum, coordination is
critical. And I will say so far I have been cautiously
optimistic.
We have got a very close working relationship with the FCC.
I have been work--reaching out and working with a lot of other
agency spectrum leads, which has been great, and the White
House has been very supportive of us, of NTIA having this role,
and I think there will be more to come on that.
The Chair. Do you think that NTIA has the resources to do
that, when we have NASA and DOD and various divisions of
people? Obviously, everybody has realized we need to be
connected, right? The spectrum resource is also about that. We
have agencies fighting against each other's views. So, the
question becomes, can NTIA play a more elaborating role on the
technical side in helping this discussion on behalf of the
Administration?
Mr. Davidson. So I think the area where we have--really
this team has really been able to excel is in technical
leadership. And I think our expertise is something that a lot
of other agencies respect and actually we are a resource for
those other agencies. So that has been our lead. I will say--I
would be remiss if I didn't say that we could use more
resources for things like our ITS, our Institute for
Telecommunication Science out in Boulder, our officer spectrum
management here also has an IT modernization project. Resources
would certainly help us grow our technical strength in this
area. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Chair Cantwell. Next, we will
hear from Senator Lee. Senator Lee, you are recognized for
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr.
Davidson, for being here. Mr. Davidson, during your nomination
process, you and I spoke about the important role that NTIA has
in managing the Federal Government's spectrum allocations.
And I believe it is important that NTIA continue to play
this role, that it continue to be the Federal Government's
spectrum manager, and that it be able to make objective
decisions and receive cooperation from all agencies involved in
making such decisions, including coordinating matters with the
FCC.
So I want to run through a few quick questions on this
front. Do you agree that in order for the NTIA to be able to
fulfill its spectrum management responsibilities that Congress
has given it, and that the agency needs and requires full
cooperation from every agency?
Mr. Davidson. We certainly--yes.
Senator Lee. It is interesting that after recent FCC
spectrum management decisions, which presumably have gone
through the IRAC process, we have had some last minute
objections from some specific Federal agencies. Is the NTIA
receiving that full agency cooperation that is necessary for
the proper spectrum decisionmaking? I mean, is that--in those
circumstances, is that an interruption to what we hope to be
the norm?
Mr. Davidson. I will just say, I think this is an area of
continued work, and certainly it is that coordination is
critical to do this right. Also, you know, we need to, for
example, respect the integrity of our auction process and not
second guess it.
So at the same time, we recognize there are very important
Federal missions, defense missions, aviation missions that need
to be met. I think people look at some of the less ideal
outcomes of the last few years and say this, we do not want to
repeat this. So I will just say to you, I detect a renewed
energy within the Administration, certainly I have seen that,
to make sure that we are better coordinated than we have been.
And I think that is across the board.
Senator Lee. I appreciate that. What about the data? Are
you getting the data that you need, including that the
classified data that you need from agencies in order to make
sure that the spectrum decisions are made with all the
necessary available information?
Mr. Davidson. We have had good cooperation. Certainly on
the classified side, we have. And I will just say, for example,
you know, we have been in close contact with our colleagues at
DOD. You know, there are other areas where we would love more
collaboration, but we are working on it.
Senator Lee. Yes, I as you know, I think NTIA really needs
and deserves to have the full cooperation of all Government
agencies in doing its job. And having that cooperation within
the IRAC process along with FCC coordination avoids the
uncertainty that has far too often been injected, made its way
into the spectrum of decisionmaking.
Mr. Davidson. I could not agree more and would welcome the
chance to continue to talk to you about that as we move
forward.
Senator Lee. Great. Great. And I hope you will continue to
work with me on that, to ensure that NTIA and FCC can work
together in order to meet our spectrum needs. Let's pivot
really quickly to the BEAD notice of funding opportunity. I
have got a few questions that I wanted to raise with my
remaining time. The infrastructure bill, did the statute
require NTIA to carry out the BEAD program in a technologically
neutral manner?
Mr. Davidson. We are committed to carrying it out in
technologically neutral manner. I will say this, the statute--
it is not so simple to say that the statute required that, but
we are committed to it.
Senator Lee. OK. You are committed to it. In your NOFO, you
defined a priority broadband project in a manner that seems to
favor fiber projects over other technologies. What can you tell
me about how, if at all, that definition--how does that
definition carry out the technology neutral requirement in the
statute, or if you are not acknowledging it as a requirement,
the aspiration that you have for that? Doesn't your violation--
doesn't your definition violate that principle?
Mr. Davidson. So the statute--we do believe that there
should be technology neutrality. And the truth is--the notice
does allow for other technologies to be used too. We were
required by the statute to define a--what a priority broadband
project is and in such a way that we felt the most logical and
consistent way to do that was to talk about fiber.
But we fully expect that the program will be implemented
with mixes of technology and that each state will choose for
itself how to--what that mix looks like. Some States will have
more fiber. We expect there will be fixed wireless. We expect
there will be lower Earth orbit satellites. Different states
will make those choices. So we believe that on the whole, the
notice is--does allow that flexibility and is therefore neutral
to it and that that was our approach to it.
Senator Lee. OK. Thank you. I see my time has expired.
Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Davidson.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Lee. Next, we will hear
from Senator Rosen. Senator Rosen, you are recognized for
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Thank you, Chairman Lujan, for holding this
really important hearing. Thank you, Administrator Davidson,
for being here today. You know, I was proud to be part of a
group of Senators that helped draft key portions of the
bipartisan infrastructure law that Congress passed last year,
which included my bill, the Middle Mile Broadband Deployment
Act.
The impetus behind this legislation was included in the
final infrastructure bill, was to create a grant program to
address the need for more middle mile infrastructure in rural
states like Nevada so we can connect last mile networks to the
Internet backbone.
Currently only a few middle mile routes will cover hundreds
of miles, hundreds of miles in Northern Nevada, and network
outages due to extreme weather, roadwork, network glitch, of
course, can therefore leave households, businesses, and even
public safety, just leave them out in the dark.
So as you begin to roll out the Middle Mile Grant program
Congress created, how is NTIA approaching the needs of vast
rural states like Nevada and the Chairman state of New Mexico,
where we have considerable deployment issues such as geography,
topography, permitting, and right of way challenges, and the
need for us in Nevada, with over 80 percent of our state
managed in some form or fashion by the Federal Government, how
do you coordinate with Federal agencies from BLM to DOD?
Mr. Davidson. So thank you. It is a terrific question. And
I will just start again by saying we are huge believers in the
power of the Middle Mile program, and we really appreciate the
chance to administer that and have the funding. As I said a few
times before, it is a real force multiplier, we think, and will
help with the last mile efforts that we have as well. I fully
appreciate the point you are making also about the unique
issues faced in a state like Nevada.
And I will say we are very committed to working with
Federal agencies, other Federal agencies. We probably are
working right now most closely with other major funders. But we
do have work in progress, for example, with the Department of
Interior on creating an MOU, a memorandum of understanding, and
streamlining permitting processes and working with them closely
to make sure that we are thinking about how Federal lands play
into this.
Senator Rosen. So while you are doing this, I would like
you to really think about how are going to advise states on
meeting the matching requirements of the Middle Mile Grant
program when, like us, over 80 percent of our land is Federal
land managed by the Federal Government and that land is tax
exempt. So we may not be able to do that in the way that other
states can. So could you--can you speak to this at all, or will
you give a commitment to consider this?
Mr. Davidson. First of all, certainly commit to consider it
and to work with you and your staff on this issue. I think--you
are right that there are, for example, match requirements in
here. There is a requirement they come from non-Federal
sources. Some of that could be from the state, but some of it
can be from the providers themselves who will be putting this
forward. And I think we are eager to work with you and----
Senator Rosen. Is that going to put our state at risk, who
has 80 percent managed by the Federal Government, if you are
just only going to consider it--we really have to have a
solution that works for each and every state.
This money was meant to go to these deep rural areas, some
of them close right outside critical bases, critical
infrastructure for our national security, for our homeland
security and the like. And so I would like you to do more than
consider that, please.
Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. And I will note, yes, certainly.
We are--I will commit that we will work with you on this. And
we agree that the purpose of this program is very much to meet
the needs of a state like Nevada, so we have to make sure it is
doing that.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I have about a minute left. I
want to talk now about urban broadband challenges and the FCC
data maps. The new ones may have--I am concerned they may have
difficulty identifying multi-dwelling units as unserved or
underserved because the maps only track the service delivered
to a building or location rather than to each living unit in a
building.
So let's say I have a 50 unit building in Las Vegas and it
shares a one gigabyte download, 35 megabit upload. That means
each unit in the building is receiving less than 20 meg down
and less than 1 up, which is considered an unserved household,
but the entire building may show as served on your FCC map.
So as you begin again to implement programs from the
bipartisan infrastructure law to address affordability in
underserved households, how are you going to look at multi
dwelling buildings?
Mr. Davidson. Well, I would just agree with you that. First
of all, it is a real issue, and we are concerned about it as
well. We are compelled by statute to use the FCC's maps
initially in our allocation process. I will say we are actively
working on how we can make sure we account for multi-dwelling
units.
You will see it in our notice. We give--we expect and give
states flexibilities about how they spend money that they will
be able to consider those multi-dwelling units unserved in each
location, so states will be able to compensate for this. And we
have encouraged them to do that in our notice.
Senator Rosen. Well, it seems to me there are some simple
algorithms that we can write for the number of units in a
building and do that. I am a former computer programmer. I know
there are a lot of folks out there that can help with that.
Mr. Davidson. Appreciate that.
Senator Rosen. Thank you. I look forward to it. Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. Senator Rosen. Senator Capito,
you are recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for
being here with us today, Mr. Davidson. Appreciate it. I do
want to reiterate to you and re-extend and extend, and I
understand that we are working on a visit to West Virginia,
hopefully maybe in the summer. It is a great place to visit,
so.
Mr. Davidson. I know we are working on that, and I look
forward to. I am also visiting New Mexico this summer, I
understand, Senator.
Senator Capito. Well, good.
Mr. Davidson. Just don't want to play favorites here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Capito. My first question was going to be on
statements that you made during your nomination about the, all
of the above technology. I heard Senator Lee ask basically the
same question. We had the same questions in that your first
notice of funding opportunity appeared to put a heavy foot on
the pedal for fiber, which is great for West Virginia, but very
expensive and not sure it is going to get to that last house.
But you have already--you know, wireless may solve some
problems. I am going to assume wireless is in all your above
bucket. How do you see wireless as it is moving in the next
funding opportunities?
Mr. Davidson. Well, we do expect that for different states,
different states will have different mixes of technology or a
little of that answer. We talked about that as well. And we do
think that fiber is--it is the gold standard. It is the most
extensible, resilient. But for many areas, it will not be the
right answer. And so we do believe we have given states
flexibility to make the choices that are right for them.
Senator Capito. Our state was just given a notification
through the American Rescue Plan of $136.3 million from the
Treasury, from the Rescue Plan, on broadband. So good news. It
is supposed to reach 20,000 people. So I am sitting here
thinking, we are going to have an--we already had an influx of
money through a lot of the COVID funds, we have this new influx
of money, and then, of course, your bigger and broader and more
robust plan through NTIA.
This plan is feeding into three programs that the Governor
has already set up. It would be really useful, I think, if the
monies that come in from NTIA can fit into the buckets that are
already pre-established. Will the states have the flexibility
to be able to do that, working with you all?
Mr. Davidson. I absolutely believe so. I think it is
important that we--the only way we are going to reach our goals
is if we use all the different funding streams that are
available. That is partly why we are trying to work so hard
with our other sister agencies, including the Treasury
Department.
Senator Capito. So you are working with them on this?
Mr. Davidson. We are working with them. And the goal is to
make it simple for states to--for streamlining reporting
requirements, common data. And we do hope that states will plug
in and plug our funding into their existing efforts. It is the
only thing that will make sense.
Senator Capito. Well, that is the hope for West Virginia.
We have a gig ready program. We have a Middle Mile program. We
have a major--major projects that might be bigger and broader.
So I think it just makes good, common sense, quicker, more
efficient, better reporting and once we get the map thing
straightened out, to be able to feed into what I think our
state's already moved pretty well. After we had a big stumble
in 2010, I think we learned a lot. And so any way that we can
help and assist you with that, we would like to play a role
there.
Mr. Davidson. We welcome the chance to work with you.
Senator Capito. Good, good. Let me ask you about supply
chain. We are hearing from our small rural providers that
increased costs and delay of equipment is making deployment
incredibly challenging. I am concerned about these supply chain
issues. What an effect it might have on Middle Mile, BEAD
projects.
How are you seeing this, and while I am a Buy America
person, you have Buy America provisions in there, we are
starting to hear some rumblings that that may cause some
problems as well.
Do you have the ability to waive Buy America requirements?
Do you anticipate that you would be using that? And what can we
do to help with the supply chain issue or how are you
approaching that? It is going to drive the cost of these
projects higher.
Mr. Davidson. Well, first of all, we are--it is a great
question. We are tracking these supply chain issues quite
closely. And we are concerned as well, especially with the big
influx of funding that is going to come into this field. So we
are working closely with providers, with equipment providers,
with fiber providers to make sure we understand supply and
demand in this space. We do also believe strongly that Buy
America is an important part of the of the law. Part of the
goal of the infrastructure law was, of course, to promote
American jobs, promote American manufacturing.
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Davidson. So we think that--we take that very
seriously. We will be working--we know that telecommunications
networks pose unusual challenges in that environment. So we do
expect, for example, that there may well be waivers issued, but
those waivers have to be done very carefully.
We believe that they have to be tailored, and the bar needs
to be high. We will be following the OMB process, the process
that is laid out for getting those waivers within the
Administration. I anticipate that we will have some. But as I
said, the bar needs to be high on getting them.
Senator Capito. Well, you have a, I think, a very exciting
and tough job ahead of you, especially when your Secretary is
promising every single one of us that every one of our
residents is going to have broadband by the time that this is
over.
Mr. Davidson. This is a once in a generation opportunity.
You have giving us resources to do something that we need to do
as this country, and so we are----
Senator Capito. It is. And it is so need.
Mr. Davidson.--firm believers. And thank you for your
partnership.
Senator Capito. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Cruz, you
are recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. TED CRUZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TEXAS
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
Davidson, welcome. Thanks for being here today. I want to start
by discussing Federal spectrum management and the role that
NTIA plays in that process. Is it correct to say that with
regard to spectrum management, NTIA manages spectrum allocation
and use by Federal agencies while the FCC oversees non-Federal
allocation and use?
Mr. Davidson. Yes.
Senator Cruz. Great. Is the Department of Defense one of
those Federal agencies for whom NTIA is responsible for
managing spectrum allocation and use?
Mr. Davidson. I would say, yes. They are of course--they
have, you know, opinions about how they manage their spectrum
as well. But we work with them closely on those issues.
Senator Cruz. Indeed they do. So let's say the Department
of Defense was going to conduct an inventory of and prepare a
roadmap for its current and future spectrum needs in order to
ensure the accessibility and efficient use of the spectrum
needed to support DOD. As the entity that manages spectrum
allocation and use by Federal agencies, shouldn't NTIA be fully
engaged in that process, whether it is being undertaken by DOD
or any other agency?
Mr. Davidson. We would like to be a partner in that. Of
course, they are the ones that will be most expert in their own
needs in the future, but we do try to engage with them as we
think about the road map ahead on spectrum use.
Senator Cruz. Well, I agree with you. And so as you are
aware, the reason that I am asking is, is there some language
floating around on Capitol Hill right now that some Senators
want to see included in this year's National Defense
Authorization Act. That language would allow DOD to bypass NTIA
and its role in ensuring that all Federal agencies and
stakeholders? needs are considered in terms of the allocation
of spectrum, which in turn could create significant conflicts
in terms of overall allocation.
Now, several years ago there was a similar effort in the
Fiscal Year 2020 NDAA to have DOD create an electromagnetic
spectrum sharing research and development program. I led the
ultimately successful effort to have that language removed, but
not before what was a fairly bruising back and forth over the
issue with DOD and others.
Then as now, one of the major issues was the DOD via the
NDAA seemed to be trying to go around the well-established
practices for spectrum allocation and management for Federal
users.
Administrator Davidson, as the entity that manages spectrum
allocation and use by all Federal agencies, would it create a
problem for NTIA and as a result, other Federal users, to have
a Federal agency like DOD go off on its own and make its own
plans with regard to spectrum use?
Mr. Davidson. We would have concerns about that. I mean I
think the--this only works if we are all well-coordinated. And
our role by statute is to be the President's adviser on
telecommunications, spectrum policy issues, to be the manager
of Federal spectrum resources. And because of that, we have a
dual hat.
We recognize the importance of the Federal mission. We also
have a real imperative to meet the commercial needs of American
businesses. And I think our concern would be, we deeply respect
to our colleagues in this space, we value our close working
relationship with, particularly we have had a very good working
relationship of late at DOD.
But I do think we need to make sure that we are all
coordinated and that agencies aren't given incentive to go off
on their own and make these kinds of decisions unilaterally. So
we welcome the chance--we have expressed some concerns as we
have talked to the Armed Services committee. We welcome the
chance to work with you and your team as it moves forward.
Senator Cruz. Well, I think that is helpful. And everyone
recognizes there are multiple objectives that need to be
served. Obviously, everyone wants to ensure that we have
sufficient spectrum to meet our defense needs, but at the same
time, we have multiple agencies and ultimately the private
sector that have demands as well, and we need to balance those
competing demands in a way that maximizes the benefit for
everyone.
Mr. Davidson. Absolutely. And there is huge opportunity.
You know, we are looking at the lower 3 gigahertz with the
Defense Department--that the Defense Department currently uses,
but that is a tremendous opportunity to also to explore new
technologies, spectrum sharing, other ways to make sure that we
are making the most efficient use of spectrum and getting more
of it into the hands of the commercial users who need it.
Senator Cruz. Well, I hope we can get this issue resolved
quickly and without the fighting that surrounded Section 214
several years ago. And I look forward to working with you to do
so.
Mr. Davidson. We welcome that. Thank you, sir.
Senator Cruz. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Cruz. Administrator,
while we wait on a few colleagues that I believe are still
trying to make it before the vote will be called, I want to ask
you a few questions as well. Now, with large rural, fixed
income communities, like many of the challenges that our
colleagues are facing in their states, New Mexico faces
significant barriers to broadband access.
Our state, like many others, has large, sparsely populated
areas, thousands of acres of public land, and I want to echo
what Senator Rosen raised as a concern, geography, topography,
as we have heard from many, which has prevented thousands of
families across the State from accessing high quality,
accessible, and affordable service. We also faced similar
problems to the rest of the Nation, when it comes to
affordability, and we are behind much of the Nation's digital
skills.
Now, New Mexico is relying on funding from the BEAD program
to ensure students, families, hospitals, small businesses, and
community institutions are connected. As I said before, I was
very pleased to receive a commitment from Secretary Raimondo
last April that connecting every family in New Mexico, if this
program didn't connect them, it would be unsatisfactory was the
word that was used.
And committed to working in the community to make the
program ubiquitous and affordable. So, Administrator Davidson,
can I get your commitment as well that NTIA will connect every
single household in New Mexico?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. You asked me this question in my
confirmation hearing as well. I remember it very well and
always make it a policy to agree with my boss, Secretary
Raimondo. But I also am happy to say to you that is very much
our goal and that is our commitment.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I learned from my parents
the importance of getting those commitments, reminding them
every time I would get the chance, so I'm following
instructions----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Davidson. I look forward for more reminders, sir.
Senator Lujan. Importantly to New Mexico, the bipartisan
infrastructure bill reserved 10 percent of the BEAD program
funding for high cost areas like those in Water County and San
Miguel County, two communities that are suffering what is now
the largest fire in our state's history.
And we have another fire burning in Southern New Mexico.
The first over 318,000 acres, and now they are worried and as
am I, with a flood. And we had a thunderstorm come in last
night with the first series of flood warnings. Now, this
funding will make a real difference in areas with geographical
and cultural diverse communities. Now, we are still waiting for
NTIA to fully define high cost areas. Is that right?
Mr. Davidson. That is right. It is not part of our, the
notices that went out.
Senator Lujan. I certainly hope that the characteristics in
the States, that many--that these are taking into consideration
given the challenges and there is a reason why New Mexico and
Alaska and a couple of others are considered high cost areas.
And that is why we are where we are. So I appreciate your
thought there as well.
Mr. Davidson. I absolutely agree. The statute is quite
clear that there is a reason--and there is a reason why we need
to make sure we are recognizing the high cost areas and making
sure that the allocations reflect that. I will say just that we
didn't include everything in our notice, in our funding
notices. They are long as they are. They could have been
longer. High cost is top of the list of areas that we now--we
know that we need to further offer guidance on.
We received, we asked for and received comments in our
request for comments on those specific factors about what
should--how should we think about defining a high cost area. We
have gotten a fair amount of input and we are now working on
it. And I would say we welcome a chance to work with you and
folks in New Mexico to make sure we are getting the definition
right.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. So now, it is my
understanding that NTIA has already laid out some of the
criteria, like remote locations, lack of density, unique
topography, poverty, things of that nature, while New Mexico
that fits--fits our state. Now, a follow up on high cost areas,
will the definition of high cost area take into account
secondary cost to build out, including permitting and easements
on Federal lands?
Mr. Davidson. I actually don't know the answer to that
question about whether--that certainly would be a factor. We
would like to--we will take that under advisement. I certainly,
I don't--we haven't made a final assessment about what would be
in there, but that is certainly something I take back and want
to work with you on.
Senator Lujan. And while easements will become an issue, as
we all know, especially with public lands, Federal lands, but
also on tribal lands, and I am certainly hopeful that there is
a close conversation between the Department of Commerce and the
Department of Interior. There was a recent bridge that we
finally were able to complete on the Navajo Nation in
Manuelito, New Mexico. It was a result of flooding back in the
early 2000s. FEMA freed the money.
The President declared an emergency. And it took until
2019, 2021 to get the bridge completed. After FEMA freed the
money, NTIA would not authorize an easement. Money was lost. We
had to fight to get the money back. This is my concern across
indigenous sovereign nations, across America. There should be a
seamless approval for easements across the spectrum with every
Federal agency working with NTIA.
And I firmly believe that when there is an easement for,
let's say, a power line, NEPA and everything has been
conducted, they tore up the ground, they put up the poles,
there is electricity running through there. Why can't people
co-locate on it without having to do additional work?
If you are not going to dig deeper than what the previous
NEPA was, I don't understand why there is not just a recognized
utility easement. That is just me ranting, but I hope that
there can be some agreements in that place to allow for this
work to happen expeditiously. Our local communities need
Washington to also understand that all the paperwork,
regulations, and rules aren't the end of the conversation.
It is the on the ground results, whether they are
successful at connecting every single family, which matters
most at the end of the day. The last question I have today and
then I will submit the rest into the record is, what can
historically underrepresented communities, including rural and
tribal communities, minority communities, do to ensure that the
definition of high cost accurately reflect the realities that
we experience every day in New Mexico?
Mr. Davidson. Well, thank you for that. I think it is--it
is very important to us that we are hearing the voice of those
communities as we move forward to implement the program and as
we work on some of the issues that you have rightly noted are
still unresolved. And so I say we first of all welcome the
chance to engage with them.
We did our request for comments, but we have an active
outreach program, webinars, sessions out with the public,
working with particular communities. And we would, I would just
say, our door is open.
Our e-mail address as Internet for all, internetforall.gov.
And we will take questions and submissions and we welcome the
input, and particularly welcome the chance to work with you and
your staff on those issues, too.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Administrator. Next, we
will hear, and Mr. Sullivan will be recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator,
good to see you. Congratulations again on your confirmation.
First, I want to just thank you for your commitment to coming
up to Alaska here, I think, early August?
Mr. Davidson. August 13, or no, it is a little earlier.
August 10. Yes, I will be there in August.
Senator Sullivan. Yes, you are the star of the show. But
the goal there is to bring in all the different key Federal
agencies like yours, FCC leaders, and others, and then key
stakeholders in Alaska to make sure that we are--to the extent
we can, all of us are trying to coordinate and take advantage
of what I see, and I hope, I know you agree is a really
historic opportunity to build out our broadband Internet
connectivity, which, unfortunately, in my State is the least
connected State in the country. So thank you for coming up for
that.
Mr. Davidson. My pleasure. I am looking forward to it. And
to see firsthand some of the challenges also.
Senator Sullivan. Great. Let me ask, one thing, I know it
is not just an Alaskan issue, but there is a little bit of a
concern as the FCC's new maps are released that there are
concerns, and I am starting to hear them already in Alaska
that, we are at risk of being undercounted with regard to
places that are notoriously difficult and challenging to count.
And I certainly hope our FCC colleagues are listening and
watching closely to this hearing. But I want to make sure that
the challenge process that we are allowed to have--we want to
accelerate the deployment of broadband under the infrastructure
bill, but we also want to make sure that things are counted
properly.
Mr. Chairman, I am assuming this is probably be an issue in
your state as well. And the statute does not compel NTIA to
allocate funds based on an unchallenged map. So what we want to
get your commitment on is, if you are going to be waiting for
those challenges to play out so that your allocations are
actually based on an accurate counting.
Can you talk about that? I am sure I am not the first
Senator to raise this with you. But in Alaska, I am really
starting to hear some worries about undercounting and that
would not be good for anything, but you guys play a role, even
though it is not--you are not the primary actor on the Federal
agency side, but you can influence this a lot.
Mr. Davidson. It is a terrific question. We are very
focused on this issue.
Senator Sullivan. And are you talking to the FCC about it
or--?
Mr. Davidson. Regularly.
Senator Sullivan. And what is their----
Mr. Davidson. Consistently. My staff is laughing back here
because they talk to the FCC quite a bit.
Senator Sullivan. On this issue?
Mr. Davidson. On this issue. Because I will just say, first
of all, getting the maps right is essential for our success for
all the reasons that you said. We have to be spending the money
in the right place to get to the people who are really
unserved. And the----
Senator Sullivan. Remember, the broadband bill focuses on
the truly unserved. That was a big debate we had. That is in
the law.
Mr. Davidson. And that is how----
Senator Sullivan. In the statute.
Mr. Davidson. And that is how we are----
Senator Sullivan. We do not want Federal regulators who
maybe had another view to try to change that. That is--Congress
has spoken.
Mr. Davidson. Well, that is an area where I feel confident
that we can--if you look at our notices, you will see we have
taken that approach. And on the maps, we are focused on this
quite a bit because this is our gating item. I mean, in terms
of the pace we want to deploy quickly, but we need to wait.
We need to--the maps are critical. We can't deploy without
good maps. And what I said here earlier, and I will say again,
is that we have heard about the FCC's, you know, the first
draft of their maps, the Chairwoman has said, will be available
in the fall.
But we have also heard from many in states and localities,
just as you are saying, that there is a strong desire to make
sure that there is a chance for at least some challenge to
those maps that is due to play out. And we are committed to
that.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you. Let me ask another question. I
have raised this with you numerous times. A recent GAO study
identified there are a staggering 100 Federal programs across
15 agencies that could be used in some form or another on
broadband. 11 or 7 of these alone are under your jurisdiction
at NTIA.
One of the things we want to make sure happens in addition
to trying to get our entire country connected, my entire state
connected, which is a challenge in and of itself, is to make
sure that there is tight agency coordination, transparency to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. That is going to be part of
the elements of the Summit that you are going to be
participating in Alaska. I think we are all looking now at the
CARES Act and, you know, shocking figures of how much abuse and
fraud there was.
We really need to make sure that is not happening again. I
am not just talking about in my state, I am talking about
across the country. You are going to be playing a central role
in that. What are you doing right now to ensure the very
significant funds that you are going to be responsible for
awarding and deploying, are done in a way that is coordinated,
transparent, and also prevents waste, fraud, and abuse?
And one of the things I am particular worried about,
smaller tribes, smaller communities that might not have a lot
of capacity. You know, I think in some ways are particularly
vulnerable to a Beltway bandit that might be coming from D.C.
up to Alaska to try and, you know, kind of rob people of the
money.
Senator Sullivan. Well, we are very aware of that, too. It
is a great question. There were two elements, which you asked.
One is about coordination. And I will simply say we are deeply
coordinated with other Federal agencies, regularly coordinating
with MOUs with the other critical agencies, Treasury, USDA,
others for sharing data, making sure that we are being
consistent in the way that we ask people to report.
So we are trying to make that simple, and we recognize that
outside of the Beltway, nobody knows the difference between the
NTIA, USDA, FCC, any--so we want to make it easy for providers
and states and localities to interact with us.
This is also an area where NTIA can help because we are--we
have got more resources than some of our other colleagues. And
so we are working to try and do that. On the waste, fraud and
abuse point, I would simply say we are also quite focused. And
because for many different reasons, we know we need to be wise
stewards of taxpayer money. We also know that we will not
succeed in this effort to connect everybody if we don't use
that money wisely. We also have seen and learned lessons from
the past about just the kinds of scenarios that you have talked
about.
And so we have coupled with this, you see this even in our
notices, require--a lot of due diligence requirements in the
grant making processes. A lot of requirements that some will
find a pain in the neck, to be honest, but they are there to
make sure that we can monitor and make sure that we have
legitimate players who are seeking these grants, being awarded
these grants, and then there is a back end process to this,
which is included in our budgeting. This is a 10 year program,
right.
This is a program where it is not just about giving the
money, it is also about making sure that--monitoring to make
sure that the money is being spent well. And that is very much
a part of our plan. So thank you for the question.
Senator Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Sullivan. Senator
Hickenlooper. Just reminder to our colleagues that the vote has
been called on the floor.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN HICKENLOOPER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM COLORADO
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Appreciate
that. Enjoyed the conversation. I have been ducking in and out,
but Mr. Davidson, I tremendously appreciate your service. The
Institute of Telecommunications Science--Institute
Telecommunications Sciences, ITS, is NTIA's--we like to think
of as your premier lab, especially in terms of wireless
spectrum.
Mr. Davidson. We think about it that way too, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Good, because it helps us in Boulder,
Colorado. ITS has expertise in scientific research into
spectrum sharing and more importantly, coordination among
users, because it is obviously a limited resource.
Lack of funding for ITS though limits its capabilities,
more often now limited to interagency agreements and corporate
partnerships. As demand for spectrum increases dramatically, I
think we do need to find some ways and we talked about this
once before, ways to share and coordinate spectrum between all
users.
So how can Congress empower ITS to--with more resources to
carry out proactive spectrum research which would help
modernize the entire approach?
Mr. Davidson. Well, I will so first of all, thank you for
the question and thank you for your support of ITS. It really
is the crown jewel, not just at NTIA, but I think for the
entire Federal Government in terms of real expertise and
forward looking research around spectrum. You know, give a
quick example, for example, right. Just this week ITS is doing
testing, they have got a helicopter, they are there working
with the Defense Department to explore this issue of
interference between 5G and altimeter systems for Defense
Department equipment.
A real issue that has come up in the commercial sector.
They also do, and I was just out there 2 weeks ago, very
forward looking research about spectrum, spectrum sharing, new
bands of spectrum, and the issues around it.
So I would just say, I think, you know, giving--as you
noted, much of the work that now happens at ITS is funded by
other Federal agencies or in a consulting type arrangement. It
would help us to have more baseline, long term funding to do
the kind of research about future bands and about spectrum
sharing, other new tools and having that consistent support so
it is not just dependent on which other Federal agencies have
come in to support work. That would be very helpful.
Senator Hickenlooper. And would that come under the heading
of modernizing the Spectrum Relocation Fund?
Mr. Davidson. It would, absolutely. So thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am just checking. Want to make sure
it got in the record. A lot of these fights over spectrum, you
know, as you describe, not just among Federal agencies, but in
the private sector as well, are around this interference that
you mentioned.
And I think that the research that ITS is doing does allow
us to move toward science based decisions to make sure we
prevent that interference through appropriate protection
criteria. So I guess the question I have is, how is the ITS and
the NTIA, how can they get that consensus based, science based
collaboration done?
Mr. Davidson. Well, it's----
Senator Hickenlooper. And protections.
Mr. Davidson. It is something we are working on quite a bit
with our Federal colleagues. So the starting point is
absolutely that we are committed to, and I think the only way
we succeed as an Administration in administering this scarce
resource, is if we have an approach that is well coordinated,
but evidence and science based at its heart.
And we believe that NTIA and our Office of Spectrum
Management, ITS can play a real role with our technical
expertise there. So far we have gotten very good support on
this, I think from the White House, from other agencies that
see this expertise. But it is an area where we need to continue
to work and make sure that we have the beef to follow up on it,
right, so.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Last question. We have got a
minute left. Senator Wicker and I introduced the
Telecommunications Supply Chain Diversity Promotion Act, which
is included in USICA, I think. It establishes a test bed out
there, and the opportunity to test these Open RAN technologies
and their performance in rural settings I think is really
important.
More network vendors is going to be able to create more
competition. It is going to reduce costs to the network and
really promote resiliency, network resiliency. So, can you
describe how NTIA is monitoring and promoting this strong
network supply chain?
Mr. Davidson. So I will just say that we deeply support
your--appreciate your support in this area. It is really
essential that we have diversity in the vendor community
around, you know, particularly in 5G. We have been big
supporters of the Open RAN initiative around the world,
promoting that as a way to get more secure 5G equipment.
Our ITS lab has played a critical role already in helping
us understand where the challenges lie and where research is
needed to make Open RAN a success. We are eager for more
resources and more opportunity to do that. So thank you for--we
certainly are very supportive of the bill formally known as
USICA and programs like this that are in it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you so much. Thank you
for your service. I yield back.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper. Senator
Markey, you are recognized for questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD MARKEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Markey. Thank you. Much appreciated, Mr. Chairman.
Climate change. You know, I was pleased to see NTIA include
important climate change provisions in its new broadband
programs, and that is going to allow applicants to provide
detailed plans for addressing climate and weather related
risks, including identifying ways to avoid or mitigate those
threats and from driving up the cost of construction with
needless red tape.
Those far sighted, thank you, requirements will benefit the
public and reduce long term costs by making our networks more
resilient. So can you talk about how your proposal--NTIA
proposal is actually going to save money for individuals, for
states, and for the Federal Government in the long term?
Mr. Davidson. I will just say, Senator, first of all, thank
you. Thank you and thank you for your leadership in this area.
We actually do believe that a focus on resiliency actually
reduces costs over the long term, right. That by taking
resiliency into account, by taking climate change resiliency
into account, we can make sure that we are building in ways
that are smart, that make sure that states and subgrantees are
taking into account extreme weather events as they begin to
give out their money.
That, in turn, makes sure that we are, again, increasing
resiliency, making sure we are deploying in the right ways, in
ways that take into account what is likely to happen in the
future. And that is what we have asked for in our notices.
Senator Markey. Well, thank you. And I think it is well
done. And it is why I introduced with Senator Wyden the Green
Communications Act, which would create a $5 billion program at
NTIA to build resilience communications networks. And do you
think that kind of funding makes any sense?
Mr. Davidson. Well, we certainly see value in that kind of
approach, in more resilient and energy efficient communications
networks. And we would be happy to work with you and your staff
on legislation offering technical assistance. Appreciate your
leadership here as well.
Senator Markey. Thank you, sir. And I am so glad that you
have also included labor, competition rules, critical to
bringing reliable high speed Internet to every household in
America.
And your program is going to require states to prioritize
projects that commit to maintaining high labor standards,
encourage states to favor broadband providers that make
wholesale and open access commitments, and ensure that
providers do not engage in unjust and unreasonable practices.
I think those rules are a good starting point for building
a broadband system that harnesses market competition to deliver
affordable Internet access to unserved and underserved
communities. And, you know, we hope that it is not going to be
a fantasy. But, you know----
Mr. Davidson. I hope so, too.
Senator Markey. You have got a lot of backing to make sure
that you implement that vision, you know, in a strong way.
Mr. Davidson. Well, I appreciate--we appreciate that. And
that we do feel, again, this speaks to just the breadth of the
kinds of activity we want to see. We hope to see in this that
there will be new entrants, that there will be experimental
approaches, and that open access can be a big part of that.
Senator Markey. And again, the notice of funding
opportunity for these broadband programs was an important
milestone. But, you know, working with you--we just have so
much work to do. So, thank you. And Mr. Chairman, I just want
to emphasize once again how impossible it is going to be to
really close the digital divide and ensure that broadband
consumers have the protections they deserve without a full
complement of Commissioners at the FCC.
And that is why I just think we have to move to immediately
confirmed Gigi Sohn as the fifth Commissioner, so that the FCC,
like Mr. Davidson, can get down to work to do the job which we
need. There is a lot riding on having a fifth Commissioner. I
think Gigi Sohn is the right person for the job and we should
do it as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Davidson. And I would just say, we would be aided in
our work by a full complement at the Commission. And we, of
course, this Administration deeply supports Gigi as a nominee.
So thank you for your support for her.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Administrator. And Senator
Markey, I certainly agree with you as well. Next, we will
recognize and hear from Senator Young. You are recognized for
questions, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. Administrator Davidson,
it is good to be with you. We last visited during your
confirmation hearing, and I enjoyed our exchange. And at that
exchange, you gave me a few assurances about the massive
broadband grant program, you know, you would be taking charge
of as NTIA Administrator. So I would like to start with your
commitment to focus the broadband funding on unserved areas as
opposed to underserved areas.
Closing the digital divide, of course, won't be possible
without ensuring that these unserved areas are served before a
single dollar is focused on the underserved areas. But getting
broadband funding to unserved and underserved areas is only as
strong as the weakest link. So, you know, it was in this vein
that Congress required the FCC to adopt improved maps, and we
gave the FCC nearly $100 million, $98 million to create those
maps.
When negotiating the infrastructure bill, and I played an
active role in that process, the broadband provisions in
particular, some of my colleagues and I reluctantly agreed to
let NTIA oversee the program, provided that it rely on these
FCC maps which will show service at the location level.
This week, you issued guidance that invites the states to
use all sorts of flawed data in actually distributing the funds
they receive. That is my reading of it. I will give you an
opportunity to respond, sir. Including data from the NTIA
website that is out of date and that the agency itself
acknowledges may be inaccurate or incomplete.
This, of course, puts at risk a key objective of the, you
know, efforts to ensure there is access and deployment of
broadband. It also puts at risk your assurance to this
committee, as I read it, that you would focus on unserved areas
first, and it directly contradicts another assurance you made
to me when you committed to work with the FCC, utilizing their
maps, coordinating on their broadband programs to avoid
duplication, and utilizing their expertise when it comes to a
challenge process as is required by the law.
I will read the relevant passage to inform your response,
sir, if you would like, and this is an opportunity to clarify
and explain on the record that you will be abiding by that
previous commitment. So it reads, quote, this is from the
guidance, ``eligible entities are encouraged to begin their
planning processes prior to the release of the FCC's broadband
data maps.
In this situation, eligible entities may utilize all
available sources of existing data, such as State level data,
existing FCC data, national broadband availability maps, so on
and so forth, and other sources.'' There is not the specificity
indicating you can only use FCC maps. So, will you commit to
ensuring that the states use high quality data that track the
new FCC maps and update your guidance accordingly, sir?
Mr. Davidson. Yes. So I am familiar with the provision you
are speaking about. Thank you for raising the question. First
of all, I just want to start by saying, I assure you, we remain
committed to using the FCC maps as instructed by the statute
for the purpose of allocation. And those are going to be what
we expect states to use when they look at their served, their
unserved areas, and underserved areas.
And we are also committed to, as you and I spoke about, and
I think you will see it in this notice, really focusing on the
unserved communities and then the underserved communities as is
indicated in the statute. The provision you are reading from,
just to give you some assurance, is about the planning process.
And we were contemplating a period like right now, for
example, where the FCC's maps are not yet available, but that
we want to encourage eligible entities that states and
territories to be able to do their planning and to be doing it
based on the best available data that they could get.
So right now, for example, you know, a State may have
submitted its letter of intent to be part of our program. They
are going to get a $5 million planning grant. We want them to
be doing planning. We want them to use the best data they can.
There is no FCC map yet available. So that is what this speaks
to. And rest assured, sir, we are committed to using the FCC
maps.
Senator Young. That is fantastic. I will not have to break
my promise to Hoosiers and other Americans that I helped
negotiate a bill, my office and I, we led this negotiating
effort on the broadband provisions. And my pledge is because of
our authorization, our allocation of resources, there will--
every American will have access to high quality broadband
moving forward. And I believe that will continue to be possible
based on your clarification. So thank you so much. And with
that, I will yield back to the Chairman.
Mr. Davidson. Thank you. And we look forward to working
with you to reach that goal as well.
Senator Lujan. Thank you so much, Senator Young. One area I
was hoping to get some clarification, Administrator, is
Congress sometimes sets up double standards, and this is one of
them that has been established. And what it did is it created a
lower standard for Native American communities with speeds.
The current law says that minimum speed for tribal grants
is 25 megs down, 3 up. While broadband funding for the rest of
the country in the bipartisan infrastructure bill says you
cannot go below 100 over 20. Now, I know you will be
administering these programs fairly and effectively, but the
statutory requirements are not equitable for indigenous
sovereign lands across the United States. So what I am hoping
that I can get from you today, sir, is to count on you to help
identify areas where Congress can update the law so that
broadband programs meet the intended goals.
Mr. Davidson. First of all, I am glad you--thank you. Thank
you for the question. And I would say we are committed to that.
And on the issue, particularly of that example you gave, the
difference for the tribal grant program, we were well aware of
it, and we don't think that there should be double standards
here either.
We are working in our competitive grant program to try to
make sure that we are getting the best possible broadband
available to those communities. So we are trying to compensate
for it where we can. But there are areas probably like that
where some updates to our broader statutes would be helpful.
And we are committed to working with you in giving assistance
in identifying those areas.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that, Administrator. And I will
recognize myself to close. There are some areas that I wanted
to offer a rebuttal of sorts with some of what I heard today.
First off, with some of the questions surrounding provisions in
the buildout, namely a climate provision, I want to remind my
colleagues what I shared during my statement in questionings in
that New Mexico is on fire.
We are in the midst of hurricane season. We have seen the
destruction of tornadoes. And we need to build out in such a
way that resiliency is a focal point. And I appreciate you
emphasizing that. The climate change initiatives in the NTIA
program is good stewardship of Federal funds. And so I want to
thank you for that commitment in the lay out and the work that
we are doing in that space, and just look no further than New
Mexico, if anyone wants to come and visit, with the challenges
we are facing right now.
As I said in my opening statement, we must work to prevent
waste, fraud, and abuse and ensure Federal funds connect
unserved families first. Now, the last thing we want is for the
red tape to prevent families from getting across and connected
to broadband.
While we are working to avoid duplication, agencies could
miss areas that are unserved or underserved despite prior
supports in the area. And the one area I wanted to highlight
today, Administrator, is in 2018, the FCC's CAF II auction, the
speed required there was 10 down, 1 up. That sounds unserved to
me, not underserved.
Mr. Davidson. It would be today, yes.
Senator Lujan. You know, some of you may have dial up or
had dial up in your lives. That is what they are going to get
or that is what they are getting if they have connectivity.
Like I said, that sounds unserved to me.
So I am hopeful that while we are having this conversation
and in many of our communities, Democratically represented,
Republican represented, who benefited from that particular
investment, well now they are going to be left behind if they
are considered served and they don't qualify for this program.
So I just wanted to highlight that area as well. And again,
remind our colleagues, and I think we heard this consistently
today, that there is no one size fits all approach to expanding
broadband in any given community.
So I very much appreciate the flexibility that you are
approaching this in every community across the country and that
we are able to lean on different technologies to get
connectivity. Now, simply expanding broadband service to folks
is of little help if people don't have the skills or resources
to utilize it. So while there is emphasis for affordability in
here, we need to make sure that we are helping to provide that
support and technical teaching, if you will, across America.
And so I am hopeful that there will be initiatives designed
in those particular areas. From the low cost and rate
regulation arguments, the ACP significantly expands eligibility
for Lifeline and is a critical component to ensuring these
billions of dollars being spent can actually be used by the
communities they are meant to serve. Ensuring low cost options
actually are low cost is not rate regulation.
I am a former regulator. I served on the New Mexico Public
Regulation Commission and oversaw many rate cases. In that
case, it was with POTS, if anyone knows what that is. But with
plain old telephone service compared to the connectivity today,
I hope that everyone embraces this and understands it and
recognize it was built into a piece of legislation that
received overwhelming Democratic and Republican support in the
Senate and in the House. We agreed to this.
As someone said, this issue has been addressed. I certainly
hope that we can see that because without that, there is going
to be a lot of people left that don't have connectivity today.
So I wanted to straighten that one out a little bit and offer
my perspective at the very least. In the last area that
received a lot of attention, I was raised in a union household,
but a blue collar household.
My father, while he served the people of New Mexico as a
member of the State legislature, as a representative, he
retired as an ironworker. He sadly passed because of the lack
of some of those protections that were in place, and we lost
him to a fight with lung cancer. But when I look at this and
everything that I have read, research shows that prevailing
wage laws boost worker productivity. We are talking about
people's wages here. Regular folks that are out there working
that are going to connect America. It is their wages.
So when we talk about a prevailing wage that is how much
someone makes an hour. They should have a good wage with a good
job. That is what this bill promised to help foster. Prevailing
wage laws benefit blue collar and middle income people. The
family that I was raised in. In short, adopting a prevailing
wage standard accomplishes the goals of the bipartisan
infrastructure law by providing good paying jobs to the
American work force.
It will also bolster the broadband workforce, an area of
significant need across the Nation, but especially in rural
states. And so I am hopeful that by having that strong
prevailing wage in states that are hard to connect or where we
don't have that workforce established, this will establish it.
And that is going to help us futureproof this as well. So I
wanted to get that off my chest. I wanted to share a little bit
about that. And that is the power of this thing that I have
learned, so I appreciate having that gavel. But as I close, to
close, Administrator Davidson, thank you and your staff for the
work that they have already done.
I want to thank you for being here today and being
available, and the commitments you have already made to travel
into different parts of the country given those demand. That
means a lot and it shows how committed you are.
Your testimony has helped demonstrate your agency's
commitment to closing the digital divide, ensuring access to
spectrum, and supporting secure, private, free, and open
communications around the world.
Now, this hearing record will remain open for two weeks
until June 23, 2022. Any Senators that would like to submit
questions for the record for the witness should do so by that
date. Administrator Davidson, we ask that your responses be
returned to the Committee by July 7, 2022, and that concludes
today's hearing. Thank you, everybody.
[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Raphael Warnock to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Rural Broadband Access. Many Georgians living in rural areas
continue to lack access to high-speed Internet service or knowledge on
how to use digital technology, making it difficult for them to
participate in virtual learning, telehealth services, and economic
opportunities. I believe that connecting these rural communities will
be critical to closing the digital divide and expanding economic
prosperity. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA or the
Act) (also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law or BIL) provided
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) with
$2.75 billion to create grant programs that promote digital equity
among populations that often lack broadband technologies or the skills
to use them, many of which live in rural areas.
Question 1. When will NTIA begin awarding these funds to states and
localities so that they can work with rural Americans to improve
digital equity and access?
Answer. The deadline for applications to the Digital Equity
Planning Grant Program was July 12, 2022. All 52 Eligible Entities (50
states, DC and Puerto Rico) submitted applications. The four
territories and hundreds of tribal nations submitted letters of Intent.
Eligible Entities have begun receiving funds to develop their Digital
Equity plans--on August 31, Louisiana became the first state to receive
such funding. The planning period will run through 2023, at which point
Eligible Entities will be able to submit capacity grant applications.
Question 2. What steps has NTIA taken to reach out to state and
local governments to ensure they are aware of these funding
opportunities and the process for applying?
Answer. Since January, NTIA staff has engaged frequently with a
wide variety of stakeholders, including the state broadband offices,
regarding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) programs.
NTIA convenes the State Broadband Leaders Network (SBLN) twice a month
and held three office hours sessions for Eligible Entities on the
Digital Equity Planning grants to answer specific questions on the
application process. There have been, and will be, office hours for
both the Middle Mile and Broadband Equity, Access & Deployment (BEAD)
programs as the application deadline gets closer. The State Broadband
Leadership Network has had 22 virtual meetings and two in-person two-
day meetings, the first in March 2022 in Washington, DC, and the second
in August, 2022 in Denver, CO. The next SBLN Summit is planned for
February, 2023. For tribal specific outreach, NTIA held three Tribal
consultations and a Tribal engagement webinar, four meetings of the
state-tribal cohort, and presented to four Bureau of Indian Affairs
regional office meetings on Tribal broadband opportunities. We have two
additional Tribal consultations scheduled for October, 2022.
NTIA also convenes the Digital Equity Leaders Network (DELN), a
group of over 160 state, territory, county, and city staff who work in
offices overseeing digital equity. NTIA has held nine DELN virtual
meetings providing overviews of the IIJA programs and covering topics
relevant to prospective applicants. NTIA hosts meetings of the State
Broadband Leaders Network twice per month and held one in-person
meeting following release of the NOFOs. NTIA also has hosted five
public virtual listening sessions on the IIJA programs, five pre-NOFO
webinars and 14 post-NOFO webinars focused on the BEAD program, the
Digital Equity Act of 2021 and the Middle Mile Grant program. These
webinars are open to the public. Twenty-six states and two territories
attended the Pew Charitable Trusts Broadband Access Summit in June to
connect and hear from NTIA Assistant Secretary Alan Davidson and
members of the NTIA team. In addition, the NTIA Office of External
Affairs has conducted extensive outreach to ensure that the public and
targeted groups know about the IIJA programs. NTIA's goal is to
maximize participation in these programs at all levels.
Broadband Mapping Accuracy. NTIA and other Federal agencies that
assist with the deployment of broadband infrastructure rely on the
Federal Communications Commission's broadband maps. These maps are
known to lack the granularity needed to accurately identify areas that
are unserved. Georgia, a leader in broadband mapping, identified
inaccuracies in the Federal broadband map that deemed certain
communities as ``served'' when in fact their community had no access to
broadband at all. Though I know the FCC is working with Federal
agencies, state governments, and others to improve broadband maps, I
believe these inaccuracies cause desperate communities to miss out on
Federal funding opportunities and impede our efforts to close the
digital divide.
Question 3. As the FCC works to update its broadband maps, what
will NTIA do to ensure its broadband programs accurately identify
communities that are unserved?
Answer. Under the IIJA, NTIA's new programs will rely on new maps
that the FCC is in the process of creating. NTIA recognizes the
importance of ensuring that the FCC's Broadband DATA Maps accurately
identify unserved and underserved locations, and we are working closely
with our colleagues at the FCC to assist them in any way possible. NTIA
staff are engaging in outreach in partnership with the FCC to Internet
service providers, encouraging them to file their data quickly. We also
are actively engaged with states, territories, tribal governments, and
other stakeholders, because we understand that they want to provide
input as well. We will continue to support and amplify the FCC's
efforts at every opportunity.
Broadband Equity, Access & Deployment Program (BEAD). Broadband has
become a critical aspect of daily life in America, from virtual
learning and remote work to e-commerce and entertainment. Despite years
of Federal funding from NTIA and other Federal agencies to support
broadband deployment, millions of Americans still lack access to
Internet service. I was proud to support the BIL, which provides $42.45
billion for the BEAD Program at NTIA, to help connect unserved
Americans with high-speed broadband service and close the digital
divide.
Question 4. In what ways do the FCC and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) broadband programs complement and interact with
NTIA's work to deploy broadband in unserved areas through the BEAD
Program?
Answer. NTIA is working closely with Eligible Entities to help them
``braid'' BEAD program funds with broadband deployment funds available
not just from USDA, but from the FCC, the U.S. Department of the
Treasury (Treasury), the Economic Development Administration, and other
Federal agencies that fund broadband deployment.
On May 12, 2022, NTIA, the FCC, USDA, and Treasury announced an
interagency agreement to share information about and collaborate
regarding the collection and reporting of certain data and metrics
relating to broadband deployment. Under this Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), respective Cabinet and Agency leaders regularly
will consult with one another and share information on data collected
from programs administered by the FCC, the USDA's Rural Utilities
Service, programs administered or coordinated by NTIA, and Treasury's
Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund and State and Local Fiscal Recovery
Fund.
Question 5. How will NTIA collaborate with other Federal agencies,
such as FCC and USDA, to avoid duplicating broadband service in
communities to help ensure more unserved areas will receive BEAD
funding?
Answer. The MOU referenced in Answer #1 is targeted at facilitating
collaboration between the agencies in numerous areas of broadband
buildout. As part of the agreement, each Federal agency partner shares
information about projects that have received or will receive funding
from the previously mentioned Federal funding sources.
Question 6. Will NTIA solely consider the number of unserved
locations when administering the BEAD Program? Or will NTIA factor in
Federal funding commitments from other programs that have not yet led
to broadband availability?
Answer. The BEAD Program Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
explicitly requires Eligible Entities to factor in federal, state, and
local funding commitments. As described in item 3 of section
IV.B.7.a.ii of the BEAD Program NOFO, an Eligible Entity ``may not
treat as `unserved' or `underserved' any location that is already
subject to an enforceable federal, state, or local commitment to deploy
qualifying broadband. , . .'' when it conducts its subgrantee selection
process.
Question 7. Will NTIA allow applicants to combine BEAD funding with
other Federal dollars to expedite broadband deployment in unserved
areas?
Answer. Yes, to the extent permitted by law. Section
60102(h)(3)(B)(ii) of the IIJA expressly provides that matching funds
for the BEAD Program may come from a Federal regional commission or
authority and from funds that were provided to an Eligible Entity or a
subgrantee for the purpose of deploying broadband service under the
Families First Coronavirus Response Act (Public Law 116-127; 134 Stat.
178); the CARES Act (Public Law 116-136; 134 Stat. 281), the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (Public Law 116-260; 134 Stat.
1182); or the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law 117-2; 135
Stat. 4), to the extent permitted by those laws.
Ligado Interference Risks. In 2020, the FCC made the controversial
decision to approve Ligado's application to deploy broadband in the L-
Band. With the support of other Federal agencies and departments, NTIA
asked the FCC to stay and reconsider the Ligado Order after concluding
that Ligado's terrestrial deployment would disrupt critical GPS and
satellite communication services and cause an unacceptable operational
impact to government users. As you are also aware, Secretary of
Commerce Gina Raimondo reiterated the Biden Administration's continued
opposition to the Ligado Order. However, Ligado announced that it
intends to begin deploying as soon as September 30th. I share the
concerns of many that if Ligado proceeds with deploying and activating
broadband in the L-Band, critical communications could be interrupted
and jeopardize safety and security.
Question 8. Could you provide an update on the steps that NTIA is
taking to identify and resolve these interference concerns?
Answer. As you note, NTIA, on behalf of the Executive Branch, filed
a petition at the FCC for reconsideration of its order allowing Ligado
to use the L-Band to operate terrestrially. That petition remains
pending. Recently, on September 12, 2022, Ligado notified the FCC that
it ``is not intending to move forward with its trial deployment in
northern Virginia,'' which is the deployment referenced in your
question. Ligado's voluntary cancellation of the trial deployment
resolves concerns of interference from that trial deployment.
Question 9. Given the Administration's clear view that the Ligado
Order did not adequately assess the real-world risks of terrestrial
operations in the L-band, do you believe the FCC should stay the Ligado
Order before Ligado deploys?
Answer. Following the FCC's issuance of the Ligado Order, NTIA
filed a petition with the FCC requesting that it stay its decision
because it believed that it was appropriate given the seriousness of
the concerns that were raised. The FCC denied NTIA's stay petition.
Since that time, NTIA has not sought a stay from the FCC because no
terrestrial deployment by Ligado was imminent. As noted above, on
September 12, 2022, Ligado notified the FCC that it ``is not intending
to move forward with its trial deployment in northern Virginia.''
NTIA's petition of reconsideration for the Ligado Order remains
pending.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Brian Schatz to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Internet Freedom/International Telecommunications Union.
Question 1. What is the National Telecommunication and Information
Administration doing to protect Internet freedom online in addition to
supporting the nomination of Doreen Bogdan-Martin to be Secretary
General of the International Telecommunication Union? How are you
working with the Department of State and other Federal partners to
coordinate on this effort?
Answer. NTIA supports efforts to promote access to the Internet
worldwide, while protecting Internet freedom in multistakeholder and
multilateral forums such as the ITU, ICANN, and the International
Telecommunications Satellite Organization (ITSO). In particular, NTIA
helped launch the Declaration for the Future of the Internet, which
upholds the principles of protecting human rights and fundamental
freedoms of all people; promoting a global Internet that advances the
free flow of information; advancing inclusive and affordable
connectivity so that all people can benefit from the digital economy;
promoting trust in the global digital ecosystem, including through
protection of privacy; and protecting and strengthening the
multistakeholder approach to governance that keeps the Internet running
for the benefit of all. NTIA accomplishes all of this work through its
strong interagency relationships with the State Department, the FCC,
USTR, the FTC, other Commerce bureaus, and others across the Federal
government.
Question 2. Projected Cost Models. NTIA is responsible for
distributing $42 billion through the BEAD program. Other Federal
agencies, like the FCC, have in the past provided estimates of how much
it would cost to deploy broadband when distributing funding.
Will the agency publish any tools or estimates of projected cost
per location to help states determine the reasonableness of deployment
proposals they receive? This would be helpful for Hawaii and other
states to ensure broadband funds are used efficiently to provide
connectivity.
Answer. NTIA is actively evaluating tools that Eligible Entities
can use to develop cost estimates and to evaluate proposals from
prospective subgrantees. We will work with Eligible Entities on
developing these tools during their planning grant process.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Kyrsten Sinema to
Hon. Alan Davidson
FCC Broadband Maps. The Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) Program created in the bipartisan Infrastructure and Jobs Act
(IIJA) will utilize Federal Communication Commission (FCC) maps to
distribute broadband funding to states. The maps will be especially
important for identifying unserved or underserved communities eligible
for additional funding above base levels. Until the updated FCC maps
are complete, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) has allowed states to use existing map data from
the FCC and other entities for planning purposes.
Question 1. What have you heard from entities who have attempted to
use existing maps for planning purposes? In your opinion, will the new
FCC maps properly document areas in Arizona that are underserved or
unserved by broadband providers?
Answer. We understand that several Eligible Entities are using
their own data and commercially available data to start their planning
processes. We expect that the FCC's Broadband DATA Maps, based on the
FCC's new Broadband Data Collection, will mark a significant
improvement over the previous maps, which were based on the FCC's Form
477 data collection. NTIA agrees with Chairwoman Rosenworcel that
``[t]he new Broadband Data Collection will tie together data from
multiple sources to give us an accurate, detailed, and evolving picture
of broadband availability that is much needed and long overdue.'' We
encourage Eligible Entities to submit timely challenges if they believe
that data in the maps is inaccurate so that these maps can
expeditiously be improved.
Fiber Prioritization. Last month, NTIA issued the BEAD Notice of
Funding Opportunity. The notice prioritizes fiber connectivity
projects, but stresses that states will have the flexibility to choose
the broadband technology that is right for them. For some rural
communities in Arizona, broadband technology other than traditional
fiber may be more appropriate.
Question 2. What steps will you take to ensure that NTIA's fiber
prioritization rules will still permit and not impede the timely and
efficient rollout of non-fiber projects?
Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure
that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs,
consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for
selecting subgrantees.
Based on the statutory definition, NTIA determined that ``Priority
Broadband Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic
architecture. Only end-to-end fiber will ``ensure that the network
built by the project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet
the evolving connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and
``support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and
other advanced services.'' Unfortunately, there will likely be
locations for which an Eligible Entity does not receive a proposal to
deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In such cases, the Eligible Entity
may select any project proposing to use an alternative Reliable
Broadband Service technology, meeting the BEAD Program's technical
requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy of less than the
Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.
Tribal Broadband. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA)
and IIJA together provided $3 billion to the Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program. At your confirmation hearing, I asked how you
would approach administering the program. Since then, NTIA has awarded
several grants through the Tribal Broadband Program, including a nearly
$4.5 million grant to the Gila River Indian Community in Arizona.
Question 3. Can you provide any further updates on implementation
of the Tribal Broadband Program? What metrics will NTIA use to assess
the program's implementation?
Answer. NTIA received more than 300 applications during the
application window for over $5 billion in funding requests. Given the
volume of requests and the significant need to quickly expand high-
speed Internet service on Tribal lands, NTIA has allocated $1 billion
from the IIJA funding to the first round of Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program (TBCP) funding, which was initiated by the $1
billion appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.
The total available for high-speed Internet grants as part of this
first round of funding is now $1.96 billion. NTIA alerted Tribal
entities who applied in June 2021 that there is no action required on
their part and NTIA will continue to announce additional awards on a
rolling basis as they move through NTIA's review process. Since then, a
total of 95 awards have been made from the TBCP fund, totaling $1.35
billion (as of October 19, 2022). NTIA will be releasing a new Notice
of Funding Opportunity for the second round of funding covering the
remaining $1 billion appropriation from IIJA.
The program's goal is to fully connect all households in tribal
lands to high-speed internet. Our primary metric for success will be
how many households are connected using these funds.
Workforce and Training. Staffing and implementation will play
crucial roles in the success of BEAD and other IIJA telecommunications
programs. Sens. Wicker, Scott, and I introduced the Improving Minority
Participation and Careers in Telecommunications (IMPACT) Act. The
IMPACT Act would create a NTIA-administered, $100 million grant program
that would provide funds to Historically Black Colleges and
Universities, tribal colleges and universities, and minority-serving
institutions to help develop the telecommunications workforce through
education, apprenticeship, and training programs.
Question 4. Given that we are pursuing a significant expansion of
broadband into tribal communities and otherwise underserved or unserved
communities, what role do you think training, recruiting, and retaining
a diverse telecommunications workforce has in ensuring successful
implementation of IIJA broadband programs? Could you elaborate on steps
NTIA has taken to achieve such a workforce? Could our legislation
supplement existing NTIA programs, including the Connection Minority
Communities Pilot Program?
Answer. In order to build out broadband to every corner of the
country, we're going to need a highly skilled, diverse workforce that
can safely do their jobs. NTIA is participating in the
Telecommunications Workforce Interagency Group (TWIG), as established
under the IIJA, along with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
the Department of Labor (DOL), and the Department of Education. The
working group held its first meeting on March 8, 2022, and has since
made progress toward identifying the current and future needs of the
telecommunications industry workforce.
In addition, NTIA is engaging in outreach and technical assistance
activities to help Eligible Entities, territories, and their political
subdivisions prepare and plan for use of funds through the BEAD
program, by encouraging coordination with Eligible Entities'
telecommunications workforce development plans. All planning and
project efforts funded under the Digital Equity Act are intended to
promote activities that advance digital equity, digital inclusion, and
workforce development initiatives, and the Department will engage in
outreach and technical assistance activities to help Eligible Entities
and their political subdivisions prepare to seek funding and plan for
use of funds (including uses relating to workforce development). The
Connecting Minority Communities Pilot Program is also investing in
building a diverse IT workforce at HBCUs, tribal colleges and
universities, and minority serving institutions. The five grants
awarded as of August 2022 as part of the program all invest in IT staff
and digital workforce capacity.
Broadband Deployment on Public Lands. Arizona contains 22 sites
operated by the National Park Service and six national forests, along
with over 12 million acres of land administered by the Bureau of Land
Management. My office has heard concerns that some Federal agencies may
not have the necessary resources required to process all of the
expected permit requests for the deployment of wireless and wired
communications projects supported by the IIJA on Federal lands.
Question 5. How does NTIA plan to address this potential issue from
a time and resources perspective?
Answer. This has been a complex issue for the Federal government--
and state and local governments--for decades. We recognize the
importance of removing unnecessary barriers faced by the entities that
are going to build the networks required to achieve our goal of
universal, affordable, high-speed Internet access, and we are working
closely across the Administration and land-management agencies to
identify pain points and solutions.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ben Ray Lujan to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Topic. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the NTIA's work to
provide high-quality service for our Tribes and Pueblos. I would like
to ask a few additional questions about the Tribal Broadband
Connectivity Program.
Unfortunately, Congress created a double standard for this program
that sets a lower standard in Native communities than in the rest of
the country. Current law says the minimum speed for Tribal grants is 25
megabits down over 3 megabits up, while broadband funding in the rest
of the country cannot go below 100 over 20. These statutory
requirements are not equitable for our Tribal communities in New
Mexico, and while I know you will administer these programs fairly and
effectively, it is vital that we address any statutory barriers that
continue to put our Tribes and Pueblos at a disadvantage.
Question 1. Yes or No, can I count on you to help identify areas
where Congress can update the law so that broadband programs meet the
intended goals?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. Will the NTIA open the TBCP to additional applicants
beyond the more than 300 applicants that applied for the initial $980
million?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. Would the NTIA provide my office with the list of
Tribes and Pueblos from New Mexico and Navajo Nation Chapters that
applied for TBCP grants during the initial application window?
Answer. In keeping with the Department of Commerce practices for
grantmaking and to respect the business privacy of unsuccessful
applicants, we do not release the names of unsuccessful applicants for
Department of Commerce grant programs. We will continue to announce the
organizations that are receiving awards on a rolling basis.
Question 4. In a March 18, 2022, virtual Tribal Consultation
regarding the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), NTIA
stated that some Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP)
applications had already been denied on merit review because they had
not met the scoring threshold for funding. How many? Have these Tribes
been notified? If not, when will they be notified?
Answer. While notifications have begun, the process is still
ongoing. We have, as of October 19, 2022, announced 95 TBCP grants
totaling $1.35 billion of funding. We expect all notifications will be
complete in the coming months. Given the volume of requests and the
significant need to quickly expand high-speed Internet service on
Tribal lands, NTIA allocated $1 billion from the IIJA funding to the
first round of TBCP funding under the current Notice of Funding
Opportunity. The total available for high-speed Internet grants as part
of TBCP first round of funding is now $1.96 billion. NTIA alerted
Tribal entities who applied to the June 2021 Notice of Funding
Opportunity that there is no action required on their part and NTIA
will continue to announce additional awards on a rolling basis as they
move through NTIA's review process. We intend to publish the second
Notice of Funding Opportunity, sourced by the remaining IIJA funds, by
the end of 2022.
Topic. As I have mentioned, New Mexico is currently facing some of
the worst wildfires in our state's history. I am heartened that the
NOFO references the importance of building resilient networks in
response to global warming and increasing severity of natural
disasters. Disasters like tornados, hurricanes and floods affect the
constituents of every member of this Committee sitting here today. Due
to the effects of climate change, these kinds of events are only
becoming more frequent.
Question 5. Will state plans be able to prioritize infrastructure
that has been destroyed in a disaster?
Answer. To the extent the FCC's broadband map shows a location or
groups of locations as being unserved as a result of a natural
disaster, the state will be permitted--and, indeed, required--to ensure
provision of reliable, affordable, high-speed broadband to those
locations. IIJA's BEAD provision does not contemplate a scenario in
which a state can accelerate the deployment of service to such
locations. Under the law as passed, each state must run a competitive
process to make subgrants for the deployment of broadband service, and
that process needs to be approved by NTIA.
Topic. In the BEAD program guidance, broadband providers are
required to provide broadband service on terms that are ``reasonable
and non-discriminatory''. I am glad this provision was included and
encourage you to go as far as possible in ensuring broadband providers
receiving this historic funding are held to high standards in how they
treat their customers. Earlier this year, I sent letters to eight
national ISPs to better understand how they handle customers' data.
This is a critical issue. Unlike competitive industries, most
Americans--particularly those in rural parts of New Mexico--don't get
to choose their ISP. They have only one option for home broadband. They
are effectively forced into agreeing to a single provider's terms and
conditions. No one should be forced to surrender their privacy and
personal information for an essential service like a home broadband
connection.
Question 6. How does NTIA ensure providers protect the privacy of
our constituents on federally funded networks?
Answer. Protecting individual privacy while promoting the
innovation that drives the digital economy is a priority for this
Administration. NTIA will work with Eligible Entities and Federal
regulators to ensure that subgrantees meet their current obligations
under the law, including any requirements set forth by the FCC, or
applicable state laws. NTIA is also engaged in a workstream focused on
the intersection of privacy, equity, and civil rights, given the Biden
Administration's dedication to eradicating structural inequity, and the
disproportionate impact of privacy invasions on marginalized
communities.
Topic. Thank you for mentioning the work you and Chairwoman
Rosenworcel have done on the Spectrum Coordination Initiative to ensure
a ``whole-of-government'' approach to spectrum policy, including making
updates to the interagency Memorandum of Understanding for the first
time in 20 years. Over the past few years, challenges in coordinating
Federal users with commercial spectrum interests have caused major
disruptions in wireless infrastructure deployment. I'm glad that a
number of my colleagues have brought up this essential issue,
highlighting that there is strong support on both sides of the aisle
for reforming this process. Senators Wicker, Thune, Blackburn and I
have been working to ensure there is a statutory framework in place so
that we will never go 20 years without updates to this process.
Question 7. Not only the FCC, but also Congress, relies on NTIA to
identify Federal spectrum that might be made available for other uses
including licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Which spectrum bands is
NTIA evaluating, and how can Congress help ensure that spectrum is used
effectively and to the best interest of the public?
Answer. NTIA's primary focus for making more spectrum available for
non-federal use is the 3.1-3.45 GHz band. In the IIJA, Congress
directed the Department of Defense to study the band for the possible
auction of some or all of it. The wireless industry has identified this
mid band spectrum range as vital for future 5G deployments, especially
as it is adjacent to the 3.45 -3.55 GHz band that was auctioned last
year. The 3.1-3.45 GHz band has the potential to add hundreds of
billions of dollars of activity to the national economy, and it is
unclear how soon we might have another opportunity of this magnitude.
NTIA is also leading the development of a National Spectrum strategy
that will help shape future spectrum decisions and ensure that spectrum
is used effectively. I thank this Committee for its leadership in
supporting NTIA's work to ensure spectrum is put to its best use.
Topic. For the BEAD program to truly succeed, we need to ensure
small, local providers who have been serving their communities are set
up to successfully compete with large national carriers. I have heard
some concerns from competitive rural carriers around certain provisions
in the initial guidance regarding certain specific requirements.
It is my understanding that there is more clarification to come on
some of these issues such as the specific requirements for matching
funds, providing letters of credit, and addressing supply chain
interruptions, and I look forward to seeing those clarifications as
they are made available.
Question 8. In future guidance, how will NTIA ensure that local
broadband providers are able to compete with national providers on a
level field?
Answer. It is critical to the BEAD Program's success that all
providers identified by the statute be able to compete for funding on a
level playing field. The IIJA directs Eligible Entities consider a wide
range of applicants. As the NOFO states, we are urging Eligible
Entities not to adopt any new restrictions on municipal providers, and
to waive any pre-existing restrictions. In its initial proposal, a
state or territory must identify any existing restrictions, whether it
will waive them, and, if not, how they will affect applications from
municipal providers. BEAD NOFO IV.B.5.b.18. In the final proposal, the
state or territory must tell us how any such restrictions affected any
unsuccessful applicant for a subgrant. BEAD NOFO IV.B.9.b.16. Our goal
here is to help ensure that Eligible Entities respect the statutory
requirement that these providers have a fair opportunity to
participate.
Question 9. Can you provide a timeline on when we can expect
further clarifying guidance on letters of credit and matching funds, as
well as any other topics?
Answer. Since the BEAD NOFO was released, NTIA has been working
tirelessly to draft and release guidance on a broad range of topics. We
have responded to scores of inquiries, held webinars and listening
sessions, and compiled and published responses to Frequently Asked
Questions. This work will continue into the coming weeks, months, and
years. I cannot cite a particular timeline for guidance; however, NTIA
has answered a range of stakeholder questions regarding letters of
credit and matching funds, and has issued multiple FAQs. I promise that
we will continue to provide timely and relevant information to help
ensure that providers falling into all of the categories identified in
the statute are able to compete for BEAD funding.
Topic. It is Congress' intent to provide NTIA with every tool it
needs to complete the mission it was tasked with in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act. It's critical the administration meet this
moment, and there is bipartisan mobilization to make that happen.
Question 10. Does NTIA have all the necessary authorities it needs
to ensure the funding from the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment
Program connects all Americans to high-quality, affordable broadband
service?
Answer. We believe we have all the authority we need to implement
the BEAD Program and achieve our goal, which is to ensure the provision
of high-speed, reliable, affordable broadband to all unserved
Americans.
Topic. Regions are not bound by state lines--El Paso is less than
an hour from Las Cruces, and the communities between the two cities
share many similarities. Providers are often well-versed at operating
across state lines in regions on the New Mexico-Texas border, and can
benefit from coordinating their activities across state lines. I
understand that with BEAD money flowing through states, there may be
some barriers to creating successful projects that are in multiple
states.
Question 11. How does NTIA plan to facilitate regional coalitions
and projects that cross state lines, given that funding will be
disbursed directly by states?
Answer. As you note, the statute calls for funding to be disbursed
by the Eligible Entities and gives each Eligible Entity a great deal of
authority to structure its own BEAD grant framework. We agree that
there are many opportunities for Eligible Entities to collaborate,
particularly when they share common borders. NTIA is happy to work with
Eligible Entities to facilitate such collaboration. Eligible Entities
may take steps to align their frameworks to better serve their
populations, so long as those frameworks are consistent with IIJA's
requirements and the parameters set out in the BEAD NOFO.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Hickenlooper to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Topic. The First Responder Network (FirstNet) Authority is
responsible for operating a communications network dedicated to first
responders nationwide. This network is vital to first responders and
public safety organizations nationwide, and in Colorado, is especially
important to firefighters combating wildfires.
In February, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) published a
report on FirstNet highlighting that the spectrum license held by
FirstNet for network deployment and operation needs to be renewed by
the FCC this November, and the FirstNet Authority will sunset in 2027
without a re-authorization.
I intend to work on a bipartisan bill to ensure network continuity
and improve wireless communications for our first responders.
Question 1. Administrator Davidson, can you describe your
priorities with respect to FirstNet to ensure it provides resilient and
reliable services to our first responders?
Answer. P.L. 112-96, the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation
Act of 2012 (Act) created the First Responder Network Authority
(FirstNet Authority) as an independent authority within NTIA and
charged the FirstNet Authority with ensuring the building, deployment,
and operation of a nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband
network (NPSBN). NTIA manages specific activities undertaken by the
FirstNet Authority, including the review of annual fee collection;
FirstNet Authority's overall programmatic, financial, and operational
performance; and delegated responsibility to support Secretary Raimondo
with her appointment of non-permanent FirstNet Authority Board members.
FirstNet is building a track record of success in responding to
various public safety issues, including wildfires, a critical issue in
Colorado. FirstNet's deployable assets were a key component of the
public safety response to the Marshall Fire in Boulder County, Colorado
in December 2021. This wildfire devastated approximately 6,000 acres
and destroyed over a thousand homes. Despite significant fire damage to
the local fiber infrastructure, FirstNet's fleet of dedicated mobile
deployable assets was able to rapidly ensure communications resiliency
for firefighters and other public safety officials. This included a
cache of over 100 devices handed out to state and local first
responders, giving these individuals immediate priority access to the
FirstNet network to assist with their response to the emergency.
FirstNet also supported the response at the incident command post and
the Emergency Operations Center during the incident. As a result of its
contributions, the FirstNet Authority was recently recognized with a
formal commendation by the Boulder County Sheriff's Office for their
swift support, assisting Colorado's first responders to successfully
conduct their mission to save lives and property that impacted so many.
I am proud of the work that the FirstNet Authority has been able to
accomplish to date and support their work to continue to improve
resilient and reliable communications for your constituents in Colorado
and our Nation's first responders. I look forward to working with you
in our shared interest to ensure network continuity and improve
wireless communications for public safety.
Topic. Cybersecurity is a major threat to our national and economic
security. As a result, I introduced the bipartisan NTIA Policy
Development and Cybersecurity Act to strengthen the work of NTIA in
cybersecurity.
NTIA recently released its ``Software Bill of Materials'' guidance,
which includes a detailed list of software components to ensure digital
products are secure.
Question 2. Administrator Davidson, could you discuss how the
initiatives NTIA is carrying out will improve our Nation's
cybersecurity posture and defenses?
Answer. The multistakeholder community involved in the Software
Bill of Materials (SBOM) process took the idea that an ``ingredients
list'' for software should be available to software administrators and
made it a key part of the global agenda around software supply chains.
When a new vulnerability or risk is discovered, a Software Bill of
Materials can help any organization realize whether it or its customers
might be at risk. SBOM was featured in the Cybersecurity Executive
Order, and NTIA published the Minimum Elements for an SBOM last summer.
NTIA is continuing to engage as the U.S. government works on new
language for the Federal Acquisition Regulation focusing on
cybersecurity and incident reporting. NTIA also continues to promote
SBOM in our supply chain work. Furthermore, as we work to enable a more
virtualized communications ecosystem to expand and improve our 5G
footprint, transparency in software will be an important building block
for security.
NTIA emphasizes the importance of effective cybersecurity and
supply chain security risk management under the IIJA broadband grant
programs. NTIA, in coordination with NIST, has developed cybersecurity
and supply chain security requirements for grant applicants under each
of the IIJA's broadband programs. Additionally, NTIA offers state
broadband offices technical assistance on such issues, including
increasing the redundancy and resiliency of the country's broadband
networks, other commercial telecommunications services, protection of
other critical national infrastructure (e.g., the national power grid
and power transmission facilities), border security, or other physical
infrastructure sensor and monitoring.
Further, in the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of
2019, Congress tasked NTIA with establishing a program to share
security risk information with small and rural communications providers
and suppliers of communications equipment. Through the Communications
Supply Chain Risk Information Partnership (C-SCRIP), NTIA coordinates
with other relevant Federal agencies to share both classified and
unclassified security risk information and resources with those
providers and suppliers (small and rural) that have traditionally
lacked access to such information. Cybersecurity resources from across
the Federal government are available on the C-SCRIP website. The C-
SCRIP program will be a key mechanism for NTIA's high-speed Internet
grant programs cybersecurity-related activities as well. C-SCRIP
presented a webinar on the high-speed Internet grant programs and on
the NIST Cybersecurity Framework to our stakeholders on August 8.
NTIA also is the Department of Commerce representative to the
Vulnerabilities Equities Process, which governs how the Federal
government will choose to disclose to the vendor community, or retain
for exclusive government use, any vulnerability for which it becomes
aware.
Finally, NTIA is the Executive Branch expert on policy issues
relating to the Domain Name System (DNS) and can work within its
interagency and industry partnerships to assess impacts to the DNS. We
further work within the interagency to help develop policies that
relate to the security of the Internet, and our telecommunications
infrastructure such as undersea cable networks.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roger Wicker to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. I am concerned that allocating money to states before
the Federal Communications Commission finishes resolving challenges to
its Broadband DATA Act map could lead to NTIA misallocating money among
the states.
Will you commit to waiting for the FCC to resolve challenges
to its broadband map before allocating BEAD money to states?
If you cannot commit, how will NTIA address inaccuracies in
the FCC's maps without waiting for the challenges to be
completed? Won't this mean some states will not receive the
correct allocation of funds? Please explain.
Answer. The IIJA directs the Assistant Secretary, in coordination
with the Commission, to allocate BEAD funds amongst the Eligible
Entities once the broadband DATA maps are made public. I agree that
accurate mapping data is vital, and that the FCC's challenge
processes--both for the Fabric and for provider data submitted in
conjunction with the new Broadband Data Collection--are critical to
improving their accuracy. I note, however, that the FCC's challenge
processes are ongoing and the accuracy of the maps will improve over
time. We are working closely with our colleagues at the FCC to
determine how best to balance the need to provide certainty regarding
the amounts to be allocated to the Eligible Entities in a timely manner
against the need to allow the FCC, Eligible Entities, and providers to
review and validate the content of the maps. We encourage states and
others to submit timely challenges if they believe that data in the
maps is inaccurate so that these maps can expeditiously be improved.
Question 2. NTIA recently released a document on Frequently Asked
Questions for the BEAD Program. In it, NTIA states that it will use the
FCC's broadband maps to allocate funds to states, but that an Eligible
Entity ``can incorporate information from its own mapping data . . .
prior to awarding subgrants for broadband deployment.''
What type of information and mapping data are states
permitted to incorporate? Will you require states to identify
the additional data they use? How will you ensure its accuracy?
How does permitting states to include this data comply with
the IIJA's requirements that unserved and underserved locations
be based on the FCC's Broadband DATA Act maps and the Notice of
Funding Opportunity's requirement that states use the most up-
to-date Broadband DATA Act maps when determining unserved and
underserved locations?
Will NTIA permit a state to use this information as a
substitute for the most up-to-date Broadband DATA Act map?
Will NTIA require states to base their subgrant decisions on
the FCC's Broadband DATA Act maps? (While still accounting for
enforceable funding commitments from other programs.)
Answer. By statute, the FCC's Broadband DATA Act will be used to
identify the universe of unserved and underserved locations that each
Eligible Entity will put out for bid during their subgrantee selection
process. Section 60102(h)(2) requires Eligible Entities to ``ensure a
transparent, evidence-based, and expeditious challenge process under
which a unit of local government, nonprofit organization, or other
broadband service provider can challenge a determination made by the
Eligible Entity in the initial proposal as to whether a particular
location or community anchor institution within the jurisdiction of the
Eligible Entity is eligible for the grant funds, including whether a
particular location is unserved or underserved.'' The BEAD NOFO directs
Eligible Entities to ``update the data provided in their Initial
Proposal to reflect the most recently published version of the
Broadband DATA Maps available as of the initiation of the challenge
process.''
Eligible Entities are required to include a detailed plan for their
challenge process as part of their Initial Proposal, which should
include descriptions of the types of evidence that the Eligible Entity
may consider as part of that challenge process. NTIA will review each
of these proposals, and the Assistant Secretary may modify the
challenge process proposed by the Eligible Entity as necessary.
Upon conclusion of the challenge process, each Eligible Entity must
notify NTIA of any modifications to the Initial Proposal that are
necessitated by successful challenges to its initial determinations.
Pursuant to the discretionary authority granted to the Assistant
Secretary in the IIJA, NTIA may reverse the determination of an
Eligible Entity with respect to the eligibility of a particular
location or community anchor institution.
NTIA has worked and will continue to work closely with each
Eligible Entity on ensuring that the challenge process required under
Section 60102(h)(2) is transparent, evidence-based, and expeditious.
Question 3. In IIJA, Congress addressed broadband affordability by
requiring providers receiving subgrants from states to include low-cost
broadband options, and by providing $14 billion to the FCC's Affordable
Connectivity Program.
Given these provisions, why is NTIA requiring states to
address middle class affordability? Where in the IIJA does NTIA
find authority for this requirement?
How will NTIA define what constitutes ``middle-class
affordability''?
Will NTIA approve state plans that rely on market forces to
determine the price of a low-cost broadband service option and
the middle-class affordability plan? If not, please explain why
not.
Would a state requirement that subgrantees offer a low-cost,
high-speed plans to all middle class householders on BEAD
funded networks be de facto rate regulation?
Wouldn't NTIA's approval of any such plans be impermissible rate
regulation? If not, please explain why not.
Answer. The IIJA states that ``[a]ccess to affordable, reliable,
high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in modern life
in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he persistent `digital divide' in
the United States is a barrier to'' the Nation's ``economic
competitiveness
[and the] equitable distribution of essential public services,
including health care and education.'' We agree, and believe it is
essential that communications networks be accessible and affordable to
all Americans. Thus, while the IIJA's low-cost service option
requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-income
Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that service is
affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the
IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose
plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO expressly
refrains from defining that term, because its answer might differ from
state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to the
Eligible Entities in the first instance.
Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms a state must employ
to ensure middle-class affordability. Again, this is a question for
Eligible Entities to address in the first instance.
Question 4. NTIA's Notice of Funding Opportunity includes a number
of provisions that favor ``non-traditional'' broadband providers over
traditional ones. These include asking states to waive prohibitions on
these providers and requiring states to explain why they chose a
traditional provider over a non-traditional one.
Why is NTIA favoring non-traditional providers, rather than
letting the competitive process play out?
Is it NTIA's position that non-traditional broadband
providers have a stronger and more extensive record at
successfully and cost-effectively deploying broadband networks
and connecting Americans than traditional providers? Please
explain.
Do you have any concerns about NTIA encouraging states to
support non-traditional providers that lack a proven record for
operating a broadband network? If not, please explain why not.
Answer. There is no preference for non-traditional providers in the
statute or the BEAD NOFO. Rather, our framework follows the statutory
directive that the BEAD program must support a wide mix of provider
types. With regard to non-traditional providers, the NOFO asks Eligible
Entities to explain how non-traditional providers were affected by any
state laws designed to restrict such providers' operations, and why
applications from such providers were rejected. The NOFO does not take
any view with respect to the relative performance of traditional and
non-traditional providers and does not suggest that non-traditional
providers should be given any advantages in the process. Nor do we
encourage Eligible Entities to support non-traditional providers
without a proven track record. To the contrary, the NOFO includes
robust provisions requiring that any subgrantee--traditional or non-
traditional--demonstrate its technical, operational, financial, and
managerial capability to deploy and operate the network for which it
seeks funding.
Question 5. The IIJA required NTIA to use specific criteria to
determine what constitutes ``Reliable Broadband Service.'' In its NOFO,
NTIA determined that ``Reliable Broadband Service'' must be (1) a fixed
broadband service that (2) is available with a high degree of
certainty, (3) both at present and for the foreseeable future.''
However, NTIA did not recognize broadband service using entirely
unlicensed spectrum as ``Reliable Broadband Service.'' The FCC, through
programs like CAF Phase II and RDOF, has made significant awards to
ISPs that utilize entirely unlicensed spectrum to deliver quality high-
speed broadband. For years, fixed wireless companies have been using 14
Gigahertz of unlicensed spectrum in the 57-71 GHz band to provide
Gigabit per second download and upload speeds. And in April 2020, the
FCC allocated another 850 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum in the 6 GHz
band for standard power outdoor operations.
Please explain how these networks that serve more than 9 million
Americans do not meet the criteria NTIA adopted for defining ``Reliable
Broadband Service.''
Answer. The NOFO does not take the view that any particular
technology--including fixed wireless relying on unlicensed spectrum--is
incapable of providing reliable service to consumers today. As you
note, providers are currently providing such service to end users. The
IIJA defines the term ``Reliable Broadband Service'' to encompass
factors such as ``adaptability to changing end-user requirements'' and
``length of serviceable life.'' The BEAD Program represents a once-in-
a-generation opportunity to deploy broadband to the unserved, and we
must consider a network's reliable provision of broadband today, and
its reliability for the next 20 years or more. Because unlicensed
spectrum is susceptible to debilitating harmful interference and
because operators can lose access to the spectrum on which the network
relies with little or no warning, such service cannot be considered
available with a high degree of certainty both at present and for the
foreseeable future.
Notwithstanding the above, if no Reliable Broadband Service
technology meeting the BEAD Program's technical requirements would be
deployable for a subsidy of less than the Extremely High Cost Per
Location Threshold at a given location, each state is authorized to
select a proposal involving a less costly technology for that location,
even if that technology does not meet the definition of Reliable
Broadband Service but otherwise satisfies the Program's technical
requirements. For example, if in an Extreme High Cost Per Location
area, an unlicensed spectrum system offers speeds of 100 Mbps
downstream/20 Mbps upstream, that system might receive funding.
Question 6. Assistant Secretary Davidson, we have seen several
spectrum related disputes among Federal agencies in recent years.
Can you tell us how you intend to improve the relationship
between NTIA and Federal agencies, and ensure that the FCC has
the appropriate information in the record when making decisions
related to Federal spectrum?
Can you discuss the biggest challenges to coordination with
the FCC on spectrum management? How can this relationship be
improved? Are there additional tools that would be helpful?
Answer. I believe we have a strong foundation for working with
other Federal agencies. Earlier, this year, the FCC and NTIA announced
a Spectrum Coordination Initiative to improve U.S. government
coordination on spectrum management. As a result, my staff and I meet
regularly with FCC staff to address spectrum issues. We have updated
our Memorandum of Understanding with the FCC, which will strengthen
cooperation and collaboration between the agencies and help advance a
whole-of-government approach to how we use and manage one of the
Nation's most important resources. We are also making headway to
improve the technical exchange and engagement with industry and other
Federal agencies. For example, NTIA is participating in the Partnering
to Advance Trusted and Holistic Spectrum Solutions (PATHSS) working
group of the National Spectrum Consortium.
The centerpiece of our engagement with other Federal agencies is
the Interdepartmental Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), which is the
oldest such advisory committee in the Federal government and is
celebrating its centennial this year. We are working to strengthen the
IRAC to ensure greater transparency such that Federal agency input on
spectrum decisions is provided earlier and more meaningfully by, for
example, revising the NTIA-FCC MOU to allow 20 days' prior notice to
the FCC of final spectrum actions. We additionally are reinvigorating
our Policy Plans and Steering Group (PPSG). NTIA and FCC staff also
participate as observers on advisory committees exploring spectrum-
related issues including FCC staff on NTIA's Commerce Spectrum
Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC), and NTIA staff on the FCC's
Technological Advisory Council (TAC) and the Communications Security,
Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC).
Since I assumed the role of NTIA Administrator, I made it one of my
top priorities to strengthen the working relationship between the NTIA
and the FCC. Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel and I meet regularly and
are making significant progress on a variety of issues. We are seeing a
revitalization of this historically strong relationship.
Question 7. In April, Secretary Raimondo testified before this
Committee about the Spectrum Coordination Initiative between NTIA and
the FCC. She mentioned that NTIA is increasing its presence in the
interagency spectrum process, but emphasized that NTIA needs to be
``elevated'' in interagency discussions.
Do you agree with that? And, how can Congress help to
elevate and reinforce NTIA's statutory spectrum management role
among other Federal agencies?
Secretary Raimondo also testified that we need ``an
administration-wide, government-wide spectrum strategy.'' Is
that spectrum strategy something NTIA is actively working to
develop? If so, when can we expect that strategy to be
completed and made available to Congress to review?
Answer. Yes. Commerce Secretary Raimondo noted that NTIA is
committed to fulfilling its statutory obligations to lead the Federal
spectrum management process. NTIA has the responsibility to manage
Federal agency use of spectrum and this is a responsibility I take
seriously. I very much appreciate Congressional recognition of these
responsibilities. In terms of Congressional help, I appreciate Senator
Wicker's and Senator Thune's efforts to advance NTIA reauthorization
language. Reauthorizing NTIA is one way Congress can elevate and
reinforce our spectrum management role.
Efforts are being made to collaborate on a whole-of-government
national spectrum strategy and create a framework to support long-term
spectrum planning and coordination. We are still in the early stages of
these efforts.
Question 8. The FCC's spectrum auction authority expires at the end
of September. I hope this Committee will consider legislative proposals
to extend the agency's authority. That said, there is currently
bipartisan legislation in the House to extend the FCC's auction
authority for 18 months. This short-term extension would give Congress
time to develop a spectrum pipeline that sets a timeline for auctioning
a series of spectrum bands in the coming years. Do you support the
bipartisan legislation in the House that would extend the FCC's auction
authority for 18 months? And, how would extending the FCC's auction
authority help NTIA in developing a strong and competitive national
spectrum strategy?
Answer. NTIA recognizes that FCC's auction authority was extended
through December 16, 2022 as part of the Continuing Resolution and is a
vital component of our national spectrum management framework. NTIA
supports providing certainty to the FCC's ability to conduct spectrum
auctions, because it will help both NTIA and FCC support broad national
priorities related to efficient and effective spectrum management. NTIA
has undertaken development of a national spectrum strategy that will
provide a way of developing a pipeline consistent with agency statutory
missions and needs.
Question 9. Last fall, Senator Thune and I introduced the NTIA
Reauthorization and Reform Act. This legislation would reauthorize NTIA
for the first time since 1992. It also includes a number of provisions,
including one that would elevate the NTIA Administrator from Assistant
Secretary to Undersecretary. I know your staff has reviewed this bill.
Do you support the NTIA Reauthorization and Reform Act?
Would you like to see the committee advance this
legislation?
Answer. I welcome the opportunity to work with you, Senator Thune,
and your staffs on your legislation and to offer our technical
assistance.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. John Thune to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. The NOFO for the BEAD program assumes that middle-class
affordability is an issue that NTIA has the authority to address.
Please provide the provision in the statute that authorizes NTIA to
require states to address broadband affordability for the middle-class
in particular and any studies that were relied upon that indicate that
broadband affordability is an issue for the middle-class.
Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA states that ``[a]ccess to
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We
believe it is essential that communications networks be accessible and
affordable to all Americans. IIJA's low-cost service option requirement
is important for ensuring affordability for low-income Americans, but
that requirement alone will not ensure that service is affordable for
middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the IIJA's clearly
stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose plans for
promoting middle-class affordability.
Question 2. NTIA is supposed to speak for the entire Executive
Branch on Federal spectrum issues; however, NTIA's decisions and
authority in certain spectrum cases have been called into question.
This has led to Federal agencies communicating directly with the FCC
rather than collectively through NTIA. Do you think it's helpful when
multiple Federal agencies talk directly to the FCC rather than allow
NTIA to communicate the entire Administration's position on a spectrum
issue? What steps is NTIA taking to improve its communication with
other Federal agencies as it relates to their spectrum needs?
Answer. NTIA has the statutory obligation to represent the
Executive Branch before the FCC on spectrum and telecommunications
matters. This is an important job. When this process is not followed,
consequences emerge that can undermine the effectiveness of all
parties. We are actively working to ensure that other Federal agencies
recognize NTIA's statutory role, and we are engaging with other Federal
agencies so that we at NTIA are educated early enough in the process to
be an effective advocate for all Federal missions--many of which are
statutorily mandated. Additionally, NTIA is leading the development of
and working collaboratively with all relevant agencies on a whole-of-
government national spectrum strategy that takes into account Federal
and non-federal needs and forges deeper interagency cooperation and
coordination.
Additionally, on February 15, 2022, the FCC and NTIA announced a
new initiative to improve U.S. government coordination on spectrum
management. The Spectrum Coordination Initiative will involve actions
by both agencies to strengthen the processes for decision making,
information sharing, and to work cooperatively to resolve spectrum
policy issues. On August 2, 2022, NTIA and the FCC published an updated
Memorandum of Understanding on spectrum coordination. This MOU will
strengthen cooperation and collaboration between the agencies and help
advance a whole-of-government approach to how we use and manage one of
the Nation's most important resources. Key aspects of the MOU include
formalized high-level planning, coordination, data sharing, and clear
processes for dispute resolution.
Question 3. NTIA plays a critical role within the Executive Branch
to ensure that agencies responsible for broadband permits are acting in
a timely fashion, and with all the money going out the door, it is
going to be even more important for providers to have permits processed
in an efficient manner.
As you know, the MOBILE NOW Act created a 270 day shot clock for
agencies to act on telecommunications applications. What is NTIA doing
to further streamline broadband permitting on Federal lands? How is
NTIA encouraging agencies to prioritize permit reviews? Should the 270
day shot clock be shortened.
Answer. We are working closely across the Administration and with
land-management agencies to identify pain points and potential
solutions. NTIA is responsible for coordinating with other agencies to
implement the broadband permitting reforms called for in the MOBILE NOW
Act, which include developing application tracking procedures, speeding
application reviews and approvals, expediting renewals, and
prioritizing permits in previously disturbed rights-of-way.
Question 4. How does the NTIA plan to address supply chain issues
that may increase project costs or slow down the timeline for providers
to complete a project as they wait to obtain equipment and supplies
needed to build the networks?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has taken a leading role in
addressing supply chain challenges facing our nation, and the
Department and NTIA are well positioned to engage with the
telecommunications sector and manufacturers to ensure that there is
sufficient supply of fiber, equipment, and other necessary materials to
implement the broadband programs. I intend to leverage the resources
and expertise within the Department and to work closely with industrial
stakeholders to address this critical issue.
Question 5. I am concerned that states could misread the NOFO as
giving them the authority to adopt workforce requirements that will
discourage--or even exclude--experienced providers from competing for
funds even if they have a demonstrated record of compliance with
Federal labor and employment laws. Would you be willing to make clear
to states that their workforce plans should be aligned with our
fundamental objective of building out broadband networks within four
years?
Answer. Eligible Entities must require submission of, and evaluate,
the prospective subgrantee's plans for ensuring compliance with Federal
labor and employment laws. Neither the statute nor the BEAD NOFO give
the Eligible Entities any additional authority in this regard, and NTIA
has made that clear in its responses to inquiries on this issue.
Question 6. I was disappointed to see that the NOFO encourages
states to give a preference to applicants that commit to ``open
access'' networks that would be available on a wholesale
basis. I'm disappointed because I think the focus on ``open
access'' is a distraction to our primary objective of building out
broadband facilities to unserved and underserved areas, and because
``open access'' was an element of other infrastructure bills that was
not included in the final law. Would you consider eliminating ``open
access'' as a factor, or at least making clear that it should carry
little weight in a state's consideration of proposals?
Answer. The BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD provider to offer
open access, but rather encourages Eligible Entities to adopt secondary
selection criteria promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband
service. All secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no more
than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process.
Question 7. Can you describe the objective standards NTIA may adopt
when it evaluates state plans and how potential subgrantees will be
vetted--that is, before an award is made--to ensure that a provider has
the capability necessary to perform?
Answer. The BEAD NOFO states that Eligible Entities shall ensure
that any prospective subgrantee can carry out activities funded by the
subgrant in a competent manner and in compliance with all applicable
federal, State, Territorial, and local laws. Eligible Entities shall
ensure that prospective subgrantees have the competence, managerial and
financial capacity to meet the commitments of the subgrant and any
requirements of the Program, as well as the technical and operational
capability to provide the services promised in the subgrant in the
manner contemplated by the subgrant award. Specific showings that
Eligible Entities must require from prospective subgrantees seeking to
deploy network facilities using BEAD funds are further detailed in
Section IV.D.2 of the NOFO. The Assistant Secretary invited Eligible
Entities to propose alternatives to the specific showings set forth in
the NOFO, which may be permitted if they are necessary and sufficient
to ensure that the Program's objectives are met.
Question 8. NTIA's NOFO issued in May stated that the agency will
provide information regarding its designation of high-cost areas in
future guidance, including how states should determine the ``extremely
high cost per location threshold.'' When will NTIA release its guidance
regarding high-cost areas, and how can the agency make sure that the
bar for the ``extremely high cost'' areas is set as high as possible so
as not to leave large swaths of rural America behind?
Answer. NTIA staff are actively developing the definition of
``high-cost area,'' and a firm timeline is not yet in place. With
respect to the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold, the NOFO
states, and NTIA will require, that each Eligible Entity must establish
its Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold in a manner that
maximizes use of the best available technology while ensuring that the
program can meet the prioritization and scoring requirements set forth
in Section IV.B.6 of the NOFO. NTIA expects Eligible Entities to set
the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold as high as possible to
help ensure that end-to-end fiber projects are deployed wherever
feasible. We look forward to working with each Eligible Entity to help
develop an appropriate Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
Question 9. How will NTIA ensure all providers, regardless of their
organization or commercial statues, are allowed to apply for funding
under the BEAD program on equal footing?
Answer. NTIA will review each Eligible Entity's initial proposal
and monitor the implementation of each subgrantee selection process to
ensure compliance with the requirement that Eligible Entities may not
exclude, as a class, cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public-
private partnerships, private companies, public or private utilities,
public utility districts, or local governments from eligibility as a
subgrantee. See NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 6.
Question 10. Why did NTIA choose to go beyond requiring
participation in ACP for the low-cost offering by requiring a
subgrantee to participate in both the ACP and offer a low-cost
offering? Congress allocated $14.2B to fund the ACP to subsidize
broadband for low-income Americans. What data did NTIA rely to show
this isn't sufficient?
Answer. The IIJA's BEAD provisions are premised on Congress's
determination, set out in section 60101, that ``[a]ccess to affordable,
reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full participation in
modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he persistent
`digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the Nation's
``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of
essential public services, including health care and education.'' The
statute requires that each subgrantee receiving BEAD funding to deploy
network infrastructure offer at least one low-cost broadband service
option, and that each Eligible Entity consult with the Assistant
Secretary and prospective subgrantees regarding a proposed definition
of that term, and obtain the Assistant Secretary's final approval.
Question 11. NTIA encourages grantees to prioritize those who
commit to open access last mile facilities. What research did NTIA do,
if any, into this being a viable model and that retail providers will
actually want to and be willing to resell those services and compete
for customers?
Answer. NTIA's grant programs that include a middle mile component
have traditionally included an open access requirement for middle-mile
networks. That notwithstanding, the BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD
provider to offer open access. The BEAD NOFO encourages, but does not
require, Eligible Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria
promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband service, but also
provides that all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no
more than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We
believe that giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility
strikes an appropriate balance.
Question 12. NTIA's NOFO states that IIJA grant money will go to
areas that are not scheduled for broadband deployment from previous
auctions. During a past Appropriations hearing, Secretary Raimondo
believed the IIJA money could go to areas that are covered under
previous grants but have yet to be built out, leading to overbuilding.
Will NTIA prioritize areas that are unserved before overbuilding in
areas who are already scheduled?
Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project,
an Eligible Entity may not treat as 'unserved' or 'underserved' any
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is
concluded.''
Question 13. The Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP)
considers a household unserved if ``no broadband provider has been
selected to receive, or is otherwise receiving, Federal or State
funding subject to enforceable build out commitments to deploy
qualifying broadband service in the specific area where the household
is located by dates certain, even if such service is not yet
available.'' Further, the TBCP considers qualifying broadband service
as ``broadband service with--(i) a download speed of not less than 25
megabits per second; (ii) an upload speed of not less than 3 megabits
per second; and (iii) a latency sufficient to support real time,
interactive applications. For purposes of this program, NTIA will
interpret the 25/3 standard to mean the ability to provide 25 Mbps
downstream and 3 Mbps upstream simultaneously to every household in the
eligible service area.''
What steps is NTIA taking to ensure that households that are
receiving speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps today by existing providers are
not being overbuilt with TBCP funds?
Answer. Our NOFO asks applicants to define their service area and
``the total number of Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian
households, businesses, and community anchor institutions lacking
access to the Internet and to qualifying broadband service (i.e., those
not currently receiving Internet service with speeds of 25/3 Mbps or
greater with latency considerations).'' The NOFO also permits Tribes to
self-certify the unserved status of proposed service areas within
Tribal Lands, and lands providing services to Tribal members, if they
provide a description of how the Tribe determined that the area is
unserved. The TBCP review team evaluates these submissions and whether
they fit into the larger plan to bring high-speed Internet to these
communities.
Question 14. The TBCP NOFO did not provide an opportunity for
providers to challenge awards nor were any TBCP applications made
public, which could result in locations that have qualifying broadband
service to receive TBCP funds even though they are already being built
out with funds from other Federal and state programs. How has NTIA
coordinated with other Federal agencies, like the FCC and USDA, to
ensure areas that are receiving funding from other Federal broadband
programs are not being awarded TBCP funds to the same locations?
Answer. NTIA participates in standing bi-weekly meetings with the
USDA, the Treasury Department, and the FCC (per the Broadband
Interagency Coordination Agreement). During these meetings, a mandatory
topic is analysis of potential duplication of service in TBCP
applications under consideration for funding by the Assistant
Secretary. A process was established whereby NTIA would provide
detailed information on those applicants being considered for funding,
including service area maps provided directly by the applicants and the
associated census blocks. This applicant-provided service area data is
compared against current and future broadband infrastructure grant
programs by USDA and FCC (CAF, RDOF, Community Connect, and Reconnect).
Potential overlap, including service provider identification, is
addressed with the relevant agency and in a follow-up letter to the
applicant requesting confirmation that no duplication existed in the
proposed project area.
Question 15. The TBCP NOFO permits ``Tribes to self-certify the
unserved status of proposed service areas within Tribal Lands, and
lands providing services to Tribal members, with a description of how
the Tribe determined that the area is unserved.'' What specific actions
did NTIA take to ensure that areas were truly unserved? Did NTIA do any
``on-the-ground'' efforts to verify broadband coverage as other Federal
agencies like USDA has previously done?
Answer. During programmatic review curing, NTIA examined each
applicant's proposed project area and planned infrastructure deployment
and utilized the National Broadband Availability Map platform to assess
availability of qualifying broadband service in the proposed project
area. If NTIA determined that a specific area within the proposed
project area was already served by qualifying broadband service, it
required that an applicant descope or revise its application to remove
that area from the project.
Question 16. Can you describe the standards NTIA adopted when it
evaluated applications to ensure that a provider had the necessary
financial and technical capabilities of delivering the service outlined
in their application?
Answer. NTIA adopted the standards articulated in the Notice of
Funding Opportunity associated with each of its grant programs.
Specifically, TBCP applicants must present a project narrative and
specific information that demonstrates the applicant's ability to
deploy the technical aspects of the project and a budget demonstrating
the financial ability to use grant funds to complete the project. The
applicant must present information in the application to include ``a
budget that is both reasonable and cost-efficient, considering the
nature and full scope of the project. Reviewers will consider whether
the applicant has demonstrated adequate and appropriate budget
resources to successfully execute the proposed project activities.
Reviewers will assess whether the budget detail is consistent with the
allowable programmatic activities as outlined in the project narrative.
Reviewers will evaluate the reasonableness of the budget based on its
clarity, level of detail, comprehensiveness, appropriateness to the
proposed technical and programmatic solutions, the reasonableness of
its costs, and whether the allocation of funds is sufficient to
complete the tasks outlined in the project plan.'' See TBCP NOFO
Section E.1.c.i.
The project narrative submitted by the applicant should identify
specific tasks, measurable milestones and performance outcomes for
Native American/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian communities resulting
from the proposed project activities. The NOFO requests that applicants
include in its Project Narrative: An executive summary of the project;
a description of the Eligible Entity applying for funds, and the
qualifications and experience of key personnel responsible for
implementing the proposed project; a description of the project
objectives related to promoting broadband adoption, telehealth, remote
education, workforce and economic development, digital inclusion and
skills, or providing affordable broadband programs for Native American/
Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian communities; a description of any
existing broadband and/or digital inclusion plans, or any planning
activities to be conducted during the project; a description of the
specific activities to be funded by the grant and the eligible uses of
the funding; and a project plan describing all major project activities
and timelines for implementation, including key milestones and when
each major project activity will start and end. This information will
be evaluated by a team of qualified reviewers to determine whether the
applicant has the necessary financial and technical capability to
deliver the service outlined in their applications. See generally, TBCP
NOFO D.2.b.iii.
Question 17. When you testified before the House Subcommittee on
Communications & Technology back in February, you talked about plans to
formalize spectrum coordination efforts with Chairwoman Rosenworcel and
the FCC. Can you discuss what sort of progress has been made in that
effort?
Answer. NTIA and the FCC have begun work on a Joint Spectrum
Coordination Initiative intended to strengthen the processes for
decision making and information sharing and to work cooperatively to
resolve spectrum policy issues. Under this new framework, FCC Chair
Jessica Rosenworcel and I have committed to:
Hold monthly leadership meetings for the purpose of
conducting joint spectrum planning;
Update the 2003 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between
the FCC and NTIA to address the challenges of today;
Develop a National Spectrum Strategy for long-term planning;
Reaffirm our commitment to scientific integrity and
evidence-based policymaking; and
Foster technical engagement among Federal agencies,
industry, NTIA, and the FCC. As part of this effort, the FCC
will participate in NTIA's Commerce Spectrum Management
Advisory Committee (CSMAC), and NTIA will participate as an
observer in the FCC's Technological Advisory Council (TAC) and
the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability
Council (CSRIC).
Since we announced this plan, we have updated the 2003 MOU, which
was announced on August 2, 2022. The MOU will strengthen cooperation
and collaboration between the agencies and help advance a whole-of-
government approach to how we use and manage one of the Nation's most
important resources.
We are confident that with steady leadership, a proactive approach,
and greater communications, we can have efficient, effective regulatory
governance of this valuable resource.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Roy Blunt to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. Administrator Davidson, I first want to thank you for
NTIA's significant work to date to in bringing broadband to the
approximately one third of rural Missourians who still lack access. In
February, Missouri was awarded $42 million from the NTIA's Broadband
Infrastructure Program, the largest state-wide award from that program,
representing more than 15 percent of total funding available. This
award will be used for projects benefiting more than 13,000 households
in 12 Missouri counties: Boone, Butler, Jasper, Lincoln, Livingston,
Marion, McDonald, Monroe, Pulaski, Shelby, St. Charles and St. Louis,
and will have a significant, positive impact for Missourians in need of
high-speed internet.
As you know, I voted for the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
and believe that it creates a unique opportunity to make significant
strides in closing broadband availability gaps. Thank you to you and
your staff for your hard work in establishing rules to implement the
IIJA funding.
At the same time, I'm concerned that some of the rules--for the
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, in
particular--may undermine the objective of closing the digital divide.
Specifically, I am very concerned about rules that go beyond the
authority established in the IIJA to pursue policy objectives apart
from connecting the unserved. For example, NTIA is requiring a new
``middle class'' affordability option, over and above the statutory
obligation to require low income offerings. This requirement is
incredibly vague, both in terms of the substance of the obligation and
who would be eligible for it.
Private providers--including those with a record of providing high-
quality broadband at affordable prices--have expressed to me that they
believe this requirement is a backhanded way to introduce rate
regulation into the broadband industry, and would be less inclined to
participate in the program as a result.
I share those concerns. While I strongly believe that broadband
access is about both accessibility and affordability, NTIA isn't a
central planning authority and doesn't have the discretion or expertise
to broadly mandate broadband rates.
Beyond the fact that broadband capital investment has historically
flourished under a light-touch, deregulatory framework, the IIJA
expressly prohibits NTIA from engaging in broadband rate regulation.
Mr. Davidson, what is the basis for NTIA's authority to require
``middle class'' broadband pricing? Are you concerned that this
requirement will deter participation in the program and in turn
undermine efforts to close the digital divide?
Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA stated that ``[a]ccess to
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We
believe it is essential that communications networks be accessible and
affordable to all Americans. The IIJA's low-cost service option
requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-income
Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that service is
affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to fulfill the
IIJA's stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to propose plans for
promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO expressly refrains from
defining that term, because its answer might differ from state to
state.
Instead, we have left that determination to the Eligible Entities
in the first instance. Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms a
state must employ to ensure middle-class affordability. NTIA believes
this portion of the NOFO is broad enough so as not to deter
participation.
Question 2. Administrator Davidson, as you know, we have a very
serious challenge right now with inflation in the economy.
Given that service providers' obligations--including to provide
various low income and vaguely-defined ``middle class'' plans--will
last throughout the life of the network (possibly upwards of 30-40
years in the case of a fiber network), some providers have expressed
that they are concerned about that they don't have the requisite
knowledge of what burdens they would be taking on or would become
subject to in the future. This is compounded by the uncertainty caused
by inflation, when it comes to the price of inputs such as electricity,
labor, maintenance, etc.
Does NTIA plan to provide further guidance to providers on how the
program will account for inflation, including when it comes to low-
income and middle class offerings?
Answer. Inflation is an issue for all Americans, and we understand
and respect the uncertainty it creates for all consumers and
businesses--including those that may seek to participate in the BEAD
program. We are committed to the success of the BEAD Program, and have
committed to providing robust technical assistance to Eligible Entities
and potential subgrantees as part of that commitment. We will, through
that technical assistance, provide as much certainty to Eligible
Entities and potential subgrantees as possible.
Question 3. As you know, the primary objective of the $42.45
billion BEAD program is to deploy broadband infrastructure to unserved
areas as quickly as possible. However, the rules released by NTIA
pursue a litany of progressive political objectives that are unrelated
to this goal, including giving preference to government-run networks
and providers that commit to ``open access'' obligations, as well as
projects that promote ``equitable workforce development,'' union labor,
and climate resilience, and domestic suppliers.
Moreover, the BEAD rules introduce vague consumer protection rules
prohibiting ``unreasonable network management practices'' that sound
eerily similar to a common carriage/Title II regulatory regime--in
turn, scaring away investment and participation by high-quality,
experienced providers.
Every dollar spent on these different objectives is diverted from
our primary goal, and I'm concerned that this Christmas tree wish list
takes our eye off the prize in making sure that each American gets
access to broadband.
Mr. Davidson, would you consider eliminating some of these
preferences and rules that distract from the objective of building out
broadband to unserved areas?
Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment,
access, workforce development, and affordability objectives established
by Congress in the IIJA. The BEAD NOFO does not require any BEAD
provider to offer open access, and the BEAD NOFO encourages, but does
not require, Eligible Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria
promoting open access wholesale last-mile broadband service, but also
provides that all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no
more than 25 percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We
believe that giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility
strikes an appropriate balance. I also note that the NOFO does not
impose any common carriage/Title II requirements on entities receiving
BEAD funds.
Question 4. Most of the questions at the hearing focused NTIA's
BEAD broadband deployment program, but I have a question concerning the
Middle Mile Grant Program established under the IIJA.
As you know, middle mile is the part of the network that aggregates
large amounts of data traffic between local networks--as distinguished
from last-mile, which connects the end user to the network.
As I read the IIJA, Congress intended for middle mile grants to
help connect unserved and underserved areas to the Internet backbone.
However, NTIA recently announced that middle mile grant applications
must be received by NTIA by September 30, 2022, likely before the FCC
publishes its broadband maps, and definitely far before the FCC
concludes its challenge process on the mapping data.
Given that NTIA will be evaluating middle mile maps before the FCC
produces an accurate, granular picture of the Nation's unserved areas,
how will NTIA ensure that middle mile grants are allocated to connect
unserved areas?
Similarly, how will NTIA ensure that it doesn't use middle mile
grants to overbuild private providers and the vast areas of the country
where middle mile competition and service is thriving?
Answer. While the deadline may be in advance of the FCC's
publication of the Broadband DATA maps, Congress recognized that this
might be the case when drafting the IIJA. Section 60401(e)(3)(B)(i) of
the IIJA directed NTIA to use the ``the most recent broadband mapping
data available'' from the FCC's Broadband DATA maps, maps generated
from State or Tribal governments, or speed and usage surveys conducted
by States, territories, or Tribal governments.
Question 5. The Federal government has historically been eager to
spend money on broadband but has often done a poor job of evaluating
the outcome of its efforts according to clear goals and metrics.
Without evaluation, it's harder to learn from the past and course-
correct to improve outcomes.
According to economists Sarah Oh Lam, Scott Wallsten, and Greg
Rosston, NTIA should establish a clear set of standardized metrics at
the outset to monitor and evaluate IIJA broadband funding and enable
reporting and comparisons across state BEAD programs. Without such an
evaluation system set in advance of funding going out the door, it will
be practically impossible to objectively and consistently measure and
compare the different approaches that states use to distribute funding
and in turn learn from BEAD.
Lam and Wallsten have also separately argued that in order to
objectively evaluate the cost-effectiveness of NTIA's funding programs,
NTIA should make all broadband grant applications--both funded and
unfunded--public.
Administrator Davidson: in the name of good governance, do you
agree that NTIA should establish clear, uniform evaluation metrics and
a plan for collecting data before funding is distributed? If so, will
you commit to establishing evaluation metrics for each of the IIJA
broadband programs? Additionally, will you commit to making all grant
applications across all the IIJA broadband programs, both funded and
unfunded, publicly available?
Answer. States and subgrantees are required under section VII.E of
the BEAD NOFO to comply with reporting requirements. In addition to the
reporting requirements found in 2 C.F.R. Part 200, NTIA will provide
additional reporting instructions in connection with the requirements
set forth in the NOFO, including details on the manner and format that
states will be required to report information in support of NTIA's
obligations under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act (47 USC Sec. 1307), and
Section 60105 of the IIJA. NTIA will, consistent with its obligations
under the IIJA and the ACCESS BROADBAND Act (section 903 of Division F
of P.L. 116-260), measure and report on the success of the program.
Further, as discussed in section IX.A of the BEAD NOFO, the IIJA
requires NTIA, the Commission, and other agencies to coordinate to make
information regarding Federal broadband funding, low-cost plans, and
other aspects of the BEAD Program readily available to and
understandable by the public. However, in accordance with Department of
Commerce policy, we will not be sharing applications publicly before
awards are announced.
Question 6. As you know, billions of dollars have been allocated
across multiple Federal agencies to fund broadband deployment over the
last few years, including through the CARES Act, 2021 Consolidated
Appropriations, and the American Rescue Plan Act.
It is crucial that NTIA take into where this funding--as well as
state and local broadband funding--to ensure that we don't overbuild
areas already subject to enforceable broadband deployment obligations.
I am glad that NTIA's rules count areas subject to enforceable
deployment obligations as ``served'' and thus ineligible to be
overbuilt. I am also grateful that NTIA is requiring states to conduct
a rigorous challenge process to enforce this requirement. However,
since government funding from other agencies like Treasury and
ReConnect may be awarded after states' challenge processes close, it is
possible that we won't take into account the full universe of where
enforceable deployment obligations exist before allocating funding.
To ensure that these areas don't get overbuilt, will NTIA permit
additional challenges of a BEAD award by providers that are awarded
other government funding after a state closes its challenge process to
determine which areas are eligible for funding?
Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project,
an Eligible Entity may not treat as `unserved' or `underserved' any
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is
concluded.'' In that regard, the BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between
certainty for Eligible Entities and providers and giving the Eligible
Entities the flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-
related funding to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If a
state finds that circumstances have changed materially between the
conclusion of that state's challenge process and the actual issuance of
awards, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss how NTIA and the
state can work together or ensure the most efficient use of funding.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Dan Sullivan to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. As we discussed at the hearing, a recent GAO study
identified that there are a staggering 100 Federal programs across 15
agencies that could be used, in some form or another, on broadband.
There are at least seven alone under your jurisdiction at NTIA. This
just further highlights the need for tight agency coordination and
transparency in order to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse. I know there
has been some progress on this Federal coordination with several
interagency agreements being reached in the past year so I hope to see
that work continue.
However, specific to NTIA, the infrastructure bill requires you to
create and maintain a searchable database to track awards and
applications across your various broadband programs (BEAD, Middle Mile,
Tribal, etc.). The NOFOs that have been released do not mention how
NTIA plans to meet this statutory requirement. This database is
critical for states, communities, and tribes to be able to coordinate
and plan their efforts across programs to avoid duplication and
overbuilding. In states like Alaska with many prospective applicants
that include carriers, tribes, and tribal organizations this is
extremely complex and necessary. Likewise, every state is being given a
$5 million planning grant required under the BEAD program to develop a
``state broadband plan'' but currently they can't know who has applied
for what across NTIA's other programs.
How does NTIA plan on satisfying this database requirement and
further ensuring that states, tribes, and communities have the
information they need for planning and coordination purposes?
Answer. Section 903 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260 the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021 (``CAA 2021''), also known as the ACCESS
BROADBAND Act, established the Office of Internet Connectivity and
Growth (OICG) within NTIA and directed OICG to, among other things,
``track the construction and use of and access to any broadband
infrastructure built using any Federal support in a central database.''
Section 60105(b) of the IIJA directs the FCC, ``in consultation with
all relevant Federal agencies, [to] establish an online mapping tool to
provide a locations overview of the overall geographic footprint of
each broadband infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal
Government.'' Section 60105(c) requires that this ``Broadband
Deployment Locations Map'' ``shall be the centralized, authoritative
source of information on funding made available by the Federal
Government for broadband infrastructure deployment in the United
States.'' NTIA is coordinating closely with the FCC, Treasury, USDA,
and others to fully implement NTIA's statutory coordination duties
under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act and to ensure that states, tribes, and
communities have the information they need for planning and
coordination purposes.
Additionally, NTIA maintains the National Broadband Availability
Map (NBAM), which aggregates several different public and non-public
data sources to show information on broadband availability within the
United States and is available for use by participating Eligible
Entities. These data source include data from Federal agencies such as
FCC's Form 477, FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, USDA's ReConnect
Program, as well as crowdsourced data from M-Lab and Ookla.
Question 2. NTIA's BEAD Program NOFO specifically designates
``extremely high cost per location areas'' for special treatment,
eligible for the 10 percent set aside and with greater flexibility for
the type of broadband technology used for projects serving those areas.
As you are aware, Alaska has extremely high costs in many locations
given the challenges of serving remote locations that are not
accessible by road, have extreme weather and geographic conditions,
lack terrestrial middle mile and have a very small number of residents
to cover those costs, among many factors.
Can you assure me that you will be considering these factors in
determining which areas are entitled to receive additional funding
under the program?
Answer. Yes.
Question 3. NTIA's recently released NOFO seemed to shoehorn
several policy requirements that go beyond its statutory mandate
including, for example: requiring applicants to provide an undefined
``middle class affordability option''; requiring applicants to
demonstrate that they have accounted for ``climate-related risks''; and
prioritizing certain ``non-traditional'' providers like nonprofits and
municipalities.
I think many members on this committee are concerned that these
non-statutory, political requirements are unnecessarily burdensome and
could distract from the core mission of connectivity, delaying and
increasing the cost of deployment. How do you address these concerns?
Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment,
access, and affordability objectives established by Congress in the
IIJA.
Question 4. The NOFO provides an opportunity to challenge a state's
determination in its Initial Proposal that a specific location is
eligible for funds. And I was pleased to see that the NOFO also treats
as ``served'' any location that is subject to an enforceable federal,
state, or local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the
date of the challenge process. But as I read the NOFO, 80 percent of
BEAD funds won't be awarded until NTIA approves a state's Final
Proposal, which may not occur until a year or more after the conclusion
of the challenge process.
Unfortunately, the NOFO does not provide an opportunity to
challenge the award of BEAD funds in an area where Federal or state
funding is awarded during this potentially lengthy period after the
challenge process. That could result in locations getting BEAD funding
even though they are already being built out with funds from other
Federal and state programs. Would NTIA be open to taking steps to
prevent BEAD funds from being used to overbuild these areas, such as by
adding the opportunity to challenge a BEAD award if other funding has
been awarded to the same area, to ensure the most efficient use of
funding?
Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project,
an Eligible Entity may not treat as ``unserved'' or ``underserved'' any
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is
concluded.'' In that regard, the BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between
certainty for states and providers and giving the Eligible Entities the
flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-related funding
to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If a state finds that
circumstances have changed materially between the conclusion of that
state's challenge process and the actual issuance of awards, I welcome
the opportunity to discuss with the state or territory how NTIA and the
state can work together or ensure the most efficient use of funding.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Marsha Blackburn to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. Do you believe Congress intended for NTIA to prioritize
one technology over another in the BEAD program?
Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure
that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs,
consistent with the requirements set out in the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for
selecting subgrantees. NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband
Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture
because such projects will ``ensure that the network built by the
project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving
connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and ``support the
deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced
services.'' IIJA Sec. 60102(a)(2)(I). In the event there is just one
proposed Priority Broadband Project in a location or set of locations,
and that proposal does not exceed the Extremely High Cost Per Location
Threshold established by the state in its initial proposal to NTIA,
that proposal is the default winner, unless the state requests, and the
Assistant Secretary grants, a waiver allowing the state to select an
alternative project.
Unfortunately, there will likely be locations for which a state
does not receive a proposal to deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In
such cases, the state may select any project proposing to use an
alternative Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD
Program's technical requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy
of less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.
Question 2. Do you believe that unserved areas should receive
funding before served areas in the BEAD program? Do you commit to doing
so?
Answer. Yes. Eligible Entities will need to demonstrate that they
have the ability to deploy to unserved locations before they begin
deploying to underserved locations. If an Entity is able to demonstrate
that they can deploy to both unserved and underserved locations at the
same time, that may be permissible. But it will ultimately be
considered application-by-application.
Question 3. How do you plan to ensure that overbuilding does not
occur before all unserved and underserved areas are served with at
least one viable broadband option?
Answer. BEAD NOFO Section IV.B.7.a.ii, item 3 requires that ``[i]n
identifying an Unserved Service Project or Underserved Service Project,
an Eligible Entity may not treat as ``unserved'' or ``underserved'' any
location that is already subject to an enforceable federal, state, or
local commitment to deploy qualifying broadband as of the date that the
challenge process described in Section IV.B.6 of [the] NOFO is
concluded.''
Further, Section 903 of Division FF of P.L. 116-260, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (``CAA 2021''), also known as the
ACCESS BROADBAND Act, established the Office of Internet Connectivity
and Growth (OICG) within NTIA and directed OICG to, among other things,
``track the construction and use of and access to any broadband
infrastructure built using any Federal support in a central database.''
Section 60105(b) of the IIJA directs the FCC, ``in consultation with
all relevant Federal agencies,
[to] establish an online mapping tool to provide a locations
overview of the overall geographic footprint of each broadband
infrastructure deployment project funded by the Federal Government.''
Section 60105(c) requires that this ``Broadband Deployment Locations
Map'' ``be . . . the centralized, authoritative source of information
on funding made available by the Federal Government for broadband
infrastructure deployment in the United States.'' NTIA is coordinating
closely with the FCC, Treasury, USDA, and others to fully implement
NTIA's statutory coordination duties under the ACCESS BROADBAND Act and
to ensure that states, tribes, and communities have the information
they need for planning and coordination purposes.
Question 4. In April, the NTIA announced a notice requesting
comments on competition in the mobile app ecosystem. I introduced a
bill with Senator Blumenthal, the Open App Markets Act, that would take
steps to resolve the problems stemming from Apple and Google's
gatekeeper control of the app store marketplace. Have you reviewed this
bill? How does it compare with NTIA's recommendations on this issue?
Answer. Thank you for this question. I appreciate the engagement of
your staff on this issue and on our Request for Comment. We have been
closely monitoring legislative developments on this topic, and in doing
so have reviewed the Open App Markets Act. As required by President
Biden's Executive Order 14036, the Executive Order on Promoting
Competition in the American Economy, the Department is finalizing a
report on competition in the mobile app ecosystem which will include
findings and recommendations.
Question 5. I was not satisfied with your answer during the hearing
on whether companies in states like Tennessee will be told they need to
follow certain labor laws and practices that do not make sense for a
right-to-work state. The notice says that providers ``must give
priority to projects based on . . . a demonstrated record of and plans
to be in compliance with Federal and employment laws,'' but you said
during the hearing that these are not requirements. Can you explain
this discrepancy?
Answer. As you note, Eligible Entities must give priority to
projects based on a prospective subgrantee's demonstrated record of and
plans to comply with Federal labor and employment laws. We expect that
this will not be a burdensome commitment for employers in all Eligible
Entities, regardless of whether they are a ``right-to-work''
jurisdiction.
Question 6. In NTIA's Notice for BEAD funding, NTIA encouraged
municipalities to participate in the program as part of a ``covered
partnership,'' which means they would not be required to get eligible
telecommunications carrier designation by the FCC. How would these
arrangements work? Would municipal broadband providers be permitted to
participate in the BEAD program without joining a partnership? Will
NTIA allow them to participate in states that prohibit municipalities
from owning and running broadband networks?
Answer. To clarify, the NOFO does not require that any applicant
obtain Eligible Telecommunications Carrier (``ETC'') status from the
FCC or a state public utility commission. Nor does the NOFO include the
term ``covered partnership.'' However, it is critical to the BEAD
Program's success that all providers identified by the statute be able
to compete for funding on a level playing field. The Act directs
Eligible Entities to consider a wide range of applicants, and we want
states and territories to know that we take that directive seriously.
As the NOFO states, we are urging Eligible Entities not to adopt any
new restrictions on municipal providers, and to waive any pre-existing
restrictions. BEAD NOFO IV.C.1.a. In its initial proposal, an Eligible
Entity must identify any existing restrictions, whether it will waive
them, and, if not, how they will affect applications from municipal
providers. BEAD NOFO IV.B.5.b.18. In the final proposal, the Eligible
Entity must tell us how any such restrictions affected any unsuccessful
applicant for a subgrant. Our goal here is to help ensure that Eligible
Entities respect the statutory requirement that these providers have a
fair opportunity to participate.
______
Response to Written Question Submitted by Hon. Todd Young to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question. Administrator Davidson, at the hearing, you testified
that you are committed to using the FCC Broadband DATA maps for BEAD.
You also testified that NTIA's recent suggestion in an FAQ that
eligible entities (states and territories) could use other data sources
was limited to a period of pre-planning before the new FCC maps are
available.
Can you reaffirm your commitment that NTIA will require Eligible
Entities to rely on the FCC Broadband DATA maps to identify unserved
and underserved locations as they award subgrants for broadband
deployment and will you commit to update the FAQs 4.3 and 4.4
accordingly?
Answer. NTIA recognizes the importance of ensuring that the FCC's
Broadband DATA Maps accurately identify unserved and underserved
locations. As contemplated in the FAQ, we understand that a number of
states are using their own data and commercially available data to
start their planning processes. As stated in the FAQ, ``NTIA will use
the updated FCC Broadband DATA maps in allocating funds, but an
Eligible Entity can incorporate information from its own mapping data
and must conduct its own challenge process prior to awarding subgrants
for broadband deployment.'' Our commitment to the FCC Broadband DATA
Maps for allocation is clear, but we also know the states may need to
rely on other sources of data as they begin planning.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Mike Lee to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. Mr. Davidson, during the hearing I asked if the IIJA
requires the NTIA to carry out the BEAD program in a ``technologically
neutral manner''. You responded, ``we are committed to carrying it out
in a technologically neutral manner, I will say it's not so simple to
say the statute required that, but we are committed to it''.
Section 60307(b) of the IIJA states: ``The Assistant Secretary
shall, to the extent practicable, carry out this title in a
technologically neutral manner.''
To follow up on your comments during the hearing, what
within Section 60307 is ``not so simple to say the statute
required that''?
If the argument is that ``to the extent practicable''
provides the flexibility, can you explain how that limited
flexibility justifies the outright creating of a ``priority
broadband project'' that favors fiber, a specific technology?
Does prioritizing one technology over others make it harder
to be flexible in deployment and make it harder to help control
project costs (which are the taxpayer's dollars)?
In the Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), the NTIA notes
that it will not consider locations served exclusively by
satellite or terrestrial fixed wireless as ``Reliable Broadband
Service'' and will thus consider them ``unserved''. If the goal
is to ensure that these dollars are targeted to areas that are
truly ``unserved'', then why exclude certain technologies if
they very well might be providing the minimum speed thresholds
to a high-cost area? Could that ``Reliable Broadband Service''
definition contribute to overbuilding?
Answer. Section 60307(b) does not apply to the BEAD Program. As you
note, that provision directs the Assistant Secretary to ``carry out
this title in a technologically neutral manner''. ``This title'' refers
to Title III of Division F of the IIJA--i.e., the Digital Equity Act of
2021. The BEAD Program is established in Title I of Division F, not in
Title III.
Nevertheless, NTIA has designed the BEAD Program in a manner that
values technological neutrality while also fulfilling the statute's
express requirements. The IIJA states that a ``priority broadband
project'' is one designed to (1) ``provide broadband service that meets
speed, latency, reliability, consistency in quality of service, and
related criteria as the Assistant Secretary shall determine'' and (2)
``ensure that the network built by the project can easily scale speeds
over time to. . .meet the evolving connectivity needs of households and
businesses'' and ``support the deployment of 5G, successor wireless
technologies, and other advanced services.'' Based on this statutory
definition, NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband Projects'' are
those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture. Only end-to-end
fiber will ``ensure that the network built by the project can easily
scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving connectivity needs of
households and businesses'' and ``support the deployment of 5G,
successor wireless technologies, and other advanced services.'' End-to-
end fiber networks can be updated by replacing equipment attached to
the ends of the fiber-optic facilities, allowing for quick and
relatively inexpensive network scaling as compared to other
technologies. Moreover, new fiber deployments will facilitate the
deployment and growth of 5G and other advanced wireless services, which
rely extensively on fiber for essential backhaul.
The BEAD NOFO strikes a balance between providing certainty for
Eligible Entities and providers and giving the Eligible Entities the
flexibility to direct BEAD Program and other broadband-related funding
to appropriate areas as circumstances change. If an Eligible Entity
finds that circumstances have changed materially between the conclusion
of that state's challenge process and the actual issuance of awards, I
would welcome the opportunity to discuss with the state or territory
how NTIA and the state can work together or ensure the most efficient
use of funding.
The ``reliable broadband service'' definition will not contribute
to overbuilding. For the purposes of the BEAD Program definition of
that term, the NOFO adopted the criteria that Reliable Broadband
Service must be (1) a fixed broadband service that (2) is available
with a high degree of certainty, (3) both at present and for the
foreseeable future. NTIA found, after coordination with the Federal
Communications Commission, that tor the purposes of the BEAD Program,
locations served exclusively by satellite, services using entirely
unlicensed spectrum, or a technology not specified by the Commission
for purposes of the Broadband DATA Maps, do not meet the criteria for
Reliable Broadband Service and so will be considered ``unserved.''
Question 2. I would like to ask about the ``primary criteria'' that
you lay out for states to select competing proposals in the BEAD NOFO.
You note that the greatest weight should go to: (1) Outlays, (2)
Affordability, and (3) Fair Labor Practices. ``Fair Labor Practices''
entails: (1) paying Davis Bacon wage requirements, (2) using project
labor agreements, and taking steps to ``prevent the misclassification
of workers'' which I can only assume is to discourage the use of
contractors.
Utah along with many other states is a ``right to work''
state, which has produced a competitive job market with high
paying jobs. Please explain to me how Utah and other ``right to
work'' states will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage
by this ``primary criteria''?
Will you reject outright proposals from states that don't
use ``project labor agreements''?
Answer. A key component of the BEAD program's success must be
workforce development. As contemplated in the NOFO, Eligible Entities
must create programs that will promote equitable training, development,
and deployment of a qualified workforce. In order to meet this
requirement, NTIA lists certain criteria Eligible Entities must
consider when selecting subgrantees, including the use of fair labor
practices, fair wage practices, project labor agreements, and proper
classification of workers.
Question 3. The IIJA prohibits the NTIA from regulating the rates
of broadband. It then requires a ``low-cost option'' for recipients of
these funds. Certainly, an interesting needle to thread.
Is price a component in the consideration of affordability?
And how do you regulate ``affordability'' within proposals
without resorting to ``regulating'' the rate?
Many of these projects are going to take place in ``high-
cost'' areas which already have an added expense, but then bids
are required to be based on the provision of 100 megabytes--in
some circumstances up to 1 gigabyte--which will arguably raise
the costs of the project. Is the overall cost of the project
and the solvency of a company going to be factored into what is
considered affordable?
The ``affordability'' options are supposed to last the life
cycle of the network (presumably 20-30 years). How does this
impede a business from being able to adjust to changes in the
market?
Answer. The IIJA expressly provides that nothing in the BEAD
statute should be construed to authorize NTIA to regulate the rates
charged for broadband service. The IIJA does require subgrantees
selected to deploy broadband networks with BEAD Program funds to offer
not less than one low-cost broadband service option for eligible
subscribers and requires that this low-cost option is to be defined by
each state in consultation with NTIA and subject to the Assistant
Secretary's approval.
Section 60101 of the IIJA does, however, state that ``[a]ccess to
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We
agree, and believe it is essential that communications networks be
accessible and affordable to all Americans. Thus, while the IIJA's low-
cost service option requirement is important for ensuring affordability
for low-income Americans, that requirement alone will not ensure that
service is affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to
fulfill the IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to
propose plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to
the Eligible Entities in the first instance. Similarly, we do not
specify which mechanisms Eligible Entities must employ to ensure
middle-class affordability. Again, this is a question for Eligible
Entities to address in the first instance.
Question 4. There are numerous regulations and obligations imposed
on fund recipients. Some are required by law, but there are many that
seem to push the regulatory burden to the absolute edge. And I'm
concerned that more obligations and strings increase the cost of the
projects and wastes taxpayer dollars in a time when inflation is at an
all-time high. Did you all conduct a cost-benefit analysis on any of
the obligations that the NOFO seeks to impose on funding recipients?
Could you provide that data used in such analysis?
Answer. NTIA is committed to the success of this program, and we
believe the NOFO strikes an appropriate balance between the deployment,
access, and affordability objectives established by Congress in the
IIJA.
Question 5. Broadband companies are experiencing the weight of
inflation and supply chain challenges. One concern that I've heard from
my constituents is compliance with the statutory requirement to source
broadband components domestically under the Buy America Act.
If broadband companies are faced with component shortages,
how will the NTIA evaluate the granting of broadband waivers
under the Buy America Act?
How will NTIA evaluate market conditions in consideration of
approving such waivers to ensure the maximizing of taxpayer
dollars?
Answer. The Buy America, Build America provisions of the IIJA
reflect a strong commitment to U.S. manufacturers and U.S. workers by
Congress and the President. We have an incredible opportunity to
strengthen our domestic manufacturing base by using our infrastructure
funding to purchase U.S. manufactured supplies and equipment. This will
create good jobs and economic opportunity for countless American
workers.
The Administration is committed to faithfully implementing the
IIJA's Build America, Buy America provisions. Since his first day in
office, President Biden has relentlessly focused on an industrial
strategy to revitalize our manufacturing base, strengthen critical
supply chains, and position U.S. workers and businesses to compete and
lead globally in the 21st century. The Commerce Department will
consider waiving these requirements only where the acquisition of
domestic components would be inconsistent with the public interest,
their cost would be unreasonable, or the relevant materials or products
are not mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States in
sufficient and reasonably available commercial quantities and of a
satisfactory quality.
Question 6. In the BEAD Program's review process, the NOFO notes
that NTIA will consider three criteria for approving initial and final
proposals: (1) compliance with applicable program guidelines, (2) the
public interest, and (3) effectuates the purpose of the infrastructure
bill. You then set out three different types of criteria for states to
select ``subgrantees'': (1) primary, (2) secondary, and (3) additional
considerations.
The NOFO says that a state may ``develop additional
secondary criteria'' like ``open access'' or ensuring
``quality'' jobs, which is defined as having a job that
``exceeds'' the local prevailing wage in a region and/or is
unionized. How are ``additional considerations'' weighted by
NTIA in determining whether to approve a proposal?
Will NTIA approve a proposal in which the state only focuses
on the primary and secondary criteria? How much flexibility do
states receive in the ``enforcement process'' of their
proposals?
Answer. The BEAD NOFO encourages, but does not require, Eligible
Entities to adopt secondary selection criteria, but also provides that
all secondary criteria, collectively, must account for no more than 25
percent of benefits offered in the selection process. We believe that
giving the Eligible Entities this level of flexibility strikes an
appropriate balance. NTIA will approve a proposal in which the Eligible
Entity only focuses on the primary and secondary criteria.
Question 7. The Digital Equity Act has a ``nondiscrimination''
provision that must be enforced consistent with Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.\1\ However, categories for ``actual or perceived''
sexual orientation and gender identity appear in the Digital Equity
Act, but not Title VI. Disparities like this have arose in the past
concerning gender, and the Department of Justice has thus weighed in on
multiple issues in this space, including public school bathroom
policy,\2\ \3\ the Violence Against Women Act,\4\ and women's
sports.\5\ The determinations that the DOJ made in this space are
problematic to me, and I want to ensure that IIJA funding will not be
contingent on similar definitions of sexual orientation and gender
identity. Because the Department of Commerce must enforce the Digital
Equity Act's ``nondiscrimination'' provisions, please answer the
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ P.L 117-58, Division F, Title III, Sec. 60307(a).
\2\ DOJ, United States Reaches Agreement with Arcadia, California,
School District to Resolve Sex Discrimination Allegations, July 24,
2013, available at: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/united-states-
reaches-agreement-arcadia-california-school-district-resolve-sex-
discrimination
\3\ DOJ, Case Summaries, G.G. v. Gloucester County School Board,
available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-summaries#gloucester
\4\ DOJ, Memorandum on the Interpretation of Bostock v. Clayton
County, March 10, 2022, available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/
file/1481776/download
\5\ DOJ, Case Summaries, B.P.G. v. West Virginia State Board of
Education, available at: https://www.justice.gov/crt/case-
summaries#wvboard
Will the Department define ``discrimination'' according to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the DOJ's enforcement under Titles IV and IX?
Is access to restrooms regardless of sex a requirement of
any school that seeks to apply for broadband funds under either
the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program or the Digital
Equity Competitive Grant Program?
Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination''
prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or
providing broadband to a school that maintains sex-specific
facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms?
Will a shelter be forced to house female survivors with men
who identify as women in order to apply for broadband funds
under either the State Digital Equity Capacity Grant Program or
the Digital Equity Competitive Grant Program?
Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination''
prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or
providing broadband to a shelter that houses only biological
females?
Would the administration's definition of ``discrimination''
prohibit an eligible grant recipient from partnering with or
providing broadband to a school that only allows biological
females in girls and women's sports?
Answer. Section 60307(a) of the IIJA states no individual in the
United States may, on the basis of actual or perceived race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation,
age, or disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity that is funded in whole or in part with funds made available
to carry out this title. NTIA will, as directed by Congress, issue
regulations and take actions consistent with section 602 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d-1) and consistent with that
direction.
Question 8. Currently, NTIA and the NHTSA coordinate within the
joint 911 Implementation and Coordination Office (ICO). As you are
aware, the ICO is required to facilitate coordination and
communications among public and private stakeholders at local, state,
tribal, federal, and national levels; administer a grant program for
the benefit of 911 call centers across the country; and author or
consult on several reports to Congress.
Can you provide an update on the state of the current coordination
process between NHTSA and NTIA? Are there any areas of improvement that
you would recommend?
Answer. NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) have been statutory partners forming the 9-1-1 Implementation
Coordination Office (ICO) since 2004. ICO was reauthorized in 2012
until the statutory sunset date for the ICO of October 1, 2022. Since
2012, NTIA and NHTSA have partnered as the ICO on two major projects--
the 2018 Next Generation (NG) 9-1-1 Cost Study Report to Congress and
the 9-1-1 Grant Program with 36 grants awarded to States, territories,
and tribes in 2019 totaling $109 million. The 9-1-1 grants expired on
March 31, 2022 and are scheduled to be fully closed by the ICO sunset
date of October 1, 2022.
NTIA has been preparing for the termination of the ICO but plans to
continue support to the 9-1-1 community through its Public Safety
Communications Program.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Johnson to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. Do you consider any laws or regulations to be
burdensome or present barriers to effectively deploying broadband? If
so, please identify such laws or regulations and their impacts on
broadband deployment.
Answer. The BEAD NOFO strongly encourages Eligible Entities and
their political subdivisions to remove time and cost barriers
associated with BEAD projects, including by expediting permitting
timelines and waiving fees where applicable, where doing so does not
undermine other critical policy goals. It further requires that
Eligible Entities identify, as part of their initial proposals, steps
that each state will take to reduce costs and barriers to deployment,
promote the use of existing infrastructure, promote and adopt dig-once
policies, and streamline permitting processes and cost-effective access
to poles, conduits, easements, and rights of way, including the
imposition of reasonable access requirements.
Question 2. With Congress appropriating $42.45 billion to NTIA for
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, the program is
ripe for waste, fraud, and abuse. What steps are you taking to mitigate
waste, fraud and abuse in this program?
Answer. The Department, NTIA, states, and subgrantees each have a
critical role to play in ensuring that the BEAD Program is implemented
in a manner that ensures transparency, accountability, and oversight
sufficient to, among other things, minimize the opportunity for waste,
fraud, and abuse; ensure that recipients of grants under the Program
use grant funds to further the overall purpose of the Program in
compliance with the requirements of the IIJA, the Uniform
Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements
for Federal Awards set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and other applicable
laws and regulations; and to allow the public to understand and monitor
grants and subgrants awarded under the Program. We take these
responsibilities seriously and are implementing a robust accountability
mechanism.
Question 3. How can you ensure that the BEAD Program will not
contribute to overbuilding if NTIA distributes funds before the FCC
resolves any broadband mapping errors? Would you delay distributions
until the FCC resolves these mapping issues?
Answer. The IIJA directs the Assistant Secretary, in coordination
with the Commission, to allocate BEAD funds amongst the Eligible
Entities once the broadband DATA maps are made public. I agree that
accurate mapping data is vital, and that the FCC's challenge
processes--both for the Fabric and for provider data submitted in
conjunction with the new Broadband Data Collection--are critical to
improving their accuracy. The FCC's challenge processes are ongoing and
the accuracy of the maps will improve over time. We are working closely
with our colleagues at the FCC to determine how best to balance the
need to provide certainty regarding the amounts to be allocated to the
Eligible Entities in a timely manner against the need to allow the FCC,
Eligible Entities, and providers to review and validate the content of
the maps.
Question 4. NTIA states in the FAQs for the BEAD Program that the
Initial Proposal from an Eligible Entity should detail actions that the
entity ``will take on critical issues such as climate resiliency. .
.''. How does NTIA define climate resiliency? How is climate resiliency
within the scope of NTIA's mission and jurisdiction?
Answer. In establishing their Initial Proposals and Final
Proposals, Eligible Entities must demonstrate that they have
sufficiently accounted for current and future weather- and climate-
related risks to new infrastructure projects. At present, weather- and
climate-related risks to broadband networks include wildfires, extreme
heat and cold, inland and coastal flooding, and extreme winds produced
by weather events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, and other weather
events. Because retrofitted and new infrastructure for broadband is
expected to have a lifetime of 20 years or more, Eligible Entities must
account not only for current risks but also for how the frequency,
severity, and nature of these extreme events may plausibly evolve as
our climate continues to change over the coming decades. Future
projected climate change is expected to continue to result in higher
seasonal temperatures and an increased likelihood of extreme heat
events, higher risk of wildfires, more intense rainfall events, sea
level rise and coastal inundation, permafrost thaw in Alaska, the
potential for stronger hurricanes when they do form, and other climate
change related impacts.
Communities that lack broadband are often the most vulnerable to
extreme weather and climate events. This combination often results in a
lack of crucial communications infrastructure to respond during these
emergencies. Building climate-resilient broadband infrastructure for
such communities provides emergency response preparedness and thus
greater climate resilience for the community itself.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Shelley Moore Capito to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. For decades, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) have worked together and are responsible
for the joint 911 Implementation and Coordination Office. As you are
aware, the ICO is required to facilitate coordination and
communications among public and private stakeholders at local, state,
tribal, federal, and national levels; administer a grant program for
the benefit of 911 call centers across the country; and author or
consult on several reports to Congress. What are your in terms of if
NTIA and NHTSA should jointly oversee the migration from existing
legacy 911 systems to implementing Next Generation 911?
Answer. NTIA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) have been statutory partners forming the 9-1-1 Implementation
Coordination Office (ICO) since 2004. ICO was reauthorized in 2012
until the statutory sunset date for the ICO of October 1, 2022. Since
2012, NTIA and NHTSA have partnered as the ICO on two major projects--
the 2018 Next Generation (NG) 9-1-1 Cost Study Report to Congress and
the 9-1-1 Grant Program with 36 grants awarded to States, territories,
and tribes in 2019 totaling $109 million. The NG9-1-1 Cost Study
transmitted to Congress in October 2018 identified nationwide costs of
at least $9.5 billion to $12.7 billion, nearly four years ago, and
costs have only increased.
Question 2. As you know, local governments play a critical and
direct role in facilitating broadband upgrades and new deployments
through their zoning and permitting functions. With the significant
amount of broadband funding flowing to states from the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, many local
governments, particularly those in rural or underserved areas will need
additional resources to manage the expected increase in permit
applications for deployment of broadband-related infrastructure.
The recent Notice of Funding Opportunity for the Broadband
Equity Access and Deployment Program includes language allowing
for Initial Planning Funds to be used, among other things, for
``technical assistance to potential subgrantees [and]
increasing capacity of a broadband office''; Do you expect that
NTIA will require a description of a state's actions to ensure
their political subdivisions' zoning and permitting offices
have the staffing and technical resources to facilitate and
expedite applications?
Do you believe that political subdivisions can use Initial
Planning Funds for expanding and strengthening zoning and
permitting offices, including hiring and training employees and
for the purchase of software and equipment?
Answer. The BEAD NOFO strongly encourages Eligible Entities and
their political subdivisions to remove time and cost barriers
associated with BEAD projects, including by expediting permitting
timelines and waiving fees where applicable, where doing so does not
undermine other critical policy goals. It further requires that
Eligible Entities identify, as part of their initial proposals, steps
that each state will take to reduce costs and barriers to deployment,
promote the use of existing infrastructure, promote and adopt dig-once
policies, streamlined permitting processes and cost-effective access to
poles, conduits, easements, and rights of way, including the imposition
of reasonable access requirements. NTIA will evaluate proposed uses of
BEAD initial planning funds according the NOFO IV.B.2.
Question 3. Mr. Davidson, at your confirmation hearing, I asked you
about your thoughts about whether the IJA broadband grants would be
administered in a technology neutral manner. You responded by saying:
``If confirmed, I would support an ``all of the above'' approach that
allows NTIA and the states to consider any technology that will meet
America's broadband needs. . .''
The NOFO that came out does not take a technology neutral
approach. It specifies a heavy preference for one technology,
``end-to-end'' fiber. As you know, a state like West Virginia
is very mountainous and I am certain that the only way we are
going to reach the unserved and underserved in my state will be
with wireless. Fiber will be appropriate in many areas, but it
will never be financially feasible in many areas of my state.
Can you assure me that NTIA will NOT exclude wireless solutions
in the BEAD program and NOT discriminate or penalize states
that want to use BEAD money for wireless projects? Will you be
flexible enough in how you allocate BEAD funding to allow
states to utilize the funding for wireless if they believe this
is the best approach?
Answer. There is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to broadband
deployment given each state's unique challenges, and NTIA will ensure
that Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying technical
solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber. But we will
consider any technology that will meet America's broadband needs,
consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
The BEAD Program is designed to give each state significant
flexibility to develop a fair, open, and competitive processes for
selecting subgrantees. NTIA determined that ``Priority Broadband
Projects'' are those that use end-to-end fiber-optic architecture
because such projects will ``ensure that the network built by the
project can easily scale speeds over time to . . . meet the evolving
connectivity needs of households and businesses'' and ``support the
deployment of 5G, successor wireless technologies, and other advanced
services.'' IIJA Sec. 60102(a)(2)(I). In the event there is just one
proposed Priority Broadband Project in a location or set of locations,
and that proposal does not exceed the Extremely High Cost Per Location
Threshold established by the state in it is initial proposal to NTIA,
that proposal is the default winner, unless the state requests, and the
Assistant Secretary grants, a waiver allowing the state to select an
alternative project.
Unfortunately, there will likely be locations for which a state
does not receive a proposal to deploy a Priority Broadband Project. In
such cases, the state may select any project proposing to use an
alternative Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD
Program's technical requirements that will be deployable for a subsidy
of less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold.
If no Reliable Broadband Service technology meeting the BEAD
Program's technical requirements would be deployable for a subsidy of
less than the Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold at a given
location, each state is authorized to select a proposal involving a
less costly technology for that location, even if that technology does
not meet the definition of Reliable Broadband Service but otherwise
satisfies the Program's technical requirements.
Question 4. I am concerned about supply chain issues and what
effect this might have on BEAD and Middle Mile funded projects. Are you
going to consider speed to deploy in ranking funding priorities?
Answer. The Department of Commerce has taken a leading role in
addressing supply chain challenges facing our Nation. The Department
and NTIA are well positioned to engage with the telecommunications
sector and manufacturers to ensure that there is sufficient supply of
fiber, equipment, and other necessary materials to implement the
broadband programs. We leverage the resources and expertise within the
Department and to work closely with industrial stakeholders to address
this critical issue.
The Middle Mile Grant Program will prioritize applications that
meet certain criteria, including that the Eligible Entity has
identified supplemental investments or in-kind support (such as waived
franchise or permitting fees) that will accelerate the completion of
the planned project. For the BEAD program, each Eligible Entity may
choose its own means of competitively selecting subgrantees for last-
mile broadband deployment projects, though that process must
incorporate certain principles to satisfy the IIJA's mandates and the
BEAD Program's goals. In particular, the selection process must give
secondary criterion prioritization weight to the prospective
subgrantee's binding commitment to provide service by an earlier date
certain, subject to contractual penalties to the Eligible Entity, with
greater benefits awarded to applicants promising an earlier service
provision date.
Question 5. Given the mountainous terrain of West Virginia,
achieving universal broadband connectivity may require an all-of-the-
above technology approach. Fiber, cable, fixed wireless, mobile
wireless--perhaps satellite broadband--each has a role to play in
connecting every household and business to the digital economy. What
are your thoughts on tech neutrality, and will broadband programs
administered by NTIA be carried out in a technology-neutral manner?
Answer. NTIA will ensure that Eligible Entities have flexibility to
identify appropriate technical solutions. In many cases, the best
solution will be fiber. But we will consider any technology that will
meet America's broadband needs, consistent with the requirements set
out in the IIJA.
Question 6. IIJA contained historic funding for closing the digital
divide, and the pandemic has shown the necessity of high-quality
connectivity for all citizens.
As a report issued by your own Department has indicated, the
manufacture of information and communications technology products
(ICTs) has moved out of the United States over the past 25 years; the
U.S. share of global ICT manufacturing has declined from 30 to five
percent.
Everything from routers and switches to end-user devices contains
components made in other countries. As such, it is highly unlikely that
most, if not all, of the equipment necessary to close the digital
divide will fail to meet the requirements of the Buy America policies
established in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021.
It is also clear from your report that the United States currently
does not have the current capabilities to manufacture these products at
scale. While ICT companies are beginning to diversify their sourcing
due to pandemic-related supply chain disruptions, shifting geopolitical
tensions, and the increasing prices of fuel, it does not appear that
there will be a sufficient supply of domestically sourced equipment
when the IIJA funds are distributed. Additional manufacturing capacity
built in the United States would no doubt be a welcome, if not
necessary, way to remedy the supply chain shortages--but expanding that
capacity will take time. In the meantime, our communities desperately
need broadband deployment.
Answer. In the short term, we will work with industry to explore
options for alleviating broadband equipment availability concerns. In
the long term, we must take steps to ensure a resilient and secure
supply chain for critical materials, including continued assistance to
firms expanding their semiconductor manufacturing investments in the
United States.
The Administration is committed to faithfully implementing the
IIJA, including the law's Build America, Buy America provisions.
President Biden has relentlessly focused on an industrial strategy to
revitalize our manufacturing base, strengthen critical supply chains,
and position U.S. workers and businesses to compete and lead globally
in the 21st century. The Commerce Department will consider waiving
these requirements only where the acquisition of domestic components
would be inconsistent with the public interest, their cost would be
unreasonable, or the relevant materials or products are not mined,
produced, or manufactured in the United States in sufficient and
reasonably available commercial quantities and of a satisfactory
quality.
Question 7. How crucial is getting sufficient middle mile to rural
America in order to fully close the digital divide?
Answer. Middle mile connections are crucial to fully closing the
digital divide. The IIJA established the Middle Mile Grant (MMG)
Program to complement other programs focused on Internet connectivity
and digital equity. Middle mile infrastructure does not reach the end
user's location, but typically aggregates large quantities of traffic
for carriage between networks.
Recognizing the middle mile's central importance, Congress
appropriated $1 billion for the MMG Program and identified two key
objectives: to ``encourage the expansion and extension of middle mile
infrastructure to reduce the cost of connecting unserved and
underserved areas to the backbone of the internet'' and to ``promote
broadband connection resiliency through the creation of alternative
network connection paths that can be designed to prevent single points
of failure on a broadband network.''
Question 8. Do you still stand by your commitment to make it out to
West Virginia to see the challenges my state faces when it comes to
providing broadband?
Answer. Yes. NTIA senior leadership traveled to West Virginia in
August, 2022, and reported back on the unique challenges facing your
state. I look forward to going there myself and learning firsthand
about how best to bring high-speed Internet to all West Virginians.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Rick Scott to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. With the $42 billion Broadband Equity, Access, and
Deployment (BEAD) Program, Americans deserve to know how their tax
dollars are being spent. My Broadband Buildout Accountability Act (S.
3671) would remove the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) exemption
currently in the BEAD. Transparency will help ensure that taxpayer
money is spent with maximum accountability and return on investment.
Do you plan on disclosing how the BEAD grant dollars will be
spent?
How are you making the NTIA more transparent to American
taxpayers so that they know how their tax dollars are receiving
a proper return on investment?
Answer. NTIA intends to run the BEAD Program transparently and with
accountability, including making information publicly accessible so
that the public can track how each state is spending BEAD funding and
monitor their state's progress. NTIA, along with Eligible Entities and
subgrantees, each have a critical role to play in ensuring that the
BEAD Program is implemented in a manner that reflects transparency,
accountability, and oversight to minimize the opportunity for waste,
fraud, and abuse; ensure that grant recipients under the Program use
grant funds to further the overall purpose of the Program in compliance
with the requirements of the IIJA, the Uniform Administrative
Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal
Awards set forth at 2 C.F.R. Part 200, and other applicable laws and
regulations; and to allow the public to understand and monitor grants
and subgrants awarded under the Program.
Question 2. As satellite Internet technology develops and expands,
it is rapidly becoming a key player in ensuring that rural and remote
America has access to broadband internet. However, in your Notice of
Funding Opportunity for the BEAD, you explicitly consider a location
served exclusively by satellite as ``unserved''.
How do you justify this designation, which could lead to
overbuilding in areas that already have access to broadband?
Do you believe that satellite Internet is a viable option in
bringing high speed Internet to rural areas so that all
Americans have access to the internet?
Answer. For the purposes of the BEAD Program, locations served
exclusively by satellite do not meet the criteria for Reliable
Broadband Service and so will be considered ``unserved.'' The IIJA
defines ``reliable broadband service'' as ``broadband service that
meets performance criteria for service availability, adaptability to
changing end-user requirements, length of serviceable life, or other
criteria, other than upload and download speeds, as determined by the
Assistant Secretary in coordination with the [FCC].'' For the purposes
of this definition, the Assistant Secretary adopts the criteria that
Reliable Broadband Service must be (1) a fixed broadband service that
(2) is available with a high degree of certainty, (3) both at present
and for the foreseeable future, and finds, after coordination with the
FCC, that the definition of Reliable Broadband Service set forth in the
BEAD NOFO best meets those criteria.
NTIA recognize that there is no ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to
broadband deployment given each state's unique challenges, and will
ensure that the Eligible Entities have flexibility in identifying
technical solutions. In many cases, the best solution will be fiber.
But we will consider any technology that will meet America's broadband
needs, consistent with the requirements set out in the IIJA.
______
Response to Written Questions Submitted by Hon. Jerry Moran to
Hon. Alan Davidson
Question 1. The BEAD Notice of Funding Opportunity, or NOFO,
requires states to create a ``middle-class affordability'' option to
``offer low-cost, high-speed plans to all middle-class householders on
BEAD funded networks,'' despite no such provisions being included in
IIJA. Within IIJA, Congress considered the necessity of a low-cost
option for Americans, and required NTIA to provide for a low-cost
broadband option for low-income families, not middle class families
that can afford broadband service.
Administrator Davidson, can you explain to me where NTIA's
authority to create another low-cost option for middle class
families comes from, since this is not something Congress
authorized in IIJA?
Additionally, given the potentially broad scope of a middle-
class low-cost requirement, please explain how this is not rate
regulation, something explicitly prohibited in IIJA?
Answer. Section 60101 of the IIJA stated that ``[a]ccess to
affordable, reliable, high-speed broadband is essential to full
participation in modern life in the United States,'' and that ``[t]he
persistent `digital divide' in the United States is a barrier to'' the
Nation's ``economic competitiveness [and the] equitable distribution of
essential public services, including health care and education.'' We
agree, and believe it is essential that communications networks be
accessible and affordable to all Americans. The IIJA's low-cost service
option requirement is important for ensuring affordability for low-
income Americans, but that requirement alone will not ensure that
service is affordable for middle-class Americans. Accordingly, to
fulfill the IIJA's clearly stated goals, we direct Eligible Entities to
propose plans for promoting middle-class affordability. The NOFO
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to
the Eligible Entities in the first instance. Similarly, we do not
specify which mechanisms a state must employ to ensure middle-class
affordability. Again, this is a question for Eligible Entities to
address in the first instance.
Question 2. As has been noted already, broadband deployment is
critical, and NTIA's duty under IIJA to provide broadband to unserved
Americans is of critical importance. However, NTIA also serves other
important functions that need to be executed. As the lead Republican on
the Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Subcommittee that
funds NTIA, it is my responsibility to ensure your agency has the
resources necessary to carry out all of its functions. Administrator
Davidson, given the focus on implementing IIJA's broadband deployment
provision, do you have the personnel and resources necessary to achieve
NTIA's other important tasks, including spectrum management objectives?
Answer. Senator, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss this
issue with you and your staff. NTIA has always appreciated your support
in your role on the Appropriations Committee. We urge Congress to fully
fund the Administration's FY 2023 budget request for NTIA.
Question 3. Administrator Davidson, the Notice of Funding
Opportunity's introduction of a middle-class affordability option in
the BEAD program was unexpected, as it was not included in IIJA. The
definition of middle class can be quite broad and it's also very
regional. For example, an income of $100K per year in rural Kansas goes
a lot further than in a state with a higher cost of living like
California or New York.
How do you plan to approach this regional cost-of-living
variability? Additionally, what system do you plan to put in
place for eligibility verification?
Do you expect ISPs to have to ask customers to provide their
tax returns or other financial information to qualify?
Answer. Each Eligible Entity must include in its Initial and Final
Proposals a middle-class affordability plan to ensure that all
consumers have access to affordable high-speed internet. The NOFO
expressly refrains from defining that term, because its answer might
differ from state to state. Instead, we have left that determination to
the Eligible Entities in the first instance.
Similarly, we do not specify which mechanisms an Eligible Entity
must employ to ensure middle-class affordability. Again, this is a
question for Eligible Entities to address in the first instance.
[all]