[Senate Hearing 117-900]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 117-900
ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S
BROADBAND NEEDS
=======================================================================
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
__________
DECEMBER 13, 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
57-049 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 December 13, 2022................................ 1
Statement of Senator Lujan....................................... 1
Statement of Senator Thune....................................... 4
Statement of Senator Peters...................................... 26
Letter dated December 8, 2022 to Hon. Charles Schumer, Hon.
Mitch McConnell, Hon. Nancy Pelosi and Hon. Kevin McCarthy
from Competitive Carriers Association, Information
Technology Industry Council (ITI), NATE: The Communications
Infrastructure Contractors Association, NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association, Rural Wireless Association,
Telecommunications Industry Association, Wireless
Infrastructure Association, and WTA--Advocates for Rural
Broadband.................................................. 28
Statement of Senator Blackburn................................... 32
Statement of Senator Klobuchar................................... 34
Statement of Senator Sinema...................................... 36
Statement of Senator Baldwin..................................... 38
Statement of Senator Young....................................... 39
Statement of Senator Rosen....................................... 41
Statement of Senator Tester...................................... 43
Statement of Senator Capito...................................... 45
Statement of Senator Lummis...................................... 47
Witnesses
Kimball Sekaquaptewa, Chair, Connect New Mexico Council; Chief
Technology Director, Santa Fe Indian School.................... 6
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Michael Powell, President and CEO, NCTA, The Internet &
Television Association......................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion
Alliance....................................................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Appendix
Letter dated December 12, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan from Marc H.
Morial, President and Chief Executive Officer, National Urban
League......................................................... 59
Report: National Urban League--Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital
Equity and Inclusion........................................... 61
Letter dated December 13, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon.
John Thune from Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, Public
Knowledge...................................................... 196
Letter dated December 13, 2022 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon.
John Thune from Meredith Attwell Baker, President and CEO, CTIA 199
Letter dated January 5, 2023 to Hon. Ray Ben Lujan and Hon. John
Thune from Angie Kronenberg, President, INCOMPAS............... 201
Article dated October 19, 2022 entitled, ``Dollars to Megabits,
You May Be Paying 400 Times As Much As Your Neighbor for
Internet Service,'' by Leon Yin and Aaron Sankin, The Markup... 204
Broadband report dated November 17, 2022 entitled, ``Broadband
Pricing: What Consumer Reports Learned from 22,000 Internet
Bills'' by Jonathan Schwantes.................................. 210
Report entitled, ``Closing the Digital Divide Benefits Everyone,
Not Just the Disconnected'' by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) in
partnership with Common Sense.................................. 243
Response to written questions submitted to Kimball Sekaquaptewa
by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 277
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 279
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 280
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 281
Response to written questions submitted to Hon. Michael Powell
by:
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 282
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 283
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 283
Response to written questions submitted to Jonathan Spalter by:
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 284
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 284
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 285
Hon. Roger Wicker............................................ 285
Hon. John Thune.............................................. 286
Response to written question submitted to Angela Siefer by:
Hon. Maria Cantwell.......................................... 286
Hon. Brian Schatz............................................ 287
Hon. Amy Klobuchar........................................... 287
Hon. Jacky Rosen............................................. 288
ENSURING SOLUTIONS TO MEET AMERICA'S BROADBAND NEEDS
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 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 10:02 a.m., in
room SR-253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Ben Ray
Lujan, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Lujan [presiding], Klobuchar, Blumenthal,
Peters, Tester, Sinema, Rosen, Thune, Fischer, Moran,
Blackburn, Young, Capito, Scott, and Lummis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BEN RAY LUJAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Lujan. Well, good morning, everyone. I call the
hearing before the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and
Broadband, on ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet America's Broadband
Needs'', to order. I want to thank Ranking Member Thune for
working with me to hold this hearing. And thank you to our
witnesses for your testimony and your participation.
Congress provided $65 billion for broadband in the
bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to
fundamentally reshape the landscape of connectivity in the
United States. The law deploys broadband, supports adoption,
and requires new rules for inclusion and equity.
This is a historic, bipartisan commitment to close the
digital divide and ensure that everyone is able to participate
in the digital economy in our interconnected world. I want to
acknowledge what we have accomplished so far.
But now it is time to have a different conversation about
putting those resources to work. Congress must ensure that our
Federal, tribal, State, and local partners are able to deploy
these resources efficiently to address real need and not just
maximize opportunities and profits.
Every village, colonial, tribe, and pueblo in New Mexico
and across the Nation deserves equal access to the
opportunities that this law provides. Congress has good reason
to be vigilant regarding the use of these funds. It is going to
be important that there are guardrails, prudent oversight, and
that the investment flows to areas where it is needed most.
Just as historic inequities and redlining in the housing
and financial industries meant low income and communities of
color were left unserved by housing and access to banking,
digital redlining has resulted in worse service at higher
prices for those same communities.
An investigation published by the markup in October in
partnership with the Associated Press, showed that many
Internet service providers offered their worst deals to
formerly redlined neighborhoods.
This article demonstrates why it is so important that the
FCC implement meaningful new rules to prevent this digital
discrimination related to broadband. As public and private
partners deploy new broadband programs, Congress must ensure
Federal funds meet the needs on the ground, not deepen existing
racial and socioeconomic inequities.
We must also work with administration--or sorry, we must
also work with Administrator Davidson and the National
Telecommunication and Information Administration to allocate
funds according to the true state of access to affordable
broadband as required by law. With the Broadband Data Act,
Congress provided direction and funding to the Federal
Communications Commission to develop cutting edge broadband
maps.
These maps have already proven to be a leap forward in
understanding broadband availability in the United States. I am
deeply grateful for the work Chairman Rosenworcel and the FCC
have done in the area of implementing the Broadband Data Act,
and NTIA will use these maps to make funding allocations for
the $42.5 billion made available through the Broadband Equity
Access and Deployment, which will probably be calling BEAD
today.
But the initial version of these maps still needs work. The
version largely relies on self-reported data from broadband
providers. Now, the example that I will give here shows where
there was much data that was missing. Whole communities were
missing from the fabric of these maps, like in my state,
Shiprock, New Mexico, which is out in the four corners on the
Navajo Nation, and Conchita Pueblo in New Mexico we are not
included.
We cannot afford to get this wrong. Fortunately, the bill
recognized that local communities have the best knowledge of
their own connectivity issues, and it required the FCC to
include a robust challenge process.
We want to encourage everyone across the country to learn
about this challenge process, to learn about the app that was
developed by the Federal Communications Commission, learn how
to use it, and just check the speeds at your house or your
business or your schools. And if they are not, as reported on
the map site, use the map and let's get better data. NTIA
should ensure funding allocations use the most accurate data
available.
I will continue to work closely with the Commission and
communities on the ground to ensure the maps represent the true
state of broadband availability in New Mexico and across the
country. We must also continue to find long term solutions to
make broadband access equitable across the United States.
That is why I introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act
to create an ongoing source of funds for digital literacy,
equity, and inclusion on an ongoing and sustained basis. As the
pace of technological development continues to accelerate, we
will always have a divide between those who have access and
those who need it.
We must weave digital equity into the fabric of
connectivity in America. This bill would supplement the
existing digital equity program that was included in the
bipartisan infrastructure bill. It would create a permanent
foundation to ensure long term nationwide initiatives that can
truly reshape the future of the United States, in addition
through funding and working to strengthen digital equity for
programs like BEAD and tribal broadband, and of course, for
affordable connectivity.
We will need to find permanent funding for every one of
these important priorities that we have worked on together.
Today, tens of millions of Americans do not have a choice
between Internet service providers. Their options are limited
to whoever has cable running to their apartment or fiber to
their houses or wireless service in their valley. There are too
many communities where market forces have failed.
Congress acted to ensure that the millions of Americans who
do not currently have access to affordable broadband gain
access. I look forward to our discussion today that will focus
on making that a reality and to identify additional needs that
might require additional Congressional action.
I am very honored that our witnesses joined us today, and
Mr. Thune, all in person, which I certainly appreciate. Kimball
Sekaquaptewa who is a fellow New Mexican and someone that I
have enjoyed getting to know throughout the years and watching
her work, who is the Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council
and Chief Technology Director for the Santa Fe Indian School.
She has been a tireless advocate for connecting unconnected
communities across New Mexico, and I deeply appreciate her
presence today, and I look forward to hearing more about what
has been accomplished and how it might help connect more people
across America. Jonathan Spalter was the President and CEO of
USTelecom.
The Broadband Association, USTelecom represents a diverse
set of telecommunication providers across the country working
to expand connectivity through a variety of new and established
technologies. The Honorable Michael Powell is President and CEO
of NCTA, the Internet and Television Association.
Mr. Powell is former Chairman of the Federal Communications
Commission, and now represents most of the cable market and
some of the largest residential broadband providers in the
United States. And finally, Angela Siefer, who is the Executive
Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance. She has
been a tireless advocate for digital inclusion and equity
efforts nationwide.
Thank you all for being here. I look forward to this
conversation. And I would just add that this conversation is
taking place at a time that we have four FCC Commissioners. And
I am certainly hopeful that there is an up or down vote that
can be scheduled on the Senate floor over Gigi Sohn's
nomination, and I am calling on a vote to take place.
Many of us have been asking for a vote to take place for a
while. There were several voices, including mine, that
advocated for nominations a year before they took place, I
think, and even the reconfirmation of the chair and others. So
I am hopeful that we can have a full Commission soon.
One final note, while this might be my last opportunity to
preside over a subcommittee hearing this year, my deepest
thanks to Ranking Member Wicker in his tenure as the Ranking
Republican Member of the Commerce committee as well, who has
shaped national broadband policy, including the Broadband Data
Act and many others.
Much of what we will discuss today were possible through
the hard work of Senator Wicker and his staff to put these
efforts in place, including Olivia Trusty, John Lynn, Kelsey
Guyselman, and Matthew Hamilton. The Armed Services committee
is going to be very fortunate to have Mr. Wicker as part of
that committee as well.
I also want to recognize Chair Cantwell and her staff for
their support this Congress, including former staff John
Branscome, Shawn Bone, Brian McDermott, and Mary Claire York,
and then current staff Christi Barnhart, Mary Huang, and Harsha
Mudaliar, and Wes Platt.
I want to thank them all for the work that they do
tirelessly every day, and then turn this over to Senator Thune.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for having
today's hearing. And let me begin by saying that it has been a
pleasure to lead this subcommittee with you these past couple
of years, and I look forward to continue working with you on a
number of important issues before this subcommittee next
Congress.
And one of those issues is ensuring that Americans have
access to reliable broadband services. The expansion of these
services to more rural areas has long been a priority of mine
here in the U.S. Senate.
And since March 2020, Congress has allocated billions of
dollars for broadband related services through COVID-19
pandemic relief packages, and most recently through passage of
the infrastructure bill which has provided broadband funding at
a price tag of over $64 billion.
The nearly $80 billion for broadband specific projects, on
top of the billions of dollars the FCC disburses annually under
its Universal Service Fund, is an unprecedented amount of
money.
The good news is that for those areas where certain
connectivity challenges remain unresolved, this funding, in
addition to the sustained investments made by
telecommunications providers across the country, should help
close the digital divide.
The bad news is that this funding is spread out over 15
separate agencies and 133 programs, with the lion's share of
the funding going through NTIA. This is deeply concerning. As I
argued in Congress, was debating the infrastructure bill, NTIA
has previously fumbled attempts to bring broadband access to
more communities.
Back in 2009, the stimulus bill allocated $4.7 billion to
NTIA to expand broadband access in rural and underserved areas.
It didn't go very well. The agency struggled with
implementation. There were serious issues with a number of the
projects the agency approved. Other projects resulted in a
significant amount of overbuilding, meaning that they resulted
in the construction of additional broadband infrastructure in
areas that already had access to reliable broadband at the
taxpayers' expense.
More recently, last year, NTIA called for volunteers to
help determine how to allocate the $1.5 billion Congress
provided NTIA for certain broadband programs. That is
unacceptable, and I am afraid without stringent oversight, NTIA
will make and has already made the same mistakes when managing
the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and Deployment
Program and Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
That is why last week I began an oversight effort to review
the numerous Federal broadband programs. Oversight of how these
dollars are being spent is necessary to avoid agencies misusing
billions of taxpayer dollars, more importantly, to ensure the
funding is actually going to areas that are truly unserved.
If there are changes that need to be made to the various
programs Congress has established, we need to get to work to
make sure they are as effective as possible and that they work
as Congress intended.
One such program we have begun work to make necessary
improvements to is USDA's Reconnect Program. I was pleased to
partner with Chair Lujan and Senators Klobuchar and Fischer in
introducing the Rural Internet Improvement Act, legislation
that will streamline USDA's broadband authorities and target
funding to areas most in need.
We must also recognize the Federal Government will not
solve the digital divide on its own. It is important we
maintain a regulatory framework that promotes investment and
allows telecommunications companies to make the kind of choices
that have resulted in strong networks.
Unlike other countries, broadband providers in the United
States were able to keep Americans connected when demands for
fixed and mobile networks soared during the pandemic. This is
largely because of the United States' light touch regulatory
approach to broadband policy, which has incentivized the
private sector to make network reliability, affordability, and
resiliency a priority.
Finally, we must tackle permitting hurdles that delay the
buildout of broadband infrastructure. My MOBILE NOW Act, which
was signed into law in 2018, has been an effective tool in
moving the Federal Government in the right direction. But I
continue to hear concerns about unnecessary delays and costs
associated with broadband permitting.
The agencies processing permitting requests need to be held
accountable if they are not meeting deadlines, which is why
today I am sending a request to several Federal agencies on the
steps that they have taken to implement MOBILE NOW's broadband
siting mandates.
For too long we have talked about bridgeting--bridging, I
should say, the digital divide. It is time to actually do it.
And the only way that happens is if this committee actually
utilizes its important oversight responsibilities to ensure
that agencies under its jurisdiction make smart, targeted
investments that use taxpayer dollars responsibly.
Anything short of that will result in Government waste
leaving Americans still unconnected. I want to thank each of
the witnesses for being here today, and I look forward to the
discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Thune. I appreciate
that. And we will now recognize our witnesses for 5 minutes
each for their testimony. And we will begin with Kimball
Sekaquaptewa of New Mexico. Kimball.
STATEMENT OF KIMBALL SEKAQUAPTEWA, CHAIR, CONNECT NEW MEXICO
COUNCIL; CHIEF TECHNOLOGY DIRECTOR, SANTA FE INDIAN SCHOOL
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you, Chair Lujan. My name is
Kimball Sekaquaptewa, you can call me Kimball, from the Hopi
tribe, and a mother of three in the Pueblo of Cochiti. Please
note that while our shared tribal experience is largely a rural
experience, it is well known that New Mexico is one of the
least connected states in the country, in large part due to the
rugged and rocky terrain and sparse population density.
In my community, the wireline ISP offerings have not
changed in 20 years. In short, there are none. Until I
completed my first fiber optic network in 2018, the entire
tribal government, a public library, shared a 3.0 mbps
connection over a bonded TI.
As the Chief Technology Director for the Santa Fe Indian
School, it was my duty to provide Internet connectivity to our
700 students who, during COVID-19, we sent home to 23 rural
tribal communities, some of the least connected lands in the
United States.
In fact, 89 percent of our students did not have Internet
access that met the FCC performance benchmark of 25/3. Those
that did lived in town. If there was a silver lining, it was
that we could build on previous efforts. In 2016, I leveraged
the FCC's Schools and Libraries E-rate Program to create a
consortia of tribal schools and libraries to bring high speed
Internet to six pueblos.
Our goal was to provide our pueblo students with the same
college and career opportunities as their more affluent peers.
Realizing that our work reached beyond education, the tribes
self-invested in additional infrastructure for improved
governance and focused efforts such as health care.
With their new fiber backhaul, it was these tribes who were
able to pivot and deploy residential Internet access during the
pandemic. Some now participate in the Affordable Connectivity
Program as service providers.
Fast forward to 2022, the work continues. Thanks to the
NTIA Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, the Santa Fe Indian
School is constructing a 324 mile route to three more pueblos
and remote tribal lands. TBCP springboards tribal efforts to
connect unserved homes and anchor institutions, and our
experience has proven that we can be our own solution to the
digital divide.
It is also true that until the iterative FCC broadband
fabric matures, tribal self-certification of broadband
availability is essential. In my rural community, the map
currently shows three residences when it should show 275. In
total, the Santa Fe Indian School will have placed 500 miles of
middle mile fiber, which is equally important for the state of
New Mexico as it is for the tribes.
Given the NTIA open network requirement, private industry
will not have to bear those expensive costs to build these
routes and will have access to fiber backhaul to improve and
extend their last mile networks. For too long, providers have
built around sovereign lands when in fact we are the critical
partners to achieve right-of-way and navigate permitting
processes, along with the Federal agencies having oversight.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council, and with my
colleagues, we steward the deployment of scalable, reliable,
affordable broadband to connect every New Mexican utilizing
both State funds and the upcoming IIJA BEAD Program.
In addition, in New Mexico, we created a pilot grant with
BEAD like NOFO requirements, and I can see formidable barriers
to participation. While local government and tribes are
eligible as BEAD grantees, functionally, the stringent
requirements for matching funds, letters of credit, and
professional engineering stamps discourage participation.
These requirements favor better resourced ISPs who will
apply to serve their next best markets. As a nation, we run the
risk of maintaining the status quo and missing the most
underserved communities without local flexibility to administer
federally funded programs. The rush to use the FCC fabric map
compounds the issue.
We estimate that the fabric is missing tens of thousands of
unserved homes and anchor institutions such as small schools,
health care centers, houses of worship in New Mexico,
potentially shortchanging our state by up to $500 million in
funding, an educated guess because the way the funding formula
will work is still unknown.
We ask NTIA to extend the January 13, 2023, deadline to
have more time to challenge the missing location to the FCC's
preliminary broadband map. Last, I submit that the solution to
bridge the digital divide in the United States does not lie in
a methodology limited to a conventional ISP approach.
In that, I refer to a broader broadband ecosystem. For
instance, only half of the states in the country have state
education networks, an approach that is not currently
incentivized. The development of State education networks has
the ancillary benefit of installing middle mile infrastructure,
enabling last mile deployments.
The way that the fabric currently counts anchor
institutions minimizes the role that they can play to provide
systemic solutions. Uplifting these corollary broadband efforts
creates a holistic approach, one that is needed to solve the
complexity of broadband access for all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Sekaquaptewa follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kimball Sekaquaptewa, Chair, Connect New Mexico
Council; Chief Technology Director, Santa Fe Indian School
My name is Kimball Sekaquaptewa, please call me Kimball, from the
Hopi Tribe of Arizona and a mother to three children of the Pueblo de
Cochiti. I am joining you here today from Santa Fe, New Mexico. Please
note that while I share a tribal experience, it is largely a rural
experience. It is well-known that New Mexico is one of the least
connected states in the country in large part due to the rugged and
rocky terrain and sparse population density, resulting in extremely
high construction costs with limited return on investment. In fact, in
my home community, the wireline ISP offerings have not changed in 20
years, in short there are none. Until I built my first fiber optic
backbone in 2018, the entire tribal government and public library
shared a bonded T1 of 3.0 Mbps. As the Chief Technology Director for
the Santa Fe Indian School it was my duty to provide Internet
connectivity to our students who we sent home abruptly in March 2020
with the onset of COVID-19, to 23 rural/tribal communities who we know
to be the least connected lands in the United States. In fact, in a
survey of families, we learned that 89 percent of our students did not
have Internet Access that met the FCC performance benchmark of 25/3.
Those that did lived in town.
If there was a silver lining it was that we could build on previous
efforts. Leveraging the FCC Schools and Libraries E-rate, I led a
consortium of tribal schools and libraries to bring high speed
affordable Internet into six Pueblo communities. Our goal was to
provide our Pueblo students the same college and career opportunities
as their more affluent urban peers. Our tribal leaders realized that
our work reached beyond education and invested private funds to add
broadband infrastructure for improved governance, healthcare, and
environmental protection. With their existing fiber backhaul, it was
these communities who were able to pivot and deploy residential
Internet access during the pandemic.
Fast forward to 2022, the collaborations continue. Thanks to a NTIA
Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP) program, the Santa Fe
Indian School is constructing a 324-mile route to three more Pueblos
and remote tribal lands. I can't overstate the importance of this
historic tribal broadband opportunity. The program springboards tribal
efforts to connect the unserved homes and anchor institutions because
our experience has proven that are our own solution to the digital
divide. It is also true that until the iterative FCC Broadband Fabric
map matures that tribal self-certification of broadband availability
used to determine TBCP eligibility is essential. In my rural community,
the map currently shows 3 residences when it should show 275.
In total, the TBCP supports us to place 500 miles of middle-mile
fiber in New Mexico and these connections are equally as important for
the State of New Mexico, as they are for the tribes themselves. Given
the NTIA open network requirements, private industry will not have to
bear expensive costs to build these routes and will have access to
fiber backhaul to improve and extend their last-mile networks.
Thinking of tribes as partners and not just recipients of service,
is a paradigm shift to solve rural connectivity in all states with
tribal nations. For too long, providers have built around sovereign
lands, when in fact, we are the critical partners and hold the skills
to achieve right-of-way and navigate the permitting processes on tribal
lands with the Federal agencies having oversight.
Looking ahead, the financial sustainability of emerging tribal
networks is paramount. While the current grants provide the capital
funding, operations and management require on-going support. Our Tribal
ISPs are increasingly participating in the Affordable Connectivity
Program as providers but the future of this program is uncertain.
Alternatively, FCC could provide a pathway for emerging ISPs to access
Lifeline through a modification of the ETC designation.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council and together with my
colleagues, we steward the broadband infrastructure deployment effort
to connect every New Mexican to scalable, reliable, affordable
broadband. With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (IIJA) and the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD)
Program we have a generational opportunity to create a connected
nation. In New Mexico, we have implemented a pilot grant like the BEAD-
like NOFO requirements, and I can see formidable barriers to
participation. While local governments are eligible grantees,
functionally, the stringent requirements for matching funds, letters of
credit, and professional engineering stamps prohibit participation.
These requirements favor better resourced ISPs, who will apply to serve
their next best markets. As a nation, we run the risk of replicating
the status quo and missing the most underserved communities without
local flexibility to the federally-funded programs.
The rush to use the FCC Fabric map, compounds the issue. In New
Mexico, we estimate that the Fabric is missing tens of thousands of
unserved broadband serviceable locations, potentially shortchanging NM
by up to $500M in the funding allocation. Yet the number is a
guesstimate because the way the formula funding will work is still
unknown. In addition, the map does not include many small schools,
libraries, health care providers, houses of worship and other community
anchor institutions and we fear those institutions will not receive
broadband because of being left off the map. We ask the NTIA to extend
the January 13, 2023 deadline to allow challenges for the missing
locations to the FCC's preliminary broadband map, so they can be
counted appropriately.
Lastly, I submit the solution to bridge the digital divide in the
United States does not lie in a methodology limited to a conventional
ISP approach. In that I refer to a broader broadband ecosystem. For
instance, only half of the states in the country have state education
networks--an approach that is not currently incentivized. Yet the
development of state education networks has the ancillary benefit of
installing middle-mile infrastructure for an entire state and enables
last mile deployments. However, to encourage, or even allow these
proven strategies, our methodology must match. The way that the Fabric
currently counts anchor institutions, minimizes that role they can play
to provide systemic solutions. Uplifting these corollary broadband
efforts creates a holistic approach, one that is needed to solve the
complexity of broadband access for all.
Thank you for allowing me to share the story of my last decade's
contribution and work to ensure solutions to meet America's broadband
needs for now and for the future.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Next, we will hear from the Honorable Michael Powell, the
President and CEO of NCTA.
STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL POWELL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NCTA, THE
INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Powell. Thank you very much, Chair Lujan, Ranking
Member Thune, members of the Committee. I am honored to be with
you today. I am Michael Powell, President and CEO of NCTA, the
Internet and Television Association, and our members have
invested hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years to bring
high speed, high quality broadband to 90 percent of households.
And while we are proud of that achievement, we recognize
that the work is undone. Many of our members would love to
serve rural and unserved parts of the country but are unable to
do so because they are cost prohibitive without public support.
For that reason, we are extremely excited, motivated, and
committed to work with Congress and community organizations to
make this last great opportunity a resounding success over the
next couple of years. It is not an exaggeration to say this is
a once in a generation opportunity for three reasons.
First is the amount of money appropriated is genuinely
unprecedented. It is ten times the amount of money that was
allocated and authorized during the BEAD Program in 2009, and
it really addresses the core concern in many unserved areas.
Simply put, it is too costly to serve with too little
revenue to continue to operate throughout the network without a
loss. This scale of resources provides the first meaningful
opportunity to genuinely close the digital divide and so we are
very excited about that.
The second area that really represents true wisdom on the
part of this committee in Congress is to insist that the FCC
develop more granular broadband maps. For too long, we have
used maps that are out of date, well understood to have
overstated the number of areas that are served.
That is a serious problem in targeting resources in an
efficient and significant way. We are very excited about that.
The FCC has made a gallant effort at the first draft. I think
it is commendable. It is a very difficult task. But there are
many, many rounds of improving the data quality, ensure that
those maps are accurate in the ways that Chair Lujan was
referencing.
Third, and I think less discussed, is that Congress took a
fresh approach to addressing adoption and affordability. Fresh
in that it focused on direct credits to consumers in order to
afford high quality service.
Put simply, combined with the kinds of offerings ISPs have
agreed to provide, eligible low income families will be able to
access broadband essentially for free, and just as importantly,
have the freedom to choose the plans that most suit their
family needs. This is a great improvement. But we know from
past experience it is going to take a lot more than money.
It is going to take excellent execution of the program. As
Senator Thune mentioned, these are 130 programs with a lot of
money being funneled through 15 different agencies. Gosh, what
could go wrong? In our past experience, we have lessons that
tell us what will go wrong, and I would like to highlight just
a few.
The first is failing to maintain discipline in targeting
the most unserved areas. I follow the family dinner rule.
Nobody should get seconds till everybody's been served.
Frequently in past programs, this is the biggest error that's
repeatedly made. Money will always work hard to get to more
economic communities if allowed to in areas where there is
already broadband, where the economics are more sound.
It will require discipline on the part of regulators to
ensure that that doesn't happen. The second important thing to
do is remove obstacles the Federal Government and other
Government agencies have within their power. Here I speak
specifically of permitting, both on Federal lands and local
communities, as well as access to poles. Put directly, poles
are the lifeline to reach rural America.
If you do not have access to them at reasonable rates, you
will not reach those communities, plain and simple. Next is the
importance of maintaining discipline against regulatory creep.
These kinds of programs always have a tendency to attract
layered on regulatory requirements that are tangential to the
mission of the program.
The consequence of that is it creates more complexity,
additional burden, and raises the cost of an already fragile
cost model. We should resist the temptation to do that as much
as conceivably possible.
And finally, we have experienced all too often the presence
of waste, fraud, and abuse. While we see a set of taxpayer
resources to solve an important public policy problem, there
will be people who see it as a honeypot and will endeavor to
find every scheme possible to take as much of that money as
they can.
We have seen that before. That requires real
accountability, real transparency, clear criteria, a Government
that explains its decisions in issuing grants clearly and make
them publicly available. So thank you very much for having me
today, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Powell follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael K. Powell, President and CEO, NCTA--The
Internet & Television Association
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is
Michael Powell, and I am the President and CEO of NCTA--The Internet &
Television Association. It is a privilege to appear before you to
discuss our efforts to ensure that all Americans have access to
reliable, high speed broadband services.
The cable industry is proud of its role in delivering high-speed
broadband to America. We have invested hundreds of billions of dollars
over the past three decades, but there are areas that remain
economically hard to reach due to many factors, including their
remoteness, challenging terrain, and low density. In the shadow of the
COVID crisis, Congress attacked this problem by appropriating
unprecedented levels of funding. These resources will be administered
through a variety of federal, state, and local agencies, with the goal
of closing deployment and adoption gaps, and getting all Americans
connected. Working in private-public partnerships, this funding
presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to overcome the economic
obstacles that have limited network expansion in rural, high-cost areas
and to address the issues that slow broadband adoption.
These programs offer great promise, but there are substantial
challenges in effectively administering this complex effort. Success
will require sharp focus and resolve to direct resources where they are
most needed. Past attempts have often failed because resources were
mistargeted, or poorly administered by both government agencies and
ineffective providers. We cannot allow that to happen this time.
Congress's continued oversight of the programs that disburse this
massive expenditure is essential if we hope to celebrate closing the
digital divide in years to come. This hearing is a welcome start.
NCTA is deeply committed to this mission. Working cooperatively
with the government, we will do everything in our power to achieve
Congress's goal of reaching every community and citizen with robust,
high-quality broadband service. Accomplishing this mission requires
policies that address three critical objectives:
(1) Encourage significant private investment in the construction of
next generation networks, including government action to remove
barriers that slow deployment such as permitting delays and
pole access;
(2) Target government funding to areas that are unserved. Experience
shows that support is often siphoned to areas that are more
economical to serve and already have broadband, leaving too
many communities still waiting for Internet access. Public
spending is essential to overcoming geographic and economic
barriers that leave unserved communities on the wrong side of
the gap; and
(3) Promote broadband adoption. This challenge is two-fold: (1) we
need to effectively offer financial support to low income
communities, and (2) work with experienced community
organizations to raise awareness of available support and teach
digital skills to those who have access to broadband, but don't
subscribe.
Let me now address each of the components in a bit more detail.
Cable's Private Investment Enabled the Widespread Deployment of
Broadband Networks, But Obstacles to Reaching Some Communities
Remain
NCTA members lead the Nation in building best in-class broadband
networks in rural counties and urban cities throughout the United
States. Fueled by private capital, cable broadband networks connect 82
million broadband households. More than 90 percent of American
households have access to cable high-speed broadband--including 55
percent of rural homes--and NCTA's members are committed to reaching
many more. This year, and every year, cable spends between $17 and $19
billion to deploy fiber-rich broadband networks in diverse areas across
America. These networks are high-speed, high quality, and highly
reliable connections that empower consumers to participate fully in the
Internet ecosystem.
Networks are not static, and cable has continually pushed the
leading edge. Gigabit networks were the exception in 2016 when only 4
percent of homes had access. Today, only 6 years later, our members
offer 1-gigabit plans to 96 percent of homes where we offer broadband
service. Already, the industry is opening the next frontier with its
``10G'' initiative--a plan to deploy ultra-high-speed multigigabit
symmetrical connections to consumers in the near future.
These investments proved indispensable in meeting the unanticipated
and unprecedented COVID 19 threat. No one ever anticipated a situation
where virtually every citizen was at home relying on the Internet to
work, to attend remote school, and to entertain and inform themselves.
This was the greatest stress test imaginable and the network and the
men and women who kept it working passed with flying colors. Without
decades of broadband investment, COVID could have been a devastating
economic catastrophe.
It is also noteworthy that as we deal with new economic challenges,
broadband continues to connect new subscribers and offer great value.
While speeds have continued to increase, prices remain stable and have
even decreased. In an economy that is seeing inflation in the range of
8 percent, broadband prices have barely risen, with the cost of entry
plans, most popular plans, and top tier plans all decreasing over 20
percent.
All is not rosy, however, in deploying broadband. Broadband
builders face significant obstacles in reaching many unserved
communities. For example, the categorical exemption of certain pole
owners from the mandates of the Pole Attachment Act has outlived its
usefulness and only serves to impede the extension of broadband
networks into rural and unserved areas. All utility pole owners should
be required to provide timely and non-discriminatory access to poles,
ducts, conduits, and rights-of-way, at non-discriminatory rates.
Without timely access to all poles, it will be incredibly difficult--if
not impossible--to reach the Administration's stated goal of reaching
100 percent of currently unserved families and small businesses by
2030.
Similarly, broadband deployments that cross Federal lands are
frequently stymied by slow permitting processes. Federal approvals are
also required for many federally funded broadband projects and often
delay deployment. These problems are significant in rural areas,
particularly in western states which encompass a lot of Federal land. A
recent letter from members of this Committee to the Secretaries of the
Interior, Agriculture, and Commerce detailed this concern and called
upon the Secretaries to streamline permitting on Federal land. In fact,
streamlined permitting procedures for access to all public rights-of-
way would help accelerate broadband deployment everywhere.
Cable is proud of its record building broadband throughout the
country. Of particular pride is our commitment to offering equal access
to our infrastructure throughout our service areas. Cable gigabit
networks in urban areas are deployed as equally in low-income areas as
in higher income ones. And importantly, there is virtually no
difference in gigabit service availability based on race or ethnicity.
The industry is committed to ensuring and improving equal access for
all our citizens regardless of income, race, ethnicity, color,
religion, or national origin.
Well-Managed Federal Programs Are Essential to Ubiquitous Deployment
Congress has taken the most important step to closing the digital
divide by allocating enormous resources to the task, but money alone
will not produce a successful outcome. Success will require disciplined
execution. Holistically, this effort involves over 100 programs
administered by a dizzying array of government agencies. A lot can go
wrong. It is imperative to keep a number of known risks front of mind.
1. Resources fail to go to the neediest areas first
Unserved communities lack broadband for one reason above all
others--they are prohibitively expensive to serve. The cost of
deploying infrastructure over expansive, difficult terrain is
exponentially higher than other areas. At the same time, the revenue to
offset those expenses is inversely less where fewer people and
businesses reside. Government funding is essential to offsetting these
dynamics and incenting companies to build. Yet, there will be many
forces that prefer to spend these limited resources in towns and
communities with better economics, where broadband already exists. This
is a fatal error that has been repeated many times in past programs,
leaving the unserved still hungry for their first taste of broadband.
In many of its programs, Congress has made clear that its focus is on
unserved areas. To meet these goals, it is critical that implementing
agencies distribute funding as intended with focus, rigor, and
discipline.
Precise targeting will be important. The FCC's first draft of new
broadband maps is an excellent start, but we will need to continually
refine them and faithfully and consistently use them as an
authoritative source across many programs if we want good results.
2. Inadequate Coordination
As mentioned, there is a lot of money being distributed by lots of
different agencies with lots of different criteria and rules.
Consequently, there is a serious risk that poor coordination and
disharmony in the terms and conditions of these programs leads to
confusion, delay, waste and poor results. Congress and the
Administration should continually seek to harmonize the constellation
of broadband programs to ensure efficiency in reaching our goals.
3. Policy Creep and Added Cost
The economic equation of unserved areas is fragile. Adding even a
little additional cost or reducing available revenue can destroy a
viable model for serving a new area, driving providers to drop plans to
enter. There are a bottomless number of contested policies and
regulations that many would love to layer on to this program. Already,
we see efforts to introduce forms of rate regulation, open-access
requirements, buy American provisions, and labor rules. Whatever the
merits, many of these efforts will prove distracting and worse add
costs to serving areas that are already too costly. This is
counterproductive to the bipartisan objective of opening the purse to
solve the digital divide.
4. Failing to Measure Success and Inviting Waste, Fraud and Abuse
How successful the broadband funding programs are at building new
networks will depend on which projects receive approval and the quality
of provider selected to get the job done. It is imperative regulators
use clear, measurable selection criteria and effective accountability
and tracking processes. What you cannot measure you cannot manage well.
Ambiguous criteria, poor controls, and grants to inexperienced
providers will, as it has in the past, lead to a great deal of waste,
fraud, and abuse. Transparency is particularly critical, because we
will need to enlist a large community to watch for and discover
problems. The huge pot of money on the table will attract less than
honorable efforts to get it, without advancing the goals for which it
was intended. In addition, there will be countless new companies formed
to enter these markets who will be well-intended but who lack the
experience, long-term resources and staying power to successfully
complete and maintain these expensive broadband builds. The grant
programs need guardrails that ensure weak providers with low
probabilities of long-term success are not excessively favored over
companies with a proven track record of building and operating
networks.
NTIA, Treasury, and USDA are working hard to distribute these funds
in an effective and responsible fashion, and they have been open to our
input on how to implement the programs most effectively under their
stewardship. But we recognize that there is always room for continued
improvement in the administration of complex government funding
programs. To that end, NCTA supports efforts such as Senators Thune,
Lujan, Klobuchar, and Fischer's introduction of the Rural Internet
Improvement Act, which would reform the Department of Agriculture's
Rural Development broadband programs, enhancing provider participation
and helping broadband reach more Americans.
Broadband Adoption Requires Collaboration Across Sectors
While the prospect of improving access is exciting, ensuring all
Americans are connected requires more than attention to infrastructure
gaps. Broadband access without widespread adoption is like the
proverbial falling tree in the forest that no one hears. Cable
operators have long been leaders in offering special programs for low-
income households so that they can fully participate in the economic,
educational, and social life of our society.
Over the last 10 years, programs like Comcast's Internet
Essentials, Charter's Spectrum Internet Assist Program and Cox's
Connect2Compete have provided affordable and accessible Internet to
more than 14 million consumers. More recently, in response to the
pandemic, NCTA members restructured and expanded their programs to
respond to increased need. Charter Communications, for instance,
launched programs to provide free Internet and Wi-Fi access for 60 days
to households with students or educators. Similarly, Cox participated
in Nevada's Connecting Kids coalition which successfully reached and
connected every K-12 student in the state by January 2021. Another NCTA
member, Mediacom, partnered with Des Moines Public Schools to share the
cost of Internet access for families in need.
NCTA members were also day one participants in both the Emergency
Broadband Benefit and the Affordable Connectivity Programs, enabling
eligible customers to use government subsidies to offset the price for
broadband service. Indeed, many broadband providers including Comcast,
Charter, Cox, Mediacom, and Midco have gone a step further by
voluntarily offering a robust broadband service with at least 100 Mbps
that is fully covered by the monthly $30 ACP subsidy. In short,
eligible subscribers will get high quality broadband for free.
Commercial providers, however, cannot make satisfactory progress on
adoption alone. NCTA and its members embrace the critical role played
by experienced community organizations and trusted digital navigators.
They are best positioned to help identify non-adopters and to assist in
overcoming adoption barriers. Our companies are working with nonprofits
and other organizations to engage in community outreach, to build
digital skills, and to highlight the value of broadband technology.
Additionally, cable providers have recognized the importance of digital
literacy--investing $650 million since 2011 in digital literacy and
training efforts.
NCTA recognizes that having a high-speed broadband connection at
home opens up a world of opportunity. We are encouraged by the
collaborative spirit that has launched our renewed focus on getting all
Americans connected to the internet. And further, we welcome the
continued interest of this Committee and other policymakers in keeping
this effort on track toward a day when we can finally realize our
national commitment to universal broadband service.
Thank you and I am happy to take your questions.
Senator Lujan. Next, we will hear from Mr. Jonathan
Spalter, the President and CEO of USTelecom.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, USTELECOM
Mr. Spalter. Good morning, Chair Lujan and Ranking Member
Thune. I am so glad for the invitation to join this
conversation today, and I would like to join you, Senator
Lujan, in extending thanks to Senator Wicker for his
exceptional service to this committee, but also to the cause of
broadband around the country.
My name is Jonathan Spalter. As you mentioned, I am the
President and CEO of USTelecom, the Broadband Association. We
are the National Trade Association representing network
providers, innovators, and suppliers and manufacturers
connecting the world through the power of broadband.
Our membership ranges from leading publicly traded
companies, some of the largest investors and job creators in
the country, to local and regional companies and cooperatives
that have roots in their company, in their states, and in their
service areas going back over a century.
What unites our diverse membership is a shared commitment
to connecting communities, businesses and individuals to
opportunity, to a better quality of life, and to each other via
technology. U.S. broadband, I believe in my heart, has been a
tremendous national success story, with massive investment in
network expansions, prices that are actually trending lower,
even in a time of inflation, and ever increasing speeds.
And as Senator Thune has mentioned, broadband providers'
investments, along with smart, common sense, regulatory and
legislative approaches, is why America's networks rose to the
challenge of the pandemic, despite surges in demand due to the
abrupt shift to work, school, health care, and everything else
from the home.
The pandemic, however, also lays quite bare the
unacceptable cost of being left on the wrong side of the
digital divide. Universal connectivity is a matter of digital
equity, and our collective work is not yet done. But working
together, I believe in my core that it is in reach.
Between the tens of billions of dollars our members invest
each year in connected infrastructure, and the Federal
investments included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act, IIJA, we have the opportunity to finally, fully, and
forever connect all parts of our nation, if we all work
together to meet this historic moment.
So, I appreciate the opportunity to roll up our sleeves and
explore the underlying causes of the remaining broadband gaps
and some of the concrete steps that we collectively can take to
close them. This includes maximizing the IIJA opportunity by
ensuring that funding recipients have the technical,
operational, and financial wherewithal to get these essential
infrastructure projects over the finish line.
Removing or lowering hurdles to speedy deployment,
clarifying that broadband grants should not be treated as
taxable income. Making permanent the Affordable Connectivity
Program to help low income families pay for Internet service.
Charting a sustainable future, a resilient future for
universal service. And last but not least, ensuring that
everyone has the digital skills that are necessary to harness
all that broadband makes possible to all in our country.
We must not oversimplify the complexities of achieving
affordable, reliable, high speed Internet for all, and you will
find no more committed partner and ally to making this happen
in America's broadband providers. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom
Good morning and thank you, Chair Lujan and Ranking Member Thune,
for the invitation to join this important conversation. I hope this
convening can help spark a renewed collaboration across the public and
private sectors, alongside community partners, to work effectively
together to connect every person, business and organization in this
country to high-quality, affordable broadband internet.
My name is Jonathan Spalter. I am President and CEO of USTelecom--
The Broadband Association. We are the national trade association
representing network providers, innovators, suppliers and manufacturers
connecting the world through the power of broadband. Our membership
ranges from large publicly traded corporations, some of the largest
investors and job creators in our country, to local and regional
companies and cooperatives that have roots in their community going
back a century or more.
What unites our diverse membership is a shared commitment to
connecting communities, businesses and individuals to opportunity, to a
better quality of life, to each other via technology. Universal
connectivity has always been our north star, and today, with a
concerted effort, it is within reach. Each year, broadband providers
invest billions in our Nation's connected infrastructure. Our ongoing
capital investments totaled $86 billion in 2021 alone.\1\ Together with
recent Federal investments included in the Infrastructure Investment
and Jobs Act (IIJA), they have the potential to finally, fully and
forever connect our nation--if we work together to make the most of
this historic moment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USTelecom, Broadband Capex Report, July 18, 2022; available at:
https://ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2021-Broadband-Capex-
Report.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, we appreciate the opportunity presented by this hearing to roll
up our sleeves and explore together the underlying causes of existing
broadband service gaps and how we can best get after the host of
concrete solutions available to us to close the digital divide.
I. Overall, U.S. Broadband Deployment is an Extraordinary Success Story
From a macro perspective, U.S. broadband deployment represents a
tremendous success story. America's broadband providers have invested
more than $2 trillion since 1996 to build and expand the Nation's high-
speed infrastructure. Last year's investment of $86 billion\2\
represents more than twice the historic public commitment made in the
IIJA, and these commitments are pressing forward despite the
substantial economic headwinds posed by inflation, supply chain
constraints and a tight labor market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USTelecom, Broadband Capex Report, July 18, 2022; available at:
https://ustelecom.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2021-Broadband-Capex-
Report.pdf
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
This vigorous investment is accelerating the transition from legacy
copper to high-speed fiber networks throughout our Nation. In 2021, 43
percent of U.S. households had access to fiber, up 12 percent from
2020.\3\ And providers have already committed over $45 billion of their
own capital to connect 48 million households to fiber in the coming
years.\4\ As a result, the number of households with fiber access is
expected to double over the next five years to cover 83 percent of U.S.
households.\5\ This forecast assumes effective use of IIJA funds, which
is mission-critical work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 2021 Fiber Provider Study, Fiber Broadband Association, January
5, 2022; available at: https://www.fiberbroadband.org/blog/fiber-
broadband-enters-largest-investment-cycle-ever
\4\ New Street Research, Closing The Gap--An Open Letter To
Secretary Raimondo, October 2021; available at: https://ustelecom.org/
wp-content/uploads/2021/10/New-Street-Research-presentation.pdf
\5\ Independence Research, U.S. Broadband Blitz--Timeline and
Impact, February 2022; available at: https://www.fiberbroadband.org/
page/fiber-research
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broadband access also is expanded by favorable broadband pricing
trends. While overall inflation has increased, the average price for
broadband has bucked this trend. Consumers spend, on average, $45 per
month for broadband service, down 14 percent from 2021-2022.\6\ The
average price for the fastest broadband speeds also is down more than
10 percent over this same period. In sharp contrast, consumer sticker
shock grew for other essential goods and services, with grocery bills
rising by 8.5 percent, health insurance by 6.1 percent and rent by 4.4
percent.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 2022 Broadband Pricing Index, USTelecom, June 29, 2022;
available at: https://www.us
telecom.org/research/2022-bpi/
\7\ 2022 Broadband Pricing Index, USTelecom, June 29, 2022;
available at: https://www.us
telecom.org/research/2022-bpi/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to broadband pricing that runs counter to inflationary
pressures consumers face with most other essential goods and services,
the IIJA established the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP), which
provides up to $30 per month to assist low-income Americans with their
broadband bills and up to $75 per month in tribal areas. More than
1,300 broadband providers are participating in the program--connecting
more than 15 million households so far to low-or no-cost broadband.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ USAC, ACP Enrollment and Claims Tracker, December 5, 2022;
available at: https://www.usac.org/about/affordable-connectivity-
program/acp-enrollment-and-claims-tracker/#total-enrolled
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Our Work Isn't Done Until True Universal Connectivity is Achieved
Broadband providers' investment is why U.S. networks, unlike those
in other countries, rose to the challenges of the pandemic despite
surges in demand due to the abrupt shift to work, school, health care
and everything else from home. The pandemic, however, also laid bare
the unacceptable cost of being left on the wrong side of the digital
divide. It left little doubt that broadband is an essential service for
everyone.
USTelecom member companies' commitment to connecting everyone--
regardless of race, ethnicity or income--runs deep in our DNA. It
advances both our business interests and the community values that have
defined and united our industry for decades. No child should have to do
their homework sitting in a fast food parking lot. Our parents and
grandparents should be able to review their blood sugar levels with
their endocrinologist from the comfort of home. Small businesses must
be able to access a world of potential customers online.
Our member companies have long been committed to digital equity to
ensure everyone in their service areas can take advantage of broadband-
fueled opportunities--from health care to education to employment and
reskilling. Together with community partners, our members have, for
example, established learning centers to support remote education and
provide tutoring and mentoring resources; STEM-based outreach programs
to enable K-12 students in underserved communities build the critical
skills they need to thrive in the digital economy; digital skills
training programs for adults in rural communities in partnership with
Historically Black Colleges and Universities; and telecom
apprenticeship programs so tribal community members can gain the skills
necessary for technology jobs on tribal lands.
Our collective work is not done until every person, business and
community institution is connected to high-quality, affordable
broadband. We agree wholeheartedly that universal connectivity
fundamentally is a matter of digital equity. The question before all of
us is how do we work collectively to get there? We begin with a shared
understanding of the complex web of issues that have made a fully
connected nation so elusive.
III. The Reality: Fiber is Costly and Complex to Deploy
Our member companies were founded, often a century or more ago,
with the mission of connecting communities to opportunity. They paved
the way for each generation of technological advancement in this
country, from early revolutions driven by the availability of
telegraphs and telephones, to universal copper-based telephone service,
to DSL internet, and now IP-based fiber-optics and fixed wireless
technologies.
As technology changes, so must our networks. Deploying next
generation networks requires us to replace, not simply upgrade, our
existing infrastructure. This is a time-consuming, resource-intensive
process, and it cannot happen overnight or everywhere at once. It is a
continuous endeavor. It involves navigating and overcoming a series of
challenges complicated by factors ranging from supply shortages and
limitations on the availability of skilled labor to legal barriers,
such as state and local permitting processes.
Deployment is further impeded by outdated regulatory requirements
that require our companies to maintain costly and inferior legacy
copper networks, expending substantial resources that could instead be
dedicated to accelerating the fiber transition. So as our members work
to completely replace copper networks with fiber, they face the
prospect of maintaining their legacy networks for lengthy and even
indefinite periods of time as they seek regulatory approvals to migrate
customers to next-generation networks. These obligations are
unilaterally placed on our companies. Cable, wireless, satellite and
other competitors face no similar demand on their capital, which
distorts both competitive dynamics in the marketplace and financial
decisions around deployment.
IV. Many Specific Opportunities Exist to Dismantle These Hurdles
Together
We face serious barriers to universal connectivity--from outdated
and uneven public policy to the sheer vast geography of our country. We
can push past these barriers, but we need a genuine partnership to do
so. There are numerous opportunities to join forces--across government,
industry and community organizations--to do collective problem solving.
What follows is by no means a conclusive list. It is intended to
illustrate the constellation of issues that present concrete
opportunities to take action now to help clear a path for long-term
success.
Maximize the IIJA opportunity. Congress is to be commended for
including language in the IIJA to emphasize that fund recipients must
be qualified and have the technical, operational and financial
wherewithal to get these essential infrastructure projects completed.
Conduct appropriate oversight to ensure grant recipients are
properly vetted to ensure they have the proven ability to
complete complex infrastructure projects.
Ensure government agencies coordinate deployments based on
FCC broadband maps, so funds prioritize unserved and
underserved locations.
Make sure the policy environment is flexible and supportive
of provider efforts to navigate supply chain challenges to
prevent equipment-related project delays.
Remove or lower hurdles to speedy deployment. From landlords who
won't allow access to or through their apartment buildings to Federal
agencies sitting on permits for years with no action, much can be done
by policymakers at all levels of government to eliminate barriers that
deny or delay affordable, reliable high-speed connectivity for all.
This should include passing national permitting reform legislation like
S. 1113--The Accelerating Rural Broadband Deployment Act authored by
Senators Daines and Kelly which would create a shot clock for agencies
to approve or deny an application within 60 days or the application is
deemed granted.
Prevent IRS takebacks. Under current law, all broadband grants,
including those in the IIJA's Broadband Equity, Access and Deployment
program, the American Rescue Plan Act's Capital Projects Fund and USDA
rural deployment funding, must be treated as taxable income. This means
roughly $1 in every $5 flowing to communities for infrastructure must
be returned to the IRS. Congress should act quickly to pass S. 5021--
The Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act, authored by Senators Warner and
Moran, and cosponsored by Senate Commerce Committee Members Wicker,
Warnock, Capito, Sinema, Cruz and Fischer to make clear these resources
should remain in the communities they aim to serve--rather than be
taxed back to Washington.
Chart a sustainable future for Universal Service. In passing the
IIJA, Congress rightly asked the FCC to explore what the future of the
Universal Service Fund (USF) might look like once these historic
deployment outlays are made. The reality is that broadband
infrastructure is not a `set it and forget it' technology. Just like
roads and bridges, these networks must be maintained, repaired and
expanded over time. This will require ongoing resources in high-cost
areas. This financial burden must be more equitably shared. The current
outdated USF contributions mechanism is profoundly regressive--focused
largely on the dwindling number of landline telephone service
customers. To secure the future for universal service, the
contributions base should be expanded to include those companies that
benefit most from modern universal connectivity, namely the Nation's
leading edge providers. I urge passage of the FAIR Contributions Act
introduced by Senators Wicker and Lujan and cosponsored by Senators
Young, Capito, Barrasso, Crapo and Peters. The legislation would
require the FCC to go further in studying the feasibility of
contributions from the edge providers. USTelecom proudly endorsed this
legislation, and we hope that it will be passed by the Senate before
the end of the year.
Commit to long-term assistance for low-income households. While
most customers are enjoying faster speeds and lower broadband prices,
those struggling financially need additional assistance. The Affordable
Connectivity Program (ACP) was launched and funded by Congress to help
low-income households pay for Internet service. More than 1,300
broadband providers participate in the program, with more than 15
million households to date receiving what amounts to low-or no-cost
internet. While the ACP has proven successful, funding could run out
sometime in 2024. Congress should make permanent this commitment to
connecting low-income households.
Ensure everyone has the skills necessary to fully participate in
the promise of broadband. Digital skilling initiatives are necessary to
ensure all Americans are aware of and can harness the many
opportunities broadband makes possible. Local community organizations
are essential partners here. Congress recognized the importance of
these efforts in establishing $2.75 billion in Digital Equity Act
funding as part of the IIJA. USTelecom members have been working to
promote digital skills in the communities we serve for years and will
continue to be committed partners in this work.
V. Long-Term Success Requires Strong, Constructive and Timely Teamwork
Across the many challenges facing our nation--from inflation to
education, health care to social and economic divisions--meaningful
solutions hinge on the ability of every home and business to connect to
affordable, high-speed broadband.
Truly closing the digital divide means completing ubiquitous
physical infrastructure, ensuring low-income consumers have access to
this essential service and helping everyone attain the digital skills
necessary to take full advantage of the many possibilities broadband
brings into our lives.
We must not oversimplify the complexities of achieving universal
connectivity. But we have to work together to overcome these challenges
if we are to achieve our shared goal of empowering everyone to take
full advantage of affordable, reliable, high-speed internet. You will
find no more committed partners to achieving this essential national
goal than America's broadband providers.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Spalter. Next, we are going
to hear from Angela Siefer, the Executive Director of the
National Digital Inclusion Alliance.
STATEMENT OF ANGELA SIEFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
DIGITAL INCLUSION ALLIANCE
Ms. Siefer. Thank you so much for having me here. It is a
privilege and a joy to talk to you today. I am Angela Siefer. I
am the Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion
Alliance. We are a nonprofit that advances digital equity by
supporting community programs and equipping policymakers to
act, which is what we did.
We envision a country where everyone has the opportunity to
use technology to live, learn, work, and thrive. Digital
inequities are not new, but the pandemic made them painfully
clear. That clarity calls to action.
Communities came together, scaled up existing digital
inclusion programs, set up new programs, took risks on
innovative solutions. They are our country's digital equity
heroes. They would not have made such progress without the
swift actions of Congress during the pandemic. Representing the
digital equity community, I thank you.
NDIA sits in a unique position. We facilitate the Nation's
largest community of practice. We have over 1,000 organizations
of local experts relaying their lessons learns and community
needs to policymakers. These heroes need you, again. The
historic investment in digital equity is amazing, but it will
not fully bridge the digital divide.
As long as technology keeps changing, the work will keep
changing, the divide will keep changing. There are many
solutions, affordable, robust broadband, affordable devices to
meet the needs of the user, access to ongoing skills training,
and tech support in multiple languages.
What your historic investment should do, let's say will do,
is change systems--so that we have strong digital inclusion
ecosystems that allow us to continually adapt to technology
changes. Let's call the investments a success when four things
happen, Government agencies integrate broadband adoption
programing and device ownership into their programs.
Industries who benefit from customers being online
prioritize corporate giving and community partnerships.
Philanthropy prioritizes digital equity in their giving because
it strengthens their missions.
Fourth, local digital inclusion ecosystems are so robust
that when people can't get going online for any reason, they
readily find the support and resources they need. That would
all be success. If all that happens, it is awesome. But we
still need Federal support.
Long term solutions to bridging the digital divide require
all hands on deck. As of December 15, 15 million households
were enrolled in the Affordable Connectivity Program. Given
that the rules for that were just created, this is a monumental
feat. We are thrilled that the FCC will soon have outreach
funds going into trusted community based organizations who are
already investing their own resources and raising awareness and
deploying digital navigators to sit with their neighbors.
But unless Congress takes action, this vital program will
go away in just a few short years. Internet service providers'
low cost programs are helpful, but they have participation
limitations. Representing the digital equity community today, I
ask you for sustained funding for the Affordable Connectivity
Program.
As we build networks and address broadband adoption through
BEAD, we also need sustained Federal funding for the all the
solutions, holistic solutions, digital navigators, digital
skills training, devices, not just for students. Representing
the digital equity community, I ask you to make the Digital
Equity Foundation a reality.
Funded by spectrum auctions, this will provide long term
support mechanism for digital inclusion programs. Another
request, we certainly need a full FCC. They have a big job.
Consider the new maps broadband, consumer labels, ACP, ECF,
many other responsibilities. They cannot do this without Gigi
Sohn.
Representing the digital equity community, I urge the
Senate to confirm her nomination before the holiday recess.
Finally, we need to increase the amount of digital equity funds
dedicated to tribes and territories.
The needs in Indian Country and in the territories are
great, and there are simply not enough funds in the Digital
Equity Act to fully cover these needs. I know I am asking for a
lot. It is bad form to say thank you and ask for more. But here
it is. That is our needs.
Internet access and the skills to use it are not only
essential to survive, but to thrive. And thriving is essential
to America's promise, to the well-being of its people and the
country's ability to compete globally.
Thank you for having me, and I welcome the Committee's
comments and questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Siefer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Angela Siefer, Executive Director,
National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Chairman Lujan, Ranking Member Thune and Members of the
Subcommittee, it's an honor and privilege to join you today to talk
about how critical digital equity is to our Nation's future. Thank you
for having me.
I'm Angela Siefer, the executive director of NDIA--the National
Digital Inclusion Alliance. We are a nonprofit that advances digital
equity by supporting community programs and equipping policymakers to
act. We envision a country where everyone has the opportunity to use
technology to live, learn, work, and thrive.
Digital inequities are not new. But the pandemic made them
painfully clear. That clarity caused action.
Communities came together, scaled up existing digital inclusion
programs, set up new programs, and took risks on innovative solutions.
They are our country's digital equity heroes. They would not have made
such progress without the swift actions of Congress during the
pandemic. Representing the digital equity community, I thank you.
Local digital equity efforts were strengthened with support from
the CARES Act, ARPA, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
particularly the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program and the Emergency
Connectivity Fund. Then last year you passed the Bipartisan
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which prioritizes digital
equity in the BEAD Program and funds a historic $2.75 billion for the
Digital Equity Act, with an additional $14.2 billion for the Affordable
Connectivity Program. It's an amazing step forward. NDIA and our
community are working to make the most of these digital equity
investments.
NDIA's community includes over 1,000 local organizations running
digital inclusion programs, plus national advocates, researchers, and
public servants. These are the folks guiding ACP sign-ups; providing
appropriate devices; teaching digital skills; building digital equity
coalitions; and offering digital equity advice to their states,
territories, and the District of Columbia.
NDIA sits in a unique position--we facilitate the Nation's largest
digital equity community of practice, learning from these local
experts, and relaying their lessons learned and community needs to
policymakers. I am here to tell you--these heroes need you. The
historic investment in digital equity is amazing but will not fully
bridge the digital divide. As long as technology keeps changing, the
work of bridging the digital divide will keep changing. There are many
digital divides--the availability of affordable, robust broadband; the
availability of affordable devices that meet user needs; and access to
ongoing digital skills training and tech support in multiple languages.
What your historic investment in digital equity SHOULD do, and WILL
do, is create systems-level change and strong local digital inclusion
ecosystems that allow us to continually adapt as technology changes. We
should call the investments a success when:
1. Government agencies integrate broadband adoption programming and
device ownership into their programs.
2. Industries who benefit from their customers being online
prioritize digital equity in their corporate giving and
community partnerships.
3. Philanthropy prioritizes digital equity in their giving because
it strengthens their missions.
4. Local digital inclusion ecosystems are so robust that when people
can't get online for any reason, they can readily find the
support and resources they need.
If all of that happens, we will still need Federal support. Long-
term solutions to bridge the digital divide require all hands on deck.
As of December 5, over 15 million households are enrolled in the
Affordable Connectivity Program. Given that a year ago, rules for this
program didn't exist, this is a monumental feat. We're thrilled that
the FCC will soon fund outreach activities in trusted community-based
organizations, who are already investing their own resources in raising
awareness and deploying digital navigators to sit with their neighbors
and guide them through ACP enrollment.
But unless Congress takes action, this vital program will go away
in just a few short years. Internet service providers' low-cost
programs are helpful, but they all have participation limitations.
Representing the digital equity community today, I ask you for
sustained funding for the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Most communities won't see affordable home Internet service anytime
soon. Long-term solutions include increasing the availability of middle
mile. So, I ask you for additional funding to expand middle mile
networks.
We also need sustained Federal funding for digital navigator
programs, digital skills training, broadband adoption, and devices (not
just for students). Representing the digital equity community, I ask
you to make the Digital Equity Foundation a reality. Funded by future
spectrum auctions, this will provide a reliable long-term support
mechanism with the ability to flex to new needs.
Another request--we sorely need a full FCC. They have a big job.
Consider the new maps, the broadband consumer labels, ACP, ECF, and
many other responsibilities. They cannot do this without Gigi Sohn.
Representing the digital equity community, I urge the Senate to confirm
her nomination before the holiday recess.
Finally, we need to increase the amount of digital equity funds
dedicated to Tribes and territories. The needs in Indian Country and in
the territories are great, and there are simply not enough funds in the
Digital Equity Act to fully cover these needs.
As states, territories, DC, and Tribes embark on their BEAD and
digital equity planning it will be important to tie the two plans
together. We cannot work under the theory ``build it and they will
come.'' Our strategies must be holistic, addressing broadband adoption
while building networks, not after.
I know I'm asking for a lot. Access to the Internet and the skills
to use it are essential to not only survive but to thrive. And thriving
is essential to America's promise, to the wellbeing of its people, and
to the country's ability to compete globally.
Thank you for having me, and I welcome the Committee's comments and
questions.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Ms. Siefer. I will now recognize
members for questions, and I will start with myself. The first
question that I have is to all of the panel. And it is a simple
yes or no question.
Does increased broadband adoption act as a multiplier for
other sectors, including health care, education, employment,
and commerce? Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. It has the ability to uplift
community wellbeing across those sectors. And the internet, you
know, has been in our tribal communities for a long time on our
cell phones, but community use, Government using broadband to
make our communities stronger with improved health care and
education is what broadband is about for our work.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. That is a resounding yes.
I appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Also resounding, yes. I Chair the Board of the
Mayo Clinic and I can tell you the importance of telehealth in
the case of a national emergency was essential.
Senator Lujan. Thank you. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, absolutely, yes. And that is why we
really do thank you for your leadership on moving forward on
the IIJA and working with our companies to ensure that all
Americans can in fact be connected.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate it. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. Resounding yes.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Another yes or no question,
do Federal subsidies like the Affordable Connectivity Program,
which provides $30 a month stipend toward Internet service for
eligible households and $75 a month for households on tribal
lands, lower barriers to broadband access? Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. It is a critical stop gap
measure. It was a critical response during the pandemic, and it
is a critical stopgap measure moving forward while we install
affordable high speed networks to put in permanent solutions in
our communities.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes, I think so. Providing a free service
removes price as any barrier to adoption. So it is critical.
Senator Lujan. Yes, I think so. Let me come back to that a
little bit later. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely, yes. While, in fact, in context,
while overall inflation has increased, broadband prices have
actually bucked this trend.
The average consumer spends $45 a month on broadband, which
is actually 14 percent less between 2021 and 2022. I would also
say that it is incredibly important, and I agree with Ms.
Siefer, that we have to sustain the Affordable Connectivity
Program and make it permanent.
Senator Lujan. So the importance of sustaining the
programs. I may follow up there as well. And then, Ms. Siefer,
previous question?
Ms. Siefer. A resounding yes.
Senator Lujan. Another yes or no, do digital equity
initiatives like those funded by the Digital Equity Act for
digital literacy lower barriers to broadband adoption? Ms.
Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. We are not putting in
broadband just for the sake of the broadband. We are trying to
change human lives and have people utilize the technology. So
digital--broadband adoption is the humanistic side of this
technology infrastructure project.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes. We have learned from past experiences that
outreach, awareness, digital literacy, community groups are
essential to success.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that, sir. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. Yes, of course.
Senator Lujan. Glad I could hear you, Mr. Spalter. Now,
there should be little debate on this, deployment,
affordability, and adoption, each one provides a piece of the
puzzle. So I appreciate the explanation and the responses.
The Affordable Connectivity Program has made a real
difference helping Americans afford broadband access, but the
funding won't last forever. Hence the importance of this being
a sustainable program.
And the Digital Equity Act will help fund initiatives that
target other barriers to broadband adoption across the country.
But it is not a permanent program, and we need to do more.
Ms. Siefer, in addition to encouraging build out, how can
Congress work to provide permanent solutions to barriers to
broadband adoption in the United States?
Ms. Siefer. There are the individual things that Members of
Congress can do, which is working with those industries that
are impacted, right. If the industry benefits from having folks
being online. This is all the industries, right, this isn't
just Internet service providers.
But working with them to help them understand the benefits
so that they are then part of the solution. Then it is also the
Affordable Connectivity Program, it's the Digital Equity
Foundation, it's all the things that you all know you have
already done before, but because the digital divide is not
going to be over, we have to keep doing those things.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Spalter, yes or no, do you believe
all broadband access technologies, whether it be fiber, cable,
wireless satellite, provide equal access to learning tools?
Mr. Spalter. Yes, I do. I would argue, however, that it is
wired based infrastructure that is going to be actually able to
allow us to achieve our goal of a fully and finally connected
nation. And we should focus our resources and our funding
programs accordingly.
Senator Lujan. And Mr. Spalter, yes or no, do some of your
members maintain data caps or data throttling on their consumer
broadband offerings?
Mr. Spalter. These are--certain of our members actually do
provide a range of different options to their consumers,
including lower priced options that would include a data cap.
This is an option that is potentially very accessible to
and important to certain of our consumers, and particularly,
for example, seniors who might want to choose a lower price
option.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And my time is up. Mr.
Powell, I have the same question for you, so if time allows
later, I will come back and ask a similar question as well. I
will now recognize Mr. Thune for his questions.
Senator Thune. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by
saying I have concerns about, as I said earlier, NTIA and other
agencies pursuing extraneous political goals in their
respective broadband programs, which could ultimately lead to
increased costs for providers deploying networks.
Mr. Powell, in your testimony, you talked about the need
for, or of Government agencies, I should say, to avoid
unnecessary added costs. Could you elaborate on this? How does
direct and indirect forms of net neutrality, open access,
burdensome labor requirements affect the deployment of
broadband networks to truly unserved areas?
Mr. Powell. I start with the premise that, remember, the
problem we are trying to solve is really precarious economic
environments that have disincentive providers from serving
those areas, so we have to be highly sensitive to what
additional costs we are adding.
So frequently these programs add levels of cost that
compromise the model for whether to accept funds to enter a
market or not. For example, if you don't have clarity on what
rates you are allowed to charge and there are suggestions you
will regulate the rates, that is a disincentive to knowing
whether you can afford to offer the service because you are not
clear on the amount of revenue you get.
Another example might be extensive workforce regulations,
while well-intended, ultimately mean you have reduced the pool
of skilled workers available to a provider in order to meet the
buildout requirements in a market with tight labor. That is
very, very complicating and actually could frustrate or defeat
any number of initiatives.
Failure to be tech neutral could mean you have a limited
amount of tools in your toolbox to solve complex problems in
rural America, and thus, you know, you are again, might choose
to pass on participation in the program. So you could go on and
on in ways that these things manifest themselves in actual
decisions on the ground.
Senator Thune. Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell, there are a
number of barriers that slow down the deployment of networks.
Could you discuss the barriers your members face today, and
whether or not Congress should take additional action on
Federal permitting reforms?
Mr. Spalter. Certainly. Yes, Senator, there are a number of
different barriers that slow down deployment, including, as you
mentioned, a range of permitting challenges that our members
face both federally and also State--with the State and local
level.
We believe that there needs to be more coordinated and
accountable efforts on the part of the various, or the 13
various agencies that are involved in deploying broadband
around our country.
We believe that there should be much greater coordination
as well with State and local authorities to ensure that
permitting barriers can actually be leveled, that we can
machete through a lot of these problems.
I have been hearing from some of our members, for example,
in Western Montana, where the permitting challenges on BLM
lands can add 3 years to a build out. These are incredibly
challenging situations, and we have to collectively work
together to address them.
Senator Thune. You testified before the Commerce committee
in May 2020 on the resiliency of our country's broadband
network during the COVID pandemic. The United States, as has
been pointed out, fared much better than European countries
because of our light touch approach to regulating broadband
networks.
Now that we are almost 2 years removed from the height of
the COVID pandemic, what lessons should policymakers take away
from future attempts to regulate broadband? And what policies
could Congress pursue in the next Congress to encourage
continued investment?
Mr. Spalter. I think that the pandemic was instrumental in
showing all Americans, and hopefully as well our policymakers
and regulators, that the kinds of commonsense, smart policy
frameworks that enabled innovation and investment to the levels
that we have seen.
And I would like to point out at a high watermark just last
year of $86 billion in capital investment in our networks were
made possible not because we were trying to slow down the
incentives for investment in innovation, but because we were
trying to actually accelerate them.
I think going forward, if we can actually collectively as a
nation, make sure that, and especially on the precipice of this
historic moment where we actually will be able to deliver the
$42.5 billion of BEAD Program money, that we not encumber this
new tranche of investment in unnecessary regulatory overhang,
and that the NTIA and the states scrupulously listen to the
intent of Congress as it was expressed in the IIJA.
Let's focus on getting the monies out to the underserved
and unserved first.
Senator Thune. As I mentioned in my opening statement,
there are 130 programs, stunning really ,supporting broadband
across 15 different agencies. Could you speak to your--the
frustrations that your members have when they are notified
after the fact that another Federal agency is providing funding
to another entity to provide broadband in an area that is
already served. And I would start with Mr. Powell, Mr. Spalter,
and then open it up to the panel.
Mr. Powell. To quote one of my CEOs, it is a lot of money
going to too many places through too many programs under
different criteria. This is very, very complex to manage.
I think that, you know, another thing that our members are
quite frustrated by is areas that are possibly unserved but
there has already been Federal commitments to serve those areas
that have been provided through other programs.
For example, you could have won money in RDOF to serve an
area, yet it shows up as unserved in FCC maps or programs don't
fully recognize existing commitments to serve areas. That can
lead to a lot of confusion and complexity, and stranded
investment because they bid on those projects on the assumption
that they would build in those spaces under these terms and
criteria, only to have another program parachute in on the same
thing.
So one of the challenges for regulators is to ruthlessly
attempt to harmonize criteria, conditions across these programs
and make sure all take cognizance of the other as they make
their decisions.
Mr. Spalter. Frustrated is one word I would use. I think
that there are some others in my thesaurus that I could also
throw out. But clearly our members who know the implicit and
high fixed costs of deploying networks are alarmed when they
are potentially overbuilt by Federal dollars from one agency or
coming in and actually making it more challenging for them to
deploy.
Which is one of the reasons why we believe firmly, Senator,
that there should be--that Congress should require a
certification process by which agencies certify that their use
of Federal funds would not be actually deployed in areas where
Federal funds are already being spent.
Senator Thune. For all the panelists, yes or no questions,
Congress need to consider creating new broadband programs, yes
or no?
Mr. Powell. Should they consider new broadband programs? I
think we have a lot of broadband programs. I think they should
focus on refining and get the most out of the ones that we have
at the moment.
Mr. Spalter. I agree. I think that let's see how the BEAD
Program progresses. Let's see what we can do about reforming
USF, and then we consider whether or not additional programs
need to be come on--come online.
Senator Thune. Ms. Siefer.
Ms. Siefer. So I would focus on the broadband adoption side
of it, and further invest in what we have.
Senator Thune. Ms. Kimball.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. I would allow for continued funding to
focus on on-time, on budget implementations with adequate
support to realize those goals.
Senator Thune. Yes. And I will just close, Mr. Chairman, by
saying I for one am concerned that any new programs are going
to lead to duplication of services and wasteful spending.
And I hope that this vast array of programs that we have
and the funding that is associated with that can be put on the
target, and that we don't end up with a lot of overbuilding and
wasteful funding that doesn't achieve the desired goal.
And it seems to me there is a ton of funding in the
pipeline right now. And you add that to the normal, as I said
earlier, USF funding. We are in a unique position and hopefully
it can be utilized in a way that--utilized wisely and well on
behalf of the taxpayers. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Mr. Thune. Mr. Peters, you are
recognized for your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. GARY PETERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN
Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Spalter, thank
you for being here today. As you know, in 2020, Congress passed
the Secure and Trusted Communications Act to ensure that
American broadband networks were free from the influence of
Chinese State connected companies like Huawei.
In the bill, we promised the broadband providers that we
would help pay ``to rip and replace'' this equipment. But so
far, Congress hasn't kept up with that promise, and there is
roughly a $3 billion shortfall in the program. And what some
people I think don't realize is that this funding shortfall
isn't just a national security issue, it is also a broadband
equity issue as well.
For example, in the upper peninsula of Michigan, where 25
percent of households cannot access broadband currently,
Northern Michigan University operates a network that provides
connectivity to its student body and over 16,000 households in
roughly 120 rural Michigan communities.
And without funding from Congress to replace its Huawei
equipment with trusted technology, the university's ability to
provide this service is without question in danger right now.
So my question for you is, can you explain the potential
consequences that rural broadband providers, and rural users
that rely on that service, are going to face if Congress does
not act soon to fully fund, Rip and Replace?
Mr. Spalter. Let me start by thanking you, Senator, for
your consistent and forceful stewardship of our Nation's
security and resiliency of our cyber infrastructure. That is
very, very appreciated by all in our sector.
If rural and local providers, particularly like those in
Northern Michigan, are unable to access Rip and Replace funds,
they will not be eligible to access Universal Service Fund, and
that can have a devastating consequence on the lives of our
rural communities, our families, and the enterprises that
populate them.
This is an absolutely challenging issue that we have to
make sure that those $3 billion can actually be deployed and
make sure that no--none of our rural and local providers will
be denied access to the types of support that they need, either
in terms of CapEx or OpEx, to deploy and maintain and manage
their networks.
Senator Peters. Well, thank you. Thank you for the answer.
I think it is important for people to realize the implication
of this.
And Mr. Chair, I would also like to enter into the hearing
record a letter from seven broadband trade associations in
support of funding Rip and Replace. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Congress Must Fully Fund Removal and Replacement of Chinese Equipment
in U.S. Wireless Networks
(``Rip & Replace'')
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has identified a
funding shortfall of $3.08 billion to fully fund the approved
application cost estimates for the Secure and Trusted Communications
Network Reimbursement Program (STCNRP), known as ``Rip & Replace''.
Without immediate additional funding of $3.08 billion from
Congress, the national security goals of the Rip and Replace program
are threatened and affected carriers risk partial or even total shut
down of rural networks, jeopardizing connectivity for millions across
the United States.
The ability to remove all untrusted equipment (some of it
near military bases or other areas of strategic importance)
will be directly and severely limited, posing a national
security risk to American networks;
Any delay of this funding will have a chilling effect on
connectivity throughout America--including roaming in rural
areas and the ability to access emergency services.
Affected carriers have already begun the ``rip and replace''
process at the direction of both Congress and the FCC, committing and
expending significant resources in good faith based on the assurance
that full reimbursements would be available. The FCC does not have the
ability to provide additional resources for this program--Congress must
provide funding.
Failure to fully and immediately fund the Rip & Replace
Reimbursement Program will mean providers cannot entirely remove and
replace offending equipment. The consequence could be completely
shuttering their networks, threatening the availability and security of
advanced communications across the country, particularly in rural
America, where ubiquitous connectivity challenges already abound. Many
of the Reimbursement Program participants are small businesses that
serve a vital role in their communities in terms of competition and
service.
Time is of the essence, as carriers have been largely unable to
service or upgrade their networks for years, increasing chances for
network failure, cutting off communications services for the carriers'
retail customers and roaming coverage for millions of Americans as they
travel in rural areas.
Background Timeline:
March 12, 2020: The Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act
of 2019 is signed into law after passing Congress with broad bipartisan
support.
June 30, 2020: Mobile carriers could no longer use FCC Universal
Service Fund (USF) money on equipment deemed untrusted.
December 27, 2020: Congress appropriates $1.9 billion to the FCC
for the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement
Program in the FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act also expands eligibility
for the Reimbursement Program to other entities affected not
originally included in the 2019 law but prioritizes companies
with under 2 million subscribers.
October 29, 2021-January 28, 2022: FCC opens filing window for
applicants seeking support from the Reimbursement Program.
February 4, 2022: FCC notifies Congress that they have received 181
original applications from 96 applicants requesting $5.6 billion, and
that current appropriations would not be sufficient to fully fund all
approved applications.
STCNA requires the FCC to approve or deny applications within 90
days of submission but allows the FCC to extend that deadline by up to
45 days if additional time is needed to review. Exercising that option,
the FCC extended the review deadline to June 15, 2022.
June 1, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel informs Congress the FCC
determined the gross cost estimate demand for the program was reduced
to $5.3 billion and anticipated further reduction, but that
appropriated funds will remain less than the demand from applicants.
She notes three contributing factors:
The expansion of entities eligible for participation in the
Program by the FY 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act;
Preliminary cost estimates of the Program did not consider
the full range of costs that were ultimately reimbursable under
law;
Providers reported increased costs since the program was
funded due to supply chain issues, inflation, and project
completion requirements by law.
June 15, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel updates Congress on the
FCC's progress reviewing ``materially deficient'' applications and
allowing applicants to cure their submissions. She also announces that
absent additional appropriations, the FCC will apply the prioritization
scheme specified by Congress for allocation funding on a pro-rata
basis:
Funding is first allocated to approved applicants with 2
million customers or less;
Then to approved applications from accredited public or
private non-commercial educational institutions with their own
facilities-based broadband services, health care providers, and
libraries;
Finally, to any remaining approved applicants.
July 15, 2022: FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel informs Congress that the
FCC has completed its review of applications to the Reimbursement
Program, and announces in a Public Notice the granted applications for
reimbursement, the approved cost estimates, and the approved prorated
allocations.
FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel notes a shortfall of $3.08
billion to fully fund approved cost estimates.
Chairwoman Rosenworcel announces the Commission will prorate
reimbursement funds equally to each eligible applicant that
have 2 million customers or less. The pro-rata factor is
approximately 39.5 percent.
Approved applicants must submit at least one reimbursement request
within one year of the allocation announcement (7/15/22), and have one
year from receiving approval to submit a reimbursement to complete the
removal, replacement, and destruction of covered equipment and
services. The FCC can grant an extension for 6 months to all applicants
or to individual applicants.
July 27, 2022: The House of Representatives passes H.R. 7624, The
Spectrum Innovation Act which also provides funding for the Secure and
Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Fund utilizing funds from
the 2.5 GHz auction (Auction 108) and if necessary, proceeds from a
future auction in the 3.1-3.45 GHz band.
September 7, 2022: Thirty-four senators sign a bipartisan letter to
Senate Leaders Schumer and McConnell stressing their support for
promptly funding the Rip & Replace Program in its entirety.
Senator Peters. Ms. Siefer, I want to first thank you for
highlighting the great work of digital navigators such as
Detroit's Connect 313 that are able to help guide communities
through the Affordable Connectivity Program.
Connect 313 is part of the reason that Detroit has the
highest rate of enrollment in the Affordable Connectivity
Program of any other metro area in the Nation with 61 percent
of eligible households.
And overall, Michigan's enrollment rate in ACP is almost 44
percent. These high rates of enrollment are due to the tireless
efforts of our State agencies and local organizations, like
Connect 313, to help eligible households navigate the process.
But there is certainly much more that we need to do.
And so my question for you is, can you expand on some of
the things organizations like Connect 313 are doing right to
increase enrollment in ACP? And how can Congress better help
their efforts to continue this very important work?
Ms. Siefer. Yes, that is a fabulous question. So
organizations like Connect 313, they work with those who are in
the community who are already trusted for some other reason. So
it could be food banks, it could be community action agencies,
libraries, schools, but those who already have relationships
with those who are in need of that subsidy.
And because they have those relationships, that is how they
get those high numbers. We need more of that across the
country, right. We shouldn't just be in Detroit where we are
seeing such high numbers. But that requires investment in those
digital navigation services. We also need education of Internet
service providers, customer service agents.
Sometimes there is confusion because this is all confusing
ACP low cost offers. It is all awesome and it is all new and it
is confusing, so we need increased education of those folks.
And we need more database connections so that when folks are
signing up, it is more automatic. Right now, sometimes folks
have to go through a long process.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. And Mr. Powell,
quickly, I am running out of time, but NCTA represents Charter
and Comcast, which are two major providers in Michigan. Can you
speak to the extent that they and other providers have and will
take steps to improve outreach and implementation of the
Affordable Connectivity Program?
Mr. Powell. Yes, sir. The good benefit of those two
programs and many others of our members is they have been doing
low cost programs, private programs for over a decade, and they
have an enormous amount of experience with what works.
They know that outreach is essential. Having digital
navigators that help people through the process is essential.
Making sure people understand the terms of the program is
essential.
So they have deep rooted expertise and teams dedicated to
those extra efforts, and they work with groups like those
represented today to try to make that effective.
Senator Peters. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator
Blackburn, you are recognized for your questions. One second,
Senator Blackburn. We can't hear her and on her end it is
unmuted. Would you try speaking again, Senator Blackburn, and
see if we can fix that audio?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Yes, absolutely. Are you hearing me now?
Senator Lujan. We can hear you, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Blackburn. OK. Excellent. And I do thank you for
the hearing. As you all know, and with our witness witnesses,
you all have heard from us for years, on this issue of
deployment.
And Mr. Powell, I want to come to you first. When you look
at all the money that has gone out through the infrastructure
bill, through CARES, through the American Rescue Plan, all of
this money that is out there for broadband and you are talking
hundreds of millions of dollars.
And then in Tennessee, our State general assembly put
another $100 million in behind grants for broadband. So it
seems like the funds are there, but yet we continue to hear
these low population areas, they are having trouble getting
people to come in and do that last mile to reach these homes
where there is less population per mile.
So I would like for you to just help me to look at this.
What else do you need when it comes to connecting these areas,
and why is the hesitation there when there seems to be so much
money there? What are we missing on this?
Mr. Powell. Yes, Senator, thank you for the question.
Obviously, money is critical because these are very cost
prohibitive areas, but it is not in and of itself enough. One
of the problems we ran into, we discussed with others today, is
the complexity of permitting in these parts of the country.
A lot of these examples include crossing Federal lands.
Very often, more than one Federal agency will claim the
authority for issuing those permits. There is no lead entity
that a carrier can go to resolve those conflicts.
Those fees--those permits often require very exorbitant
access fees that vary from one Federal program to the other.
Not that we don't hack our way through this process, but it
literally can add years and years to a commitment to build. And
I----
Senator Blackburn. Yes--no, it is a frustration to many of
our County Mayors who are trying to get this done. And I visit
with all 95 of our County Mayors in Tennessee every year. Mr.
Spalter, weigh in on the same question, if you will, please.
Mr. Spalter. Thank you very much for the opportunity to
answer that question, Senator. I agree with Mr. Powell that the
challenges that are--that come with onerous, slow, and
absolutely cumbersome permitting challenges are manifold, and
we need to address them square on if we are going to be able to
access, provide access often to our hardest to reach rural and
unserved and underserved communities.
It is incumbent on us as an industry to continue to put our
shoulder toward this problem, but we are not going to be able
to solve it alone. We have to be able to work with this body,
with Federal Government, and also with State and localities to
ensure that there is going to be a greater consensus of making
broadband service more accessible and more efficiently, more
quickly, by lowering the barriers that come with permitting
challenges.
Senator Blackburn. All right, let me ask you this. Talking
about barriers, when Alan Davidson was before us, I had asked
him about some of the labor laws and practices and if they were
going to require areas to implement those when it is a state
like Tennessee that is a right-to-work state. That is one of
those barriers. So how do you see that playing out?
Mr. Spalter. Let me take a stab at that if I can, Senator.
It is a very important question. I will start by saying that
some of our providers are among the largest employers of labor
in the United States of America.
That said, the IIJA recognizes that broadband funding
programs should not be subject to Davis-Bacon regulations. We
believe that NTIA should scrupulously follow the intent and
spirit of the law without any hesitation.
And this applies not only to Davis-Bacon, but also to the
middle class subsidy requirement that has been advanced by
NTIA, I think outside of the spirit of the IIJA.
Senator Blackburn. Mr. Powell, anything to add to that?
Mr. Powell. I think Mr. Spalter category is right. It isn't
a war between whether, you know, good employee protections or
not are valuable. It is the amount of skilled labor available.
By our measures, even before this program, there was a need for
some 850,000 new skilled workers in this space. These
additional requirements only complicate that pool.
Senator Blackburn. OK. And I know Senator Thune asked you
all about the 100 programs over 15 agencies, which is an area
of concern for us. You kind of batted around a little bit on
that.
So I would like a written response from you all, Mr.
Spalter and Mr. Powell, to talk a little bit about what you see
as a way to do some streamlining to speed up this broadband
deployment and get to the heart of connectivity.
So if you would do that and submit it for the record, that
would be excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Powell. Certainly.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Next, we will
hear from Senator Klobuchar.
STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and
thank you to the witnesses. Just yesterday, the Minnesota
Department of Employment Economic Development received nearly
$6 million in Federal funds for broadband. We are very excited
about this. We have about 144,000 Minnesotans that don't have
high speed. And we will personally thank the Chair for that
money.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, as well as all the people that have
worked on this. And it has been a high priority of mine since I
have gotten here, because I just view it as the way that we are
going to make it, especially in rural America, easier for
people to continue to live there. And that was very clear
through the pandemic.
We do have workforce issues. My state has the lowest
unemployment rate in the country. About 2 months ago, we had
the lowest unemployment rate in the country in the history of
America, true story. And now we are at like 2 percent or
something.
So, Mr. Spalter, you mentioned in your written testimony
the availability of skilled labor is one of the challenges in
deploying next generation networks. Can you tell us about what
you are seeing on the ground?
I am a big believer in immigration reform, as are many in
this committee, and I think it would be a game changer for us
for deploying some of the technology we need to deploy. Go
ahead.
Mr. Powell. Sure. Thanks for the question, Senator. It is
true that many of our providers are facing real shortfalls in
accessing skilled labor to do the important work of broadband
deployment, be it digging trenches, pulling fiber, managing the
various technical and service requirements that are part of the
process of delivering broadband, which is why we have been
working hand in glove with community colleges, high schools, a
variety of community organizations to develop apprentice
programs, training programs.
I think of, for example, one of our members, Hunter
Communications in Northern California, has engaged a
partnership with the Hoopa Valley Reservation to do apprentice
training. This is just one of hundreds of examples of where we
have been trying to support the workforce pipeline.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Appreciate it. Ms. Siefer, I
am Chair of the Antitrust Subcommittee and I am always
interested in the role competition can play in making high
speed broadband more affordable.
One of the issues in certain areas of our state, there is
only one provider, and I know one of the things we did with
this bill was to direct the FCC to require providers to show us
central pricing and speed information in a simple format so
consumers can make more informed decisions.
But even that doesn't help the 87 million Americans that
have only one choice. I have got a bunch of rural electric co-
ops that have gotten in the game and have been very responsive
when they have. Also, smaller phone companies have tended to
build out more.
And I love the fact that we have a clawback in the law. And
I have talked to Secretary Raimondo, if the money goes out and
the broadband isn't built. So could you talk about what could
be done to increase competition in our broadband markets?
Ms. Siefer. The competition piece is important in terms of
lowering the cost for consumers, but it will only lower it to
where it is affordable for middle class. The lower income folks
are still going to need that subsidy. So we still have to go--
it is a two part----
Senator Klobuchar. I understand----
Ms. Siefer. Yes, increase subsidies.
Senator Klobuchar. That doesn't change that, right?
Ms. Siefer. Yes, exactly. So----
Senator Klobuchar. I am more interested in the providers
and how we can do that.
Ms. Siefer. So we need as many options on the table as
possible. So don't restrict local folks' ability to create
solutions.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Mr. Powell, can you tell us
of ways we can improve coordination and administration of the
funding programs for broadband across Government agencies,
given your experience from the past?
Mr. Powell. Well, I think Congress was smart to require the
FCC and the NTIA and others to go through a process of
developing an MOU for greater coordination. But, you know,
having a meeting is not the same as coordination.
I think one way that would improve that is really create a
set of external criteria that would allow you to measure
whether that coordination and harmonization is effective, as
opposed to just being able to meet the requirement by saying,
yes, we talked three or four times. It is going to take a lot
more than that.
Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Yes, I think that is going to
be very important. I think also the people involved in it, the
agency heads, who I have respect for, is key as well. Ms.
Sekaquaptewa, thank you so much for being here.
Could you talk about how communities are using Federal
funding to provide devices, which is part of getting at low
income households? And are there ways we can ensure these funds
are used more efficiently?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Sure. The tribal libraries in our
communities play a critical role for Internet access
historically, but also access to devices.
So the participation of these entities in the digital
equity planning, as well as the schools with the emergency
connectivity fund, are critical to providing devices for the
students and community members.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. Next, we will
hear from Senator Sinema, and this will be audio.
STATEMENT OF HON. KYRSTEN SINEMA,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARIZONA
Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Lujan and thank you to
our witnesses for joining us today. Passing last year's
bipartisan infrastructure law was a watershed moment for
broadband connectivity across the United States. I was proud to
help lead the effort to bring the infrastructure law together,
building on and incorporating ideas from many of my colleagues
on this committee from both sides of the aisle.
The bipartisan infrastructure law's historic investments in
deployment, affordability, tribal access, and digital inclusion
are the first steps toward ensuring all Arizonans will have
high speed broadband. But passing a law isn't enough.
Congress and stakeholders across the country, like our
witnesses today, must ensure the programs are implemented
effectively, funding is distributed quickly, and approvals are
processed appropriately to ensure that we close the digital
divide.
My first question today is for Mr. Spalter. One area of
improvement is with permit approvals by Federal agencies. This
is an area of particular interest for large Western States like
Arizona, where the Federal Government owns 42 percent of the
land in our state.
I recognize Chair Lujan's interest in this as well as he
represents our neighbor, New Mexico. Currently, permit
approvals by the Federal Government, such as the Bureau of Land
Management or the U.S. Forest Service, can take years.
This needs to be improved. Mr. Spalter, have your members
experienced challenges with securing Federal Government
approvals, and do you have any recommendations to streamline
the process?
Mr. Spalter. Thank you for the question, Senator. We are
frequently experiencing sometimes very severe permitting
challenges and delays in deploying. These are expressed not
only for our largest providers, but also and critically for our
regional and local providers as well.
The good news is that there have been steps that have been
advanced to actually address some of these issues. And I just
point to one, for example, under BEAD, states must share their
plans to streamline their permitting and rights of way
processes.
This is going to be at least one way to standardize
permitting approaches on a national and harmonized basis, and
we hope that this will take root and also just raise the
visibility on the need to actually address permitting
challenges fully and finally.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. My next question is for Ms.
Kimball Sekaquaptewa. I hope I said that right. Sekaquaptewa.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Excellent.
Senator Sinema. Was it really?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. It worked. Very brave as well.
Senator Sinema. In the bipartisan infrastructure law,
Congress allocated $2 billion specifically for the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program, in addition to tribal broadband
funding from previous laws.
Now, some of this funding has already gone out to tribes.
For example, the Gila River Indian community will use a $4.4
million grant to assist in telehealth expansion, distance
learning opportunities, affordable broadband service, and
economic growth.
The Hopi tribe will use a $13.8 million grant to install
fiber, connecting over 1,000 unserved Native American
households plus 18 businesses and 6 community anchor
institutions.
My question for you is, based on your experience at the
Santa Fe Indian School and as Chair of the Connect New Mexico
Council, could you discuss the importance of the Tribal
Broadband Connectivity Program for tribes in the Southwest and
could you recommend any additional steps Congress should take
to help ensure more tribal communities have fast, affordable
broadband access?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes, thank you for that question. I
believe that this Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program is
historic. It is monumental. And it is allowing us tribes to
work toward building our own community solutions.
While $2 billion is a lot of funding, it is not going to
meet all of the needs in our rural tribal communities. In the
Southwest, there has been a number of middle mile projects, as
well as last mile projects that work together in unison.
For instance, my project at the Santa Fe Indian School is
putting in the middle mile, but we work closely with our
sovereign nation consortia partners who have just been
applicants as well for fiber to the home or fixed wireless
solutions.
Together, as we built a cohort and share expertise,
navigate the permitting processes, share technical expertise,
and centralize services for improved gateway services such as
cybersecurity, we are able to build an ecosystem that serves
not just our last mile tribal needs, but our regional needs as
well.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. My last question is for Mr.
Powell. Mr. Powell, with the FCC publication of its
preproduction draft of new nationwide broadband maps, these
draft maps will enable the State of Arizona, as well as our
tribal and local governments and other stakeholders, to provide
feedback on the FCC's analysis.
These maps will enable the FCC to work with the NTIA to
begin the process of distributing broadband funding
appropriated in the bipartisan infrastructure law to State
governments.
Mr. Powell, these FCC maps are just the first draft. As
these maps continue to be improved, do you have any
recommendations for how to best ensure the maps are used to
direct Federal money to unserved and underserved locations,
consistent with the requirements of the law?
Mr. Powell. Yes. Suggestion one is we have to make sure we
have a very robust amount of feedback to the quality of the
maps to get them improved, particularly the January 13th
deadline, which is what NTIA has said is necessary as a
predicate to distributing the funding in June.
I think the second problem I see is, you know, the map is
not universally applicable. We have other large Federal
programs that are not required to use the map. I think that is
potentially problematic.
And I think we have a lot of states that will have
different versions of the map. We would hope that those get fed
into the FCC process, and the FCC process continues to develop
a genuinely authoritative map that all of the communities can
rely on equally.
Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Sinema. Next, we will
hear from Senator Baldwin for her questions, and then we will
go to Senator Young. Senator Baldwin.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start with
you, mister--not mister, Ms. Siefer. The Affordable
Connectivity Program is responsible for connecting almost a
quarter million Wisconsin households to affordable, high speed
broadband.
And I am proud to have voted for the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act, which made that possible. Governor
Evers and the Wisconsin Public Service Commission have done a
laudable job of encouraging Wisconsinites to apply for this
benefit.
But I was really concerned to learn of a recent study
finding that 45 percent of affordable connectivity program
applications to the program are rejected. That is a very
staggering figure.
And so I am asking you, what more can be done at the
Federal, State, and local levels to make applying easier for
eligible families and to encourage more seamless eligibility
verification?
Ms. Siefer. It is a really great question. The computer
matching agreements that State programs have with USAC, we
don't have it for all the programs. We don't have it with all
the states.
So that would speed things up quite a bit because then
there wouldn't be this paperwork. Oh, you didn't give us the
right PDF or whatever, right, that happens. But also the human
aspect of this, having more funding for digital navigators so
there is someone sitting next to the person signing up and
saying, oh, I am sorry, because of your situation, we need you
to submit this instead of this.
Because it is confusing, and so if you don't have that
human helping you, you can think you have submitted everything
and you didn't.
Senator Baldwin. OK. Mr. Spalter, Wisconsin residents
depend on services made possible by the Universal Service Fund,
including rural broadband through the Connect America Fund,
lifeline phone services, and E-Rate funding for school and
library connectivity.
The Fifth Circuit recently heard arguments on whether this
fund, which has been supported on a bipartisan basis for
decades, is unconstitutional. What would be the impact to the
telecommunications ecosystem if the Universal Service Fund was
ruled unconstitutional?
Mr. Powell. Senator, it would be nothing less than a force
majeure that would impact our Nation's commitment to the future
of universal connectivity. We believe in the constitutionality
of the program.
We believe that it is on sound legal footing, and we expect
that the court will agree with us in this regard. But we have
to be very clear eyed about the need to make sure that
universal service can be sustainable. In the long haul, we
believe that we have to expand actually the base of
contributors that are providing support for USF beyond the very
small slice of telephone and voice providers via the Internet
in order to do so.
And we are really looking forward to working with you and
this committee in ensuring the FCC has the authority to be able
to expand that base.
Senator Baldwin. Thank you. Mr. Powell, I had a very
interesting discussion with some of your coworkers. I am going
to ask you to be a futurist for a quick second. I think about
the global race to develop quantum computing.
And I don't know how far off we are. I don't know whether
the U.S. is going to win it. I certainly hope we do because it
has such important consequences. But that said, what does the
telecom industry do to sort of prepare for that day, for
emerging technologies?
And what should we be thinking of as Members of Congress to
pave the way for safe implementation in the future?
Mr. Powell. Fascinating question. I think there are two
dimensions that I would focus on. First of all, it is literally
a quantum leap in capability. It is hard to foresee conceivably
what it could mean. The first thing from my familiarity with it
is the ability to hack encryption, which is potentially
dangerous.
A lot of encryption is built on the premise that a computer
would take decades and decades to crack it so that it is safe.
If you have a quantum computer that can do those calculations
at a exponentially faster rate, you can have a lot of
vulnerable systems in America to that kind of hacking.
So our members are focused on what will be encryption for
the future, and that is going to be a really, really critical
area. I think the other thing, you know, managing
communications, essentially a mathematical formula. There is
all kinds of algorithms that determine congestion, rooting
patterns.
You know, to the extent that quantum computing can improve
the efficacy and effectiveness, it probably means we could have
ultimately much, much, much faster network with much higher
capacity and much lower latency, which should be the holy grail
for all infrastructure providers.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Baldwin. Senator Young,
you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF HON. TODD YOUNG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA
Senator Young. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank our
panelists for being here today. We have spent tens of billions
of dollars on important infrastructure investments,
particularly broadband funding in recent years, spanning
various Federal agencies.
And this committee has a really important oversight role,
and I commend the Chairman for his leadership in this effort.
The infrastructure bill alone made a $65 billion investment in
broadband deployment and adoption, and established, as has been
noted, a roughly $42.5 billion broadband grant program at the
NTIA.
I want to ask a couple of questions of Mr. Powell and Mr.
Spalter, please. You represent many member companies who would
likely consider participating in the BEAD Program, this grant
program to states.
Do your members want to participate in the BEAD Program,
and how is your industry prepared for this new funding? And
perhaps you could touch on any regulations associated with the
requirements of the BEAD Program or other Government programs
that are of particular focus to your members.
Mr. Spalter. Let me begin, Senator, and thank you for the
question. Our members are, if I could use this phrase, ``loaded
for bear'' to be able to actually deploy these BEAD dollars
responsibly, accountably, quickly, and effectively.
It is our members who have the financial, technical,
operational, and experiential wherewithal to be able to best
apply these funds and put them to their best and highest uses.
We are anticipating broad participation in the BEAD Program.
We are concerned, however, that there are unintended
consequences of the IIJA that need to be dealt with squarely,
including provisions that I don't believe Congress had intended
to be included in the BEAD Program nor its implementation.
Such things as Davis-Bacon, the middle class subsidy that
has been suggested. We need to together collectively deal with
these issues if we are going to foster the kinds of deep
participation that we want, and our members would very much
like to be able to achieve.
Senator Young. Thank you. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. I would just add the tenor of your question
gets at something I think is not fully appreciated. This is a
massive complex undertaking for an ISP. You have teams
dedicated, first of all, just digesting the rules, the
conditions, the parameters, the markets that are going to be
available, which ones are not going to be available.
You know, how is it going to be funded, where the matching
fund is coming from? How do we do this in an inflationary
environment that might lead to recession? How do we do this in
a supply chain constrained environment?
How do you do this in a skilled labor shortage environment?
What are the ways to migrate around those things? So, you know,
this is why the delicacy of unnecessary regulatory mandates
could really derail the incentive to participate.
Senator Young. Yes. Yes, absolutely. So we will note
whatever regulations or provisions you think are already
perhaps unintentional or are not reflective of the intent of
Congress as a whole on an ongoing basis, we will want to be
attentive to some friction that will be associated with
implementation, and I am sure at various points.
One question to again each of you, Mr. Powell and Mr.
Spalter, pertaining to the digital divide, something we in
Congress have indicated that we want to close for some period
of time. But what is closing the digital divide mean to you?
And do you believe that we will officially, through this
spending and implementation initiative, be able to close the
digital divide after, you know, tens of billions of dollars?
Because, frankly, this was the promise of the broadband
investments, which was we would make sure there are no
unserved, and we would significantly narrow the number of
underserved households across the country.
And I expect inflation, which Mr. Powell mentioned, could
have an adverse role on meeting that objective. But what say
you, Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. To the question of how do we close the digital
divide and what is closure of the digital divide, I think it
has been well expressed by the intent of the IIJA itself, which
is that when all in America who seek--who want access to
broadband can have that access at speeds of 120 throughput at
least, to get to that promised land, I think, you know, it is
tantalizingly close, but it is going to take an all hands on
deck effort to make sure that we can, in partnership with our
Government partners, really machete through a lot of these
encumbrances that make our willingness to participate in
question because of the various regulatory permitting and other
challenges that we know are part and parcel, unfortunately,
right now of broadband deployment.
Senator Young. OK, so your answer is basically we hope we
can close the digital divide. We all need to be working
together and toward that end. But you certainly haven't given
me a confident assertion that it is going to happen, which is
fair. Mr. Powell.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think closing the digital divide is
every American, regardless of where they live, whatever their
community, has the ability to access broad--high quality
broadband infrastructure at a reasonable rate.
That is the historic commitment of the Nation to universal
service, and we fully realize that dream, that will be the
result. I am more excited and bullish than I have ever been
that we have the opportunity to generally close the divide. I
have also learned that declaring mission accomplished
prematurely is a huge mistake.
A lot of this money could be misdirected, inefficiently
managed. We have seen that before. I think that the history of
that anxiety should produce a much sharper, more vigilant, more
better overseeing program.
If we do that, I think we will be able to celebrate the
closing of the digital divide. If not, we will be wondering 5
years from now what happened.
Senator Young. You have your game face on.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Young. All right. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Young. Next, we will hear
from Senator Rosen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JACKY ROSEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you, Chairman Lujan. I really
appreciate you for holding this important hearing today. You
know, I am one of the authors of the broadband section of the
bipartisan infrastructure law, including the Middle Mile
Broadband Deployment Act. So I want to ensure that we meet the
law's goals.
Nevada is home to vibrant rural communities like Ely,
Lovelock, and Pahrump, but residents are really counting on the
new infrastructure law to bring long awaited high speed
broadband to our state.
Broadband access is not just a communications issue, it is
an economic issue, it is a workforce issue, it is a public
safety issue, and it is a health care issue. And that is why I
am so severely disappointed by the recent broadband maps
released by the FCC, which vastly overstate current coverage in
rural Nevada.
Broadband funding is directly tied to these maps, so we
need to get this process right. That means ISPs must be
forthcoming about where they actually serve. But it also means
that the FCC challenge process must accept challenges based on
actual engineering and the facts on the ground, not whether
merely an ISP can theoretically serve a particular community.
Actual facts, not theoretical, because our constituents are
counting on us, all of us, to get this right, and I am going to
continue to work with the FCC Chairwoman until we do so. So,
thank you. I am going to turn now for my question to the
witnesses. So, we do want to ensure success in digital equity
programs.
And so to fully participate in our modern world, our
constituents need not just access to affordable, high speed
internet, but also to those connected devices and digital
skillsets to navigate diverse technologies and online services.
Again, as one of the 22 Senators who worked on the
bipartisan infrastructure law, we understood the importance of
taking that tailored approach to digital equity, ensuring that
there are programs for every local communities' unique needs.
Means addressing affordability, digital literacy, digital
hygiene, upskilling all of the above.
So, Ms. Siefer, one of the challenges I have heard from
stakeholders in Nevada is finding community partners in rural
areas. Even communities that receive Federal funding through
the Digital Equity Act State capacity grant we created, they
still need help finding partners with the capacity to implement
digital inclusion programming.
So Ms. Siefer, how do you approach working with these
communities to meet their needs? We want to be sure everybody
gets what they need to thrive.
Ms. Siefer. First, Senator Rosen, I have to thank you on
behalf of the digital equity community for your work on the
bipartisan infrastructure law.
We really appreciate everything you did. In rural
communities, it is more difficult because those resources of
those who are already providing digital inclusion programming
may not be there. So the stakeholder engagement process that
has to occur, that process is a way to find those who can do
the programming.
Some of them may already exist, they may already be doing
digital inclusion work, but you may not know, or we may not
know that they are doing digital inclusion work because they
don't call it digital inclusion. They call it something else.
But also that stakeholder engagement process is a way to
educate those who are already serving the populations, the
covered populations that are supposed to be part of all of
this, and then they can become part of the solution. They can
integrate it into their other programming.
And the reason that that is going to be so valuable is
because of the trust that they already have with those covered
populations. And part of what NDIA does is that training. So we
offer ourselves to your community members.
Senator Rosen. Well, I want to continue on the stakeholder
engagement process, because we want to ensure a success in
digital affordability programs as well, because despite areas
where broadband affordability support is needed most, it could
have the greatest benefit.
Our rural areas sometimes have the lowest participation in
the Affordable Connectivity Program, those enrollment rates.
And so it is available. People aren't enrolling. So how again
do we reach out to everyone, let them know that these programs
are there? What are the strategies you can use to be sure that
we increase enrollment in our rural areas?
Ms. Siefer. It really goes back to those trusted
intermediaries. So the ones that are already talking to the
covered populations. There are those who aren't always trusted,
right. No offense to my colleagues.
Maybe the Internet service provider saying that this is
something available, may not be the right way to go. Because
free doesn't--it sounds like a scam, right. But if your
librarian is telling you about it or your teacher is telling
you about it, or the individual over at the extension center is
telling you about it, that you might trust.
Senator Rosen. Well, thank you. I think we really--I am
going to submit the rest of my questions for the record. But I
really think getting this information out through a trusted
source is up and down our states, urban and rural, it is so
important that everybody gets the digital access that they
need. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Senator Rosen. Next, we
will hear from Senator Tester.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. Well, thank you, Chairman Lujan and Ranking
Member Thune, for having this hearing. And I want to express my
appreciation to the panelists for their testimony. I am going
to start with you, Mr. Powell. You already pointed out that
there is a lot of money, a record amount of money going in to
lay down broadband to get everybody connected up. From your
seat, what is the biggest barrier for Internet service
providers?
Mr. Powell. I think the biggest barriers is you need
critical inputs to actually operate in these parts of the
country. Those critical inputs are permitting, which we have
talked a lot about today.
I would offer some additional suggestions for improving
that, not only trying to create much deeper coordination among
Federal agencies for Federal lands, a harmonized set of access
fees, but I would also add making sure those agencies are
staffed with the people.
We often call these agencies, and we are told we don't have
enough people to work on that, we will do your permit next
year. And that is just kind of unacceptable with the urgency of
this program.
The second area that we have touched on, which I think is
critical, is access to poles at reasonable rates. We do have a
Federal regulatory regime that regulates reasonable rates for
poles, but there are exemptions in that law.
And many of those exempted entities have conflicts of
interest in allowing new entering providers from accessing
those poles. That becomes a very, very, very serious problem
for anybody hoping to reach these areas.
So continued focus by the FCC, the Congress on permitting
and poles, we think is the principal and primary obstacle to
utilizing the money effectively.
Senator Tester. So, we--I think this is a fair statement,
like in a lot of laws and oversight, there are a few folks out
there that create problems for everybody else. And one of the
problems that we are concerned about the, that you are
concerned about and so am I, is building on top of a broadband
that is already there.
My question to you is--and I think because of that, I mean,
we are seeing you have to dot the I's twice and cross the T's
three times, because there are some folks out there that are
going to take Federal dollars and they are going to overbuild
on top of other existing lines.
Well, if testimony was being given today, it occurred to me
that it isn't some of the responsibility on the folks that are
requesting the money, or do you just not know where the service
is, so you are just going to build it out? Answer me which one
of those statements is true?
Do we have companies in--and this is for you, Mr. Powell--
do we have companies out there that are getting the money,
knowing damn well that the services is already there, but they
can get the money and, you know, pocket a little administration
fees and make some money? Or is it a situation where the maps
are so bad that even the companies don't know which areas are
served?
Mr. Powell. I think both can be true. I think the efforts
to make the maps more sophisticated, precise, and granular is
going to significantly diminish or mitigate that consequence.
Look, I have been involved in these programs for 30 years.
I guarantee you there are companies out there who believe
that they can acquire resources and subsidies, find a way to
build in economically sustainable efforts, areas which often
include areas where broadband already exists, pocket that
profit and get away with it successfully.
They have done it in the past, in past programs, without
sufficient rigor and accountability for those kinds of things.
And shame on us if they are able to do it a third time, despite
Congress, at least in the BEAD Program, expressing quite
clearly and intentionally the desire to take care of the
neediest first, and only when that job is done to move to
underserved areas, and only when that job is done, consider
other possible uses of the money.
The question is, will we rigorously adhere to that scheme,
or will it be eroded through the implementation across multiple
jurisdictions over time?
Senator Tester. Right. And look, I think the dollars are
there to get everybody connected up with good service. But if
it is not used correctly, then that is a problem. And I think--
I don't, I can't speak for the agencies because I do oversight,
I don't do their work.
But I think that is probably part of the reason why
permitting is onerous, because they want to try to make sure
that people aren't doing this. I want to move on to something
else. And this is for Ms. Siefer.
The bipartisan infrastructure bill that quite frankly I
helped write and got passed, requires some broadband labels. I
looked at the label. I think it is great if you know what you
are looking at.
But quite frankly, it tells you about download speeds and
upload speeds and all those kind of things, but to a regular
person, that doesn't mean much. Do you think these broadband
labels are going to be effective, or do you think we need to
take another run at it?
Ms. Seifer. I think the broadband labels have an
opportunity, a potential to be effective. But we also need to
be educating all of our community members as to what these
things mean. As this technology keeps changing, we are going to
have to figure out how to keep educating each other. And it is
really complicated, but we can't just be like, well, somebody
else knows all the answers.
Senator Tester. Right on. I just want to thank you guys
very, very much. This is a big, big issue. We have an
opportunity to do a lot of good stuff and create a lot of jobs
in the economy in the process if it is done right. I appreciate
all your input. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Tester. Next, we will
hear from Senator Capito.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
for being here today. I am sure you can tell from the hearings
this is an issue that hits home all the time. And certainly
that is no different for me in a rural area of West Virginia
who has some of the lowest broadband deployment, unfortunately.
So I am going to start with Mr. Spalter. Senator Klobuchar
and I introduced the Rural Broadband Protection Act earlier
this year. This legislation will require a more vigorous
vetting and verification process for Internet service providers
seeking to participate in the FCC high cost programs.
And I think you all are in support of this. The issue is,
for years we have had money go out to certain providers that in
the end can't either, a, provide the service or it gets too
expensive, or for whatever reason, it doesn't get deployed
there. That is what I am trying to get with this bill. Let's
pre-vet before we go ahead. So could you speak to that issue
for me, please?
Mr. Spalter. I think that the Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund in its first iteration is proof positive that we have to
do better and be more aggressive in ensuring that we are
properly vetting providers for their financial, technical,
operational, and even experiential wherewithal.
Which is why we support your legislation that would do more
to pre-vet providers. This is, as we all have expressed, a once
in a generation opportunity to get the work done and we cannot
be doing science experiments with these dollars.
Senator Capito. No. No, we really can't. Mr. Powell, do you
have a comment on that? What you see from your perspective?
Mr. Powell. I would say I really endorse your instincts
here. I mean, I think broadband is way more hard--way more
difficult and complicated to provision than people realize. It
requires deep levels of engineering, technical expertise, and
more importantly, a commitment to the long term.
I think there is a tendency to believe that you dig a hole,
you build a line once, and you are done with this. We spend $19
billion every single year just on upgrades, changes, and
innovations. You have to make sure someone who is entering the
program is able to sustain that for a meaningful amount of
time.
What we often see is they come in and get the money to
build. Constructing it once is one thing and then cannot keep
going for the long----
Senator Capito. Right. And that is one of the concerns I
have. I am not saying every municipality might have an issue
for this, but this could be an issue in certain--we don't have
a whole growth industry in our State or municipalities wanting
to do this because they realize it has to be a regional
approach.
You have to have not just the expertise but the money to
maintain it. It doesn't just stop once you get the delivery. So
I think that is a sort of a side issue to this. If I could talk
about the mapping again, I had a joint meeting, and the Western
New Broadband Enhancement Council has done a great job on
trying to pre-map our state.
But when the maps came out, it looked as though 138,000--we
have 1.8 million, so 900,000 residents or something around that
that, and so 138,000 locations look to have been left out. And
I think this is a national problem.
So when do we expect these to actually be finalized?
Because the money really can't go out by our desire until these
are complete. Is that correct, Mr. Powell, or Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Powell. Yes, that is correct. I mean, the general
expectation is the final maps will come out in the spring. Some
people say March, some people say April. The distribution of
funds, NTIA has said at the end of June.
So we really are in a crunch period beginning now,
particularly submissions that are due on January 13th, in order
to give the FCC a genuine opportunity to produce a next round
of maps that is more accurate and reflects the concerns that
you are raising.
I would want to highlight one thing to clarify. The FCC is
the one determining the locations of the fabric----
Senator Capito. Right.
Mr. Powell. You know, that is not being provided by the
ISP. So a lot of these problems are in this complex process of
the fabric that we can help with, but that data is being
collected separately from the data we provide.
Senator Capito. Right. And go ahead, Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, I would just add to that that the review
and challenge process absolutely plays a critical role in
ensuring that we are going to be actually able to have maps
that will be fully functional.
And it would be a complete undermining of the law if the
NTIA were to move forward with maps that have not been subject
to that rigorous review process. Which is why I think that this
kind of oversight is extremely important in ensuring that we
can actually have maps that are viable, scalable, universal,
and harmonized across the country.
Senator Capito. Right. Yes, we have been really pushing
through our office the website on the FCC where you can
actually put your home address in, and I would encourage people
to do that, especially when you have got--well, in any case but
in the more rural areas it is easy to miss.
Addresses are different, and but we need to get that
granular data. And I am really appreciative that the State data
that is coming forward, with what the ISPs are delivering and
others, is really I think enhances this, but we are still--some
of ours are getting missed.
So I appreciate everything you are doing and thanks for the
answers. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. Thank you, Senator Capito. Next, we will
hear from Senator Lummis for her questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. CYNTHIA LUMMIS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Lummis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome,
panel. My first question is for Mr. Powell and Ms.
Sekaquaptewa. Did I get it right? I am so sorry.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes you did. Sekaquaptewa.
Senator Lummis. OK. Well, I am from Wyoming. And as you
know, Wyoming and the West face unique challenges that can
impact the availability of broadband services and probably
create additional costs.
You know, sometimes our equipment is in remote areas when
it needs to be repaired, hard to get maintenance to that kind
of equipment in some of our areas, and that can cause
additional costs, so our service goes down.
So what costs disproportionately impact rural and tribal
areas when it comes to deploying broadband services? What are
you seeing out there?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. For the tribal areas, you are absolutely
correct with the rugged nature. If you look at the state of New
Mexico on Highway 40, goes into Arizona in about 60, maybe even
maybe 90 miles. From that border, it is lava.
So constructing in that requires advanced equipment that is
more expensive. And I think that is probably one of the biggest
elements that, you know, we battle when we put in our--when we
design our projects.
The permitting is also a challenge. I will say, though,
that, you know, with the recent Federal efforts with the
permitting council, there is more of a mechanism to coordinate
the Federal agency permits. And that is going to be a huge time
savings, which also can have cost components as well.
But we look forward to working with these new initiatives
that have made broadband projects eligible for this project or
for their permitting council's process and are optimistic that
we can reach our delivery goals for our Tribal Broadband
Connectivity project, whose time-frame had to be extended by
four--was allowed to be extended up to 4 years as opposed to
the initial NOFO which had a 1-year project.
Now for our project cost there, we are going to look at
some administrative costs that were unexpected for that longer
time-frame and that has a lot to do with the supply chain
issues. We are in, I just ordered, you know, a couple of
million feet of fiber with a 2-year delivery date.
Senator Lummis. Is permitting more difficult on--in Indian
Country?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. It is. We also have the Bureau of Indian
Affairs that we need to work with. So that can be--that is
another process that we just have to factor in. So when we look
at, you know, reforms and coordination, the BIA did sign an MOU
work on these on these projects.
But it is time and educational. So within the agencies, you
might have that conversation at the Federal level, and we have
heard some of the witnesses speak to that, but then once the
management down to the people processing or receiving
paperwork, until they are trained and they are meeting their
timeframes, we are going to continue to see barriers.
Senator Lummis. Is BIA--is it necessary to have BIA
involved in this? Is this an area where BIA could be more of an
impediment than help?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes and no. I think that BIA does play an
important role here. They--not all tribes are the same. You
know, we are sovereign nations. Some of us have more resources
and more internal capabilities and capacity. And for those
tribes that can move forward, a lighter touch with the BIA is
absolutely fair.
Senator Lummis. And does the BIA adapt itself to the
differences among tribes and their self-governance
capabilities?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Yes, they do. They try to do that. What--
the BIA also has a role, though, I think, for the least
resourced tribes. For instance, with spectrum acquisition. This
is something where tribes have not had access to sovereign
rights over what could be considered a natural resource like
water.
So now as we move forward into the telecommunications space
and we are trying to negotiate in the secondary markets,
perhaps there is a band of spectrum that we would like to
utilize, and we know that it is not being utilized by the
license holder.
There was an order to the effect to allow tribes the
opportunity to utilize that underused spectrum. But where does
a tribe begin, especially if it is a low resourced tribe? How
do we engage in those processes?
We are not going to be able to without additional
structures of support, and BIA has the opportunity to grow and
help us with that process.
Senator Lummis. OK. Well, I hope you will reach out to the
Committee, because you are knowledgeable in this area, and let
us know if there are areas where we should require a lighter
touch of the BIA with regard to regulation and layers of
bureaucracy in this area that might prevent a company from
accessing a broadband project in Indian Country.
Mr. Powell, same question for you. Maybe, maybe a little
less focused on tribal lands.
Mr. Powell. Yes. I think states like yours are the most
challenging. Number one, for geography. These are complex
terrains to wire and connect, and those are unique challenges.
Permitting, as you mentioned. Pole access as we have discussed.
All our significant problems running into those
communities. The availability of skilled labor to work often in
remote regions is challenging as well.
And then I think an area we haven't talked enough about
across the whole country is this continuing backup in the
supply chain, which is really becoming quite problematic, I
think, for all of us.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. I have. I have run over, so I
might submit additional questions in writing. Hey, thank you
all for being here.
Senator Lujan. Senator Lummis, thank you very much. Mr.
Powell, I had asked Mr. Spalter a question about data caps, and
I have the same question for you as well. Yes or no, do some of
your members maintain data caps or data throttling on their
consumer broadband offerings?
Mr. Powell. Not data throttling. Some of our members do
employ data caps. One of the reasons is our networks are
shared. Meaning, in a neighborhood everyone is drinking from
the same broadband network.
If one user were to overuse that broadband, it would
diminish the experience of others in the community, so some of
our carriers use caps to manage and prevent that situation.
Senator Lujan. But if a network is properly built, there is
plenty of data for everybody. To me--just so, you know, data
caps to me are like long distance calling. When my mom is going
to make a long distance call, I encourage her to use her mobile
device so she doesn't have to pay for that long distance call
like she would if she had to use her landline.
There shouldn't be long distance calling in America, and
that is a fundamental flaw with USF. I don't want to get into
all of those problems. But everything that I am aware of from
network buildout and construction, given technological
advances, is there is plenty out there if it is constructed
correctly. Is that an incorrect assumption I am making?
Mr. Powell. I don't want to call it incorrect. Some
networks are fixed connections to a home, and they are not
affected by the use of homes next door.
Cable networks are largely shared, which means the way they
are constructed and designed, one home can affect the quality
of what is available in another home. This also happens in
multi-dwelling units.
So for example, in the days when you had someone running a
BitTorrent server in their basement and were downloading tons
of illegal music, could that degrade the experience of people
sharing that backbone connection? Absolutely, that is true.
That is why those that do have caps, the caps are
extraordinarily high. Very few people ever reach them or ever
will reach them, and they are done for network management
reasons. Now, to be fair, many of our companies don't do them.
It is an individual business decision, so we don't have
some opinion that they are all necessarily or not necessary.
These are decisions companies make to manage their networks in
the communities they serve.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. I appreciate the response
that says that, well, if they have them, they are high, so
people may not hit them.
The reason that I am asking this question to you, Mr.
Spalter, and to you, Mr. Powell, is during the last couple of
years with what children were faced with distance education,
educators who were conducting their classrooms from their
homes, especially in the most rural parts of the country where
their technology may have been a line of sight shot from some,
you know, some provider that couldn't get to them maybe because
of easements, things of that nature, but nonetheless, they were
constrained with caps.
I have spoken to a number of teachers and a number of
students whose parents or household thought that they had
purchased a good enough plan so that they would not be hit with
additional fees, things of that nature, and were hit with data
caps.
I was really surprised with the number of educators in New
Mexico, a number of kids, that did hit those caps and then they
could not afford to go higher. And the reason I am asking that
is with the work that we are doing here, it is about equitable
access.
Mr. Powell. Yes.
Senator Lujan. And to me, if a household with students hit
that cap and they can't participate in school, that does not
feel to me like equitable access. And so I introduced a piece
of legislation called the Uncap America Act, looking at this
specifically.
I mean, I think even your largest member did not deploy
data cap plans in all of their states, although there is a
question of, you know, 2021 or 2022, or if in the future if
that may happen. But it was a recognition that it was not
needed everywhere.
And to your point, Mr. Powell, that not all of your members
use that as well. And that is the same with you, Mr. Spalter.
Not all of your members have data cap plans available to
customers as well. But nonetheless, I hope that that is
something that we can look at going forward, given network
buildouts, what we are now seeing with further reaches.
And if data caps continue at the rate that we saw them
during COVID, there is going to be a lot of folks still left
out. And I am hoping that that may be something we can work
toward.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa, how do we best ensure students across New
Mexico and around the Nation have equal access to education,
especially as--and specifically as it pertains to access to
broadband, distance education, responsibilities, things of that
nature?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Well, I think that we learned--and thank
you for that question. I think we have learned through the
pandemic that it is all about residential Internet access.
During the pandemic, when and I am not sure how it is in other
states, but in our tribal lands in New Mexico, we were--
physical barricades were put up at the entrance to our tribal
lands.
This was to prevent traffic for people coming in, you know,
and possibly with the sickness, but it was also to protect us
from going out. And the problem with that was that our students
who were going to the McDonald's and the Starbucks, they could
no longer have that access.
Once the tribal library shut down, we were told to stay,
you know, in our homes, in our bubble, and not even with our
extended families to also protect ourselves. So the Internet
that we had in our homes was the only lifeline we had for
remote learning. And as I mentioned earlier, 89 percent of our
students did not have it.
We cobbled together what we could with the mobile hotspots
once their prices went down. But really, we need affordable,
permanent residential services in our communities. That is the
only way that we are going to be able to ensure adequate
participation for our students in K-12.
Recent leading research is connecting broadband
availability to student attainment and post-secondary pursuits.
With--after the pandemic, we are not going backward. Remote
learning is here to stay. The expectation that students will be
carrying devices and will be completing homework, you know, at
home and collaborating with their peers at night is just the
new normal.
So as we want to prepare students for success, it is to
have their availability to the Internet as a universal service
in their homes. And just real quickly, what we do--how we use
the Internet is also changing in education.
You know, I mentioned the State education networks. We now
have our tribal libraries connected over gigabit connections to
institutions of higher education in New Mexico, to the research
and education networks.
Ours in New Mexico is called the Albuquerque Gigapop, where
they peer with all the higher-ed institutions. So when we have
these residential Internet connections and these high speed
connected anchor institutions, we are now connecting our
educational spaces to international high speed education and
research networks.
So when we talk about workforce training and we talk about
building the next generation of IT professionals, it is all
part of that greater conversation.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And in my familiarity
with those networks, and that is part of the brilliance is you
made a decision based on the lack of connectivity when you were
initially working on the tribal library, I believe, at Santa--
which pueblo was it? The first tribal library that you worked
on?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Santo Domingo.
Senator Lujan. Santo Domingo, which I believe we had a
chance to visit. And then you saw how you could continue to
expand that opportunity, pueblo to pueblo. But by building your
own network, you could get to that Gigapop, if you will, and
you could get to that access point and have the fastest speeds
available to people in the community. So I just want to thank
you and your continued success with your expansion in that
area.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you.
Senator Lujan. There has been some specific questions
around the mapping. And while I agree with Chairman Powell that
I applaud that the FCC has moved forward and we have some data
now, we have clearly seen where aspects of the country are
missing from what that was able to capture.
And as I pointed out in my opening, Cochiti Pueblo,
Shiprock, New Mexico, completely left out. And in New Mexico,
the office has said that as many as 37,000 locations in New
Mexico are unaccounted for.
So how best can we enable our local communities to engage
the FCC and take advantage of the challenge process as
intended?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you for pointing out the--some of
our challenges in New Mexico. You know, one of the--when we
moved to the residential based reporting, the granular
reporting, you know, that is good. That is an opportunity. But
it ties into other nuances that also have to be solved for.
In our tribal lands, we don't necessarily have street
addresses, you know, so how are we going to match that that
P.O. Box to that underserved home. So we are having to look at
the systems that we use to build the maps and look at the
methodologies and the challenges that lie therein.
As Chair of the Connect New Mexico Council, we have been
looking at tribal engagement very seriously, and we need to put
together, you know, different teams. It is not just inviting
tribal leadership.
It is also a conversation of GIS specialists. Do the tribes
even have GIS specialists? You know, how are we going to work
then--or with the IT departments, who plays a role to do what?
So it has to be a multi-pronged approach.
And in particular with respect to mapping, we have
solutions. Let's create a helpdesk. You know, people can call
the FCC for help. People can call the State for help. But, you
know, what we need to do is we need to go to each one of the
communities and we need to use our local networks and our
trusted partners to invite them to workshops.
We are planning two in the fall--I mean, one next week and
then one right after Christmas, but we are going to bring
together our tribal teams. We built an offline map that we are
going to have that is interactive, and we are going to zoom in
on our neighborhoods by having the people in those
neighborhoods in the room, and we are going to identify those
missing locations.
Senator Lujan. Well, let me ask you a follow up to
everything you just put on the table. Is the January 13th date
established by the NTIA enough time?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Oh, absolutely not. I mean, we are going
to work like crazy until we hear that there is an extension,
but we need more time to do it right. I know we desperately
need broadband.
I know that people are hurting, and basic human services
are being compromised until we can get broadband deployed as
fast as possible, but also rushing into decisionmaking and
creating funding allocations that might not be in the best
interests of those same communities would be a miss, I think,
for this generational opportunity we have with this funding.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that very much. Now, providers
looking to serve rural markets must typically pay more to
connect each subsequent customer, right, as distances
increases, as there are other challenges surrounding that.
The FCC has interpreted its universal service mandate to
include support for this high cost buildout, as well as provide
a lifeline to low income subscribers. NTIA's BEAD Program and
the Affordable Connectivity Program take these policies to the
next level. They make the market work in these areas with
Federal support for capital, expenditures, and discounts to
qualified households.
Mr. Spalter, your testimony recommends Congress chart a
sustainable future for the Universal Service, and it expresses
support for the Fair Contributions Act, which we voted out of
this committee in charting the path forward.
Please answer whether the future of Universal Service
includes the following priorities, direct support for capital
expenditures in rural and high cost areas?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for discounts for eligible
households to cover the cost of monthly access?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for telehealth and remote
telemedicine?
Mr. Spalter. Very much so, yes.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for affordable, resilient,
and secure broadband for teachers and students wherever they
access educational tools?
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely.
Senator Lujan. Direct support for digital literacy, digital
inclusion, and digital equity initiatives to ensure adoption
follows closely behind access and affordability?
Mr. Spalter. Yes.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. And I agree. And I am
hopeful that as we look for and create and identify together a
permanent solution to close the digital divide, the investment
is historic, but the funding for broadband in the bipartisan
infrastructure bill is not permanent. The digital divide will
not disappear when the funding runs out.
And I think that is an important conversation for all of us
to face. I agree with what was presented by Senator Lummis,
Senator Tester, Senator Young, Senator Thune, with and in your
written testimony, about approval for access for easement
approval, especially among Federal agencies in coordination.
Recently, myself and Senator Barrasso wrote a letter to the
Department of Interior along these lines. And this should not
just be looked at from the perspective of broadband. On the
Navajo Nation in New Mexico, we had a horrific rainstorm and a
flood that resulted. A declaration of emergency was presented
and adopted.
FEMA authorized the funding. Could not secure easement from
BIA. The money was almost lost. Which should have taken a year
or two to get done with reestablishing a road that was dirt,
but a bridge that was torn out because of the flooding, it took
more than a decade.
And that is why I appreciate the conversation of what we
are talking about here. That could not have occurred with this
initiative. So I am hopeful that we can address those issues as
well. And Kimball, the first tribally owned telecom company
began in South Dakota, which I have learned a lot more about,
the Cheyenne River Sioux tribe when they bought a private
company and founded their telecommunication authority.
From New Mexico, Godfrey Enjady of the Mescalero Apache, he
leads the National Tribal Telecom Association. In the past, the
Santa Fe Indian School has leveraged a model where tribal
consortia have worked to build their own fiber networks.
These consortia have reduced broadband costs by up to 95
percent and increased speeds dramatically. Do you believe
tribally owned networks have empowered tribes and pueblos to
build and sustain self-sufficient and thriving communities?
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Absolutely. You know, I think that the
success of Matty and the other tribal ETCs just speaks to the
ability for tribal ISPs to participate successfully in the
telecommunications space. You know, in the consortia projects
that I have done, you know, we are new entrants into this
space.
I heard comments and concerns about sustainability after
post grant awards, and that is valid, that is fair. But we also
need to look at how we are going to achieve sustainability as
us tribes now are proving that we can build and maintain these
networks. We have very robust connections, fiber based
connections in these communities that I built in.
The costs did go down by 95 percent plus and the speeds
went up by over 3,000 percent, and that was just turning our
network on low. So I think we can do tremendous work. When we
do look at sustainability, and Godfrey, Mr. Enjady will be the
first one to mention this, we need to work, come back with
Congress and the FCC and look at paths for sustainable funding.
Now, whether the ACP continues, hopefully, but also access to
Lifeline, and if the barrier to that or a challenge is to
become an ETC, maybe we can look at alternative models for--in
the regulatory framework where the ETC designation can be
modified because not all of the tribes want to serve--provide
voice. Broadband only options serve these community needs
adequately.
So if we can look at some flexibility in accessing the USF
funds, then I think that is going to speak largely to the
sustainability of these networks.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Before I come back to the
other members of the panel, Senator Lummis does have another
question.
Senator Lummis. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. It is nice
to be able to take advantage of this panel's expertise while
they are here. Sure appreciate it. Mr. Spalter, quick question
about developing a location fabric. What are some of the
difficulties you faced? We have covered some of them here
today.
Are there any we haven't discussed that the Committee
should be aware of. And then for the entire panel, how can the
FCC best ensure that the broadband maps, which will be used to
allocate BEAD funding, are accurate? So thanks--again, with my
thanks to the panel.
Mr. Spalter. Recognizing the unfortunate history of
previous broadband maps, USTelecom endeavored to undertake a
pilot program to actually evolve and deploy on a pilot basis
location fabrics both in Missouri and Virginia.
We found that we can do so if we were aggressively seeking
the types of data that need to contribute to more refined
mapping processes, including not only open source data sets,
but also proprietary data sets, geocoding, and other
sophisticated data analyzes that can actually inform the maps.
We presented those pilots and the underlying location fabric to
the FCC and are very glad that they have adopted that as a
framework for the existing maps.
We absolutely have an opportunity by, we hope in the short
time so that we can deploy dollars by the end of June, to have
a refined, accurate, and deeply granular set of maps because of
things like the location coding--the location fabric's
geocoding mechanisms that allow each structure to be identified
in serviceable communities, so we will more accurately know
where broadband is, but more importantly, where it isn't.
And so we are confident, and I would even say optimistic,
that the maps will actually be able to iterate to a place where
we can have confidence in them as long as we continue
collectively, not only as industry, but with our community
partners and the States, to work toward ensuring that the
challenge process can move nimbly, quickly, and effectively.
Senator Lummis. Thank you. And would anyone else care to
weigh in on my broader question? Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Sekaquaptewa. Thank you. I would think speaking to the
goal of utilizing the map to close the digital divide speaks to
not just the accuracy of what is on the map itself right now,
but how we use the map and how we design it as a tool.
You know, I think that we have different--for instance, I
am speaking from education. In our schools and those anchor
institutions, how are they being categorized on the map? How
are other anchor institutions for health centers, for instance,
how are they being characterized on the map?
Because the map isn't just for baseline data, but it is
also a planning tool. So the more dynamic it is, the more the
anchor institutions are included, then we can design different
broadband strategies that include the different sectors, and I
think that that is what is going to help us realize America's
broadband needs.
Ms. Siefer. Can I add that most communities are not
conducting the kind of challenging process, education process
that Kimball is. So if we had more communities able to conduct
that process, not only are they fixing the maps, they are
learning about broadband while they are there.
Senator Lummis. Great panel. Thank you so much, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Lujan. Thank you very much, Senator. To move past
the question I asked Kimball, Mr. Powell, yes or no, do any of
your companies intentionally discriminate when providing
service?
Mr. Powell. No.
Senator Lujan. Mr. Spalter, same question.
Mr. Spalter. Absolutely not.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. If a company were to
intentionally discriminate, would that violate existing statute
prior to passage of the IIJA? Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Powell. Well, I think that would depend. There probably
are gender, I mean, race, gender, other kinds of discriminatory
statutes that might reach that conduct depending on how onerous
or how much animus was involved. I mean, classic redlining in
different formats is prohibited in different ways.
So I am just not familiar enough with all the things that
are available that you could violate. But I do think the IIJA
created a communications deployment architecture specific
focused on that, and that will become more clear with the FCC's
proceeding.
Senator Lujan. Appreciate that. Mr. Spalter.
Mr. Spalter. Well, Section 60506 of the IIJA was very
explicit in setting forth an anti-discrimination approach. We
believe that intentional discrimination is the core principle
the FCC has to use to evaluate whether there is any
discriminatory intent. It is a viable one. It must be the basis
for its current proceeding.
We have also found that intentional discrimination, as it
is applied variously to rooting out discrimination in areas
like housing, handicapped Americans and real estate, and I
already mentioned housing, and employment is a viable standard
and can be applied in this instance.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. If I was asked the
question if a company were to intentionally discriminate, if
that would violate existing statute or passage of the IIJA, I
would say yes.
And the reason that I ask that particular question is with
the proceeding now that is taking place, there are a lot of
questions about clarification, things of that nature is, it
seems to me based on, no one is intentionally discriminating,
no one is intentionally discriminating--you represent the
largest members in the particular areas where connectivity,
access to communication across America, that if that is the
case, that it is not a problem and existing statutes already
protect it. Would you agree with that, Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. I would have to evaluate that with greater
care. But generally speaking, if I could reiterate that under
the context that none of our members have or have any intention
to discriminate. We are confident that the intention of Section
60506 of the IIJA is sufficient to be a basis for the FCC
rulemaking as long as it is based on intentional discrimination
and its core principle.
Senator Lujan. I appreciate that. Mr. Powell, do you have
any feedback there?
Mr. Powell. I would only add, Senator, that we are very
confident that we will pass any test on digital discrimination
because of the nature of the way we build our networks. You
know, we build into our entire footprint and have for many,
many decades, and we upgrade consistently.
I think we have shared data with your office that you can't
find differences very easily between wealthy areas and low
income areas in most of our footprint, and you can't find any
distinguishing factors between Hispanic or African American
communities in those areas. So we feel very good that we build
systematically.
We serve everyone. It is in our DNA. And we will work with
the FCC to have a workable definition that we can all be clear
that we are in compliance with, but we are confident that we
will meet that standard.
Senator Lujan. So as a follow up to that with the passage
of legislation by the House and the Senate, do you believe
Congress gave the FCC the authority to define and prevent
digital discrimination in order to promote equal access to
broadband with comparable speeds, latency, and other quality of
service?
Mr. Powell. Yes, you did give them that authority subject
to technical and economic feasibility, but yes.
Senator Lujan. And the reason I am asking that question is,
as I share with you and we have chatted before the questions
that I had surrounding one of the filings around safe harbors,
with recent rules as well.
And the reason I am asking that is, to me, it is concerning
from the perspective of the history of digital redlining, as we
have spoken about before, rural access to tribal telecom that
shows that companies use of economic and technical feasibility
to not serve entire neighborhoods or entire communities has
been used.
And I am hoping that--Mr. Spalter, did you have a reaction
to that?
Mr. Spalter. No, I was----
Senator Lujan. OK. And what I am hoping that moves forward
here is that if, in fact, the intent, as has been agreed on by
everybody, filings, press releases, public statements, things
of that nature, is to connect to the country, that loopholes
are not created such that they can be hid behind.
You know, in some communities where something is not
economically feasible or not technically feasible--and I think
in a previous filing, even Mr. Powell, NCTA filed that just
because something is not--just because something is not
technologically--I think, technically feasible, that it doesn't
mean that it is not economically feasible. Did I get that
correct? It has been a few years. It was back in 2019 or 2020,
if I remember.
Mr. Spalter. You might have me on that one.
Senator Lujan. We can come back to it. We can come back to
it. Nonetheless, it has been my experience as a--so as you
know, I was a former member of the New Mexico Public Regulation
Commission, which is the equivalent to public utilities of
different parts of America.
And in New Mexico, we were unique because we had insurance
under us, like Vermont had banking underneath them. It was kind
of interesting. Sorry to describe those, but nonetheless, the
work that I did with the PC at the time I was very proud of.
But it was my experience at the time, and even into the
House, that when communities would be told that they could not
be built, that it was not economically or technically feasible,
and then they would just take it on their own, and then someone
would come in and say, oh no, we can do it now. I just don't
want to see that.
I guess that is the point that I am raising here is, a
loophole that lets you say, nope, can't do it, and then someone
does it, and then all of a sudden it is possible, as we work on
these rules. And this is something that I will be looking at
closely with the rulemakings that are there to ensure that we
don't have loopholes like that that are created.
Because to have this investment at the level that it is,
which could cure most of the problem, I am still not convinced
it will cure all the problem, that will cure most of the
problem of not having households connected, businesses, rural
communities, first responders, all the rest in America, for
then there to be loopholes that will guarantee that even though
there is money, that it won't be connected.
And that is one of my ultimate goals with wanting to have a
hearing like this and bringing us all together. You all are
going to be critically important to how this gets done, and I
pray that it will be.
I am very familiar with the work that Kimball has done in
New Mexico, having watched that for years, but especially now
with some of the decisions that have been made, going back to
the 2020 funding at NTIA, some of the spectrum allocations as
well, especially in sovereign indigenous communities across the
country and how we can get that right.
So I pray that we can just get this all done, but you are
all critically important and it means a lot to have you all
here today. I do want to also thank Senator Thune for the work
that he has done over the last few years that I have had--or a
couple of years that I have had the honor of working with him
as well on, on this subcommittee, and I hope to continue
working with him in this and other areas.
While we don't always vote the same, I very much appreciate
the conversations I have with Mr. Thune and his team and how we
have been able to work together. And what is Alex's last name?
I also want to thank Alex. Alex--Sachtjen. Kimball, I have
problems with everybody's name.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lujan. But I also want to recognize Alex for his
work, and not only what he does for helping to prepare Mr.
Thune, but the work that he does for the Subcommittee with all
of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
As we all know, it is incredible staff that we all depend
on every day to make a profound difference. And to all the
staff that are here today, I just want to say thank you to each
and every one of you, and happy holidays. Stay safe.
But you have a lot of work in front of you, so please work
as much as you can.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lujan. Thanks again, everyone. With that being
said, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:22 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
National Urban League
December 12, 2022
Hon. Ben Ray Lujan,
United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Lujan,
Thank you for convening the upcoming ``Ensuring Solutions to Meet
America's Broadband Needs'' hearing. The National Urban League (NUL)
remains committed to ensuring the funds from the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), including Federal support for broadband
access, affordability, and adoption, are equitably distributed to the
communities that remain unconnected, are at risk of being disconnected,
and need increased workforce development and entrepreneurial
opportunities.
As the President of the National Urban League and on behalf of our
92 affiliates across 36 states and the District of Columbia, we have
long fought for the economic empowerment of historically under-
resourced communities across the Nation. That is why NUL was an early
advocate for the IIJA. We issued many recommendations that were
ultimately reflected in this historic legislation. Notably, in our
Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion we provided
comprehensive and detailed analyses and solutions to address unequal
broadband availability, broadband adoption, and access to economic
opportunities for communities of color and low-income communities
across urban and rural America. We are pleased that this Federal
legislation has allocated substantial resources to address these
critical issues, including $42.45 billion to increase broadband access
and support broadband adoption, $14.2 billion toward a national
broadband affordability program, and $2.75 billion for digital equity.
To build on this positive momentum, we have developed a set of
recommendations and best practices on how broadband funding from the
IIJA would be most effectively spent to drive digital equity where it
matters most--connecting unserved and underserved populations while
also increasing broadband adoption and economic opportunities for
workers and businesses. These recommendations include:
(1) Establishing a ``Broadband Adoption Office'' or building staff
capacity and expertise on broadband adoption issues in state
and local broadband offices to focus on the complex needs of
non-adopters in order to get more residents online efficiently
and rapidly.
(2) Engaging underserved and underrepresented communities in
broadband adoption initiatives developed in collaboration with
experienced community-based organizations that can help tailor
programming to meet the specific needs of non-adopters.
(3) Facilitating partnerships with experienced, community-based
organizations, employers, and educational institutions to
promote the recruitment of historically marginalized
populations including people of color, women, underemployed,
and low-income workers for workforce development opportunities
and jobs related to BEAD-funded eligible activities.
(4) Establishing supplier diversity initiatives and goals among BEAD
program grantees so that economic opportunities associated with
broadband deployment projects are available to diverse
populations.
(5) Prioritizing the deployment of timely and cost-effective
broadband solutions to connect unconnected households within
multi-family properties and public housing using BEAD program
funding.
We hope these recommendations will encourage lawmakers, government
agencies, and community partners to work collaboratively to drive
broadband adoption which will ensure all communities can participate in
the digital ecosystem.
We also encourage the Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and
Broadband to mirror these efforts by ensuring Federal agencies,
including the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
continue to prioritize interagency coordination to drive broadband
adoption. More specifically, these Federal agencies will need to
coordinate on how important FCC proceedings on preventing and
eliminating digital discrimination and the broadband ``nutrition
label'' should be applied to the billions of dollars of funding that
will be distributed to states and territories through NTIA.
Additionally, it is imperative that all states and territories are good
stewards of Federal funds and are held accountable if they fail to meet
the mandates. We are primarily concerned with states being inclusive by
ensuring the participation of diverse stakeholders in state broadband
planning processes because we know that the way a problem is analyzed
impacts the way the problem is solved. Funds must be equitably
distributed in order to make progress in closing the digital divide.
Also, while the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) is a more
permanent Federal subsidy than its predecessor, the Emergency Broadband
Benefit (EBB), which provides eligible households with affordable
connectivity and discounts on connected devices, there must be a
sustainable funding mechanism for ACP to make the program truly
permanent. ACP has already connected more than 15 million households
across this Nation to affordable broadband and remains a stellar
example of what a whole-of-nation approach to addressing the digital
divide looks like. For example, the Biden-Harris Administration secured
commitments from Internet service providers to either reduce prices or
raise speeds to offer ACP-eligible households a high-speed Internet
plan at 100 Megabits per second (Mbps) for no more than $30 per month,
which means millions of people can now get more attractive connectivity
options at no cost to them when the ACP subsidy is applied. Failure to
extend ACP will mean failing the millions that already benefit from
this program and threatens the ability of households to thrive in the
digital age, therefore we urge the subcommittee to explore creative
options to ensure this critical program receives continued funding.
Additionally, we encourage the subcommittee to increase funding for ACP
outreach efforts so third-party intermediary organizations working on
the ground to secure communities with other critical services such as
housing, employment, and health care, can continue our efforts in
getting households connected to the Internet which remains equally as
important.
Access to the Internet is an economic security issue, not only for
individuals and families but for our Nation. The digital age has
clearly demonstrated that access to affordable, reliable broadband is
indeed a civil right because it impacts one's ability to get an
education, find work, obtain healthcare, and even start or sustain a
business. It also remains a critical tool for organizing for social
justice and civic engagement. The National Urban League looks forward
to continuing to work with members of the subcommittee to ensure IIJA
broadband funds are equitably distributed, interagency coordination is
facilitated to promote broadband adoption, and proposals are developed
to secure continued funding for critical programs that address access
to economic opportunities, affordability, and broadband adoption.
Sincerely,
Marc H. Morial,
President and Chief Executive Officer,
National Urban League.
______
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Table of Contents
FOREWORD
A CALL TO ACTION: STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CHAPTER 1 Where Do We Go from Here with Broadband: Chaos or
Community?
CHAPTER 2 The Economic Case for Digital Equity and
Inclusion
CHAPTER 3 Closing the Broadband Availability Gap
CHAPTER 4 Closing the Broadband Adoption Gap
CHAPTER 5 Closing the Affordability Gap
CHAPTER 6 Closing the Access to Economic Opportunity and
Participation Gap
CHAPTER 7 Closing the Utilization Gap
CHAPTER 8 Workforce Development
CHAPTER 9 Health Care
CHAPTER 10 Reimagining Connected Education
CHAPTER 11 Higher Education and a Research and Development
Agenda
CHAPTER 12 General Government Services
CHAPTER 13 Civic Engagement
CHAPTER 14 Institutionalizing Digital Equity and Inclusion
in the Policy Process
CONCLUSION The Fierce Urgency of Connecting Now
ENDNOTES
FOREWORD
MARC H. MORIAL
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE
For decades, the National Urban League has warned of dangers of a
persistent digital divide, some obvious and others more subtle but
equally troubling. We've reinforced those warnings with our Digital
Inclusion Index, providing statistical evidence related to one
foundational question: ``Are the new job, business and educational
opportunities created by increased digitization of our world being
equally shared?''
The answer, sadly, remains no. But despite that evidence and those
warnings, government actions to address the divide have been at best
modest and intermittent.
Then COVID-19 hit. The pandemic has accelerated an already-speedy
migration to ``remote everything,'' particularly for such essential
activities as employment, health care, and education. The benefits of
being connected grew even faster, as did the costs to communities who
were not connected.
COVID-19 proved that broadband was no longer a nicety. It had
become a necessity.
2020 also witnessed the brutal murder of George Floyd. Tens of
millions of Americans saw with clearer eyes what the National Urban
League and the people it serves have long known: that the legacy of
slavery and systemic racism still plagues America.
These two crises flowed together in demonstrating how acutely the
costs of disconnection disparately impacted communities of color. To
its credit, many Americans raised their voices in calling on not just
their neighbors, but also political actors, policymakers, and corporate
leaders, to all address the need for digital equity and inclusion.
Recognizing that America needed a comprehensive plan to address the
problem, the National Urban League called upon dozens of experts in a
wide range of fields and collected their recommendations for how
America could use the tools of the information economy to create a more
equitable and inclusive economy and society, solving the problem those
same tools had, in part, created.
The result is the Lewis Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and
Inclusion. It is named for, and inspired by, the life of Lewis Howard
Latimer (1848-1928), a Black American draftsman, who made
groundbreaking contributions in his work with, among others, Alexander
Graham Bell and Thomas Edison. Just as telephony and electricity
changed the world in Latimer's time, digitization is changing ours, and
we should act to assure that everyone has the opportunity to contribute
to and benefit from that change.
This plan addresses ``the three A's''--availability, adoption, and
access to economic opportunity. Availability means that a home
broadband service is available to all communities, including
communities of color. Adoption means that households in these
communities have subscribed to a broadband service. Access to economic
opportunity means the industry must employ a diverse workforce and
provide business opportunities to communities of color. Millions of
American homes, businesses and other enterprises cannot fully
participate in 21st-century society because we as a country have not
adequately addressed those three A's.
Our goal in producing the Latimer Plan is to offer not only a
comprehensive and detailed analysis of the problems of digital inequity
and exclusion but, more important, to provide specific, detailed, and
pragmatic solutions to these harms, organized as an integrated set of
both strategic and tactical plans. Our proposals require action and
collaboration across multiple institutions, public and private, and
across all levels of jurisdiction. But there is no silver bullet.
The Latimer Plan, though comprehensive, will not be the last word
or the only approach worthy of consideration. But whatever elements
make up the ultimate solution, government must act quickly to assure
that the essential goals of digital equity and inclusion are met: that
there are broadband networks everywhere, that everyone can use and
afford them, that we utilize those networks to improve the delivery of
essential services, and that everyone has access to new economic
opportunities and the ability to participate in the continuing growth
of the digital economy. We offer the Latimer Plan to serve as the
foundation for accomplishing those critical and urgent goals and
accelerating their achievement in the next few years.
______
A CALL TO ACTION:
STATEMENT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
EDWARD ``SMITTY'' SMITH
SENIOR DIRECTOR OF THE LEWIS LATIMER PLAN FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND
INCLUSION
Our nation's vast resources and technological capabilities have
never been greater, nor has the need for all Americans to be connected.
It is time for us to acknowledge and embrace the reality that achieving
digital equity and inclusion in the United States is not optional, nor
is it charity. It is an existential imperative for a healthier, better
educated, economically stronger country. The plan we outline herein is
one step in the policy process toward achieving this goal, but it is
only part of a much greater effort that will require us to marshal
forces across government, non-profits, academia, and private
enterprises to use technology to finally deliver on some of the old
promises that our Nation has failed to keep.
My father was a District of Columbia public school teacher who, in
the early 1980s, taught himself COBOL, an old computer programming
language, launching him into a career in government as an IT specialist
and network engineer. At a time when computers were a rarity in the
D.C. public schools, he realized early that computer literacy would
soon become an indispensable skillset in our classrooms and beyond. At
home, he taught himself how to program and then how to build entire
computer systems and networks--our home was always filled with modems,
motherboards, and monitors. At school, he started offering computer
literacy classes to other teachers, most of whom had never used a
computer before, and developed materials and curricula for those
teachers to teach computer literacy themselves.
From as early as I can remember, I was taught that computers and
connectivity were essential technologies that could help create
opportunity for anyone who could access them, afford them, and knew how
to use them. This lesson has resonated with me throughout my life and,
nearly three decades later, when I joined the Obama Administration, I
had the opportunity to put these teachings to work designing and
implementing programs that would help provide broadband to millions.
However, years later, one of the broadband grants we funded during
my time in the Administration generated a report on the state of the
digital divide in my hometown of Washington, D.C. What that 2015 report
found was that, even in the heart of the Nation's capital, over 160,000
residents remained without broadband at home. Furthermore, adoption
rates in the poorer, largely Black American parts of the city where I
grew up and where my father taught, trailed rates in more affluent
parts of the city by over twenty percent. D.C. had grown larger and
more prosperous but, as always, the poor were left behind.
Today, the rates of adoption have improved in my old neighborhood,
but not nearly enough. Failings of digital equity and inclusion
persist, and, in our country's lower-income communities, both rural and
urban, those without broadband continue to languish in a state of
digital poverty that compounds preexisting inequities and prevents them
for fully participating in our increasingly connected society. My
father saw both the opportunity of connectivity and the danger of being
unconnected before the Internet revolutionized how we work, learn,
play, and communicate. Larry Irving saw the danger in the 1990s when he
coined the term the ``digital divide.'' The team that drafted the
National Broadband Plan in 2010 presented a prescription for how to
close the divide. And Tom Wheeler leveraged the Federal Communications
Commission's resources and expertise to help make parts of that plan a
reality.
But, for all of our efforts, of millions still remain unconnected,
even as the consequences of digital poverty are greater than ever.
Today's crisis is the COVID-19 pandemic and economic and social
turmoil. Tomorrow's crisis will test us further. But what is certain is
that, from now on, the cost of being unconnected will be your
livelihood and may be your very life. That is a price that no American
should have to pay when we have the means and the knowhow to connect
everyone.
What we present in this plan is a not simply a blueprint, or a
prescription. It is a call to action. The time to act is now and the
costs of inaction are grave. However, the real answers will not come
from the pages of any report but, rather, from our ability to work
together across sectors to direct our collective expertise and
resources towards solving a broader societal problem that harms all of
us, both the connected and unconnected. This plan intends to set in
motion a greater effort, realized through legislation, regulation,
executive action, corporate investment, and public-private
partnerships.
Some of the plan's proposals will become new programs, others will
be transformed into something better, and some will end up on the
cutting room floor. But what is clear is that we can no longer afford
halfway solutions that exclude tens of millions of our fellow citizens.
All our communities and neighbors need to be connected and they need to
be connected as soon as possible. Thank you for having this
conversation with us. We look forward to working together.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was, in every way, a collaborative effort, drawing on
a diverse and deep wealth of experience and expertise in the many
different fields discussed in the Latimer Plan. In light of that
collaboration--designed to enhance the discussion of how to best
advance the goals of digital equity and inclusion--it is important to
note that the views expressed in this paper are solely those of the
National Urban League and the authors of the specific chapters, and not
any sponsors of this plan or any others who assisted in this effort.
Further, the views expressed in the chapters are the views of the
authors in their individual capacity, and should not be attributed to
any institution with which they are affiliated.
The first acknowledgements must go to the team at the National
Urban League itself. Marc H. Morial, the CEO and President of the
National Urban League, provided critical leadership in framing and
pressing the project forward. Nicole Lazare, the former General Counsel
of the League, initiated the discussions and structured the Plan, while
Clint Odom, the former Senior Vice-President for Policy and Advocacy,
shepherded the project through its initial drafting. Joi Chaney, the
League's Executive Director for its Washington Bureau and Senior Vice
President for Policy and Advocacy, assisted by Danielle Davis, the
League's Tech and Telecom Fellow, took the project over the finish
line. The League's Cara Morris and Robert Pierre provided additional
support.
The project also benefitted enormously from the support provided to
the League by Edward ``Smitty'' Smith, a partner at the firm DLA Piper,
who served as the Senior Director of the Plan.
Of course any discussion of digital equity and inclusion builds on
the foundations laid by many others, including, but not limited to,
Larry Irving, the former head of NTIA who warned of, and coined the
phrase, the ``digital divide'' more than two decades ago, Brookings
Scholar Nicol Turner-Lee, the work of certain Think Tanks, particularly
The Multicultural Media, Telecom and Internet Council (MMTC), founded
by David Honig and now under the leadership of Maurita Coley, and the
Joint Center for Economic and Political Studies and its President
Spencer Overton. In addition, this document was constructed on various
analyses of these issues by many at the FCC but most particularly
former Commissioner Mignon Clyburn and current Commissioner Geoffrey
Starks.
Larry Downes, the author of several best-selling books on business
and technology, served as the Editor-in-Chief, and performed an
extraordinary service in pulling together a diverse set of
contributions and making them all better. Melissa Turcois, an associate
at DLA Piper, also assisted with the drafting and editorial functions,
particularly in weaving together feedback and suggestions from a number
of outside readers.
While all the chapters reflect the input of a number of sources,
there were principal authors for each of the chapters. These were as
follows:
Chapter 1: Blair Levin, Senior Non-Resident Fellow,
Brookings Institution, Metropolitan Policy Project
Chapter 2: Larry Downes
Chapter 3: Paul de Sa of Quadra Partners and Carol Mattey of
Mattey Consulting
Chapter 4: John B. Horrigan, PhD, and Angela Siefer,
Executive Director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance
Chapter 5: Blair Levin
Chapter 6: Melissa Turcois
Chapter 7: Blair Levin and Larry Downes
Chapter 8: Marcella Gadson, formerly with MMTC (now with
CTIA)
Chapter 9: Kerry McDermott, MPH
Chapter 10: Steve Midgley, Elise Kohn, and Whitney Whealdon
of Learning Tapestry and Derek Mitchell of Partners in School
Innovation.
Chapter 11: Lev Gonick, Chief Information Officer, Arizona
State University
Chapter 12: Rob Atkinson and Daniel Castro of the
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Chapter 13: Blair Levin
Chapter 14: Professor Matt Perault and his Duke University
class on technology policy, including Mihir Bellamkonda, James
Eide, Lee Foster, Charlie Graham, Zachary Silverman Guffey,
Abdur Rehman, and Niharika Vattikonda
Conclusion: Blair Levin and Larry Downes
We received helpful comments, criticisms, and ideas from a number
of different sources. These include, but were not limited to, New
Street Research, particularly Jonathan Chaplin and Philip Burnett, who
helped us understand market trends related to both the availability and
the adoption gap; CTC Technology and Energy, particularly Joanne Hovis
and Jacob Levin, who provided insight into state and local efforts to
close the availability and adoption gaps, as well as the importance of
credit issues; MMTC, particularly David Honig and Maurita Coley, who
provided insight on the overall plan and particularly helped review the
sections on adoption and workforce development; Peter Bowen and his
colleagues at Bain & Company, Patrick Dupree, Mark Bower, and Austin
Beck, who shared important insights into the broadband speeds and
quality of service metrics that consumers were relying on in the COVID
era; the Heartland Forward Foundation, particularly Angie Cooper, John
Bailey and Matt Yale, who shared their insights from their own work on
similar issues; Common Sense Media, particularly Daniel Weiss and Amina
Fazllulah, and EducationSuperhighway, particularly Evan Marwell,
provided significant data and insights about digital education
generally and addressing the ``homework gap'' specifically; Shira
Hollander, Samantha Burch, and Ariel Levin of the American Hospital
Association assisted with understanding the state of healthcare in
light of COVID-19; and the Back to Work Project, and particularly John
Schnur, who assisted with the workforce development analysis. Professor
Stuart Brotman, of the University of Tennessee and the Wilson Center,
provided his expertise on privacy issues. We also benefitted from the
insights of a number of former FCC officials who had worked on these
issues, including Tom Wheeler, Gigi Sohn, Ruth Milkman and Roger
Sherman, and Jim Kohlenberger, who had worked on these issues in two
previous administrations.
In addition, Robert F. Smith, of Vista Equity Partners, and his
Chief of Staff Ami Desi helped shape our approach and assisted in a
number of outreach efforts, Jonathan Chambers of Connexon shared his
considerable knowledge of the state of play of broadband in rural
America, Tom Kalil of Schmidt Futures assisted in thinking through
improving research and job training through AI, Dori Glanz of Manatt
Consulting assisted in developing ideas about Medicaid, Karen Kornbluh
of the German Marshal Fund and Professor Ellen Goodman of Rutgers Law
School provided their expertise on civic engagement, and Hannah Levin
provided the research for the recommendation on online tutoring. Peter
Christy provided expertise in Internet engineering and network
architecture. The economists Professor Greg Rosston of the Stanford
Institute for Economic Policy Research and Scott Wallsten of the
Technology Policy Institute were generous in sharing ideas based on
their recent research on adoption. Bruce Mehlman, one of DC's premier
experts on the intersection of technology and policy and the Co-
Chairman of the Internet Innovation Alliance, graciously used that
expertise in helping us road test some of the ideas in the Plan. We
also are grateful to the Aspen Digital team, particularly its Executive
Director Vivian Schiller, for their advice and for hosting a session
with a wide variety of stakeholders to discuss the issues raised in the
Plan.
The development of the Plan would not have been possible without
the generous funding of the following organizations: Alphabet, Amazon,
AT&T, Charter Communications, Comcast, Crown Castle, DISH, Facebook,
Google, Microsoft, Nokia, Qualcomm, Schmidt Futures, Starry, T-Mobile,
and Verizon. In addition, we benefited from the contribution of
substantial pro bono support from the law firm of DLA Piper. The Glen
Echo Group, particularly Ellen Satterwhite, also provided pro bono
support in a variety of ways. Again, the views expressed in this paper
are those of the National Urban League and the authors of the specific
outside advisors to this plan.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Ten years ago, the National Broadband Plan observed that as ``more
aspects of daily life move online and offline alternatives disappear,
the range of choices available to people without broadband narrows.
Digital exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized
groups.'' In light of these trends, that plan warned ``the cost of
digital exclusion is large and growing.''
Unfortunately, only modest efforts to address those costs have been
expended in the last decade. Now, as the COVID-19 pandemic accelerates
a shift to ``remote everything,'' the costs of exclusion have grown
even larger. The need for policymakers to act has become even more
urgent, compelling us to ask, how can the tools of the information
economy be employed to create a more equitable and inclusive society?
The answer lies in accomplishing four big, but achievable, goals:
Deploying networks everywhere.
Getting everyone connected.
Creating new economic opportunities to participate in the
growth of the digital economy.
Using the networks to improve how we deliver essential
services, in particular in workforce development, health care
and education.
The National Urban League, working with other civil rights
organizations and public policy experts, has commissioned the Lewis
Latimer Plan for Digital Equity and Inclusion (the ``Plan''), a
detailed and comprehensive agenda to reach these goals and erase
several persistent and dangerous gaps:
The Availability Gap. For millions of American homes, businesses
and other enterprises, there is no available broadband network capable
of allowing them to participate fully in 21st century life. This is
generally a rural problem, where higher capital costs are required to
reach fewer customers. In sparsely populated areas of the country,
private capital alone is unable to economically justify the investment
needed to build high-speed broadband infrastructure.
Currently, the Federal government has not gathered the necessary
data to accurately define and identify what constitutes an unserved
area, nor does it have a good map of the locations where no networks
are available. Further, the current system of subsidizing high-cost
deployments is under significant stress, unable to fund the necessary
build-out for many years, if not decades.
To Close the Availability Gap, the Plan recommends that Congress
provide the FCC with sufficient appropriations to fund capital expenses
necessary to deploy broadband networks to all Americans.
The Plan also recommends that the FCC:
Re-examine, based on network usage during the COVID-19
crisis, the performance standards below which an area is deemed
unserved by broadband at home, and above which subsidized
networks are required to perform in order to qualify for
capital funding support;
Produce an accurate map of broadband availability,
pinpointing unserved by broadband services;
Eliminate the Eligible Telecommunications Company (ETC)
requirement, which disqualifies existing and future broadband
providers who could otherwise deliver service quickly and
efficiently;
Produce a set of best practices for reducing deployment
costs and times; and
Hold a series of reverse auctions to allocate subsidies
necessary to close the Availability Gap. These investments
should be based on technology-neutral criteria, supporting a
mix of solutions that can be rapidly deployed. Further, the FCC
should adopt stronger guardrails for the short form process to
examine more closely whether an entity seeking to bid has the
actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments. Enterprises should not be
allowed to bid on the basis of unproven technology.
In addition, the Plan recommends that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), which has
information on its website about dozens of federal programs that
support broadband deployment efforts, provide a search engine that
enables stakeholders to more effectively find the programs that serve
their needs, and, to the extent feasible, create a common application
that enables those applying for funding from more than one program to
save time and effort on the application process.
The Adoption Gap. Even among those Americans for whom a broadband
network is available, there are still tens of millions who have not
adopted broadband in their homes. Indeed, in terms of number of
Americans affected, the Adoption Gap is approximately three times
larger than the Availability Gap. There are two principal causes of the
Adoption Gap. One is a lack of digital readiness. A second, and more
significant cause, is the unaffordability of entry level broadband
services for a significant portion of the American population.
To Address Digital Readiness. Digital readiness refers to the
skills and equipment needed to effectively use information and
communications technology to find, evaluate, create, and communicate
online. The lack of such skills is a significant barrier for certain
demographic groups, hindering their ability to adopt and fully utilize
broadband at home.
The Plan's principal recommendation for addressing digital
readiness is to create a national Office of Digital Equity to help
coordinate training targeted to demographic groups with the lowest
rates of adoption.
Among specific recommendations for the Office, the Plan proposes:
Establishing a Digital Navigators Corps to help unconnected
persons solve a wide range of adoption issues;
Creating an Online Digital Readiness Portal to provide every
American with access to free, age-appropriate curricula that
teaches digital skills and enhances digital readiness, offered
in multiple languages;
Issuing reports on the effectiveness of different digital
readiness strategies.
To Address Affordability. The principal government program
addressing broadband affordability today is Lifeline, which provides a
$9.25 monthly subsidy to qualifying low-income households for
communications services. There is a broad consensus that Lifeline is
deeply flawed, with too small a subsidy, ineffective distribution, and
reliance for funding on an unsustainable model that is based on a
regressive tax on traditional telephone services. Given these limits,
Lifeline today is used almost exclusively for mobile, rather than in-
home broadband services.
While mobile services have significant value, broadband at home
creates better opportunities with enormous public benefits, benefits
that today are not being captured. We all gain, for example, when the
unemployed can train online for new careers, and use the same tools
everyone else does to search, apply for, and interview for new jobs,
getting them back in the workforce quickly. Likewise, everyone benefits
when at-risk communities can receive telehealth at home, improving
community health outcomes and lowering costs for government medical
programs. Finally, everyone wins when all children have the tools to do
their homework and engage in online learning in their homes, improving
educational achievements.
To capture these benefits, the Lifeline program requires
substantial overhaul. The simplest solution, and the approach we favor,
would be for Congress to appropriate funds for the FCC to create a
permanent version of the Emergency Broadband Benefit that Congress
passed earlier this year, which the FCC is currently implementing.
Alternatively, Congress could create a new program to address both
mobile and broadband at home needs to assure access to essential
government services for workforce development, healthcare, and
education. While the program we propose would not have the simplicity--
an important virtue in public policy design--of making the EBB
permanent, it would have advantages in terms of distribution and cost
savings.
The new program, which we call Lifeline+, would include a mobile
benefit and a broadband a home benefit, which consists of three related
programs:
1. LifelineMobile, which would continue the current Lifeline subsidy
for basic voice and mobile functions with some limited data,
albeit with comprehensive reforms; and
2. LifelineHome, composed of:
a. LifelineJobs, which would provide broadband at home to the
unemployed, empowering them to utilize online programs to
upgrade their skills, as well as search, apply and
interview for jobs;
b. LifelineMed, which would provide broadband at home to low-
income persons, to utilize the full suite of telehealth
services; and
c. LifelineEd, which would provide broadband at home to low-income
families with K-12 schoolchildren and members of their
households, to utilize all forms of digital learning.
All eligible families or individuals would be eligible for both the
mobile and one broadband at home benefit. Use of the broadband at home
benefit would not be restricted, so that regardless of the specific
service, the person or family could use broadband for any purpose.
The Plan proposes that LifelineMobile and LifelineEd be funded by
direct Congressional appropriations. LifelineJobs and LifelineMed
should be funded through mandates added to existing government
unemployment and medical insurance programs. Providing beneficiaries of
these programs with broadband would, if properly designed, largely pay
for itself in the form of savings to the delivery of critical services
currently provided only through in-person activities.
Broadband provided through one of the LifelineHome programs will
likely support several program goals. For example, approximately 70
percent of school children without broadband at home and who would be
eligible for a benefit under LifelineEd are also covered by Medicaid,
and would therefore already be eligible for LifelineMed. Providing
broadband through Medicaid and other government health insurance plans
would also improve the distribution of the benefit.
As with infrastructure support, the Plan recommends eliminating the
ETC requirement for Lifeline service providers, and recommends that
support be provided directly to beneficiaries in the form of any
efficient means, such as a debit card, to enhance consumer control and
choice and to reduce the possibility of waste and fraud. We note that
the FCC will gain experience through the Emergency Broadband Benefit
program, and such experience should inform any ultimate permanent
broadband benefit.
The Access to Economic Opportunity and Participation Gap. Several
decades ago, famed venture capitalist John Doerr said the personal
computer industry's growth from zero to $100 billion in 10 years was
``the greatest legal accumulation of wealth in history.'' Subsequently
he had to amend his comment. Noting that the Internet dwarfed the PC
revolution by going from zero to $400 billion in five years, Doerr said
``There are waves and then there is a tsunami.'' That tsunami has
continued. Today the top five American companies by market
capitalization (Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) all
rode the tsunami Doerr described.
Unfortunately, opportunities for wealth accumulation are not
equitably distributed. Jobs, especially the higher paying jobs in the
technology industry, have not been filled by Blacks and Latinxs in any
significant way. The National Urban League's 2018 State of Black
America Report found that of the 40,000 employees of four major Silicon
Valley technology firms, only 1,000 were Black; the number for Latinx
is paltry. Moreover, business inclusion and opportunity in the growing
tech sector has lagged miserably for Blacks and Latinx.
This is not a new problem. The person for whom this Plan is named,
Lewis Latimer, was a free Black patent-holder and the son of slaves,
whose achievements were critical to the success of his employers,
Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell. Unfortunately, but typically,
while Latimer was a key contributor to Edison's and Bell's seminal
wealth-creating inventions, he had no ownership stake in the vast
businesses they spawned.
We need to break that historic pattern. While much of the Latimer
Plan is focused on assuring that all Americans, regardless of race,
income, or location, have the tools and skills to fully participate in
the economy and society of the 21st Century, we also want to close gaps
that limit opportunities to participate meaningfully in the business of
value creation as broadband and broadband-enabled enterprises continue
to innovate, grow, and prosper. We must also ensure that job
opportunities are available for the country's growing Black and Latinx
communities at every level in the technology and technology-related
business sectors.
The causes of limited access to economic opportunity and inclusion
are complex, but the gap can be closed with public and private
intention, leaving our Nation stronger, more equitable, and more
prosperous. In truth, this gap was created by legal and historic
barriers to capital access and legal barriers to full citizenship and
opportunity. In the last decades of the 20th century, government and
industry began to address some of these barriers, but these efforts
lack sustainability or face legal challenges that raise the specter of
``reverse racism.'' The televised murder or George Perry Floyd, Jr. and
the Black Lives Matter movement have prompted a renewed interest in a
holistic government response and intentionality by many corporations to
close the economic opportunity and participation gap. Corporate
America, in a number of ways, has accepted accountability to ingrain
diversity, equity, and inclusion into their corporate DNA, including
creating racially and gender diverse corporate boards, staffing, C-
suites, procurement, philanthropy, and community investment.
Civil rights organizations, led by the National Urban League, have
pioneered the negotiation of written memorandums of understanding with
several communication companies to set forth goals, timetables, and
initiatives to achieve greater diversity, equity, and inclusion. As a
nation, we should move forward with new vigor and intentionality in
utilizing these techniques to drive towards greater economic
opportunity for those who have historically been left behind.
To close the economic opportunity and participation gap, industry,
government, and community organizations must work together to improve
and increase commitments to racial equity in corporate board
membership, staffing, the C-suite, procurement, philanthropy, and
community investment. To facilitate this collaboration, the Plan
recommends:
Infrastructure. As part of any future infrastructure
legislation, Congress must include mandates for companies that
will directly benefit from increased Federal investment in
infrastructure to improve their performance in providing access
to economic opportunity and participation in the categories
noted above.
Measure Diversity. The Department of Commerce and the FCC
should collect information that allows the government and the
public to understand and evaluate how the private sector, and
the technology and related sectors in particular, are improving
economic opportunity and participation in the categories noted
above.
Incentivize Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC,
the Small Business Administration, and the Securities and
Exchange Commission should evaluate annually and report to
Congress on measures that could be adopted to enhance the
performance of private enterprise in improving economic
opportunity and participation in the categories noted above.
Highlight Sustainable Success. The Department of Commerce,
the FCC, the Small Business Administration, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission should publish an annual report on best
practices for enhancing the performance of private enterprise
in improving economic opportunity and participation in the
categories noted above.
The Utilization Gap. Deploying networks everywhere and assuring
that everyone has the skills and means to connect are necessary first
steps. But they are not sufficient to achieve digital equity and
inclusion. We also need to increase the utilization of digital
platforms, which requires substantial improvement to essential
government services offered online. The COVID-19 crisis has forced our
economy and society to run a massive--if unplanned--experiment in
``remote everything.'' While that experiment has produced some positive
trends, including greater utilization of telehealth, it has also shown
that we have a long way to go in other areas, such as education. We
need to be more intentional in developing new capabilities, to assure
that they lift up, rather than disadvantage, low-income persons and
communities of color. The Plan details recommendations on policies that
can, in conjunction with universal availability and adoption, improve
the delivery of essential services.
Workforce Development. Governments should improve digital tools
that enable people interested in every job type to upgrade their skills
and to search, apply, and interview for jobs, and ensure that small
businesses can use broadband-based tools to improve their prospects.
The Plan makes several recommendations, including:
The White House and Congress should expand access to digital
resources and technical assistance for enterprises located in
rural areas and among communities of color;
The Department of Labor should develop more broadband,
technology, and communications sector-related registered
apprenticeship training programs;
The Federal government should provide incentives for
companies, states, municipalities, nonprofit organizations, and
the private sector to create and scale new workforce
development and digital skills training programs;
Federal agencies should increase and improve data collection
related to workforce development; and
States should modernize their unemployment benefits systems
to more effectively offer unemployed citizens access to
opportunities for future employment.
Health Care. With healthcare services are increasingly provided
online, government must assure that everyone has access to user-
friendly, health-enabling tools that connect them to high-quality,
affordable health services and medical information they can understand.
To do so, the Plan recommends that Federal and state governments
act to reduce disparities in access to health care services by:
Adopting consistent policies across state Medicaid programs;
Removing geographic and originating site restrictions;
Removing limitations on eligible services, providers, and
facilities, and removing unnecessary restrictions on
practitioners eligible to provide telehealth services; and
Funding programs supporting digital health care
infrastructure and technical assistance, digital health
literacy, and workforce diversity.
In addition, the Plan recommends:
The Department of Health and Human Services should allocate
funding to develop, recruit, and retain health care
professionals from underrepresented groups; and
The FCC should a modify the Connected Care Pilot Program and
the Telehealth Program to focus more on improving health
outcomes for low-income communities and communities of color.
K-12 Education. Technology is creating a new educational
infrastructure with a vast expanse of new, diverse, and relevant
opportunities. Unfortunately, uneven implementation of these
technologies is widening rather than narrowing existing gaps in
educational outcomes. We must assure that new educational
infrastructure provides all students with equal access to the tools and
content of fast-evolving digital learning. Further, we need to provide
teachers the support they need to enable students to maximize the value
of digital content.
To do so, the Plan proposes to:
Ensure students have support for digital learning from
teachers and other appropriately trained adults, such as online
tutors;
Invest in a Federal research and development agenda focused
on advancing new models of technology-empowered teaching and
learning that promote equity and improve outcomes for all
students;
Invest in culturally responsive and relevant online learning
tools;
Reform funding systems to ensure adequate and equitable
distribution of resources, particularly to advance digital
learning;
Improve access for students of color and others to
educational experiences that improve their ability to utilize
technology; and
Develop a National Strategic Agenda for Education Technology
Research & Development, focused on improving outcomes for
students of color.
Higher Education and R&D. Colleges and universities, with some of
the best broadband networks in the world, remain an underutilized
resource for digital equity and inclusion. We also underfund research
and development in improving teaching and training.
To address those shortfalls, the Plan recommends:
Using university resources to help institutions servicing
those who have been disadvantaged by failings of digital equity
and inclusion;
Focusing future research on understanding how digital
education can improve outcomes and overcome persistent
performance gaps;
Understanding and promoting best practices for using digital
education to build a more equitable and inclusive society; and
Increasing efforts to identify, develop, test, and deploy
applications of digital educational technologies that foster
economic and social mobility.
Government Services. Low-income and minority communities would
benefit significantly from greater online access to government
services. Many government information systems, however, are outdated.
Further, budget gaps lead to failures in upgrading and maintaining
digital infrastructure. Overall, governments must systematically
improve their ability to use technology to deliver services.
To address these issues, the Plan recommends that federal, state,
and local governments:
Optimize government websites for mobile use;
Establish a one-stop-shop for citizens to access and control
personally-identifiable information held by government
agencies; Improve automated online government customer support;
Take steps to eliminate data poverty, the social and
economic inequalities that result from a lack of collection or
use of data about an individual or community:
Require all government forms be provided digitally for data
entry, signing, and submission; and
Modernize and secure existing government systems, and
facilitate low-contact and remote access to government websites
and services.
Civic Engagement. Failings of digital equity and inclusion limit
many Americans from full engagement in the political and civic lives of
their communities. Misinformation is overwhelming accurate information
and poisoning the digital conversation, particularly for communities of
color. Online platforms have created new problems related to micro-
targeting in advertising, algorithmic bias, digital redlining, and
other uses that make the Internet problematic for communities of color.
To address these problems, the Plan recommends that:
Congress:
Hold a series of civil rights-focused hearings with high-
level executives from companies that have been major
repositories of disinformation;
Increase investment in reliable, relevant, and trusted
information for underserved communities by grants through the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local noncommercial
stations, for journalism by and for underserved communities;
and
Restore funding to the Office of Technology Assessment.
The White House:
Empanel a commission to study how information on COVID-19
was made publicly available, how this information affected
societal response, and what should be done to limit the impact
of false and dangerously misleading information moving forward,
while preserving First Amendment rights and values;
Promote the establishment of a private industry-led
information accuracy certification body.
The FTC:
Establish social media best practices;
Propose recommendations with respect to limiting the
potential damage of political microtargeting; and
Mandate real-time ad transparency and access to archives.
Institutionalization. Achieving digital equity and inclusion
requires a sustained, systemic, and appropriately resourced effort that
is highly reliant on intergovernmental coordination and collaboration.
Currently, policymakers do not have the tools or data to monitor and
evaluate efforts to close the gaps identified in the Plan. To address
these needs, the Plan recommends that the Federal government:
Examine biases that could affect its existing collection,
analysis, and interpretation of data;
Collect the data necessary to review use of governmental
information and digital services by each population it serves,
and track how constituents interact with each agency;
Partner with state and local governments to collect relevant
data, including as part of efforts to expand broadband
availability, adoption, and utilization carried out at the
local level; and
Convene an annual National Digital Inclusion Summit to
review progress, determine key barriers to progress, and adjust
policies, as necessary.
Conclusion. While the COVID crisis appears to be ending, the need
for digital equity and inclusion is not. Indeed, the economic and
societal trends the health crisis accelerated make the task more
urgent. We need a surge of government action that produces sustainable
results.
______
Chapter 1.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE WITH BROADBAND: CHAOS OR COMMUNITY?
In 1967, the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King isolated himself in a
house in Jamaica to write about the crossroads he believed the Civil
Rights movement faced. The resulting book, tragically his last, is
titled: Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community? While King
thought the movement could look back with pride on its many
accomplishments, he candidly acknowledged the mountains yet to climb,
and the fissures in the movement that might prevent future progress, or
even lead the movement backwards.
Written in the wake of substantial legislative victories, including
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, King
soberly acknowledged that ``Laws only declare rights; they do not
deliver them.'' The book attempts to chart a path for America, and the
world, to move from a society that continued to degrade and exclude
millions to a society comprising a ``beloved community'' that valued
and offered opportunity to all.
Much has changed in the United States since then, but the battles
that King fought so valiantly continue to rage. As he said then, and as
he might say today, ``The fight is far from over, because it is neither
won, as some assert, nor lost, as the calamity-ridden declare.''
The battlefield, however, has changed. One of the most significant
shifts from King's time is how broadband has emerged as the commons of
collaboration in our modern economy, in our society, and in obtaining
access to critical services such as health care, education, and job
training.
Those skilled in using that commons have enjoyed extraordinary
gains in the past several decades. But those who have been kept off the
digital platform have experienced exactly the opposite. Ten years ago,
the National Broadband Plan observed that as ``more aspects of daily
life move online and offline alternatives disappear, the range of
choices available to people without broadband narrows. Digital
exclusion compounds inequities for historically marginalized groups.''
In light of these trends, that plan warned the cost of
``[D]igital exclusion is large and growing. For individuals,
the cost manifests itself in the form of lost opportunities. As
more aspects of daily life relocate online and offline
alternatives disappear, the range of choices available to
people without broadband narrows. Digital exclusion compounds
inequities for historically marginalized groups. People with
low incomes, people with disabilities, racial and ethnic
minorities, people living on Tribal lands and people living in
rural areas are less likely to have broadband at home.''
The Plan further projected that ``our accelerating reliance on
digital technology appears to be driving greater disparities; left
unaddressed, those gaps will likely grow.''
Sadly, despite inspiring public and private efforts to close the
gaps, disparities in digital life have grown. Worse, the costs to the
digital have-nots have become even more evident with COVID-19. A
growing ``homework gap,'' which kept millions of school children from
being able to use the Internet to complete schoolwork at home, has
become a total ``education gap,'' where they are unable even to attend
classes. The traditional summer slide in educational achievement--which
could be mitigated through a thoughtful summer online tutoring
program--is becoming a catastrophic COVID slide, with unconnected
students falling even farther behind.
A similar story can be told about healthcare. We see the problem in
the specific problem of Inequality in broadband access leading to
inequality in obtaining the vaccine for COVID-19. But the relationship
between access to broadband and access to healthcare is not a short-
term story but rather, part of what will be a critical long-term trend.
Telehealth, which has become a critical necessity since the start
of the COVID-19 pandemic, putting health care out of reach for those
without home broadband. A recent study found that only 38.6 percent of
the people who live more than a 70-minute drive from a primary care
physician subscribe to an Internet connection capable of handling
telehealth services.
Another illustration of how our country is paying a cost for our
failure to close broadband gaps was the scene in Florida at the outset
of the health crisis, with hundreds of people risking their safety to
line up to obtain an unemployment form, because the state's website
crashed. In employment, as well as other critical government services,
we could point to other, similar examples, all of which make painfully
clear that the public sector is still far behind where it should be in
terms of providing services over the Internet.
As these examples suggest, ten years since the publication of the
National Broadband Plan, it is undisputable that Internet services and
applications have evolved to provide significant benefits, general and
specific, to millions of users. In key areas of daily life, broadband
service is quickly becoming a necessity, a reality made more urgent
amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Those who, for whatever reasons, are not
active Internet users are not just missing out on the latest
innovations in entertainment, home automation, and electronic commerce.
Increasingly, they are shut out of basic access to essential
applications in education, health care, and employment services, among
others.
While access to broadband is the latest challenge in the struggle
for equal opportunity, the technology itself offers new and innovative
avenues to achieving it.
Broadband can be a platform for significant economic, cultural, and
social transformation, overcoming distance and transcending the
limitations of one's physical surroundings. Because of how it scales,
the best applications for one can become available to everyone.
Ironically, however, Internet technologies, which have always
demonstrated tremendous potential to level playing fields and lower
costs, are disproportionately benefiting the most affluent Americans,
widening rather than closing social, economic, and political divides.
Digital equity and inclusion offers a means to achieve the more
perfect union our founders envisioned, and for which we must constantly
strive. By ``digital equity and inclusion,'' we mean the full
participation in digital life by virtually all Americans, using a home
broadband Internet service that is available, adopted, and affordable.
This document lays out an agenda for achieving that vision. It
recommends policies, programs, and strategic plans directed to a wide
range of public and private stakeholders, aimed at closing the gaps.
Our goal, quite simply, is to achieve digital equity and inclusion.
This Plan starts by asking how can we use the tools of the information
society to create a more equitable and inclusive economy and society?
It then answers with a comprehensive set of recommendations. It also
makes abundantly clear that if we do not act on this Plan our failure
will not simply leave us where we are today. It will result in the
situation getting much worse, not just for the digitally disconnected,
but for everyone.
The case for digital equity and inclusion is animated by the same
moral and political philosophy engrained in our country's founding
philosophy: that all are created equal, having the same rights to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is also grounded in an
economic understanding of the common good that King touched on in
writing that:
From time immemorial men have lived by the principle that
`self-preservation is the first law of life.' But this is a
false assumption. I would say that other preservation is the
first law of life. It is the first law of life precisely
because we cannot preserve self without being concerned about
preserving other selves. We are in the fortunate position of
having our deepest sense of morality coalesce with our self-
interest. In a real sense, all life is interrelated. The agony
of the poor impoverishes the rich; the betterment of the poor
enriches the rich. We are inevitably our brother's keeper
because we are our brother's brother. Whatever affects one
affects all directly.
While King uses the language of morality and biblical texts, there
is evidence to support his view embedded in the economics of networks.
The value of any network grows, according to Robert Metcalfe,
``proportional to the square of the number of nodes in the network.''
That is, the more users there are, the faster overall value increases
for everyone. Conversely, the exclusion of millions decreases the
potential value of the network many-fold, including if not especially
for those who are already connected.
While the Plan we propose is bold in its call for changes, we take
comfort in knowing the new Administration recognizes the importance of
equity in access to services and opportunities. As a recent Executive
Order mandates, the Federal government is now committed to pursuing ``a
comprehensive approach to advancing equity, including for people of
color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized,
and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.
Affirmatively advancing equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal
opportunity is now the responsibility of the whole of our government.
Because advancing equity requires a systematic approach to embedding
fairness in decision-making processes, executive departments and
agencies (agencies) must recognize and work to redress inequities in
their policies and programs that serve as barriers to equal
opportunity. By advancing equity across the Federal government, we can
create opportunities for the improvement of communities that have been
historically underserved, which benefits everyone.'' The Executive
Order further mandates that ``each agency must assess whether, and to
what extent, its programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to
opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved
groups.''
Such an assessment will inevitably find that today, and to an even
a greater extent in the future, those opportunities and benefits are
either best or exclusively provided online. It is not surprising that
in a report by the Partnership for Public Service on ``Federal Success
Stories from the COVID-19 Pandemic'', the exemplars of improving
service to customers all involved an online innovation. One example was
the Veterans' Administration developing a COVID-19 ``chatbot'' to
triage veterans based on their specific questions and needs. Another
was the CDC developing a coronavirus ``self-checker,'' used by over 13
million users, that assists people in checking their symptoms and
instructing them what to do next, reducing the burden on health care
systems across the country. These models, while deserving of praise,
are not available to those who are not online. Therefore, as discussed
throughout this Plan, a foundation stone of the efforts called for in
the Executive Order should be universal access to the tools of the
digital economy and society.
Businesses have also come to recognize that equity and inclusion
are critical for sustainable growth. Chapter Two describes in more
detail the economic imperatives to close persistent and significant
gaps in Internet use by Americans of color, those with lower
educational levels, lower income, and those who live in sparsely
populated areas of the country.
What are the critical gaps? We focus particular attention on four
distinct but interrelated challenges. While the pandemic has shined a
glaring spotlight on each of them, these gaps have persisted for at
least the past decade:
The Availability Gap. Broadband network availability is the most
basic pre-requisite to achieving digital equity and inclusion.
Unfortunately, millions of American homes, businesses, and other
enterprises cannot connect to a broadband network capable of allowing
them to fully participate in the economy, obtain an education and
health services, train, search, and apply for a job, and otherwise
participate in society. In Chapter 3, we propose a number of policies
that, if implemented, would close this gap within three years.
The Adoption Gap. Even among those Americans for whom a broadband
network is available, there are still tens of millions who have not
adopted broadband in their homes. In Chapter 4, we review the causes of
that gap, including digital literacy and digital readiness, and how
they can be overcome to assure that all families can both have and
benefit from broadband in their homes.
The Affordability Gap. For millions of Americans who do not
subscribe to broadband, the cost of service remains an overwhelming
obstacle to adoption. Though the current Lifeline program has been
adapted to subsidize broadband for the poorest households, legacy
features and other limitations of the program's basic design make it a
poor fit as a long-term and sustainable solution. In Chapter 5, we
propose more efficient funding and distribution mechanisms to close the
affordability gap within three years through a new program we call
Lifeline+.
The Access to Economic Opportunity and Participation Gap. While the
digital economy has created the greatest opportunity for wealth
accumulation in history, those opportunities are not equitably
distributed throughout society. This means that the jobs especially the
higher paying technology industry have not been filled by Blacks and
Latinxs in any significant way. The National Urban League's 2018 State
of Black America Report found that of the 40,000 employees of four
major Silicon Valley technology firms, only 1,000 were Blacks; the
number for Latinx is paltry. Moreover, business inclusion and
opportunity in the growing tech sector has lagged miserably for Blacks
and Latinxs. In Chapter 6, we address ways that the public and private
sectors, working together, can help close that gap.
There is an additional challenge, which while it receives less
attention in public policy debates, nonetheless presents a serious
obstacle to digital equity and inclusion. That is the challenge of
improving how we actually utilize the digital platform to improve
essential services for all. COVID-19 has forced our economy and society
to run a massive--if unplanned--experiment in ``remote everything.''
That experiment is yielding some positive trends, such as in the
utilization of telehealth, while also showing that we have a long way
to go to use the new capability more effectively, such as in education.
We need to be more intentional in developing these new capabilities
to assure that they lift up, rather than disadvantage, low-income and
communities of color. In Chapters 7 through 13, we propose specific and
detailed public and private actions to utilize broadband networks and
the applications that run on them to deliver essential services more
effectively and efficiently in health care, education, workforce
development, general government services, and civic engagement.
In designing policies to overcome the gaps, we have approached the
challenge in a technology-neutral fashion. We believe the availability
gap, for example, may be addressed through a number of different
technologies, including fiber, cable, hybrid wired networks, fixed
wireless, mobile or fixed cellular, Wi-Fi, and satellite. So long as
they facilitate digital equity and inclusion, and meet defined
standards for broadband service, we should be agnostic as to the
technology or technologies of preference.
The Plan is also provider neutral. ISPs can be commercial,
governmental, public/private, utility, or community-based, so long as
they deliver broadband that enables full participation.
While we see the Plan as critical for making progress towards a
more equitable and inclusive America, we recognize that the lack of
home broadband Internet services is only one of the many severe
challenges experienced by the poorest Americans. Millions today have
difficulty, especially during times of economic downturns, paying their
rent or mortgage or of having enough food to eat. Many live in
substandard housing. According to the U.S. census, 1.6 million
Americans still live in homes that do not have running water. Home
electricity is a prerequisite for using any Internet service. Yet many
low-income households cannot afford electricity, if not on an on-going
basis, then during times of particular economic hardship. According to
a recent survey, in the early months of the COVID-19 crisis, ``13
percent of respondents had been unable to pay an energy bill during the
prior month, 9 percent had received an electricity utility shutoff
notice, and 4 percent had had their electric utility service
disconnected.'' Such homes are unlikely to be able to enjoy a home
Internet service at any price.
These and other social and economic challenges are outside the
scope of this Plan, though they play a significant part in our ability
to fully close the remaining broadband gaps. Over half a million
Americans are homeless, for example, rendering ``home'' Internet
service impossible. And 43 million U.S. adults are functionally
illiterate, creating a severe if not complete obstacle to deriving the
benefits of Internet connectivity.
The inability to solve every problem, however, is not an excuse for
failing to solve those we can, particularly problems for which the kind
of targeted policies we propose can quickly and efficiently generate
significant and sustainable improvements. The recommendations in this
Plan do not take away from efforts to solve other problems. Rather, to
a significant extent, they lay the groundwork for addressing a number
of problems that have their roots, for example, in inadequate access to
quality education, health care or job training for jobs of the future.
Further, while the policies proposed here will accelerate the
availability of networks everywhere, with everyone connected and
utilizing broadband Internet at home to access essential services more
effectively and efficiently, we also know that achieving these goals is
not a straight path. What King wrote about the Civil Rights movement
applies here: ``We will err and falter as we climb the unfamiliar
slopes of steep mountains, but there is no alternative, well-trod,
level path.''
In that light, we need institutional capacity to experiment,
evaluate and, when necessary, course correct. In Chapter 14, we propose
ways the government can build that capacity, and continually improve
how it facilitates digital equity and inclusion. As the National
Broadband Plan stated less eloquently than King but in the language of
the technology ecosystem, ``this plan is in beta and always will be.''
King closed his book with words that ring true for this effort:
``We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are
confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum
of life and history there is such a thing as being too late.''
We don't think it is too late. But given the speed with which our
economy and society is now moving towards ``remote everything,'' we
need to move swiftly on this Plan. Otherwise, we risk increasing rather
than decreasing the dangerous chasms that have already formed. We have
the capacity to move much closer to the community King envisioned. But
if, instead, technology continues to breed a society and economy that
is less equitable and less inclusive, chaos will be the inevitable and
tragic outcome.
Chapter 2.
THE ECONOMIC CASE FOR DIGITAL EQUITY AND INCLUSION
Achieving digital equity and inclusion is, first and foremost, a
moral imperative. But beyond issues of human rights and racial justice,
there are potent economic reasons to ensure that broadband service at
home is available to all Americans, and for helping those who remain
offline for whatever reasons to overcome the obstacles that keep them
from participating in digital life.
An extensive literature on digital equity and inclusion has
persuasively established the social value of universal adoption, as
well as the systemic and personal obstacles that make it an elusive
goal. As noted in Chapter 1, the 2010 National Broadband Plan laid out
the economic case for solving the ``digital exclusion'' crisis, noting
how the cost of digital exclusion is large and growing and that cost
``imposes inefficiencies on our society as one-third of Americans carry
out tasks by means that take more time, effort and resources than if
they had used broadband. Since government agencies must maintain both
offline and online systems for transactions, many government services
are not as effective or efficient as they could be.''
As the National Broadband Plan and the supporting literature
suggests, economic rationales for sustained and increasing public
investment in digital equity and inclusion can be summarized into three
main arguments:
The Rising Tide. Universal broadband can produce positive public
externalities, creating a more just, educated, and affluent society.
The Magic of Network Effects. Increasing returns to scale, via
network effects, of a more complete, robust, and equitable digital
society.
The E-Government Win-Win. Decreasing the costs and increasing the
benefits of government services.
This chapter briefly reviews each of these arguments.
2.1. RISING TIDE
As the pandemic has brought into sharp relief, universal broadband
connectivity is a goal that would benefit not only those who do not
currently use the Internet, but also those who are already online. In
that sense, it is similar to public education, which provides benefits
even to taxpayers without children. The more educated a society is, the
lower the incidence of poverty and crime, for example, and the lower
the costs of public health. Education, moreover, boosts earning
potential and overall economic output, providing in turn a more stable
tax base for services useful to everyone, including national defense,
police and fire departments, basic research and development, and the
social safety net. Broadband adoption, to use an economic term,
generates positive externalities.
Even at the time of the National Broadband Plan in 2010, it was
already clear that broadband Internet, both directly as infrastructure
and as a platform for delivering services in better and cheaper ways,
had the potential to generate substantial, even revolutionary, positive
externalities. By now, value generated by the network and its growing
range of incremental and disruptive innovations far exceeds even the
immense costs already spent in its construction and continuing
improvement. While over two trillion dollars has been spent building
modern broadband networks in the U.S. alone, the market value of just
the top twenty Internet companies--most of which didn't exist twenty
years ago--is more than double that amount. From an economic
standpoint, that is a profound example of a positive externality for
the country.
Meanwhile, the virtual nature of digital information generates
further positive economies of scale. No matter how many people are
searching on Google, binge-watching the latest video content, or
participating in video conferences for work, education, or family life,
the information and software being ``used'' does not diminish in value
or usefulness by simultaneous or future users. (Indeed, as noted below,
it likely increases in value the more it is used).
The same could not initially be said for the network itself. In the
early days of broadband, many of the delivery technologies, as well as
the network protocols themselves and the limits of early server
capacity, constrained the number of simultaneous users who could be
supported in the same local area or accessing the same websites,
without performance degrading noticeably for everyone.
These capacity constraints, however, have been significantly
reduced for many locations and applications. Three factors contributed
to the solution: higher-capacity network technologies, including fiber-
optic cable throughout the network and advanced mobile networks (4G LTE
and now 5G), better-optimized networking protocols, notably DOCSIS 3.1,
which is used by most cable providers, and improved applications and
architectures, including data compression, streaming media, content
delivery networks, and Internet exchange points. Each of these
innovations have been the result of massive private investments,
enabled by effective policy frameworks for most of the last quarter
century. Device capabilities have also increased, in parallel with
capacity enhancements.
The specifics of these innovations are not relevant here. What is
relevant is the end-result: vastly improved efficiency and expanded
capacity on broadband networks. Regardless of the last-mile technology
on which broadband is delivered, nearly all broadband users have seen
dramatic increases in speed. Today, the average is 157 Mbps, an
increase of 3,825 percent. As network performance during the COVID-19
crisis has made crystal clear, even if the remaining millions of
unconnected U.S. homes suddenly went online, broadband capacity could
easily handle the volume. Similar durability--let alone upgrades--have
not been seen in other infrastructure, such as power and water, which
have deteriorated in quality in many parts of the country.
At the same time, the fixed cost of service per subscriber has
declined, as capital and operating expenses are spread among millions
of additional consumers every year. The result has been dramatic
decreases in unit prices for transit, processing, and storage. For the
last several years, the price of each gigabyte of cellular data usage
has fallen approximately 50 percent each year. (Of course, most users
are now sending, receiving, processing, and storing vastly increased
amounts of data, so those declining prices do not necessarily translate
to lower bills.)
The net result is that we are now living in a world of abundant
broadband capacity, enough to assume that the processing, storage, and
transportation of all the information on the Internet can be used by
millions of additional users in the near future without noticeable
degradation.
This means there are compelling economic reasons, beyond
profitability, to expand coverage and adoption as widely as possible.
The benefits to broadband providers, as well as to society as a whole,
favor universal adoption. More users mean more contributors to network
fixed costs--the majority of the providers' cost of service--and
opportunities to lower marginal operating costs through economies of
scale. For the U.S. as a whole, more importantly, universal adoption
means a more equitable society with, as has been shown with
correlations to education and income, lower rates of crime, poverty,
incarceration, and civil unrest.
Even if many of those users are unable to afford retail prices for
broadband services, there are ample reasons for private, public, and
private-public partnerships to subsidize costs through reduced rates,
tax incentives, and direct government support to individuals. When
marginal costs are low, and decreasing with scale, subsidizing costs
for lower-income customers can benefit all users. That has been the
theory behind public and private broadband support programs that have
operated in the last decade. Though the design of the program has
substantially limited its effectiveness, Lifeline provides subsidies
for 7 million American homes, with an estimated 31 million more
households who have not applied qualifying even under current program
rules.
2.2. THE MAGIC OF NETWORK EFFECTS
The second economic argument for digital equity and inclusion is
related to the characterization of broadband applications as public
goods. As noted above, a non-rivalrous good, of which digitized
information is a particularly good example, does not diminish in value
through simultaneous or serial use. Everyone can read the same digital
texts, search the same databases, watch the same streaming content, and
make use of the same video conferencing, e-commerce, and government
services applications all at once. The use neither degrades nor
diminishes the integrity or future value of the information.
In fact, digital information has an additional property that makes
it even more valuable than other non-rivalrous goods. In many cases, as
digital information sources are accessed, searched, annotated, and
viewed, the underlying information not only retains its value but can
actually become more valuable for subsequent uses and users. Economists
refer to this phenomenon as network effects.
For information networks in particular, network effects offer
perhaps the most potent economic argument yet for universal adoption.
Consider the work of computer networking pioneer Robert Metcalfe, who
in 1993 calculated positive returns to scale in computer networks in a
formula known today as ``Metcalfe's Law.'' The value of a computer
network, Metcalfe said, was equal to the square of the number of
connections, whether those connections were of devices, users, or any
other component.
In networks governed by Metcalfe's Law, including today's
broadband, the overall value of the network doesn't increase linearly
by adding more possible connections. That's because each new node adds
not just one potential new connection. A new user or computer can use
the Internet to interact not just with its immediate neighbor, in other
words, but with every other user or computer already online. The
million-and-first Internet user adds a million new possible
connections. The billion-and-first device attached to the Internet of
Things adds a billion new possible connections.
In fact, Metcalfe may have understated the possibilities of network
effects, as his formula assumes only connections between two end users.
But many broadband applications, including video conferencing, and
social networks, to name just a few, are n-way connections. You can
video conference with all or any subset of your colleagues or students
or family members. And each new connection adds that many more new
possibilities, each with its own unique potential to create non-
rivalrous value.
Metcalfe's Law goes a long way toward explaining where all the
trillions of dollars of new value the Internet has created has come
from, and why the possibility of connecting all the people, places, and
things that are currently offline is so powerful, exerting almost a
gravitational force on investors, policymakers, and society in general.
For our purposes, however, the essential point of network effects
is that it makes digital equity and inclusion an even more urgent
imperative. Not only does achieving digital equity and inclusion
improve outcomes and reduce overall social costs, it actually generates
new value--and does so at an accelerating rate the more people we can
connect.
Diversity is also critical to network growth. The on-going digital
conversation, which has become more robust on a daily basis as
broadband infrastructure and applications improve, is missing essential
voices. In the U.S., some communities--communities of color, older
Americans, rural Americans, Native Americans, those with less
education, those with lower incomes--are disproportionately absent.
Their insights, their perspectives, and their needs are not being heard
online.
Without them, the Internet risks becoming increasingly insular,
parochial, and even fragile--a digital bubble. We need those who are
offline to join the conversation just as much as they need the services
connectivity makes possible. From an economic perspective, in fact, the
Internet needs the disconnected even more than they need it.
2.3. THE E-GOVERNMENT WIN-WIN
Even before the COVID-19 crisis accelerated our reliance on the
Internet, digital technology was quickly becoming a basic tool for
economic and social well-being. That was particularly true for a wide
range of both public and private activities, including shopping,
entertainment, lifelong learning, and maintaining family and community
connections, to name just a few.
The pandemic, however, has highlighted several acutely painful
inequities and missed opportunities in applications central to
government and government-supported initiatives, including education,
public health, employment, housing, and the social safety net. The
Internet has become critical for students to attend class, for seniors
to receive timely and safe health care, and for everyone to exercise
such basic rights and necessities as job training, preparing to vote,
and accessing government programs and services, including unemployment
insurance, SNAP, public housing, consumer protections, law enforcement,
health insurance, and social security, among many others. For now, and
the foreseeable future, those without broadband, quite simply, cannot
effectively participate.
The growing importance of these services. particularly for members
of at-risk communities, and the dangers, if not impossibility, of using
them in person, has erased any remaining doubt about the importance or
relevance of the Internet in the lives of those who have remained
offline. Tragically, those who most need these services are also the
least likely to subscribe to a broadband connection at home to access
them.
That reliance is unlikely to disappear with the eventual end of the
current COVID-19 related health crisis. For better and for worse, the
pandemic has revealed an astonishing range of inefficiencies,
inequities, and lost opportunities in pre-crisis systems, both those
physically based and those already available in digital form. Despite
trillions of dollars in both private and public spending on
infrastructure over the last twenty years, key agencies and industries
have not invested enough in basic digitization of their core services,
nor have they begun to look for innovative ways to do more for current
and future users. We need only remember the embarrassment of several
governors having to put out urgent calls at the start of the crisis for
retired COBOL programmers to work on antiquated benefit systems that
could not handle sudden surges in volume. Or, at the start of the
COVID-19 outbreak, of Floridians risking their health to stand in line
for paper unemployment forms when the state's online system crashed and
could not be repaired.
Under and mis-investment in IT, for a variety of reasons, create
more serious problems for government supplied and supported services
than they do for any industry in the private sector. And the painful
irony is that it is precisely the members of communities least likely
to have broadband connections who are the most reliant on government
services, who may be deterred from subscribing in part because the
essential services they need are often not available in efficient,
reliable, secure, and easy-to-use digital forms. Americans who are the
least likely to have broadband--older, rural, less-educated and lower-
income--are all heavy users of government services. For example, 53
percent of benefits go to persons 65 and older.
Any program aimed at solving problems of digital equity and
inclusion, as noted in the following chapters, must include not only
support for individuals without available network services or the
ability to adopt them but also to improve the applications that digital
have-nots most require. Deploying e-government apps quickly would not
only increase online adoption, it would simultaneously improve
government performance and lower its cost.
Though doing so will of course require considerable up-front
expenditures of public funds, the result will be systems that can
deliver basic entitlements and services more efficiently. As in the
private sector, modern information systems can dramatically lower on-
going operating costs, generating surplus that can pay back the capital
costs many times over during the lifetime of new and upgraded e-
government systems.
Better systems will also ensure that those who today cannot gain
meaningful access to government services for which they qualify, as
well as such basic rights of democratic citizenship as voting and
public education, will be served in a manner that is safer and more
dignified, with fewer opportunities for waste, fraud, or abuse.
In that regard, a revitalized plan to achieve digital equity and
inclusion offers policymakers a profound opportunity both to reduce the
costs of delivering government services, and to maximize the benefits
of those services for those who need them most. By making government
more accessible online, moreover, newly-connected Americans will
quickly see the full potential of existing public and private online
applications and services, giving them powerful incentives to embrace
fully their new digital lives--a truly virtuous cycle of economic
improvement, reversing a long history of failed efforts.
For example, the Department of Labor today funds nearly 2,500
American Job Centers to help the unemployed search for work. But due to
the pandemic, many of these Centers are temporarily closed or have
shifted to online-only access. Other employment-related services
offered by government agencies, including some specific to older
Americans, Native Americans, farmworkers, and refugees, are likewise
only accessible online.
It is also worth noting that, to date, different Federal and state
government agencies provide these benefits, and in many cases some
information is already on-line. To achieve digital equity and
inclusion, we urgently need e-government apps that pull together
relevant information across local, state, regional, and agency
boundaries, and which are built with design principles focused on
convenience for the user. It is one of the best ways to convince those
who have not adopted the Internet in part because they do not see the
value in doing so.
To jump-start digitization and adoption of these essential
services, we need to harness entrepreneurial talent that today is
focused on building the next great gaming or social media sensation.
That is precisely the mission of the U.S. Digital Service, which
recruits top designers, engineers, product managers, and policy experts
and pairs them with forward-thinking civil servants, deploying high-
powered teams ``to untangle the most important government services.''
There's also Data.gov, which has released hundreds of thousands of
government datasets, open to ``civic hackers, tech entrepreneurs, data
scientists, and developers of all stripes.'' Using Data.gov, hundreds
of helpful apps have already been built, but there is much more to do.
And data sources must be populated by information relating to the
entire population, not just those who are already online. As more
Americans adopt online services, the more complete--and therefore
valuable--these datasets will become.
Chapter 3.
CLOSING THE BROADBAND AVAILABILITY GAP
3.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Despite a decade which saw private, public and hybrid organizations
investing nearly $2 trillion in broadband infrastructure, the
unfortunate fact remains that millions of American homes, businesses
and other institutions have no available option to connect to a
broadband network capable of supporting full participation in the
modern economy. That includes the ability to use the Internet to train,
search, and apply for employment, obtain an education and health
services, and otherwise benefit from life in an increasingly digital
society.
Broadband availability and devices with which to access the
Internet are the most basic pre-requisites to achieving digital equity
and inclusion. We seek to close the broadband availability gap, which
is generally found in less densely populated areas. Most of these areas
are populated by low-income communities, including communities of
color.
3.2. VISION
Every home, anchor institution, and business location in the United
States should have available to them at least one broadband network
capable of providing the benefits of current and future economic,
social, civic, educational, medical, commercial and entertainment
applications.
3.3. GOALS
To close the broadband availability gap, the Federal government
should take the following actions:
By the end of 2021, the FCC should define the
characteristics of Internet access that are necessary in order
for a location to be considered as ``served with broadband''
and the minimum level of Internet service that government funds
should support in efforts to bring broadband to an unserved
area, based on reasonable prediction of excess capacity and
future application requirements over the next 10 years, with
``excess capacity'' and ``application requirements'' to be
defined by the FCC, following analysis of user requirements for
current and emerging applications and their technical and
utilization characteristics.
By the end of 2021, the FCC, in consultation with other
federal, state, and local governments, should publish best
practices for public entities to reduce the costs of, and time
required for, broadband deployment.
By early 2022, the FCC should produce an accurate map of
broadband availability in America, including the
identification, on a granular level, of those locations without
an available network, based on the updated definition of
broadband, so that public funding can initially be prioritized
for areas lacking any option for broadband. The map should be
updated frequently and distinguish different levels of
broadband service. By 2022, Congress should provide additional
funding to be used by the FCC or other government entity to
hold one or more competitive processes to obtain for Federal
subsidies to deploy additional broadband infrastructure,
closing the availability gap to less than 2 percent of American
households.
In 2022, the FCC or other government entity should hold a
competitive process for Federal subsidies, utilizing the FCC's
improved map of broadband availability to target unserved
locations.
By the end of 2023, deployments from authorized winning
bidders should be underway to provide broadband to at least 98
percent of premises in America.
By the end of 2023, the FCC should update its map of
broadband availability in America, again identifying on a
granular level those areas still without an available network,
now or scheduled for completion, so that public funding can be
prioritized for the remaining areas lacking any option for
broadband.
The FCC should evaluate, on an on-going basis, the status of
new delivery technologies, including but not limited to, low
earth orbiting satellites, 5G mobile and fixed wireless, and
any other new wireless technologies, and develop a plan to
connect the final 2 percent of premises in the United States.
By the end of 2024, the FCC or other government entity
should hold another competitive process designed to assure
deployment of a network capable of providing broadband to any
remaining unserved premises in the United States.
3.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION
3.4.1. BROADBAND IS STILL UNAVAILABLE TO MILLIONS OF AMERICAN HOMES.
In January 2021, the Federal Communications Commission declared in
its 14th Broadband Deployment Report that, at the end of 2019, 14.4
million Americans lacked any option for subscribing to home broadband
using a ``fixed terrestrial'' service with speeds of at least 25 Mbps
download and 3 Mbps upload (``25/3 Mbps''). Of a total evaluated
population of 328.2 million, the FCC estimated 304.3 million had 25/3
Mbps service available using wired technology (principally fiber and
cable, and to a lesser extent DSL), and an additional 9.5 million with
25/3 Mbps service available only using fixed-wireless technology.
There are data that one could use to argue that the number of
Americans lacking any option for home broadband may be, at least
theoretically, much lower. For example, the FCC reports, but does not
count towards its annual assessment of whether broadband is available,
deployments of broadband that use non-terrestrial technologies,
including cellular and satellite networks, many of which offer speeds
that meet or even exceed the FCC's current definition of broadband (or
``Advanced Telecommunications Capability'' (ATC)). According to the
Broadband Deployment Report, for example, ``. . . deployment data for
satellite broadband indicate that satellite service offering 25/3 Mbps
speeds is available to nearly all of the population.'' The agency does
not count these deployments, however, because ``satellite services have
a relatively low subscription rate despite their apparent widespread
availability.''
There may be other reasons to exclude, at least for now, mobile and
satellite technologies from any calculation of broadband availability.
For purposes of this Plan, we will follow the FCC's analysis, and
include as meeting the standard for ``available'' service only those
premises that can be served by fixed terrestrial broadband, with speeds
of at least 25/3 Mbps.
Using that criteria, the actual number of Americans lacking any
option for fixed terrestrial service may in fact be significantly
higher than the reported 14.4 million. Congress and the FCC both
acknowledge that under the agency's long-standing data collection
methodology, if a broadband provider tells the FCC that it can offer
service to a single customer in a given census block, the agency treats
that entire census block as served. This assumption overstates actual
availability, particularly in rural areas. In addition, the FCC does
not routinely verify or audit provider-supplied data, allowing, for
example, one company to overstate its service coverage by tens of
millions of people and another to find that it had overstated its
coverage in thousands of areas.
A sampled check of availability by an independent group in 2020
compared actual availability findings to the assumptions made in the
FCC's analysis of the data it collects, and found considerably greater
gaps in availability. Their report concluded that the actual number of
Americans without an available option for broadband network was
probably closer to 42 million Americans, a number more than double the
number estimated by the FCC based on the data set available at that
time.
Criticism of the FCC's broadband mapping process has been offered
on a bi-partisan basis, including in a report by the GAO. In response,
Congress in March 2020 passed the Broadband DATA Act, directing the FCC
to collect data and prepare maps that report broadband availability in
the United States much more precisely. In December 2020, Congress
appropriated the FCC's requested funding to accomplish that task, and
the FCC subsequently adopted final rules in January 2021.
While the precise number of Americans lacking any option for home
broadband using fixed terrestrial service is not certain, it is clear
that, given significantly higher costs of infrastructure deployment,
the vast majority of homes lacking broadband availability are in rural
areas. This does not mean, however, that availability is not a
substantial issue in some urban communities of color. There are also
significant areas in the United States that lack broadband that are
populated by Black Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans.
It may also be the case that the FCC's current 25/3 Mbps definition
is no longer sufficient. Indeed, there is currently a debate--one that
has intensified with the increased use of broadband caused by COVID-
19--as to whether those speeds are sufficient for a nation that has
moved so much of its work, education, shopping, entertainment, civic
engagement, and social connections online. Since the outbreak of the
COVID-19 pandemic, more and more U.S. homes can be characterized as
broadband-dependent, with multiple users relying daily on broadband for
simultaneous video calling, streaming entertainment, shopping and
maintaining social connections. Even once the current crisis eases,
there is reason to believe that user behaviors will not revert to
previous patterns. Americans have learned the value of broadband
applications they may not have been familiar with, and will continue to
rely on them, and at an accelerating rate.
More broadly, the agency has made little effort in the last decade
to justify the speed standards it has adopted, or why download and
upload speeds should form the basis--let alone the sole basis--for
determining what constitutes ATC. Download and upload speeds capture
only the connection from the ISPs closest node to and from the home.
But many other factors determine the quality of a user's interaction
with any given Internet service, including the design of the website,
app, or Internet service being accessed and the demand on it at any
given time, the kind of transit the Internet service utilizes, the
performance of intervening services, such as cloud security
intermediaries, and other network optimization technologies, which are
constantly being introduced and updated.
3.4.2. BROADBAND AVAILABILITY IS ALSO A PERSISTENT AND UNIQUE CHALLENGE
FOR TRIBAL LANDS.
Tribal lands present an important, persistent, and unique set of
challenges. Ten years ago, the National Broadband Plan noted that the
FCC had found, ``[b]y virtually any measure, communities on Tribal
lands have historically had less access to telecommunications services
than any other segment of the population.'' The Plan noted that:
[M]any Tribal communities face significant obstacles to the
deployment of broadband infrastructure, including high buildout
costs, limited financial resources that deter investment by
commercial providers and a shortage of technically trained
members who can undertake deployment and adoption planning.
Current funding programs administered by NTIA and RUS do not
specifically target funding for projects on Tribal lands and
are insufficient to address all of these challenges. Tribes
need substantially greater financial support than is presently
available to them and accelerating Tribal broadband deployment
will require increased funding.
Unfortunately, the situation has not materially changed over the
past decade. According to the FCC, as of December 31, 2019, fixed
terrestrial 25/3 Mbps broadband service was deployed to 79.1 percent of
Americans on Tribal lands, well under the 95.6 percent level for the
entire U.S. population.
The FCC has concluded that the challenging geography and population
density of Tribal areas means that addressing the broadband needs of
Tribal areas is most likely to be accomplished with non-terrestrial
networks, but tribes have not had the ability to control radio spectrum
in their jurisdiction. The problem has its roots in the Federal
``Reservation Era'' policies of the late 1800s, which gave the Federal
government the power to sell Tribal frequency resources, along with
other natural resources, to for-profit corporations, without Tribal
consultation.
Unfortunately, today's policies still are grounded in that history.
As the GAO found in a 2018 study, while the FCC has taken some steps to
promote and support Tribal entities' ability to license and utilize
spectrum, these efforts were not sufficient to address Tribal spectrum
needs. Among other problems, the FCC does not collect key information
related to spectrum over Tribal lands or communicate it to Tribal
entities, even though FCC has the information--including broadband
availability data from providers, and information on geographic areas
covered by spectrum licenses--that could be used for such analysis.
Moreover, the GAO found that the tribes faced barriers in participating
in spectrum auctions, as well as in purchasing spectrum rights in
secondary market transactions.
3.4.3. MULTIPLE FEDERAL AND STATE PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT.
While the FCC Universal Service Fund is by far the largest source
of funding for addressing the availability gap, the NTIA's Broadband
Funding Guide identifies nearly 60 direct and indirect Federal
programs, located in more than a dozen Federal agencies, that also
support broadband deployment efforts. In addition, there are several
programs that either have been initiated or expanded through various
COVID-19 relief legislation that provide broadband assistance. Most
states also have their own broadband deployment programs. While there
is information about all of these, there has been to date no
coordinated effort that enables service providers, communities, or
other stakeholders to efficiently determine which programs they may be
eligible for, or to what extent these programs may serve their needs.
3.4.4 CONGRESS HAS APPROPRIATED FUNDS THAT CAN BE USED FOR BROADBAND
DEPLOYMENT.
As we were concluding the writing of this Plan, Congress passed the
``American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.'' Two provisions related to
broadband deployment. First, Congress appropriated $350 billion to
state, local and tribal governments for a variety of uses, but among
the eligible uses are ``to make necessary investments in ``water, sewer
or broadband infrastructure.'' Second, Congress appropriated $10
billion to the Department of Treasury to distribute to states,
territories and tribal governments to ``carry out critical capital
projects directly enabling work, education and health monitoring,
including remote access. . .'' These appropriations provide significant
new funding for states, localities and tribal governments that maybe
used to directly address availability gaps in their jurisdictions.
3.5. KEY CHALLENGE TO OVERCOME
Universal availability is necessary--but not sufficient--for full
digital equity and inclusion. The fundamental challenge to achieving it
is primarily one of economics. As is true with other networked
infrastructure, such as electricity, water, sewage, and telephony, the
costs of making service available to any individual household is
largely a function of density. As one would expect, the broadband
availability gap is greatest in areas of lowest density. Because
service providers in these areas must build over larger areas, while at
the same time earning revenues from fewer subscribers, as density
declines it becomes less likely that providers can earn enough revenue
to cover the costs of deploying and operating networks, including
expected returns on capital, to justify the necessary private capital
investments.
For over two decades, U.S. policymakers have understood that
private capital alone cannot close the availability gap in the most
sparsely populated areas of the United States. Federal, state, and
public/private partnerships aimed at subsidizing capital and operating
costs to overcome these economic realities have, to date, provided more
than $100 billion to extend broadband availability to high-cost areas,
through a variety of grants, subsidies, loans, and other incentives to
private, public, and private-public providers.
Continual upgrades in the performance, and reductions in the costs,
of emerging access technologies may, on the plus side, continue to
improve the business case for some areas, making private investment
more likely. Still, deploying broadband networks similar in performance
to those that are currently serving the vast majority of homes in the
United States to areas that currently do not have them will require
additional and significant public funding, beyond what Congress and the
FCC have established to date for this purpose, including the $20.4
billion currently budgeted for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
How will we fund the closing of the availability gap? Currently,
the most significant source of funding for government-assisted
deployments comes from the Universal Service Program, administered by
the FCC, which supports deployment in rural areas, connectivity for
schools, libraries and health care institutions, and subsidized service
for low-income households. That program is funded by communications
companies, which pay a percentage of their interstate and international
voice revenues, and certain revenues associated with other services, to
the FCC's Universal Service Fund (USF). This percentage is called the
contribution factor. The contribution factor is adjusted as necessary
on a quarterly basis, and is increased or decreased depending on actual
and expected participation by qualifying users of all Universal Service
programs.
The contribution factor has several problems. One is that, as
interstate telecommunications revenues go down, the contribution factor
must of necessity go up. In the second quarter of 2021, the
contribution factor rose to a new high of 33.4 percent. Five years ago,
the percentage was only 17.1 percent, and ten years ago, it was 13.6
percent. At some point, the factor will be so high that the system will
collapse. Second, some view the fee as a regressive tax, as it applies
equally to both high-income and low-income subscribers.
There are also significant challenges in determining just how much
public funding will be needed to close the availability gap and how,
where, and when funds should be distributed. These challenges are
addressed, respectively, in Sections 3.6 and 3.8, below.
3.6. COST TO DEPLOY NETWORKS TO UNSERVED AREAS
The cost to close the availability gap will vary depending on
policy choices and actions in four areas that we discuss below.
However, given the ever-growing importance of broadband in daily life,
we would urge decision makers to adopt and fund the most ambitious
goals possible to assure digital equity and inclusion.
3.6.1. SETTING THE FLOOR ON SERVICE: BELOW WHAT PERFORMANCE STANDARD IS
A HOUSEHOLD DEEMED ``UNSERVED'' BY BROADBAND SERVICE?
Unlike telephony, electricity, or water--infrastructure-based
services that are, by and large, either ``available'' or
``unavailable''--the evolving nature of broadband makes the task of
calculating the number of ``unserved'' Americans a significant policy
choice in itself. This is inherent in the Congressional mandate which
requires that the Universal Service system assure all areas of the
country have ``reasonably comparable'' service at ``reasonably
comparable'' prices. That statutory language implicitly recognizes that
some variation across the country is acceptable, but policymakers do
not agree on where to draw the line.
There is no disagreement that the demands of everyday applications
on broadband networks have grown over time, and that consumer
expectations for service quality have increased. Consequently, the
minimum download/upload speeds used by the FCC to determine whether
fixed terrestrial service is deemed available have been regularly
increased as part of the agency's annual report on deployment. This
floor has risen over time from 0.2/0.2 Mbps in 1999, to 4/1 Mbps in
2010, to the current standard of 25/3 Mbps, adopted in 2015. Further,
it has also become increasingly important to consider aspects of
service quality other than speed to ensure that an available service
can indeed meet users' needs.
As the speed requirements have been raised, a number of locations
transitioned from ``served'' to ``unserved,'' increasing the
availability gap. For example, a location with only 10/1 Mbps broadband
service counted by the FCC as served under a 4/1 Mbps standard became
unserved when that standard was raised to 25/3 Mbps. Under the 10/1
Mbps standard in effect pre-2015, over 97 percent of the U.S.
population would currently be deemed to have an available fixed
terrestrial service.
More generally, a rising standard means that even as actions are
taken to reduce the availability gap, its closing may only be
temporary, as the gap may reemerge if the standard is later raised.
Indeed, this has occurred repeatedly, as the Federal government has
provided funding to service providers to deploy networks using delivery
technologies that could not easily and/or cost-effectively be upgraded
as the standard increased. As discussed in the recommendations, policy
makers should seek to avoid this treadmill, and to achieve digital
equity and inclusion in a more sustainable manner.
3.6.2. ASSESSING THE AVAILABILITY GAP: WHERE ARE THE UNSERVED LOCATIONS
AND HOW MANY ARE THERE?
To assess the availability gap under a particular definition of
``broadband,'' policymakers need accurate and frequently updated data
indicating where the unserved locations both are and will likely remain
given expectations about future deployments, both subsidized and
otherwise. A process to generate such data is discussed in detail in
Section 3.8.1. Here we highlight that the size of the gap will vary
greatly based on the performance standard adopted and whether some
complying technologies (e.g., satellite service and some high-speed
cellular services) nonetheless continue to be excluded for other
reasons in calculating ``unserved'' areas.
Based on FCC deployment findings released in January 2021, as of
2019 the current 25/3 Mbps standard translates to an availability gap
that ranges between 0 and 24 million people--24 million if only fixed
wired offerings (principally fiber and cable) are counted, 14 million
if fixed wireless offerings are added, and no availability gap at all
if satellite offerings are also included (Exhibit 3.1).
If download and upload speeds were to be raised, however, the
availability gap increases significantly. For example, at 100/10 Mbps,
the gap in 2019 would have been 27-30 million people, growing to 42-43
million at a standard of 250/25 Mbps. At the same time, however,
improvements over the next three to five years in fixed-wireless
performance and, more speculatively, low-earth orbit (LEO) satellite
constellations that may be able to offer higher speeds (and lower
latency) than current high-earth orbit satellite service, could change
the availability equation dramatically in the other direction.
Likewise, including cellular offerings that already meet today's
standard and potential increases (including some LTE and 5G offerings),
but which are currently not counted by the FCC's availability findings,
could likewise have a dramatic positive impact on the availability gap.
This makes setting and regularly revisiting an appropriate standard, as
noted above, increasingly critical, particularly in determining how
best to spend limited public funds to support future deployments in
unserved areas of the country.
3.6.3. SETTING THE FLOOR ON SUBSIDIZED DEPLOYMENTS: WHAT IS THE MINIMUM
SERVICE QUALITY THAT SUBSIDIZED NETWORK DEPLOYMENTS MUST BE
ABLE TO OFFER?
Though the speed standards for what the FCC considers as service
that constitutes available broadband and the minimum speeds the FCC and
other agencies set to qualify for eligibility for public infrastructure
funding are often conflated, policymakers may and in fact have used
different standards for the two. For example, a rational policy choice
may be to consider locations without access to 25/3 Mbps as unserved,
but then to subsidize only deployments of higher speeds than the
current standard to serve them. Indeed, such a ``network leapfrogging''
policy could supercharge the broadband-based benefits that closing the
availability gap would bring to unserved communities and prove a more
cost-effective use of public funds over the medium-to-long term.
3.6.4. DETERMINING THE COST CURVE: HOW MUCH SUBSIDY IS REQUIRED TO
CLOSE--OR NARROW--THE AVAILABILITY GAP?
The cost to close the availability gap in a given geographical
area, either entirely or partially, will largely be determined by the
three drivers discussed in Sections 3.6.1-3 above, namely: (i) the
standard below which broadband is deemed unavailable; (ii) accurate and
frequently refreshed mapping to determine the location and number of
unserved locations; and (iii) the standard at or above which subsidized
networks are required to operate in order to receive funding support.
Assuming analytically sound and evidence-based choices for (i) and
(iii), as well as adequate execution of (ii), an allocation mechanism
that roughly aligns subsidies with actual costs, and which prioritizes
locations that require the lowest subsidy to achieve deployment and
sustain ongoing operation,\1\ lessons learned from prior broadband
deployments lead to two important conclusions about the cost of closing
the availability gap:
1. Tradeoffs are necessary between universality and quality.
Ideally, the budget allocated to close the availability gap
will be sufficient to achieve universal deployment, with room
for future network upgradability to support expansion of the
essential services that must be supported (see Exhibit 3.2). If
this is not possible, policymakers face a choice between
decreasing deployment to something less than 100 percent or
lowering the standard at or above which subsidized networks are
required to operate. As noted above, however, subsidizing
deployments that may be difficult or impossible to upgrade
creates long-term risks, including the risk of stranded assets,
and that public funds are not put to their best and highest
use.
2. Tradeoffs should be based on a conscious policy choice. The most
sparsely populated and geographically remote locations to serve
are, by definition, the most expensive to serve on a per-person
basis. As shown in Exhibit 3.3, variations in density
distribution within any reasonably large set of unserved
geographies means that the cost per location to close the
available gap increases substantially as one gets closer to
eliminating the gap entirely. Funding deployment to these
locations would require a disproportionately large share of the
total budget. Though the ideal policy is to fully close the
availability gap, depending on the size of, and potential
alternative uses for the deployment budget, a pragmatic second-
best alternative may be to close less than 100 percent of the
availability gap, while funding cheaper options for the
highest-cost areas.\2\
Policymakers have at times ignored these trade-offs and funded
connections at the high end of the cost curve. For example, in 2020,
the Rural Utility Service awarded Beehive Telephone Company Inc. a $2.3
million ReConnect grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises network to
four residents, four farms and four businesses in Washington County,
Utah, and a $2.7 million grant to deploy a fiber-to-the-premises
network to connect 147 people in Elko County, Nevada. These average out
to be more than $33,000 per home passed.
This is not just a Federal problem. For example, the California
Advanced Services Fund (CASF), administered by the state's Public
Utility Commission, provides grants to network operators, covering up
to 100 percent of their total capital costs, for construction of
broadband infrastructure in unserved areas of the state. One such grant
of nearly $11 million that went to Frontier Communications in 2019
covered only 222 homes, for an average price per household of over
$49,000.
To further illustrate the tradeoffs that should be examined at the
national level, we note that a January 2017 FCC White Paper \3\ found
that with (i) a performance standard defining ``unserved'' as lacking
access to at least 25/3 Mbps-capable fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) and/
or cable service, and (ii) using then-current FCC's deployment data for
residential and small business locations, there were approximately 22
million unserved premises. Adopting (iii) a policy of subsidizing only
FTTP deployments going forward, the paper found that the total upfront
capital expenditures required to fully eliminate the availability gap
would be approximately $80 billion. Critically, however, approximately
85 percent of the gap could be closed while still holding to a FTTP
policy for about half that amount. That is, to connect the first 85
percent, or 19 million premises, would cost about $40 billion, or
$2,100 per location. To connect the last 15 percent of the unserved
premises, or 3 million premises (approximately 2 percent of all
premises) using FTTP, would cost another $40 billion, or $12,800 per
location.
Alternatively, connecting the first 90 percent of the gap, or 20
million premises, would cost $45 billion, or $2,200 per location, with
the last 10 percent, or 2 million premises, costing another $35
billion, or $15,600 per location. Further illustrating the shape of the
curve, connecting the first 95 percent of the gap, or 21 million
premises, would cost $55 billion, or $2,600 per location, with the last
5 percent, or 1 million premises, costing another $25 billion, or
$22,300 per location.
In addition, while the first 85 percent, according to the White
Paper, would only require a subsidy for capital expenses, the last 15
percent, even if the capital expense of the network deployment were to
be completely subsidized, would require ongoing support for shortfalls
in operating expenses.
Though not technology neutral in its viewpoint, a September 2019
study \4\ by the consulting firm Cartesian, on behalf of the Fiber
Broadband Association, a trade group whose mission is ``to accelerate
deployment of all-fiber access networks,'' \5\ found that with (i) a
performance standard defining ``unserved'' as lacking access to FTTP
(i.e., both using a higher standard than the FCC study, and excluding
other access technologies, most notably cable broadband), there will be
(ii) approximately 70 million unserved households by 2025. Adopting
(iii) a performance standard of only subsidizing FTTP networks, the
total investment required to close 80 percent of the gap was estimated
to be $86 billion, but 63 percent of the gap could be closed for about
half that amount. (The study did not assess the cost of entirely
closing the gap, i.e., it excludes the last 20 percent of households
that would be most expensive to connect with FTTP).
3.7. CURRENT PLANS FOR FUTURE NETWORK DEPLOYMENTS
With private and public network operators announcing proposed or
planned deployments of new and upgraded broadband infrastructure, it
may seem that significant portions of the availability gap will be
closed within a few years, largely without the need for public funding
support. This section provides a high-level analysis of planned
deployments by private and public operators.
1. Existing telephone companies have significant plans for fiber
deployments, but even taken together, these plans would leave
at least half the customers currently served by these providers
using DSL technology without a higher-speed telephone-based
offering.
2. Cable operators have already upgraded significant portions of
their networks to offer gigabit downstream services and have
plans to extend their networks further, but their networks are
unlikely to reach more than 90 percent of the U.S. population
at the end of decade.
3. The most ambitious plans for extending next generation mobile
wireless networks--those stemming from the government
requirements on T-Mobile as part of its merger with Sprint--
involve an expansion of its 5G cellular network to offer 100
Mbps speeds to 90 percent of the population by 2026. This 90
percent is likely to roughly match the geography of the area
covered by cable. Additionally, after recently doubling its C-
Band spectrum holdings, Verizon predicts that its mobile
wireless networks will cover 175 million people by the end of
2023 and over 250 million people after 2024.
4. Municipalities, utilities companies and other public/private
partnerships using a wide range of technical and business
solutions plan to bring Internet coverage to specific local
areas. Taken together, however, these deployments are unlikely
to decrease the number of homes without a fixed terrestrial
broadband option by more than 1 percent.
5. A promising technical and business initiative aimed at closing
the availability gap, based on currently planned future network
deployments, involves the launch of thousands of LEO
satellites. While satellites have long been used for rural
broadband, the distance between the home and the satellite has
been a key impediment for the service, with speeds relatively
slow and latency relatively high compared to terrestrial
technologies. LEO service has the potential to overcome those
limitations and satisfy the requirements of broadband service
at home, but there is a level of uncertainty as to its ability
to provide an acceptable level of service, particularly if LEOs
are used to address the availability gap of a large population.
6. Some believe that 5G fixed-wireless technology offers a
compelling new technology for providing rural broadband.
Proponents of the technology believe that it can provide 1
gigabit per second service over 4 miles from a cell site. One
promising aspect for lowering the cost of 5G deployment, and
therefore lowering the price for the service, is the
development of Open Radio Access Networks (ORAN). In Chapter
11, we discuss how the government can help can support and
accelerate ORAN deployments through R & D efforts.
3.8. OTHER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
In Section 3.6, we noted some of the trade-offs policy makers have
to make to address the availability gap. Here, we note a few others
policy considerations.
3.8.1. FUNDING SOURCE.
In Section 3.5, we noted that the current mechanism for funds to
close the availability gap is under considerable stress, as it is based
on a shrinking revenue stream. With the other programs funded by USF
becoming more important in the era of COVID-19 and an economy of remote
everything, USF is facing increasing demands. There are several options
that have been proposed to address the issue. These include:
Change the current funding mechanism. Alternatives to the
current funding mechanism include changing the methodology to
assess feed based on phone numbers or connections, or
broadening the base of assessable revenues to capture a smaller
percentage of a larger total. Any effort to reform the funding
mechanism for Universal Service will probably take years.
Contribution reform effort could also face lengthy legal
challenges.
Keep the current system but set a cap on total USF annual
funding. Given the shrinking revenue base, this would mean a
longer process for closing the availability gap, and could
reduce the effectiveness of other Universal Service programs.
Keep the current system but do not set a cap on spending.
Given the necessary increase in the contribution factor for
this option, this will likely lead to a collapse of the system.
Use spectrum revenues. In the recent debate on authorization
for the C-Band auction, and in previous Congressional debates,
there were bi-partisan suggestions that the government's share
of auction proceeds should be allocated to closing the
availability gap or addressing other Universal Service
challenges. The idea is that the communications ecosystem that
is paying for the spectrum should benefit from the use of those
funds to provide services that market forces cannot. Spectrum
auctions have produced tens of billions in revenues for the
government but, it should be noted, they are not a routine or
dependable source of funds.
Use direct Congressional appropriations. Many economists
argue that USF should be funded, like other Federal programs,
through direct Congressional appropriations. While there are
efficiency and fairness arguments for such a change, there is a
fear that a future Congress could simply stop funding the
program, either as a conscious choice, or due to a political
stalemate on unrelated budget issues.
Use a combination of funding sources. These would include
direct Congressional appropriations, special appropriations,
such as proceeds from a spectrum auction, and gradually
changing the current contribution factor base to something more
sustainable in light of market trends.
3.8.2. ELIGIBILITY TO RECEIVE FUNDING.
Providing government funding, whether for a network to address the
availability gap, or to subsidize broadband service for a low-income
person to close the affordability gap, raises the policy question of
who should be eligible to receive the funds. At first blush, it might
appear that the same criteria could be used to determine both who
should qualify for infrastructure support and for the provision of
subsidized service to low-income households. There is, however, a big
difference between the two.
First, deployment funding carries an execution risk that the
project may not be completed, while the low-income subsidy only goes to
firms already offering a qualified service. Second, deployment funding
creates a network that likely will not be subject to significant
competition, while the low-income subsidy is likely to be used in
markets where there are several firms competing for the consumer. We
will address the low-income subsidy requirements in Chapter Five, but
here we address the requirements for network providers to receive
support for infrastructure deployment.
Currently, service providers seeking USF support for infrastructure
deployments must be certified as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
(ETC), a designation that essentially limits funding to regulated,
facilities-based telephone service providers. Under current law,
providers obtain ETC designation from their state, or from the FCC in
cases where the state lacks legal authority over the provider.
Governing bodies must certify annually that allocated funding is being
used as granted by ETCs within their jurisdiction.
The primary justification for the ETC requirement is that
government funding should not go to operators who do not meet the kind
of requirements that historically applied to common carrier telephone
companies, including public interest obligations, in exchange for
obtaining a local monopoly to provide telephone service.
The ETC requirement has been criticized as outdated, excluded many
providers who are otherwise qualified to deploy infrastructure but who
cannot meet the technical definition of an ETC, potentially increasing
costs and lowering performance for consumers. Critics of the ETC
requirement note that as part of the process of awarding funding, the
FCC already conducts an extensive review of the provider's ``long-
form'' application, which ensures the provider is technically and
financially capable of fulfilling all relevant funding obligations.
Further, those accepting funding are legally bound by the provision
that the funds may be ``used. . .only for the provision, maintenance,
and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is
intended'' (see 47 C.F.R. Sec. 54.314) and are obligated to provide
service (subject to milestones) of a specified performance level, for a
specific number of years, to the locations for which funding is
awarded. Assuming a robust audit and/or oversight process, failure to
meet these obligations will result in penalties. In that light, the ETC
designation or ongoing oversight by states may be redundant, though
others argue that having multiple regulators provides additional
assurance that companies are complying with the rules.
As a middle ground, relevant ETC requirements could be incorporated
into the FCC's long-form review process, making it possible to
eliminate a separate ETC requirement. In particular, a service provider
seeking FCC funding could be required to certify to the FCC:
Compliance with applicable service requirements.
Safeguards to facilitate continuing operations during
emergencies, including back-up power sources, the ability to
reroute traffic around damaged facilities, and being able to
manage traffic spikes during emergencies.
Compliance with applicable FCC consumer protection and
service quality standards.
Compliance with any specific requirements regarding the
terms and conditions of broadband service supported by the
government funding.
Compliance with requirements that it has advertised the
availability of the services and the charges for those services
using media of general distribution, as required by the FCC.
Carriers' existing ETC designations and obligations--particularly
legacy designations and obligations--should also automatically sunset
once their funds terminate to avoid imposing costly and discriminatory
obligations and burdens on providers. Such legacy obligations can
effectively limit budgets that could otherwise support the deployment
and maintenance of broadband services.
3.8.3. AUCTION DESIGN AND RULES.
In the last decade, the FCC drew on its long history of spectrum
auctions to design rules and procedures to award funding to close the
availability gap through competitive auctions. In 2011, the FCC first
adopted the strategy of awarding funding on a competitive basis, after
an initial period during which incumbent telephone providers would be
offered a set amount of money to make relatively modest network
upgrades. In areas where the incumbent turned down that initial offer,
among others, the agency planned to accelerate competitive auctions.
The FCC then finalized rules to implement this strategy for the Connect
America Fund.
The FCC conducted the Connect America Fund Phase II auction in
2018, with winning bidders to be awarded approximately $1.48 billion
over a ten-year term, based on commitments to cover about 750,000
unserved homes and small businesses, or about 1.875 million people.
That auction focused on areas where incumbents had turned down the
initial offer, as well as those areas of the country that the FCC
believed would require the highest subsidy.
The Connect America Fund program's 6-year initial support period
was scheduled to end in December 2020, but carriers could elect to
receive an optional 7th year of transitional funding. The FCC then held
an auction for Phase I of the renamed Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(RDOF) in late 2020, which will provide funding over a ten-year period.
Nearly 400 entities qualified to bid in the auction, including large
and small incumbent telephone companies, competitive fiber providers,
cable operators, electric cooperatives, fixed wireless providers, three
satellite companies, and consortia. Like the Connect America Fund Phase
II auction, the RDOF auction was a multi-round, reverse, descending
clock auction with bidders competing nationwide, with some local
competition among bidders offering a lower price.
Bidders in the RDOF auction could offer service in one of four
speed tiers, with either high or low latency. The speed tiers were 25/3
Mbps, 50/5 Mbps, 100/20 Mbps, and 1 Gigabyte/500 Mbps. By design,
bidders in all performance tiers competed against one another, at least
in the initial rounds, with a preference built into the auction design
for faster service and lower latency. The rules included a complicated
system of ``weights,'' which effectively reduced the amount of support
provided for slower speed and/or higher latency service.
Only census blocks that were unserved according to the FCC's 2019
broadband availability data by 25/3 Mbps fixed terrestrial broadband
were eligible for bidding. Eligible areas also had to be deemed ``high
cost,'' meaning the estimated cost to serve was above a threshold that
assumed a set level of cost would be covered by end user revenues. The
maximum level of funding available for any given area and reserve
prices were based on the estimated cost to deploy fiber in the area.
Bids represented a percentage of the reserve price, with the weights
reducing the effective amount of subsidy for individual bidders.
Ultimately, over 180 entities placed winning bids for $9.2 billion
of the $16 billion budgeted for Phase I. Collectively, winning bids
promised service to over 5.2 million homes and small businesses
(roughly 13 million people), which covered more than 99 percent of the
locations in the auction. More than 85 percent of the locations
received winning bids at the highest speed tier, and virtually all of
the remaining locations received winning bid that committed to deliver
100/20 Mbps.
Winning bidders now must undergo a more thorough review of their
financial and technical qualifications, and meet certain other
requirements, before they receive funding. In January 2021, a bi-
partisan group of 157 members of Congress asked the FCC to thoroughly
vet winning bidders to ensure that they can deliver the broadband
service they have promised to unserved consumers.
For the Connect America Fund Phase II auction, the first group of
winning bidders were authorized six months after conclusion of the
auction, with other bidders authorized on a rolling basis over the
following two years. Once authorized, RDOF winning bidders have six
years to complete their deployments, with interim milestones beginning
at the end of the third year.
The FCC currently plans to hold a second RDOF auction, RDOF Phase
II, to address partially served areas and those areas for which there
was no winning bid in RDOF Phase I. The FCC said that it would only
hold the Phase II auction after it improved its broadband availability
data and maps. In December 2020, the FCC announced that funding not
allocated in the RDOF Phase I auction would be allocated to the RDOF
Phase II auction, creating a budget of up to $11.2 billion.
3.9. POLICY OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
While we are generally supportive of several current and proposed
efforts to close the availability gap, there are additional policy
considerations that should be considered in the interest of achieving
digital equity and inclusion.
3.9.1. THE FCC SHOULD CONDUCT AN EXPEDITED PROCEEDING TO DETERMINE
CRITICAL BENCHMARKS FOR BROADBAND.
As noted above, the FCC's determination of service levels that
constitute Advanced Telecommunications Capability (ATC) profoundly
affect the determination of which areas are deemed ``unserved,'' and,
consequently, how limited funds are allocated to help close the
availability gap. The FCC should commence an expedited proceeding to
determine:
What has COVID-19 taught the United States about broadband
usage and how that should affect the threshold standard for
what the FCC considers the definition of broadband? While we do
not express a specific recommendation in this plan for what the
definition should be, we believe the evidence is highly likely
to demonstrate that the current definition is too low. Since
the FCC last upgraded the definition in 2015, broadband usage
has significantly increased and the COVID crisis accelerated
those usage trends.
What do technology and market trends indicate about future
broadband usage?
What is the level of broadband service necessary today to
utilize essential services, such as education, health care and
workforce development today? How might requirements change
going forward?
In light of those findings, what is the level of broadband
service below which an area should be considered unserved by
broadband?
In light of those findings, what is the minimum level of
broadband service the government should require in funding
efforts to bring availability to an unserved area?
In completing this analysis, the FCC should look for guidance to
Section 254 of the Communications Act, which defines the principles of
Universal Service the FCC is directed to implement. That section states
that ``consumers in all regions of the Nation . . . should have access
to'' communications services ``that are reasonably comparable to those
services provided in urban areas and that are available at rates that
are reasonably comparable to rates charged for similar services in
urban areas.''
``Reasonably comparable'' does not necessarily mean identical, but
the FCC should choose a level of service below which it cannot be
fairly said that consumers are receiving reasonably comparable service.
Section 254 also direct the FCC, in establishing the ``evolving level''
of service that constitutes universal service, to consider, among other
factors, ``the extent to which'' retail services have ``through the
operation of market choices by customers, been subscribed to by a
substantial majority of residential customers.''
In establishing and revising the level of broadband service that
the government should fund to support an unserved area, the FCC should
also seek to balance the objectives of both Sections 254 and Section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As noted above, Section 254
promotes the concept of ``reasonably comparable service,'' and directs
the FCC to define universal service in part with reference to retail
services that have been subscribed to by a substantial majority of
residential consumers.
Under Section 706, Congress directs the FCC to act to ``encourage
the deployment'' of ATC to ``all Americans'' on ``a reasonable and
timely basis.'' Congress defines ATC as ``with regard to any
transmission media or technology, as high-speed, switched, broadband
telecommunications capability that enables users to originate and
receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and video
telecommunications using any technology.''
In assessing a forward looking element into the service levels that
constitute ATC for purposes of infrastructure funding support, the FCC
should include provisions for excess capacity that would reasonably
accommodate predicted growth in use and application requirements over
the next 10 years, with ``excess capacity'' and ``application
requirements,'' to be defined by the FCC following analysis of user
requirements for current and emerging applications and their technical
and utilization characteristics. In defining these elements, the FCC
should place particular emphasis on service levels necessary to utilize
essential services in education, health care and workforce development,
as detailed in succeeding chapters.
Through this and related proceedings, the FCC should then establish
a set of minimum standards for deployments that qualify for government
funds, referred to herein as ``Qualifying Networks.''
3.9.2. THE DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY AND THE STATES SHOULD UTILIZE THE NEW
APPROPRIATIONS IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH THIS PLAN.
As noted above, Congress appropriated funds in the America Rescue
Act of 2021 directly to States, territories and tribal entities, as
well as to local governments and counties that can be used for
broadband infrastructure. Congress also allocated funds to the
Department of Treasury to distribute to the states funds that appear to
be specifically designated for broadband infrastructure. We recommend
that the funds be used in a manner consistent with this plan,
including, but not limited, to the following:
The priority for funding should be to serve unserved areas,
according to an upgraded definition of what constitutes
broadband, with further prioritization of areas that were
unserved under the 25 Mbps/3 Mbps definition of broadband. We
note that there are a number of areas where private enterprises
already have publicly announced plans to deploy gigabit capable
fiber networks. While such areas might currently meet the new
definition of unserved, the priority should remain funding in
areas where, but for the government funding, Qualifying
Networks would not be built.
The minimum service level required of awardees should be
consistent with an updated definition of Qualifying Networks;
The funds should be awarded through a competitive process
with guardrails to ensure that an entity seeking funding has
the actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments;
Eligibility to compete for the funds should be consistent
with the principles discussed in this Chapter;
The FCC and NTIA should assist the Department of Treasury,
as well as all the different government entities eligible to
receive funds for broadband infrastructure projects, with
issues related to mapping, definitions, and structuring
competitive processes.
3.9.3 THE FCC SHOULD IMPLEMENT THE BROADBAND DATA ACT.
In December 2020, Congress appropriated funding for the FCC to
implement the Broadband Data. The FCC should produce maps of fixed
terrestrial broadband service availability consistent with the Act by
early 2022. While taking care not to harm any privacy rights or
confidential business information, the mapping effort should make
greater use of existing data private enterprises already have and,
where appropriate, use crowdsourcing techniques that provide more
accurate and granular information about broadband availability than the
FCC currently has. Further, in light of the Congressional
appropriations to states and other government jurisdictions for
broadband projects, the FCC should seek to accelerate its mapping to
assist those governments with their own decision making. While mapping
is underway, at the same time, the FCC should complete the necessary
proceedings to adopt rules and procedures for the next auction. Upon
completion of the mapping, the FCC should release an updated map of
areas eligible for funding, solicit applications, and hold an auction
to deploy broadband based on the findings of the updated maps.
3.9.4. CONGRESS SHOULD ELIMINATE THE ETC REQUIREMENT AND SIMILAR
REQUIREMENTS THAT SUPPRESS SUPPLY.
Congress should instruct the FCC to eliminate the requirement that
infrastructure funding recipients be designated as ETCs, and
automatically relinquish the designation for existing ETCs in the
serving area once their funding ends. Congress should further direct
the FCC to incorporate those elements of the existing ETC designation
process that remain relevant into its applicant review process, as
discussed in Section 3.8.2, and authorize the FCC to consult with
appropriate state and local officials, such as state broadband offices
familiar with conditions on the ground, so that the FCC is able to
develop meaningful audit and oversight capabilities over funding
recipients to ensure they perform as expected.
3.9.5. THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SHOULD STREAMLINE ITS PROCESS
FOR GRANTING ACCESS TO FEDERAL RIGHTS OF WAY (ROW).
In the same way that the ETC requirement has suppressed the supply
of enterprises interested in obtaining Federal assistance to deploy
networks, current Department of Transportation policy that limits
access to Federal ROW to certified utilities and communications
companies adds unnecessary costs for non-traditional providers who wish
to lay fiber or other conduits. The Department of Transportation should
create a national policy that (1) provides streamlined access to
Federal ROW (e.g., Interstate highway system) for non-utilities or non-
certificated operators; (2) simplifies and improves transparency around
the permitting process; and (3) creates one point of contact for all
approvals required to deploy communications infrastructure.
3.9.6. CONGRESS SHOULD PASS LEGISLATION AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO BE
DISTRIBUTED BY THE FCC OR OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THROUGH A
SERIES OF COMPETITIVE PROCESSES TO CLOSE THE AVAILABILITY GAP.
We believe the best way to close the availability gap is with a
significant one-time appropriation. The following guidelines should be
included:
1. The FCC should allocate the funds through multiple competitive
processes as described below.
2. Any appropriated funds left over after all auctions are completed
should be redirected to Universal Service programs aimed at
closing the adoption and affordability gaps, as discussed in
Chapters 4 and 5. Congress should consider the appropriation as
a unified effort to achieve digital equity and inclusion. In a
well-designed reverse auction, market forces will encourage
efficiency, so providing a cushion will not lead to over-
expenditures. That cushion, however, should be spent on other
programs to address digital equity and inclusion and in
particular, to relieve pressure on the Universal Service Fund.
3. Congress should require that the FCC report to Congress on the
extent to which it is appropriate to rely on LEOs, next
generation VDSL, fixed and/or mobile cellular, or other
alternative technologies to completely close the availability
gap, or if other technologies will be required to meet the
needs of the most remote premises. That report should take into
account what the FCC learns from the performance of alternate
technologies funded to date.
3.9.7. THE FCC SHOULD HOLD SEVERAL REVERSE AUCTIONS.
The FCC should hold multiple reverse auctions. There are several
reasons why this is the preferable approach:
First, it would allow the FCC to gain real-world experience
with the performance of the networks it has financed to date,
informing its determination of the service levels alternative
technologies are capable of delivering.
Second, it would provide the agency with market insight into
the performance of 5G fixed and mobile networks, as well as the
potential of other emerging technologies, such as low earth
orbiting satellites.
Third, a series of auctions will provide a second chance for
communities to consider alternatives in the event there is no
winning bidder for their area. Unserved communities that are
desperate for available service are at different stages of
organizing themselves to solve the problem. For some, the
answer may be to work more closely with existing or nearby
service providers to develop a more attractive business
proposition to encourage entry. For others, it may be necessary
to explore alternative approaches, including ways to leverage
multiple sources of funding from federal, state, and local
options.
The FCC should maximize the reach of the Congressional
appropriation by considering an auction design that awards funding
based on dollar-per-location basis, rather than a bid-to-reserve price
ratio. It should prioritize those areas that require the least amount
of funding per home.
To close the availability gap as quickly as possible, the FCC
should adopt the following schedule:
In 2022, the FCC should hold a reverse auction designed to
assure deployment of a Qualifying Network to 98 percent of
premises in the United States. The 98 percent goal is
appropriate as it is the point at which the cost curve for
connecting each additional premise begins to rise
significantly.
In 2023, the FCC should examine the performance of new
delivery technologies, including but not limited to, low earth
orbiting satellites and 5G fixed and mobile cellular networks,
and develop a plan to provide the final 2 percent of premises
in America with a Qualifying Network. To the extent that plan
requires additional funding from Congress, the FCC should
request, and Congress should appropriate, such funding.
In 2024, the FCC should hold a reverse auction designed to
assure deployment of a Qualifying Network to the final 2
percent of premises.
The FCC should continually upgrade its availability maps, as
noted above, to determine with greater accuracy which areas
remain unserved by a Qualifying Network.
3.9.8. THE FCC SHOULD ADJUST ITS PROCEDURES FOR QUALIFYING TO
PARTICIPATE IN REVERSE AUCTIONS.
We agree with bi-partisan criticism of the FCC's handling of the
recent RDOF Phase I auction. To prevent the risk of having winning
bidders who are likely to default on their commitments, we recommend
the FCC adopt two additional principles in refining the its
requirements for qualification in the next auction.
The FCC should adopt stronger guardrails for the ``short
form'' review process to ensure that an entity seeking to bid
has the actual technical, operational, and financial resources
necessary to meet its commitments. In the most recent RDOF
auction, the FCC allowed entities to bid anywhere in the
nation, subject only to a limitation that their bids not exceed
the nationwide auction budget. The FCC used a case-by-case
approach to assess the qualifications of applicants to bid. The
short-form process--in which applicants seek to qualify to bid
in specific states at specific performance tier(s)--should be
modified to include more bright-line rules designed to ensure
the applicant can to realistically meet the selected
performance tier in the desired area(s) of interest. For
example, the FCC could establish that no bidder is eligible to
bid on more than a specified number of locations or for more
than a given dollar amount of support, absent demonstration of
operational history meeting a specific threshold. Absent that
operational history, the short-form applicant could be required
to demonstrate that project financing has been secured up to a
set dollar amount, contingent on winning a specified level of
support.
The FCC should not allow enterprises to bid on the basis of
unproven technology. In the most recent RDOF auction, the FCC
qualified companies to bid that were not existing broadband
providers and proposed to use technologies without a proven
track record of being commercially offered in the marketplace
at required RDOF service levels. In future auctions, the FCC
should not allow applicants to bid on selected performance
tiers in the absence of real-world market place experience as
an existing broadband provider or with those technologies in a
variety of relevant markets. At a minimum, there should be some
limits on the ability to bid using technologies that lack
operational experience.
3.9.9. THE FCC AND CONGRESS SHOULD INSTITUTE POLICIES TO CONNECT TRIBAL
LANDS.
3.9.9.1. Congress should establish a Tribal Broadband Fund to support
sustainable broadband deployment and adoption in Tribal lands.
Grants from a new Tribal Broadband Fund would be used for a variety
of purposes, including bringing high-capacity connectivity to Tribal
headquarters and other anchor institutions, as well as support for
deployment planning, infrastructure buildout, feasibility studies,
technical assistance, business plan development and implementation,
digital literacy, and outreach. In addition, a portion of the fund
should be allocated to provide small, targeted grants on an expedited
basis for Internet access and adoption programs. The goal should be
deployment of high-capacity infrastructure on Tribal lands that enables
users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, and
video telecommunications using any technology.
As part of this effort, Congress should also provide ongoing
funding for Federal facilities serving Tribal lands to upgrade and
maintain their broadband infrastructure. Consistent with the widely
held view that government entities actively seek out and leverage ``dig
once'' coordination opportunities in all areas of the country, all
Federal agencies that upgrade network connectivity on Tribal lands
should coordinate such upgrades with Tribal governments and the Tribal
Broadband Fund grant-making process, exploiting opportunities for joint
trenching, laying of conduit, or construction of additional fiber optic
facilities. As part of that effort, the FCC, in consultation with
relevant stakeholders, should develop a set of best practices that
expedite review when infrastructure deployment utilizes existing rights
of way, such as highways, utilities, and rail. In addition, we note
that the two appropriations mentioned above in the American Rescue Act
of 2021 provide funding to Tribal governments that can be used for
broadband infrastructure. The fund we recommend here should be designed
in light of the needs after an evaluation of how the Rescue Act funds
were utilized.
3.9.9.2. Congress should amend the Communications Act to provide
discretion to the FCC to allow anchor institutions on Tribal
lands to share broadband network capacity that is funded by the
E-rate or the Rural Health Care program with other community
institutions designated by Tribal governments.
In recognition of the unique challenges facing Tribal communities,
Congress should amend the Communications Act to provide discretion to
the FCC to define circumstances in which schools, libraries and health
care providers that receive funding from the E-rate or Rural Health
Care programs may share broadband network access and capacity that is
funded by the E-rate or the Rural Health Care program with other
community institutions designated by Tribal governments.
3.9.9.3. Congress and the FCC should develop policies that allow Tribes
significant influence over the use of spectrum over their
lands.
Congress and the FCC should work together to allow Tribal
communities to have an increased ability to utilize spectrum over their
lands. This should be based on three principles:
Require Tribal consultation and approval regarding the use
of spectrum over their lands. Because of the way the FCC has
allocated spectrum, wireless companies often license the
spectrum that lies above Tribal lands, yet do not deploy
networks in those areas, allocating their capital to build in
more densely populated areas. Native Tribes were promised a
level of sovereignty over their lands, and given the importance
of spectrum and wireless communications, they should have the
right to control that spectrum and deploy it in ways that best
suits their needs. Congress should end the FCC's ability to
license Tribal spectrum resources without Tribal consultation.
Require a Tribal Priority Filing Window for every spectrum
auction. To the extent that there are frequencies and uses for
which automatic Tribal control is not practical, the FCC should
create a Tribal Priority Filing Window for licenses over Tribal
lands in advance of every spectrum auction, granting Tribes the
right to license the spectrum on an exclusive or priority
basis.
Institute a build it or lose it process for future licensees
of Tribal spectrum. Because of earlier allocation and licensing
of spectrum, private entities hold licenses for significant
portions of spectrum over Tribal lands. Often, the economics of
serving these lands licensees from building out networks. As
noted above, Congress should authorize the FCC to conduct a
reverse auction or otherwise determine and provide the support
necessary to incent existing spectrum holders to build out
their networks over Tribal lands. For future spectrum auctions,
the FCC could, with advance notice to all potential bidders,
make build-out on Tribal lands a clear and explicit condition
of spectrum auctions over these lands.
3.9.10. IMPROVE ACCESS TO INFORMATION ABOUT FEDERAL AND STATE BROADBAND
PROGRAMS AND IMPROVE THE APPLICATION PROCESS.
As noted above, according to the NTIA's Broadband Funding Guide,
there are 59 direct and indirect Federal programs, located in more than
a dozen Federal agencies, that support broadband deployment efforts. In
addition, there are several programs that have either been initiated or
expanded through COVID-19 relief legislation that also provide
broadband assistance.
The multitude of these programs raises questions of whether they
are being effectively used. Such an analysis is beyond the scope of
this effort. But there are obvious problems with current efforts that
could be easily addressed and which, if addressed, would improve
broadband access.
3.9.10.1. Provide a search engine that enables stakeholders to
effectively find the program that serves their needs.
NTIA currently has a search tool, but it only allows one to search
for programs to the extent that the parties know the specific program
they are looking for. It would be far better if the search engine
allowed the party doing the search to enter certain relevant criteria,
including the nature of the recipient (schools, libraries, non-profits,
local governments, hospitals, etc.), the purpose of the funding
(planning, capital expense, adoption, training, etc.), the location of
the recipient (rural, exurban, suburban, metro as well as by zip code,
as some programs, such as the Appalachian Regional Council, only
service specific regions), and then the search engine would identify
relevant programs. In other words, the search engine should be designed
to do the searching, rather than forcing the person doing the inquiry
to review all 59 programs to determine whether each program's mission
and eligibility criteria fit their situation.
3.9.10.2. Require agencies to update their information.
A quick review of the information makes clear that many entries are
out of date. There should be a requirement for agencies to periodically
update the information and to do so immediately when there is a
significant event, such as Congressional action allocating new funds,
that affects the nature of their programs.
3.9.10.3. For programs other than the those supported by the Universal
Service Fund, create a common application that enables those
applying for funding from more than one program to save time
and effort on the application process.
The FCC process is unique in a number of ways but there is
significant overlap between many of the other Federal programs. NTIA
should review the applications for those programs and develop a common
application so that the applicant can fill out one, instead of multiple
forms, and apply for multiple programs simultaneously. Further, NTIA
should standardize, to the extent possible, the application process to
ease the administrative burden on applicants. As an illustration, the
Department of Education has an online Financial Aid Form application,
known as the FAFSA, that is common to all eligible institutions.
3.9.10.4. The website should be designed so that states can also add
their broadband related programs to the database.
Several states have programs that subsidize broadband deployments.
To assist communities seeking assistance, it would be useful to enable
states to add links to their programs, so that potential providers can
assess the full menu of available support.
Chapter 4.
CLOSING THE BROADBAND ADOPTION GAP
4.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The COVID-19 pandemic has wrenched much of our day-to-day life,
learning, work, and socializing from the familiar world of the physical
to digital equivalents many users had never heard of only a few months
ago. One pernicious side-effect of the crisis has been to expose both
the extent and the growing cost of persistent digital inequities. It is
hard to live your life online if you do not have or know how to use a
computer, and don't subscribe to a broadband service that connects it
to the rest of the world.
The previous chapter reviewed gaps in broadband availability and
the mechanisms that would solve them once and for all. But solely as a
function of the number of people affected, the biggest divide remains
that of adoption. The Federal Communications Commission estimates that
at the end of 2019, the number of Americans with no available broadband
service was less than 14.5 million, though other sources suggest the
number may be as high as 40 million. Even at the higher end of that
range, however, the number of Americans with available service who do
not subscribe to broadband is significantly greater. This adoption gap
afflicts a wide range of people and geographies, but is most acute
among low-income households, those with lower education levels, older
adults, Black Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans.
Extensive public and private surveys suggest that, since 2010,
there are three principal causes of the adoption gap, broadly speaking:
problems of affordability, digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
The first is obvious. Thirty-four million Americans living below
the poverty line struggle with the most basic necessities of life--
rent, food, electricity and water, transit, and basic communications.
Adding the cost of monthly broadband service makes adoption untenable,
even as it becomes increasingly clear that Internet service is more a
necessity than a luxury. Issues of affordability are discussed in the
next chapter.
Digital readiness constitutes a more complex and interconnected set
of issues. For many, including some who can and some who cannot afford
a retail broadband service, adoption is complicated by a lack of
computing equipment and training. This includes the ability to use a
computer or tablet device, to access and use specific services on the
Internet, and to set up and maintain connectivity equipment, including
modems, routers, and home Wi-Fi networks. It also includes having the
training necessary to overcome the fears, many of them justified, of
personal and financial security while using online services.
Longitudinal surveys from both the NTIA and Pew Internet Research
have consistently shown that a significant obstacle to broadband
adoption is the belief, well-founded or otherwise, that the Internet is
not ``relevant'' to the lives of many non-adopters. But on the problem
of relevance, we think the pandemic has changed the environment,
perhaps permanently. For now, and perhaps well into the future,
education at all levels will take place online. Health care, crucial
for all Americans but especially for poorer and older residents and
those living in remote locations, has suddenly and irreversibly moved
to virtual platforms, with doctor visits, prescriptions, and basic
wellness services being delivered largely without physical interaction.
Employment opportunities--everything from job training to applying for
work and, in many cases, performing one's job--require broadband.
Government services and civic engagement are also increasingly more
easily and effectively accessed online, not to mention social
engagement, entertainment, shopping, news, and information. Any
remaining doubts about the relevance of digital life, and the
importance of digital equity and inclusion, have been largely erased.
But the COVID-19 pandemic has not so much created these new
realities as it has accelerated paradigm shifts in daily life that were
already well underway. The computer is a source of continual disruption
across nearly all industries and activities precisely because it offers
the promise, if used wisely, of lowering a remarkable range of costs,
of improving efficiency and capacity, of equalizing quality of service
and opportunity, and of opening doors to new forms of human creativity,
innovation, and interaction. In the reaction to many unfortunate but
undeniable negative side effects of the digital age, we may forget just
how much the technology has and can continue to improve the quality of
life, especially for the most disadvantaged populations.
The pandemic, too, has brought that truth into stark focus. With
the attention of both policymakers and their constituents acutely fixed
on the importance and promise of digital equity and inclusion, the
stars have aligned as never before for bold action to close the
adoption gap. We must seize it.
4.2. VISION
The Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of
1996 both articulate a vision for communications policy that has taken
on renewed importance today: universal and affordable communications
services that are widely available.
Those acts were written in an era in which voice communications was
dominant. Today, of course, voice is only a small part of the
communication ecosystem. That, too, was a shift contemplated by
Congress. As the 1996 Act noted ``Universal service is an evolving
level of telecommunications services that the Commission shall
establish periodically under this section, taking into account advances
in telecommunications and information technologies and services.'' The
Act also says that the definition of universal service should be
functional, based on what is essential to education, health, and public
safety, as well as whether a ``substantial majority'' of the public has
subscribed to certain telecommunications services.
Our vision, therefore, is to reach levels of adoption among low-
income households, less educated adults, older Americans, Black
Americans, Latinxs, and Native Americans, and other groups who suffer
from persistent digital inequity and exclusion, that equals adoption
rates seen today among those for whom affordability and digital
readiness are not barriers.
4.3. GOALS
By the end of 2023, all K-12 students should be active users of
broadband services at home that enables them to attend virtual classes
and complete their homework. They should also have devices capable of
facilitating all learning activities.
By the end of 2023, all low-income persons on government health
plans should be active users of broadband service in their residence
that enables them to access the full range of telehealth services.
By the end of 2023, all persons who become unemployed should be
active users of broadband service in their residence that enables them
to engage in job training, job searching and applying for a job.
By the end of 2021, the Federal Government should establish an
Office of Digital Equity (discussed further below in Section 4.5.1)
with a mandate to coordinate across agencies and initiatives to
increase home broadband adoption, and otherwise advocate for policies
designed to achieve digital equity and inclusion.
By the end of 2023, all Americans should have access to programs
and services that enable persons to be digitally ready.
4.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION: UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL ADOPTION GAPS
4.4.1. DEFINING BROADBAND ADOPTION.
We define ``broadband adoption'' to mean subscribing to an
available Internet access service, where an individual or family lives,
that is always available, offers full access to all parts of the
Internet, is secure, and with speed, data, latency and other technical
characteristics sufficient to use essential applications such as, but
not limited to, education, health care, and employment, along with the
necessary equipment and training to benefit from their full potential.
That definition suggests the need for policymakers to devise,
enact, and fund solutions to address the persistent adoption problems
noted above: affordability, digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
Ensuring that today's non-adopters have the economic means to subscribe
to broadband will erase a major obstacle; untangling and solving the
many elements of digital readiness ensures that the newly connected can
reap the same benefits of digital technology as long-time users, and
will likely address remaining questions of relevancy.
A few features of adoption are worth highlighting. Together, fixed
terrestrial broadband and large-screen computers or tablets allow users
to carry out most online tasks with little or no constraints. But there
is also the question of what kind of data package is sufficient to
enable a household to achieve that full participation in digital life
we discussed in Chapter 1. A 2018 study on low-income households who
use Wi-Fi hotspots for schoolwork shows that they consume 60 gigabits
of data per month--above the 50 GB monthly threshold that many mobile
carriers have before slowing access speeds for non-unlimited data
plans. Wireline broadband plans generally have either no limits or
limits of 1,024 GB per month- well above the average data usage of 344
GB per month they experienced at the end of 2019. Since the pandemic,
some mobile data plans have eased constraints on data caps, including
within the context of ``single payer'' agreements between localities
and service providers. These solutions are neither generally available
nor guaranteed to be permanent but, as discussed later, next generation
cellular and other wireless services may at some point change the
analysis. In addition, we cannot lose sight of the fact that mobile
network wireless hotspots offer unique advantages, including ease of
set-up and pack-and-go Internet for students with multiple home
locations.
We also believe that non-smartphone devices are an important
element of adoption. Though widely adopted and constantly improving
their functional abilities, smartphones today are not a full cure for
problems of digital equity and inclusion. As the pandemic unfolded and
citizens sought unemployment benefits, for example, 86 percent of state
unemployment websites failed tests for ``mobile friendliness.''
4.4.2. CURRENT DATA.
In chapter 3 we analyzed the state of broadband deployment and
relied largely on FCC data, which, as discussed, has significant flaws
but still provides some insight into the availability gap. For this
chapter, we are focused on understanding adoption gaps across socio-
economic lines. For these purposes we believe the American Community
Survey offers the best information to analyze these gaps and we explain
the choice to emphasize wireline connections below.
According to the American Community Survey's analysis of 2019
census data, 70.8 percent of U.S. households have adopted broadband at
home using a wired service--using either cable, fiber, or DSL. This is
captured in the ACS question that asks whether ``you or any member of
this household have access to the Internet using a . . . broadband
(high speed) Internet service such as cable, fiber optic, or DSL
service installed in this household?'' It is worth noting that a
``yes'' answer to this question does not necessarily mean that the
respondent has service that meets the FCC's current definition of ATC,
which requires speeds of 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload. DSL, an
older technology that some providers are hoping to phase out, may not
satisfy the FCC's definition.
The 2019 ACS figure of nearly 71 percent represents an increase
from 67.3 percent in 2016, when ACS first began to report on broadband
adoption. ACS also reports on non-wired services, finding in 2019 that,
including cellular and satellite-based broadband services, adoption
levels reached 86.4 percent, an increase from 81.4 percent in 2016. In
addition to the 70.8 percent of those who have wireline subscriptions,
cellular-only users make up nearly 12 percent of Internet adopters,
with satellite and other broadband technologies making up the rest.
This means that as of the end of 2019, ACS data suggest that nearly
36 million households, or approximately 96 million people, were not
subscribing to broadband at home using a fixed terrestrial service
(henceforth ``broadband at home''). As noted in Chapter 3, of course,
the lack of an available service plays a significant role in that
finding.
Incomplete network availability data make it difficult to say with
precision how many non-subscribing households could have broadband at
home but currently do not. If between 80 percent and 90 percent of all
households have access to at least one available fixed terrestrial
service, however, then between 29 to 32 million households, or
approximately 69 to 78 million people, do not subscribe to broadband at
home for reasons other than network availability.
4.4.2.1. Socio-economic factors and geography.
According to 2019 ACS data, six demographic characteristics
correlated strongly to whether or not a household adopts broadband:\6\
Income. One of the most highly correlated variables in adoption of
broadband at home is household income. For households with annual
incomes of $50,000 or less, 54.1 percent have adopted broadband at
home, compared to households with annual incomes exceeding $75,000,
where 84.3 percent have adopted broadband at home. Non-adopting U.S.
households with annual incomes below $50,000 (representing 42 percent
of all U.S. households), equate to 21.9 million households, or
approximately 59 million people. [FIGURE 1]
Age. Only 59.0 percent of individuals aged 65 and older have
adopted broadband at home, with a particularly sharp drop off for those
older than 74, where only 48.7 percent have adopted broadband at home.
This leaves 21.6 million older Americans without broadband at home, or
13.3 million households. [FIGURE 2]
Households with school-age children. 77.3 percent of households
with children under the age of 18 have adopted broadband at home. This
is higher than the national average, reflecting in part the relative
youth of these households. Some 16.9 million children under age 18 are
estimated to live in households without broadband at home--or
approximately 8.4 million households.
Geography. Fewer rural Americans have adopted broadband at home, in
part, as noted in Chapter 3, due to a lack of an available fixed
terrestrial service. In non-metropolitan areas, only 62.4 percent of
households have adopted broadband at home, compared to 72.3 percent for
those living in metropolitan areas. In 2019, 7 million households in
non-metro areas had not adopted broadband at home.
Given the concentration of population in metro areas however, there
are far more urban households who have not adopted broadband at home--
an estimated 29 to 32 million households, or approximately 69 to 78
million people,
Race and Ethnicity. Broadband adoption has historically been
adopted at higher rates by white Americans relative to Black Americans,
Latinxs, and Native American/Alaskan Natives. The 2018 ACS data show
this trend continuing. Compounding the problem, adoption rates for
Black American, Latinxs, and Native American/Alaskan Natives are
significantly lower even when controlling for household income, age,
educational attainment, and other factors. [FIGURE 3] Specifically,
broadband at home has been adopted in the following percentages:
82.2 percent of Asian Americans
72.2 percent of whites
65.7 percent of Latinxs
61.8 percent of Black Americans
60.3 percent of Native Americans or Alaskan Natives.
Educational attainment. Broadband adoption also correlates strongly
with higher levels of educational attainment. Those with higher levels
of educational attainment may, for example, have jobs that require
digital skills, not to mention the income to afford broadband at home.
For those with high school degrees or less, their jobs or income levels
may contribute to lower levels of adoption for broadband at home. Each
of the three groups below make up about one-third of the adult
population. The data shows [FIGURE 4]:
54.4 percent of those with high school degrees or less have
broadband at home.
72.5 percent of those with some college experience or an
associate degree have broadband at home.
84.8 percent of those with college degrees or more have
broadband at home.
4.4.2.2. Other demographic groups of special interest.
Government services are increasingly available and essential as
Internet applications. But in many cases, those who would most benefit
from the timesaving and convenience of e-government services have not
adopted broadband at home. As of 2018, adoption rates lagged behind the
average among beneficiaries of the most important government programs:
Health insurance. For Americans using Medicare as their health
insurance, 57.9 percent have adopted broadband at home, a figure which
tracks with the adoption rate for those age 65 or older. 52.1 percent
of Medicaid beneficiaries have adopted broadband at home. Military
personnel and their dependents with Tricare health insurance show
higher rates of adoption of broadband at home, at 74.4 percent.
Veterans have adopted at a lower rate, at 65.3 percent. [FIGURE 5]
Government benefits, including Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). These benefit
programs are available to households whose gross incomes are no more
than 130 percent of the poverty level (for SNAP), while SSI eligibility
depends on age, income, and disability status. For adults eligible for
either of these programs, only 52.5 percent have adopted broadband at
home.
People with disabilities. Computers and many web-based interfaces
are difficult if not impossible to use by people with certain visual,
movement, and learning disabilities. Adults with disabilities have low
rates of adoption, with 54.4 percent having broadband at home.
4.4.2.3. Broadband in Urban America--an analysis of cities
As noted in at home. As a result, much of the attention and funding
directed to closing the availability and adoption gaps in recent years
has been focused on rural America.
But given the higher concentration of population in urban areas,
far larger numbers of non-adopting households are located in cities
than in the more sparsely populated areas of the country. For example,
a recent analysis of broadband adoption in Baltimore, Maryland showed
that 40 percent of residents had not adopted broadband at home as of
2018. Among the poorest (those with annual household income of $25,000
or less), 66 percent had not adopted. And one in three Baltimore City
households did not have either a desktop or laptop computer.
One common denominator in these and other examples is poverty.
Urban areas with high rates of poverty have low rates of broadband
adoption.
There are also data that suggest lower adoption rates occur in
neighborhoods that are more segregated. A possible explanation for that
result pertains to network effects--or how behavior by others in one's
social networks influence behavior. The likelihood of someone adopting
broadband at home is higher if nearby peers have already adopted. This
dynamic first emerged for computer adoption generally in the late
1990s, when research showed that people were more likely to buy
computers if a large share of their friends had one, even when
controlling for demographic and socio-economic factors.
The following table shows broadband adoption at home in the 50
cities with the lowest adoption rates, along with rates of poverty and
residential segregation. The data on residential segregation comes from
the Diversity and Disparities project at Brown University; a
residential segregation figure of 50 or more indicates high levels of
residential segregation. Figures on poverty use table S1701 from the
Census Bureau. The Appendix presents data for 100 of the largest U.S.
cities. For all 100 cities, the average adoption rate for 2019 is 72.2
percent, and the poverty rate for 2019 is 15.9 percent. The broadband
adoption rate for all 100 cities is 68.1 percent for 2016.
Table 1: 50 cities with lowest broadband adoption at home
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White-
Wireline Wireline Poverty 2019 White-Black Hispanic Number of
City Broadband Broadband 2016 Rate residential residential households
2019 segregation segregation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8Birmingham, Alabama 52.4% 55.7% 25.2% 62.6 52.4 93,3000
Detroit, Michigan 53.7% 42.7% 30.6% 59.2 59.4 267,139
8Cleveland, Ohio 54.0% 50.8% 30.8% 69 37.5 171,6320
Memphis, Tennessee 55.8% 50.1% 21.7% 67.9 54.5 254,423
8Newark, New Jersey 58.6% 53.5% 25.2% 71.2 47.4 102,1550
Rochester, New York 59.3% 56.5% 25.3% 51.6 54.1 87,679
8Baltimore, Maryland 59.4% 58.4% 20.2% 68.9 45 242,6940
Des Moines, Iowa 62.8% 64.0% 15.5% 36.5 34.4 91,045
8New Orleans, Louisiana 63.0% 56.9% 23.2% 67.6 40.6 151,7530
Stockton, California 63.0% 60.8% 15.4% 37.2 40.5 96,149
8Knoxville, Tennessee 63.4% 63.3% 21.8% 47.8 25.9 83,4920
Toledo, Ohio 63.9% 61.2% 25.2% 53.4 33.9 121,022
8Glendale, Arizona 64.0% 65.1% 18.9% 39.1 48.1 81,0650
Winston-Salem, North 64.5% 66.5% 19.7% 50.4 48.2 94,884
8Little Rock, Arkansas 65.2% 57.9% 12.3% 58.6 57.7 80,0630
St. Louis, Missouri 65.6% 62.2% 19.1% 65.3 35.5 146,779
8Indianapolis, Indiana 65.8% 59.2% 15.8% 62.3 18.8 340,6390
Irving, Texas 65.9% 70.2% 10.3% 36.6 33.6 83,345
8Milwaukee, Wisconsin 65.9% 57.9% 22.4% 70.1 60.7 232,1760
Buffalo, New York 66.2% 57.8% 28.8% 65.9 43.4 109,163
8Las Vegas, Nevada 66.6% 68.7% 14.9% 32.4 48.3 235,6280
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 66.6% 64.0% 23.7% 66.9 38.1 82,097
8Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 66.7% 66.0% 15.8% 46.7 51.6 249,6150
Dallas, Texas 66.8% 57.7% 17.5% 66.1 61.1 518,998
8Louisville, Kentucky 66.9% 68.8% 15.4% 66 36.2 252,7840
Fresno, California 67.1% 63.9% 23.2% 42 42.4 172,815
8El Paso, Texas 67.3% 62.9% 18.6% 30.8 39.7 223,0760
Tucson, Arizona 67.6% 66.4% 19.1% 25.6 47.2 217,993
8Richmond, Virginia 67.7% 58.4% 18.9% 63.5 60.8 89,8780
Jacksonville, Florida 67.9% 68.0% 14.1% 47.5 22.4 349,171
8Lubbock, Texas 67.9% 68.2% 20.6% 47.2 39.5 99,1040
Kansas City, Missouri 68.3% 64.4% 15.3% 62.2 47.1 209,768
8Chicago, Illinois 68.3% 64.1% 16.4% 82.5 60.9 1,080,3450
Tulsa, Oklahoma 68.4% 63.7% 18.6% 49.8 44 163,801
8Norfolk, Virginia 68.5% 63.2% 17.9% 50.8 26.8 88,3870
Houston, Texas 68.5% 61.8% 19.7% 68.6 60.4 876,504
8Akron, Ohio 68.7% 56.4% 23.6% 48.6 31.1 83,8210
San Antonio, Texas 68.8% 61.8% 16.8% 43.1 46.8 512,273
8Albuquerque, New Mexico 69.1% 64.7% 16.0% 28.5 37.1 227,1790
Phoenix, Arizona 69.6% 66.4% 15.6% 49.9 57.7 586,878
8Wichita, Kansas 70.2% 65.1% 14.2% 49.3 38.6 153,4540
Corpus Christi, Texas 70.4% 64.7% 17.25 40.2 39.8 119,184
8Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 70.4% 60.6% 23.3% 73.4 62 619,5050
New York, New York 71.3% 69.3% 16.0% 81.4 65.8 3,211,033
8Salt Lake City, Utah 71.3% 66.8% 14.4% 40.5 55.4 81,8390
Oakland, California 71.7% 69.9% 13.9% 51.9 66.9 168,413
8Tacoma, Washington 71.9% 67.2% 12.6% 31.5 33.1 87,0160
Bakersfield, California 72.0% 69.9% 14.6% 43.4 39.2 116,558
8Greensboro, North Carolina 72.4% 60.6% 19.7% 56.6 49.2 118,0460
St. Paul, Minnesota 72.5% 66.3% 15.9% 43.4 44.1 110,782
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A striking pattern in Table 1 is the correlation between poverty
and broadband adoption at home. For all 100 cities, there is a strong
negative correlation of -0.79, which means that the higher a city's
poverty rate, the lower its rate of broadband adoption at home. The
same is true for residential segregation. For White-Black segregation,
the negative correlation is -0.47; for White-Hispanic residential
segregation, the figure is -0.32. Of course, there is a strong
association between poverty and residential segregation, but
multivariate analysis suggests that both variables have significant and
negative associations with lower rates of broadband adoption at home.
Although poverty and residential segregation rates play a role in
explaining differences in broadband adoption between different cities,
it is possible that public policy decisions can make a difference.
Evidence at the city level is, at best, suggestive. Detroit, for
example, has shown significant growth in broadband adoption at home
since 2016, during which time it has developed a digital inclusion plan
and allocated funding to support digital inclusion programs.
Philadelphia, despite high levels of poverty and residential
segregation, has seen a 10-percentage point gain in broadband adoption
at home since 2016, likely attributable, in part, to the establishment
of a public-private digital inclusion alliance to promote digital
literacy. By contrast, the City of Baltimore, before the pandemic had
no digital inclusion initiatives, and Baltimore's broadband adoption
rates have changed very little since 2016.
4.4.3. WHAT EXPLAINS GAPS IN HOME BROADBAND ADOPTION?
Three factors figure prominently in understanding the adoption gap:
affordability, digital readiness, and perceived lack of relevance.
Affordability. Analysis of national data on broadband adoption at
home shows that income is a highly significant predictor of whether a
household subscribes to service. For non-broadband subscribers, the
threshold for what constitutes ``affordability'' has no single answer.
Research has shown that large portions of non-subscribers set their
preferred price at zero. This may reflect extreme poverty on their
part, and/or a lack of skills or interest in using the Internet.
Qualitative research shows that those unwilling to pay anything for
broadband may be well aware of its value; but they lack the ability to
pay for service or the devices necessary to access it. Most discounted
service offerings aimed at non-adopters are $20 per month or less, with
a couple of programs including Comcast's Internet Essentials and Access
from AT&T at $10 per month. From the public interest perspective, an
important objective is to ensure that discount Internet offers are
widely available, that information about them is aggressively
disseminated, and that sign-up processes for potential users is not
burdensome.
Chapter 5 reviews the affordability problem in further detail and
provides policy options for addressing the challenge. But while
affordability is a significant issue, it is not a binary problem. That
is, it is not a simple question of whether one can or cannot afford
home broadband service and the devices needed to access such service.
There are related financial issues, such as access to credit. For
example, one of the most important service developments encouraging new
subscribers to mobile broadband services was the introduction of pre-
paid services, which mitigated credit issues limiting the market of
potential subscribers. There are similar pre-paid options for broadband
at home, such as with Internet Essentials which does not require a
credit check, but these prepaid programs have not had the impact that
such options have had in the mobile market. The situation is described
in more detail in Appendix 4A.
Digital Readiness. The second substantial constraint on broadband
adoption at home is often referred to as ``digital readiness.'' Digital
readiness is an evolving concept, generally referring to a set of
skills associated with using information and communications technology
(ICT) to find, evaluate, create, and communicate information. It is the
sum of the technical skills and cognitive skills people employ to use
computers to retrieve information, interpret what they find, and judge
the quality of that information. It also includes the ability to
communicate and collaborate using the Internet, which, of course,
requires access to devices.
A lack of digital readiness reflects the uncertainty that new
Internet users bring to their online experience. One component of
digital readiness are the skills required to access and use Internet
services, including for example, how to operate a computer or upload a
resume. Another component of digital readiness is trust, including
confidence that the information they provide and access online is
reliable. Concerns about the level of misinformation and, in
particular, applications that can use personal financial information in
problematic ways in today's Internet and social media environments,
underscore the importance of information and media literacy in digital
readiness programs.
Finally, there can be no digital readiness without access to
computers and other devices, and the ability to use them. A lack of
digital readiness limits the abilities of those new to the Internet to
fully utilize online services. It may also affect some experienced
users, who may struggle with new applications and services.
The prevalence of digital readiness issues is substantial. In the
U.S., one-third of adults have low levels of digital skills for
emerging applications, such as the Internet of Things. As many as half
of the population exhibit some level of reluctance to use online
educational resources, because they lack confidence on how to use such
applications. In health care, inexperience with technology leaves more
than one-third of older adults unable to have video visits with their
doctors during the pandemic. In workforce preparedness, large numbers
of workers lack the digital skills needed to perform many well-paying
jobs that are in demand.
A lack of overall digital readiness fuels strong levels of demand
for digital skills training, something that is unlikely to subside
after the pandemic. A 2017 Pew Research Center study, for example,
found that 60 percent of all adults were interested in training on how
to use online resources to find trustworthy information. Another 54
percent of all adults expressed interest in training on how to better
use the Internet, computers, and smartphones generally.
Perceived lack of relevance. Some non-adopters of broadband service
may view the Internet as something that is not relevant to their lives.
Research findings vary on the degree of this problem. The NTIA finds
that 58 percent of non-adopters cite ``don't need'' or ``not
interested'' as a reason they do not subscribe.
However, qualitative research finds that, when digging into survey
responses that cite lack of relevance, many respondents cite cost of
service and insufficient digital skills as significant issues for them.
Other surveys reach different conclusions, finding cost is the leading
reason for non-adoption among 34 percent of respondents, with ``don't
need/not interested'' cited by 22 percent.
Whatever the precise magnitude of the problem, significant numbers
of non-adopters may benefit from information demonstrating the utility
of being online. An unintended positive consequence of the pandemic may
help address this. Online access, for example, can greatly facilitate
finding out where to get the vaccine and signing up for a shot. The
pandemic has also resulted in social isolation for some people--
particularly older adults--which makes the consequences of not having
online access more evident to people. The significant levels of non-
users citing lack of relevance points to an informational component
addressing barriers. Addressing informational needs in the context of
broadband adoption is something addressed below as part of encouraging
digital readiness.
4.5. CLOSING THE DIGITAL READINESS GAP
The recommendations in this section will help non-adopting
Americans develop basic digital skills, lowering barriers to broadband
adoption and encouraging full utilization.
We are not starting from a blank slate. In the past several years,
digital readiness initiatives throughout the country offer templates
for successful solutions to the adoption gap. Examples include:
The Community Technology Network, which was established in
2008 and which has grown to serve the Bay Area in San Francisco
and Central Texas.
Older Adults Technology Services (OATS) which, as its name
suggests, address the technology and digital skills needs of
older adults.
A number of local public libraries and community colleges,
which have spearheaded programs to provide their patrons
digital skills training, often with an aim at job training and
entrepreneurship.
The National Science Foundation, which has funded a ``rec-
to-tech'' project in Baltimore and Pittsburgh, which uses city
recreation centers as sites to train young people in digital
skills that they can take to the workforce.
4.5.1. ESTABLISH AN OFFICE OF DIGITAL EQUITY.
Congress should establish an Office of Digital Equity to coordinate
across Federal agencies and initiatives to increase adoption of
broadband at home, and to advocate for policies designed to achieve
digital equity and inclusion. As its principal role aligns with
community development, we think it best suited for the Department of
Commerce, but it could also be housed within the Departments of
Education, Housing and Urban Development, or the FCC.
The Office would be the principal entity charged with meeting
broadband adoption goals and tracking progress towards those goals. The
Office would take on the responsibilities of the American Broadband
Initiative, with an expanded scope of functions and new funding to help
meet the goals.
Specifically, the Office would:
Expand and coordinate digital equity strategies and efforts
within and among federal, state, and local governments,
including coordinating with all stakeholders of the new
affordability programs discussed in Chapter 5, to assure
administrative ease and efficiency;
Incentivize participation in digital equity strategies from
all sectors, particularly employment training, education,
health care, finance, and retail;
Coordinate and streamline Federal grant programs aimed at
increasing broadband adoption and network deployment;
Work with private and public affordable housing owners and
agencies to implement programs aimed at increasing digital
literacy in their communities
Establish or support existing local ``hotlines'' to answer
digital literacy questions;
Conduct research, if possible, with National Science
Foundation Funding, on the effectiveness of digital equity
strategies, including:
Identifying a threshold of affordability for discount home
broadband offers. This should take into account household
expenditures for other necessities including (but not limited
to) rent, food, utilities, and medical care, and;
Evaluating the effectiveness of programs designed to
increase broadband adoption.
With a working group of public and private experts, create
and continuously update a digital skills framework for adult
education, workforce, and training programs;
Encourage Internet service providers (ISPs) to develop and
strengthen voluntary low-cost broadband plans for low-income
populations, with emphasis on aligning eligibility for low-cost
offerings across providers;
Encourage hardware, device, and other equipment
manufacturers, software companies, and device-related service
providers to make available low-cost laptop and computer
purchase plans and essential software and other online tools
for low-income populations.
4.5.2. ESTABLISH A NATIONAL DIGITAL LITERACY PROGRAM.
Congress should launch a National Digital Literacy Program that
creates a workforce of ``Digital Navigators, described further below,
increases the capacity of local digital literacy programs, and creates
an Online Digital Literacy Portal of up-to-date training resources.
4.5.2.1. Congress should create a Digital Navigators Corps to conduct
training and outreach in non-adopting communities.
Congress should create a Digital Navigators Corps composed of
skilled experts working to solve a wide range of identified adoption
issues--including home connectivity, devices, and digital skills--on
behalf of local community members, either remotely or in-person.
Members of the Corps should include personnel from social service
agencies, libraries, health centers, community-based organizations,
private sector, volunteers, and other anchor institutions.
Many existing digital literacy training programs, both in the
United States and abroad, rely on face-to-face training provided by
trusted experts within local communities. Whether using
intergenerational training that allows youth committed to community
service to train senior citizens, peer-to-peer training that enhances
connections among seniors or youth, or mentoring models under which
skilled college graduates reach out to currently unconnected citizens,
these programs help non-adopters become more comfortable with
technology while also fostering volunteers' commitment to community
service.
State and local efforts like these offer valuable lessons for
digital literacy services delivered at scale. A national program can
build on these successful models and ensure the expansion needed to
address digital literacy barriers. Specifically, Congress should direct
the NTIA and the Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS)
to create the Digital Navigators Corps. In collaboration, NTIA and CNCS
can explore best-practice models for building and managing the Corps,
leveraging lessons learned from existing programs like AmeriCorps,
Senior Corps and Learn and Serve America. CNCS can also leverage its
own experience with the digital television transition, during which it
made sure that AmeriCorps members were in communities across the
country helping individuals become more comfortable with unfamiliar
technology,
The Corps should target segments of the population that are less
likely to have adopted broadband at home, including low-income
individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, senior citizens, people with
disabilities, those with lower education levels, people in rural
communities, those on Tribal lands, and people whose primary or only
language is not English.
4.5.2.2. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation
with the Institute of Museums and Library Sciences (IMLS),
should develop guidelines to ensure that librarians and
Community Based Organizations (CBOs) have the ongoing training
they need to help patrons use next-generation e-government
applications.
As government services increasingly go online, libraries shoulder
responsibility for helping people learn how to use these online
services. Already, eighty percent of libraries report that they help
patrons use e-government applications. However, some librarians say
they have been overwhelmed by patrons seeking help with government
services and online programs, particularly in an emergency or with a
new government program, such as Federal Emergency Management Agency
forms following Hurricane Katrina and Medicare Part D paperwork. These
librarians also say that they did not receive suitable training or
information from the agencies that provided the e-government solutions.
OMB, in consultation with IMLS, should develop and update
guidelines to help Federal agencies develop e-government services that
leverage the role of public libraries and CBOs as delivery points for
new services and programs as well as for next generation technologies.
Agencies should work with IMLS to develop online tutorials for using
government websites and toolkits for librarians who help patrons use
online government services.
4.5.2.3. Congress should fund an Online Digital Readiness Portal.
Every American should have access to free, age-appropriate content
that teaches digital skills and enhances digital readiness. This
content should be available in a user's native language and should meet
the accessibility requirements applicable to Federal agencies under
Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. To achieve this, Congress should
fund the creation of an Online Digital Readiness Portal (ODRP), and the
relevant government agencies (including but not limited to the NTIA,
FCC, Department of Education, Department of Labor, the Department of
Health and Human Services, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)) should oversee the
portal and partner with the technology industry and education sector to
approve or create high-quality online lessons that users can access and
use at their own pace. The collaboration between the agencies and non-
government partners should be similar to efforts that have produced the
online safety resources available through OnGuardOnline.gov.
Offline resources will be important complements to this online
content. They should be made available for printing or ordering, and
distributed by libraries, CBOs, and other community organizations.
The ODRP should build on the collaborative model that has been
successful in programs such as the HUD Community Outreach Partnerships
Program, which brings institutions of higher education and community
partners together to revitalize communities, including the Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions
Assisting Communities (HSIACs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs)
and Tribal Libraries. In addition to their educational missions,
through the Community Outreach Partnerships Program, these
organizations provide links to community employment assistance,
childcare, health care information, fair housing assistance, job
training, youth programs and other services. As crucial community
institutions and trusted sources of information, HBCUs, HSIACs and TCUs
could also serve as ambassadors to promote digital literacy and other
national digital priorities. HUD and NTIA should also use existing
relationships--for example, with state broadband offices--to distribute
outreach materials associated with the OLDP.
The OLDP should be evaluated after two years to assess its impact.
The evaluation should consider, among other metrics, the total number
of individuals accessing the portal, the number of individuals from
specific target populations accessing the portal, and the effectiveness
of different offline resources in promoting the portal.
4.5.2.4. Reinvigorate Federal efforts to support digital literacy
efforts through revitalizing the www.DigitalLiteracy.gov
platform.
The Obama Administration launched DigitalLiteracy.gov to serve as a
resource to practitioners delivering digital literacy training in their
communities. The platform aggregated best practices, organized
available educational content, and increased coordination among
stakeholders. Unfortunately, the platform was not appropriately
maintained, and has now been disabled. A revitalized and continually
upgraded central website, administered by the NTIA, can serve as the
foundation for digital equity and inclusion efforts, assisting with and
improving the efforts of state and local digital inclusion
organizations.
4.5.2.5. Integrate information outreach into digital readiness
initiatives.
Providing information is key to addressing the view of some non-
adopters that the Internet is not relevant. Conveying to such persons
that the Internet is a pathway to a vaccine, a doctor, or a grandchild,
bundled with access to digital skills and affordable service plans, can
increase adoption. The Federal government's current emergency broadband
benefit program, which provides a $50 per month subsidy for low-income
households during the pandemic, does not include funds for outreach to
communities. As the policymakers contemplate future broadband adoption
policy interventions, providing funding for outreach (to, for example,
community anchor institutions and community non-profits) can help
address the relevance barrier.
4.5.3. CONGRESS SHOULD APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO SUPPORT DIGITAL EQUITY
PLANNING AND DIGITAL INCLUSION INITIATIVES.
Congress should appropriate funding for development of adoption
focused state, local, and Tribal digital equity plans, and competitive
state and national grant programs for digital inclusion initiatives.
State level planning provides an opportunity to identify existing
assets, and for stakeholders to prioritize digital equity needs. One
approach would be to pass and fund the proposed Digital Equity Act,
which would spend $250 million over each of the next five years for
state level planning and digital inclusion grants.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chapter 5.
CLOSING THE AFFORDABILITY GAP
5.1. INTRODUCTION
In the previous two chapters, we described the state of broadband
in the United States and identified the principal barriers to achieving
digital equity and inclusion: an availability gap and an adoption gap,
with the principal issues limiting adoption being affordability,
digital readiness, and perceived relevance.
In this chapter, we describe the principal government effort to-
date aimed at addressing affordability--Lifeline--and why that program
has not succeeded in closing the affordability gap. Based on that
analysis, we propose a plan to eliminate the affordability gap, based
on a new Federal program that we call Lifeline+. Adopting and funding
Lifeline+ would yield significant public benefits, creating a more
equitable and inclusive economy and society by expanding broadband
utilization overall, and closing specific gaps in digital education,
health care, and workforce development.
5.2. CURRENT PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS AFFORDABILITY
5.2.1 THE LIFELINE PROGRAM.
The principal Federal government program aimed at closing the
adoption gap is Lifeline. The Reagan-era FCC created the program in the
mid-1980s to help low-income Americans pay for local telephone service.
Lifeline lowers the cost of monthly service for eligible consumers by
providing subsidies to service providers on behalf of consumer
households.
A number of states also have their own programs to assist low-
income persons afford communications services. While many provide
critical funds, none is robust enough to solve the affordability gap we
discuss here.
Further, as this Plan is focused primarily on Federal policies, we
will not discuss individual state efforts in this chapter.
In 2005, the FCC made two major reforms to Lifeline. First, it
ruled wireless carriers could be eligible to provide phone service.
Second, it eliminated a requirement that eligible providers own the
facilities they use, permitting companies like TracFone, which leases
wireless services from ``facilities based'' providers, to become major
providers of Lifeline.
In 2015, the FCC reformed the program again, this time to allow the
subsidy to be used for either broadband or voice service, or bundles
that include broadband service. Given the cost of home broadband and
the need for phone service, however, most Lifeline users continue to
apply the subsidy to low-cost mobile service.
To participate in the program, subscribers must have either an
income that is at or below 135 percent of the Federal poverty
guidelines, or participate in certain Federal assistance programs,
including SNAP, Medicaid, or SSI. The Lifeline subsidy on qualifying
monthly broadband service for eligible subscribers is $9.25 per month,
with up to an additional $25 per month for qualifying Tribal
subscribers. The subsidy for voice service is $5.25 as of December 1,
2020; absent further action by the FCC, no subsidy will be provided for
voice starting December 1, 2021. As of October 2020, 8.2 million
households participated in the program.
5.2.1.1 Criticisms of the current program.
There is widespread agreement that Lifeline in its current form
does not achieve the goals of digital equity and inclusion, nor is it
designed in a way that would make that outcome likely over time. As a
practical matter, the program has become a subsidy for a low-end mobile
Internet service, not for broadband at home. Even with its more limited
reach, the program has been less than successful. As of January 2021,
only 8.7 million of the 33.2 million eligible households participate in
the program.
Generally, there are three explanations for why the system is
failing. First, many believe that the level of subsidy, at $9.25, is
insufficient to subscribe to broadband service at home. A related
argument is that when forced to choose between broadband at home or a
mobile service, many low-income persons prefer the mobile service.
Second, many believe that not only is the cost of the monthly
service a barrier to an in home subscription but in addition, the cost
of a device capable of doing work, school work, telehealth or other
such functions is a barrier to adopting.
Third, many believe that lack of information about the program and
undue complexities in the administrative process for applying for it
results in the vast majority of eligible households forgoing
participation.
Fourth, many believe that because companies that offer Lifeline
services must satisfy state requirements for ``Eligible
Telecommunications Carriers'' (ETCs), the number and quality of
Lifeline providers is artificially reduced, effectively limiting
participation to niche voice communications providers. The ETC
requirement unnecessarily undercuts market dynamics that, with more
providers offering competitive products, could lower the costs and
increase the quality of Lifeline programs.
5.2.1.2 The current funding mechanism.
Lifeline is part of the broader Universal Service Program (USF),
which also subsidizes network infrastructure deployment in sparsely
populated or geographically challenging areas, where expected returns
on the capital necessary to build a broadband network do not justify
private investment. USF also subsidizes equipment and network
connections costs for anchor institutions (schools, and libraries
facilities, generally known as the ``E-Rate Program''), and rural
health care facilities. According to the Universal Service
Administrative Co., which collects funds and services USF programs,
total USF disbursements have held steady at approximately $8.5 billion
over the last three years.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the sole funding mechanism for providing
all USF programs to an increasing number of homes, institutions, and
individuals has significant structural problems, and, it is generally
agreed, is unsustainable. Under FCC rules, revenue to support USF
programs, including Lifeline, is paid by providers of certain voice
communications services, primarily but not exclusively voice services,
most of whom pass this cost along to consumers. The providers pay USF a
prescribed percentage of the amount their customers pay for interstate
and international services. That rate, known as the ``contribution
factor,'' is adjusted quarterly based on rising or falling demand from
eligible participants in USF-funded programs. There are several issues
with this mechanism:
Not sustainable or expandable. Due to declining revenues for the
services on which the contribution factor is based, the percentage
assessed from consumers has continued to increase. Ten years ago, the
rate was 12.9 percent. By 2017 it had risen to 16.7 percent. The 2Q21
contribution factor is 33.4 percent. As the associated revenue goes
down, the contribution factor goes up, encouraging providers and their
customers to substitute other services that are not assessed, putting
the funding mechanism and the entire USF program into a death spiral.
Unfair regressive tax. Not only is the system structurally unsound,
but it is also unfair. Since the percentage is applied regardless of
the economic status of the consumer, it is in effect a regressive tax,
hitting low-income consumers harder than more affluent users.
Support for broadband service has raised legal questions. In
addition to these problems, some have raised legal concerns. The DC
Circuit Court of Appeals, in remanding parts of the FCC's 2017
Restoring Internet Freedom Order (RIFO) called on the FCC to explain
the statutory basis for continuing Lifeline subsidies for broadband
even though the FCC no longer classified broadband as a
telecommunications service.
In its order responding to the remand, the FCC explained its
finding that it has legal authority under section 254(e) of the Act to
distribute Lifeline support for broadband service provided by ETCs, and
that that authority is undergirded by the clear intent of Congress in
Section 254(b) and elsewhere that universal service efforts should
increase access to advanced services.
While the FCC addressed the issue, the situation demonstrates
another potential question in relying on the current funding mechanism
to support expanded efforts to close the affordability gap.
5.2.2. NEW PUBLIC SECTOR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY GAP.
As we were preparing this Plan, Congress, for the first time,
directly appropriated funds for broadband subsidies for low-income
persons. This effort, part of a COVID-19 relief package, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, allocated $3.2 billion for an
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program (EBB) to connect low-income
households. The funds will be used to reimburse broadband providers up
to $50/month per low-income household it serves, or $75/month if the
household is on Tribal land. The Act also authorizes reimbursements to
providers of up to $100 for providing the household with a connected
device (desktop, laptop, or tablet computer), if the household
contributes $10-$50 for the device. Households are only eligible for
one device.
The EBB program is temporary, to last no longer than six months
after the COVID-19 crisis ends. Funds will be administered through the
FCC. Congress gave the agency sixty days to determine the details of
administering the program.
On January 4, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comments on
how to best implement the program. Notably, the EBB program is not
limited to ETCs, and the FCC, through its Notice proposes to establish
an ``expedited process'' to approve non-ETC providers who wish to
participate. The FCC process also asked several questions about
devices, family or personal eligibility and verification, and how best
to publicize the program. The FCC adopted its order on the program on
February 25.
In addition, as part of the American Rescue Plan of 2021, Congress
appropriated $7.17 billion in funding to augment the E-Rate program.
The appropriation makes available funds for elementary and secondary
schools and libraries to provide Wi-Fi hotspots, modems, routers, and
Internet-enabled devices. While E-Rate funding traditionally has only
gone to connect educational institutions, this money could be used to
fund Internet services for students, staff, and library patrons.
Congress instructed the FCC to promulgate regulations concerning the
allocation of these funds within 60 days of the bill's passage.
While both programs represent one-time appropriations, they also
provide opportunities for the FCC and our country to consider new ways
of addressing the affordability gap.
5.2.3 PRIVATE SECTOR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THE AFFORDABILITY GAP.
In addition to government efforts to close the affordability gap,
there are also a significant number of voluntary private efforts to
connect low-income persons from leading fixed and mobile broadband
providers. These efforts have already resulted in millions of homes
being connected to broadband at a greatly reduced price. Such efforts
should not be considered a replacement for public programs, but their
availability and operation provide important lessons for the design of
new governmental programs aimed at overcoming barriers to adoption,
including affordability.
Key findings from our review of these private sector efforts
include:
While private efforts are not available everywhere,
companies offering low-income programs cover over 90 percent of
American homes.
Because of overlaps in footprints, two or more low income
offers are probably available to about 50 percent of homes,
though again, the eligible number of homes is likely to be
less. Still, it is likely that a material percentage of non-
adopting households are eligible for an available program.
The private efforts offer broadband at significantly
discounted prices. While the average price for a retail
broadband service is almost $70 a month, the cost of the low-
income programs--which may be offered at lower speeds than the
average service--ranges from $10-$20 a month.
The private efforts are not integrated into public programs
aimed at closing the affordability gap. For example, several of
the largest private providers of broadband programs for low-
incomes households are not and could not easily become ETCs,
and therefore cannot take advantage of the current Lifeline
subsidy to further reduce the cost of participation. Further,
even some ETCs that offer a private low-income program do not
seek to offer those services in coordination with Lifeline,
citing numerous administrative difficulties.
The private efforts are not currently utilized to any
significant degree in partnership with public programs aimed at
closing the affordability gap.
As noted earlier, the FCC has not updated its view on the
functional requirements, such as speed, for accessing services.
In that light, there is uncertainty as to the extent to which
these private programs meet those needs. It is worth noting
that while these programs may not be subject to the same market
dynamics as competition for customers able to pay standard
retail rates, there are forces in the market that drive
improvements in the offering. For example, Comcast recently
doubled its download speed for its Internet Essentials program
from 25Mbps to 50Mbps.
Similarly, while some of the programs have won significant
praise for their outreach efforts, there is uncertainty as to
how effectively some of these programs are marketed to eligible
households. Again, on this issue, there has been no public
assessment by the FCC or other public entity.
In addition to private retail efforts, there are several wholesale
programs, such as that offered by AT&T and Verizon, which offer
discounted services to local school districts whose administrators can
in turn use to offer a low-cost service to students. These programs,
however, generally limit the use to educational purposes only. If such
efforts are expanded to achieve the goals of a reformed low-income
subsidy program, it would be important to examine any limitations and
modify such restrictions.
5.2.4. THE CHALLENGE: THE CURRENT SYSTEM CANNOT MEET CURRENT, LET ALONE
FUTURE, NEEDS.
Existing public programs, even supplemented and supported by
private efforts, have and will continue to fail to close the
affordability gap. The two most obvious improvements--increasing the
monthly subsidy and connecting all eligible households--would certainly
be welcome, but both would require dramatic increases to Lifeline's
budget and major changes to its operating model. In any event,
increasing the contribution factor to accommodate either, let alone
both, would collapse the system. Further, the EBB is a temporary fix
for a problem that will continue to exist after the COVID-19 crisis.
There are other limits to Lifeline. The program does not include
support to acquire devices, which some of the private offerings do
include, along with other forms of technical support not part of
Lifeline. Some of the discounted mobile broadband plans, for example,
come with data allowances that may be insufficient to complete
essential tasks, especially for families with K-12 children or medical
problems, or during times of job training or job searches. Many of the
non-financial factors described in Chapter 4 are also not adequately
addressed by any existing program.
5.2.4.1. The Federal government has a history of setting national
baselines for the delivery of critical public services that are
now heavily reliant on broadband access.
In proposing a reform or restructuring of low-income broadband
programs, it is worth considering, at the outset, the value of setting
baseline requirements and identifying essential services, factors that
regulators have historically relied on in program design. With
particular relevance to workforce, health care and education, we note
that:
Workforce. The primary governmental support for unemployed
persons is provided at the state level but receives at least
partial funding from the Federal government. Beyond financial
assistance, public and private services provide education and
job training. Many of these services can best be utilized
through the Internet, especially during the current medical
emergency, as many of the 2,400 in-person Federal American Jobs
Centers, for example, remain closed. As a visit to the website
for the federal program implicitly acknowledges, Internet
access is essential for taking advantage of the training
services and being about to obtain benefits, as the site has
the following message: ``Nearly 2,400 AJCs nationwide help
people search for jobs, find training, and answer other
employment related questions. COVID-19 update: Please note that
many AJCs are temporarily closed or shifted to virtual
services; you will see a special note in red if we have
information about closures or alternative services. If you need
to file for unemployment insurance, please visit Unemployment
Benefits Finder.''
Health Care. The Federal government is the largest purchaser
and provider of health care and health insurance in the
country. It does so principally through Medicare, which covers
over 60 million persons 65 years old or older, as well as
covering some younger persons with disabilities; Medicaid, a
partnership between the Federal and state governments to
provide health care coverage to low-income persons, covering
over 75 million people, and services to over 9 million
veterans, administered by the Veterans Health Administration,
the largest component of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Here too, the government's ability to deliver such services is
increasingly dependent on the persons they cover having
broadband at home. For example, In February 2020, less than 1
percent of Medicare primary care visits utilized telehealth. By
April of that year, that number was 43.5 percent.
Education. The Federal government has long-supported local
schools. In the 1940s, for example, Congress recognized an
obligation to make sure that all children attending school had
a hot lunch. The National School Lunch Act provides
nutritionally balanced, low-cost or no-cost lunches to children
each school day in public and nonprofit private schools, and in
residential childcare institutions. The Department of Education
also provides direct funding to elementary and secondary school
with economically disadvantaged students (the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Title I and children with
disabilities through the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA).
Increasingly, many of the most basic tasks associated with
workforce development, health care, education, and other critical
aspects of daily life can be done most effectively, efficiently, and
reliably when done online. As discussed further in Chapter 8 on
workforce development, for example, a 2012 study showed broadband use
at home or in a public place such as a library reduced the probability
that an unemployed person will stop their job search entirely by 50
percent relative to people who are unemployed and do not use Internet,
while a recent study from the Philadelphia Federal Reserve found
``promoting broadband device access and digital literacy training to
households where an individual may have lost employment is crucial to
ensuring people remain attached to the labor market following such an
event.''
As discussed further in Chapter 9 on health care, here too, the
government's ability to deliver such services is increasingly dependent
on the persons they cover having broadband at home. For example, In
February 2020 less than 1 percent of Medicare primary care visits
utilized telehealth. By April of that year, that number was 43.5
percent.
Not only has the use of telehealth increased, but the range of
services has also increased as well. But there is a significant gap in
who can utilize such services. According to research from University of
Pittsburgh and Harvard Medical School, more than 41 percent of Medicare
patients lack access to a desktop or laptop computer with a high-speed
Internet connection at home. Almost 41 percent do not have a
smartphone, and more than 26 percent don't have access to either.
Finally, as discussed in Chapter 10 on education, the inability to
keep up with schoolwork or learn Internet skills at a young age puts
students at a significant disadvantage in the future. 94 percent of
low-income school districts assign homework that is online, which makes
Internet access a necessity for students. Yet research based on the
most recent census data shows that 15-16 million K-12 students lack
adequate access to the Internet and/or a device on which to do school
work at home.
COVID-19 has now transformed a serious ``homework gap'' into a
full-fledged learning gap, as schools are forced to offer only or
mostly virtual learning. Computers and broadband at home have become
essential not just to complete homework, but for all or almost all
classroom and school-related learning. While COVID-19 has shined a
spotlight on the need for students to have connectivity in the homes,
schools close for reasons other than the pandemic, including winter
weather, extreme heat, wildfires, flooding, hurricanes, and tornadoes,
which all cause extended disruptions to in-school instruction, and
likely will increase in the future.
This transformation of in-person services long considered essential
to digital alternatives necessitates access to an appropriate device
and broadband at home, a trend that will only increase in the future.
Policymakers will need to continuously adapt to new developments and
challenges, creating programs that assure access to what are considered
essential services by all citizens, most of all those facing
significant obstacles due to financial, social, cultural, language, or
other causes.
To the extent that lawmakers have long-supported the in-person
versions of these essential services and activities through a variety
of mechanisms, programs, and funding models, we believe it is now time
to include an appropriate level of support for their Internet-based
equivalents. Broadband-based delivery and full utilization of these
essential services must become part of the DNA of the respective
public, private, and public-private collaborations involved in, at a
minimum, workforce, health care, and education. It is both the reason
closing the availability and affordability gaps is so critical to
achieving digital equity and inclusion, and the most compelling way, at
the same time, to remove any remaining issues of relevance in closing
the adoption gap.
Reforming current public programs to assure broadband adoption to
utilize these essential services, described below and in more detail in
succeeding chapters, is among the most critical recommendation in this
Plan for improving digital equity and inclusion.
5.3. RETHINKING AFFORDABILITY: FIRST PRINCIPLES.
We need a program to ensure that everyone can afford broadband at
home to access essential services. By design and practicality, the
existing Lifeline program will likely never be more than a lower-end
mobility and voice program. While Lifeline certainly can and should be
improved, and while mobile and fixed service capabilities are
converging, we believe there remains a material difference between the
lower priced mobile data and voice services we want everyone to have
for purposes of emergency communications and other critical uses, and
the broadband at home necessary for an entire household to participate
in 21st century life.
We believe it is time for a new national strategy for universal
broadband, one that supports the goals of digital equity and inclusion.
That program, which we describe below, should be grounded in several
basic principles, including:
5.3.1. DON'T TAKE AWAY EXISTING BENEFITS.
The purpose of the new programs is to expand broadband adoption and
utilization. In so doing, the program should not take away benefits
that people already have and rely on. We should not force low-income
households to choose between a mobile service and broadband at home.
5.3.2. ADDRESS THE MOST URGENT NEEDS FOR BROADBAND AT HOME, INCLUDING
BROADBAND FUNCTIONALITY, APPROPRIATE DATA PLANS, AND DEVICES
THAT ENABLE THE DESIRED ACTIVITY.
Building on existing benefits, the new programs we propose must at
a minimum provide for broadband at home that can support the essential
services we have identified. Specifically, the new program must empower
those who become underemployed or unemployed to train, search, apply,
and interview for new jobs using the same online tools that have long
since been adopted by higher-income workers, support K-12 students with
the connectivity. Further the new program needs to provide devices
recipients need to attend classes and complete schoolwork, and allow
recipients of government health benefits to take full advantage of a
growing range of online services.
5.3.3. ALIGN GOVERNMENT INSTITUTIONAL INCENTIVES.
As currently designed, Lifeline has created an inherent conflict of
interest for those charged with administering it. On the one hand, the
FCC is tasked with administering Lifeline to assure that low-income
persons have access to communications services. At the same time, the
agency is constrained by a regressive contribution factor. The more
people it signs up, the higher the prices paid for voice services by
everyone, especially the poor, even though most of the universal
service funding goes to programs other than Lifeline.
A new program should seek to eliminate that conflict, by ensuring a
more sustainable, stable, and progressive funding mechanism.
In doing so, it is worth considering ways in which in the
achievement of digital equity and inclusion can promote, rather than
conflict, with the goal of providing essential services in the most
cost-effective manner possible. It might make sense for some
institutions, public and private, to fund the new broadband services we
propose because doing so, in the long run, would pay for itself in the
form of reduced costs and improved service levels. Widespread use of
online health care, for example, could reduce the incidence of post-
natal complications for infants and chronic medical conditions for
adults, which not only means better health outcomes for individuals but
also lower long-term costs for public health. Similar improvements in
workforce development and education are likely.
5.3.4. DESIGN PROGRAMS TO BE POLITICALLY SECURE.
To the extent that consumers or taxpayers will ultimately pay for
the programs we propose, public perceptions of the benefits of digital
equity and inclusion matter deeply. To the extent that the program we
propose provides broadband for specific uses and essential services
that the public sees as creating public benefits, ongoing support for
the program is likely to be more sustainable.
5.3.5. STANDARDIZE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.
While the new program should be designed to meet different needs
and use cases, it should be engineered to standardize eligibility,
funding, participation, and reimbursement requirements, to the extent
practical, to improve customer access and protection, lower
administrative costs, and encourage participation by the maximum number
of broadband providers, private and public.
5.3.6. MAINTAIN TECHNOLOGICAL AND PROVIDER NEUTRALITY.
The new program should be focused on achieving digital equity and
inclusion. For reasons of practicality, timing, and budget, achieving
those goals requires programs that are inherently technology neutral.
So long as new or emerging technologies can support the effective use
of the essential services we have identified, providers using those
technologies should be eligible to participate in the programs. Any
provider, or combination of providers, who can satisfy the requirements
for delivering broadband at home should be considered eligible for
participation in the programs. This could include public, private, and
public/private partnerships, and both for-profit and not-for-profit
enterprises. Technology and provider neutrality will not only close the
remaining gaps more quickly and efficiently, but it will also encourage
competition, lowering costs and improving choice.
5.3.7. DESIGN THE PROGRAM SO THAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN LEARN AND ADJUST
TO REAL-LIFE, MAXIMIZING BENEFITS WHILE MINIMIZING COSTS AS
TECHNOLOGIES AND MARKETS EVOLVE.
Any new programs will encounter unexpected issues. Further, markets
and technology will change, producing impacts on the program that are
not foreseeable today. This is especially true for digital innovations,
which evolve quickly and often unpredictably. In that light, the
programs we propose should be flexible, and designed to provide
necessary information to those administering the program to be able to
quickly modify the programs to maximize benefits while minimizing
costs.
5.3.8. TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OVERLAPPING BROADBAND USE CASES TO IMPROVE THE
EFFICIENCY OF THE PROGRAM.
As discussed throughout this document, those who currently have not
adopted broadband could use broadband for multiple purposes with public
benefits, including workforce development, healthcare, and education.
The program should be designed to enable all such uses.
Further, the program should be designed to utilize those
overlapping uses to lower costs and improve efficiency. For example,
there is a significant overlap between the population that needs
broadband at home for education and for healthcare. For 2019, Medicaid
reported a total of 71.4 million people covered by the program (which
includes the 6.7 million on the Children Health Insurance Program
(CHIPs)). Roughly half of all people on Medicaid or CHIPs are between
the ages 0-19. That translates to 34.7 million children on Medicaid/
CHIPs. The American Community Survey reports that 66 percent of
households with children under the age of 18 have broadband at home.
That means approximately 11.8 million children (age 0 to 19) covered by
Medicaid/CHIPs live in 5.9 million homes without broadband at home. The
``homework gap,'' meanwhile, is 16.9 million kids, or 8.4 million
households.
We believe that there is, deservedly, significant support for a new
program to address the homework gap. We support any effort to do so. We
note, however, that funding programs to eliminate the homework gap,
while paying huge benefits to society in the long term, do not result
in near term savings. On the other hand, providing a broadband benefit
to low-income families to enable access to telehealth services, as
discussed in Section 5.4.5.7 and Chapter 9, can result in both improved
health outcomes and reduce the cost of health care services, cost
reductions that could be used to provide the broadband benefit.
Here, a broadband benefit utilizing the savings to the Medicaid/
CHIPs health insurance system could cover about 70 percent of those
currently suffering from the homework gap. Using such a benefit to
address the homework gap would not solve the whole problem. There would
still be approximately 5 million school children living in 2.5 million
households who would not be covered. Still, paying to address the
homework gap through savings to be found for existing government health
insurance systems would quickly increase the number of connected homes
with school children and significantly reduce the annual cost of
program. Further, because of the existing relationships between the
Medicaid/CHIPs programs and their beneficiaries, there are existing
channels that would improve the efficacy of the distribution of the
broadband benefit.
In short, in designing the Lifeline+ program, the government should
look at all existing programs that serve low-income persons to
determine how to provide a broadband benefit in ways that will both
generate savings that can be used to pay for the broadband benefit
while also improving distribution of the benefit.
5.4. RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on those principles, we have the following recommendations.
5.4.1. BUILD THE ADMINISTRATION OF A NEW PROGRAM ON WHAT THE FCC DOES
AND LEARNS FROM IN ITS ADMINISTRATION OF THE EBB AND THE
AUGMENTED E-RATE PROGRAM.
As noted above, the FCC set rules and just started administering
the $3.2 billion EBB program and is now developing rules for an
augmented E-Rate program. Both programs are designed to address the
affordability gap. As of this writing, we cannot know what lessons the
FCC will learn in the implementation of the programs. We believe,
however, that the administrative issues will be similar to those that
the FCC would face in implementing the long-term program we propose.
While we will make a number of design recommendations, we think that
the real-world experience of the FCC is likely to be the best guide for
how to implement such programs. Therefore, all or our recommendations
should be reevaluated in light of how the COVID-19 related programs are
implemented and their impact on adoption.
5.4.2. CONGRESS SHOULD IMPLEMENT A PERMANENT VERSION OF THE EBB.
We think Congress was correct in providing an EBB to address
problems created by COVID-19. Further, we think making that benefit
permanent through an ongoing Congressional appropriation would
accomplish the fundamental goal of largely eliminating affordability as
an obstacle to adoption. Of course, the FCC should study its initial
implementation of the EBB to refine and improve its effectiveness and
should, with congressional direction, implement a direct-to-beneficiary
distribution of the funding to enhance consumer control and choice.
Still, making the EBB permanent would be the single most important
action to increase the number of Americans connected to broadband in
the home.
5.4.3. ALTERNATIVELY, CONGRESS COULD CONSIDER A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
THAT CREATE A NEW PROGRAM TO SERVE BOTH MOBILE AND BROADBAND AT
HOME NEEDS TO ASSURE ACCESS TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
HEALTHCARE, AND EDUCATION.
While we favor a permanent program based on the EBB, we also
understand that that there are challenges to enacting such legislation.
In that light, we present an alternative that focuses on addressing
those in-home needs that create clear public benefits in the form of
improved outcomes in workforce development, healthcare, and education.
While the program we propose would not have the simplicity--an
important virtue in public policy design--of making the EBB permanent,
it would have advantages in terms of distribution and cost savings, as
described below.
The remainder of this chapter relates to our recommendations
concerning the implementation of a new program based on a functional
approach, which we call Lifeline+. We note, however, that many of the
recommendations for administering the program, set forth in 5.4.5
below, would apply to both a permanent EBB program and to Lifeline+.
5.4.4. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF LIFELINE+ SHOULD SERVE BOTH MOBILE AND
IN-HOME NEEDS.
Lifeline+ would consist of a mobile benefit and a broadband at home
benefit. The in-home benefit would consist of one of three broadband at
home services. The components of Lifeline+ are:
1. LifelineMobile, which, while in need of comprehensive reform, for
purposes of these recommendations would continue the current
Lifeline subsidy for basic voice and mobile functions; and
2. LifelineHome, which itself is composed of:
a. LifelineJobs, which would support the unemployed, empowering
them to utilize online programs to upgrade their skills, as
well as search and apply for jobs;
b. LifelineMed, which would support low-income persons in
utilizing the full suite of telehealth services; and
c. LifelineEd, which would support low-income families with K-12
school children and members of their households utilizing
all forms of digital learning.
All eligible families or persons would be eligible for both the
mobile and one broadband at home benefit. Use of the in-home benefit
would not be restricted, so that regardless of specific service, the
person or family could use broadband for any purpose.
5.4.5. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS COMMON TO EITHER A PERMANENT EBB
OR A LIFELINE+ PROGRAM.
5.4.5.1. Fund both services and devices.
The program should fund both connectivity and devices capable of
performing relevant functions. This could include desktop, laptop, or
tablet computers, but not, due to limited display and keyboard size
among other factors, most current smartphones, unless the smartphones
will be used as a mobile hotspot in conjunction with other equipment
capable of performing the relevant functions.
5.4.5.2. Assure minimum standards for both the device and the broadband
service.
As discussed in Chapter 3, the FCC should define standards for
networks and services that qualify for subsidy support. This includes a
determination of requirements for a device = capable of performing what
the FCC determines are relevant functions (such as those required to do
school work or access health care), and update that definition
periodically to assure that changes in requirements are reflected the
program.
In addition, the FCC should determine a minimum standard for upload
and download speeds, latency, data allowance and other technical and
non-technical factors, but only to the extent necessary to support the
essential services included in the programs. The FCC should perform
periodic reviews of these standards and adjust them as needed to assure
that changes in requirements are reflected in the program. All such FCC
determinations should be done in consultation with the other relevant
Federal agencies, such as those involved with workforce development,
healthcare, and education.
While we advocate for standardization, we also note that the
experience of educators during the COVID-19 crisis suggests that with
the LifelineEd program in particular, there should a level of
flexibility that builds on the long-standing E-Rate relationship
between schools and providers, and the flexibility of various
technologies, such as mobile hotspots, to provide broadband for
educational purposes. Not only can such solutions be deployed quickly,
they also provide an important ``pack-and-go'' Internet to a student
who may need service in a temporary new location or in multiple family
locations. Granting flexibility in the distribution of the benefits by
the school system or municipality can produce an efficient and focused
use of funding to achieve digital learning objectives.
5.4.5.3. Establish standard protocols for transferring benefits.
The benefits in Lifeline+ should be granted directly to
beneficiaries through a reloadable prepaid debit card, otherwise known
as an Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card. Ideally it would be a
branded card (for example, Visa or MasterCard) which virtually all ISPs
accept for payment. The cards should be coded with a Merchant Category
Code that ensures funds in the card account are only used to make
payments to certified providers. The program would enroll consumers,
activate their card accounts, and distribute the cards and manage the
monthly benefits.
Participating consumers would then use the funds in the card
account to pay for, or help pay for, the home Internet service of their
choice from certified providers. The consumer would be responsible for
any monthly charges not covered by the benefit, such as additional
video services from the provider. Participating providers would provide
the service and accept payment, but not be otherwise involved in
program administration, similar to SNAP. This safeguards consumer
privacy and dignity, minimizes provider administrative burdens, and
encourages the widest possible participation by ISPs. Providing
benefits directly to beneficiaries avoids operational challenges that
arise if the government were to contract directly with providers on
behalf of individual consumers. For example, the government would avoid
the need to contract with multiple service providers to ensure coverage
for all beneficiaries and to adjust service arrangements as
beneficiaries relocate, a particular challenge in transient housing
situations.
5.4.5.4. Assure lowest possible price through volume discounts.
For both devices and broadband services, the government should
negotiate discounts for equipment and service providers' retail prices
to achieve the highest quality products and services at the lowest
possible cost to participating consumers. These discounts would be and
should be implemented in ways similar to those that providers offer in
connection with sales to large volume commercial purchasers. Similar
``master contracts'' are used today by wireless carriers and state/
local governmental entities, for example. Participating consumers would
then be charged for devices and monthly service that reflect negotiated
retail discounts. In all events, participating consumers should remain
free to use their electronic benefit to purchase any generally
available retail broadband product in the market from any participating
provider, and not be limited to the products and rates established
pursuant to the master contract.
5.4.5.5. Assure individual choice.
As noted above, while the Federal government should negotiate
reduced program rates with eligible providers, program beneficiaries
should have the final choice over the specific service provider they
use. Beneficiaries should also choose the specific equipment they use,
within guidelines established through the program. For devices, the
guidelines should establish minimal requirements for memory, storage,
display resolution, connectivity, and capabilities for upgrades.
Purchases of the device and the service can be facilitated through a
voucher or some other form of electronic payment. The exception to
individual choice would be for the LifelineEd program, where school
districts may have identified specific devices they need the students
to use to facilitate administrative efficiency and coordination of
curriculum.
5.4.5.6. Assure security and transparency.
In setting standards for the equipment and the service, the program
should maximize user security and data transparency. This has been an
issue, for example, in the FCC's current Lifeline program. According to
Malwarebytes Labs, at least one such provider--Assurance Wireless by
Virgin Mobile--offered a $35 smartphone with pre-installed apps to
collect user data, create backdoors for future access, and enable auto-
installers for other apps. These activities were undertaken without
customer knowledge or consent, introducing the potential for malware to
be installed when an app update becomes available. The program should
prohibit any company from offering free or reduced-cost equipment that
come with undisclosed or non-optional applications. Additionally, the
program should require that providers whose devices include pre-
installed apps report how they screen apps and updates, including
disclosure of what user information is being collected and how it is
being used. Customers should have access to this disclosure to ensure
informed consent.
5.4.5.7. Work in partnership with the ISPs and other stakeholders.
The new program should build on existing public, private, and
public/private partnership programs aimed at expanding digital equity
and inclusion, which generally involve working in partnership with
ISPs. The forms of partnership may differ somewhat between the
different services. For example, with the general approach, the FCC
should work with the ISPs offering low-income programs to assure
efficiency and wide distribution.
With the Lifeline+ approach, the approach will differ with the
specific service. With LifelineEd, ISPs should provide data that school
districts need to help identify which students lack at-home broadband,
and the ISPs and school districts should work together to standardize
procedures and minimize administrative costs for connection and on-
going operation. The COVID-19 experience has already produced these
kinds of partnerships. For example, ChiefsforChange, a coalition of
leaders of school districts, has documented several examples of school
districts that have been working to quickly connect students in light
of closings caused by COVID-19. One particularly notable example is the
Connected Chicago initiative, a partnership of the City of Chicago, the
Chicago Public School system, community-based organizations, and
several philanthropic entities and leading Internet Service Providers.
The initiative has created a detailed toolkit aimed at connecting
100,000 currently offline school children.
Another example is the K-12 Bridge to Broadband program. The
program arose as a partnership between local school districts, ISPs,
local governments, and various philanthropic groups in the wake of the
COVID-19 crisis, to facilitate home connectivity for low-income
students. The program is developing a set of best practices for
providing the kind of connectivity that LifelineEd would scale
nationally. It recommends, for example, that as a starting point, ISPs
should confidentially identify students that lack broadband at home,
and work with school districts to standardize procedures and minimize
administrative costs for getting these households connected. In
allocating funds, the program could use formulas similar to those used
for the ESEA and E-Rate programs, both of which are designed to assist
similar population groups. In addition, the program should leverage the
results of FCC E-Rate pilots in 2011-2012 that allowed funding for off-
premises connectivity and devices.
For the LifelineMed program, designers should note the success of
the City of Liverpool in improving health outcomes and cost savings
through the provision of devices and broadband services to covered
persons. Liverpool conducted a ``Health and Social Care Testbed,''
which used 5G connectivity to support health care delivery use cases.
The study found that, cumulatively, implementation of use cases could
potentially result in cost savings to the Health and Social Care
services of an estimated £247,688 per hundred users per year.\7\
These Internet-enabled interventions reduced hospital admissions,
physician visits, medication costs, caretaker hours, and patient
loneliness; and, increased health outcomes, medication adherence, the
ability to manage one's own health, comfort with using technology, and
quality of life.
5.4.5.8. Improving awareness of the program.
Awareness of the current Lifeline program is very low, evidenced by
the fact that as of January 2021, only 8.7 million of an estimated 33.2
million eligible households participate in the program. Congress should
require the FCC and other relevant Federal agencies to coordinate in
marketing and outreach efforts to help ensure that all Americans,
including those suffering from recent unemployment due to the COVID-19
crisis, those newly eligible for the Supplemental Nutritional
Assistance Program, and those eligible for Medicaid, are informed of
their eligibility for broadband support.
5.4.6. ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO THE LIFELINE+
PROGRAM.
5.4.6.1. Lifeline+ should be administered jointly by the FCC and the
Federal agencies responsible for each substantive area.
The administration of LifelineJobs, LifelineMed, and LifelineEd
services should be a co-responsibility of the FCC and the relevant
Federal agencies who currently support the respective services.
LifelineJobs would be coordinated by the FCC and the Department of
Labor, with the broadband subsidy provided as part of unemployment
benefits. LifelineMed would be coordinated by the FCC and the
Departments of Health and Human Services and Veterans Affairs, with the
broadband subsidy provided as part of the benefits package to
qualifying persons covered by Medicare, Medicaid, or Veterans Health
Administration Insurance. LifelineEd would be coordinated by the FCC,
the Department of Education, and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE),
with the funds distributed to local school systems, similar to programs
like E-Rate, ESEA, and IDEA, with the local school systems then
connecting qualifying students in ways similar to how local school
districts are already using Federal funds to connect their students on
a temporary basis. Further, to the extent that Congress augments the E-
Rate program as part of pending COVID-19 relief legislation, the FCC's
administration of the LifelineEd program should be based on lessons
learned in the implementation of that effort.
5.4.6.2. Lifeline+ should be administratively coordinated, adhere to
similar standards, and be designed to facilitate ease of
consumers obtaining the service, protect consumers, and
optimize the benefits.
In administering the program, the FCC and other Federal agencies
should consider the following recommendations:
5.4.6.2.1. Set national standards for eligibility and program
operations in ways that reduce start-up and ongoing costs.
To the extent feasible, the standards for eligibility for
LifelineJobs, LifelineMed, and LifelineEd should use similar criteria
and administrative mechanisms to lower costs of signup, communicating
about the programs to eligible families, and on-going operations. Doing
so requires that key elements of the programs be consistent across
agencies and across the country. For example, while schools, state
unemployment and government health care agencies would assist in
enrolling consumers in the services and distribute and activate
Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) card accounts, the FCC should
establish a single type of card and account, determine benefit levels,
and certify providers for the programs.
5.4.6.2.2. Enable family use for all broadband services.
To maximize benefits, the devices and the broadband subscriptions
offered as part of the broadband at home Lifeline+ services should not
be restricted solely to specified essential services, so that the other
benefits of broadband adoption, including but not limited to education,
job training, health care, access to other government services, and
civic engagement, may be available to everyone in a participating
household.
5.4.6.2.3. Coordinate and prioritize to minimize wasteful expenditures
or duplicative payments.
Beneficiaries of LifelineHome may meet the qualifications for more
than one broadband at home service, but should only be eligible to
receive one benefit. LifelineHome should be coordinated through a
national verification system, to assure that there are not duplicate
payments to multiple persons in the same home. This can be accomplished
through a national database (the ``Duplicates Database'') to identify
households receiving benefits, with program personnel authorized to
access this database to enter participating household data and confirm
no duplication of benefits. The existing National Lifeline
Accountability Database (NLAD), managed by USAC, can serve as a model
for the Duplicates Database and should continue to be used to ensure
that households participating in Lifeline+ receive no more than one
mobile and one broadband at home benefit per household.
Congress or the FCC should determine rules for prioritizing the
source of funds for a broadband at home benefit where the person or
family qualifies for more than one in-home benefit. As noted in Section
5.3.8, which discussed how a LifelineMed benefit would cover
approximately 70 percent of those needing a LifelineEd benefit, it may
be advantageous to prioritize funding sources for which broadband would
generate near-term savings.
5.4.6.2.4. Allow bundling of mobile and broadband at home benefits.
The program should encourage providers to create service offerings
that maximize the value of the services to the customer. Some
providers, for example, could develop plans that serve the needs of
both the LifelineMobile and one of the at home services. In that light,
the program should allow the bundling of the LifelineMobile benefit and
any one of the three broadband at home benefits.
5.4.6.2.5. The Lifeline+ program design should include mechanisms that
makes it easy for applicants to learn about, apply for and, if
qualified, obtain the benefits.
Each service should adopt mechanisms that build on related public
programs such as SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment insurance.
The goal should be to maximize the ease with which eligible
beneficiaries learn about Lifeline+ and its benefits, apply for the
programs for which they qualify, and, if approved, receive the
benefits.
For LifelineMobile, the FCC would coordinate with USDA and
HUD to ensure that recipients of SNAP and other qualifying
programs are proactively notified about their eligibility for
LifelineMobile.
For LifelineJobs, the Department of Labor would work with
state unemployment offices to proactively inform those applying
for unemployment of their eligibility.
For LifelineMed, the administrators of government insurance
policies would proactively advise covered persons of
eligibility requirements and the potential benefits if they
qualify.
For LifelineEd, local schools would notify the parents of
students qualifying for the free school lunch programs of their
eligibility.
5.4.7. THE FUNDING MECHANISM FOR EACH PROGRAM SHOULD ALIGN WITH CURRENT
PRACTICES, INSTITUTIONAL INCENTIVES, AND THE NEED FOR A
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING MECHANISM.
In terms of funding a general or a functional approach to closing
the affordability gap, we have the following recommendations.
5.4.7.1. Congress and the FCC should not wait for contribution reform
to begin to create a new program.
As discussed in several chapters, the current mechanism for funding
Universal Service is not sustainable, nor is it capable of providing
the new funding necessary to close the affordability gap. Several
alternatives have been proposed to replace the current system for
financing USF. These alternatives include assessing fees based on each
telephone number in service, the purchase of Internet connected
devices, ISP revenues, or a fee attached to some broader revenue
stream, such as all revenues collected by communications providers and
not just those currently counted in the contribution factor, as well as
the revenues of companies engaged in a broad set of Internet-related
activities. We express no view here on the policy merits or tradeoffs
of any of specific method. We do, however, note that contribution
reform is likely to take the FCC several years, and will likely be the
subject of considerable political controversy and legal challenges. As
we believe the need for digital equity and inclusion is urgent, we
propose alternative means for funding the new programs that are more
certain legally and can be done more quickly.
5.4.7.2. The FCC should reexamine the subsidy for the mobile service.
As noted above, many critics of the current Lifeline subsidy argue
that the subsidy amount is too low. That criticism is generally
premised on the need for the subsidy to enable eligible persons to
subscribe to broadband at home. In developing the new program, the FCC
should re-examine the subsidy level for the new mobile service but do
so in light of the other components of it adopts.
5.4.7.3. Congress should directly fund Lifeline+ while also providing
additional funding, as necessary, and authorizing existing
programs to utilize savings to offer broadband benefits.
5.4.7.3.1. Direct appropriations.
In lieu of the current contribution system or any of the proposed
reforms to it, Congress should instead appropriate funds for the
Lifeline+ program from the following sources:
First, to the extent that Congress appropriates funds to
subsidize rural deployment (as discussed in Chapter 3), any
allocated funds not disbursed through a reverse auction or
other competitive mechanism should be repurposed to a fund
whose assets should be used to support the Lifeline+ program.
Second, Congress should dedicate all or at least some of the
proceeds of any future spectrum auctions to a fund whose assets
should be used to support the Lifeline+ program.
Third, Congress should appropriate at least five years of
the necessary funding to fully support the Lifeline+ program
with funding sources to revert to the existing USF contribution
factor, or such methodology as Congress may authorize and as
the FCC may adopt, if Congress does not renew appropriations at
any time after the first five years.
The legal basis of some of these mechanisms is discussed in
Appendix 5A.
5.4.7.3.2. Congress should mandate that existing government health
insurance programs provide LifelineMed benefits.
Congress has, on various occasions, enlarged the benefits that
government health insurance programs provide. For example, in 2003,
Congress voted to add Part D to the Medicare program to cover various
prescription drugs. Given that in-home broadband is an increasingly
vital social determinant of health (see Appendix 9D), Congress should
mandate that Federal government health insurance policies, including
Medicare, Medicaid, and veteran's medical support, provide subsidies
for the LifelineMed service to enable the covered persons to take
advantage of the full range of telehealth services, while also
improving the effectiveness and efficiency of the programs.
5.4.7.3.2.1 As an initial step, the Center for Medicare and
Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) should run a demonstration to determine the
level of savings that could be achieved if all covered persons had in-
home broadband and how to best structure the programs to take advantage
of universal connectivity of the covered persons. As discussed in
greater detail in Chapter 9 and Appendix 9B, there is already
significant evidence that telehealth services can save significant
funds for a health care system. For example, in 2012, the VA ran a
program providing telehealth services to over 150,000 beneficiaries
which resulted in average annual savings of $6,500 per patient,
compared to $1,600 in annual costs. These savings come through a
variety of means, including by enabling targeting and monitoring
specific conditions, reducing transport costs, reducing emergency care
costs, and increasing the ability to keep patients in the home instead
of more expensive medical facilities.
As also discussed in Chapter 9, the Federal government has already
recognized, albeit on a smaller scale than we propose here, the need
for Federal investment in patient connectivity to improve health care
outcomes in current programs. There is no doubt that the need and
urgency has increased in light of trends that were accelerated due to
COVID-19. However, there is not an authoritative analysis of the cost
savings across a broader spectrum of the population or an analysis of
how the systems could, if they assume in-home broadband in the home of
every covered person, both save funds and produce better outcomes. The
institution best suited to do such an analysis is CMMI, which is
charged with testing various payment and service delivery models for
the purpose of achieving better care for patients, better health for
communities, and lower costs through improvement in the health care
system. As a starting point, CMMI should evaluate how universal
adoption of broadband by persons covered by Medicare and Medicaid could
lead to improvement in health care quality and a reduction in health
care costs through, among others, expanded and unified access to
affordable care, population health management (earlier detection of
infectious diseases, chronic disease management, preventative medicine,
etc.), increased administrative efficiencies, decreased paperwork,
higher patient satisfaction, utilization of AI and other emerging
technologies, and consistent and near real-time evaluations of health
care effectiveness.
To be clear, we are not suggesting that providing the broadband
benefits discussed herein should be dependent on or delayed while the
analysis is undertaken. As an initial matter, there will likely have to
be some additional funding to cover the benefits. The analysis,
however, is critical to understanding how to account for the savings
over time that the benefits will bring and how to redesign certain
aspects of the program to take advantage of the universal connectivity.
We note that there are anecdotal reports that the increased use of
telehealth resulting from COVID-19 has increased some costs due to
increased utilization. However, as discussed in Chapter 9, this
telehealth utilization was not driven by persons of color; racial and
ethnic minorities experienced a decline in access to care during the
pandemic. While we can understand that such increased use could have
occurred, we are skeptical that over the long term, connectivity
increases costs. As noted above, the VA study and other similar efforts
suggest otherwise. It is more likely that easier access led to visits
that enabled preventive care, leading to lower costs over time.
Further, we note that the general trend of business addressing customer
concerns--and health care is different in many ways but is still about
addressing customer concerns--is to use connectivity and a variety of
mechanisms enabled by connectivity to improve intake, diagnosis, and
treatment much more quickly and efficiently than they could without
connectivity. Thus, the experience with both health care and in
businesses generally suggest that designing systems in light of
connectivity that result in improved outcomes and reduced costs.
5.4.7.3.2.2 The Administration and Congress should create a new
matchable administrative expense in Medicaid for States to provide in-
home broadband to Medicaid enrollees. Medicaid, which because of its
focus on low-income persons, is likely to be the program to offer the
broadband at home benefit to the greatest number of persons. It is a
Federal program administered and partially funded by the states. Due to
the federal-state partnership model, programmatic changes are generally
done at the state, rather than federal, level.
It is possible, however, for the Federal government to incentivize
and/or empower the states to act in preferred ways in their
administration of Medicaid. Traditionally, the Federal government only
allows Medicaid to cover medical services. The question of when or
whether a state Medicaid program can cover non-medical services is not
novel. In light of the fact that medical care is not the only factor
driving health outcomes, there has been a recognition that for low-
income people, in particular, spending money on medical services
alone--without a coordinated, effective strategy for addressing a range
of socio-economic issues and social determinants of health--can result
in inefficient use of health care dollars. As a result, there are
numerous examples of government health insurance programs funding
services that, while not strictly involving a medical diagnosis or
treatment, nonetheless improve health outcomes and/or lower health care
costs. Some of these are discussed in Appendix 5B, entitled ``Funding
Non-Medical Services Through Medicaid.''
Our understanding of the program suggests that the most effective
way to connect unconnected Medicaid recipients in the current framework
would be through the Health Information Technology/Health Information
Exchange (HIT/HIE) program. The Federal government has in the past
appropriated funds to increase the effectiveness of the Medicaid
program through the utilization of information technology. It was done,
for example, with HIT/HIE expenses under ARRA, where the Federal
government legislation offered a 90/10 Federal match for the specified
technology costs. Here, we believe the easiest way to provide a
broadband subsidy to connect low-income persons and families would be
through that program. That same framework could be used here, with the
Federal government providing the funds and the states then distributing
the benefit to unconnected covered persons, which effectively would
serve as a means of increasing the efficacy of their health information
technology systems, and therefore meet the definition of ``activities
that are proper and efficient for the administration of the Medicaid
Electronic Health Records (EHR) Incentive Program.''. While we would
support the Federal government subsidizing 100 percent of the necessary
amount, we note that states have demonstrated their recognition of the
need to connect low-income persons, with many states using CARES Act
funding to connect students and also having their own Lifeline like
plans. In that light, we believe a 90 percent Federal share, which is
the current match for IT, could be sufficient.
5.4.7.3.2.2 The Administration and Congress should mandate that
Medicare and the Veterans Health Administration provide a broadband
benefit to unconnected recipients of the program. Medicare and VA
health insurance programs are federally administered so the mechanics
of offering the broadband benefits are simpler. Congress and the
Administration can adjust the Federal policy so that the programs fund
broadband at home for eligible beneficiaries.
5.4.7.4.3. Congress should mandate that existing government
unemployment insurance programs provide LifelineJobs benefits.
Congress, as we have seen most recently in temporary enlargement of
unemployment benefits in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis, has enhanced
the benefits to which unemployed persons covered by unemployment
insurance are entitled. Likewise, Congress should mandate that Federal
unemployment insurance policies include as a benefit for persons who
previously were employed in a job paying less than a threshold to be
set by Congress, a new benefit for broadband at home as described
above.
5.4.8. THE ETC REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE ELIMINATED AND REPLACED WITH MORE
APPROPRIATE ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA TO ENCOURAGE MORE
PARTICIPANTS.
ETC requirements should be eliminated as eligibility criteria for
participation in the new program. Instead, any provider that
voluntarily offers broadband service sufficient to utilize the
essential services described above should be deemed eligible, and
indeed encouraged, to participate. In Chapter 3, we proposed
alternative and more appropriate requirements for participating ISPs to
be eligible for receiving funds for network deployment, which would
replace the ETC requirements. The same criteria should be adopted for a
permanent EBB program or Lifeline+. To ensure that beneficiaries
purchase services only from qualified providers, the FCC should
administer a simple annual recertification process. Once the
certification process is established, beneficiaries should be able to
use their benefit to purchase service from any qualified provider. Like
other consumers, beneficiaries should be free to choose among qualified
providers, similar to choosing medical services under preferred
provider health insurance plans.
5.4.9. TO ACCELERATE THE AVAILABILITY OF, AND LOWER COST FOR, DEVICES,
THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONSIDER RUNNING A PROCUREMENT
PROCESS.
In this chapter, we have proposed significant new expenditures on
broadband services and on devices. We have no doubt about the capacity
of existing broadband service providers to immediately meet the demands
of potentially millions of new customers. Obtaining millions of new
devices quickly, however, is another issue.
An increase in competition to obtain devices could expand rather
than close the adoption and affordability gaps. Indeed, as a recent New
York Times story reported ``A surge in worldwide demand by educators
for low-cost laptops has created shipment delays and pitted desperate
schools against one another. Districts with deep pockets often win
out.'' That surge of worldwide demand by educators for low-cost laptops
and similar devices of up to 41 percent higher than pre-pandemic
numbers has created months-long shipment delays. The story further
reported that those delays have ``frustrated students around the
country, especially in rural areas and communities of color, which also
often lack high-speed Internet access and are most likely to be on the
losing end of the digital divide . . . That gap, with much of the
country still learning remotely, could now be crippling.''
There are many factors driving the shortage of entry-level devices.
The margins on low-end PC sales are close to zero, and with total PC
sales flat or declining for a decade, manufacturing capacity is focused
on higher-end machines. Another factor is a shortage of low-end chips.
A third factor is the logistics and costs of shipping from China.
Given the current situation, and what we believe is the need for
significantly greater supply of low-cost devices, the Federal
government should consider a national procurement RFP for what could be
millions of appropriate devices, with pre-determined specifications,
that could be manufactured in large part in the U.S. These would then
be offered at wholesale price to institutions, such as school
districts, charged with administering the broadband benefits. This
could not only help with accelerating the availability of the devices
for a permanent EBB or Lifeline+ program, but could also lower the
overall cost of the program and promote job creation and advanced
manufacturing in America.
5.4.10. SUPPORT RESEARCH INTO HOW ADDRESSING CREDIT ISSUES MIGHT CLOSE
THE AFFORDABILITY GAP FOR BROADBAND AT HOME.
While most of the recommendations in this chapter relate to erasing
affordability as a factor in broadband adoption for essential services,
some non-qualifying households may still experience affordability
issues in subscribing to and maintaining home broadband service. As
part of an agenda to increase adoption, the government should work with
providers of pre-paid services to examine the extent to which credit
issues are keeping a significant number of persons from adopting
broadband, and if so whether there are technologies, such as a router
synched to a payment system, a financial mechanism perhaps assisted by
philanthropic efforts, marketing efforts that make the availability of
existing options more widely known, or other approaches that could
provide a replicable model that does for broadband at home what prepaid
wireless did to expand the adoption of mobile services, particularly
for persons not eligible for the broadband at home programs described
in this chapter. NTIA should fund a research program, and perhaps a
demonstration project, to determine the dimensions of the problem and
develop potential solutions for increasing the utilization of the
prepaid model for currently unconnected persons.
Chapter 6.
CLOSING THE ACCESS TO ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
AND PARTICIPATION GAP
6.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Several decades ago, famed venture capitalist John Doerr said the
personal computer industry's growth from zero to $100 billion in 10
years was ``the greatest legal accumulation of wealth in history.'' As
the Internet soon dwarfed the PC revolution, growing from zero to $400
billion in just five years, Doerr was forced to update that claim. In
Doerr's words, ``There are waves and then there is a tsunami.'' Today,
the top five American companies by market cap (Microsoft, Apple,
Amazon, Alphabet, and Facebook) all rode the tsunami Doerr described.
Early tech optimists touted this tsunami as having the potential to
be the great equalizer of society. Instead, it has exacerbated the
historic divisions between the haves and have nots, leaving minority
communities with fewer avenues to participate and develop economic
opportunities in the Internet economy. The National Urban League's 2018
State of Black America Report found that of almost forty thousand
employees working for just four major Silicon Valley technology
companies, fewer than one thousand were Black American. Latinx
employees are similarly underrepresented. Moreover, as the technology
sector has increased in size and profitability, Black and Latinx
entrepreneurs have continued to be left behind.
If anything, the pandemic has worsened these trends. While other
industries reeled from lockdowns and abrupt changes in patterns of
consumption, COVID-19 catalyzed enormous growth for many technology
firms.\8\ Revenues soared as consumers and businesses turned to digital
solutions to access the basics of life--work (e.g., Zoom, Teams, and
other video conferencing services), social interaction (e.g., Facebook
and Twitter), entertainment (e.g., Netflix, HBO Max, Amazon Prime
Video), food (e.g., GrubHub and UberEats), goods (e.g., Amazon and
Instacart), and healthcare (e.g., Teledoc).
Many of these enterprises saw the ranks of their workforce swell,
even as unemployment climbed in other sectors.\9\ In particular,
employment among women and communities of color plummeted in 2020.
Black and Latinx unemployment at the end of 2020 were 9.9 percent and
9.3 percent, respectively, white employment had recovered from 14.2
percent unemployment in April 2020 to only 6.0 percent by December.\10\
Wealth among communities of color has likewise diminished. Sixty
percent of Black households, 72 percent of Latinx households, and 55
percent of Native American households reported having serious financial
problems during the pandemic, compared to just 36 percent of white
households.\11\
As the U.S. wrestles with another economic recession, we must be
proactive to ensure that Black and Latinx communities--who face
declining median wealth and who have still not recovered their pre-2008
recession incomes--do not continue to bear a disproportionate burden of
financial hardship in the coming years.\12\
Stagnant wage growth for Black and Latinx workers over the past
decade is a major reason for the slow recovery, due, in part, to their
underrepresentation in high-paying jobs in the technology and
information services sectors. And minority exclusion from the
technology sectors is hardly a new problem. In 2002, Blacks accounted
for nearly eleven percent of the workforce, but only eight percent of
computer and mathematical jobs. Those numbers remained almost the same
in 2016. While the percent of Latinx workforce has grown from 12.6
percent of the overall workforce in 2002 to 16.7 percent in 2016, the
percent in the computer and mathematical professions only increased
from 5.5 percent to 6.8 percent.\13\
Lewis Latimer, the person for whom this Plan is named, illustrates
the longstanding problem of Black and Latinx participation in the tech
sector. A free Black patent-holder and the son of slaves, his
inventions and contributions were critical to the success of his
employers, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell. Yet, unfortunately
and all-too-predictably, he had no opportunity to take ownership or
accumulate generational wealth from the vast businesses those
inventions spawned.
6.2 VISION STATEMENT
We need to break these historic patterns. But the sad realities of
today's economic opportunity and participation gaps should not
discourage us from recognizing technology's essential role in building
a more inclusive future. Much of this Latimer Plan is devoted to making
sure that broadband is available, affordable, and deeply relevant to
the lives of all Americans, regardless of where they live, the color of
their skin, or how much money they have. It is motivated by the idea
that broadband is a necessity, not a convenience, for living in a post-
pandemic world.
Technology cannot be the great equalizer, however, if opportunities
for wealth accumulation are not equitably distributed throughout
society. While many of the proposals throughout the Plan are focused on
assuring that all Americans have the tools and skills to participate
fully in 21st century society and the digital economy, we also want to
close gaps that limit opportunities to participate meaningfully and
create value in the industry as broadband and broadband-enabled
enterprises continue to innovate, grow, and prosper.
We must ensure that job opportunities are available for the
country's growing Black and Latinx communities at every level in
technology and technology-related industries. Entrepreneurs of color
deserve a place in the governance of these companies. They should have
equal access as vendors and collaborators in the building and
utilization of new digital infrastructures and the prolific wealth
creating ecosystem that controls it.
Protests for racial justice across the country have placed the onus
not only on legislators and government regulators, but also on business
leaders and private enterprises, to address with deliberateness and
vigor these historic inequities. Communities of color are not simply
hapless consumers of products marketed by brand-name companies. These
communities have become emboldened and now fearlessly demand corporate
acknowledgement and respect. Americans at large are beginning to
understand that we cannot continue a ``business as usual'' approach to
eliminating racism embedded in our social, political, and economic
systems in both the public and private sectors.
With public and private intention, the gaps of economic opportunity
and participation can be closed, and our Nation will be stronger, more
equitable and more prosperous because of it. We must together attack
these problems in an intentional way, rather than passively awaiting
the tide to lift high all boats. Now is a time for action. We
wholeheartedly agree with the principles set forth by the Business
Roundtable in 2019, outlining a new standard of corporate
responsibility that benefits all stakeholders--consumers, employees,
suppliers, communities, and shareholders. Much of the private sector
has accepted accountability in ingraining diversity, equity, and
inclusion into their corporate DNA, including creating racially and
gender diverse corporate boards, staffing, C-suites, procurement,
philanthropy, and community investment.
For many years, civil rights organizations have put pressure on
private enterprise to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion
practices. Yet, as Marc Morial, President and CEO of the National Urban
League, observed, ``these gains lacked systems and structures to ensure
certain things like continued growth and personal accountability for
corporations. Thus, what we saw when we looked long and hard at the
corporations with which we had worked were diversity programs that were
more often than not catch-as-catch-can systems, that is, no systems at
all. Many treated it as a compliance issue only.'' \14\
There has been particular progress in the companies that build and
operate the digital infrastructure. To create more sustainable
improvements in economic opportunity and participation, civil rights
organizations, led by the National Urban League, have pioneered the
adoption of written memoranda of understanding with several
communication companies, setting forth comprehensive strategic plans
with goals, timetables, and metrics to measure progress toward
diversity. Areas covered by such MOUs include governance, which
includes the company's board; personnel, which includes the company's
C-suite; procurement, which includes the company's spending on goods
and services, and in philanthropy and community investment.
These voluntary commitments to civil rights organizations and the
constituents they represent have been widely heralded. It is, however,
cumbersome to approach hundreds of companies one at a time. We are
interested in activating government resources and leadership to
organize and accelerate this process, providing incentives, improving
and tracking private sector engagement and collaboration on diversity,
equity, and inclusion initiatives.
Communities of color have been waiting nearly sixty years since the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for corporations to implement
and abide by anti-discriminatory policies. But only when companies move
beyond anti-discrimination principles to embrace anti-racist principles
can we hope to achieve sustainable and meaningful equity.
6.3 GOALS
By the end of 2021, the Department of Commerce, the FCC, the
Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor
should invite a broad coalition of civil rights organizations
and industry stakeholders to form a task force to develop best
practices, guidelines, and standards for Internet and
communication service providers, device and equipment
manufacturers, software companies, and related service
providers, to promote more diverse and inclusive corporate
leadership, workforce, and supplier practices;
By the end of 2022, the Department of Commerce, the FCC, the
Small Business Administration, and the Department of Labor
should, in cooperation with civil rights organizations and
industry stakeholders, publish and promote these best
practices, guidelines, and standards;
By the end of 2022, the Department of Commerce should
publish a report identifying policies to incentivize private
entities to adopt initiatives promoting more diverse and
inclusive corporate leadership, workforce, and supplier
practices; and
By the end of 2025, the Department of Labor should publish a
report tracking trends in the demographics of individuals
employed in jobs associated with the digital economy, and in
the governance of the companies that build, operate, and
utilize digital infrastructure.
6.4 THE CURRENT SITUATION
Working with outside multicultural civil rights organizations like
the NAACP, the National Action Network, UnidosUS, LULAC, AAJC, and OCA,
the National Urban League has organized active external advisory boards
and committees to advise companies in their efforts to adopt
sustainable accountability measures to ingrain diversity, equity, and
inclusion into their corporate DNA. These measures include commitments
to racial equity in corporate board membership, staffing, the C-suite,
procurement, philanthropy, and community investment.
To date, these measures have yielded promising results in the
quality of the products these companies produce and in the building of
trust with the communities they serve. Since entering its MOU in 2016,
Charter Communications has deepened its efforts to advance diversity
and inclusion (D&I), focused on programming, procurement, corporate
governance, workforce representation and philanthropic and community
investments. The company subsequently adopted a holistic D&I strategy
in 2018, anchored on providing high-quality products and services to
its diverse customer base. This includes serving 21 of the top 25 Black
American television markets and 20 of the top 25 Hispanic television
markets in the United States. Charter has also expanded programming
offerings, including enhanced and expanded carriage of Black American
owned and Latinx-targeted networks. The company exceeded $1 billion in
diverse spend in 2018, 2019 and 2020, diversified its board, and took
steps to both increase diversity in its talent pipeline and foster an
inclusive environment where all employees, regardless of their
background or experience, have equitable access to opportunities.
Today, 48 percent of Charter's workforce are people of color.
Since Comcast entered into its MOU, supplier spending with
minority-owned enterprises increased from less than $1 billion to
almost $3 billion. The MOU also included a commitment for the company
to offer programming owned by people of color, selected through a
competitive process. Today, consumers see more diverse anchorpeople,
programming, and channels at NBC, bringing much needed visual
representation to mainstream media. In addition to bringing diversity
into its supply chain and programming practices, Comcast committed to
increasing the level of diversity on its corporate board, in its hiring
practices, and in its lauded philanthropic efforts. The MOU approach,
which moves beyond the ad hoc verbal agreements of yesteryear, has
yielded measurable progress.
Similarly, other telecommunications providers and many of the
Nation's largest companies have seized this moment to reimagine
corporate responsibility, working to address historic inequities that
exist in their own businesses and industries. For example, AT&T
recently announced that it has spent over $3.1 billion with Black-owned
suppliers over the last two years.
In June of 2020, for example, PayPal pledged $530 million in short-
term, medium-term, and long-term investments to support Black and
minority-owned businesses and communities in the U.S., especially those
hit hardest by the pandemic.
That month, PepsiCo unveiled a $450 million, three-pronged plan to
address systemic racial inequality at the community, business, and
individual level through greater workforce diversity, investment and
procurement from minority-owned businesses, and philanthropic
contributions to racial justice social and community programs and
organizations.
This past September, Citi and the Citi Foundation committed over $1
billion towards strategic initiatives targeted to help close the racial
wealth gap and increase economic mobility in the United States,
including greater access to banking and credit in communities of color,
increasing investment in Black-owned businesses, expanding
homeownership among Black Americans, and advancing anti-racist
practices in the financial services industry.
6.5 RECOMMENDATIONS
These efforts, though encouraging, are only the beginning. To close
the economic opportunity and inclusion gap, it is imperative that
industry, government, and community organizations work together to
improve and increase commitments to racial equity in corporate board
membership, staffing, the C-suite, procurement, philanthropy, and
community investment within the entire digital ecosystem.
The Plan's recommendations include:
Infrastructure. Congress must include mandates in any
infrastructure legislation for companies that will directly
benefit from increased Federal investment to enhance their
performance in providing access to economic opportunity and
participation throughout the digital ecosystem.
Measure Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC, and
the Small Business Administration should collect information
that allows the government and the public to understand and
evaluate how the private sector, and particularly the
technology and related sectors, are improving diversity,
equity, and inclusion in the categories noted above.
Incentivize Diversity. The Department of Commerce, the FCC,
and the Small Business Administration should evaluate and
report to Congress annually on measures to incentivize the
participation of private enterprises in improving diversity,
equity, and inclusion throughout the digital ecosystem.
Highlight Sustainable Success. The Department of Commerce,
the FCC, and the Small Business Administration should publish
an annual report on best practices for enhancing the
performance of private enterprise in improving diversity,
equity and inclusion throughout the digital ecosystem.
Chapter 7.
CLOSING THE UTILIZATION GAP
In the more than two decades since then NTIA Administrator Larry
Irving coined the phrase ``digital divide,'' nearly all the public
discussion of both meaning and the consequence of the idea has involved
either the availability gap, the adoption gap, or the affordability
gap. Often, the terms are used interchangeably, or combined unhelpfully
and referred to simply as a lack of ``access.''
To be sure, all three of these gaps are foundational. Unless there
are networks everywhere and everyone is on them and can afford to use
them, failings of digital equity and inclusion will persist, creating
more inequality and exclusion. As noted in Chapter One, a recent
Executive Order calls for every Federal agency to assure that all
persons, but particularly those in historically marginalized
communities, have equal access to the benefits and services those
agencies provide. Given the trends in how services are now delivered,
it will be difficult to achieve such a goal without closing the gaps
discussed in the Plan.
But there is another, less obvious gap that is increasingly
relevant to how we use the tools of the information age to create a
more equitable and inclusive economy and society. That is the
utilization gap.
That utilization gap describes the difference between how our
communications networks are being used today and how they could already
be used to improve outcomes across industries and in the public sector,
particularly for applications identified by the National Broadband Plan
as strategic. In particular, as many commentators have noted,
government services have not digitized fast enough. Nor have government
service providers taken full advantage of the availability of broadband
to improve customer service, capacity, resiliency, adaptability,
transparency, or security.
The COVID-19 crisis has not only brought the availability,
adoption, and affordability gaps to the forefront, it has also
demonstrated that, despite the capacity and capability of our networks,
we are suffering from a utilization diffusion lag, similar to that
which accompanied electrification in the 1900s. Learnings from this
unprecedented experience, however, could illuminate a better path
forward. As author Nassim Taleb wrote in his book Antifragile, ``The
excess energy released from overreaction to setbacks is what
innovates.'' This crisis is likely to unleash that kind of innovation,
particularly with telehealth, telecommuting, online education, and
public services.
But we need to make sure that, in the process, this next wave of
innovation also drives a more equitable and inclusive economy and
society.
Yes, we need all unemployed persons on-line to be able to train,
search and apply for jobs. But, as discussed in Chapter Eight on
workforce development, we also need to be smarter about how we develop
online training, particularly in tying such training to apprenticeship
programs and orienting such programs to attract persons from
communities of color.
Yes, we need all persons on-line to be able to take advantage of
the improved outcomes and lower costs of telehealth, but we also need,
as discussed in Chapter Nine on health care, to take steps so that
telehealth will reduce disparities in access to care, quality of care
and patient experience, including by enhancing digital health literacy
among low-income persons and persons of color, and disseminating
evidence-based research on improving care equity for communities of
color.
Yes, we need all students on-line to be able to engage in virtual
classes and educational work outside the classroom, but we also need,
as discussed in Chapters Ten and Eleven on K-12 and Higher Education,
equitable access to the tools and content of digital learning, to
assist students wherever they are developmentally and personally,
accelerating and supporting them to learn in ways that represent their
diverse needs, and at a depth of mastery that is required to succeed in
the modern economic and social context. We also need to provide
teachers with the support they need to enable students to maximize the
use of digital content, and allow them to foster a future where the
vast expanse of opportunities available are truly open to all students.
We face a huge challenge in helping students overcome the damage to
their education done by COVID-19, but, as McKinsey reports, there are
ways, many dependent on better utilization of technology, to reduce
that learning loss.
Even with everyone on-line, we need our government institutions to
improve their online services, and offer solutions on par with the best
private sector actors, where competition drives continuous innovation.
But, as discussed in Chapter 12 on government services, we also need
service providers to make it easier for all persons, but particularly
those from low-income households and communities of color, to
understand and benefit from the full range of available information and
benefits, and to interact with those services, such as in making or
receiving payments, and in enabling non-government organizations to
assist Americans in receiving the help they need using government data.
Even with everyone on-line, the Internet ecosystem will not reach
its full potential unless it becomes a healthy, self-sustaining
environment, with effective mechanisms for quickly identifying and
countering dangerous misinformation and toxic behavior. As discussed in
Chapter 13, we can do so by reducing the amount, and negative impact,
of dangerous misinformation and hate speech on the Internet, increasing
the amount of content that addresses the concerns and needs of low-
income communities and communities of color, promoting authoritative
information relevant to these communities, and improving the tools
available for low-income persons and persons of color to engage in
civic discussions, giving them a stronger voice both offline and
online.
In short, even as we close the availability, adoption, and
affordability gaps, we need to address the utilization gap as well. The
remaining chapters propose ways to do so.
Chapter 8.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
8.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Closing the gaps in broadband availability and adoption will
provide an essential foundation for equity and inclusion. But to fully
use the Internet ecosystem to improve economic and social prospects for
persons from communities of color and low-income communities, we must
go beyond those steps. Not enough is currently being done to ensure
that the tools of the Information Age facilitate greater opportunities
for our Nation's labor force. These tools have enormous potential to
bridge workforce gaps by:
Connecting the unemployed with companies and industries that
have unfilled positions;
Enabling workers in every job type and industry to upgrade
their skills and to search and apply for jobs; and
Ensuring that new and small businesses can use available
tools from both public and private sources to improve their
prospects, spurring further opportunities and growth in and for
low-income communities and communities of color.
Today, U.S. industry and policymakers do not adequately use data to
identify in-demand jobs, particularly jobs aligned with the skills
needed to fill them; provide easy access to online programs to help
people develop the skills these positions require; or provide low-or
no-cost cost certifications or other job-seeking tools to help those
who develop new skills pursue new jobs. Policymakers also do not
adequately fund research or other means to help persons holding jobs
with a high risk of being eliminated, such as jobs with repetitive
manual tasks, to develop the skills needed to qualify for the jobs of
the future, particularly given the drop-off in employer-based training
investments over the past two decades.
Broadband can be the major driver for solutions to these problems.
Through federal, state, private, and public sector action, we can
create and improve programs that facilitate online access to general
workforce development, training, skills building, Registered
Apprenticeships, and specific workforce development in critical and
growing fields of such as health care, technology, and transportation.
8.2. VISION
We envision a fully connected nation where, through federal, state,
public, private, and hybrid initiatives, everyone has access to the
tools and resources necessary to upskill, reskill, and earn
certifications to fill workforce gaps. These programs will provide new,
small, and industry-leading businesses with access to a larger talent
pool of trained, capable, skilled workers, enabling businesses to fill
positions more quickly and cost-effectively. Taken together, these
actions will lead to new and increased investment in at-risk
communities, as businesses and their employees flourish.
8.3. GOALS
We must first better understand where the greatest workforce gaps
and disparities exist, and then use this information to develop models,
best practices, and toolkits, improve existing programs, and create new
programs. As noted in Chapter 3, efforts are underway to close the
broadband availability gap. With new Congressional funding, the FCC is
in the process of addressing the inaccurate and incomplete broadband
mapping which has resulted in uncertainty about which areas need
buildout and what the costs associated with fully connecting everyone
will be.
Similarly, accurate data is necessary to address and fix workforce
gaps. Here, we propose a two-pronged approach, where targeted research
and data are first gathered, and then used to create effective
programs, initiatives, and Federal legislation that will provide
funding to help address workforce utilization gaps in the most
efficient manner.
The specific goals in achieving this vision are:
8.3.1. DATA COLLECTION AND RESEARCH GOALS.
Increase funding support, through Federal agencies and
Congressional legislation, for new research, data collection,
and data aggregation on workforce trends, and impacts and
successes in various sectors. Data should particularly focus on
race, economic status, and rural versus urban areas, with the
goal of aiding in the creation, capacity-building, and scaling
of new state-based workforce development and digital skills
training programs during 2021.
Conduct ongoing outcomes-focused data collection, data
aggregation, and research on workforce trends, federal,
private, and nonprofit workforce development programs, public-
private partnerships, and programmatic impacts and successes,
with a particular focus on reporting training outcomes by race,
analyses of best practices, and the development of best
practices toolkits for replicating successful programs, with a
new report released by the end of 2021.
Use impact studies to implement widespread programmatic and
rule changes that increase the effectiveness and impact of
existing Federal agency programs, such as DOL, SBA, and EDA
workforce initiatives, by the end of 2022.
8.3.2. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AND IMPACT GOALS.
Adopt the Lifeline+ program proposed in Chapter 5, which
includes LifelineJobs, a service that would support the
unemployed through a broadband subsidy provided as part of
unemployment benefits, empowering the unemployed to use online
programs to upgrade their skills, as well as search and apply
for jobs.
Use aggregated data to develop best practices and toolkits
to aid federal, state, municipal, public, and private entities
in the creation, development, scaling, and expansion of new and
existing workforce development programs by 2021.
Deploy at least three new national and ten new state
workforce development and digital skills training pilot
programs by 2022, with planned expansion to other states by
2025.
Increase enrollment and diversity in state and nationwide
upskilling, workforce readiness, workforce development, digital
skills, and other training programs by 2023, redesigning
programs and prioritizing programmatic changes around new,
diversity-focused data, setting goals and benchmarks, and
implementing diversity and inclusion training.
Identify, develop, test, and deploy applications of digital
technologies that could foster economic and social mobility.
Develop optional online components to in-person Related
Technical Instruction required for Registered Apprenticeship
certification, and all other Registered Apprenticeship-related
trainings that do not require a hands-on component.\15\
Develop online components for local career centers and other
workforce-related community services, including American Job
Centers under the U.S. Department of Labor, to supplement their
in-person training programs and other offerings, which are
largely unavailable at present due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
8.4. THE CURRENT SITUATION: UNDERSTANDING THE WORKFORCE GAP
The United States is currently experiencing high unemployment, but
it is, ironically, also experiencing significant and growing unmet
demand for labor. By Deloitte Insights' estimate, as many as half of
all open jobs could go unfilled in certain industries in 2028.\16\ For
now, millions remain out of work as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic,
including workers from sectors that could take five or more years to
recover, if they fully recover at all.\17\ This phenomenon is known as
the ``workforce gap,'' where some industries, sectors, and occupations
face a dearth of qualified workers to fill vacancies, but where the
existing unemployed labor force lacks the skills needed to fill them.
To fill the skills and workforce gaps, it is necessary for us to
grow, scale, and modernize our national and state workforce training
programs--yet we are severely underutilizing broadband, arguably the
most powerful tool at our disposal, as a solution to train our labor
force. Traditional approaches to filling the skills and workforce gaps
do not scale well, and they are unlikely to fully bridge the gap
between potential employers and potential employees. Meanwhile,
increases in the availability and utilization of online tools to
upskill, search, and apply for jobs underscore the importance of
broadband connectivity as an essential means of closing the workforce
gap quickly and efficiently.
America already is shifting to online environments for higher
education. Training institutes, community colleges, and universities
now offer a wide range of online certifications and degrees, enabling
students to learn from anywhere. The Best Colleges 2020 Online
Education Trends Report finds that 77 percent of online students enroll
in these programs to help them reach career and employment goals, while
71 percent of institutions decide to offer a new online program
primarily based on perceived demand from employers, and 94 percent of
students of online learning programs say their programs have a positive
return on investment. Demand for online programs continues to be high,
with 99 percent of administrators saying they saw an increase last year
or that demand has stayed the same in the past few years.\18\
Job searches, too, are increasingly performed online. National and
global job search and recruiting sites host millions of job postings
and visitors every month, with about 60 percent of job seekers using
online job boards to search for new employment opportunities.\19\ For
example, online job search platform Glassdoor has over 9 million jobs
listed and 50 million unique visitors each month.\20\ Job search
platform Indeed reports over 250 million monthly visitors and about 10
jobs added per second globally.\21\ LinkedIn, the social network for
professionals, is currently the 57th highest ranked website in the
world in terms of global engagement, with over 722 million members as
of Q3 2020.\22\ LinkedIn, too, has seen steady increases in quarterly
usage, with increases ranging from 22 percent to 31 percent from Q1
2020 to Q1 2021.\23\ Job seekers also apply for jobs through these
tools, with online listing services boards accounting for almost half
of job applications in 2018.\24\
These trends coincide with a widespread shift of company
recruitment and application processes to Internet-based platforms and
services. The next logical step is to modernize our Nation's workforce
development programs, including Registered Apprenticeship Programs and
American Job Centers, by shifting them online. Currently, federal,
state, and local training programs still require an upgrade of their
online components, and brick-and-mortar career centers are largely
closed for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The national shift to more online opportunities for job searches,
applications, and training programs will expand more opportunities to
more people, but it also is likely to isolate and exclude the digitally
disconnected from opportunities for advancement and economic
empowerment. Achieving digital equity and inclusion is increasingly
vital for connecting unemployed and underemployed populations to
workforce development and job search opportunities, particularly
communities of color, low-income, and rural communities--all of which
are facing long-term unemployment in jobs and industries that are
shrinking due to the combination of natural market shifts and the
COVID-19 pandemic. A top priority, therefore, is to ensure the
unemployed have access to the Internet, and that upskilling,
certification, and training programs are easily available online.
8.4.1. SECTORS HARDEST HIT BY COVID-19 PANDEMIC.
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, the United States already faced a
workforce gap. In some traditional industries such as construction and
manufacturing, Baby Boomers are retiring without enough skilled workers
to replace them.\25\ In new and evolving industries, such as the
information and communications technology (ICT) sector, new jobs are
being created that require specialized skills and training. The global
economic impact of COVID-19 has exacerbated these issues, forcing
businesses to cut back or shutter altogether, while also fostering new
development in other areas such as broadband deployment and increased
demand for online services from technology companies.
According to a McKinsey & Company analysis, ``If the economic
recovery from COVID-19 is muted . . . some industries will take years
to get back to their pre-pandemic normal.'' Industries including arts,
entertainment, and recreation, hospitality, and food services,
educational services, transportation and warehousing, travel and
tourism, and manufacturing, could take five years or more to get back
to 2019-level contributions to GDP.\26\ Other hard-hit sectors could
take two to three years to recover, including administrative and other
support services and construction.
As a result, millions of people are out of work in occupations that
are not expected to recover any time soon, yet lack the skills needed
to qualify for occupations in sectors that are growing or need to
replace their retiring workforce.
8.4.2. STATE AND NATIONAL INITIATIVES IN FACILITATING JOB REENTRY,
UPSKILLING, AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Federal, state, and local authorities have long worked to bridge
workforce gaps through programs that connect the unemployed with the
skills they need to fill available jobs. Federal and state action has
shifted in 2020 to address increasing unemployment resulting from the
COVID-19 pandemic, of course, but many of the Congressional and
administrative efforts are temporary, with most measures already having
expired or due to expire by the end of the year. States are slowly
rolling out a patchwork of solutions for their populations. In-person
workforce development programs also are largely out of reach as social
distancing measures are in effect for the foreseeable future.
Facilities remain closed, and many programs are unavailable online,
rendering most services inaccessible for the unemployed people who need
them most urgently.
None of the Congressional directives or Federal programs, such as
the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act, Work Opportunity Tax Credit,
Registered Apprenticeship Programs, Career One-Stops, or other programs
outlined below,\27\ has any requirements to include online training
components.\28\ In fact, many government training programs lack
sufficient virtual support, have antiquated websites and online tools,
and consist of resources and training centers that are largely
unavailable online.\29\ With the majority of in-person programs and
services temporarily suspended or closed, this poses a tremendous
barrier to addressing emergency needs, let alone the longer-term goal
of upskilling America's workforce.
8.4.2.1. Pre-COVID-19 Efforts.
Registered Apprenticeship Programs. The U.S. Department of Labor is
working to meet the shifting demand for labor through Registered
Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs), a formalized, government-credentialed
approach that prepares workers for jobs using an employer-driven,
``earn-while-you-learn'' model. This model was formalized in 1937, when
U.S. leaders recognized the benefits of apprenticeships for individuals
and industry, and passed the National Apprenticeship Act.
Today, there are more than 23,000 RAPs across the nation,\30\
covering over 1,000 occupations across industries that include
information technology, health care, cybersecurity, energy, advanced
manufacturing, construction, engineering, hospitality, transportation,
and financial services.\31\ The U.S. DOL has trained more than 812,000
new apprentices since 2017, with an average starting salary of $70,000
and a lifetime earning potential of over $300,000 more than their
peers. RAPs include structured on-the-job training and classroom-based
Related Technical Instruction. The COVID-19 pandemic, however, has
caused significant disruption to education and training systems
nationwide. The Department of Labor's Employment and Training
Administration has recognized COVID-19's potential impact on RAPs,
which require an individual to be employed while in the program.\32\
Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. In 2014, Congress passed
the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), which replaced the
1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA), as the primary Federal legislation
that supports workforce development.\33\ WIOA covers several areas,
including workforce development activities, adult education and
literacy, and amendments to the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933 and
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which provide employment support for jobs
seekers. The WIOA authorizes job training and related services to
unemployed or underemployed individuals and establishes a governance
and performance accountability system for WIOA. Additionally, the WIOA
system provides central points of service through its system of about
3,000 One-Stop Centers nationwide. Services include state and local
WIOA employment and training activities, as well as partner
programs.\34\
American Job Centers and Career One-Stops. The Workforce Investment
Act, adopted in 1998 and superseded in 2014 by WIOA, established the
American Job Centers (AJCs) system to provide job seekers and employers
streamlined access to an array of education, training, and employment
services.\35\ WIOA emphasizes the importance of integrated intake, case
management, reporting systems, and fiscal and management accountability
systems. Services are delivered via a national network of One-Stop
centers (sometimes branded as CareerOneStops). Each local area must
have at least one comprehensive One-Stop center that provides access to
the services of all associated partners.
In 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration (ETA), in coordination with the Department of Education,
established the American Job Center network under WIOA. WIOA Section
121(e)(4) requires each one-stop delivery system to include in the
identification of products, programs, activities, services, facilities,
and related property and materials, a common one-stop delivery system
identifier, in addition to using any state-or locally developed
identifier.
Today, there are over 2,548 AJCs nationwide, but the majority are
listed as ``closed to the public; available by phone and e-mail,''
``operating at limited capacity to ensure social distancing due to
COVID-19,'' or ``closed until further notice due to COVID-19 health
concerns.'' \36\ While the AJCs are largely closed, the CareerOneStop
does offer a set of mobile apps for job seekers, including Find an
American Job Center, Find a Job, Veterans Job Search, Salary Finder,
Training Finder, and Unemployment Insurance.\37\ The app is useful for
research on jobs, industry, and wage trends, as well as providing
information such as where to find local training programs for specific
jobs. The app, however, remains difficult to navigate, and offers no
information specifically targeting virtual training programs.
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA). The
National Association of State Workforce Agencies (NASWA) is the
national organization representing all 50 state workforce agencies, as
well as those in D.C. and U.S. territories. These agencies deliver
training, employment, career, and business services, in addition to
administering unemployment insurance, veteran reemployment, and labor
market information programs. NASWA provides policy expertise, shares
promising state practices, and promotes state innovation and leadership
in workforce development.\38\
In March 2020, NASWA released the first annual State of the
Workforce Report, a first-of-its-kind compilation of data from the
Nation's state workforce agencies into one comprehensive report,
showcasing key innovations from across the country that are enhancing
the Nation's workforce.\39\ The report also presents a workforce
profile for each state, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico,
highlighting labor force data such as unemployment rates and wage
growth, educational attainment data, key workforce industries, programs
and services within each state's Department of Labor, total individuals
served, unemployment data, number of local American Job Centers, and
state workforce innovations such as apprenticeship programs and
prisoner reentry initiatives.
Work Opportunity Tax Credit. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC)
is a Federal tax credit jointly administered by the U.S. DOL and U.S.
Department of Treasury through the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). WOTC
is available to employers for hiring individuals from certain targeted
groups who have consistently faced significant barriers to employment.
WOTC-targeted groups include: (1) qualified Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) recipients; \40\ (2) qualified veterans; (3)
qualified ex-felons; (4) designated community residents; (5) vocational
rehabilitation referrals; (6) SNAP benefits (food stamps) recipients;
(7) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients; (8) long-term family
assistance recipients; and (9) qualified long-term unemployment
recipients.\41\ Employers receive a tax credit for $2,400 to $9,600 per
year, per employee. The WOTC was authorized until December 31, 2020,
and is generally renewed annually, although some lapses have occurred
before the credit was retroactively reauthorized.\42\
Opportunity Zones. In December 2017, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
created the Opportunity Zone program, designed to provide tax
incentives to companies for investing in economically distressed
communities that have been designated as Qualified Opportunity Zones
(QOZ).\43\ QOZs are designed to spur economic development by providing
tax incentives for investors who supply new capital to businesses
operating in one or more QOZs. While the program is still maturing, it
has faced some criticism, and progress stalled as a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic. An Urban Institute report found that ``although OZs
were designed to spur job creation, the vast majority of capital
appears to be flowing into real estate, not into operating businesses,
because of various program design constraints and the undesirability of
selling equity from both the business owners' and the investors'
perspective.'' \44\ The Brookings Institution has called it a ``tax cut
for gentrification.'' \45\ Further, waivers allowing benefits to flow
into zip codes adjacent to the originally-targeted zip codes have had
the effect of subsidizing luxury apartments and office buildings in
wealthy zip codes.\46\
Municipal Efforts and Public-Private Partnerships. Public-private
partnerships have been used across the country to build programs that
benefit communities, provide jobs, and stimulate economic development.
For example, in 2015, Seattle created a Priority Hire program for city
public works construction projects of $5 million or more, and, in 2017,
expanded the program to public/private partnership projects with
significant city investment. Using city-funded and public/private
partnership projects, the Priority Hire Program prioritizes the hiring
of residents that live in economically distressed areas, particularly
in Seattle and King County. In addition, city projects and public/
private partnership projects have apprentice utilization requirements
and aspirational goals for women and people of color.\47\
8.4.2.2. Post-COVID-19 Efforts.
There are numerous state and national efforts that have arisen in
response to the severe unemployment and economic downturn resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic. Congress quickly passed legislation
appropriating stimulus funding and extending unemployment benefits, and
has extended benefits and created new waivers of taxes on unemployment
benefits through the American Rescue Plan. Industry, state, municipal,
and nonprofit efforts have filled some gaps, but many remain.
CARES Act Unemployment Insurance. In response to the COVID-19
pandemic, Congress has taken various actions, in the CARES Act and in
the American Rescue Plan, to authorizes states to provide additional
weeks of federally funded Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
(PEUC) benefits to people who exhaust their regular state benefits,
followed by additional weeks of federally funded extended benefits (EB)
in states with high unemployment.
Examples of State, Industry, and Nonprofit Virtual Training
Initiatives. The pandemic has led to several innovative efforts to
provide job training using broadband. In Maine, the Governor signed an
executive order that provided flexibility to the Maine Community
College System to quickly expand online training offered by the Maine
Quality Centers (MQC) Program, in response to workforce demands and
economic effects of COVID-19. MQCs are working closely with workforce
training professionals at all seven of Maine's community colleges
across the state to develop and implement free online training
programs. MQC is coordinating its efforts with the state's Department
of Labor and other workforce agencies for the recruitment and screening
of participants for the new online programs.\48\
In Connecticut, Governor Ned Lamont launched the SkillUp CT
program, a statewide, free online job training program for unemployment
claimants, including those who have been impacted by the economic
fallout of the COVID-19 public health crisis. The program, coordinated
by the Connecticut Workforce Development Council (CWDC) in
collaboration with the Connecticut Governor's Workforce Council (GWC)
and the Connecticut Department of Labor (CTDOL), significantly expands
access to comprehensive online course work from Metrix Learning, a
global provider of web-based learning management systems, for thousands
of Connecticut residents. Eligible Connecticut residents receive e-mail
instructions on obtaining a license to access the Metrix Learning
program, which provides access to about 5,000 online Skillsoft courses
in areas such as information technology, business analysis, customer
service, project management, and digital literacy, among others. The
courses are available to anyone with an Internet connection and a
computer. SkillUp CT also offers training tracks leading to over 100
industry certifications, and will provide career coaching through the
workforce boards.\49\
In 2015, Seattle created a Priority Hire program for city public
works construction projects of $5 million or more and, in 2017,
expanded the program to public/private partnership projects with
significant city investment. Using city-funded and public/private
partnership projects, the Priority Hire Program prioritizes the hiring
of residents that live in economically distressed areas, particularly
in Seattle and King County. In addition, city projects and public/
private partnership projects have apprentice utilization requirements
and aspirational goals for women and people of color.\50\
Each of these initiatives can serve as a model to other states,
Federal agencies, and the private sector in developing and expanding
programs to help train displaced workers in industries that have not
been as significantly impacted or which may be experiencing labor
shortages as a result of COVID-19.
Private companies are also responding to the emergency. Microsoft
is launching a global skills initiative aimed at bringing more digital
skills to 25 million people worldwide by the end of the year. This
initiative will combine existing and new resources from Microsoft, as
well as subsidiaries including LinkedIn and GitHub. It will be grounded
in three areas of activity: (1) the use of data to identify in-demand
jobs and the skills needed to fill them; (2) free access to learning
paths and content to help people develop the skills these positions
require; and (3) low-cost certifications and free job-seeking tools to
help people who develop these skills pursue new jobs.\51\
Comcast has launched the Comcast RISE (Representation, Investment,
Strength, and Empowerment) program to provide support for businesses
owned by Black Americans, Indigenous Americans, and People of
Color.\52\ Qualified small businesses can receive one or more of
several services through Effectv, the advertising sales division of
Comcast, and Comcast Business. These include local marketing
consulting, a 90-day TV media campaign, a 30-second TV commercial, a
``technology makeover'' including computer equipment and Internet,
voice and cybersecurity services for up to a 12-month, and grants of up
to $10,000 for businesses that have been in operations for three to
five years.
Several organizations and companies, including Charter
Communications, Focus on Rural America, Family Business Coalition,
Natural Rural Education Association, League of Rural Voters, and
Schools, Health & Libraries Coalition, have partnered to create the
Connect the Future coalition, focused on quickly connecting millions of
unconnected Americans to high-speed Internet. The coalition plans to
``shine a light on the barriers to Internet access, show the solutions
to expand access to more homes and businesses, and shift the national
conversation to enact those solutions--soon.'' \53\
CompTIA (the Computing Technology Industry Association) is
responding to COVID-19 by conducting live, virtual training for
unemployed and underemployed during the crisis. CompTIA also provides
WIOA-approved training programs.
8.4.3. THE WORKFORCE GAP AND COVID-19'S IMPACT ON PEOPLE OF COLOR, LOW-
INCOME, AND RURAL COMMUNITIES.
Despite these and other programs available across the nation,
closing the workforce gap is complicated by several factors. As
discussed in prior chapters, millions of Americans lack any available
options for broadband service. More have access to broadband but cannot
or choose not to subscribe. For those who are not online, brick-and-
mortar government services designed to assist individuals with signing
up for unemployment benefits or with workforce development programs are
only open in limited capacity or closed for the foreseeable future.\54\
Additional workforce development programs, such as the Registered
Apprenticeship Programs, offered through industry and the U.S.
Department of Labor, include on-the-job learning and Related Technical
Instruction components that are not available online.\55\
The combination of these factors has had a significant impact on
the overall U.S. unemployment rate, with a predictably outsized impact
on communities of color. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics,
the national unemployment rate for Q3 2020 is 8.9 percent, compared
with 3.7 percent for Q3 2019.\56\ The unemployment rate for whites is
somewhat lower at 7.9 percent, while the rate is several percentage
points higher for Black Americans and Latinxs at 13.2 percent and 11.2
percent, respectively. Further, Black Americans and Latinxs are
disproportionately represented in many of the hardest-hit sectors and
subsectors, as shown in Figure 1.
Communities of color and other marginalized groups, such as low-
income and rural communities, are further harmed by the
disproportionate impact of the COVID-19 pandemic itself. According to
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), people of color
are at increased risk of getting sick and dying from COVID-19 due to
``[inequities] in the social determinants of health, such as poverty
and health care access, [which] are interrelated and influence a wide
range of health and quality-of-life outcomes and risks,'' as well as
``higher rates of some medical conditions that increase one's risk of
severe illness from COVID-19.'' \57\ Further, ``community strategies to
slow the spread of COVID-19 may cause unintentional harm, such as lost
wages, reduced access to services, and increased stress, for some
racial and ethnic minority groups.'' \58\
These groups also disproportionately work in sectors that lack the
ability to work remotely, such as hospitality, food service, and
transportation, and have consequently been hit hardest by COVID-19-
related layoffs. For these populations, leaving their homes to work or
seek employment puts them at much greater risk of contracting, falling
seriously ill, and dying from COVID-19. Further, these populations are
relatively lower-income and face significant financial hardship from
the inability to work, hardships from which they are relatively ill-
positioned to recover.
In this environment, it is essential that these groups have the
tools and resources they need to reskill through virtual online
training programs. Unfortunately, while numerous programs and
initiatives exist, they are largely unavailable online.
8.4.4. IMPACT OF BROADBAND ADOPTION ON WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Persons out of work indefinitely should have the opportunity to
enter workforce development programs and reskill. However, as outlined
above, many workforce programs and local job centers are currently
closed, operating at limited capacity, available by appointment only,
or only available by phone or e-mail.\59\ In cases where opportunities
are available virtually, access to online training is difficult or
impossible without home broadband access and without overcoming digital
literacy barriers.
As discussed in Chapter 4, Black Americans, Latinxs, and Tribal
groups historically have adopted broadband at lower rates compared to
white Americans. Rural and low-income Americans face similar
discrepancies. These factors lead to a perpetuating cycle: without
access to meaningful employment, households cannot afford broadband,
and without broadband, they cannot upskill or search for jobs, training
programs, and other opportunities. By establishing online workforce
development and training programs, Federal and state governments can
close the broadband utilization gap, connect underrepresented groups to
employment opportunities, and achieve digital equity and inclusion.
The key challenges to overcome to close the broadband utilization
gap through workforce development in the United States include:
Data Gaps. More data is necessary to identify, predict, and
fill workforce gaps. Additionally, few training programs report
outcomes by race.\60\ These data can have numerous
applications, including improving existing programs, building
out and expanding successful programs, and developing best
practices and standards from existing programs.
Low Federal Investment Where Needed. The Federal government
makes significant investments to harness science and technology
to achieve some goals (national security, health, energy,
space, basic science), but not others (education, workforce
development, economic and social mobility, racial disparities).
Agencies such as HUD, Education, Labor, and the human service
components of HHS have little or no capacity to engage with
researchers and entrepreneurs to develop and deploy
breakthrough applications of technology that would advance
equity and inclusion.\61\
Existing Workforce Development Programs Largely Lack Virtual
Service and Training Support. Existing programs such as
Registered Apprenticeship Programs, Career One-Stops, and other
offerings with classroom instruction components and brick-and-
mortar service locations are largely paused, closed, or open
with limited capacity in the wake of COVID-19.\62\ Prior to
(and following) the pandemic, traveling to these locations
placed burdens on low-income and other disadvantaged groups
that needed additional supportive services such as
transportation and childcare.\63\ Virtual support and training
programs would significantly improve ease of access for the
groups that need them most.
Social Spending Not Currently Organized to Support the
Development of Tech-Enabled Interventions. Currently, funding
for workforce-related and other social spending is generally
provided through a block grant or a formula grant, based on
several factors relating to local unemployment figures, to the
states. While there are policy rationales for allocating funds
in this way, it runs counter to key features of most
technology-driven applications, which are characterized by high
fixed start-up costs and very low marginal costs to train each
additional participant. Under existing formulae for WIOA
funding, for example, state funding allotment can only increase
to 130 percent of prior-year budgets,\64\ which is not enough
to incentivize states to invest in the development of tech-
enabled solutions that scale nationally.
Digital Literacy Gaps. Despite strides to close the
broadband availability, adoption, and affordability gaps, as
well as changing perceptions of the opportunities afforded by
broadband use, many Americans still lack the digital literacy
skills necessary to take advantage of online offerings, as
discussed in greater detail in Chapter Four.
8.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.6.1. WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT-RELATED RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER CHAPTERS.
There are several workforce-related recommendations in other
chapters that we cross-reference here. These include:
Creating a workforce of ``Digital Navigators'' to assist
individuals and small businesses, particularly in communities
of color and low-income communities, with obtaining digital
readiness and literacy skills, as discussed in Chapter 4;
Creating a broadband benefit for unemployed persons so that
they can get and stay online to train, search, and apply for
jobs, as discussed in Chapter 5;
Creating a workforce of on-line tutors to focus on improving
basic reading and math skills, particularly for students in
communities of color and low-income communities, as discussed
in Chapter 10; and
Engaging in research relating to using AI for job training,
as discussed in Chapter 11.
8.6.2. CONGRESS SHOULD DIRECT FEDERAL AGENCIES TO INCREASE DATA
COLLECTION RELATED TO WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT.
Congress should direct Federal agencies to increase data
collection, data aggregation, and research on workforce development
program trends and programmatic impacts and successes, with a
particular focus on reporting training program outcomes by race.
We also need to aggregate data on national, state, municipal, and
public-private hybrid workforce programs, focusing on diversity,
placement, virtual training elements, the prevalence and impact of such
programs in growing and shrinking sectors, and other measures of
programmatic impact and success. The data, when gathered, should be
used by Congress and Federal agencies to develop and promote best
practices, guidelines, and standards to build new programs, improve
existing programs, and standardize virtual learning components.
To this end, Congress should pass legislation directing the Bureau
of Labor Statistics, the Department of Labor, and the Small Business
Administration to collect and apply this data. These agencies should
work with State Workforce Agencies, through the National Association of
State Workforce Agencies, to aggregate state-level data, and determine
the factors that make up the most successful programs, particularly
when it comes to diversity and job placement.
8.6.3. CONGRESS SHOULD INCENTIVIZE COMPANIES, STATES, MUNICIPALITIES,
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS, AND HYBRID ENTITIES TO CREATE, BUILD
CAPACITY, AND SCALE NEW WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND DIGITAL
SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAMS.
Armed with the data collected by the BLS, DOL, and SBA, Congress
can assess the funding needs and requirements for successful national,
state, and local programs. Congress should use these data and
recommendations to pass legislation that increases investment in
innovation, including implementing virtual training tools to new and
existing programs, as well as scaling up existing programs.
8.6.3.1. Congress should appropriate funding for the U.S. Department of
Labor to dramatically scale up Registered Apprenticeship
Programs.
The U.S. Department of Labor invests $200 million per year in
Registered Apprenticeship Programs. This represents just 2.1 percent of
the agency's $9.4 billion discretionary budget authority.\65\ Congress
should increase the amount it appropriates to apprenticeship programs.
This increased investment would allow the U.S. Department of Labor to
vastly expand its efforts to improve and modernize training programs;
increase apprenticeship opportunities through partnerships between
companies, community colleges, technical schools, universities,
nonprofit organizations, states, municipalities, and other entities;
and add new, 21st-century components to its Registered Apprenticeship
Programs, including robust online training support.
8.6.3.2. Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to
institute new sectoral training programs.
Congress should establish new sectoral training programs to align
training with local job markets, leverage the community college system,
and, by designing training based on an entire sector, ensure that
workers gain skills that are transferable across employers. This model
already exists in several states and cities, with studies finding that
participants in sectoral programs earned 18 percent more than control
group participants and were more likely to work in jobs that offered
benefits such as health insurance or paid leave, among other
results.\66\ Sectoral training would, in particular, assist low-income
communities and communities of color.
8.6.3.3. Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to
formally implement integrated online training components in
Registered Apprenticeship Programs.
The Department of Labor's Employment and Training Administration
has acknowledged the potential impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on RAPs,
which require an individual to be employed while in the program.\67\
Congress should direct the Department of Labor to develop standards and
tools for companies to support online learning options for the Related
Technical Instruction portions of their Registered Apprenticeship
Programs (e.g., any parts of the training that do not require hands-on
training). Additional funding support for the development of online
training components would enable widespread development and adoption of
virtual training programs. Further, the investment would have a
positive ROI, as entities would save on funds currently spent to
provide supportive services such as transportation to training
facilities, freeing up capital to improve the performance and outcomes
of the training programs themselves.
8.6.3.4. Congress should direct WIOA to implement support for virtual
trainings under its core programs Federal funding.
Under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, the
Federal government distributes funding to states for six core programs,
including the U.S. Department of Labor's Adult Services, Dislocated
Workers, and Youth Services programs (for employment and training
activities, including the American Job Center and Career One-Stop
systems); Wagner-Peyser programs (employment services for job seekers);
and the U.S. Department of Education's Division of Adult Education and
Literacy (for basic skills) and its rehabilitation services programs
(for employment services for individuals with disabilities). In 2017,
the Federal government distributed over $7 billion in funding under
WIOA. Congress should direct WIOA to include funding earmarked to
develop and implement virtual training components for each of its core
programs.
In addition, the Department of Labor should call out digital
literacy as a priority activity or otherwise incentivize applicants to
address this issue in their responses to existing Federal discretionary
Solicitations for Grant Applications, such as those for apprenticeship
grants. Further, The Department of Labor should also issue a Training
and Employment Guidance Letter (TEGL) that clarifies how and when
digital literacy activities can be paid for by WIOA Title I dollars
(e.g., as part of technical training for an Integrated Education and
Training [IET] program)
8.6.3.5. Congress should provide additional funds to State Workforce
Agencies to support the development of state and municipal
efforts and public-private partnerships.
Congress should direct the U.S. Department of Labor to work with
the NASWA and individual State Workforce Agencies to develop public-
private partnerships. There are numerous examples of public-private
partnerships between municipalities, companies, nonprofit
organizations, and other groups that focus on economically depressed
and historically underrepresented and marginalized groups. But these
types of partnerships and programs do not exist in every area.
The U.S. Department of Labor and State Workforce Agencies can use
the best practices and standards developed from the data collection
efforts listed in 8.6.1 to encourage the development and scaling of new
partnerships across additional states and municipalities, which can
learn from and replicate strategies from existing successful programs.
8.6.3.6. The Federal Government should ramp up efforts working with the
private sector to provide apprenticeship opportunities and
other efforts to address the labor shortfall in deploying next
generation broadband networks.
The U.S. currently lacks a sufficiently trained workforce to meet
the demand for deploying 5G and other next generation broadband
networks. As additional Federal investment is introduced to build
broadband networks, it will create more demand on a workforce that is
already under-supplied with the proper skills. Expanding and upskilling
this workforce provides opportunities for diversification so those
building the networks reflects the diversity of broadband consumers.
One way to address this need is through apprenticeships that
provide paid work experience, classroom instruction, and a nationally
recognized credential. The Department of Labor has mechanisms in place
to immediately implement support for employers that seek to diversify
and develop their workforce for deploying broadband networks. According
to the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), more than 50,000 new
jobs through 2024 will be in occupations that have existing or planned
apprenticeships--including 5G small-cell technician, tower installers,
supervisors, engineers, project managers, and cybersecurity
professionals. In that light:
Congress should fund the Department of Labor to expand
communications and 5G apprenticeships, directly support
employers to provide apprentices with technical instruction,
fund institutes of higher education to develop programs of
study on broadband and 5G training and build pre-apprentice
solutions.
The FCC should lead an interagency working group that, in
consultation with the Department of Labor (DOL) and other
Federal and non-federal stakeholders, undertakes developing
recommendations to address the workforce needs of the
communications industry.
The FCC, in consultation with DOL, should issue guidance on
how states can address the workforce shortage in the
communications industry by identifying all of the Federal
resources currently available to states for workforce
development efforts.
The Government Accountability Office should conduct a study
to determine the specific number of skilled communications
workers the United States needs to build and maintain broadband
infrastructure, including in rural areas, and the 5G wireless
infrastructure needed to support 5G wireless technology.
As part of this effort the communications industry should
continue in its current efforts to develop partnerships with
institutions of higher education, including Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs) to translate job requirements from
employers during the curriculum development process.
8.6.3.7. Congress should fund public outreach campaigns to publicize
online training programs and initiatives.
One key to closing the broadband utilization gap through workforce
development is ensuring that the general public is aware of these
opportunities. Congress should provide funding, and direct agencies
such as the Department of Labor, Department of Education, Department of
Commerce, and Small Business Administration to launch nationwide
publicity and outreach programs to inform populations on available
programs. Additional funding should also be dispensed to State
Workforce Agencies to publicize programs within their respective
states.
8.6.4. THE WHITE HOUSE AND CONGRESS SHOULD EXPAND ACCESS TO ADDITIONAL
RESOURCES AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR ENTERPRISES LOCATED IN
RURAL AREAS AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
The White House and Congress should support competitive grants
fueling the private creation of urban and rural business incubators,
technology campuses from dormant industrial sites, and other measures
intended to foster targeted and localized small business growth.\68\
This would help with digital equity and inclusion by expanding the
technical skills of those in communities that to date have been largely
excluded by the changes in technology. For example, one such initiative
could support the development of a national network of small business
incubators and innovation hubs on the grounds of Small Business
Development Centers, public libraries, community colleges, Historically
Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and
Universities (TCUs), and Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs). Such an
initiative would provide essential support for needed services such as
business coaching, opportunities to partner with national laboratories
and commercialize federally funded research, and legal, human
resources, accounting, regulatory compliance, and information
technology services to aspiring entrepreneurs.
The initiative also would specifically emphasize the importance of
establishing the digital footprint of small businesses and include
coaching and training opportunities for digital engagement with
businesses' communities, jobseekers, and staff. Such an initiative
should direct upskilling resources to small and mid-sized companies,
which are more likely to employ workers with digital skill gaps, and
often the least able to mount ambitious in-house upskilling efforts.
8.6.4.1. The White House should reform the Opportunity Zone program in
order to meet its economic and community development goals.
As discussed earlier in this chapter, the Opportunity Zone program
has largely fallen short of meeting its stated goals, with investors
tending to favor high-return projects such as luxury apartments rather
than efforts focused on economic empowerment, such as affordable
housing and local businesses. We propose several reforms to the
Opportunity Zone program, including:
Incentivizing Opportunity Funds to partner with nonprofit or
community-oriented organizations, and jointly producing a
community-benefit plan for each investment, with a focus on
creating jobs for low-income residents and otherwise providing
a direct financial impact to households within the Opportunity
Zones.
Directing that Opportunity Zone benefits be reviewed by the
Department of Treasury to ensure these tax benefits are only
being allowed where there are clear economic, social, and
environmental benefits to a community, and not just high
returns--like those from luxury apartments or luxury hotels--to
investors.
Introducing transparency by requiring recipients of the
Opportunity Zone tax break to provide detailed reporting and
public disclosure on their Opportunity Zone investments, and
their impact on local residents, including poverty status,
housing affordability, and job creation.
In addition to the emphasis on affordable housing and local
businesses, investors should be encouraged to invest in training
centers that focus on digital skills training and workforce development
programs. These centers can serve as technology hubs in the community
where workforce and business development programs can rent space and
community members can go for digital literacy and workforce development
programs.
These actions, coupled with the research, investment, and online
workforce development program efforts outlined above, could create
opportunities for disenfranchised communities of color in urban and
rural areas.
8.6.4.2. Support Federal Software Preference for Places Left Behind in
the United States.
Congress should incentivize contractors who sell software to the
Federal government to locate part of their workforce in America, and
specifically in rural areas and communities of color. By incentivizing
relocation of work, there could be a move by government contractors to
open software development locations in areas left behind and create
good paying tech jobs.
8.6.5. STATES SHOULD MODERNIZE THEIR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS SYSTEMS, TO
ENABLE THE NEWLY UNEMPLOYED TO ACCESS BENEFITS AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE EMPLOYMENT MORE EFFECTIVELY.
Chapter 12 discusses a number of steps governments should take to
modernize and improve the delivery of general services in ways that
benefit the public, and which would especially benefit persons in low-
income communities and communities of color. Here, we focus on the
specific need to modernize and improve the unemployment benefits
system. A 2020 study by The Century Foundation, National Unemployment
Law Project, and Philadelphia Legal Assistance reported that fewer than
half of states have modernized their unemployment benefits systems.
Many claimants have found systems that were touted as convenient and
accessible to be in actuality challenging and counterintuitive.\69\ We
agree with the study and believe efforts at modernization should
prioritize the following principles:
Unemployed workers should have 24/7 access to online and
mobile services.
Unemployment websites and applications should be optimized
for mobile devices. As discussed throughout this Plan, low-wage
workers and workers of color are particularly likely to rely on
their phones for Internet access.
Call-back and chat technology should be used to deal with
the large surges on incoming calls and be implemented as part
of a permanent solution. Such technology would improve access
while saving money for the government.
All websites and applications should be translated into
Spanish and other commonly spoken languages. Translating online
materials would not only ensure equal access, but also be more
efficient for those needing assistance who may never get
through to a person on the phone or who get stuck on hold for
hours.
8.6.7. CONGRESS SHOULD INCREASE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE DIVERSITY.
As discussed in Chapter Nine on Health Care, greater diversity in
the health care workforce can help address racial and ethnic health
care disparities. Health care professionals who identify as racial or
ethnic minorities are more likely to provide care to lower-income,
minority, and uninsured populations. Only 23 percent of Black
Americans, 26 percent of Latinxs and 39 percent of Asian Americans have
a physician who shares their race or ethnicity, compared to 82 percent
of white Americans. Racial concordance between the health care provider
and patient correlates with improved health outcomes, patient
satisfaction, and communication. It can help overcome harmful racial or
cultural biases in the provision of health care, mistrust of the
medical community, as well as cultural attitudes and beliefs about
health care.
Although the overall health care workforce is becoming more
diverse, the majority of people of color remain in entry-level and
often lower-paying jobs with little opportunity for advancement.
Further, BLS reports that 6 of the 10 fastest-growing occupations are
related to health care,\70\ presenting opportunities for people of
color to seek stable, high-wage jobs in these fields. More investment
in programs that combine social, academic, and financial support are
needed to address the financial challenges, disconnected pipelines,
unclear career pathways, and lack of academic and social supports
hindering workforce diversity.
8.6.7.1. Congress should pass legislation increasing education support
for workforce diversity in health care.
Congress should authorize assistance for increasing workforce
diversity in underrepresented professions (e.g., allied health care
fields including physical and occupational therapy, audiology, and
speech-language pathology). This assistance might take the form of
grants to education programs to provide scholarships, or support for
recruitment and retention efforts for students of color.\71\
8.6.7.2. Congress should increase funding for workforce development of
underrepresented groups in health care.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) should increase
funding to support the development, recruitment, and retention of
health care professionals from underrepresented groups. Funding should
augment student training, internships, fellowships, and mentoring
programs, as well as ongoing professional development. HHS should
ensure coordination among efforts across agencies (e.g., HRSA, CDC's
Office of Minority Health and Health Equity (OMHHE), Office of Minority
Health, etc.).
Chapter 9.
HEALTH CARE
``OF ALL THE FORMS OF INEQUALITY, INJUSTICE IN HEALTH IS THE MOST
SHOCKING AND THE MOST INHUMAN''--DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., CHICAGO,
1966
9.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
The failure to achieve digital equity and inclusion drives up
health care costs for all Americans because it deprives the system of
the full cost savings these technologies can generate. It particularly
harms those with lower incomes and communities of color who cannot
receive health care services that are increasingly provided online.
Even when the tools to take advantage of online health care are
available, members of these communities often lack the knowledge and
skills to use them.
Instead of closing gaps in access, quality of care, and patient
experience, ironically, digital technologies are exacerbating long-
standing disparities, resulting in declining health outcomes for at-
risk populations, as well as higher costs systemwide. In part, these
problems are a function of existing regulations, which unintentionally
hinder adoption of online health care services by patients, providers,
and insurers.
9.2. VISION
We need a health care system that empowers everyone to attain their
best possible health outcomes. Every American should be able to get the
right care, at the right time, wherever they are. A zip code should no
longer be a strong predictor of health outcome, as it is today. To do
so, all persons should have access to user-friendly health-enabling
tools and technologies that connect them to high-quality, affordable
health care services and information they can understand.
9.3. GOALS
The key goals for the digital equity and inclusion agenda in health
care are directed at improving health outcomes while lowering costs:
Reduce disparities in access to care, quality of care, and
patient experience.
Ensure all individuals benefit from technology-driven
advances in health technology--including broadband-based
service delivery--independent of race, income level, or
location.
Enable individuals receiving government-supported health
care benefits (including Medicare, Medicaid, and state-level
assistance) to enjoy the benefits of telehealth services to the
same extent as other patients.
Enhance digital health literacy among low-income persons and
persons of color.
Engage in and disseminate evidence-based research on
improving care equity for communities of color.
9.4. CURRENT SITUATION
Low-income communities and communities of color face profound
disparities in health status. They experience higher incidence or
prevalence of disease, earlier onset or faster progression of disease,
poorer daily functioning and quality of life, premature or excessive
mortality, and greater global burden of disease.\72\ In particular,
these communities suffer higher rates of heart disease, high blood
pressure, diabetes, asthma, HIV/AIDS, and infant mortality. Infant
mortality for Black Americans, a key indicator of a population's
health, is almost twice the national average.\73\ (Please see Appendix
9A--Health Disparities). As the National Broadband Plan noted a decade
ago:
A significant problem plaguing the nation's health care system
is the fact that there are health disparities across different
ethnic groups. Black Americans, for example, experience the
highest rates of mortality from heart disease, cancer,
cerebrovascular disease, and HIV/AIDS than any other U.S.
racial or ethnic group. Hispanic Americans are almost twice as
likely as non-Hispanic whites to die from diabetes. Some Asian
Americans experience rates of stomach, liver and cervical
cancers that are well above national averages.' Further
exacerbating this problem, members of ethnic groups are less
likely than whites to have health insurance, have more
difficulty getting health care and have fewer choices in where
to receive care.
Challenges accessing care contribute to these disparities.
Longitudinal research comparing quality measures across racial/ethnic
minorities and lower income groups shows that while overall quality is
improving for these groups, their access is worse and there has been no
progress in lessening disparities.\74\ A study in the greater
Rochester, NY area showed that introducing telehealth to impoverished
inner-city children redressed socioeconomic disparities in acute care
access, thus contributing to a more equitable community.\75\
Broadband has the potential to address many of the key failings of
the health care system that contribute to disparities, including
inadequate access to care, inconsistent quality of care, and variations
in patient experience due to location. Because the Internet is
indifferent to time, distance, location, and technology, it has great
potential to erase many inequities. However, this is only possible if
everyone is connected, and only if the tools for utilizing health care
are usable by everyone, not just the tech savvy. Again, as noted in the
National Broadband Plan, ``Broadband is not a panacea. However, there
is a developing set of broadband-enabled solutions that can play an
important role in the transformation required to address these
issues.''
Internet-based health care delivery is generally referred to as
telehealth. The defining feature of telehealth is that the clinician
and patient are not physically in the same room. Telehealth
technologies today already include live video conferencing, mobile
health (mHealth) apps, text messages, ``store and forward'' electronic
transmission, and Internet-enabled and wearable devices for remote
patient monitoring (RPM) that are used to provide care. The future, no
doubt, will see many more exciting innovations in this area.
Telehealth is not a separate form of health care, but rather a
means for health care professionals to provide care that is more
convenient and less expensive for patients, to connect patients in
rural and urban areas that are underserved in terms of specialists
(such as cardiologists and neonatologists) who would be otherwise
inaccessible, and to engage individuals in managing their health and
wellness. It expands the reach of health care professionals so people
can obtain linguistically and culturally appropriate care. (Please see
Appendix 9B--Benefits of Telehealth).
It is important to recognize that access to and utilization of
telehealth by at-risk communities is a rural and urban issue, not a
rural versus urban solution. However, the Medicare statute, which was
waived during the pandemic, generally restricts telehealth eligibility
to beneficiaries in rural areas. Further, setting up and maintaining
telehealth infrastructure is expensive and most large health systems
that would do so are located in urban areas. The private capital
investment in telehealth infrastructure needed for rural areas is more
likely to be financed if it can be leveraged to also care for local
urban populations who suffer similar access challenges.\76\
Telehealth is proving that it can improve health outcomes. It can
also lower costs. (Please see Appendix 9B--Benefits of Telehealth). But
a lack of digital equity and inclusion is making it more difficult to
achieve potential cost savings in providing health care. The need to
reduce costs is urgent, as the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) projects health costs will grow to a staggering $6 trillion by
2027,\77\ and Medicare's Trustees warn that the Medicare system will go
bankrupt in 2026.\78\
Although comprehensive, population-wide analysis is needed and
should be undertaken by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation
(as recommended and discussed in Chapter 5), there are numerous
examples of Internet-enabled health care lowering costs.
Research shows that telehealth could potentially save
companies more than $6 billion a year, for example, by keeping
employees healthier and more productive.\79\
Goldman Sachs estimates that connected devices could reduce
health costs by $300 billion, by increasing access to
diagnostic treatments, preventative care, and chronic disease
management.\80\
Digital therapeutics, which are technology-based solutions
that have a clinical impact on disease comparable to that of a
drug, have the potential to provide effective, low-cost ways to
prevent and treat chronic diseases and their consequences.\81\
(Please see Appendix 9C--Digital Therapeutics).
One study estimated average savings of $97 to $145 per
patient per month when digital therapeutics were used for type
2 diabetes and hypertension.\82\
For its Diabetes Telehealth Network, Mississippi became the
first state to pay mobile connectivity fees for telehealth and
projected Medicaid savings of $189 million a year.\83\
A more recent study of a tele-video health care program
found that ``the majority of health concerns could be resolved
in a single consultation and new utilization was infrequent.
Synchronous audio-video telemedicine consults resulted in
short-term cost savings by diverting patients from more
expensive care settings,'' with the net cost savings per
telemedicine visit ``calculated to range from $19-$121 per
visit.''
In recognition of the ability to improve outcomes and lower
costs, Kaiser Permanente, one of the Nation's largest not-for-
profit health plans, makes telehealth a key component of its
integrated approach to high-quality care delivery.\84\
Even a decade ago, it was clear that health care provided over
communications technology could help reduce U.S. health care costs. As
the National Broadband Plan noted:
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) coordinates the care
of 32,000 veteran patients with chronic conditions through a
national program called Care Coordination/Home Telehealth
(CCHT). CCHT involves the systematic use of health informatics,
e-care, and disease management technologies to avoid
unnecessary admission to long-term institutional care.
Technologies include videophones, messaging devices, biometric
devices, digital cameras, and remote monitoring devices. CCHT
led to a 25% reduction in the number of bed days of care and a
19% drop in hospital admissions. At $1,600 per patient per
year, it costs far less than the VHA's home-based primary care
services ($13,121 per year) and nursing home care rates
($77,745 on average per patient per year). Based on the VHA's
experience, e-care is an appropriate and cost-effective way to
manage chronic care patients in urban and rural settings. Most
importantly, it enables patients to live independently at home.
In 2012, telehealth services provided to over 150,000 beneficiaries
resulted in average annual savings of $6,500 per patient, which equated
to nearly one billion in annual savings for the VHA.\85\
Although telehealth has been available for decades, the pandemic
has greatly accelerated its adoption across all patient and provider
populations.\86\ The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
reported unprecedented increases in telehealth, with 1.7 million
beneficiaries receiving services in the last week of April, 2020,
versus only 13,000 a week before the pandemic.\87\ Early CMS data show
telehealth to be an effective way for people to access health care
safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, whether it is getting a
prescription refilled, managing chronic conditions, or obtaining mental
health counseling.\88\
However, early signs of disparities in access to care via
telehealth are emerging. COVID-19 both highlighted and added to these
disparities, as the pandemic disproportionately impacts communities of
color. Federal data show that Black American and Latinx individuals are
nearly three times more likely than Whites to contract COVID-19, almost
five times more likely to be hospitalized, and twice as likely to die
from it.\89\ Furthermore, vaccine appointments are largely made online,
leaving persons of color that lack Internet access unable to sign up.
The effects of missing care and having diseases go undiagnosed and/or
untreated since the onset of the pandemic are disproportionately
harming persons of color. According to the CDC, excess deaths increased
nearly 15 percent for Whites, but almost 45 percent for Latinx and over
28 percent for Black populations last year.\90\
Large primary care practices have found that patients identifying
as Non-Hispanic White represent a higher proportion of provider visits
once telehealth was scaled up; whereas, communities of color and those
with a non-English language preference saw decreases in provider
visits.\91\ Similarly, a study in the Journal of the American Medical
Informatics Association shows that Black and Latinx patients in New
York City during the early peak of the crisis had lower odds of using
telehealth instead of the emergency room or an office visit compared to
Whites or Asians.\92\ Another recent study found that 60 percent of
Black and over 70 percent of Hispanic adults age 65+ are incapable, for
different reasons, of conducting video visits.\93\ These trends,
coupled with excess-death data, are concerning as they suggest declines
in primary care, inadequate chronic disease management, and increased
mortality long-term due to lack of detection and treatment among
marginalized populations.
A reliance on digital technology to accomplish essential tasks,
including disseminating health information and monitoring conditions,
as well as communicating with and engaging patients in their health
care, has the unfortunate potential to add to, rather than erase,
current health disparities for patients without access to or the skills
to use these technologies.\94\ COVID-19 has brought new attention to
some of the key challenges to achieving digital equity and inclusion in
health care. These include the availability and adoption of home
broadband (which includes, by definition, reliable and affordable
service) and Internet-enabled devices; eligibility to receive
telehealth services and corresponding reimbursement; limitations in
digital literacy and workforce diversity, which affect interactions
with providers; and limited research and data specific to telehealth
and communities of color.
Further, there are few national standards for telehealth, and
reimbursement for eligible services and type of technology used varies
by state and insurer. These inconsistencies hinder broader telehealth
adoption, especially for Medicaid beneficiaries, the majority of whom
are people of color.
9.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
There are enormous disparities in health and health care.
Telehealth is part of the solution to reduce them, but it can only be
successful if low-income communities and communities of color are
connected, have connected devices, and know how to use them for health
care purposes (e.g., find and download a health care app, log into it
using an e-mail address, and comprehend the language on the screen).
There is a confluence of factors that adds to the urgency of driving
telehealth adoption among communities of color. First, telehealth is
growing and will remain a feature of service delivery even post
pandemic. Second, telehealth is a path for achieving more equitable
health outcomes while still containing costs. The recommendations below
outline steps that Congress and the Administration should take to
advance digital equity and inclusion in health care.
9.6.1. LEVERAGE THE FEDERAL ROLE IN FUNDING HEALTH INSURANCE TO CLOSE
THE HEALTH CARE BROADBAND GAP FOR INDIVIDUALS
As discussed throughout this Chapter, Americans seeking health care
rely increasingly on broadband services for essential services. Some of
that increase is driven by COVID-19. Unfortunately, the benefits of
telehealth have not been experienced by those without access to
broadband, a population group that could most benefit from access to
telehealth. As discussed in Chapter 4, broadband adoption is lowest
among low-income communities and communities of color.
There are many reasons non-adopters would benefit significantly
from telehealth. They are more likely to work in hourly jobs, so saving
the time that would be taken up traveling to and from a doctors' office
results in increased wages. They are less likely to have cars, and
therefore being able to visit with a health care professional without
having to resort to the use of public transportation, which may not be
convenient to the doctors' office, or an expensive taxi ride, is also a
significant benefit. Finally, non-adopters are more likely to lack
affordable childcare, and might otherwise skip or delay necessary
doctor visits if they are unable to access care from their homes.
But without access to broadband, such benefits are unlikely to be
realized. The Federal Health IT Strategic Plan calls for advancing
``equitable access to technology and broadband for individuals,
families, and communities.''95 Policymakers must now proactively
promote and support broadband at home, both to improve health outcomes,
and to achieve needed cost savings for its covered population. As
described in Chapter 5, the way to do so is through the proposed
LifelineMed program, which would mandate that Federal government health
insurance programs support broadband adoption by covered persons who
are not connected and who are below a set income level, ensuring they
have the necessary devices, training, and other tools needed to take
advantage of the full range of expanding telehealth services.
9.6.1.1. Conduct a Large-Scale Study of Paying for Patient
Connectivity.
As the Nation's largest payer, and henceforth beneficiary of
telehealth cost savings, CMS should explore creative approaches to
ensuring communities of color can receive care via telehealth. Either
as a step in designing the LifelineMed program described in Chapter 5,
or in piloting it before a full-scale roll-out, CMS, in conjunction
with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), should create a
scalable demonstration program to test the effect of providing patient
connectivity and corresponding digital health education on health
outcomes and the cost of care for communities of color.
Broadband access has been shown to be a crucial determinant in the
use of digital health tools.\96\ There is also growing consensus that
broadband access is a social determinant of health generally (please
see Appendix 9D--Social Determinants of Health), and disparities in
access should be treated as a public health issue.\97\ As such,
participation in this demonstration program must purposefully target
racial and ethnic minorities. Medicare beneficiaries are approximately
10 percent Black, 9 percent Hispanic, 4 percent Asian/Native Hawaiian/
Pacific Islander, and less than 1 percent American Indian/Alaskan
Native.\98\ Conversely, nearly 60 percent of Medicaid and half of the
10.9 million dual eligible beneficiaries are from communities of color.
Aligned incentives, particularly the accrual of financial benefits
to the payer, contribute to the feasibility and success of the VHA
program. The demonstration program needs to recognize that the
telehealth experience in fee-for-service may vary from that of
alternative payment models, in which added incentive payments are given
for providing high-quality and cost-efficient care. Program findings
may help accelerate the transition to value-based care.
Such a program would require case management workers and
coordinators to ensure that participating individuals receive the
necessary education and support to take full advantage of telehealth. A
large component of their role would be providing technical assistance
and digital health literacy tools.
9.6.2. REMOVE REGULATORY OBSTACLES TO FULL TELEHEALTH EQUITY AND
INCLUSION
Numerous existing policies and regulations unintentionally hinder
telehealth equity and inclusion. We have the opportunity to elevate
equity and inclusion as priorities in policymaking and revisit
decisions ranging from funding and administration to reimbursement and
eligibility through this lens.
9.6.2.1. Fund Broadband Networks for Eligible Health Care Providers and
Ensure Programs are Accessible to Those Serving Communities of
Color.
As discussed in Chapter 3, Congress should provide robust funding
to close the Availability Gap, making it possible for telehealth
services to be utilized nationwide. Many of the health centers, clinics
and long-term care facilities that serve communities of color do not
have adequate and/or affordable broadband connectivity to serve those
populations. We should ensure that all such providers are able to offer
a full spectrum of telehealth services. One way to do so would be to
build on the FCC effort to help rural health care providers by
broadening support to include non-rural providers and certain for-
profit entities (which are currently excluded as the Communications Act
limits eligibility to public or nonprofit entities) that cannot afford
adequate broadband services to serve their populations. Results of the
FCC's Connected Care Pilot Program (discussed below), which is open to
non-rural clinics, should inform policy decisions. In allocating funds
for underserved areas, the FCC should consider eligibility measures
that focus on economically depressed areas, instead of population
density alone.
The FCC, in conjunction with USAC, should review administration of
the Rural Health Care Program and health care pilot programs, and make
any modifications necessary to ensure that those who stand to benefit
most from funding programs are able to use them. They should assess the
complexity of application processes, ease of navigating online systems,
speed and duration of processes, ability to meet application
requirements (e.g., procuring competitive bids), etc. The FCC should
aim to simplify and streamline administrative aspects and reduce
uncertainty (for example, surrounding subsidy amounts from year-to-
year). The FCC should ensure USAC has adequate internal health care
expertise to effectively manage infrastructure deployment and subsidy
programs serving the health care industry.
9.6.2.2. Drive Consistency Across Medicaid Programs to Reduce
Disparities in Access.
State laws, regulations and Medicaid program policies differ
significantly. Telehealth policy on Medicaid reimbursement, private
payer reimbursement laws, coverage parity, payment parity, covered
modalities (e.g., audiovisual, audio only, store and forward, remote
patient monitoring), establishing clinician-patient relationships, and
professional requirements around interstate licensing compacts and
informed consent also varies by state. For example, only 23 states
reimburse for remote patient monitoring, and only 19 allow service to a
patient's home under certain circumstances. Some laws require
reimbursement be equal to in-person coverage, while others only require
parity in covered services. And some states require in-person visits
before telehealth can be used.\99\ This creates a complex
administrative landscape for health care providers to navigate,
diminishes access to care, and reinforces disparities in health care
and health outcomes. Some of these disparities among states are
exacerbated by differences in Medicaid expansion, with state borders
creating Medicaid haves and have-nots. HHS should work with state
legislatures and the National Governors Association to increase
consistency across Medicaid programs and ensure that state-based
policies do not unintentionally discriminate against communities of
color in accessing telehealth services.
9.6.2.3. Remove Geographic and Originating Site Restrictions.
The ability to connect clinicians and patients without regard to
their respective locations is one of the most compelling benefits of
telehealth.\100\ Current Medicare rules generally allow telehealth
services only for beneficiaries in rural areas and specify the type of
facility (known as originating site) where a patient must be located at
the time of service. An unintended consequence of these geographic and
originating site restrictions is the exclusion of the majority of
members of communities of color from using telehealth, as these
individuals live predominantly in non-rural areas.\101\ This can hinder
linguistically and culturally appropriate access to mental health,
specialty, and general care. Congress should remove both geographic
restrictions on where a patient must be located to utilize telehealth
services and originating site restrictions that limit access from home
and other locations. The latter is particularly important for rural and
Tribal residents who will rely increasing on telehealth to access
health care services.
9.6.2.4. Remove Limitations on Eligible Providers and Services.
Congress should remove the remaining statutory restrictions on
practitioners eligible to provide services via telehealth, including
licensed respiratory therapists, physical therapists, occupational
therapists, and speech language pathologists, and allow these
practitioners to provide telehealth services from their homes without
updating their Medicare enrollment.
9.6.2.5. Remove Limitations on FQHCs and RHCs.
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) and Rural Health Clinics
(RHCs) serve highly vulnerable populations. Prior to the pandemic,
FQHCs and RHCs were not eligible to furnish ``distant site'' (where the
physician is located) telehealth services. Given the increasingly
important role of telehealth in supporting low-income communities and
communities of color, Congress should permanently authorize FQHCs and
RHCs to provide distant site telehealth services.
9.6.2.6. Adjust State Licensure Requirements to Enable Greater Access
to Care.
State laws vary, and clinicians may not be able to treat patients
across state lines, thereby hindering access to care. Notably, the VA
telehealth program enables VA practitioners to treat veterans no matter
where the veteran or physician are located.\102\ Progress is being made
through the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact, an agreement among
states (currently 29 and the District of Columbia) \103\ to streamline
the licensing process for physicians who want to practice in multiple
states, the Nurse Licensure Compact, the Psychology Interjurisdictional
Compact (PSYPACT), and a handful of reciprocity arrangements. CMS
should work with the Federation of State Medical Boards, the National
Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures
to ensure that Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP beneficiaries are not
denied the benefits of telehealth because of the state in which they
reside.
9.6.2.7. Augment Organizational Resources to Reflect Equity and
Inclusion Concerns Beyond Rural.
Recognizing that telehealth is a vital aspect of health care
delivery, and that its application and current limits are not limited
to rural areas, the Office for the Advancement of Telehealth (OAT)
should be elevated within the Health Resources and Services
Administration (HRSA.) Rather than house OAT under the Federal Office
of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), OAT should be on par organizationally.
It would then more easily coordinate with both FORHP and the Office of
Health Equity (OHE), as well as other agencies.
9.6.3. LEVERAGE FCC CONNECTED CARE PILOT PROGRAM TO BROADEN IMPACT ON
LOW-INCOME COMMUNITIES AND COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
The current FCC pilot program makes available up to $100 million
over three years to support the provision of telehealth, in particular
to low-income individuals and veterans. It differs from the current
Rural Health Care Program in two important aspects: (1) it is open to
eligible health care providers in non-rural areas and, (2) it allows
funding for patient connectivity. Like the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth
Program (please see below), this presents an opportunity to address
broadband affordability, a major telehealth barrier for communities of
color.
The FCC should work with the HRSA to solicit applications from
appropriate non-rural providers (especially those unfamiliar with FCC
programs) and assist them with the application process. The FCC should
prioritize selection of eligible health care providers that serve low-
income communities of color and request support for patient
connectivity. The FCC should coordinate with CMS to (1) ensure that
patients covered by the pilot are deemed eligible for telehealth
services, and (2) evaluate the pilot results. The FCC and CMS should
analyze the effects of providing patient connectivity on the provision
of care (including types of services, providers, modalities, and
locations), total cost of care (including savings and avoided costs),
and health outcomes. The learnings from this pilot could substantively
inform future policy recommendations for ensuring low-income
communities and communities of color benefit from telehealth.
9.6.4. GENERATE TELEHEALTH RESEARCH & DATA SPECIFIC TO COMMUNITIES OF
COLOR.
An important objective in the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan is
to support research and analysis using health IT and data at the
individual and population levels. It calls for research conducted to
reflect the Nation's diversity so that findings can be applied across
populations. For too long, racial and ethnic minorities have been
underrepresented in clinical research. There needs to be prospective
research focused on the potential of and limitations to telehealth in
improving care equity for communities of color. Collecting and
reporting accurate race, ethnicity, and language (REAL) data is
essential to advancing granular understanding of the impact of
telehealth on communities of color. Data capture must be emphasized at
the point of care and electronic health records updated accordingly.
9.6.4.1. Evaluate FCC COVID-19 Telehealth Program with Specific Focus
on Impact on and Lessons for Communities of Color.
The FCC should conduct an ongoing assessment of and reporting on
the results of the COVID-19 Telehealth Program. Understanding the
composition of funding recipients, how recipients used the funds, and
the corresponding outcomes on populations served, will inform future
policies. As this program includes funding for patient connectivity and
devices necessary to provide telehealth services, evaluation findings
will be useful in designing future program parameters. In the interests
of promoting digital equity and inclusion, the FCC should seek a
granular understanding of the populations served via telehealth and the
health impact on end-user beneficiaries. The FCC should also evaluate
the operational aspects of the program and apply those learnings to
other programs as appropriate. For example, factors that may have
simplified and/or streamlined the application process, reduced
processing timelines, aided prospective awardees in navigating the
system, helped target specific populations, etc.
9.6.4.2. Evaluate COVID-19 Telehealth Experience with Specific Focus on
Communities of Color.
In light of the increase in telehealth usage stimulated by COVID-
19, HHS should specifically collect and analyze data on telehealth and
communities of color. Evaluation of utilization, outcomes, cost,
patient/provider satisfaction, and other data, would help build an
evidence base. Analyses should inform the work of several agencies
within HHS, including CDC, CMS, HRSA, NIMHD (National Institute on
Minority Health and Health Disparities), and AHRQ (Agency for Health
care Research and Quality), as well as the VHA.
9.6.5. FUND TELEHEALTH INFRASTRUCTURE AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE WITH THE
STRATEGIC INTENT OF REDUCING DISPARITIES.
Congress should provide funding to HHS for telehealth
infrastructure and technical assistance. Funds would support clinician
training in technologies, investment in telehealth infrastructure, and
development of tools and resources to improve health-related digital
literacy.
HRSA, specifically, should receive increased funding for the
existing 12 Regional and two National Telehealth Resource Centers
(TRCs), which provide real-time assistance to states, providers, and
communities. TRC funding stands at $29 million a year and has seen
relatively modest increases over the last decade, despite explosive
growth in telehealth. Increasing the budget to $50 million a year would
improve TRC's ability to support members of communities of color in
benefiting from telehealth.
9.6.6. ENHANCE DIGITAL HEALTH LITERACY.
As discussed in Chapter 4, digital readiness is a major barrier to
broadband adoption and the need to improve digital literacy is urgent.
In the health care context, lacking digital health literacy can
adversely impact health outcomes. For example, many elderly persons of
color, who are at greatest risk for COVID-19, are unable to sign up for
vaccines without help from family or friends. The Federal government
states that ``improving access to electronic health information--
especially for populations in rural areas, persons with disabilities,
racial and ethnic minorities, and those with low socioeconomic status--
should be prioritized if we are to achieve equitable care outcomes for
all. In addition, patients and caregivers should have access to
resources that allow for improved health IT literacy so they understand
how their health data may be used, how to choose safe and secure health
apps, and how to set their privacy preferences.'' Digital health
literacy requires: (1) basic reading and writing skills; (2) working
knowledge of using smartphones, laptops, computers, and other Internet-
enabled devices; and (3) an understanding of how, why, and when online
health information is created, shared, and received.\104\ These skills
are applied when using tools such as health apps, live video consults,
online patient portals, and remote monitoring devices. Without these
skills, low-income communities and communities of color will be unable
to take advantage of telehealth. The Office of the National Coordinator
for Health IT, in conjunction with the Federal organizations that
contributed to the Federal Health IT Strategic Plan and the proposed
Office of Digital Equity, should ensure that its objective to improve
individual access, particularly for those in low-income communities and
communities of color, to usable health information is met.
9.6.6.1. Increase Support for Practitioners Promoting Digital Health
Literacy to Their Patients.
HHS should support practitioners at the point of care in promoting
digital health literacy.
First, HHS should work with organizations and professionals to make
the health information and services that they provide more
understandable and actionable and help develop education and training
to teach patients digital skills to conduct video visits and navigate
apps and portals. Second, HHS should collaborate with adult basic
education programs to simultaneously meet the goals of providing
relevant instruction while offering adult learners the chance to
improve their health outcomes by building their digital health
literacy. Third, HHS should increase the dissemination and use of
evidence-based health literacy practices and interventions. Leveraging
community health workers, faith-based organizations and schools can
help reach those individuals most in need.
9.6.7. INCREASE HEALTH CARE WORKFORCE DIVERSITY TO IMPROVE ACCESS,
QUALITY AND PATIENT EXPERIENCE FOR COMMUNITIES OF COLOR.
Greater diversity in the health care workforce can help address
racial and ethnic health care disparities. Health care professionals
who identify as racial or ethnic minorities are more likely to provide
care to lower-income, minority and uninsured populations.\105\ Only 23
percent of Black Americans, 26 percent of Latinxs and 39 percent of
Asian Americans have a physician that shares their race or ethnicity,
compared to 82 percent of White Americans.\106\ Racial concordance
between the health care provider and patient correlates with improved
health outcomes, patient satisfaction and communication.\107\ It can
also help overcome harmful racial or cultural biases in the provision
of health care, mistrust of the medical community, as well as cultural
attitudes and beliefs about health care. Although the overall health
care workforce is becoming more diverse, the majority of people of
color remain in entry-level and often lower-paying jobs with little
opportunity for advancement.\108\ As discussed in greater detail in
Chapter 8 on Workforce Development, Congress needs to appropriate more
funds for programs that combine social, academic and financial support
to address the financial challenges, disconnected pipelines and unclear
career pathways, and lack of academic and social supports hindering
workforce diversity. A lack of workforce diversity should not be
allowed to persist as a barrier to communities of color benefiting from
telehealth.
9.6.7.1. Pass Legislation Increasing Education Support for Workforce
Diversity in Health Care.
Congress should pass legislation, such as that proposed to
authorize assistance for increasing workforce diversity in
underrepresented professions (e.g., allied health care fields including
physical and occupational therapy, audiology, and speech-language
pathology). This assistance might take the form of grants to education
programs to provide scholarships or support recruitment and retention
efforts for students of color. As allied health services are
increasingly provided online, it is important that individuals be able
to receive linguistically and culturally appropriate care.
9.6.7.2. Increase Funding for Workforce Development of Underrepresented
Groups in Health Care.
HHS should increase funding to support the development,
recruitment, and retention of health care professionals from
underrepresented groups. Funding should augment student training,
internship, fellowship, and mentoring programs, as well as ongoing
professional development. HHS should ensure coordination among efforts
across agencies (e.g., HRSA, CDC's Office of Minority Health and Health
Equity (OMHHE), Office of Minority Health, etc.).
HRSA should receive increased funding for programs within the
Bureau of Health Workforce that advance diversity among health
professions. These include the Centers of Excellence (COE) Program,
Scholarships for Disadvantaged Students (SDS) Program, Area Health
Education Centers (AHEC) Program, and National Health Careers
Opportunity Program (HCOP) Academies. FY 2020 funding for these
programs stands at $131.4 million; the President's FY 2021 budget
proposes continued funding only for the COE ($23.7 million a year). The
Bureau of Health Workforce should help further develop professional
pathways for entry-level health professionals to advance in their
careers and explore the impact of recruiting and hiring diverse faculty
in higher education.
Chapter 10.
REIMAGINING CONNECTED EDUCATION
``IT IS REQUIRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF OUR MOST BASIC PUBLIC
RESPONSIBILITIES, EVEN SERVICE IN THE ARMED FORCES. IT IS THE VERY
FOUNDATION OF GOOD CITIZENSHIP. TODAY IT IS A PRINCIPAL INSTRUMENT IN
AWAKENING THE CHILD TO CULTURAL VALUES, IN PREPARING HIM FOR LATER
PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, AND IN HELPING HIM TO ADJUST NORMALLY TO HIS
ENVIRONMENT. IN THESE DAYS, IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT ANY CHILD MAY
REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO SUCCEED IN LIFE IF HE IS DENIED THE
OPPORTUNITY OF AN EDUCATION. SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY, WHERE THE STATE HAS
UNDERTAKEN TO PROVIDE IT, IS A RIGHT WHICH MUST BE MADE AVAILABLE TO
ALL ON EQUAL TERMS.''--BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION
10.1. PROBLEM STATEMENT
Almost seventy years after the Brown v. Board of Education
decision, America still does not provide all children with an equal
opportunity to receive a high-quality education. Disparate educations
lead to disparate achievements and opportunities to become fully
engaged, active, and successful citizens.
Since the beginnings of public education, the level of investment
made for each individual student has depended primarily on their zip
code. Today, districts serving the greatest proportion of students of
color spend $1,800 less per student than districts serving the fewest
students of color.\109\ This disparity in funding creates a vicious
cycle of disparity in opportunity. Under-resourced, low-income school
districts are unable to attract and retain well-qualified teachers,
provide rigorous curricula and assessments, or meet even basic needs
such as safe and adequate facilities. Investments in state-of-the art
technology solutions are even more unlikely.
Yet, for students in these districts, digital technology offers a
tremendous opportunity to break free of barriers imposed by traditional
models of instruction, where teaching was confined to the four walls of
a classroom.
Unfortunately for many students, the opportunities offered by
technologies including the World Wide Web and video conferencing, let
alone self-paced learning tools with adaptive algorithms, digital
curricula and classroom materials, and augmented and virtual reality,
are little more than additional opportunities that remain out of reach.
Education Superhighway estimates that 9.7million K-12 students do not
have reliable Internet at home. Students who lack home Internet risk
falling behind, as well as being unable to learn the technology skills
that are needed for many jobs.
This digital education gap has long been referred to, somewhat
inaccurately, as the ``homework gap.'' But the problem goes far beyond
an inability for some students to complete assignments that require
broadband service at home, forcing them to use libraries and other
public buildings or even fast-food parking lots to connect to free Wi-
Fi networks, often with inadequate devices such as smartphones. As
digital tools have become more deeply embedded in the education
process, the homework gap has continued to increase, and now extends
far beyond homework to every facet of learning.
The COVID-19 pandemic has turned the ``homework gap'' into a full-
fledged classroom gap for students systemwide, as many schools are
forced to offer virtual-only learning. Computing devices and broadband
service instantly mutated from helpful learning tools to necessities,
essential for all in and out of classroom and school related learning.
And while some schools are returning to more normal classrooms, most
are still using virtual mechanisms in a hybrid manner. There is no
certainty as to how long this will last or whether other health
situations will cause a similar shut down of physical classrooms.
Digital inequity and exclusion in education, moreover, does not
just manifest itself solely through lack of broadband services and
devices in the home. We also see it in digital literacy skill gaps; the
inability of curricula authors to keep up with evolving technologies; a
dearth of research and development, leading to curricula which itself
enables increased digital inequity and exclusion, a lack of access to
respectful and culturally responsive content; the lack of evolving
teacher training and support; the challenges faced by working parents
(particularly in sectors not conducive to telecommuting) in supervising
and assisting their kids' remote learning throughout the school day;
and the absence of a coherent strategy across all levels of education
to address these issues.
10.2. VISION
We should develop a new educational infrastructure that supports
all students, that provides equitable access to the tools and content
of fast-evolving digital learning, that uses those tools to assist them
wherever they are developmentally and personally, that accelerates and
supports them to learn in ways that represent their diverse needs and
at a depth of mastery that is required to succeed in the modern
economic and social context, that provides teachers the support they
need to enable students to maximize the use of digital content, and
provides a future where the vast expanse of opportunities available are
truly open to all students.
10.3. GOALS
1. By the end of 2023, every K-12 student and teacher in America
should have broadband service at home, Internet-connected
devices that support basic and advanced learning applications,
and the offline support they need to engage securely in
effective remote or online learning.
2. All policymakers should fully embrace education as a national
strategic priority and fund a robust research and development
agenda focused on advancing models of digital teaching and
learning to promote equity, and advance outcomes for all
students.
3. Governments at the federal, state, and local levels should
provide funding sufficient for adequate and equitable education
outcomes, ensuring that the most vulnerable students have
access to the resources they need for digital learning.
4. By the end of 2024, every K-12 student in America should have
access to culturally responsive and relevant curricula for
their core subjects in a form usable for online learning.
5. By the end of 2023, every K-12 teacher should have the tools,
training, infrastructure, resources, and support they need to
deliver effective online or remote learning experiences for
their students.
6. Federal and state education agencies should employ executive
level technology leaders (CTO/CIO) to advance policy and program
initiatives designed to unlock the value of technology safely and
securely and infrastructure.
All students have valuable and unique perspectives, skills, and
knowledge, as well as an innate drive to learn more, gain greater
expertise, and contribute to a future where the full range of
opportunities are truly available to them. Yet not all students are
given equal opportunities and support to develop themselves in these
ways.
Inequities in education continue to create a gap between students
in well-funded, well-supported public and private educational systems,
and those students who attend schools that are poorly funded and
inadequately organized. The gap in funding and organization in
educational systems correlates strongly along racial, ethnic, and
income lines. These long-standing problems are much broader than the
issues of educational technology and infrastructure, but gaps in
education technology are accelerating the growth of an increasingly
steep divide for students of color and/or poverty.
Despite valiant efforts to address achievement gaps in public
education over several decades, the pattern of disproportionality in
academic achievement and attainment remains stubbornly resistant to
correction. Students of color read on average at 2 to 3 grade levels
below their white peers. They drop out of high school at twice the rate
and are four times more likely to attend a low performing school.
Poverty accounts for some of this difference, but not all. Only in
the last 20 years have researchers begun to understand the many factors
contributing to these gaps. They have found that students of color are
significantly more likely to be:
Learning in a significantly under-resourced school.
Taught by underprepared teachers.
Enrolled in a school with few, if any, rigorous courses like
Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate.
Taught by adults who are teaching across cultural divides,
with little understanding or appreciation for the culture of
the students they serve.
Disciplined, even suspended, for minor infractions that
would not lead to a similar response if the student were white.
The combination of these and related factors result in a school
system that, by default, rations the quality of education to students
of color and other minorities. That rationing has only been increasing
during the COVID-19 crisis.
The COVID-19 crisis has made abundantly clear that few if any
American schools were prepared for a sudden transition to online
learning.\110\ In a May 2020 survey, more than 70 percent of teachers
did not feel their schools were prepared for the pandemic. Students
also lacked the digital literacy needed for the transition to remote
learning.
That lack of preparation made life more difficult for almost
everyone involved in the educational ecosystem--students, parents,
teachers, administrators, vendors, and others have all been scrambling
to catch up and adapt to the new normal, with little time or
opportunity to figure out the best approach. An April 2020 survey of
over 5,600 teaching professionals from across the United States found
that 55 percent of teachers said that less than half of their students
were attending remote classes. Thirty-four percent of respondents
reported that only 25 percent of their students or fewer were attending
remote classes.\111\
The most vulnerable students have clearly suffered the most. More
affluent learners with home broadband, digital devices, and support
have been afforded alternative opportunities and choice. Students
without access to these resources, whether through a lack of
connectivity or lack of tools/resources or devices, are either denied
learning or have to do additional work just to gain their previous
level of access, introducing additional barriers that set them further
back in their learning. Furthermore, the parents of Black and Hispanic
students are less likely to work jobs that allow for telecommuting, and
so are less likely to be present at home to assist their kids with
remote learning throughout the school day.
When mandatory COVID-19-driven remote learning is lifted, schools
are likely to continue relying on technology and digital forms of
learning to a much greater degree than ever before. Having seen the
potential of technology-supported learning in a crisis, learning will
never go back to exclusively happening within school walls for most
students. Additionally, since technology and digital learning are
constantly evolving, inequities for lower income communities, Black,
indigenous, people of color (BIPOC), English learners (ELs), and
students with special needs will become increasingly pronounced.
The global pandemic has uncovered how unprepared educational
systems nationwide were to respond to evolving and quickly changing
situations. So, we must also focus on reorganizing education systems at
all levels to ensure that they can evolve with and achieve maximum
benefit from continued improvements in technology, including analysis
of costs and benefits to allocate resources where they are most needed.
The risk in not evolving is that the system will continue to enable
those who already have access and will further exclude those who do
not, ensuring that they will be left further behind.
10.5. KEY CHALLENGES TO OVERCOME
The key challenges to overcome to create a more equitable and
inclusive digital learning environment in the United States include:
Funding for connections, devices, and support, both in
schools and at home, is inadequate, especially for schools and
students with the greatest need.
Lack of a holistic long-term national strategy to use
technology to enhance educational outcomes in an equitable and
inclusive manner.
Pervasive systemic and structural racism that impedes
equitable distribution of resources to educational systems that
enable them to provide a high-quality education to communities
of color and poverty. These include:
Local funding disparities.
Structurally enforced biases.
Market incentives against creating solutions for all
students.
Learning content is not designed for diverse learners, and
when developed with public funds, is not released or shared
freely often enough.
Training for LEAs, teachers, students, and families around
online learning is often ineffective or unavailable.
Technical standards and platforms do not do enough to enable
and secure data privacy, security, or interoperability of
learning systems and data.
10.6. RECOMMENDATIONS
To overcome these challenges and to meet our goals, students,
educators, and families first need to be connected to broadband
services and have access to devices for learning in and out of the
classroom. We must invest in a national research and development agenda
to learn and act on solutions that create measurably more equitable and
inclusive digital learning for the most vulnerable populations of
students. These solutions should be shared and implemented with funding
assistance as needed so that students, educators, and families will
have ongoing and evolving access to improved content, aligned tools,
and more comprehensive support. Additionally, all solutions should be
implemented in a way that appropriate and actionable data are gathered
to inform additional research and development activities and that the
privacy and security of students, educators, and families are
guaranteed.
10.6.1. PROVIDE FEDERAL FUNDING TO ASSURE THAT ALL K-12 STUDENTS AND
TEACHERS HAVE THE CONNECTIVITY AND DEVICES THEY NEED TO
CONTINUE LEARNING OUTSIDE THE CLASSROOM.
As discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5, the Federal government
has long-supported local schools in situations where it is clear that a
Federal commitment is necessary to create a more equitable and
inclusive education system. That is at the heart of U.S. Department of
Education's programs that provide funds to elementary and secondary
school with economically disadvantaged students (the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA or ``Title I'') and to support children
with disabilities (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)).
The same principle should be applied to the increasing importance of
digital learning and assuring that all students have access to that
learning platform. In that light, Congress should fund the LifelineEd
program described in Chapter 5 to guarantee that every K-12 student and
teacher, regardless of their financial circumstances, has access to
broadband and Internet connected devices needed for basic and advanced
schoolwork and teaching.
10.6.2. REVISE FUNDING SYSTEMS TO ENSURE ADEQUATE AND EQUITABLE
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOURCES, PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT WILL ADVANCE
DIGITAL LEARNING.
Ensuring equal access to education is at the core of the Department
of Education's mission, and has been since the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The ESEA has been amended and
reauthorized many times, but with every iteration, Title I, the section
that earmarks Federal funding for poor children, remains at the heart
of the legislation and accounts for the lion's share of the funds
authorized under the Act.\112\ When President Johnson signed ESEA,
along with several other complementary measures such as the Head Start
and the Higher Education Act, he hoped, ``to bridge the gap between
helplessness and hope for more than 5 million educationally deprived
children.'' \113\
Johnson's vision has yet to materialize for many reasons, including
lack of commitment to policy choices outside the sphere of education
that were meant to complement ESEA. Funding problems, some associated
directly with ESEA and its progeny, are chief among them. Overall,
school districts that serve predominantly nonwhite students receive $23
billion less per year than school districts with predominantly white
student bodies based on the total amount of funding per student from
Federal and local funding sources.\114\ While the challenges facing
educators have only increased since the great recession, Federal
support has not kept pace. Authorized funding for Title I, Part A
programs has decreased from $26 billion in 2002 to $16.3 billion for
the Fiscal Year ended September 30, 2020.\115\ These funds are
distributed through four separate programs, and inefficiencies and poor
design result in drastically more money going to help rich school
districts or kids not living in poverty, rather than focusing
investments on the students the program was intended to help in the
first place.
Not only is money failing to reach the poorest districts or helping
the poorest children in those districts, but it is also not necessarily
being spent effectively or strategically. Those districts most in need
and most severely underfunded may have to spend all their funding
solely on teacher salaries or basic needs like textbooks, rather than
being able to invest in digital learning resources or methods,
innovative curricula, or other improvements that may be considered
luxuries rather than necessities when operating on shoe-string budgets
heavily dependent on local tax revenue, especially in times of severe
economic downturns.
10.6.2.1. Target funding on areas of need based on quantifiable
technology deficits.
To advance the use of digital learning to further equitable
outcomes, Congress should appropriate additional Title I funding in the
form of formula grants targeted for school districts in areas with
quantifiable technology deficits. Areas with the highest barriers to
online learning will need more funding, so additional appropriations
should be based on criteria associated with computer ownership, home
Internet adoption and affordability, etc. This funding should be in
addition to any funding associated with ensuring students and teachers
have home broadband connections and appropriate devices (Recommendation
10.6.1.1), because areas with quantifiable technology deficits are
likely to face serious challenges in taking advantage of digital
learning. Use of funds should be flexible, so long as funding is used
to promote online learning.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Education should:
Require states to produce Ed Tech plans to access Federal
funding/technical assistance, even for non-technology related
funding streams;
Ensure solutions focused on cultural and linguistic equity
also consider students with special needs and vice versa; and
Require procurement processes to identify open-source
solutions, where possible, before opening procurement to
proprietary alternatives (similar to the Department of
Defense's policy on open source procurement).
10.6.3. INVEST IN A ROBUST FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (R&D)
AGENDA FOCUSED ON ADVANCING MODELS OF TECHNOLOGY-EMPOWERED
TEACHING AND LEARNING THAT PROMOTE EQUITY AND ADVANCE OUTCOMES
FOR ALL STUDENTS.
Though not a cabinet level agency until 1980, the Federal
Department of Education's goal of helping states establish effective
school systems by collecting information on schools and teaching has
been a core part of its mission since the first incarnation of the
Department in 1867.
That mission took on heightened significance in 1958, when Congress
passed the first comprehensive Federal education legislation, the
National Defense Education Act, in response to the Cold War.\116\ In
doing so, Congress explicitly recognized the vital role that education
plays in national defense and in global competitiveness. The mission
evolved further during the 1960s with the passage of civil rights
legislation that expanded the role of the Department of Education to
ensure all students had equal access to education.
Despite the critical significance of education and the persistent
inequality, however, the U.S. has never invested meaningfully in a
holistic national strategy or in R&D efforts aimed specifically at
improving educational outcomes and increasing equity the way that it
has invested in other national strategic priorities.
The result is an extremely fragmented and ad-hoc approach to
advancing digital learning across the country. While state education
agencies have made some progress in adopting digital learning tools, as
evidenced by posted state-level education technology plans and the
presence of digital literacy guidelines or standards in most states,
there is still a fundamental disconnect between the plans and the
equitable use of technology envisioned in this chapter. Evidence also
suggests that even though states are investing in new technologies,
they aren't necessarily investing wisely or efficiently. Roughly 14,000
school districts across the country spend more than $13.2 billion on
over 6,000 ed-tech tools each year, but surveys suggest that only 15
percent is spent on tools that are a good fit and implemented
correctly.\117\
Several independent groups like Ed Tech Evidence Exchange or
Learning Policy Institute are stepping in, with philanthropic or
nominal government support, to provide guidance or highlight best
practices for certain aspects of advancing schools' use of ed-tech
tools or strategies. But they cannot compensate for the lack of a
national, coordinated effort that can:
Shape policy more directly, including by working with other
parts of government;
Ensure diverse voices are involved in both shaping and
implementing policies;
Make large scale strategic investments; and
Effectively share information at scale
To address chronic underinvestment at the national level, there
should be a comprehensive National Educational Technology and R&D
Strategic Plan, focused on ensuring efforts across all levels of
government are complementary and on technological breakthroughs that
have the power to transform education and promote equity.
10.6.3.1. The Department of Education should increase its in-house
technical expertise and encourage state and local education
agencies to do the same.
The U.S. Department of Education should create a CTO role,
reporting to the Secretary, to work alongside the Education Technology
Director, to advance policy and program initiatives around technology
infrastructure, such as broadband access, device utilization,
information security, data privacy, and data and systems
interoperability.
Congress and the Department of Education should incentivize states
and districts to create education specific CIO/CTO roles to develop
strategy and coherent systems for equitable and inclusive technology
access, adoption, and systems innovation, in addition to Education
Technology Directors to set policies to increase utilization.
10.6.3.2. Develop a National Strategic Plan for Education Technology
Research & Development.
The U.S. Department of Education should:
Oversee the creation of a strategic plan for education
technology research and development, and work closely with key
partners to ensure that equity remains a central theme of that
plan. The Department should seek input from the White House
Initiative on Educational Excellence for Black Americans, the
White House Initiative on Educational Excellence for Latinxs,
the White House Initiative on American Indian and Alaskan
Native Education, state and local leaders, and interested
members of the public. In developing the strategic plan, the
Department of Education may also consider input from other
Federal partners, such as Institute of Education Sciences,
National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
National Science Foundation, Department of Defense, National
Institutes of Health, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, who may
have overlapping areas of interest, as well as private
industry.
Establish the plan's research agenda by identifying
priorities coordinated across all areas of Federal education
technology R&D investments, particularly in the areas of basic
and applied research, and directed development efforts focused
on specific problems and needs in K-12 education. The plan
should also include estimated levels of investment, a
description of the mechanisms that will be used to implement
and oversee the recommended portfolio of R&D initiatives, and
an explanation for how the proposed initiatives will advance
equity.
As part of the implementation of the plan, research and
promote innovations across the spectrum of digital and
equitable learning needs including content, features, tools,
instructional approaches, etc. to create increased and more
equitable student motivation, efficacy, and learning. Update
this agenda regularly to account for progress.
10.6.3.3. Establish technical expertise and organizational
infrastructure necessary to implement the education technology
R&D Strategic Plan.
Congress should consider investing $1B over 10 years in a major
educational R&D effort to strengthen the state of educational
innovation and capability.
The Department of Education should provide executive oversight and
implementation leadership for the R&D Strategic Plan, and Congress
should invest in building additional organizational capacity and
technical expertise necessary to operationalize a visionary and robust
R&D agenda expected from this Strategic Plan. For example, Congress
could authorize the Department of Education to sponsor one or more
Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC),\118\ or a
separate initiative within the Department of Education, similar to
either the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative in the Department
of Defense or Advanced Research Project Agency--Energy (ARPA-E), could
be established within the Department of Education.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU), Hispanic-
serving Institutions (HSI), Minority Serving Institutions (MSI), or
other universities with established expertise and programs focused
specifically on using technology to meet the educational needs of
minority students should be selected as partner laboratories or
FFRDCs.\119\
The Department of Education and any federally funded research
partners should also seek to leverage other sources of funding from
private philanthropic organizations, with oversight by the government.
The Department of Education and partner institutions should pursue
a comprehensive approach towards promoting the R&D agenda by:
1. Providing strategic and technical assistance for content and tool
development funded through Federal funding.
2. Supporting and funding product and design level work, through
seminars, workshops, and multi-vendor/stakeholder design
sprints to advance the innovation agenda.
3. Procuring or developing practical solutions to address specific
ed-tech and equity problems, where the market is not meeting
specific needs.
4. Incorporating agile approaches to curriculum development and
authoring to speed up curriculum development, so that curricula
can more quickly and easily evolve as technology evolves.
5. Recognizing that open educational resources (OER) can be a driver
for creating more agile curriculum development, and encouraging
the development of additional OER curricular products.
6. Recognizing that funding or developing open source, open
standards, open APIs, and open data can speed up and improve
the quality of technology innovation in education.
7. Promoting and convening ``plugfests'' to show how curriculum and
technology tools can interoperate and create complete learning
solutions that work for targeted student populations, creating
coherence between curricula and delivery tools. Plugfests are
events where creators and designers come together to
demonstrate how their content and products can work with other
content products from other creators and designers.
10.6.4. INVEST IN COHERENT, CULTURALLY RESPONSIVE, AND RELEVANT ONLINE
LEARNING CONTENT AND TOOLS.
There has been a curriculum renaissance\120\ over the last five
years. The introduction of new standards in most states, an influx of
cognitive science research into the educational landscape, which
emphasizes the importance of building knowledge and conceptual
understanding, and the proliferation of open educational resources
(OER) have all contributed to an explosion in new materials. Several
private and non-profit organizations have engaged in efforts to provide
free or reduced cost learning content and tools, which are widely
available to educators, families, and students. Some of those resources
are also openly licensed and available digitally, so that educators and
other organizations can improve on them and redistribute them for
increased access.
Despite increased access, teachers do not always use those
materials with all students. Teachers are expected to fill many roles
in the lives of their students and tackle all kinds of issues, while
also teaching rigorous, standards-aligned content. They are more often
than not asked to do that with pieces of disconnected content that are
not always optimized for digital learning, a handful of digital tools
that are not integrated and which don't work with the content they have
available to them, and limited support to make it all work together to
provide a positive and coherent learning experience for students. Add
to this the obstacle of having to do all of this remotely, and it is
not surprising that the learning gaps for students are increasing
during the COVID-19 pandemic.\121\
The TNTP, Inc. report, ``The Opportunity Myth,'' \122\ describes a
pernicious issue in K-12 education: Students believe they are getting
an education that will prepare them for life after high school, but the
quality of education many of them receive fails woefully to deliver on
that promise. Without the effective knowledge, skills, funding, access,
and support to set up coherent and integrated digital learning systems
(e.g., structures, environments, learning management processes), and
access to and support in using high-quality instructional materials
that promote learning experiences which communicate that all students
belong and can be successful (``identity safe'' learning experiences),
teachers are set up to perpetuate the opportunity myth.
Additionally, there is significant and ongoing research that has
shown that learning environments which focus on identity safety,\123\
cultural responsiveness (the sense that a student's unique identity and
culture is seen and embraced as an asset rather than an obstacle), and
a growth mindset can lead to greater self-efficacy and increased
motivation, engagement, and learning outcomes.\124\ Relatedly,
culturally responsive teaching has been shown to raise expectations for
all students and create cultural competence.\125\ Research has also
shown that having a coherent curriculum from which to teach has
contributed to improved learning.\126\ However, there has never been a
national investment in creating curricula that actualizes the findings
of research in identity safety, culturally responsive teaching
practices, mindset, and curriculum effectiveness.
10.6.4.1. Establish Curriculum Innovation Centers Specifically Focused
on Equitable Online Learning.
Curriculum developments continue to lag technology developments.
This became obvious during the COVID-19 pandemic as curriculum vendors,
including several private and non-profit vendors developing open
educational resources, scrambled to redesign their content. Given the
lack of time, they resorted to putting out written guidance and relying
on teachers to do the heavy lifting of actually revising the content
and putting it into a technology delivery platform.
Learning content is often integrated into learning systems in
haphazard or inadequate ways, resulting in learning experiences that
fall far short of what the content and the learning systems are
actually capable of delivering. In addition, digital learning content
is often designed for use in printed or PDF formats, and when it is
adapted into interactive learning systems, its usefulness is impaired,
often significantly.
Less well-resourced schools often have to make do with assembled
curriculum and material, manually adapting those resources into
whatever digital learning systems are accessible. If more learning
content (especially openly licensed educational resources) were
designed to work well within a variety of learning systems, more
disadvantaged students could be engaged with content that works well
for them.
To satisfy the need for continued research in what makes curricula
effective in ensuring improved learning outcomes for students in lower
income communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with
special needs, the U.S. Department of Education should create centers
of excellence for curriculum innovation, which exist to research and
find solutions to specific problems of practice for learning content
and curriculum.
The focus of the centers should be on product innovation research,
and development of student-interactive curriculum delivery systems and
tools that enable the use of digital educational content that promotes
equitable and inclusive technology use and identity safe learning
environments. That may include prototyping various online learning
platforms and features to determine which ones provide equitable access
for all students, or on what features most support educators in
implementing a culturally responsive curriculum with integrity. These
centers may use openly licensed content and tools from the private and
non-profit organizations to jumpstart the work.
In light of the above, the U.S. Department of Education should:
Establish Curriculum Innovation Centers to catalog and
demonstrate best practices, and create and share OER
Professional Development materials for supporting teachers
around digital learning. Set up these Curriculum Innovation
Centers either within the organizational capacity set up
through the R&D Strategic Plan, through existing FFRDC, or
through State-run consortia.
Convene a series of learning content design workshops to
advance the state of the art on how to design and author
content for digital platforms.
Convene an ongoing series of learning content and systems
plugfests conferences to demonstrate and explore how content
can be effectively embedded into learning systems.
Fund the development, adoption, use, and advancement of data
standards for integrating learning content more usefully into
learning systems and transferring content between content
management and among learning systems.
Develop and publish standards and best practices for
content/platforms/teaching practices for technology-enabled
learning environments.
Disseminate information and make innovations from the
curriculum innovation centers widely available, and tie them to
competitive grant programs for communities interested in
adopting methods.
10.6.4.2. Build Digital Curricula Designed for Equitable Use.
There is an enormous, untapped opportunity to push the creation of
curricula which connects high quality, coherent digital content with
advances in developing growth mindsets and in creating identity safe
learning environments that are culturally responsive. Additionally, the
digital curricula should promote the equitable and inclusive use of
technology platforms, tools, etc. for content delivery and
implementation.
In creating that curricula, the solutions should be developed by
those in the communities who are most affected by digital
inequities.\127\ Those working with students most directly should be
empowered with the best research in content, product, and learning
design from the curriculum innovation centers, the support of experts
in digital curriculum design and development and historically black
colleges and universities (HBCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions
(HSIs), minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs to create, distribute, and support the implementation of high-
quality, coherent digital instructional materials which can be used
flexibly for different tech-enabled learning environments and which are
targeted at improving learning outcomes for students from lower income
communities, communities of color, ELs, and students with special
needs.
Additionally, to ensure that the curricula created are able to be
widely distributed and used, those authoring the content will need to
have increased access to culturally relevant texts and the rights to
share those texts for educational use. To create such curricula, the
U.S. Department of Education should establish a competitive grant
program to award funding to States or a consortium of states to create,
distribute, and support the implementation of high-quality, coherent
digital instructional materials which can be used flexibly for in-
person, remote, and hybrid learning, and which are targeted at
improving learning outcomes for students from lower income communities,
and black, indigenous, and students of color. Pursuant to this program: