[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL
AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2023
__________
Serial No. 118-17
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-204 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania, Chairman
FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Ranking
AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia, Vice Minority Member
Chairman JIM COSTA, California
ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD, Arkansas JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina
DOUG LaMALFA, California ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia
DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut
TRENT KELLY, Mississippi SHONTEL M. BROWN, Ohio
DON BACON, Nebraska SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
MIKE BOST, Illinois ELISSA SLOTKIN, Michigan
DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota YADIRA CARAVEO, Colorado
JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana ANDREA SALINAS, Oregon
TRACEY MANN, Kansas MARIE GLUESENKAMP PEREZ,
RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa Washington
MARY E. MILLER, Illinois DONALD G. DAVIS, North Carolina,
BARRY MOORE, Alabama Vice Ranking Minority Member
KAT CAMMACK, Florida JILL N. TOKUDA, Hawaii
BRAD FINSTAD, Minnesota NIKKI BUDZINSKI, Illinois
JOHN W. ROSE, Tennessee ERIC SORENSEN, Illinois
RONNY JACKSON, Texas GABE VASQUEZ, New Mexico
MARCUS J. MOLINARO, New York JASMINE CROCKETT, Texas
MONICA De La CRUZ, Texas JONATHAN L. JACKSON, Illinois
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York GREG CASAR, Texas
JOHN S. DUARTE, California CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
ZACHARY NUNN, Iowa SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California
MARK ALFORD, Missouri ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
DERRICK VAN ORDEN, Wisconsin DARREN SOTO, Florida
LORI CHAVEZ-DeREMER, Oregon SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
MAX L. MILLER, Ohio
______
Parish Braden, Staff Director
Anne Simmons, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Langworthy, Hon. Nicholas A., a Representative in Congress from
New York, submitted letter..................................... 91
Rose, Hon. John W., a Representative in Congress from Tennessee,
submitted article.............................................. 89
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 4
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Witnesses
Matheson, Hon. Jim, Chief Executive Officer, National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Assey, Jr., J.D., James M., Executive Vice President, NCTA--The
Internet and Television Association, Washington, D.C........... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 14
Supplementary material....................................... 93
Zumwalt, David M., President and Chief Executive Officer,
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Washington,
D.C............................................................ 20
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Supplementary material....................................... 93
Stroup, J.D., Thomas A. ``Tom'', President, Satellite Industry
Association, Washington, D.C................................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 28
Supplementary material....................................... 94
Hurley, Bill T., Vice President, Distribution, Americas, AGCO
Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board, Association of Equipment
Manufacturers, Duluth, GA...................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 32
Supplementary material....................................... 95
Bloomfield, Shirley, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association, Arlington, VA........................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE IN RURAL AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2023
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
1300 of the Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Glenn
Thompson [Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives Thompson, Lucas, Crawford,
LaMalfa, Rouzer, Bost, Johnson, Baird, Mann, Feenstra, Miller
of Illinois, Rose, Molinaro, De La Cruz, Langworthy, Duarte,
Nunn, Van Orden, Chavez-DeRemer, Miller of Ohio, David Scott of
Georgia, Costa, McGovern, Adams, Spanberger, Brown, Davids of
Kansas, Caraveo, Salinas, Perez, Davis of North Carolina,
Budzinski, Sorensen, Crockett, Jackson of Illinois, and Craig.
Staff present: Nick Rockwell, Paul Balzano, Adele Borne,
Wick Dudley, Erin Wilson, John Konya, DeShawn Blanding, Kate
Fink, John Lobert, Ashley Smith, and Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
The Chairman. Morning, welcome to the House Agriculture
Committee hearing room, as we gavel in this morning, we just
pause and--kind of tradition, what we have with the Agriculture
Committee, and give thanks for what we are provided. And so, I
will take the privilege of leading that prayer here this
morning, and then we will get gaveled in right after that.
Heavenly Father, we love you so much. We thank you for all
that you provide for us. Lord, we thank you for the privilege
that each and every one of us have of serving on this
Committee, Lord, to be stewards of what you provide us as we
lift up those who provide for this nation all the things that
are essential, food, fiber, building materials, energy
resources, and, quite frankly, the technology, and all the
resources that you have provided us to capitalize for the
benefit of the lives of those who live in rural America, and,
quite frankly, throughout this country. And so, we ask your
blessings over these proceedings, and I pray this in the name
of my savior, Jesus Christ. Amen. All right.
So the Committee will come to order. Welcome, and thank you
for joining today's hearing entitled, Closing the Digital
Divide in Rural America. After brief opening remarks Members
will receive testimony from our witnesses today, and then the
hearing will be open to questions. So let me start off.
Throughout this Congress the House Committee on Agriculture
has had countless discussions on ways that we can empower our
farm families and build a robust rural economy, and a pillar of
these discussions is providing rural communities with access to
high-speed, affordable, and reliable broadband internet
connectivity. The digital divide has left many Americans unable
to access dependable, fast internet service. Disconnected
Americans lose opportunities to grow their businesses, acquire
new skills, or even engage in daily activities. And while I am
fortunate to live in an area which offers quality internet
service, although I will say not a regular basis to my home, my
district is not immune to these challenges.
I represent 18 counties, totaling \1/3\ of the land mass in
rural Pennsylvania, and I can tell you there exists a
checkerboard of connectivity. Americans without high-speed
internet access are slipping further behind as more and more
aspects of American society are conducted online. Despite
decades of effort, and billions of dollars spend, too many
communities are still on the wrong side of the divide. With its
unique reach, expertise, and experience serving rural America,
USDA's Rural Utilities Service, or RUS, is well positioned to
serve a leading role in our nation's rural broadband strategy.
Contrary to other Federal agencies working to close the
digital divide, USDA is the only Federal agency that has
offices and devoted staff in all 50 states, enabling
constituents to have direct access to those who are reviewing,
implementing, and managing connectivity programs that meet the
needs of rural communities. The House Committee on Agriculture
has worked hard on a bipartisan basis to close the connectivity
gap, including through the 2018 Farm Bill. These modifications
were the result of years of work to create policies and
programs that address the difficulties faced by rural
communities.
Sadly, too many of those policies and programs remain
dormant. These include programs and policies that address
qualifying areas, long-term network viability, support for our
most remote communities, and program integrity. However, last
Congress, this Committee introduced, marked up, and passed
unanimously bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4374, the Broadband
Internet Connections for Rural America Act, or BICRAA, which
set the stage for an historic commitment and investment in
rural broadband, and for us to finally close the digital
divide.
Specifically, the bill codified the ReConnect Program and
merged it with USDA's existing retail rural broadband program,
provided last minute technical and financial assistance to
rural communities seeking to improve their broadband service,
ensured accurate mapping of broadband connectivity in rural
areas, promoted borrower accountability, and protecting
taxpayers with new tools to ensure promised services are
delivered to rural communities. It also increased resources
available to build-out middle-mile infrastructure, and
allocated funds to invest in distance learning and telemedicine
capabilities.
While this bill did not receive floor consideration in the
117th Congress, it will be the foundation for the broadband
subtitle in the 2023 Farm Bill, which brings us to today, where
we will hear directly from stakeholders about the importance of
USDA's broadband programs. It is also an opportunity to discuss
important policy ideas, including minimum eligibility
requirements, build-out speed requirements, workforce and
supply chain issues, broadband mapping, and agency
coordination, as well as precision agriculture programs.
Now, I have always said the best policies come when we work
together, and I look forward to continuing to work with the
Ranking Member on crafting the broadband provisions for the
2023 Farm Bill. Together, we can provide the Department of
Agriculture the tools it needs to bring broadband connectivity
to rural America quickly, and responsibly, and with
sustainability. Simply put, we must meet the current and future
needs in rural America.
We have a great panel of witnesses today who understand the
challenges and the complexity of rural broadband networks,
bringing innovative solutions to life, and most importantly,
serve their communities. I appreciate each of them for making
time to be with us today, and I look forward to the
conversation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Thompson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in Congress
from Pennsylvania
Throughout this Congress, the House Committee on Agriculture has
had countless discussions on ways we can empower our farm families and
build a robust rural economy. A pillar of these discussions is
providing rural communities with access to high-speed, affordable, and
reliable broadband internet connectivity.
The digital divide has left many Americans unable to access
dependable, fast internet service. Disconnected Americans lose
opportunities to their grow businesses, acquire new skills, or even
engage in daily activities.
While I am fortunate to live in an area which offers quality
internet service to my home, my district is not immune to these
challenges.
I represent 18 counties, totaling \1/3\ of the landmass in rural
Pennsylvania. I can tell you, there exists a checkerboard of
connectivity.
Americans without high-speed internet access are slipping further
behind as more and more aspects of American society are conducted
online.
Despite decades of effort and billions of dollars spent, too many
communities are still on the wrong side of the divide.
With its unique reach, expertise, and experience serving rural
America, USDA's Rural Utilities Service or RUS is well-positioned to
serve as a leading role in our nation's rural broadband strategy.
Contrary to other Federal agencies working to close the digital
divide, USDA is the only Federal agency that has offices and devoted
staff in all 50 states, enabling constituents to have direct access to
those who are reviewing, implementing, and managing connectivity
programs to meet the needs of rural communities.
The House Committee on Agriculture has worked hard on a bipartisan
basis to close the connectivity gap, including through the 2018 Farm
Bill. These modifications were the result of years of work to create
policies and programs that address the difficulties faced by rural
communities.
Sadly, too many of those policies and programs remain dormant.
These include programs and policies that address qualifying areas,
long-term network viability, support for our most remote communities,
and program integrity.
However, last Congress, this Committee introduced, marked up, and
passed unanimously bipartisan legislation, H.R. 4374, the Broadband
Internet Connections for Rural America Act or BICRAA, which set the
stage for a historic commitment and investment in rural broadband, and
for us to finally close the digital divide.
Specifically, the bill:
Codified the ReConnect program and merged it with USDA's
existing retail rural broadband program;
Provided last mile technical and financial assistance to
rural communities seeking to improve their broadband service;
Ensured accurate mapping of broadband connectivity in rural
areas;
Promoted borrower accountability and protecting taxpayers
with new tools to ensure promised services are delivered to
rural communities;
Increased resources available to build-out middle-mile
infrastructure; and
Allocated funds to invest in distance learning and
telemedicine capabilities.
While this bill did not receive floor consideration in the 117th
Congress, it will be the foundation for the broadband subtitle in the
2023 Farm Bill.
Which brings us to today, where we will hear directly from
stakeholders about the importance of USDA broadband programs. It is
also an opportunity to discuss important policy ideas, including
minimum eligibility requirements, build-out speed requirements,
workforce and supply chain issues, broadband mapping and agency
coordination, as well as precision agriculture programs.
I have always said the best policies come when we work together. I
look forward to continuing to work with the Ranking Member on crafting
the broadband provisions for the 2023 Farm Bill.
Together, we can provide the Department of Agriculture the tools it
needs to bring broadband connectivity to rural America quickly and
responsibly, and with sustainability. Simply put, we must meet the
current and future needs in rural America.
We have a great panel of witnesses today who understand the
challenges and complexity of rural broadband networks, bring innovative
solutions to life, and most importantly, serve their communities.
I appreciate each of them for making time to be with us today and
look forward to the conversation.
The Chairman. I would now like to welcome the distinguished
Ranking Member, the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Scott, for any
opening remarks he would like to make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Well, thank you very much, Mr.
Chairman, for convening today's hearing. Expanding high-speed,
reliable, and affordable broadband access in rural America is a
top priority of mine in this farm bill. I appreciate the
opportunity to once again join forces with you, Mr. Chairman,
to highlight its importance and chart a path to finally bring
high quality internet service to every single part of rural
America. Now is the time.
High-speed, reliable, and affordable broadband is something
each of us here in Congress count on daily to stay in touch
with loved ones, conduct business, schedule appointments, make
purchases, and to stay informed. In addition to day to day
uses, broadband addresses other longstanding inequities through
expanding access to healthcare, educational, and workforce
development opportunities. Broadband is now an integral part of
our daily lives, but most areas in rural America go without
broadband, and that must change now.
Friends, it is also very important for us to know that the
United States Department of Agriculture has a long history of
serving rural America through making sure that rural America
has the resources and investments necessary to support modern
infrastructure, all the way back to 1935. Remember, some of us
do, when the Rural Electrification Administration was created
under the Department of Agriculture to bring electricity to
rural areas? And the Rural Electrification Administration now
operates under the Rural Utilities Service moniker, reflecting
that the agency provides an array of loans, grants, and loan
guarantees to deliver rural broadband, in addition to
electricity and drinking water, to our rural communities.
And since its enactment just before the 2018 Farm Bill, the
ReConnect Program, administered by the USDA, has delivered a
total of $3.86 billion to create and improve high-speed
internet access to rural customers. As the primary program used
to deliver broadband and financial funding to rural America, I
look forward to working with my House and Senate Agriculture
colleagues to codify and provide permanence for this program
through our upcoming 2023 Farm Bill.
And as we consider changes to broadband programs in the
2023 Farm Bill, it is my priority to ensure that these programs
support reliable delivery of high-speed, reliable, and
affordable broadband that can support modern uses, such as
telehealth, precision agriculture, distance learning, and our
remote work jobs and business opportunities, as well as many
other potential future uses not yet even imagined. To ensure
responsible and effective use of the historic Federal
investments in broadband, any investments made must support
future-proof and scalable broadband networks. That means
establishing progressive standards for speed, as well as
including considerations for affordability of broadband
services, and overall network capacity.
And, finally, I would like to discuss Federal agency
coordination. The bipartisan infrastructure bill (Pub. L. 117-
58) signed into law provided $65 billion for broadband, with
the bulk of that going to NTIA's BEAD Program. As
implementation of that program is ongoing, it is of utmost
importance that any Federal agencies working to expand
broadband coverage establish open lines of communication and
continue to coordinate resources and projects. As the only
Federal agency with the sole mission of serving rural America,
USDA Rural Development must take the leading role in expanding
high-speed internet to each and every part of our rural
communities.
I look forward to hearing from the distinguished panel of
witnesses that sits before us today on these issues, and any
other thoughts you all may have to improve USDA broadband
programs and deliver high quality broadband to rural
communities now. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. The chair would
request that other Members submit their opening statements for
the record so that witnesses may begin their testimony, and to
ensure that there is ample time for questions. Welcome once
again to our distinguished panel that we have here. A pretty
impressive panel for this topic, Mr. Ranking Member.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
The Chairman. Our first witness today is a former colleague
in Congress, the Honorable Jim Matheson, who is the Chief
Executive Officer of the National Rural Electric Cooperative
Association. Our next witness, who is Mr. James Assey,
Executive Vice President of NCTA, the Internet and Television
Association. Our third witness today is Mr. David Zumwalt, the
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Wireless Internet
Service Providers Association. Our fourth witness today is Mr.
Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association.
Our fifth witness is Mr. Bill Hurley, Chair of the Agriculture
Sector Board for the Association of Equipment Manufacturers.
And our sixth, and final, witness today is Mrs. Shirley
Bloomfield, the Chief Executive Officer of NTCA, the Rural
Broadband Association.
So, thank you, all of our impressive witnesses, for joining
us today, and we are now going to proceed to your testimony.
You will each have 5 minutes. The timer in front of you will
count down to zero, at which point your time has expired, and
hopefully we could wrap up whatever point that you are in the
middle of. Mr. Matheson, Congressman, please begin when you are
ready. Welcome back.
STATEMENT OF HON. JIM MATHESON, CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, NATIONAL RURAL ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE
ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA
Mr. Matheson. It is good to be here, thank you. Thank you,
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee for this opportunity. I am Jim Matheson, CEO of the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, also known as
NRECA. NRECA is the national service association for 900
electric co-ops that serve 42 million people in 48 states, and
as cooperatives, they are owned by the consumers that they
serve, and that gives us an interesting perspective on meeting
consumer needs, because the consumers are the owners of the
utility. Their mission, of course, is to provide low-cost,
reliable power to their members, and it has been that way since
the 1930s. They have a longstanding commitment also to improve
their communities in which they serve, and they are actively
engaged in many rural economic development efforts that go
beyond electrification.
Now, today more than 200 of our members, 200 electric co-
ops, are involved in rural broadband deployment efforts. They
recognize the impact that reliable high-speed internet will
have on their communities, and they also recognize the
challenges of deploying that in low density, rural, and remote
areas. For many cooperatives, the story of rural broadband
development today mirrors the story of rural electrification
nearly 100 years ago. The cost of building and maintaining
networks in sparsely populated areas, in difficult terrain, can
be prohibitive for many providers. It is a cost-intensive
process, with little return on investment. Since cooperatives
are owned by the people they serve, they understand the need
for broadband in these areas, and the challenges associated
with deploying the infrastructure, which is why some of our
members have chosen to include broadband in their book of
business.
So as this Committee works to develop the next farm bill,
electric cooperatives think there are great opportunities to
make improvements to broadband programs at USDA. Specifically,
we encourage the Committee to make the ReConnect Program
permanent and easier to access, provide robust funding for
rural broadband through USDA, prioritize symmetrical speeds and
scalable networks, and invest in middle-mile infrastructure.
An affordable and reliable internet connection is critical
for growth and development of rural America, we all know that.
Broadband is no longer a luxury, but instead it is a necessity
for business, for education, for healthcare across the whole
country. Internet-based services are a routine part of modern
life, and it is increasingly clear the bandwidth and capacity
must meet the needs not just of today. They need to anticipate
the needs of tomorrow. Last Congress this Committee advanced
the Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America Act, which
would make USDA's ReConnect Program permanent, and would
provide consistent funding moving forward. As discussions
continue around the future of this and other broadband programs
at USDA, let me offer just some--a few recommendations.
First, Congress should prioritize scalable, future-proof
networks in any future rounds of Federal funding. Without the
ability for networks to grow in response to increased bandwidth
needs and consumer demands, the challenge of solving the
broadband gap in rural America won't go away. In urban areas,
gigabit speed networks are becoming increasingly common, yet in
many cases the discussion about rural access seems to focus on
what is good enough. Broadband services should be equitable no
matter where an individual chooses to live, and taxpayer
dollars will be best spent supporting networks and technologies
that can meet both current and future needs.
Second, the definition of an area unserved by broadband
should be raised to include areas that do not have at least
100/100 megabits per second. Building networks in low density,
hard to reach areas is challenging, but Congress must
prioritize networks that can meet consumer demand and ensure
the residents of these areas are able to receive a quality
service regardless of whether they are considered unserved or
underserved.
Third, the time-consuming and difficult application process
should be streamlined. The submission portal is not user-
friendly, and some have commented that attempting to fill out
the program application is like having a second job. For small
providers with limited resources, this is incredibly
challenging, and could be prohibitive. And finally, the
Committee should once again authorize a middle-mile program at
USDA. Access to this infrastructure can make a big difference
in reducing the cost to deploy last mile networks in rural
areas. However, many rural providers lack access to a robust
middle-mile connection.
Electric cooperatives are increasingly deploying fiber
infrastructure as part of their electric utility network, which
enables a high bandwidth, low latency internal communication
system to support electric utility operations. Beyond lowering
energy costs, a fiber backbone allows co-ops to expand other
technology offerings, such as distributed energy resources,
electric vehicle access, or expanding retail broadband.
Leveraging excess fiber capacity from their internal
communication systems to provide middle-mile access to other
third party providers, such as local cable providers, small
telephone companies, and wireless internet service providers
enables a critical link between the internet service provider's
local network and the broader internet ecosystem.
Let me just close by saying rural electric cooperatives are
deeply committing to bridging the digital divide and connecting
rural homes and businesses with reliable and sustainable high-
speed broadband service. As this Committee considers
opportunities to expand broadband access in rural America, I do
appreciate the opportunity to provide the cooperative
perspective on USDA's broadband programs. NRECA and the
nation's electric cooperatives look forward to working with
this Committee, and others in Congress, to address these issues
and close the digital divide once and for all. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matheson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive Officer,
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, Arlington, VA
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of this
Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify today. My name is Jim
Matheson and I serve as the Chief Executive Officer of the National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association. NRECA is the national service
organization for more than 900 rural electric cooperatives that provide
electric service to approximately 42 million people across 48 states.
Rural electric cooperatives are member-owned, not-for-profit, and
formed to provide safe, reliable electric service to their member-
consumers at the lowest reasonable cost. They have a longstanding
commitment to improving the communities in which they serve, and many
are actively engaged in rural economic development efforts that go
beyond electrification.
Today, more than 200 electric cooperatives are involved in rural
broadband deployment efforts, recognizing the impact that a reliable
high-speed internet connection can have on their communities and the
challenges of deploying this infrastructure in low density, rural, and
remote areas. For many cooperatives, the story of rural broadband
deployment today mirrors the story of rural electrification nearly 100
years ago. The cost of building and maintaining networks in sparsely
populated areas with difficult terrain is prohibitive for many
providers. It is a cost-intensive process with little return on
investment. Since cooperatives are owned by the people they serve, they
understand the need for broadband in these areas and the challenges
associated with deploying this infrastructure, which is why some have
chosen to expand their services to include broadband.
As this Committee works to develop the next farm bill, electric
cooperatives believe there are great opportunities to make improvements
to broadband programs at the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Specifically, we encourage the Committee to:
Make the ReConnect program permanent and easier to access
Provide robust funding for rural broadband through USDA
Prioritize symmetrical speeds and scalable networks in any
future rounds of Federal funding
Invest in middle-mile infrastructure
Broadband is Critical for Rural America
An affordable and reliable internet connection is critical for the
growth and development of rural America. Broadband is no longer a
luxury, but instead a necessity for business, education, and healthcare
access across the country. The Coronavirus pandemic highlighted the
ongoing disparity between urban and rural access to a broadband
connection and made clear how critical a high-speed internet connection
is for rural economic development and quality of life. Without these
connections, families may choose not to return to the small towns where
they grew up, businesses choose to locate elsewhere, and farmers
struggle to access the latest technologies that help lower input costs
and improve yields. Internet based services are a routine part of
modern life, and it is increasingly clear that bandwidth and capacity
must meet the needs of today and anticipate the needs of tomorrow.
For many rural communities, the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) has been a longtime trusted partner for rural economic
development efforts. Rural electric cooperatives have been partnering
with the agency for more than 80 years on efforts to build reliable
electric networks in rural areas. What started in the 1930s as a
partnership between rural communities and the Rural Electrification
Administration has evolved into a much-needed, modern financing tool to
build, maintain, and modernize electric, water, and telecommunications
infrastructure through today's Rural Utilities Service (RUS). Federal
programs administered by RUS are designed to address the unique
challenges facing rural communities, such as low population densities
and vast terrain, providing financing and technical assistance to
improve the quality of life in hard-to-reach areas.
Many cooperatives have started deploying broadband in their service
territories in large part because no one else will do it. Since
cooperatives are owned by the people they serve, they understand the
need for broadband in their rural service areas and the challenges
associated with deploying this infrastructure. Electric cooperatives of
all sizes are entering the broadband business due to demand from their
members, who in many instances have no other alternative for a reliable
internet connection. Despite these challenges, many cooperatives have
built reliable, future proof networks capable of providing symmetrical
speeds to both consumers and businesses.
For electric cooperatives, investments in broadband have produced
significant benefits both internally and externally. Electric
cooperatives are increasingly deploying fiber optic infrastructure as
part of their electric network builds, which enables a high bandwidth,
low latency internal communications system to support utility
operations. Via this infrastructure, co-ops can monitor their systems
in real time, improve response times to outages, and better manage
utility resources. It also allows the co-op to improve the resiliency
of the electric network and deploy smart grid technologies, such as
advanced metering infrastructure, which can help reduce the overall
costs to consumers. Beyond lowering energy costs, a fiber backbone
allows co-ops to expand other technology offerings, such as distributed
energy resources, electric vehicle access, or retail broadband service.
Through USDA's Electric Loan Program, electric cooperatives and
other utilities can invest in smart grid technologies to improve grid
security and reliability. The program allows recipients to use up to
ten percent of the loan to construct broadband infrastructure in areas
lacking a minimum acceptable level of broadband. This program correctly
recognizes the dual-use nature of assets used for broadband
communications services and electric cooperative smart grid
technologies.
While retail broadband offerings have been successful for some
cooperatives, others are choosing not to provide retail service, but
instead are leveraging excess fiber capacity from their internal
communications systems to provide middle-mile broadband access to other
third-party providers, such as local cable providers, small telephone
companies, and wireless internet service providers. This provides a
critical link between the internet service provider's local network and
the broader internet ecosystem. Access to this infrastructure can make
a big difference in reducing the cost to deploy last mile networks in
rural areas, however many rural providers lack access to a robust
middle-mile connection. In the 2018 Farm Bill, this Committee
recognized the importance of middle-mile networks and authorized a
program at USDA to expand middle-mile infrastructure into rural areas.
Unfortunately, the program has not moved forward. We encourage the
Committee to consider reauthorizing the program, as strong middle-mile
access is critical to last mile deployment and ensuring that every
American receives reliable internet access.
As electric utilities, cooperatives own and maintain utility poles
and rights-of-way for the safe and reliable distribution of electricity
to their members. Ensuring the safe, affordable, and reliable delivery
of electricity is the first priority for every electric cooperative.
When safety, space and capacity allow, co-ops lease out excess space on
their poles for the delivery of telecommunications services by third
party providers, or even their own broadband subsidiary. This
relationship provides communications companies with cost-based access
to an existing pole distribution network for a small fraction of the
significant costs that co-ops have incurred to build and maintain these
systems.
Some within the communications industry have called for a one-size-
fits-all rate for cooperative pole attachments. NRECA and all electric
cooperatives strongly encourage the Committee to reject any proposals
that would implement this type of regulation. As locally owned and
democratically governed entities, electric cooperatives work in good
faith to negotiate reasonable rates for pole attachments so that the
burden of financing rural broadband deployment does not unfairly fall
on rural electric customers. On average, electric co-ops serve seven
customers per mile, compared to approximately 34 customers per mile
served by larger investor-owned utilities. A one-size-fits-all approach
does not accurately reflect the unique cost of building and maintaining
a pole distribution network in low density, hard-to-reach rural areas
that can differ from state to state and co-op to co-op.
The ``Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America'' Act
Last Congress, this Committee advanced the Broadband Internet
Connections for Rural America Act,\1\ which would make USDA's ReConnect
program permanent and provide consistent funding moving forward. As
discussions continue around the future of this and other broadband
programs at USDA, I'd like to offer some recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4374/BILLS-
117hr4374rh.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, Congress must prioritize scalable, future-proof networks in
any future rounds of Federal funding. Without the ability for networks
to grow in response to increased bandwidth needs and consumer demands,
the challenge of solving the broadband gap in rural America will
persist. In urban areas, gigabit speed networks are becoming
increasingly common, yet in many cases the discussions around rural
access seem to focus on what is ``good enough.'' Broadband services
should be equitable no matter where an individual chooses to live, and
taxpayer dollars will be best spent supporting networks and
technologies that can meet current and future needs, rather than
investing in standards that are or soon will be obsolete.
Second, the definition of an area unserved by broadband should be
raised to include areas that do not have at least 100/100 Mbps.
Building networks in low density, hard to reach areas is challenging,
but Congress must prioritize networks that can meet consumer demand and
ensure that residents in these areas are able to receive quality
service regardless of whether they are considered unserved or
underserved.
Third, the program must be streamlined. The ReConnect application
process is time consuming and difficult. The submission portal is not
user friendly, and some have commented that attempting to fill out the
program application is like having a second job. For small providers
with limited resources, this is incredibly challenging and can be
prohibitive. The application also lacks so-called ``safeguards,''
meaning that if an applicant forgets to attach necessary information,
such as their audited financial statement, the application platform
will still certify and allow the applicant to submit rather than giving
a warning that the required documentation has not been submitted. If
that happens, there is no ability to go back and submit the missing
documentation, which disqualifies the application. As Congress
considers opportunities to modify or improve the application process
moving forward, providing pathways to correct easily rectifiable errors
or omissions would be helpful.
The Broadband Internet Connections for Rural America Act also
includes robust funding for the USDA Community Connect Program. While a
smaller and less popular program than ReConnect, cooperatives who have
used this program have found it to be easy to manage and are typically
able to complete the project within the program's 3 year build
requirement. The program also includes an 80/20 grant/match ratio that
is incredibly helpful for projects in low density rural footprints.
However, one of the challenges that cooperatives have faced with the
program is the requirement to facilitate a community center within the
proposed funded service area. Due to the inherent rurality of these
areas, there are not typically existing facilities conducive to hosting
such a site. Flexibility to allow the community center to be
facilitated in areas adjacent to and within a reasonable distance of
the proposed funded service area could provide the dual benefit of
expanding broadband access in rural areas while also facilitating an
internet connection at an existing community facility, such as a
library.
Prioritize Scalable, Future-Proof Networks
For many rural consumers, the promise of a broadband connection has
gone unfulfilled. Recent Federal programs have defined ``unserved'' as
areas lacking service at 25/3 megabits per second (Mbps) and
``underserved'' as areas lacking service at 100/20 Mbps. However, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) today still defines broadband
as 25/3 Mbps--a definition that was put in place nearly 10 years ago
with limited consideration of raising that definition to be more
reflective of current consumer demands. This must change. According to
recent reports,\2\ nearly 70% of U.S. homes receive internet service
offering speeds of 200 Mbps or more, and more than 25% of homes are
subscribing to gigabit or faster speeds. Other reports indicate that we
are trending toward multi-gigabit networks by 2030.\3\ It is clear that
technology and user demand for bandwidth are exponentially increasing,
which is why networks built in rural areas must be able to keep up with
these growing demands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://openvault.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
OVBI_4Q22_Report.pdf.
\3\ https://www.fiercetelecom.com/telecom/fba-tips-household-
broadband-speed-need-to-surpass-2-gbps-by-2030.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC has recognized this fact itself. In the FCC's 2021 Section
706 Report,\4\ it noted that, as of December 2019, the vast majority of
Americans had access to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25
Mbps. Specifically, the Report states, ``Between 2018 and 2019 . . .
the deployment of 250/25 Mbps also increased from approximately 86% to
over 87% of the population.'' If over 87% of the population has access
to fixed terrestrial broadband service at 250/25 Mbps, it is difficult
to comprehend why the Commission continues to maintain that the current
dated definition of 25/3 Mbps is sufficient. This fact also begs the
question of why most broadband programs and general consensus has
landed on updating the definition of broadband to 100/20 Mbps, a
definition that is well below what more than 87% of the population had
access to in 2019. The Universal Service provisions in the 1996
Telecommunications Act requires comparable services at comparable rates
between urban and rural areas. Rural communities should not be treated
as second class citizens and be relegated to ``good enough'' broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-annual-broadband-report-shows-
digital-divide-rapidly-closing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For farm communities, adoption of precision agriculture technology
enables farmers and ranchers to optimize their operations, lower input
costs, and increase product yields. Incorporating new technologies into
farming operations allows for the adoption of automatic irrigation,
soil health monitoring, improved weather forecasting, and real time
monitoring of facilities. Some applications, such as the use of sensors
in farm equipment, require low bandwidth but a wide range of field
coverage. Other tools, such as the use of drones for the application of
fertilizer or herbicides, require high bandwidth and low latency. New
technologies to aid and improve agricultural operations are constantly
being developed and released to market, creating a growing demand for
bandwidth in and around the farm and underscoring why a robust and
scalable network connection is essential.
As Congress looks at USDA's broadband programs via the upcoming
farm bill, scalable, future proof networks must be prioritized. The
economics of deploying reliable, high-speed internet infrastructure in
rural and remote areas is challenging for any provider, with low
population densities and difficult terrain presenting little
opportunity for return on investment. However, consumer demands for
broadband speeds and capabilities continue to grow.\5\ With that in
mind, minimum build to speeds in any future rounds of Federal funding
should be at least 100/100 Mbps symmetrical, and reevaluated on a
consistent and regular basis to ensure that rural communities and
families receive adequate broadband service both now and into the
future. This will also eliminate the need for Congress to fund
incremental network upgrades down the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://www.broadbandtechreport.com/test/article/14293999/
openvault-finds-usagebased-broadband-consumption-on-par-with-flatrate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently, Reps. Zach Nunn and Angie Craig introduced the
ReConnecting Rural America Act, a bill that would codify the ReConnect
program, prioritize symmetrical network speeds, and would provide the
flexibility for the Secretary of Agriculture to reevaluate the minimum
acceptable level of broadband service provided to rural areas. These
flexibilities are important in ensuring that rural communities and
families receive adequate broadband service now and into the future.
Reevaluate How Overbuilding is Defined
Duplicating Federal support to build broadband networks is a
serious concern. However, the level of service that federally supported
networks provide must be considered when discussing the topic of
overbuilding. As previously discussed, Federal programs acknowledge
anything under 25/3 Mbps to be considered ``unserved,'' and anything
under 100/20 Mbps to be considered ``underserved,'' yet it was only
recently that these standards were adopted for some broadband programs.
For example, the 2018 Connect America Fund Auction at the FCC allowed
providers to bid in a 10/1 Mbps speed tier, and those winning providers
will continue to receive support through 2028. Similarly, the first two
rounds of ReConnect, which made awards in 2019 and 2020, respectively,
had a minimum build to requirement of 25/3 Mbps.\6\ Federal programs do
not move quickly, which is why future-looking standards must be put in
place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
foa_2_awards_report_508c.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any discussion of reforms or constraint against overbuilding should
be coupled with an evaluation of ongoing Federal support programs, and
the quality of service those programs are supporting. Rural Americans
should not be relegated to sub-par, ``good enough'' broadband service
simply because an area is already receiving or has a commitment to
receive support to build a network that does not meet current Federal
definitions of broadband or consumer demands. Similarly, continuing to
provide Federal support for networks that no longer meet the
definitions of ``served'' is not good public policy nor is it a good
use of taxpayer dollars. Instead, this will leave many rural residents
without adequate service unless another ISP is willing to tackle the
high costs associated with building this infrastructure in hard-to-
reach areas without any additional support.
Permitting Reform is Needed
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations present a
significant challenge to rapid infrastructure deployment, often
delaying projects and driving up costs. Co-ops face NEPA requirements
when seeking a variety of Federal permits, approvals, and financial
assistance, such as access to power line rights of way on Federal
lands. In some instances, NEPA has been applied differently by Federal
agencies, or even within different field offices of an agency.
For example, when a cooperative in Colorado won a USDA ReConnect
award to provide broadband service, they planned to use existing
electric infrastructure for the project and did not anticipate any
permitting problems. However, the project sought to cross land managed
by the U.S. Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM), which required
full oversight and review of the proposed USDA funded infrastructure
project simply because the project involved broadband service rather
than electric service. As a result, the co-op was required to undergo
an expensive, time consuming, and onerous permitting process through
BLM that added months of delay and an unanticipated, and unbudgeted,
$800,000 to the project. For electric service, the existing rights of
way are sufficient, and the co-op can upgrade their facilities without
the added time and expense. But because this co-op was attaching
broadband infrastructure to their existing poles in the existing right
of way, BLM treated the project as a greenfield build which triggered a
full environmental review.
In many instances, existing rights-of-way and easements only apply
to electric service and not to broadband, which impacts not only
cooperatives deploying broadband but any electric utility seeking to
lease out excess fiber capacity to third-party telecommunications
providers. Many cooperatives are including fiber to support electric
operations or implement smart grid technologies. Fiber installed to
support electric operations is typically allowed in electric utility
rights of way, but if a co-op leases excess fiber to a third party for
retail broadband, or chooses to provide retail broadband themselves, it
could trigger a violation. Often, the utility must renegotiate the
right of way or easement agreement with each state or Federal agency,
local jurisdiction, or private landowner, which can take years and can
cost millions of dollars.
The National Broadband Map Still Presents Challenges
In November 2022, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
released the pre-production drafts of the National Broadband Maps,
which are required to be used by the National Telecommunications and
Infrastructure Administration (NTIA) to calculate how much states will
receive in BEAD based on the number of unserved and underserved
locations in each state. The maps released by the FCC display a more
granular, location by location picture of where broadband service
exists across the country and are a significant step forward from the
previous maps, which tracked broadband deployment on a Census block
level basis.
As part of the ongoing mapping process, the FCC collects self-
reported, location level data from Internet Service Providers (ISPs)
through the Broadband Data Collection (BDC), which happens twice per
year. This data reflects the advertised availability of broadband
service or where it could be installed, as reported by the ISPs in
those areas. Once the maps were released, the FCC invited the public to
review the data displayed and submit challenges highlighting
inaccuracies.
NRECA worked to organize a multi-pronged response to the new maps,
coordinating with cooperatives to submit over 260,000 availability
challenges across multiple states, in addition to a grassroots
education campaign to help cooperative members understand the map data
and how to submit an individual challenge. Given the historic amount of
funding made available through the upcoming BEAD program, it is
critically important to NRECA and its members that this data is
correct. Inaccuracies could mean that cooperative members miss their
chance at a broadband connection through this historic funding
opportunity.
Despite significant progress in improving the map's accuracy over
the past 6 months, it is clear that there are still discrepancies
between what the map displays and the realities on the ground. The
continued reliance on advertised speeds instead of actual speeds opens
the door to gamesmanship with mapping data and could prevent rural
areas from receiving a high-speed internet connection.
Continued coordination between the FCC, NTIA, and [USDA] on
broadband mapping initiatives would help ensure map accuracy. USDA is a
uniquely focused agency with substantial knowledge of rural issues and
areas, and has relationships with rural communities. USDA is a valuable
partner for communities seeking to access and implement Federal
programs, and increasingly the agency is playing a key role in helping
to connect rural areas with the broadband resources they need to
thrive. Given their rural focus, increased coordination with USDA on
mapping accuracy and challenges could prove beneficial to ensuring
rural communities are accurately reflected in mapping updates.
Conclusion
Rural electric cooperatives are deeply committed to bridging the
digital divide and connecting rural homes and businesses with reliable
and sustainable high-speed broadband service. As this Committee
considers opportunities to connect all rural communities, I appreciate
the opportunity to provide the cooperative perspective on USDA's
broadband programs, and your attention to this important and timely
issue. NRECA and the nation's electric cooperatives look forward to
working with this Committee and others in Congress to address these
issues and close the digital divide once and for all.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Matheson. Mr. Assey, please
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ASSEY, Jr., J.D., EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, NCTA--THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION
ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Assey. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Scott, and Members of this Committee. It is a distinct pleasure
and honor to appear before you today on this important topic.
As we review our current and future efforts to close the
digital divide across rural America, it is worth reflecting on
the journey. A journey that, perhaps informed by our own
experiences during the COVID pandemic, that is propelled by our
growing understanding that broadband and high-speed
connectivity are increasingly central to how we learn, how our
families connect, how our businesses operate, and generally how
we participate in a 21st century society.
That journey started long ago. It has been fueled over time
by competition and private capital investment that has resulted
in the rapid growth of networks across much of the country.
Over the last decade the cable industry alone has invested over
$185 billion to build and expand both the reach and the
capabilities of its networks. Today, 86 percent of the country
has access to wired broadband from a cable and/or fiber
provider. Two cable companies alone, Charter and Comcast, reach
roughly \1/3\ of all rural homes and businesses, and 99 percent
of the homes passed by cable networks in rural America can
receive internet service at speeds of 100 megabits or better.
Yet, despite such significant progress, we know our journey
is not yet complete. There are still significant areas where
broadband's ubiquity is frustrated by the unique economic
challenges of low population density and high cost to construct
and operate networks. Government programs, like those
administered under the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utilities Service, have the potential to overcome these
obstacles, offering assistance that will incent further
investment in rural communities. But without careful design,
such programs can also result in government spending that may
benefit individual companies but does little to shrink the
universe of the unserved.
As we think about the next chapter of this journey, we
should recognize some advantages and some challenges that we
face. On the plus side of the ledger, Congress has recently
provided an unprecedented amount of resources to shrink the
digital divide. At just the Federal level over $160 billion has
been allocated over the past 4 years to aid broadband
expansion. Some of this funding is already flowing to broadband
projects, but far more is expected in the future. In addition
to more funding, we are building better broadband maps that
help us develop a common understanding of areas without
service, and we are seeing early signs of better coordination
among competing agencies that are tasked with similar
objectives. These developments give us hope that we are poised
to make significant strides over the next few years in reducing
the rolls of the unconnected. But along with such opportunity
comes risk.
Indeed, history has shown us that, in the absence of proper
program design, focus, and coordination, there remains a high
risk that resources will be squandered, and that good
intentions will fail to translate into broadband connections
for those most in need. For that reason, as the Committee
considers new legislation addressing RUS broadband programs, it
should recognize that future actions to close the digital
divide may have less to do with a call for new capital, and
more to do with the direction needed to ensure a proper program
design and administration. In particular, we would urge the
Committee to consider the following areas of reform.
First, the need for greater clarity and focus in directing
funding distributions to unserved areas. Second, the need to
modernize application requirements, that would encourage
participation among qualified providers. Third, the need to
eliminate status-based scoring priorities, and other
preferences that thwart fair competition. And last, the need to
address execution challenges, like permitting, and access to
utility poles, that can stall the efficient completion of
construction projects.
Many of these challenges are reflected in the Rural
Internet Improvement Act (H.R. 3216) sponsored by
Representatives Cammack, Soto, Jackson, and Gluesenkamp Perez.
This bill appropriately recognizes the need for prioritizing
funding to unserved areas, and suggests other reforms that will
improve the focus, fairness and efficiency of existing RUS
programs. With proper oversight and efficient administration,
the next 5 years offer us the best chance yet to shrink the
digital divide and bring the benefits of broadband to all. We
in the cable industry look forward to working with you, the
Members of this Committee, on that journey. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:]
Prepared Statement of James M. Assey, Jr., J.D., Executive Vice
President, NCTA--The Internet and Television Association, Washington,
D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss our members' experience
with USDA's broadband funding programs and our suggestions to make
these programs even more successful. My name is James Assey, and I am
the Executive Vice President of NCTA--The Internet and Television
Association (``NCTA''). NCTA represents the nation's largest broadband
providers, which construct and operate fiber-rich high-speed internet
networks that reach over 77% of the U.S. population, including a large
and growing number of rural homes and businesses.
Over the last few years, our nation's response to challenges
arising from the pandemic has put a renewed urgency and spotlight on
the importance of ensuring every American can access the internet
through a high-speed connection. In common cause, our industry has
risen to that challenge, accelerating the pace of innovation and
forging new broadband connections both throughout and outside their
traditional service areas. Collectively, cable ISPs have invested more
than $185 billion in private capital over the last decade to build and
upgrade networks across America, including $21.7 billion in 2022 alone.
This capital has extended the collective reach of cable broadband
networks, adding about 6.4 million households between December 2018 and
December 2021, nearly a third of which are rural households.
But, just as important, this massive investment has revolutionized
the capabilities of these networks and their value to consumers,
leveraging new technology and rapid innovation to launch the
development of cable's 10G platform that is bringing `speed at scale'
to millions across America. Currently, 99% of U.S. homes passed by
cable are capable of receiving a 1 Gigabit service from their cable
ISP. And with even more scalable, technological innovation on the
horizon, the future, wide-scale diffusion of networks offering 10
Gigabit connections to U.S. households is well within view.
The dividends of these investments are not only collected in urban
and suburban environments, but also increasingly in rural communities
where the high-speed capabilities of cable broadband networks are
bringing world-class broadband to rural communities throughout the
country. Charter and Comcast alone serve nearly a third of all rural
homes and businesses. In fact, when robust, high-speed broadband is
available in rural America, it is more likely to be from a cable
provider than any other platform:
Rural Units Served (Total U.S. Rural Units = 36.7 Million)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service Service
Number of Available at Available at % of Rural
Tech Rural Units 100/20 or 1 Gig or Footprint at
Served better better 1 Gig or
(millions) (millions) (millions) better
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cable 17.5 17.1 16.4 94%
Telco 20.1 5.5 4.4 22%
Fixed wireless 29.0 4.8 0.5 2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
including copper, fiber, and fixed wireless.
Source: FCC National Broadband Map.
Despite this growth and these significant advances, we know that
the job is not yet done and the challenges ahead are formidable.
Unserved communities generally lack broadband facilities for one
primary reason--they are prohibitively expensive to serve. The cost of
deploying infrastructure over expansive, difficult terrain is often
exponentially higher than other areas. At the same time, the potential
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 serve those communities.
At USDA, one of the most promising programs to help cable and other
ISPs reach unserved households in rural areas had been the Rural
eConnectivity program run by the Rural Utilities Service (``RUS''),
better known as the ``ReConnect'' program. Unlike other RUS broadband
funding programs, this program was, at its creation, tightly focused on
helping to direct capital investment in building broadband networks in
unserved areas through a competitive process that, in distinction to
past practice, allowed all providers to participate and compete on a
level playing field.
Over the last 5 years, the cable industry worked extensively with
RUS and Congress to make significant improvements to the ReConnect
program, making it easier and more attractive for competitive
providers, who were not traditional recipients for RUS support, to
participate. Some progress has been made. For example, RUS has taken
needed action to modernize outdated application and data requirements
that were overwhelming for many would-be applicants to assemble,
especially for providers with nationwide operations.
Unfortunately, more recent updates have created new obstacles.
Changes to the program have made winning funding awards extremely
difficult for cable ISPs, and have clouded the program's focus away
from unserved areas. Specifically, RUS has changed the scoring
methodology for the program and injected new bias so that certain
providers--in particular, municipalities, nonprofits and cooperatives--
get an automatic significant scoring preference, as do those that build
using unionized contract labor. Additional points are awarded for those
providers willing to agree to onerous open access mandates, which most
providers are not willing to do.
These calculated changes impede fair competition and have made it
extremely difficult for cable ISPs to secure funding, even when they
seek to serve areas where no one else wants to deploy. In addition, the
agency's action in significantly relaxing the required minimum
percentage of unserved homes required of project applications has
created new problems and drawn dollars away from areas where they are
most needed. Indeed, scarce resources that should be directed toward
bringing service to unserved households are instead being used to
subsidize network overbuilds in ways that further challenge the
economics of serving remote areas, and worse, do nothing to reduce the
number of unserved households.
Beyond considering the internal changes required to promote greater
efficiency and effectiveness of RUS programs, the next Farm bill must
also grapple with the external challenges of encouraging greater
coordination and consistency among a number of Federal and state
agencies that will similarly focus on closing the digital divide. To
promote efficiency and minimize waste, it will be more important than
ever that we direct greater coordination and collaboration among
Federal and state agencies engaged in similar efforts. With so many
billions of Federal funding dollars being focused on broadband
expansion over the next several years, we believe that it is more
important than ever to get these programs right and to put controls in
place that will prevent inefficiency and waste.
As the Committee considers these issues, we believe that matters
addressed in the Rural Internet Improvement Act, introduced by
Representatives Cammack, Soto, Jackson and Perez, would go a very long
way toward making needed changes and establishing clear Congressional
direction. Most notably, the Rural Internet Improvement Act provides
important protections against overbuilding, modernizes eligibility
rules, reduces excessive data burdens in both the application and
funding phases, and calls for substantially increased coordination
among the various agencies distributing broadband funding.
Cable's Decades Long Commitment to Rural America
Before discussing cable's experience with USDA funding programs, I
want to underscore that cable ISPs have made it their mission to ensure
that our most rural communities are at the leading edge of technology.
Our growth in recent months has included important progress in
reaching previously unserved areas, thanks both to cable's commitment
to invest in rural areas and to partnerships with the FCC, through its
CAF II and RDOF auctions, and with the states we serve. For example:
Cable's Private Investment in Rural Areas
Comcast invest billions of dollars every year to
expand and evolve its network--more than $20 billion from
2018-2022 alone, and $33 billion in the past decade.
Comcast added 813,000 new passings in 2021, and an
additional 840,000 in 2022, including many in rural areas.
The company recently announced that it is further
accelerating connecting more homes, by planning to pass one
million additional new addresses in 2023, bringing the
total new passings in just 3 years to 2.65 million homes.
Charter also continues to invest billions of dollars
every year to expand and evolve its network--more than $40
billion from 2018-2022 alone. Charter has also committed to
significant expansion in rural areas in states across the
country. In March, Charter announced a $12 million
commitment to rural broadband expansion in Maine, which
will bring gigabit-speed broadband access to over 3,500
unserved homes and small businesses in several towns in
Somerset and Oxford counties. Concurrently, Charter
announced an investment of approximately $70 million in
Maine, part of a company-wide network evolution that will
enable the delivery of symmetrical and multiple gigabit
speeds across the state. This 100% Charter-funded
investment is expected to be substantially complete across
the company's Maine service area, which comprises more than
700,000 homes and businesses, by the end of 2025.
Cable's Partnerships with Government To Bring Service to
Unserved Areas
Charter Communications plans to build nearly 100,000
miles of new U.S. broadband infrastructure through its RDOF
expansion alone--a distance that would circle the equator
more than four times. As part of that commitment, Charter
announced a $5 billion investment that will connect more
than one million unserved, mostly rural homes and small
businesses to reliable, high-speed broadband service at
speeds up to a gigabit per second. While the RDOF funds
will go a long way to connecting people, approximately $4
of every $5 of this build-out will come from private
capital invested by Charter--they and other cable ISPs are
investing their own funds to connect people in rural areas.
In addition to RDOF and Federal programs, Charter has
participated in dozens of state broadband funding rounds
and hundreds of local funding opportunities, earning
subsidies to build to more than 300,000 locations since
2021. For example, through Louisiana's Granting Unserved
Municipalities Broadband Opportunities (``GUMBO'') program,
which was funded through the ARPA, Charter was awarded more
than $10 million in grants to support broadband expansion
across three Louisiana parishes. Upon completion, this
investment will deliver high-speed internet access to more
than 2,000 currently-unserved homes and businesses.
Comcast has been awarded grants from Federal, state
and local programs in 24 states, including multiple awards
to build-out its gigabit broadband network to homes that
are unconnected to broadband today, including more than
30,000 unserved homes in Georgia and over 51,000 in
Florida.
Comcast has also been awarded funds from
Pennsylvania's Unserved High-Speed Funding State Program to
reach unserved homes in Lycoming, Armstrong and Union
counties, as well as from the Build Illinois Bond Fund,
ARPA/Connect IL Round 2 to bring service unconnected homes
in Whiteside county.
In 2022, Cox committed hundreds of millions of dollars
to expand its fiber infrastructure to provide best-in-class
high-speed internet to un- and underserved areas. This
included establishing a Market Expansion Team (``MET''),
which is solely focused on expanding Cox's network to un-
and underserved areas beyond the existing service area. The
MET supports Cox's focus on advancing digital equity by
bringing Cox's robust network to communities without
broadband in a world where communities need to be connected
to thrive. Since 2022, Cox has successfully secured nearly
$100 million in grant funds and matched that with more than
$100 million in private capital to extend services to
almost 50,000 homes in eight states, in addition to many
wholly self-funded projects. Through these partnerships,
Cox has activated service in about 30 previously
unconnected communities with more currently under
construction, and that's just the beginning. Looking ahead
12 months, Cox plans to more than double that number.
Mediacom was awarded $13.4 million in grant funding
from the State of Alabama, to help extend broadband to
nearly 20,000 locations there. Its new locations will span
multiple counties, including locations in northwest Baldwin
County, southwest Escambia County, and Mobile County.
In Sherburne County, Minnesota, Midco is utilizing
private capital, RDOF funds and local partnerships with the
county and six townships to complete several broadband
expansion projects. From 2020-2024, nearly 10,000 homes and
businesses in the county will be connected with over 1.5
million of new broadband infrastructure constructed. In
total, Midco's investment in Sherburne County since 2020 is
over $32 million.
In Alaska, GCI is deploying fiber to some of the most
remote communities in the country. GCI paired $25 million
in ReConnect funds with over $50 million of its own capital
to support its Alaska United--Aleutians Fiber Project,
which provided terrestrial broadband service for the first
time to Unalaska/Dutch Harbor and five other communities--
King Cove, Sand Point, Akutan, Chignik Bay, and Larsen Bay.
GCI also has been awarded a $31 million ReConnect grant in
support of its Lower Kuskokwim Fiber Expansion Project,
which will bring fiber-optic infrastructure to five Yukon-
Kuskokwim Delta communities in Western Alaska.
Cable's Innovative Solutions to Support Rural Communities
Nestled alongside a pond and horse farm in rural
Eastover, South Carolina, is Camp Cole--a fully accessible
camp and retreat facility for children, teens, and adults
facing serious illnesses and other physical, mental, and
emotional health or life challenges. Internet connectivity
is critical to providing many campers with the resources
they need, including monitoring medical devices, conducting
video calls with doctors and care providers, and ensuring
counselors can communicate across the campus. During
construction of the Camp Cole facility, camp staff reached
out to Charter about getting the rural property online.
Within a few short months--and at virtually no cost to
them--Camp Cole was connected to Charter's high-speed
Spectrum Internet, and today campers and staff enjoy 300
Mbps speeds across the property.
In Colorado, Charter has used various wireless
technologies such as 5G, WiFi, and Citizens Broadband Radio
Spectrum (``CBRS'') spectrum to deliver service to
transform how Wells Bridge Farm does business. Wells Bridge
Farm was able to deploy a WiFi network and enable connected
sensors to provide enhanced security to the farm's main
gate and real-time glimpses into what was occurring on the
farm, and with the animals, offering opportunities for
proactive care for the horses and enhanced productivity for
the farm. The success of this wirelessly connected smart
farm now paves the way for similar digital solutions in
other communities.
Midco relies on an existing broadband network to
connect relay towers, thereby extending a signal miles
beyond where the physical wires stop. Midco uses
traditional towers, as well as grain elevators or water
towers, to reach homes or farms miles away from those wired
networks. This means they can still receive broadband
service without the need for an ISP to lay miles and miles
of fiber in challenging terrain. Midco, which serves
communities throughout South Dakota, North Dakota,
Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin, has championed the use of
fixed wireless for precision agriculture. Some of these
communities have fewer than 100 people, with miles and
miles of land separating one neighbor from the other.
These examples underscore cable's commitment to expand networks and
reach those areas that need it most.
While cable ISPs are reaching new homes with broadband fiber every
day, they also remain keenly aware that government funding will be
needed to reach places where challenging terrain or other factors make
private investment alone too uneconomical. For broadband to reach rural
America as quickly as possible, it is critical that funding programs be
technology-neutral, encourage the broadest participation of qualified
broadband providers, and be as flexible as possible. And that leads me
to our current concerns about the current direction of the ReConnect
Program and other broadband funding programs administered by RUS.
Restoring Program Focus and Continuing Needed Coordination Will Help
Rural America
As further rural build-out intensifies in the coming years to reach
more unserved communities, the effectiveness of RUS broadband programs
will depend on Congressional action to restore a clarity of purpose and
to promote coordinated and consistent action that promotes fair
competition. Recent changes to the ReConnect program have significantly
shifted the focus of this program away from the portions of rural
America lacking broadband access. This shift should be reversed.
First, Congress should act to restore ReConnect's focus on unserved
areas and establish a common understanding of what it means to be
``unserved.'' While the original ReConnect program required that at
least 90% of households in a project area qualify as unserved to be
eligible for funding, the most recent round of funding significantly
relaxed this requirement and considered areas to be eligible for
funding even when as many as 50% of households already had access to
broadband service. The most likely result of this change is that monies
will be diverted from the areas that are 90% unserved, which are
typically the hardest areas to serve, and those areas will remain
unserved.
The agency also has changed the speed thresholds used to determine
when an area already has ``sufficient'' access to broadband service,
which has clouded the agency's commitment to focus scarce resources
first on reducing the number of households without any acceptable
broadband connectivity. When eligibility is restricted to areas that do
not receive a basic level of broadband service, such as 25/3, we know
that funding will be used to bring broadband where it did not
previously exist. But when areas with some level of service are defined
as eligible for funding on a par with those with nothing, providers
will naturally pursue those projects that are less expensive to deploy
broadband to, i.e., those with better potential economic return, while
those areas most in need of assistance will again end up at the back of
the line.
This needs to change. There should be an absolute priority for
qualified applications to extend service to areas without 25/3 service,
and most funding should be put to that use. For example, you could
provide that 75% of the funding needs to be for projects without 25/3,
or you could provide that no funding could be granted for projects in
underserved areas (those that have service that is between 25/3 and
100/20 speeds) until at least 80% of areas lacking 25/3 have been
covered.
Additionally, RUS does not sufficiently take into account where
areas are already being built out due to awards from other government
programs when it determines which areas should be considered unserved.
Allowing government broadband programs to grant funding in places where
other government awards have already been committed for broadband
construction dangerously decreases the effectiveness of the program.
For example, NCTA member Midco was overbuilt by two ReConnect awards in
rural South Dakota, even though it was already building a fixed
wireless network serving those areas that was being partially funded by
an FCC grant. Because Midco had not yet finished construction, the area
was still considered ``unserved,'' and so its challenges to those
funding awards were denied. Programs need to be coordinated so that
there is a common understanding of eligibility, one that takes into
account areas already funded for deployment.
Second, Congress should direct RUS, in reviewing applications, to
limit scoring preferences to those that relate to applicant experience
or platform performance. Points for being a particular type of entity
(e.g., an electrical or gas cooperative), or for agreeing to assume
extra regulatory obligations (e.g., particular wage standards) do
nothing to ensure that broadband networks will reach rural America
quickly and will be run well, and are simply inappropriate vehicles for
directing funding to favored providers.
Third, as it has in other broadband programs, Congress should
ensure that performance standards (sometimes referenced as ``build to''
speed requirements) retain some element of flexibility to produce
solutions that are forward-leaning, but also robust and cost-effective.
As we have seen in the context of the FCC's RDOF auction, an open
competitive process for subsidy awards can be structured to incent
extremely robust and scalable platform solutions, but too high a
performance threshold can also lead to situations where requirements
preclude some areas from attracting willing providers. Programs need
flexibility to accommodate different technological solutions, and
guidelines for identifying those areas where flexibility can and should
be accommodated. States may offer a helpful guide in delineating such
areas. The BEAD Program, for example, allows states to designate an
``Extremely High Cost Per Location Threshold,'' above which the state
can pick a proposal using an alternative technology when doing so would
be less expensive, ensuring that the very highest cost areas are not
ignored if they cannot be served effectively by fiber.
Fourth, there are significant, burdensome data requirements in the
ReConnect program, such as those designed to evaluate an applicant's
financial viability. The application process should be simplified by
limiting the amount of data to what is truly required to evaluate an
applicant's viability. For financial requirements, RUS should allow
applicants to demonstrate financial viability in various ways beyond an
exclusive first lien on grant-funded assets. For example, an applicant
should be permitted to rely on a bond rating performed by an expert
credit rating agency to establish their financial viability.
Finally, with numerous Federal agencies and nearly all states
dedicating funding to broadband deployment, it is increasingly
important to ensure that all relevant agencies, and to the extent
possible state programs that are awarding grants for build-out, are
aware of current awards so as to ensure that government support is
coordinated and being used efficiently to reduce the number of unserved
households and to help achieve the goal of universal connectivity. The
recent Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Information Sharing
between the FCC, U.S. Department of Agriculture, the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration of the U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury is an
important first step towards reaching that goal, but further actions
will be required in the coming years as the pace of grant activity and
broadband construction intensifies.
One important aspect of coordination would be to take steps to make
the programs, their eligibility standards, and their requirements as
consistent as possible. Entities seeking funding should not be able to
``forum shop'' for the least restrictive program. NCTA member Midco
faced a situation where they successfully challenged a provider under
the ReConnect program from overbuilding their network in rural North
Dakota, but the applicant responded by applying for funding in that
same area under the ARPA Capital Projects Fund program, and succeeded
in obtaining funds to overbuild Midco's existing service.
To avoid this result, government entities awarding funding for
broadband infrastructure (including RUS) should promptly report those
awards to the Federal Communications Commission, so that maps used for
granting broadband funding are consistent, and everyone works off a
common data set in determining areas eligible for funding. Ideally,
maps should show all areas where Federal, state, or local funding has
been awarded pursuant to enforceable commitments, so that remaining
dollars can be targeted at the areas not yet covered. Programs should
work together towards the common goal of connecting more Americans and
reducing the rolls of the unserved.
Why the Rural Internet Improvement Act Would Improve RUS's Broadband
Programs
As the Committee considers a new farm bill, one promising piece of
legislation to draw from is the Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2022.
It would make many key improvements to the ReConnect program, enhancing
participation and results, so that broadband reaches rural America
faster. In particular, it would--
Target funding to the neediest rural areas, by limiting all
types of funding to areas in which at least 90% of households
lack access to broadband, with the highest possible priority
for applications proposing to serve areas without 25/3 service.
Update the minimum build-out speed requirements to 100/20,
which is a reasonable speed that allows for different
technological solutions.
Protect against wasted dollars by excluding funding in areas
where a provider has been granted funding under another
Federal, state, or local broadband funding program, or where a
provider is otherwise required to build broadband by a Federal,
state or local government entity (except that the provider who
secured such funding could obtain additional ReConnect funding
if they used such funding for different, non-duplicative
expenses, or they agreed to build broadband with faster speeds
or expedited deployment milestones than were originally
required).
Simplify the application process, by limiting the amount of
data required in applications to the greatest extent
practicable, including allowing applicants to demonstrate
financial viability in the least burdensome way and requiring
the Secretary to establish means by which applicants can offer
various forms of loan collateral and security, not just an
exclusive first lien on grant-funded assets. For example, it
would allow a company with a sufficient bond rating to use the
bond rating to establish their financial viability, and would
generally require a much closer look at whether all the data
required to apply for funding is really relevant and necessary.
Establish better communication between Federal agencies when
awards are made and improve the challenge process, so that
money is spent transparently and does not duplicate other
agencies' efforts.
These changes would go a long way towards our shared goal of connecting
rural America, and we ask you to give them careful consideration to
incorporating them into any program revisions. We also urge that you
avoid any changes that would compromise program efficiency and
sacrifice needed focus, and that you ensure that RUS give all
applicants equal consideration, even if they are not prior borrowers.
If ReConnect is reoriented to its original focus, it can succeed in
making meaningful contributions to bringing broadband to rural
Americans currently lacking service.
* * * * *
In closing, I commend the Committee for its focus on ensuring that
the billions of dollars being spent on broadband deployment benefits
all Americans--including those in rural America. Progress has been made
in some Federal and state programs to target funding at unserved areas,
largely by improving the design of those programs to better identify
unserved areas and by defining broadband service in a way that
prioritizes people living in hard-to-reach areas that may require a
menu of technologies to serve each and every household. We hope that
the ReConnect program and other new programs will be changed so that
they are implemented with similar goals and guardrails in place. Thank
you again for inviting me here today, and we look forward to working
with you on these important issues.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Assey. Mr. Zumwalt, please
begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF DAVID M. ZUMWALT, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICE
PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Zumwalt. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member
Scott, and Members of this Committee. Thank you for convening
this important hearing. My name is David Zumwalt, and I am the
President and CEO of WISPA--Broadband Without Boundaries,
representing nearly 1,000 members that provide connectivity to
unserved and underserved communities across the country.
Wireless Internet Service Providers, or WISPs, serve nine
million Americans nationwide and deploy a variety of
technologies, including fiber, as well as wireless, to deliver
reliable broadband services. Most of their subscribers live and
work in rural areas that other providers have historically
overlooked or chosen not to serve. WISPs and entrepreneurial
community businesses, are often putting up their own capital to
serve their neighbors. They come in many sizes, and their
importance is enormous to the communities they serve. They live
there, bank there, send their children to school there, and in
some cases farm there. They are the hometown ISPs.
At the outset of the pandemic, WISPs were quick to adapt to
changes in consumer demand to meet our nation's essential
connectivity needs. WISPs know all too well that the digital
divide is a long way from being closed. These challenges are
particularly acute for our nation's farmers, who are facing
higher costs and difficult supply chain issues. Connectivity is
more critical than ever, and many applications, such as
precision agriculture, require wireless broadband. Every
American, regardless of where they live, should have broadband
internet access. Recognizing the urgency of this moment, we are
eager to stand with you in fulfilling our nation's connectivity
mission.
The farm bill has been assisting rural communities'
transition to the digital age for many years. As such, it is
critical that, going forward, the farm bill's broadband
programs stay focused on those communities that are truly
unserved. WISPA strongly supports the goals of the ReConnect
Program, however, without careful structuring and a clear
process, the program risks undermining our shared goals of
connecting rural communities quickly. RUS's most recent funding
round exemplifies some of these issues.
First, ReConnect should not establish, as gating criteria,
a requirement that applicants must provide 100 megabit per
second symmetrical service. At present, ReConnect funded
projects must be capable of delivering this symmetrical service
to every location. In our experience, rural consumers are not
asking for 100 megabits per second upload speeds, nor does it
represent what urban subscribers are actually using today. To
make symmetry a requirement would effectively prevent many
providers from even applying for funding, leaving communities
unconnected. It would force many communities to wait longer for
service when they could have reliable broadband much sooner by
utilizing the right tool for the right job, an assortment of
proven technologies that can get the job done.
If requirements such as symmetrical speeds are locked in
statute, RUS will be precluded from having the flexibility it
needs. Lack of flexibility may leave many areas unserved, or
force those awarded to wait years longer for service, which is
counter to the purpose of the program. USDA has defined
sufficient access to broadband as any rural area in which
households have fixed terrestrial broadband service of 100
megabit downstream and 20 megabit upstream. This is reasonable,
and aligns with industry experience, and should be the standard
for the farm bill. By contrast, a 100/100 requirement will
deflect funding to communities with more than sufficient
broadband already, leaving out places that lack any broadband
at all. It makes no sense to divert taxpayer dollars from where
they are needed most to overbuild areas that are already
connected.
This leads to our second recommendation. Subsidizing
overbuilding in areas where local providers are already
delivering reliable broadband distorts the market. It wastes
taxpayer dollars and slows our whole of national effort to
bridge the digital divide. Every community is different, and
therefore requires different solutions. Placing a thumb on the
scale to benefit one type of technology or provider, or to fund
areas subsidized with other government funding, does no favors
for Americans who are in urgent need of broadband access today.
It increases the time unserved communities must wait for
connectivity at the financial and societal expense of those
communities.
Every community, regardless of size, location, or
geography, deserves reliable broadband service. This is no
small task. It will take all of us working together to ensure
no community is left behind. On behalf of WISPAs members, the
thousands of ISPs already at work in the digital divide, thank
you again for holding this important hearing and inviting me to
testify. I look forward to continuing to work with the
Committee and look forward to your questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Zumwalt follows:]
Prepared Statement of David M. Zumwalt, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, Washington,
D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing and for the
opportunity to testify. My name is David Zumwalt, and I am the
President and CEO of the Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA)--Broadband Without Boundaries, representing the
companies that provide connectivity to unserved and underserved
households and businesses across the country.
Prior to joining WISPA, I served as Chief Operating Officer of
Broadband VI, a major Internet Service Provider in the U.S. Virgin
Islands whose needs for robust broadband for economic growth is
unchallenged. Because of our work, in 2021, Broadband VI was awarded
$84.5 million in FCC funding to supplement its private investment in
Territory-wide broadband expansion. I have also served as Executive
Director of the University of the Virgin Islands Research & Technology
Park, a partnership of private sector, government and university
stakeholders that supported the USVI's network-connected knowledge-
based business sector. During my tenure, RTPark sought, but was
ultimately unsuccessful in securing, $4.7 million in financing from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service (RUS) in 2008
but did secure $5.5 million in matching funds from the U.S. Department
of Commerce Economic Development Administration in 2009. I have
witnessed first-hand the benefits of these programs that seek to lift
rural and economically challenged communities.
WISPA's nearly 1,000 members include broadband service and
infrastructure providers, equipment manufacturers, and technology
companies that work every day to close the digital divide in many of
our country's most rural and remote communities. Our members' stories
are often remarkably similar. Tired of waiting for someone else to
bring broadband to them and their neighbors, they took their private
capital and built a solution, connecting families, businesses, first
responders and community anchor institutions.
WISPA advocates for the widespread deployment of broadband. This is
best accomplished by allowing the utilization of the ``right tool for
the right job'' so that all communities, regardless of size or
location, can reap the benefits of reliable, affordable, and robust
connectivity as quickly as possible.
WISPA and our members are grateful for the leadership of this
Committee in promoting our shared goal of closing the digital divide
with ubiquitous, reliable, and resilient broadband networks.
Importance of WISPs
WISPs serve nine million Americans, mostly in unserved, under-
resourced, and Tribal territories. Our members offer cost-effective,
competitive, and innovative services for these communities. WISPs
deploy a variety of technologies, including fiber as well as licensed,
shared, and unlicensed wireless spectrum, to deliver reliable broadband
service to their customers at affordable prices, often in areas ignored
by others because the deployment costs are prohibitive.
WISPs are mostly small and medium sized businesses. Many of our
members have fewer than twenty-five employees, and almost 70 percent
have ten or fewer full-time employees. Often investing their own
private, at-risk capital, our members are truly community-based and
entrepreneurial companies. According to our latest member survey, more
than 75 percent of WISPA's operator members serve primarily rural areas
and very often to small populations, communities that have often been
passed over by the larger, national carriers. Many WISPs may be small,
but to the communities they serve, their importance is enormous.
Fixed wireless broadband has proven to be a powerful and reliable
tool in getting these communities online. According to a 2021 report by
The Carmel Group, WISPs can deploy fixed wireless service to
residential consumers at about \1/9\ the capital cost of fiber-to-the-
premises. These favorable economics enable WISPs to serve smaller and
more remote communities, where it is not cost-effective for other
technologies to be deployed.
Typical speeds that fixed wireless providers offer continue to
increase as technology advances, and equipment costs become more
competitive. Download speeds exceeding 1 Gbps are possible with current
fixed wireless technology, with equipment available from multiple
manufacturers. Our industry is one of the most dynamic, scalable and
flexible in the entire broadband ecosystem, characterized by rapid,
cost-effective deployment, speedy technology innovation, and many new
entrants.
Moreover, fixed wireless is being deployed much more quickly than
many other alternatives. The basic network elements are a tower or tall
building, commercially available radio transmitters and consumer-
premises equipment, and, of course, licensed and unlicensed spectrum.
And WISPs don't need thousands of subscribers to make a business case;
often, only a handful of potential customers will justify beginning
deployment to multiple locations in an area. In sparsely populated
rural areas, that's critical for consumers who should not have to
continue to wait for a higher, and sometimes unattainable, critical
mass of potential customers for more expensive fiber installation to
their homes and businesses.
The need for fast deployment and the ability to connect rural and
remote communities was never clearer than during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Access to fixed wireless technology was a lifeline for many Americans.
Every child who had to attend school from their bedroom, every patient
who needed to access their doctor via telemedicine, every business
owner who relied on Zoom to connect with customers and suppliers--none
of them could afford to wait for technology to be deployed. They needed
to be online, and I am proud to say that WISPs across the country
upgraded their networks where necessary to meet increased consumer
demand and delivered for their communities. And they continue to do so.
In addition, investment banking firms and private equity funds have
made dozens of investments in our members' businesses over the last few
years. They are attracted by solid management, favorable growth
potential and the large untapped rural markets that will drive new
deployment and increased revenue. This trend is ongoing and, along with
government funding, positions our members as significant players in the
years to come.
Closing the Digital Divide
Due to the hard work and vision of this Committee, great progress
is being made to connect all Americans. However, as businesses largely
based in rural communities, WISPs know all too well that the digital
divide is still a long way from being closed.
Despite the enormous positive impact of broadband, many Americans
still do not share these benefits. There remains a substantial number
of Americans who cannot fully participate in today's economy and
democracy, whose children tend to lag in school, and whose communities
are not able to keep pace with the economic growth potential that
broadband brings. While the number of new broadband subscribers
continues to grow, the rate of broadband deployment in urban, suburban,
and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income
areas. This disparity has long-term adverse economic and social
consequences for those left behind. WISPA is committed to addressing
this disparity.
These challenges are particularly acute for our nation's farmers,
who are facing higher commodity prices and difficult supply chain
issues. Connectivity, real time data, and opportunities to sell their
commodities in an expedient and efficient manner are more critical than
ever. And many applications used by farmers, such as precision
agriculture, require wireless broadband to blanket vast acres of
farmland to be useful.
Every American--regardless of where they live--should have access
to the very best internet and reliability that they need. Americans in
rural areas have no less a need for fast broadband than those in urban
centers. The questions this Committee faces are, how do we most quickly
provide the level of connectivity that rural communities need in ways
that leave nobody behind? And how do we ensure that taxpayer dollars
are spent in the most efficient and productive ways possible?
We cannot allow this opportunity to bridge the digital divide slip
away. The NTIA BEAD program should not be the be-all and end-all for
broadband deployment, and USDA can have a significant and positive
impact on broadband that is complementary to that program, if the farm
bill is written and implemented in a technologically neutral way that
respects public and private investment. Recognizing the urgency of this
moment, WISPA members stand ready to roll up their sleeves and get to
work. The stakes are too high, connectivity is too important, and many
rural communities have waited far too long.
WISPs' Experiences with ReConnect
The farm bill has been assisting rural communities entering the
digital age for many years. For this reason, it is critical that the
farm bill's broadband programs stay focused on those communities that
are truly unserved. No community should be asked to wait even longer
for broadband so that other communities receive upgraded network build-
outs they don't actually need.
WISPA strongly supports the goals of the ReConnect program and
supports the investments Congress has provided to bring broadband to
more Americans, particularly those in unserved and underserved
communities. However, we have seen that, without careful structuring
and a clear process, the program risks undermining our shared goals of
connecting rural communities with the greatest need quickly. The RUS's
most recent funding round exemplifies some of these issues.
First, RUS required that any facilities to be constructed with
ReConnect award funds ``must be capable of delivering 100 Mbps
symmetrical service to every premise in the proposed funded service
area.'' Symmetrical service means that download speeds identically
match upload speeds.
Some Members of Congress have expressed support for prioritizing
symmetrical speeds. Consumers clearly value download and upload speeds
differently, and it makes sense for RUS to consider them independently.
To make symmetry the primary gating criteria for eligibility when
consumers are not even asking for or using it when they have access to
it, would prevent many providers from even applying for funding,
leaving many communities out in the cold. In addition, this type of
requirement would add significant time to deployment, in many cases
forcing communities to wait additional years, when they could have
service much quicker by utilizing other technologies.
The gap between downstream and upstream traffic has consistently
grown over the last 10 years. Recently, the ratio of downstream
consumption to upstream is 14 to 1. Current consumer trends demonstrate
significant increases in downstream consumption while upstream traffic
increases at a fraction of the rate. Today's consumers do not utilize
upstream bandwidth at the same rate they use downstream and speak to it
with their dollars and usage. Video streaming makes up over 80 percent
of all internet traffic, \2/3\ of which is traffic from downloads. Even
popular applications that utilize relatively high upload bandwidth,
such as two-way video conferencing, do not require anything near
symmetrical speeds. Studies have shown video conferencing requires
approximately \1/3\ of the upstream bandwidth compared to downstream.
Networks are optimized based on consumer use patterns. The WISP
industry has responded by engineering networks to favor downloads to
meet their customers' demand. Even if demand for upload speeds somehow
doubles down the road, it will remain far below download speed demand.
Basing criteria on speculative predictions about future demand for
upload speed--when, as we speak, many communities remain completely
unserved--would be counterproductive, especially for an investment of
this magnitude.
For these programs to be successful and cost-effective, as many
broadband providers as possible should be encouraged to participate.
Symmetrical service may work in some communities, but not every
location is the same. Erecting artificial, unnecessary, and wasteful
barriers to participation would exclude many projects that would now
provide connectivity to the most remote communities. If rigid
requirements, such as symmetrical speeds, are locked in statute, it
precludes RUS from having the flexibility to consider projects that
address other key priorities. Lack of flexibility may leave many areas
unserved or force those awarded to wait years longer for service, which
is counter to the purpose of the program.
Second, USDA defined sufficient access to broadband as ``any rural
area in which households have fixed, terrestrial broadband service
defined as 100 megabits per second (Mbps) downstream and 20 Mbps
upstream.'' The result of this requirement is that ReConnect funding
will wind up going to communities with more than sufficient funding
already, leaving out places that lack any broadband at all. It simply
makes no sense to divert taxpayer dollars from where they are needed
the most to overbuild areas that are already connected.
Simply put, subsidizing overbuilding in areas where innovative,
local providers are delivering broadband, or have an enforceable
commitment to do so, inequitably distorts the market. It wastes
taxpayer dollars. And it still leaves many Americans without any access
to broadband.
At a minimum, locations subject to an ``enforceable commitment'' to
provide broadband service through a state or Federal program should be
off-limits for initial ReConnect funding. This will address two issues.
First, it will ensure that taxpayers' contributions to the FCC's
Connect America Fund and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will not be
used to subsidize multiple providers in the same market--in effect, the
government would be competing with itself.
Second, exempting from ReConnect funding locations subject to an
existing ``enforceable commitment'' will protect the integrity of the
programs and the reliance interests of those CAF and RDOF recipients
that are hard at work investing government funding and their own
capital in deploying broadband in rural communities. It will also
enable them to attract outside capital on more favorable terms.
Third, RUS included as a key criterion for awarding grants ``local
governments, nonprofits and cooperatives.'' The best provider of
broadband in any given community could be a local government, a not-
for-profit, a cooperative or a private commercial company. We recognize
the invaluable work that rural cooperatives have done in connecting
their small communities. But we believe that the best way to ensure the
most people are connected to the internet--especially in areas where
rural cooperatives are not present--is to allow any provider who can
best serve a community to access ReConnect funding. As Congress made
clear in the IIJA, the government should not be in the business of
picking winners and losers. The farm bill should not perpetuate this
flawed industrial policy.
Each of these issues shares one thing in common: they fail to
recognize that every community is different, and therefore every
solution must be different. Placing a thumb on the scale to benefit one
type of technology, or one kind of provider, does no favors for
Americans who are in desperate need of broadband access. It simply
favors certain parties and likely increases the time unserved
communities must wait for connectivity, at the financial and societal
expense of the American public.
For these reasons, it is important that the farm bill broadband
programs remain truly technologically neutral, both explicitly and by
not using proxies--such as the requirement of symmetrical 100 Mbps
upload and download speeds--whereby only a single technology can meet
the required standard. A failure to adhere to technological neutrality
will only exponentially increase costs and further delay broadband
deployment to high-cost rural areas. If the farm bill goes down that
path, it will run out of money before even getting to the farms and
rural residents most in need of connectivity.
Recommendations for the Next Farm Bill
As you develop the 2023 Farm Bill, this Committee has an historic
opportunity to lay the groundwork for achieving our shared goal of
bringing connectivity to every American. With that in mind, I would
like to share some recommendations we hope the Committee will consider:
Base Awards on Cost Effectiveness. Cost-effectiveness should
be the primary criterion for determining which projects are
funded. This will ensure that limited taxpayer resources are
allocated and targeted to connecting as many rural Americans as
possible. All Americans, including those who live in hard to
serve areas, should have access to internet service before
public funds are used to support additional networks in
communities that are already connected.
Modernize USDA Programs. The USDA should revise its criteria
for rural broadband development grants and loans so that the
limited available funding is allocated to those projects that
truly deliver broadband coverage rapidly to the most Americans
for the lowest possible cost. In addition to the up-front costs
of deployment, these programs should consider the total costs
to the end consumer, so that Federal support is not allocated
to deployments that consumers will not be able to afford nor
desire.
Do Not Provide Funding to Overbuild Broadband Networks or
Networks for Which Other Subsidies (Federal and state) Have
Been Approved. Recipients of loans, grants and loan/grant
combinations under this program should not be allowed to use
proceeds to fund infrastructure in areas that are already
served or where there is an ``enforceable commitment'' to serve
by another provider offering a certain level of service or a
provider that is the recipient of subsidies from other
government support programs. Limited public resources should be
directed to areas where no service is available. Operators
deploying private, at-risk capital to connect rural Americans
should not face the risk of subsidized competition, and the
agency should also not apply support in areas that are already
subject to support through, e.g., the Connect America Fund.
This risk chills private investment and distorts the
marketplace.
Prioritize Incumbent Providers for Upgrades. Where taxpayer
dollars are to be spent for areas where this Committee decides
the speeds are ``underserving'' the community, priority should
be given to those ISP's who are currently serving the
community. Chances are that ISP did something no one else
wanted to do, not a Co-op nor a large provider, they built a
network (most likely with their own money) where no one else
would--why should they be punished with government funded
competition. Instead, those incumbents should be given the
first opportunity to take the capital to upgrade their service
to the Committee's desired level, which can most likely be done
for less dollars--once again further stretching our limited
taxpayer resources further.
Last Congress, this Committee passed H.R. 4347, the Broadband
Internet Connections for Rural America Act. WISPA supports the goals of
this legislation and commends the Committee for its commitment to
connecting rural communities. WISPA supports the funding tiers included
in the legislation that gives priority funding to projects in unserved
communities. Focusing on unserved areas first and achieving that
objective is the fastest and most cost-effective way to stretch limited
Federal dollars.
We also believe that the USDA broadband deployment subsidy programs
envisioned by H.R. 4347 would benefit by requiring RUS to engage in a
proceeding that solicits public comments that can help to streamline
the application process for the ReConnect and other USDA broadband
deployment programs. In October 2022, GAO found that significant
numbers of ReConnect program applicants were rejected by USDA and
ReConnect program applicants who were accepted responded that they were
substantially disappointed with the ReConnect application process.
Their experiences with the ReConnect application process have
discouraged some from applying to the program in the future.
In addition, I would like to thank Reps. Cammack, Soto, Gluesenkamp
Perez, and Jackson, along with their Senate colleagues, Sens. Thune,
Lujan, Fischer, and Klobuchar, for introducing the Rural Internet
Improvement Act. This bill contains several important provisions that
will improve the ReConnect program and target its funding towards areas
of need. Specifically, the legislation limits funding to areas where at
least 90% of households lack access to broadband service. This approach
will ensure that those communities in most need of connectivity will be
served first, instead of continuing to have to wait for even the most
basic broadband service. I urge the Committee to consider including
many of the provisions included in the Rural Internet Improvement Act
in the farm bill.
Conclusion
Every community, regardless of size, location, or geography,
deserves reliable broadband service. This Committee has an
extraordinary opportunity to expand digital inclusion and take dramatic
steps to bridge the digital divide. Industry and the government must
step up and work together to meet this moment. This is no small task:
it will take every tool available to ensure the rapid deployment of
networks so that no community is left behind. That is why the
leadership of this Committee is so critical. Your efforts are vital to
ensuring that all communities can reap the benefits of robust and
reliable broadband.
WISPA and its members stand ready to help every community find the
right tools to connect them to the digital economy. This means
diversity in approaches, modes of deployment, and paying attention to
the needs of each community. WISPs provide the right tool for the right
job. WISPs help drive America's innovation economy and fuels the
nation's economic future.
WISPA appreciates the opportunity to partner with the Committee in
addressing these important issues. We are deeply grateful for the
bipartisan recognition of the importance of universal connectivity by
this Committee, by Congress, by the FCC, and the Biden Administration.
All have implemented policies to promote broadband deployment.
Thank you again, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member Scott, for
holding this important hearing and inviting me to testify. I look
forward to continuing to work with you and the rest of the Committee to
make real progress on these very important issues. I look forward to
your questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Zumwalt, thank you so much for your
testimony. And now, Mr. Stroup, please begin when you are
ready.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. ``TOM'' STROUP, J.D., PRESIDENT,
SATELLITE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Mr. Stroup. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify before you today. I am Tom Stroup, President of
the Satellite Industry Association. Satellite communications
are transforming the operation of our nation's farms and
ranches. Satellites, unlike terrestrial communications, bring a
range of unique attributes that benefit farmers and ranchers.
This includes the ability to cover broad geographies without
the need for expensive terrestrial infrastructure, as well as
increased resiliency and rapid deployment. In addition, recent
innovations in the satellite industry have made the delivery of
high-quality, high-speed broadband and IoT connectivity to
everyone, everywhere across the United States a reality.
Satellites provide service to rural and remote areas of the
country, where it remains uneconomical for terrestrial services
to deploy and offer both speeds and prices comparable to
terrestrial alternatives. These services are available directly
to the consumer today, covering all 50 states, and delivering
broadband speeds of up to 200 megabits per second. Satellites
enable remote farms with livestock sensors, soil monitors, and
autonomous farming equipment in rural America, far beyond where
terrestrial wireless and wire line can reach or make economic
sense to deploy.
Precision GPS technologies allow farmers to increase crop
yield by optimizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,
and applying site-specific treatments to fields. Earth imaging
satellites provide high resolution imagery that allows farmers
to determine when to plant, water, or fertilize crops. And
satellite advances in weather forecasting help farmers prepare
for drought, floods, and other adverse weather conditions.
Satellites are critical to 5G and IoT applications that
will enable the next generation of farming technologies.
Satellite communications allow for remote control of driverless
tractors and network connectivity between equipment at large
farms where equipment may not be in the same sight line.
Indeed, John Deere estimates 50,000 to 100,000 of its machines
will be connected to satellites by 2026.
We are at a time of tremendous innovation in the space
industry, with nearly 8,000 active satellites in orbit today,
and plans for tens of thousands more through the end of the
decade. And individual geostationary communication satellites
are launching that provide greater capacity than some existing
fleets combined. Costs are dropping for both space and ground
systems, which has resulted in a decrease in the cost of
capacity of 90 percent over the past 8 years. Most importantly,
satellite services are available now across the entire country
without the need for additional build-out. As the Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation notes, no single broadband
technology holds all the advantages. With finite resources and
widely varying topography, we need a flexible combination of
all available access technologies to bridge the digital divide.
In order to further connectivity, we recommend the
Committee prioritize these seven items. First, include
provisions that offer financial incentives or tax breaks to
satellite internet providers to encourage their participation
in rural broadband expansion. Second, allocate specific funds
or grants to support the development and deployment of
satellite projects, particularly those focused on serving rural
and remote areas. Third, ensure that legislation adopts
technology-inclusive language and requirements, allowing for
flexibility and inclusivity in deployment strategies. Congress
should encourage competition and innovation among various
broadband providers, including satellite companies, and allow
affordable solutions to reach rural America where fiber build-
out is not economically feasible.
Fourth, interagency collaboration is needed to simplify and
streamline the regulatory processes for satellite internet
providers. This includes working to adopt and implement a
common set of performance targets to reflect the needs of
agriculture, a recommendation supported by the Precision Ag
Connectivity Task Force. Fifth, ensure sufficient spectrum
resources are available for satellite, broadband, and IoT
providers to deliver high-quality and high-speed services.
Sixth, encourage partnerships with satellite companies and
other stakeholders, such as local communities, educational
institutions, and public agencies. And finally, allocate funds
for research and development initiatives focused on advancing
satellite technology, capacity, and affordability that will
lead to increased opportunities for rural connectivity. I
appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I am happy
to answer any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas A. ``Tom'' Stroup, J.D., President,
Satellite Industry Association, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members
of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to testify before you
today. I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry Association
(SIA).\1\ SIA is a U.S.-based trade association that represents the
leading satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, launch
services providers, space situational awareness companies, and ground
equipment suppliers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ SIA Executive Members include: Amazon; The Boeing Company;
DIRECTV; EchoStar Corporation; HawkEye 360; Intelsat S.A.; Iridium
Communications Inc.; Kratos Defense & Security Solutions; Ligado
Networks; Lockheed Martin Corporation; Northrop Grumman; OneWeb; Planet
Labs PBC; SES Americom, Inc.; Spire Global Inc.; and Viasat Inc. SIA
Associate Members include: ABS US Corp.; The Aerospace Corporation;
Artel, LLC; AST Space Mobile; Astranis Space Technologies Corp.; Aurora
Insight; Blue Origin; Comtech; Eutelsat America Corp.; ExoAnalytic
Solutions; Hughes; Inmarsat, Inc.; Kymeta Corporation; Leonardo; Lynk;
Omnispace; OneWeb Technologies; Ovzon; Panasonic Avionics Corporation;
Skyloom; Telesat; ULA and XTAR, LLC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Satellite communications are transforming the operation of our
nation's farms and ranches. Satellites, unlike terrestrial
communications, bring a range of unique attributes that benefit our
nation's farmers. This includes the ability to cover broad geographies
without the need for expensive terrestrial infrastructure, increased
resiliency, and rapid deployment. In addition, recent innovations in
the satellite industry have made the delivery of high quality, high-
speed broadband and internet of things (IoT) connectivity to everyone
everywhere across the United States a reality.
Satellite communications and services are well-poised to help our
farmers meet [today's] real challenges--from addressing food
insecurity, to monitoring weather and water, to overcoming supply chain
challenges. Satellites are capable of providing broadband and IoT to
rural and remote areas of the country where it remains uneconomical for
terrestrial services to deploy, and provide both speeds and prices
comparable to terrestrial alternatives. These services are available
directly to the consumer today, covering all 50 states and delivering
broadband offerings up to 200 megabits per second (Mbps). Satellite
broadband is also used by business and government enterprises, for both
fixed and mobile purposes, using a range of spectral bands to deliver
assured access to broadband communications. Further, satellites are
providing critical backhaul internet connectivity to local Internet
Service Providers and community institutions in remote locations.
Satellite enables remote farms with livestock sensors, soil
monitors, and autonomous farming equipment in rural America, far beyond
where terrestrial wireless and wireline can reach or make economic
sense to deploy. Precision GPS technologies allow farmers to increase
crop yield by optimizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, and
applying site-specific treatments to fields. Earth imaging satellites
provide regular high-resolution imagery that allows farmers to
determine when to plant, water, or fertilize crops and can be used to
provide crop yield estimates, conduct scout monitoring, and monitor
global food security. Satellite advances in weather forecasting help
farmers prepare for drought, floods, and other adverse weather
conditions.
Satellites are critical to 5G and IoT applications that will enable
the next generation of farming technologies. Satellite communications
allow for remote control of driverless tractors, or networked
connectivity between equipment at large farms where equipment may not
be in the same sightline. According to John Deere CTO Jahmy Hindeman,
the company is ``pretty bullish on the opportunity that the
commercialization of all things space is bringing to agriculture at the
moment . . . The response from farmers has been overwhelmingly
positive. In the sense that for many of them, I call it the 0 to 1
problem, from no connectivity in places they wished that they had it to
full connectivity in those places tomorrow. We don't think in many of
those cases terrestrial cell will ever be a solution.'' \2\ John Deere
estimates 50,000-100,000 of its machines will be connected to
satellites by 2026.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Manifest Space: Space Enabled Farming With Deere CTO, 5/18/
23'' https://closing-bell.simplecast.com/episodes/manifest-space-space-
enabled-farming-with-deere-cto-5-18-23-Y23iyvUg.
\3\ Tita, Bob, ``Deere Seeks Satellite Network to Connect Far-Flung
Farms'' Wall Street Journal, 1 May 2023, https://www.wsj.com/articles/
deere-seeks-satellite-network-to-connect-far-flung-farms-65c37b0f.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The satellite industry today is investing constantly to ensure it
can address the challenges of the future and to make its technologies
available to every American. We are at a time of explosive innovation
in the space industry, with nearly 8,000 active satellites on orbit
today 4-5 and plans for tens of thousands more through the
end of the decade, and individual geostationary communications
satellites launching that provide greater capacity than entire existing
fleets combined. Satellite companies are working to optimize the use of
spectrum, by investing in high-throughput satellites and flexible,
software defined payloads that allow for instantaneous reallocation of
spectrum resources and the mitigation of harmful interference. Costs
are dropping for both space and ground systems through the use of
modular satellites, digital engineering, inter-satellite links and
cloud-integrated ground stations, which minimize the need for expensive
ground architecture, which has resulted in a drop in cost of capacity
of 90% over the past 8 years.\6\ Flat panel and phased-array antennas
lower consumer costs and enable better connectivity that has been
essential to the deployment of non-geostationary satellite
constellations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``NORAD GP Element Sets Current Data'', CelesTrak, 14 June 2023
https://celestrak.org/NORAD/elements/.
\5\ Up from 1,167 in 2013; see Satellite Industry Association,
``2014 State of the Satellite Industry Report''.
\6\ Satellite Industry Association, ``2023 State of the Satellite
Industry Report''.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most importantly, satellite services are available now across the
entire country without the need for additional build-out. As the
Information Technology & Innovation Foundation notes, ``No single
broadband technology holds all the advantages. With finite resources
and widely varying topography, we need a flexible combination of all
available access technologies to bridge the digital divide . . . if we
try to subsidize fiber everywhere, overbuilding will crowd out private
investment.'' \7\ In some remote areas, the cost of the USDA ReConnect
program's fiber build-out has allocated costs per passing of up to
$204,000 per passing,\8\ and according to Tarana Wireless, a full-fiber
approach to BEAD would cost upward of $200B,\9\ staggering amounts for
communities that can receive satellite broadband today. Additionally,
fiber has been plagued by supply chain and labor shortages, in many
cases doubling the cost of fiber programs supported by the Rural
Development Opportunity Fund.10, 11
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Brake, Doug, and Bruer, Alexandra, ``Broadband Myth Series: Do
We Need Symmetrical Upload and Download Speeds?'', Information
Technology & Innovation Foundation, 12 May 2021 https://itif.org/
publications/2021/05/12/broadband-myth-series-do-we-need-symmetrical-
upload-and-download-speeds/.
\8\ Goovaerts, Diana, ``The cost of running fiber in rural America:
$200,000 per passing'' https://www.fiercetelecom.com/broadband/cost-
running-fiber-rural-america-200000-passing.
\9\ Ferraro, Nicole,`` `Fiber-only approach' to BEAD would cost
over $200B, says Tarana'', Light Reading, 17 Apr. 2023 https://
www.lightreading.com/broadband/fttx/fiber-only-approach-to-bead-would-
cost-over-$200b-says-tarana/d/d-id/784398.
\10\ Goovaerts, Diana, ``ISPs: Inflation has doubled RDOF build
costs'', Fierce Telecom, 24 Oct. 2024, https://www.fiercetelecom.com/
broadband/isps-inflation-has-doubled-rdof-build-costs.
\11\ Haiar, Joshua, ``Inflation Drives Up Cost of Broadband
Internet Projects'' 11 June 2023, https://www.mitchellrepublic.com/
news/inflation-drives-up-cost-of-broadband-internet-projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to foster further broadband and IoT connectivity, we
recommend the Committee prioritize:
Incentives for Satellite Internet Providers: Include
provisions that offer financial incentives or tax breaks to
satellite internet providers (broadband and IoT) to encourage
their participation in rural broadband expansion. This could
help attract more companies to invest in satellite
infrastructure and services.
Funding for Satellite Broadband and IoT Projects: Allocate
specific funds or grants to support the development and
deployment of satellite broadband and IoT projects,
particularly those focused on serving rural and remote areas,
including directly to farms/ranches for last acre build-out.
This can help lower the financial barriers for satellite
companies to expand their networks and reach underserved
regions.
Making Requirements Technology-Inclusive: Ensure that
legislation adopts technology-inclusive language and
requirements, allowing for flexibility and inclusivity in
broadband and IoT deployment strategies. By avoiding
prescriptive mandates that favor specific technologies, bills
can encourage competition and innovation among various
broadband and IoT providers, including satellite companies, and
allow for the affordable solutions to reach rural America where
fiber build-out is not economically feasible. This approach
would enable satellite internet providers to compete on an
equal footing and encourage the development of cutting-edge
satellite technologies and infrastructure. Moreover,
technology-agnostic requirements can also facilitate
collaboration and partnerships between different types of
broadband and IoT providers, enabling hybrid solutions that
leverage the strengths of multiple technologies to deliver
robust and reliable broadband and IoT connectivity to rural
areas.
Streamlined Regulatory Processes: Interagency collaboration
is needed to simplify and streamline the regulatory processes
for satellite internet providers. This includes working to
adopt and implement a common set of performance targets to
reflect the needs of Agriculture, a recommendation supported by
the Precision Ag Connectivity Task Force.\12\ Additional work
could involve reducing bureaucratic hurdles and improving the
reporting process for programs such as the Rural Utilities
Service (RUS), expediting license approvals, and promoting
cooperation between government agencies to facilitate satellite
deployment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ ``Task Force for Reviewing the Connectivity and Technology
Needs of Precision Agriculture in the U.S.'', 10 Nov. 2021, https://
www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-ag-report-11102021.pdf.
Spectrum Availability: Ensure sufficient spectrum resources
are available for satellite broadband and IoT providers to
deliver high-quality and high-speed services. The bill could
advocate for the protection of satellite spectrum and explore
opportunities for sharing or repurposing underutilized spectrum
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
bands.
Collaboration and Partnerships: Encourage partnerships
between satellite companies and other stakeholders, such as
local communities, educational institutions, and public
agencies. Collaborative efforts can help leverage existing
infrastructure, share resources, and expand the reach of
satellite broadband and IoT services.
Research and Development: Allocate funds for research and
development initiatives focused on advancing satellite
technology, capacity, and affordability. This can support
innovation within the satellite industry, leading to improved
performance, lower costs, and increased opportunities for rural
connectivity. This includes increasing awareness and
recruitment efforts in STEM programs.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I am happy to
answer any questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Stroup, thank you so much. Mr. Hurley,
please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF BILL T. HURLEY, VICE PRESIDENT,
DISTRIBUTION, AMERICAS, AGCO CORPORATION; CHAIR, AG SECTOR
BOARD, ASSOCIATION OF EQUIPMENT
MANUFACTURERS, DULUTH, GA
Mr. Hurley. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you, and for holding this hearing
today. My name is Bill Hurley. I currently serve as Chair of
the Ag Sector Board of the Association of Equipment
Manufacturers. I am also a Vice President with the AGCO
Corporation headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
I was born and raised in Franklin, a small town in central
Texas with a population of less than 2,000. My family had a
small farm not far from there in a place called Ridge, where my
grandmother lived. I spent a lot of time on that farm, and with
my grandmother, and I vividly remember the challenges that came
from the ten families sharing the party line. While we have
come a long way since then, today's hearing is a reminder that
we have still not fully closed the digital divide in rural
America.
AEM is a North American based international trade group
representing off-road heavy equipment manufacturers, with more
than 1,000 companies and more than 200 product lines in the ag
and construction-related sectors worldwide. The equipment
manufacturing industry supports 2.3 million jobs in the United
States and contributes $316 billion a year to the U.S. economy.
The men and women who make the equipment that builds, powers,
and feeds the world are not just welders, fabricators, and
machinists. Many are farmers and ranchers, and one in three of
them live and work in rural communities. Our industry is not
only deeply connected to rural America, we are a big part of
it.
Equipment manufacturers are proud to provide American
farmers and ranchers with the next generation of innovative
tools, but they cannot take advantage of the benefits of
precision ag technologies without reliable and affordable
connectivity across all of rural America. Precision ag
leverages technologies to enhance sustainability through more
efficient use of critical inputs, such as land, water,
fertilizer, and pesticides. For example, at full adoption,
herbicide use could be reduced by 15 percent, and water use
could be decreased by 21 percent. However, today just \1/4\ of
farms in the U.S. are currently able to leverage precision ag
due to the lack of high-speed connectivity.
Reliable internet access and smart policies that help
farmers and ranchers adopt these cutting edge technologies will
lead to a transformative shift in ag practices that drive
productivity while conserving resources. A multi-faceted
strategy, including fiber optic, low-Earth orbit satellites,
and 5G will continue to close the rural connectivity gap,
enabling farmers and ranchers to leverage important
technologies and management strategies that will help them
produce more with less. For these technologies to deliver their
full value, we need technology-neutral development of broadband
dollars.
It is imperative that all aspects of rural America are
connected, from the hospital to the school, and from the
farmhouse to the field. We should not prioritize one technology
over the other, but rather take an all-encompassing approach.
If not, many parts of rural America will be left further
behind. Other game-changing technologies, such as soil and
weather sensors, machine learning and autonomy, and equipment
tracking rely on connectivity. The opportunity in front of us
is to prioritize connectivity for the essential food supply
chain across rural America versus entertainment streaming
speed.
The 2023 Farm Bill is this Committee's opportunity to fully
embrace the potential of these technologies by including two
bipartisan pieces of legislation in the final package. The
Precision Agriculture Loan Program Act of 2023 (H.R. 1495)
establishes the first Federal Precision Ag Loan Program within
the Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. Loans at
lower interest rates and extended terms will give small- and
mid-size producers the tools that they need to monitor, manage,
and maximize their operations, while significantly reducing
their environmental impact. The PRECISE Act (H.R. 1495,
Producing Responsible Energy and Conservation Incentives and
Solutions for the Environment Act) designates precision ag as
an applicable practice in the EQIP Program, and allows ag
technologies which do, and will continue to, play a huge role
in conservation. AEM believes that these two bipartisan bills
provide an all-encompassing approach for the adoption of
precision ag technologies, and respectfully urges the Committee
to include them in this year's farm bill.
The implementation of precision ag technologies depends on
the successful deployment of broadband dollars. It is
imperative that we work together to ensure that rural America
has the same affordable and reliable connectivity as the rest
of the country. I thank you for inviting me here to testify
today, and the Association of Equipment Manufacturers, Mr.
Chairman, looks forward to continuing to work with Members of
this Committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hurley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bill T. Hurley, Vice President, Distribution,
Americas, AGCO Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board, Association of
Equipment Manufacturers, Duluth, GA
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and distinguished Members
of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
and for holding this hearing today on closing the digital divide in
rural America.
A. Introduction
My name is Bill Hurley, and I currently serve as Chair of the Ag
Sector Board of the Association of Equipment Manufacturers. I am also a
Vice President with AGCO Corporation, headquartered in Duluth, Georgia.
I was born and raised in Franklin, a small town in central Texas
with a population of less than 2,000 people. My family had a small farm
not far from there in a place called Ridge, where my grandmother lived.
I spent a lot of time on that farm, and I vividly remember the
challenges that came from ten families sharing a party line. While we
have come a long way since then, today's hearing is a reminder that we
have still not fully closed the digital divide in rural America.
The Association of Equipment Manufacturers is the North American-
based international trade group representing off-road, heavy equipment
manufacturers, with more than 1,000 companies and more than 200 product
lines in the agriculture and construction-related sectors worldwide.
The equipment manufacturing industry supports 2.3 million jobs in the
United States and contributes $316 billion a year to the U.S. economy.
The men and women who make the equipment that builds, powers, and
feeds the world are not just welders, fabricators, and machinists. Some
are farmers and ranchers. And one in three of them live and work in
rural communities across the country, compared to just one in five
people overall in the United States. Our industry is not only deeply
connected to rural America--we are a big part of it.
Equipment manufacturers are proud to provide American farmers and
ranchers with the next generation of innovative tools that will keep
our agriculture sector competitive for generations to come. But farmers
and ranchers cannot take advantage of the benefits of precision
agriculture technologies without reliable and affordable connectivity
across all of rural America.
B. The Benefits of Precision Agriculture Technology
Precision agriculture leverages technologies to enhance
sustainability through more efficient use of critical inputs, such as
land, water, fertilizer, and pesticides. For example, herbicide use
could be further reduced by 15 percent at full adoption. Water use
could decrease by 21 percent at full adoption of precision agriculture
technologies.\1\ Just \1/4\ of farms in the United States are currently
able to leverage precision agriculture technologies due to the lack of
high-speed connectivity. There is a great opportunity for growth in
this area. Reliable internet access and smart policies that help
farmers and ranchers adopt these cutting-edge technologies will lead to
a transformative shift in agriculture practices that drive productivity
while conserving resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, The Environmental
Benefits of Precision Agriculture in the United States (2021), https://
newsroom.aem.org/download/977839/
environmentalbenefitsofprecisionagriculture-2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Precision Agriculture Connectivity Needs
A multifaceted strategy including fiber optic, low earth orbit
(LEO) satellites, and 5G will continue to close the rural connectivity
gap, enabling farmers and ranchers to leverage important technologies
and management strategies that will help them produce more with less.
For precision agriculture technologies to reach their full potential,
we need technology-neutral deployment of broadband dollars. It is
imperative that all aspects of rural America are connected, from the
hospital to the school and from the farmhouse to the field.
We should not prioritize one technology over the other, but rather
take an all-encompassing approach, or many parts of rural America will
be left further behind. Other game-changing technologies such as soil
and weather sensors, machine learning and machine autonomy, equipment
tracking, and food traceability will increasingly rely on connectivity.
The opportunity in front of us is to prioritize connectivity for the
essential food supply chain across rural America versus entertainment
streaming speed.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Association of Equipment Manufacturers, The Future of Food
Production (2022), https://www.aem.org/AEM/media/docs/Whitepaper/AEM-
Future-of-Food-Production.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Opportunities To Advance Precision Agriculture Through the Farm Bill
The 2023 Farm Bill is this Committee's opportunity to fully embrace
the potential of these technologies by including three bipartisan
pieces of legislation in the final package:
The Precision Agriculture Loan Program Act establishes the
first Federal precision agriculture loan program within the
Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency. Loans at lower
interest rates and extended terms will give small- and mid-
sized producers the tools they need to monitor, manage, and
maximize their operations, while significantly reducing their
environmental impact more effectively. I would like to thank
Representatives Feenstra and Panetta for introducing this
bipartisan legislation.
The PRECISE Act designates precision agriculture as an
applicable practice in the EQIP program. Precision agriculture
technologies do and will continue to play a huge role in
conservation. Adoption of these technologies allows American
producers to do more with less. I would like to acknowledge
Representatives Finstad, Hinson, Craig, and Panetta for working
together in a bipartisan fashion on this bill.
The Association of Equipment Manufacturers believes that these two
bills provide an all-encompassing approach for the adoption of
precision agriculture technologies, and respectfully urges the
Committee to include them in this year's farm bill.
The Promoting Precision Agriculture Act builds on a recommendation
from the FCC's Precision Agriculture Task Force, which the Association
of Equipment Manufacturers played an integral role in creating and
which includes several equipment manufacturers. This important bill
directs the Department of Agriculture and the National Institute of
Standards and Technology to work together with equipment manufacturers
to create standards around interoperability. Having uniform standards
for our industry will give American farmers and ranchers more free
market options when choosing the technology solution that best fits
their operations. I would like to thank Representatives Davis Mann for
introducing this bill.
E. Conclusion
The implementation of precision agriculture technologies depends
entirely on the successful deployment of broadband dollars. It is
imperative that we work together to ensure that rural America has the
same affordable and reliable connectivity as the rest of America.
Thank you for inviting me to testify today. The Association of
Equipment Manufacturers looks forward to continued engagement with
Members of this Committee as we work to close the digital divide and
strengthen rural communities. I look forward to your questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Hurley, thank you so much for your
testimony. I am now pleased to recognize Mrs. Bloomfield.
Please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
NTCA--THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION, ARLINGTON, VA
Mrs. Bloomfield. Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott,
Members of the Committee, good morning, and a sincere thanks
for the opportunity to testify today. NTCA members across the
country deploy cutting-edge broadband networks in deeply rural
areas and deliver services that are just as robust in those
that are available in urban markets. Eighty percent of the
customers have access to fiber-to-the-home technology. These
providers stand ready to help bridge the digital divide in
areas that they serve today and to go beyond to keep their good
work in deploying broadband to connect the rest of the world.
So, building upon these efforts, I really appreciate the
opportunity to share how critical this Committee's efforts are,
with USDA oversight, to the deployment of broadband in rural
communities.
I am Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA--The Rural Broadband
Association. We represent over 850 community-based providers
who are leading innovation in small town and rural America.
NTCA members offer broadband, voice, and other advanced
communication services across over 30 percent of the land mass,
but with less than five percent of the population. This part of
the country was left behind nearly a century ago by nationwide
carriers, and there is no question that small rural internet
service providers are a critical part of the equation as we
work to provide rural Americans with affordable and reliable
internet services that will meet the needs of today and
withstand the test of time.
RUS, within USDA, has played a very significant role in
enabling much of this deployment to date, and it is uniquely
well positioned to serve and close the divide for the benefit
of still unserved Americans. And it should be tasked with doing
so in a way that will ensure that the divide stays closed. As
Members of the Committee assess how best to structure broadband
funding programs, success in these programs should be measured
by actual results on the ground rather than promises made. And
we should all note that what matters most to rural Americans is
not merely the deployment of broadband, but the quality,
reliability, and affordability of the services they receive.
As this Committee and Congress deliberates the 2023 Farm
Bill, I offer some recommendations on how to close the divide.
First, we should build networks in rural American that are just
as robust and reliable as those available in urban areas. I
encourage the Committee to make sure program requirements are
driven by the long-term needs of these communities. To that
end, the farm bill should maintain high-speed symmetrical
broadband networks of 100/100 megabits. This threshold has been
in place for several rounds of USDA's ReConnect and has led to
four to five times greater demand for funding than is
available. It ensures that the needs of rural consumers are
met, it is the best use of limited taxpayer dollars by building
it right the first time, and promotes meaningful competition
among providers of all types.
So, with that in mind, this farm bill is not the time to
move the program, and the rural Americans it serves, backwards.
When the Federal Government helped to provide telephone,
electric, and water infrastructure in rural America in the last
century, we didn't set lower standards. We ensured that rural
Americans did not become second class citizens, and it was an
investment that has paid off many times over, as we have the
strongest rural economy in the world. Second, close
coordination with Federal and state agencies is essential.
There are enough un- and underserved Americans awaiting
connectivity to not waste precious resources overbuilding
government-supported networks with government funds.
Third, we urge policymakers to look local when it comes to
identifying broadband solutions in rural America, and to
leverage the expertise and the experience of smaller community-
based providers, regardless of their corporate form, in
overcoming these challenges. NTCA service providers are based
in their communities and have a longstanding relationship and
track record of performance. It is a very different measure of
customer service when you are running into your customers in
the grocery store. Last, the Committee should consider ways to
streamline historical preservation requirements and
environmental reviews that often result in significant delays.
In fact, we still have members who were notified of winning
ReConnect Round 1 who have yet to receive their funding due to
these delays.
I also want to take this opportunity to thank Members of
the Committee, Representatives Nunn and Craig, and other
cosponsors for introducing the ReConnecting Rural America Act
(H.R. 4227), which would ensure networks continue to be built
at 100 symmetrical, agency coordination is strengthened, there
is a level playing field with those local providers with a
proven track record being strongly urged to participate. And I
also want to thank Representative Feenstra for his recently
introduced Rural Broadband Modernization Act (H.R. 3964), which
includes many of these same very important provisions.
I thank the Committee for its leadership. We still clearly
have much work to do, in both deploying networks where they
remain lacking, and operating networks where they are already
built, and this is where this Committee plays a really
important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in
rural markets that could not otherwise justify such
investments. With the RUS programs, you help to provide the
tools that not just help rural America survive, but to thrive.
So I look forward to sharing more about what we can see on the
ground, and what we are seeing on the ground, as NTCA's members
continue to build smart rural communities, and to help fuel a
needed rural renaissance. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer,
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, Arlington, VA
Introduction
Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Scott, and Members of the
Committee, good morning and thank you for the opportunity to testify
about the continued role of the broadband programs overseen by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (``USDA'') as part of this Committee's review
of the ``farm bill's'' rural development programs. With the help of
these and other important broadband programs, NTCA members across the
country deploy cutting-edge broadband networks in deeply rural areas
and deliver services that are as robust and reliable as those available
in urban markets. These providers stand ready both to help close the
digital divide in areas beyond those that they serve today, and to
sustain their good work to date in keeping millions of rural Americans
connected to the rest of the world. Building upon such efforts, I
greatly appreciate you holding this hearing and the opportunity to
speak to you today.
I am Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer of NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association (``NTCA''), which represents just over 850
community-based companies and cooperatives that are leading innovation
in rural and small-town America. NTCA members and companies like them
offer broadband, voice, and other advanced communications services
across more than thirty percent of the country's geography where less
than five percent of the U.S. population resides. There is no question
that small rural internet service providers are a critical part of the
equation as we work to provide Americans with affordable and reliable
internet services that will meet the needs of today and stand the test
of time.
Every day, NTCA members work hard to deliver for rural America.
Their steadfast commitment to serving the communities that they--and
many of you--call home makes them America's trusted communications
solution providers. On average, each member serves nine public safety
entities (police, fire, etc.) and seven schools in their areas with
fixed broadband. NTCA members have worked for decades to invest in our
nation's future by deploying essential state-of-the-art communications
infrastructure. Over eighty percent of their customers on average have
access to 100 Mbps broadband service or better. Over sixty percent of
their customers on average have access to Gigabit speeds. These
accomplishments are staggering when you consider that the average
population density in these areas is about seven customers per square
mile, or roughly the average density for the entire state of Montana.
The Rural Utilities Service (``RUS'') within USDA has played a
significant role in enabling much of this deployment to date, and it is
uniquely positioned to close the digital divide for the benefit of
millions of still-unserved Americans--and it should be tasked with
doing so in a way that will ensure that divide stays closed. As Members
of this Committee assess how best to structure broadband funding
programs, success in broadband programs should be measured by results
rather than promises, and we should all note that what matters most to
rural Americans is not the mere deployment of the network but the
quality of the services they receive. Some programs in recent years
have offered the promise of better broadband, with announcements
asserting that tens or hundreds of thousands of Americans will be
connected to broadband at some point in the future due to Program X or
Initiative Y. Some of these programs will undoubtedly deliver on that
promise in coming years, at least in part and in certain places. But
NTCA submits that the best proofs of concept can be found--and the best
lessons drawn for future program design--by looking at which programs
have in fact already delivered on the promise of reliable and sustained
broadband access in rural areas.
NTCA's Experience With RUS Broadband Programs
RUS telecommunications and broadband loans and grants have helped
enable and unleash billions of dollars in Federal and private capital
investment in rural communications infrastructure. A mix of local
presence and commitment, entrepreneurial spirit, private capital,
public capital through RUS financing programs, and ongoing support
through the high-cost universal service fund (``USF'') programs
overseen by the Federal Communications Commission (``FCC'') have
empowered NTCA members and other community-based providers like them to
deploy reliable networks and offer robust and affordable services
across wide swaths of rural America.
NTCA members have been the recipients of a number of RUS loans and
grant awards through programs such as the ReConnect program, the Rural
Broadband program, Distance Learning and Telemedicine grants, and the
Telecommunications Infrastructure program. Through ReConnect alone, 159
NTCA members have been awarded grants or grant and loan combinations to
serve approximately 441,000 households, 21,000 businesses, and 14,000
farms.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.usda.gov/reconnect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NTCA recommends that Congress approach proposals for new broadband
programs with a thoughtful eye and a preference for leveraging proven
concepts such as many of these prior efforts. In lieu of creating new
initiatives that might compete or even conflict with existing efforts,
Congress should consider how well-functioning existing programs, like
many of those listed above, can be enhanced and expanded to achieve
even better results and reach remaining unserved areas with service
levels that meet the needs of users both immediately and over the life
of the network that the Federal Government is helping to fund.
The Case for High-Speed Internet Access in Rural America
While broadband has value universally, it is especially important
for rural Americans who often must rely even more than their urban
counterparts on online access given the challenges of distance and
density. From telehealth, remote work, distance learning, and precision
agriculture, the opportunities for rural Americans are substantial when
given the ability to access high-speed, reliable internet services.
For example, telemedicine can play a crucial role in bridging the
gap between veterans and the Veterans Affairs system by providing them
with seamless access to telehealth services, virtual consultations, and
online resources, ensuring timely and convenient healthcare support
regardless of their geographical location. Nearly a quarter of the
United States veteran population resides in rural communities,
underscoring the importance of leveraging connectivity to deliver
critical services over great distances.\2\ In fact, the Veterans Health
Administration, which has long been a pioneer in the use of
telemedicine, conducted a pilot program which included seven hospitals,
ten multi-specialty outpatient clinics and 28 community-based primary
care clinics. The 900 patients in the trial were able to utilize home
telehealth devices, which allowed them to self-manage their health. The
results were dramatic: a 40% reduction in emergency room visits, a 63%
drop in hospital admissions and an 88% decrease in nursing home bed
days of care. While the total cost savings resulting from the dramatic
decrease in resource utilization was substantial, perhaps even more
impressive was the 94% patient satisfaction.\3\ High-speed internet is
not just a luxury; it is a lifeline for rural America, bringing greater
telemedicine functionality and helping residents overcome the
challenges of distance that make so many tasks more expensive and time
consuming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Rural Veteran Health Care Challenges.'' Veteran Affairs:
https://www.ruralhealth.va.gov/aboutus/ruralvets.asp.
\3\ Broderick, Andrew, ``The Veterans Health Administration: Taking
Home Telehealth Services to Scale Nationally,'' The Commonwealth Fund
Case Studies in Telehealth Adoption, Jan. 2013, http://
www.commonwealthfund.org/ /media/Files/Publications/Case%20Study/2013/
Jan/1657_Broderick_telehealth_adoption_VHA_case_study.pdf, p. 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, one of the most difficult challenges facing rural America
is keeping younger generations from moving away or ultimately helping
them to come back home. However, thanks to the unique opportunities of
teleworking and remote learning, many parts of rural America are seeing
positive growth. Technology is shaping the next generation of American
jobs. Manufacturing, agriculture and health care are among sectors that
are demanding more highly-skilled employees than in the past. Increased
training and education opportunities are imperative for many rural
areas that face demographic and economic challenges. In rural areas,
broadband can be used to support secondary and post-secondary education
and training: broadband-enabled services can be used to overcome
instances in which small or insular areas lack sufficient economies of
scale to support interest in advanced or specialized courses.
Rural broadband providers are playing vital roles, leveraging their
networks and working closely with local educational institutions. For
example, Rainbow Communications of Everest, Kansas, provides fiber
connectivity to Highland Community College, the oldest college in the
state. The network enables the college to offer numerous courses at
various sites. The college also supports the agricultural industry
through courses that include precision agriculture and diesel
mechanics; both are necessary as farms rely increasingly on precision
agriculture that blends traditional mechanical equipment with
analytical tech and GPS guided systems.\4\ Meanwhile, in Alaska, the
arrival of a submarine cable line allowed for one family to move back
to its hometown while allowing the parents to retain their current jobs
that required access to high-speed internet. This increased
connectivity also provided their children with the ability to
participate in classes and coursework that were not offered at the
local school.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``Rural Broadband and the Next Generation of American Jobs.''
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association: https://www.ntca.org/sites/
default/files/documents/202103/SRC_
whitepaper_the_next_generation_of_american_jobs.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, while substantial distances in rural areas make
broadband access a necessity for many aspects of life, there may be no
more uniquely rural application for high-performing broadband than
precision agriculture. Precision agriculture has revolutionized farming
practices and enhanced the overall agricultural landscape. By
leveraging advanced technologies such as GPS, drones, sensors, and data
analytics, precision agriculture enables farmers to make informed
decisions based on real-time information, leading to increased
productivity, resource efficiency, and sustainability. In rural areas
where farming is a vital economic activity, precision agriculture
offers immense benefits. The value of precision agriculture is conveyed
effectively when agriculture is viewed as a business of logistics. Row
and specialty crops are particularly suited to tech-enabled efficiency
during planting and cultivation that enable farmers to harvest and
deliver product to market at peak times. Precision agriculture also
facilitates better future planning. Visual inspection of crop
development (either by surface imaging or drones) combined with sensors
that assess soil conditions can help farmers create a forward-looking
plan of action. Or, in one instance, an NTCA member's customer in South
Dakota uses a live-video feed in a calving barn to monitor newborn
calves and mothers from the comfort of home.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ ``From Fiber to Field: The Role of Rural Broadband in Emerging
Agricultural Technology.'' NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association:
https://www.ntca.org/sites/default/files/documents/2021-07/
06.14.21%20SRC%20Ag%20Tech%20Final.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the President of the Missouri Farm Bureau aptly observed during
a hearing hosted by this Committee last September, ``Truly the farm of
the future has to be connected . . . with at least 100 [symmetrical].
It's what we need to be shooting for. My rural hospital says the same
thing, they need a hundred up, a hundred down in order to do
telemedicine in a way that is truly a good experience for the provider
as well as the patient.'' \6\ These broadband-enabled benefits combine
to serve greater economic efficiencies and opportunities for the
agriculture industry as a whole.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, https://agriculture.house.gov/calendar/
eventsingle.aspx?EventID=7426 at minute 2:48:00.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Building Future-Proof Networks
With billions of dollars and millions of unserved Americans at
stake, it is prudent and responsible for the Federal Government to
invest taxpayer resources based upon more than speculation as to
potential performance, marketing hype, and overstated claims of
capability not borne out of real-world applications throughout rural
America. The minimum speed and other performance criteria for receiving
Federal funding must be determined by the needs of rural consumers and
not set by the maximum capabilities some in the industry feel they can
offer. With so much on the line in terms of dollars and unserved
customers, this is not the time to award participation trophies.
Setting standards is not a matter of technological neutrality--it is a
matter of public interest and fiscal responsibility.
To keep pace with consumer demand, the minimum speed for eligible
projects administered by USDA to receive funds should be set at 100/100
Mbps--just as was the case in Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Loan and
Grant Program. It has been argued that the 100/100 Mbps minimum speed
threshold is too high and that it may prevent certain providers from
applying for the program. However, during Rounds 3 and 4, the program
was oversubscribed by four to five times, proving that more than enough
providers are willing and able to build the kinds of networks that
consumers need today and well into the future.
While some will argue that such an approach is not ``technology
neutral'' and that this would favor fiber, we have seen providers and
manufacturers of technologies of all kinds proclaim the ability to
deliver services at these speeds or even higher, and providers that
prevailed in the FCC's USF auctions similarly pledged that they could
use technologies of all kinds to deliver even Gigabit speeds--so it is
unclear why some feel as if demanding this minimum level of performance
would now somehow shut them out.\7\ Moreover, it is not a violation of
technological neutrality merely to set high standards and
expectations--the public interest and fiscally responsible use of
government funds demands nothing less. It is true that not all
technologies are equally capable in all cases, and it does not violate
a principle of ``technological neutrality'' to take stock of and
account for the relative attributes and limitation of different
technologies as demonstrated in the marketplace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ See, e.g., https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/gigabit-6-
ghz-fixed-wireless-is-a-reality-301553129.html and https://
www.fiercewireless.com/tech/tarana-provides-1-gig-speeds-its-fixed-
wireless-access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, while many NTCA members have experience leveraging
fixed wireless technology to serve end-users in hard-to-reach areas,
the consensus with respect to such services among these members is that
even as they may offer a means of initiating service, they are less
desirable as long-term solutions to overcome the digital divide (which,
as the title of this hearing suggests, is what programs like ReConnect
should aim to achieve). In addition to interference and other
reliability issues that can affect unlicensed spectrum specifically,
fixed wireless networks require relatively clear lines of sight and
other optimal conditions to realize their potential. Technologies that
rely upon high-band spectrum in particular can be difficult to
implement in rural areas given limited propagation over great
distances. Finally, spectrum capacity can present a substantial issue,
as the more users that place demands on a cell site or antenna can
degrade the experience of the other users sharing that capacity. Put
another way, just because certain technologies can perhaps be used to
serve anyone does not mean they necessarily can serve everyone at a
sustained level of performance--which is the essential long-term
objective of sound universal service policy.
To be clear, wired and wireless facilities are necessary to support
the full complement of ag tech solutions. Therefore, the collective
interest of the ag and tech industries, alongside policymaker interest
in supporting U.S. farm markets and expanded broadband deployment,
should drive actions to develop and maintain robust future-proof
scalable broadband networks that can enable wired and wireless
solutions alike.
Some will also claim that consumers do not need 100 Mbps
symmetrical services, and we should therefore build lesser networks
leveraging government dollars. But the marketplace indicates that
consumers--your constituents and our members' customers--already
believe and expect otherwise. Ookla, the global speed test provider,
reported average U.S. fixed broadband speeds of 179/65 Mbps in January
2021--which means the ``build-to'' speeds that some in the industry are
advocating for now (100/20 Mbps) were outdated more than 2 years ago.
It is predicted that the average U.S. fixed broadband speeds will be
1,500/599 Mbps by 2030.\8\ In other words, anything less than 100/100
Mbps is outdated and even this speed threshold may soon be surpassed,
which is why treating it as a minimum standard that can evolve over
time as new awards are made is a sensible and pragmatic approach.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ ``Eliminate the Digital Divide in Rural North America with
Fiber.'' The Fiber Broadband Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A letter addressed to this Committee on March 14, 2023, underscores
the robust support by rural stakeholders of all kinds--county
governments, educational institutions, electric utilities, rural
broadband providers, health care providers, economic development
organizations, and banking institutions--for robust symmetrical
broadband. In addition to NTCA, the following organizations signed onto
that letter:
National Rural Electric Cooperative Rural Community College Alliance
Association
Fiber Broadband Association National Rural Telecommunications
Cooperative
National Association of Counties Farm Credit Council
National Association of Development CoBank
Organizations
National Rural Health Association National Cooperative Business
Association
National Rural Economic Developers National Utility Contractors
Association Association
The Power and Communication Rural Telephone Finance Cooperative
Contractors Association
National Rural Education
Association
These stakeholders represent a broad cross-section of entities with
a vested interest in the vitality and long-term viability of rural
America, and their constituencies are at the heart of the communities
that are intended to be benefit from the farm bill.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``100 Symmetrical ReConnect Coalition Letter.'' March 13, 2023.
Letter. https://www.ntca.org/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06/
100SymmetricalReConnectCoalitionLetter.
pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would again encourage this Committee to make sure program
requirements are driven ultimately by the long-term needs of rural
communities. I would also encourage this Committee to avoid the
mistakes of too many broadband programs past, where 4/1 Mbps or 10/1
Mbps sounded like terrific ideas to build--only to find a few years
later that we needed to start over because we had aimed too low.
Indeed, if anything, Congress should view the 100 Mbps symmetrical
threshold as a baseline, and give USDA the flexibility to increase this
standard over time as needs and use cases for broadband evolve.
NTCA's Farm Bill Priorities
1. Meeting the Needs of Consumers Today and Tomorrow
Federal broadband investments should support technology that can be
readily upgraded to deliver the fastest speeds over the long-term life
of the assets being built, rather than supporting technologies that may
appear cheaper to deploy now but will be unable to provide meaningful
internet access over time that keeps pace with consumer demand without
the need to be substantially rebuilt (perhaps again at the expense of
Federal dollars). To this end, the farm bill should support high-speed
symmetrical broadband networks that offer a minimum of 100/100 Mbps
speeds. As discussed above, this is a reasonable threshold that will
ensure consumers realize the benefits of these investments backed by
Federal dollars for years to come, while also promoting meaningful
competition among providers of all kinds to seek to win such awards and
serve these customers.
2. Identifying Eligible Areas
Close coordination among Federal and state agencies is essential to
avoid deploying duplicative government-funded broadband networks in a
rural area that cannot support even a single network without such
funding. The farm bill should specify the ways in which ReConnect funds
will interact with funds already awarded under other programs;
specifically, ReConnect funds should not be awarded to any provider in
an area where a different provider is already the recipient of: (a) an
RUS telecom program loan or grant (so that the agency does not put at
risk its own prior committed awards); (b) support from Federal
universal service programs that is being used to deploy 100/20 Mbps or
better service (so that RUS does not undermine the FCC's important
sustainability initiatives); and/or (c) an award under any other
Federal or state broadband grant program where the recipient is
obligated to deliver 100/20 Mbps or better service and is meeting those
obligations.
Relatedly, to ensure that broadband deployment funds are targeted
to where they are most needed, an area should not be deemed eligible
for ReConnect funding unless 90% of locations in that area lack at
least 100/20 Mbps service. To be clear, networks built in eligible
areas should be required to meet a minimum threshold of 100/100 Mbps
speeds as noted above--in other words, 100/100 Mbps should be
considered the minimum of what to build. But using 100/20 Mbps as the
criterion for determining where to build--what areas will be considered
unserved--will help in making the most of government broadband funding
and bringing as many Americans as possible up to better standards of
service.
3. Project Delays After Notice of Awards
The 2023 Farm Bill should address historical preservation
requirements and environmental reviews that often result in significant
delays between notice of awards and receipt of the funds necessary to
commence construction. While RUS can take certain steps on its own to
mitigate such delays to some degree by, among other things, allowing
providers to work toward seeking approval of environmental and
historical reviews prior to an award, Congress should consider other
means of streamlining network deployment while still providing
reasonable protections for important historical and environmental
concerns that apply in certain contexts. We appreciated the opportunity
to testify before, and the recent work by, the House Energy and
Commerce Committee regarding bills to address broadband-related
permitting delays, and NTCA is supportive of that legislation. We
encourage this Committee, however, to consider additional means of
providing relief specific to deployments pursuant to USDA and RUS
programs, including promoting programmatic agreements and evaluating
other measures that the agency could implement to streamline
preservation reviews and environmental clearances.
4. Matching Funds
The farm bill should make clear that providers receiving grants
need not spend matching funds in full prior to drawing down grant
funds. The obligation to expend all matching funds prior to receipt of
any grant resources is onerous and unnecessary to ensure providers have
``skin in the game'' with respect to grant-funded deployment.
Consideration should also be given, as it has been in the Broadband
Equity, Access, & Deployment program, to reducing the need for matching
funds in deeply rural areas that often present the most significant
economic challenges to serve.
5. No Provider Preference Based Upon Corporate Structure
The farm bill should codify that providers seeking grants or other
funding will not be favored based merely upon their form of
organization or commercial status. Providers of all kinds should be
allowed to apply to programs on a level playing field where they can
meet the substantive standards for doing so.
Conclusion
In an era of transformative technological developments, regulatory
challenges, and marketplace competition, NTCA members are advancing
efforts to close the digital divide by delivering robust and high-
quality services over networks that are built to last. Their commitment
to building sustainable networks makes rural communities fertile ground
for innovation in economic development, e-commerce, health care,
agriculture and education, and it contributes billions of dollars to
the U.S. economy each year. The rural broadband industry and our nation
as a whole can tell a great story of success to date in delivering
service, but we still clearly have much work to do both in deploying
networks where they remain lacking and operating networks where they
have already been built--and this is where public policy plays an
important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in rural
markets that would not otherwise justify such investments and ongoing
operations.
I thank the Committee for its leadership on and interest in these
issues, and I look forward to working with you on behalf of NTCA
members and the millions they serve to realize a shared vision of a
rural America that gets and stays connected.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Bloomfield, for your
testimony, and thank you all for your important testimony
today. At this time Members will be recognized for questions in
order of seniority, alternating between Majority and Minority
Members, and in order of arrival for those who joined us after
the hearing convened. You are going to be recognized for 5
minutes each in order to allow us to get to as many questions
as possible. And I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Matheson, as you know, USDA is the prime agency to help
address the needs of rural America, including access to high
quality, broadband connectivity. Since the early 2000s USDA has
received billions of dollars to accomplish this goal, with
thousands of projects receiving Federal funding. Do you believe
that USDA is best suited to address the rural connectivity
issues?
Mr. Matheson. Well, clearly the other agencies are
involved, like the FCC and NTIA, as has been mentioned, but I
do think USDA is uniquely positioned to be an important voice
in this circumstance because USDA, number one, understands
rural America, and the Rural Utilities Service specifically
understands what it takes to provide utility services in these
very expensive, hard to serve parts of our country. I think
that makes the program work better. I think USDA's
participation in broadband deployment has had an effect where
it has moved other Federal agencies to be more aggressive than
they might otherwise have been. I think USDA has been a leader
in pushing for better speeds, better requirements, and so I
wholly endorse RUS being active in rural broadband development,
and I think that perspective is very valuable to rural America.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you for that. Mrs.
Bloomfield, Mr. Zumwalt, do you share similar views?
Mrs. Bloomfield. My members have long used RUS as their
primary banker, actually. So, when I think about an agency that
has really taken on the mantle of broadband, RUS was actually
an early leader in funding a lot of the network and
infrastructure that we see across the country. And, just
playing upon Mr. Matheson's remarks, the other thing is the
agency has general field reps that are out in the field. So,
when we talk about what are the speeds, what are the demands,
what the community's needs are, they actually have folks in the
field who are verifying where is the infrastructure, where is
the infrastructure not yet to be built? So I also think they
have made the wise use of some of the investments.
We certainly have other Federal programs that are in place,
we have state programs that are in place, but I think RUS has
been very diligent, and has probably been the early leader in
ensuring that rural America has connectivity.
The Chairman. Very good, thank you. Mr. Zumwalt, thoughts?
Mr. Zumwalt. Most of our members have had success in other
programs besides the RUS programs, although some are
participating. I would agree that USDA is the proper place for
this activity because of a longstanding history that USDA has
representing the interests of farmers and our agricultural
community. But as precision ag, in particular, comes into the
forefront, our members are wanting to participate more.
Historically, RUS has tended towards established players in the
cooperative industries, for example, so what we would be
looking for is to certainly encourage USDA to continue to work
closely in collaborating with the other agencies. For example,
the FCC National Broadband Map is important in making sure that
we don't have overlapping funding programs at a Federal level
trying to serve the same need from different directions.
But I have experience with RUS as well, and my feedback
would be anything that we can do to broaden the inclusion of
any solution, any provider that can close the digital divide, I
think USDA can do that, and so absolutely support efforts to do
that.
The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Assey, according to a December
2022 GAO report, some stakeholders have expressed concern
regarding the ability of the broadband infrastructure
deployment industry to attract enough workers needed to deploy
broadband infrastructure, and I have also heard this concern as
rural America continues to face a lack of skilled workers in
key sectors, including telecommunications. Given the influx of
Federal funding for broadband infrastructure, what can we do to
strengthen private workforce development opportunities and grow
labor opportunities for those in this sector?
Mr. Assey. Yes, I think that you have put your finger on an
issue that affects anybody who is in the communications network
building arena, and it really goes to where we stand today, at
the precipice of a major initiative to extend networks. It is
one of the things that many of the companies that I represent
are in the business of doing this on a day in, day out basis.
Whether or not they are applying for government support or not,
it is important for them to have a skilled workforce to be able
to extend, upgrade networks on a regular basis. So, we work
with private industry groups to make sure there is workforce
certification and development.
But there is no question that we are going to need more
people if we want to advance rapidly in building networks, and
we are going to be competing in a labor pool for workers that
are going to not just be building communications networks, they
are going to be building roads, bridges, other sorts of things
too. So it is certainly something that we welcome working with
this Committee, and others in Congress, to try and improve.
The Chairman. Thank you so much. My time has expired. I am
now pleased to recognize the gentleman from Georgia, the
Ranking Member, for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lady
and gentlemen, as I mentioned in my opening statement, since
the Rural Electrification Act (Pub. L. 74-605) in 1936, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture has been the only Federal
department with the primary mission to serve rural America. And
with their presence in rural communities across our country,
they are, in my opinion, the best equipped to meet the needs of
rural communities. However, out of the $65 billion that we
provided through bipartisan infrastructure investment, only $2
billion was provided for USDA's Rural Development broadband.
And also, in the bipartisan legislation that Chairman Thompson
and I passed through the Committee last Congress, we will
invest $43.2 billion in the Rural Development broadband
programs to reach the most underserved rural areas.
And so, to each of you, I got this important question.
Could you tell us the importance of giving the U.S. Department
of Agriculture the leadership role in deploying broadband to
rural America, and also what, in your opinion, level of
financial resources will be necessary for rural communities to
access Federal funding, and to meet our collective goal of
expanding broadband service to 100 percent of rural America?
Each of you, please. Mr. Matheson, we will start with you and
go down.
Mr. Matheson. Okay.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And after you, the lady, so we
can get----
Mr. Matheson. Okay. Look, to expand on what I previously
said about the value of the Department of Agriculture
perspective, they know rural America, they prioritize issues
that matter to rural America in their broadband funding, in
terms of rurality or low population density. That is one of
their criteria they look at. Look, this is important for these
rural areas. Let us put this out there. Internet service
matters, affordability matters. America's electric cooperatives
serve 92 percent of the persistent poverty counties in America,
so investments in broadband for these counties that have
persistent poverty, it is an opportunity for economic
development to mean something, in terms of looking forward in
the future. I think the Department of Agriculture has the right
perspective to do this.
Look, there is a lot of other money you mentioned, Mr.
Scott, in terms of programs.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. I get that, and we are going to pursue all
those opportunities, but we are glad RUS has an important role.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Mrs. Bloomfield?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Thank you very much. I think that USDA
understands rural America like nobody else. No other Federal
agency understands the needs on the ground, and how important
connectivity is for rural Americans, who, frankly, suffer from
the handicap of distance, whether it is to education, medical
services, whether it is tools for precision ag. So, there is no
other agency that is more in tune to what rural America
actually needs. But that is one of the reasons why I think they
have taken a leadership role, and, frankly, set a higher
standard for service than other agencies, and any of these
other programs have, in part because they know that rural
Americans really do need these services.
We saw during the pandemic how people used internet and
broadband for all of the different reasons that they did, but I
still see--I look at companies like Pineland Telephone
Cooperative down in Georgia, that, frankly, today all of their
customers have symmetrical speeds because they know that that
is the way people can utilize getting to market, doing the
services they need, and, frankly, make sure that we continue
economic development. So, USDA has been primarily focused on
really how to best serve rural America, so I think they are a
very critical player.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. And, Mr. Stroup?
Mr. Stroup. Thank you. Thank you. Unlike most of the other
representatives here, our infrastructure is deployed in space,
and so there is no further cost associated with covering rural
America. The service that you get is comparable between cities,
between rural America. So, really, the additional funding would
be made available for access to Earth stations, to consumer
equipment. But, I definitely feel that USDA has an important
role to play. I would also like to emphasize the point that Mr.
Zumwalt made previously, which is the need for coordination
between the other funding organizations. Thank you.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. So, the entire panel, my time
has passed, but it is important that each of you do agree that
the United States Department of Agriculture is the one best
suited to lead and coordinate the effort. Is that correct?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer [presiding.] The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer. I recognize Mr. Crawford for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mrs. Bloomfield,
talking about long-term, we know what it looks like now, we
know what broadband looks like currently, and USDA's role in
that. How do you think Congress should help to ensure that we
are looking long-term, meeting the needs of consumers,
specifically with regard to broadband deployment loan and grant
programs?
Mrs. Bloomfield. So, I think the Committee has really taken
a forward look, so I really appreciate your asking that
question. I think we get really wrapped up in capital expenses,
so what does it cost to actually build the infrastructure? And
I think one of the other reasons we are very bullish about
different technologies--it is going to take every tool in the
toolkit, but definitely focused on fiber deployment where
possible. Because of the fact that in a rural area, for
example, at the end of the day your op-ex (operation-expenses)
becomes lower it means--we have a thing in rural America, when
we provide service, that is called windshield time. Our techs
have to drive 3, 4, 5 hours to get out to a home that has a
troubleshoot. Using technology that will reduce those op-exes
actually just makes these operations more efficient.
The other thing is I think we are just on the cusp, in
these rural areas, of actually seeing some of the services that
really can transform lives, like telemedicine. And I think
having that future-proof network, thinking forward, not just
what we need today, but what we need tomorrow in those networks
also makes a great deal of sense. The other thing I will say,
when I look at how Americans are consuming broadband, the idea
if you build something, that you have to go back in 3 years to
upgrade, I think it will force all of us to look back and say
we missed an opportunity to do it right the first time.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. From your perspective, what do you
think is the best way to streamline coordination to avoid a
duplicative process among the agencies? Things like
overbuilding, bureaucratic holdups with other agencies. One of
the things that I have heard--recurring theme from all of you
all is that USDA is best positioned as the Executive agency, so
I think that we can agree. But how do you harmonize that
effort? Give me your thoughts on how we can reduce that.
Mrs. Bloomfield. That is going to be the literally billion
dollar challenge coming up. But that is where--and I know you
have heard reference today to the maps that are coming out that
the FCC produced. Congress appropriated $7 million to produce
these maps. We are going to see the results in just a matter of
days. I think making sure that every agency, as they are
rolling out funds, as USDA is making an award in an area, that
those areas get taken off those maps, that they show as served,
so that we continue to make sure that we are really focused on
the unserved.
That really needs to be a priority, that those who are
waiting for connectivity get it, then those who are
underserved, and then those who, filling in some of those other
gaps. So, I would say the mapping is going to be key. I know
that there are ongoing discussions. I know that USDA and the
Secretary have been very engaged in coordinating, but that
coordination is going to become even more necessary in 2024,
when the BEAD money starts to flow out the door from NTIA.
Mr. Crawford. I know you represent a lot of rural telecoms
across the country, so could you give me some insights into how
your member organizations have worked with USDA to sort of
advocate for resource allocation for those projects?
Mrs. Bloomfield. So, they have been traditional borrowers
since the telephone program was created decades ago. So, they
traditionally had telephone loans, and obviously morphed very
quickly into broadband because the need was so great in rural
America. So, I think there are a couple of things that--one of
the things that has really struck us is we think, through
getting USDA to really take on that leadership mantle, has been
some of the streamlining. Getting some of the reviews, and
things like--when you have had previously disturbed areas, that
you don't have to go through the regulatory process again,
because USDA, just like every one of us, is looking for
workforce. So they really don't have a lot of the staff that
they need to actually process a lot of the funding.
But I think, again, the leadership mantle that they have
taken really comes through, and I think their long history in
making business cases for putting money in low density parts of
the country really speaks to their ability to kind of manage
through where we go next on infrastructure.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you. And real quick, Mr. Hurley, I want
to talk about precision ag. I think that is relevant here in
how broadband affects precision ag applications. What kind of
policy changes do you think Congress should consider to help ag
equipment manufacturers, for example, better meet the needs of
rural America without leaving rural farming communities behind?
Mr. Hurley. Yes. I think, in regards to a policy that needs
to be implemented, programs, bills that need to be approved, we
have really got three primary bipartisan pieces that we feel
are critical to the further implementation of precision
technologies across all of rural America, and that is the PAL
Act (H.R. 1495), the PRECISE Act, and the Promoting Precision
Agriculture Act of 2023 (H.R. 1697) as well.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, I appreciate it. Thank you all for
being here today.
Mr. Rouzer. Mr. McGovern?
Mr. McGovern. Well, thank you, and thank you all for being
here today. This is an important topic. Access to high-speed
internet is crucial for people to effectively do their jobs,
participate in school, and access healthcare. And,
unfortunately, far too many Americans still lack access,
including 16 percent of Massachusetts residents, with a
disproportionate number living in rural parts of my district.
And I will say I am proud of the steps that we have taken over
the last few years to close the digital divide, and we are only
beginning to see the impact.
For example, the bipartisan infrastructure law included the
largest Federal broadband investment in our nation's history
and will bring over $100 million to Massachusetts. The
Commonwealth also received $145 million in the American Rescue
Plan Capital Project funds to expand rural broadband, which
will connect nearly \1/3\ of the homes and businesses currently
lacking broadband. I am just glad that these funds were
obligated in time and weren't part of the $27 billion clawed
back during the debt ceiling debacle, but that is a whole other
hearing.
But, we have seen the most significant broadband
investments in our nation's history over the past few years,
and it is imperative that we approach the broadband provisions
in the farm bill with great care. And, quite frankly, I have
concerns about what I have heard from some who want to lower
the standards for those receiving Federal funding to build-out
our rural networks. Mr. Assey, I know that one of your members,
Charter, has a large presence in rural parts of my district, so
I will direct this question to you. There has been a lot of
talk about future-proofing networks. Can you tell the Committee
what you think that means, and if your members' networks are
future-proof?
Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think it is an
important point, because when I think of future-proofing, I
really think of--can networks grow with the society to meet
their needs? Are they scalable? I think Mr. Matheson used the
same word. So, the question is, are we going to be able to
build networks that, without significant new capital
investment, are going to be able to grow in the capabilities
that they offer? And, without a doubt, the cable networks are.
As I mentioned, 99 percent of the homes passed in rural
America by cable networks already have 100 megabit per second
speed capabilities, and we are fast moving on to the next
iteration of cable technology, so-called 10G technology, that
is going to offer the capability of multi-gigabit connections
in both directions. So we are always trying to skate to where
the puck is going to be, and we feel very confident that cable
networks are future-proof.
Mr. McGovern. So do you have any recommendations for how we
can make sure that we are future-proofing broadband networks to
make sure the internet speeds are fast enough for future speeds
and uses?
Mr. Assey. There is always going to be this balance between
trying to pick a minimum level of performance that is forward-
leaning, and that will meet both the immediate and near-term
needs, and there is always going to be a desire to ensure that
the technologies and the platforms we pick can scale up to meet
future capabilities. I think what we would worry about, are we
picking standards in order to manage specific types of
platforms that will discourage other types of solutions that
may be better suited to particular environments or particular
areas? So it is really a balance.
Mr. McGovern. Yes, no, and look, I believe it is crucial to
make sure that we take advantage of the historic levels of
funding and ensure that it means connectivity that meets the
needs of the future. It is clear that rural America has diverse
needs, and we can't take a one-size-fits-all approach. Could
you, or anyone expand on how we can connect unserved areas,
while also increasing access for underserved communities?
Mr. Assey. Yes. I think, when you are talking about
unserved versus underserved, you are talking about the
difference between communities that have no connectivity, or
connectivity that is below 25 megabits per second, versus some
that are above that. I think our concern is that the laws of
economics always make the people most in need the last in line,
and we need to orient our solutions so that we actually try to
prioritize getting service to those who have been waiting for
it for so long.
Mr. McGovern. I just closed them out of time--I wanted to
tell you--but I just want to add that we must not overlook the
importance of affordability when expanding access. I mean,
ensuring that people can afford broadband only services, once
they become available. I think it is crucial if we are going to
truly close the digital divide, but I am out of time. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentleman yields back. I now recognize
myself, in order of arrival. So a couple broad points here.
Obviously, I am very grateful to have each of you before us
today, and I appreciate your testimony very much. This is a
very important issue. Connectivity is everything, whether it is
healthcare, business, education. You can't do without it, and
if you are doing without it, you are severely behind the curve,
in terms of whatever the question may be.
According to the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration Database, there are 80 broadband
programs currently at the Federal level, including, dependent
on how you want to count them, nine housed at the Department of
Agriculture. We have had a lot of money flowing through a lot
of different programs in recent years, multiple agencies, not
to mention what individual states are doing as well. I think it
is crucial we keep track of the areas where service is being
implemented and where it is not, and why it is not.
In North Carolina, for example, the North Carolina
Broadband Infrastructure Office uses NC One Map, an open
source, interactive, GIS mapping tool to visualize data
collected by the state, as well as other resources, related to
broadband availability and adoption, and other matters as well.
So the question is--just gave you an example in North
Carolina--how are Federal and state leaders overall keeping
track of projects, both deployed and in the pipeline for
deployment, to ensure underserved areas are addressed, and
overbuilding doesn't occur? And I open that up for anybody.
Mrs. Bloomfield. So--thank you very much. We actually have
a number of NTCA members in the State of North Carolina who
participate both in the state program, but have also been big
recipients of RUS. So your point on the coordination is really
key, and I think that is going to be critical, as each state
not only notes where some of the deployment is supposed to be,
but also that we are coming back afterwards to ensure that any
provider who is the recipient of Federal or state funding
actually is able to show that they have actually lived through
their commitment, because, if we don't have some type of
oversight, if we don't have some type of verification on that,
what we are going to see is those constituents, those consumers
who were in those areas, are actually--that don't get service
are going to be at the bottom of the line.
So I think making sure that that coordination between state
and Federal is going to be important, and I think that will be
a focus of what NTIA is going to be doing with BEAD as well.
Mr. Rouzer. Any other comment there?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes. Thank you. I think it is really important
to keep in mind that the intent of these programs is to serve
the unserved, and, so far, we are not getting there fast
enough. This has to be a whole of nation effort, and it has to
be one that incorporates every available technology to meet the
need, instead of setting up a standard where existing networks
can be overbuilt because we changed the standard by which we
are going to measure whether they are served, or underserved,
or what.
And I think this is important because, as someone who has
had experience actually running a wireless ISP, we delivered
fiber and broad--and wireless services to roughly 10,000
customers, and less than five percent of those ever asked for
or required symmetric speeds from us. And this included
government agencies, enterprises, academic institutions,
residential customers, small businesses, and--I think I already
covered enterprise.
So when you actually look at download and upload speeds, if
you are going to adopt that as the standards, you have to be
careful because, generally speaking, the way that that is
consumed is it is consumed much greater on the download than on
the upload, and that is true across all of the WISPA membership
as well. Thank you.
Mr. Rouzer. I only have about 48 seconds left. To follow up
on that, my experience with government is you have a lot of
stove-piping. When I read there are 80 different programs, I am
certain that one agency is not necessarily talking to the other
agency. We will get into that later. Here is my final question,
though. Technology changes rapidly. You could lose your shirt
in broadband. Elon Musk says he will have the whole world
covered in 3 years. I think I read that somewhere. Maybe a
little bravado in that, but hey, technology changes. How do you
balance the equation of financing technology, where the ball is
going to be in the future? That is a big question for all of
you.
Mr. Zumwalt. Well, what we are seeing is that the total
cost of ownership of a network is going to define what a
carrier is actually willing to be doing. Now, if you are
willing to subsidize operations and say we are going to give
you a bunch of money to buy something for 30 years, perhaps
they would buy something differently. But the market actually
is a very effective source for determining what the best
technology is to use in a time. And if you look at what the
broadband carriers are doing, they all upgrade as demands
change over time.
Mr. Rouzer. Yes. My time has expired. I now recognize the
gentlelady from North Carolina, and my friend, Ms. Alma.
Ms. Adams. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman
from North Carolina, and Ranking Member, for hosting this
hearing on the digital divide, and for your opening remarks. I
do want to thank the witnesses as well for offering your
insights on this important topic. The digital divide and
broadband equity are important to me because the constituents
that I represent disproportionately shoulder the effects of
this divide. The picture in Mecklenburg County in North
Carolina's 12th District, where I represent, is a stark one.
A recent estimate from the Center for Digital Equity found
that 21 percent of Mecklenburg County households had, at best,
dial-up speeds for their home internet, and 14 percent of
households, almost 55,000 in number, had no internet at all.
So, looking at the entire state, more than one million
Carolinians are, in the words of our governor, ``On the wrong
side of the digital divide.''
It was especially revealing how disproportionately
communities of color, especially African Americans, are
suffering, especially at our HBCUs, our predominantly African
American institutions, 1890s. There are 19 across the country,
and we have one in North Carolina. The pandemic showed our
communities how crucial dependable internet access is for
education, for medicine, and for finding employment, so this
hearing has been edifying in thinking about coordinated
approaches to bring access to all.
I have several questions for the panel, and any of you can
answer this. As broadband continues to be deployed to unserved
and underserved communities, how can we ensure that those
within each community are actually able to afford high-speed,
high quality services post deployment?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just take the first crack.
Ms. Adams. Yes, ma'am.
Mrs. Bloomfield. There is----
Ms. Adams. Yes, you.
Mrs. Bloomfield.--very important program called ACP
(Affordable Connectivity Program), which is part of the
Infrastructure Act that really ensures that those who are low-
income have access to connectivity. So one of the things that
my carriers, and I am sure carriers across this table, are
doing is working with their communities to basically get the
word out to say, if you can't afford internet access, there is
a Federal program that is available. Now, I will say I worry
that this program is going to run out of funding in a year or
2, but I think it has been really important, in terms of
digital equity, and inclusion, and getting folks online. So
there is a piece in place, it is already underway, and I think
that most of the carriers probably represented here today are
actively looking to get subscribers that you mentioned online.
Ms. Adams. Thank you. So could any of the others of you
speak about how your associations, and the internet service
providers within your associations, are focusing on addressing
these disparities?
Mr. Assey. We would echo what Ms. Bloomfield said. Our
companies are committed to trying to make sure that all their
customers can get access through ACP. We are working with many
trusted digital navigators, civic organizations, to get the
word out about this program, show people the full benefits of
broadband, and we are committed to this cause.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Does anybody else want to comment? Yes,
sir?
Mr. Zumwalt. I would just like to add that, in addition to
hoping for the continuation of ACP, which may or may not
happen, if you look at the individual service provider
performance, they are looking for a way to keep their costs low
so that they can pass those savings on to their customers
regardless of what level of assistance they have. And I think
that that is really important, because for internet service
providers who are active in their community, they understand
their communities, they understand what the community can
afford, and they want to be able to deliver broadband that is
going to meet the needs of their communities by making sure
that they have their own cost structures in line.
Ms. Adams. Okay.
Let me--thank you very much. And let me ask anyone else, if
you have--what, if anything, have you learned from the pandemic
that Congress should focus on in this farm bill? If you give me
just one thing, each of you? I have 40 seconds.
Mr. Zumwalt. Serve the unserved first.
Ms. Adams. Thank you.
Mr. Assey. Agreed. Agree.
Ms. Adams. All right. Yes, sir?
Mr. Matheson. I think we make--we have learned the--it is--
broadband is so important to day to day life, we want to make
sure we all have access, but it has got to be at the right
speed, it has got to be scalable to the future it has got to be
affordable.
Ms. Adams. Okay.
Great. Yes, sir? Got two more people down there.
Mrs. Bloomfield. Agree.
Ms. Adams. Agree.
Mr. Hurley. Yes.
Ms. Adams. Okay. So everybody is in agreement? Okay. I just
certainly hope that we will take all these things into
consideration, because these underserved communities are still
not being served, and there is a lot we can do about it. Thank
you very much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would note to our
participants on the panel today--and, of course, Mr. Matheson
has been through this process many times on both sides of the
room--many times the discussions we have seem to be reinforcing
constantly certain points of view, so let us go down that
trail.
As all of you know, the ReConnect Program was established
through the Fiscal Year 2018 omnibus, and the legislation
provided USDA with authority to make grants, as well as loans,
for construction of retail broadband networks in rural America.
Since then the ReConnect Program has become the most funded
broadband program in USDA, receiving almost $2\1/2\ billion.
But because ReConnect was established with minimum program
parameters, USDA has had broad discretion over how the rules
should apply during each funding round. And this has caused
each round of funding to consist of, sometimes, dramatically
different standards and rules. So, as a sitting Member of the
Committee, I note bringing this program under the 5 year farm
bill gives this Committee to thoughtfully reform, and improve,
and authorize this key broadband program.
So, with that, I turn to the Committee to discuss--to the
panel, I should say, to discuss what you would consider to be
important program parameters that need to be put in place to
ensure a more effective and consistent ReConnect Program. And
in addition, what flexibilities need to be maintained or
included to ensure rural consumer and business needs are met?
And just before we start this, I punched the little test
button, and I examined the access to broadband that I have at
the teeny tiny efficient apartment I have here in D.C., 339
upload speed and 306 download speed, but I noted that, on the
test of my program at the farm in Roger Mills County, it was 5
up and 5 down. It was a son of a gun trying to do Zoom calls
during COVID on 5. Matter of fact, it didn't always work. So
with that, I turn to the panel. You are getting the defined
program coming in this farm bill. What should the parameters
be, and what flexibility should be maintained? We are going to
help you.
Mr. Matheson. I will jump in. First of all, it ought to be
in the farm bill. This was created through the appropriations
process. It has created a lack of certainty and consistency in
the program. I think bringing it into the farm bill----
Mr. Lucas. And we are going to clean it up.
Mr. Matheson. Yes. It--I think it'll be helpful for
everyone involved to have more certainty and clarity going
forward. You want to make sure that you are prioritizing
minimum speeds and scalability for the future. You have heard
future-proof used a lot in this discussion. Let us not forget,
the last farm bill was only 5 years ago, 2018. Back then we
were talking 25/3. So let us not continue to make a mistake of
underestimating where the future is going, and that--it is hard
to define it specifically, but scalability matters as well.
Let us make sure that we also invest in middle-mile, I
mentioned that in my opening statement. Backbone middle-mile
matters a lot, in terms of the--participation for anyone else
for that last mile to the end-user. And electric cooperatives
invest a lot in middle-mile technology in terms of their
electric utility operations, so it can be a great access to
leverage for rural broadband to the end-user.
Mr. Assey. I would say, first of all, with your experience
with 5 down and 5 up, you are the paradigmatic case for the
unserved, and one of the reasons why----
Mr. Lucas. And, ironically, I am 1 mile from fiber, but it
is a 1965 copper line between me and fiber.
Mr. Assey. Yes. Well, you should be high up on the list for
the next round of provider subsidies. I do think, as we do
this, there are a couple things that we ought to focus on as
well. One is to really try to change and modernize some of the
eligibility rules at RUS. I think there is a historic--whether
it is a historic artifact or not, a lot of the rules and
processes in place that RUS uses are just not suited to the
multiplicity of types of companies, including large established
companies that offer service. And we ought to make it easier
for people who want to participate in this program than harder.
And, second, I think Congress really needs to give some
guidance as far as what is a proper priority when we are
scoring and evaluating projects. Things like experience of a
provider, the performance of the network, the need of the area,
that seems to be totally fine. But some of these priorities
that have been adopted seem to be completely artificial, and
designed more to steer a particular result rather than get
performance to the areas of need.
Mr. Lucas. I think the Chairman will probably tolerate one
more answer on my behalf, if anyone else wishes to touch that.
Mr. Zumwalt. I was just going to add that I think that it--
that the program needs to be technology-neutral, in the spirit
of what the infrastructure Act called for. I think it needs to
focus on serving the unserved, rather than adopting a
technology. Most of our members are deploying fiber, so even
though we represent wireless ISPs, we are very familiar with
fiber. And the measurements that we take of customers all
around the country suggest that most residential subscribers
are not even using more than 50 megabits per second of
download, even if they have gigabit delivery. So the speed
tests that you run are not indicative of what you are actually
using. So when you put in place a requirement for something,
recognize that the requirement may not be what you are using
now, or even need to use in the future.
Mr. Lucas. My time is----
Mr. Stroup. And if I may, very quickly, I can give you the
names of at least three companies that can provide much faster
service than you are receiving on your farm.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rouzer. I was going to say, Mr. Lucas, maybe you should
call your Congressman.
Mr. Lucas. Well, actually, the guy that owns the company
was a year ahead of me in high school.
Mr. Rouzer. Or better yet, call your two Senators. Ms.
Spanberger?
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our
witnesses for being here today. I love the topic of broadband.
I have been passionate about this issue since I first arrived
in Congress in 2019, because I represent communities that have
really experienced the divide. Just a few years ago the idea of
universal broadband accessibility in Virginia seemed really far
off, but now I am really proud to say that our Commonwealth,
because of investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
the American Rescue Plan, Virginia is really within reach of
this goal.
And the district that I represent, it spans localities
where we have suburban communities with easy access, and many
rural communities that, over the years, have really known the
hardships. It has been discussed, of course, that during COVID
we saw what this divide was like, and even across
superintendents, county to county, some were able to have Zoom
classes for the students, and some were putting up mobile
hotspots at the Food Lion parking lots because that is the way
the kids were learning, and they were giving packets out, and
that just shouldn't exist.
But I know that we are on this, like, trajectory towards
making the strides that need to be made. And we, in Virginia,
have expanded access to millions of Virginians. In fact, and I
will say this again, as a proud Virginian, we have been
heralded as really a nationwide example for broadband internet
expansion through what we have done correctly, Federal, state,
local coordination, often through building partnerships, many
times with rural electric co-ops, with wireless providers, and
in the localities, really driven by the localities. So I am
proud of the progress that we have made. There is more to do,
but we are on our way to connecting 100 percent of Virginia's
families, small businesses, farms, and students.
And so, with that general frame--and you do not have to
mention Virginia just to flatter me since I asked the
question--are there examples of states that have done things
right, from your vantage point, that while we are here looking
at how to make sure that our Federal dollars are well utilized
for the states and localities, are there examples that you
would point us to as we are looking at how these programs are
really, actually operationalized on the ground?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I will jump in, because I think Dr.
Holmes, who runs the Virginia Broadband Office, is exemplary.
But I think that is a key component, right, and we are entering
a new era, because for the first time--there used to be a few
states that had a broadband office.
Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
Mrs. Bloomfield. Virginia was early because you had some of
the tobacco funding, and it has gotten very active.
Ms. Spanberger. That is right.
Mrs. Bloomfield. And you had Minnesota, you had Wisconsin,
you had some of those out there. Now that we are entering this
world of BEAD with NTIA, every state has to establish a State
Broadband Office. That is part of the deal. They have to submit
a plan. They have to show a plan by--I think in the next month
or so--of how they are actually going to take all that Federal
funding from BEAD and utilizing it. They then coordinate with
NTIA. So you have a state person on the ground, you have NTIA
here, and an NTIA person in each state.
So I think utilizing the State Broadband Offices to help
coordinate on the Federal front is going to be really
important, because they are almost going to be the gatekeeper,
as Federal funding comes from these different programs, and
they are going to be looking at the Federal amounts that are
released, in addition to their our state amounts, and really
trying to very strategically fill in--where do you have those
gaps, and where do you have those underserved gaps?
So not just flattery, but Dr. Holmes is key, but I think
each state now has the opportunity to meet that level. Some are
just going to be a little bit more challenged, some are going
to get mired down in politics, and that is most unfortunate.
But I think we have a real opportunity with the fact that there
will be a State Broadband Office in every state.
Ms. Spanberger. Fantastic. Anyone else want to add to that?
Mr. Assey?
Mr. Assey. I agree, and I think it really points to the
value of coordination.
Ms. Spanberger. Yes.
Mr. Assey. What you have experienced in Virginia, really
needs to be replicated at a much larger scale. It is going to
be incredibly difficult; but, if we are looking at this as
solving a problem, we need to all have a common understanding
of what the problem is if we want to devote the resources to
actually spending it. So I would say that coordination needs to
happen at a much stronger level, not just at the Federal level,
but also down into the state and the local level, and back up
to the Federal level, so that we all are working to take
whatever that number of unserved and underserved is and drive
it down to zero.
Ms. Spanberger. And certainly one of the things that we
have seen on the ground is that flexibility in how those
Federal dollars can be spent is incredibly important in
allowing our state--again, our state offices to do good things.
I am running out of time, but I just want to say thank you all
for being here. Thank you for bringing your voices to this
discussion, because it is so vitally important that we get this
right, and that, in this farm bill, we ensure the investments
we are making really help our communities across the board and
add to what we have already done with prior legislation. So
thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Miller, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Last Congress, I voted for
bipartisan legislation to support rural broadband because it is
a critical issue to our farmers and rural communities across
the country. So several of my constituents had brought up that
state mapping is better than Federal mapping, which is a little
bit what you were talking about, but I just walked in here, so
I don't know if I missed something. What suggestions, then, do
you have to increase coordination among the Federal and state?
Did you just answer that? Okay. Then----
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would be more than happy to.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Thank you.
Mrs. Bloomfield. I think the challenge process is going to
be really important, because some states have gone ahead--and
states are closer to the ground. They know--they are working--
one of the things each of these State Broadband Offices has to
do is they have to do stakeholder meetings across the state, so
they get a sense of what is going on there. But that is where I
think challenges are going to be important. Whether it is a
provider who says I have already got service here, and here is
my speed, whether it is a consumer who says, this map shows I
have broadband, and I actually don't. So I think there is going
to be further refinement.
The problem with the map is it is an evolving thing. You
are--it is never static. So as soon as you finish it, it is
actually out of date already. So I think staying on top of it
is going to be very critical.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes. Does anybody have any other
ideas on how to coordinate this between Federal and state and
make it more efficient?
Mr. Matheson. I think that is happening.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Good.
Mr. Matheson. Look, the FCC maps are not perfect, but they
are better than they used to be through this first round.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. The challenge process is going to continue
to--it is--as Ms. Bloomfield said, this is an evolving process.
You are never going to get perfection. But having state
engagement on that process is going to be key to making the
national maps better.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Also, I have heard from several of
my constituents that broadband providers in their area are
having trouble signing up for the USDA broadband programs. We
were talking about how complicated it is. And have any of your
members faced the same issue, and how do you think we can
improve on the application process?
Mr. Assey. We have experienced problems like that in the
past. I mean, we have had issues where one company was
organized as a partnership, and it wasn't eligible under the
application rules that RUS was interpreting.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Assey. I think that got worked out, but there are a lot
of--kind of these informal roadblocks that we face with a
program that has traditionally been oriented to a very
different profile of company than a large cable operator.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Assey. It is one of the reasons that--one of the things
that we like in the--Representative Cammack's bill is really an
opportunity to use the notice and comment process to really try
to come up with alternative ways of demonstrating financial
viability as companies, and to provide security interests that
are different from what may have traditionally been used.
Because it--this is all about getting qualified companies to
want to come participate and that is what we ought to be aiming
towards.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Right.
Ms. Bloomfield, do you have--and then--sorry.
Mrs. Bloomfield. I think the programs are very competitive,
which is great. The fact that you get four to five times the
number of applications than you have funding for I think shows
to the benefit of the program. I would say, USDA, and RUS in
particular, have staffing needs. I think some of the biggest
challenges are actually getting some of the permitting through,
getting the process through USDA's pretty antiquated portal. So
I think some of those things that can make the process more
efficient would definitely help get the funding out there
faster.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. That is great. Mr. Stroup, did you
have a----
Mr. Stroup. And my members would encourage that Congress
specify that satellite and other service providers are
eligible, and, despite the intention of legislation being
technology-neutral, very often in the implementation phase,
that is not how it plays out.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Mr. Matheson, we have heard
from several stakeholders about the concerns regarding
permitting on Federal lands within existing rights of way,
which can take up to 3 years to get an approval. Can you talk
about the experiences of your members with these agencies, and
what can Congress do to help expedite this process, and ensure
our eligible rural communities are getting connected?
Mr. Matheson. Yes, this is clearly an issue. We have a
specific member in Colorado that was experiencing--where they
got funding through RUS, but then they had to cross BLM land,
Bureau of Land Management land, and ran into a significant
permitting delay, and the----
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. This is not new, that any committee in
Congress has heard this, that when you have multiple Federal
agencies that don't talk to each other, and you are the person
trying to get the permit to get something done, it can be
really frustrating.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. And so some of the steps that we are taking--
most recently, in the permitting reform for the debt ceiling
Act (Pub. L. 118-5, Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023), are a
step in the right direction. We need to keep that momentum
going, however, in terms of creating appropriate time limits on
the permitting process, but also the coordination across
Federal agencies has got to be better than it is. It is just a
question where the left hand and the right hand aren't talking
to each other. And we have felt that specifically on Federal
lands in the West.
Mrs. Miller of Illinois. Okay. Did anybody else have a
comment? Oops, I am out of time. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Rouzer. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Brown?
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Scott. Access to high-speed affordable internet is no longer a
privilege. It is a necessity for everyday work and life in a
modern 21st century society. The COVID-19 pandemic exposed how
deep the digital divide cuts when everything from school, to
business meetings, and doctor's appointments were moved online.
This hit hard in communities like Cleveland, where almost \1/3\
of households lacked internet access. In fact, during the first
weeks of the pandemic, Cleveland Metropolitan School District
was unable to transition to remote leaning since almost \1/2\
of its students didn't have internet service at home.
I know this is the same story that so many of our
constituencies face, including those in rural districts. This
is why accurate and detailed mapping of fixed and mobile
broadband service is so important. If we are truly going to
connect every American to the internet, we need to be able to
target areas that have been left behind. So, Mrs. Bloomfield,
to start, what should the Committee consider a minimum
acceptable speed when evaluating if a household is serviced?
Mrs. Bloomfield. So I am going to go back to--I think that
USDA has done it right with 100 symmetrical speed because,
again, I think--I--it--I may have a different experience, but
my members actually track what their customers use, and how
they utilize it, and I will say that we see a huge demand from
consumers. I have companies that I asked prior to this hearing
who are telling me that 100 symmetrical is entry-level service.
When you have five or six devices at one time working in a
household, you need that bandwidth. So, again, as I think about
this moment in time historically that we are at, to not utilize
and look for that type of speed, we are missing an opportunity.
I also think it is technology-neutral. For example, during
the FCC's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction, there were a
number of fixed wireless providers that also said they had the
ability to do 100 symmetrical, so we are not talking just about
prioritizing fiber. We are saying that is the right speed, and
that is what we should be building to ensure that, again, the
capacity is met not just today, which we are seeing that demand
for right now, but for 3, 5, 10 years from now.
Ms. Brown. So that is the speed you would recommend we
should aim for it to be future--ready in the future as well?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would say 100 symmetrical is important
right now, yes.
Ms. Brown. Okay. And what additional improvements and
investments can we make on the Committee to ensure accurate and
reliable maps? I know this is a--maybe a redundant question,
but if you could speak to that, Mrs. Bloomfield?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Mapping is going to be really--that is
going to be our--literally our roadmap, in terms of what we
know about served and unserved. I actually have a map here that
shows where 25/3 exists across the country. You see a lot of
white spaces, particularly out West, and dotted throughout the
country. But I think that the ability to make sure that we have
a process in place--the FCC built the map. We are going to need
to make sure that we continue to invest in that map, that we
are constantly updating it, that every program that touches
building broadband allows us to track not just where there is
connectivity, but what is the speed? What is the technology?
Ms. Brown. Yes.
Mrs. Bloomfield. Where are the providers? So I do think
that is going to be an ongoing investment to ensure that future
dollars go in the right places.
Mr. Matheson. And if I could?
Ms. Brown. Thank you.
Mr. Matheson. We want the maps to be consistent over time.
We have heard stories where people game it. Well, they may--
when the test is happening the speed looks good in that area,
but that speed isn't consistent over time for people in that
service territory. So the integrity of the map has got to be
one where that speed exists all the time, not just in certain
moments.
Ms. Brown. Thank you. The bipartisan infrastructure law
established the Affordable Connectivity Program to provide
targeted discounts for low-income households and Tribal
communities. The most recent round of USDA ReConnect grants
requires applicants to participate in the Affordable
Connectivity Program to ensure that households are not only
able to access internet but afford it as well. Now, for anyone
on the panel, what additional measures can we take in this farm
bill to improve the affordability and the reliability of high
quality broadband?
Mr. Assey. I think whether it is in this farm bill or
separate and apart, I think continuing to strengthen and extend
ACP support is important. And I would say it is important not
just to help low-income families purchase affordable broadband,
but it is really going to be important for infrastructure as
well. When companies are deciding how much private capital they
are willing to marry up with public funds in order to build to
unserved areas, they have to make assumptions about, well, how
many people are going to take to this service, how quickly?
And being able to ensure that continuity of support I think
is not only going to be important for people in downtown
Cleveland, but it is going to be important for people in
unserved areas as well.
Ms. Brown. Anyone else?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would also jump in and say, ensuring
that we have the resources to advertise about the program, and
thinking about doing it in an unconventional way, as you can't,
obviously, put it on the internet, because people don't have
internet access.
Ms. Brown. Right.
Mrs. Bloomfield. But, what are you doing with local
libraries, and local leadership, and municipalities to get the
word out? I have a cooperative up in Minnesota that literally
goes to their Tribal communities with a traveling van with
applications, and they sit down, and they share with the Tribal
residents how do you get online, what is the value of being
online, and actually literally do the signups. Because our
community-based providers have every incentive to have every
member of that community online. It really speaks to the
economic health of the community in the long run. So I think we
have to think about how do you educate those who don't even
know this program exists, and then we have to ensure there is
funding for it going down the road.
Ms. Brown. Thank you so much. Thank you for the courtesy,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman [presiding.] You are welcome. It is a pleasure
to recognize the gentleman from South Dakota, Mr. Johnson, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Well, it won't surprise anybody that when I
was outside in the rain talking to some South Dakota 4-H kids
right now, we were talking about rural broadband, because
listen, it matters to this whole country. We all know that a
network gains in value the larger the network is. You wouldn't
want an internet that only lets Manhattan access Manhattan
websites, right? So this is not just about helping rural
America, this is really about helping us be one connected
nation in the same way that rural electrification did that, in
the same way the Interstate Highway System did that, in the
same way Universal Service did that so long ago.
And so I have a great friend on the panel today, Shirley
Bloomfield, and so I thought we would just have a little bit of
a colloquy here to tease out some of these issues surrounding
speed. So, in your written testimony, Mrs. Bloomfield, you
noted that Ookla--their study said that in 2021 the average
broadband speeds in this country were 179/65. Am I remembering
that right? And so your good friend and mine, Larry Thompson, a
few years ago, when I was co-owner of a telecom engineering
firm, had taught me about Nielsen's Law, which I think
indicates that the user's broadband speed increases by 50
percent a year, all other things being held equal. My
understanding of that is roughly right, right?
Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. And then I think in your testimony you talked
about--you didn't mention Nielsen's Law because you are not as
dorky as I am, but you did----
Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. That is right, exactly. You noted information
that, consistent with Nielsen's Law, said that by 2030
broadband speeds in this country will be 1,500/599. That is
right, isn't it?
Mrs. Bloomfield. That is correct.
Mr. Johnson. The 1996 Telecom Act (Pub. L. 104-104,
Telecommunications Act of 1996) had a provision we haven't
talked about today, but to me it is fundamental to this whole
conversation. And the provision in the Telecom Act, if I am
remembering it right, Mrs. Bloomfield, is that service in rural
areas, rates and service, must be ``reasonably comparable to
those found in urban America.'' I am not wrong about that, am
I?
Mrs. Bloomfield. You are correct again.
Mr. Johnson. And so in your testimony, in your close, I
thought you really hit the nail on the head about making sure
that we don't invest in networks delivering speeds that are not
only antiquated today, but will be woefully antiquated in the
years to come. And so--I mean, I have a couple more questions,
but just--any finer points you want to put on that?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I think we haven't even touched the
applications that we can be providing in rural America. One of
the things NTCA does is we actually also provide healthcare to
tens of thousands of rural Americans through a group health
trust. What we are seeing in terms of telehealth, that--you
can't do some of this diagnostic work. You can't--we have
created virtual living rooms across the country for veteran
care connecting VA, local, state to vets who live in rural
America, which is a very high population of veteran community.
You can't do the work that you need to do with telemedicine
without utilizing some of those speeds, and we haven't even
begun to see where the American demand will go.
Mr. Johnson. And I have tremendous respect for the members
of each of these organizations, and I do think that there is a
role for everybody to play in getting American--America
connected. So I understand the value of us talking about
technology and neutrality, and I believe in that, but I don't
want us to use the guise of being technologically-neutral to
water down the standards that we need to build to.
Now, the good thing is that doesn't need to cut anyone out,
and I thought y'all's testimony did a good job of that. Mr.
Matheson, you talked about the need for us to be building to at
least 100 megabits per second. Of course, your members in this
business are doing way more than that. Mr. Assey mentioned
that--your members are routinely delivering over a gigabit per
second. That is pretty robust. Mr. Stroup, you mentioned
satellite can easily do 200 megabits per second. Mr. Zumwalt,
with WISPS, you mentioned download speeds in excess of 1
gigabit per second are possible. And so, by all means, let us
make sure that we are technology-neutral, because there is a
role for everybody to play. This is a real big country. We have
a lot of people who need help.
But Mr. Chairman, as we look toward this next farm bill,
let us not water down the standards. If we are going to spend
this nation's taxpayer dollars in continuing this unbelievable
story of one America, connected, let us make sure that we are
not investing in something that'll keep us connected for a
year, or 2, or 5. These networks can be built to last a lot
longer than that. Let us heed the words of Mrs. Bloomfield. Let
us make sure we do it right. With that, I would yield back.
The Chairman. Well, I thank the gentleman for yielding
back, and now I am pleased to recognized the gentlelady from
Kansas, Congresswoman Davids, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to you and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing
today. I mean, we have heard a lot about the need for high-
speed broadband networks to bridge the digital divide, to allow
families and communities to access the--particularly rural
communities to access those unique broadband needs.
Telemedicine, of course, is in there, education. Technologies
to support small businesses, and that includes our agriculture
community. A bunch of the family farms that I know are not just
in my district in the Kansas Third, but in the State of Kansas.
And we are definitely seeing the need for that accessible,
reliable, and affordable broadband access.
And, I have a district with a good mixture of types of
counties. I have three rural counties in the Kansas Third, and,
similar to what we heard from Rep. Brown, in terms of metrics,
up to 32 percent of the farms in those counties didn't have
internet access, according to the 2017 Census of Agriculture
that took place, and that doesn't touch the upload/download
speeds. That is just baseline access. I think that we have
already heard quite a bit about the problems that can cause for
our farmers and producers, much less for folks who are trying
to utilize the vibrant ag technologies that are being
developed.
I think that, as we continue to try to figure out the best
practices for working in coordination with rural communities,
whether it is state, local, Federal, communities trying to stay
connected, I think that what we see and have heard a lot about
already is the--that idea of unserved, and what that looks at,
and making sure that programs like ReConnect, or BEAD, or other
Federal funding mechanisms aren't overlapping in a way that
might impede our goal of internet access for everybody with
maybe some overly restrictive definitions?
I would love to hear from, like, the whole panel about
whether you see there being a mechanism, or maybe a happy
medium, I will call it, between this 50 percent or 90 percent
definitions of unserved. How do we get to a place where that
overbuilding, maybe, doesn't happen, but also that we aren't
impeding our ability to stay on track to connect every
community?
Mr. Zumwalt. May I start with that?
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes.
Mr. Zumwalt. I think the first and most important thing is
to make serving the unserved the number one priority. Every
other definition of underserved is going to be based on some
understanding of speed, and so, if the speed standard changes,
then you are going to find a lot of existing networks are going
to be subject of rebuilding with Federal funds. And many of
those networks were already built with Federal funds, or
certainly with private capital, and so you have taxpayer money
chasing taxpayer money not serving the unserved.
Mr. Matheson. I think we need to be real careful on this
discussion, though. This overbuilding is a lot more nuanced
than I think some people describe it. And----
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. And let--let us be careful--if people have
substandard technology and service, then that is substandard.
And you are saying, too bad, you are stuck with what you got. I
also think we have to be very careful about saying we only want
to serve unserved, but underserved don't matter anymore. That
is where I hear this it is good enough for rural America, and
my members don't buy that. They expect to have the same service
that people in urban areas have. So I understand there is a
difference between unserved and underserved, but let us be
careful about creating a false choice where we can only do the
unserved, and all those folks with underserved are stuck with
what they have, which are legacy investments that aren't
meeting today's broadband needs in many cases, not in all
cases.
Of course we don't want to duplicate Federal funding where
it is not providing an increase in service, but I think we have
to be really careful, though, when we talk about overbuilding
and underserved and unserved. I think it becomes too much of a
simplistic description, and I encourage the Committee to take a
more nuanced approach.
Mr. Assey. I think we are just, though--I mean, I don't
know that we are necessarily disagreeing. I think it is a
matter of priority, as far as those that literally have
broadband below 25/3 or nothing at all as being the people who
have waited the longest for this technology to reach them. I
think the problem that you touch on, which is when you are
getting down to 50 percent of the homes have to be either
unserved or unserved and underserved, is you are really saying
that 50 percent of the homes could have 1 gigabit. And then you
are starting to subsidize areas where private capital has
already built out capabilities to this area.
So you are not only interfering with the private investment
that is trying to reach out into rural America, but you are
also using scarce resources that ought to be going to the place
that have nothing, or not good enough, and spending it to
overbuild.
Ms. Davids of Kansas. Thank you. And I can see that I asked
a question that warrants quite a bit of feedback. Please, I
would encourage you to submit written answers if you didn't get
a chance to speak. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you so much. I now recognize
Mr. Baird for 5 minutes of questions.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank all
of our witnesses for being here. This is a very important
concept for our farm community, as all of you well know. When
we have machinery that utilizes precision ag techniques and
technology in order to improve the efficiencies on the farm, as
well as fertilizer placement and pesticide placement and so and
so, it is increasingly important that we have access to high-
speed internet, as you have talked--and I didn't hear all the
discussion, but I am sure you went into that.
So my question starts with--Mr. Matheson, in your testimony
you talk about FCC's National Broadband Map, and that continues
to show discrepancies between what the map displays and the
realities on the ground as it relates to broadband
connectivity. As you know, USDA entered to a memorandum of
understanding, an MOU, with the FCC and the NTIA to share data
on how each agency implements its broadband program, which
includes mapping information.
Mr. Matheson. Yes.
Mr. Baird. So what can Congress do to strengthen this
coordination so we can ensure our broadband maps protect rural
communities, and prevent them from being further left behind?
Mr. Matheson. Yes, that is a great question. Congress has
already taken the steps to encourage improvement of these maps,
and it is an evolving process. But, to the extent the FCC put
out its first updated map last year, and the challenge process
has continued, where people around the country say, whatever
the map says, here in my place, that is not true, and they
challenge the map, that is an effective process to finally have
more of a bottom-up grassroots effort to get accurate
information for these maps, coupled with the role of the
states.
And I think that is really important, that--the FCC maps
are important, and they are always going to be an important
asset or vehicle for us to assess where we have unserved and
underserved areas, but states are also an important part of how
we look at those maps. States are involved in that challenge
process as well. So I think we are going down the right path,
quite candidly. We are not where we want to be yet, but I think
it is going in the right direction.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. Then my next question goes to Mr.
Stroup. In your testimony you talk about how the precision GPS,
which I just mentioned, technologies allow farmers to increase
yield by utilizing use of fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides,
and apply the site specific treatments to fields. You also
mentioned how Earth imaging satellites provide farmers high
resolution imagery to determine when to plant, water, or
monitor their crops. So how do you feel satellite technology
services fill in the gaps in remote areas, where other
technologies may not be suitable?
Mr. Stroup. Thank you for the question. And, in addition to
the satellite services that you noted, the ability to be able
to provide broadband and IoT services, and one of the great
advantages to the satellite systems is the ubiquitous coverage.
And, as I had mentioned previously, the service that you
receive in rural North Dakota, where I grew up, is comparable
to the service that you would receive in Washington, D.C. So
the ability to fill in the gaps because we provide coverage to
all rural areas across the country is the key to our ability to
be able to provide broadband connectivity.
Mr. Baird. Very good. Anyone else have any comments on
either of those questions, about the maps or about the
satellite technology?
Mr. Zumwalt. I would just state, and concur with my
colleagues, I think that the FCC is taking the right steps. It
is going to take a while before they can achieve perfection on
this, but I like what I see so far. We are in for another
probably year or 2 of some pretty gnarly work ahead of us, but
I think the FCC is going to get there.
Mr. Baird. Anyone else?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would just offer to the Committee that--
those of you who are going back home to your rural districts in
August, to take the time to connect with one of your community-
based providers, whoever they may be on this Committee, and go
out and see some of the ag applications. I think being able to
watch some of the livestock monitoring, watching some of the
ability to do remote work with your livestock, and monitor the
health of your animals, and what they are doing in the field,
in terms of tractor technology, is really exciting to see.
Congressmen Feenstra from Iowa, his local provider has a
new saying, which is--we call fiber-to-the-home, FTTH, and they
call it fiber to the hog, because of the ability to connect
these farms. So I would just say there is an open invitation to
go out and do a tour.
Mr. Baird. Thank you for that comment, and especially
bringing in the livestock. Got a livestock background. And, Mr.
Feenstra, we have cattle and hogs in Indiana too, you know
that?
Mr. Feenstra. I knew that.
Mr. Baird. Good to see you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentleman yields back. I am now pleased
to recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. Caraveo, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you, Chairman Thompson. Thank you to
you, and Ranking Member Scott, for hosting today's hearing, and
to the panel for being here this morning to share your
testimony. As a doctor, accessible health care remains one of
my highest priorities. Unfortunately, over the past several
decades, Colorado has seen more and more rural hospitals,
excuse me, close, and care options remain extremely limited, or
sometimes non-existent, unless you are able to travel very long
distances to receive health care. As a result, residents of
rural areas experience significant health care disparities.
We have several opportunities to improve health outcomes
through USDA broadband programs, not only to provide the
funding to build-out or improve the broadband infrastructure,
but also to provide the equipment necessary to support
telemedicine. So, to anyone on the panel, do any of you have
insights into the specific speeds or other network
characteristics necessary to support telemedicine specifically?
Mr. Zumwalt. If I can start with that, I have some
experience working with an urgent care center in a previous--a
role that I had with a wireless ISP. They were generally using
gigabit speeds for their urgent care facility, which included
imaging, but I would want to emphasize that that was for that
facility. That was not for interacting with people in their
homes using telemedicine services, which tended to be more of a
residential broadband service.
So, to the extent that you want to differentiate between
those services, just make sure that you recognize that no
matter who is providing that area, that they have the capacity
to provide the unique support that is going to be required by
facilities that have a need for greater broadband.
Mrs. Bloomfield. And I would jump in and say that we work
very closely with the National Rural Hospital Association, who
also endorses 100 symmetrical speeds for that very reason, the
ability to be able to do the work that they need to do to
transfer the medical files. And I think that the applications
out there really kind of demand a lot of bandwidth, the ability
to--I have a telephone cooperative that actually put fiber into
the ground because of the fact that the general manager's
workman fell off the roof, broke his leg, and it was going to
take 2 days to get all the files transmitted over to the
Vanderbilt Hospital.
So it was kind of that real need on the ground to be like,
``Hey, you know what, we can do this, and we can actually
ensure that our people don't have to drive 2 hours over to
Vanderbilt.'' They can actually do some of the care with
cardiac care, here back in the rural community, before it
becomes urgent to relocate some of these patients, which, as
you know, can be very traumatic.
Ms. Caraveo. Well, thank you very much for those answers.
Switching gears, I have been meeting with farmers in my
district over the past few months who have shown me some of the
technologies, Mrs. Bloomfield, that have improved the way that
they farm. I would like to touch on the promise of precision
agriculture what we have talked about kind of more broadly, and
how we build-out broadband networks that will support further
adoption of these technologies.
We have focused on delivering internet service to the home,
but supporting agriculture--precision agriculture means we also
have to expand to the fields. So once we deliver broadband to
the home, what equipment or technologies, more specifically,
are necessary to expand that coverage to the field, and what
are some of the common barriers that farmers are facing to
incorporate precision agriculture into their operations? And we
can start with Mr. Hurley, and then if anybody else has
thoughts.
Mr. Hurley. Yes, thank you for bringing that up, and it is
absolutely one of the most essential pieces of our being able
to further the adoption and reap the benefits of precision
agriculture, whether that is through an increase in yield, or a
reduction in the inputs, and the impact that that has on the
environment. And, as we stated, and I stated in my testimony,
we need to be neutral in regards to the technologies that we
invest our dollars in as we go forward, because we look at the
various different aspects of--whether it is satellite, whether
it is wireless, or whether it is fiber, we need coverage across
the fields, and into the barn, into the--whether it is the
chicken house, the hog house. But we have also got to be able
to follow, and interact, and communicate with the tractor, and
the combine, and the sprayer as they move through the field.
Mr. Assey. I would just say that it--this may not be the
correct analogy, but if you think about it, precision
agriculture is just another type of business application. It is
very similar to, if you were to bring broadband to a school,
you wouldn't want to just bring it to the principal's office.
You would want to make sure that it is campus-wide. And,
essentially, the campus in a precision agriculture environment
are the fields, and the barn, and the hogs.
I think what we are going to see is, as the power of
technology extends to rural America, we are going to see those
solutions develop. They are already being developed, and we
just need to encourage their development through kind of hybrid
solutions that rely on cable or fiber technology to a
particular area, and then extending out into the fields using
either unlicensed technology or 5G CBRS (Citizens Broadband
Radio Service) technology to basically provide that campus-wide
or field-wide connectivity. But it is a very exciting part of
getting connectivity to rural America to help people not just
in their home, but in their day to day business as well.
Ms. Caraveo. Thank you all. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the courtesy of extra time.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, and now recognize the
gentleman from Iowa, Mr. Feenstra, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking
Member Scott, and I want to thank each of our witnesses for
testifying. It has been very impressive. Mr. Hurley, you spoke
at length in your written testimony about the benefits of
precision technology. I am from Iowa, one of the largest farm
districts in the country, and at a time when our farmers are
feeling the real pinch on inflation in inputs, and all these
other costs going up, it is advantageous for us to create
precision farming. You mentioned that innovations that could be
adopted at a 90 percent rate would reduce herbicide costs by 15
percent, fertilizer would be reduced by 14 percent, water would
decrease by 21 percent, and our crop production would increase
by six percent. Okay, this is very significant, but our problem
here is the cost.
I was at the Farm Progress Show last year, and we saw all
these incredible technologies. My larger farmers and my larger
producers can probably afford some of these, but my smaller
producers cannot. And you noted this, and I appreciate you
highlighting my bill, Precision Ag Loan Act, which gives loans
through the USDA. Can you talk, Mr. Hurley, about why this is
so important, and what we can do as an Agriculture Committee to
try to get this new technology in the hands of our smaller
producers?
Mr. Hurley. Yes, I would be glad to do that. And, as you so
note, the technologies continue to advance, and the innovation
continues to be developed as we go forward, and there are costs
associated with that. Representative, I would more approach
that as investment, and think there are some key aspects of
that. One, if someone was to come in and try to convert 100
percent of an operation that had no previous investment in
precision technologies, it would be a very steep cliff to
climb.
But the great thing about precision technologies, number
one, is it is scalable. And so, from that perspective, I think
that it is prudent for each and every individual farmer,
producer, rancher, whether they are in the poultry business--to
really sit down and understand what is most important to their
business, and prioritize where they want to invest, based on
the return. But I think critically, and you mentioned your
bill, as did I, the Precision Ag Lending Act is one of those,
along with PRECISE, that, for us to expand beyond the 25
percent or so of farmers that actually utilizes technology
today, we have to have supportive programs--loans with flexible
terms that allow these other growers to be able to go, and be
able to invest, and borrow the money--the capital to put these
technologies in place.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Hurley. And I fully agree
with that, and you can see what it does. I mean, the cutting
down of the input--inputs that are going into the crop, or
whatever it might be, into milking and so forth. And I just
think this farm bill that we have coming up has this great
opportunity to do that, and I look forward to working with
that.
I want to pivot just a little bit. Mrs. Bloomfield, thank
you for your comments about Iowa. Obviously you probably know
we have 120 locally-owned, community-based broadband providers,
and they are all fighting like ever to get to every subscriber,
to get to every community, and every rural producer. My big
issue is that the Rural Broadband Modernization Act, which I am
on, the ReConnect underserved definition is that 90 percent--
and it notes that we need 100 percent megabit downstream, 120
percent--or 120 percent upstream, and recently that definition
got lowered to 50 percent. Can you talk about why that is so
concerning, and why we need to be at 90 percent? I mean, to me,
especially in Iowa, this is a huge issue.
Mrs. Bloomfield. Thank you for the question, and thank you
for your leadership in the introduction of the Rural Broadband
Modernization Act (H.R. 3964). It is a very important piece of
legislation which also does kind of go to the 100 symmetrical
speed. When you talk about 50 percent, and you set that
standard, most of the Federal programs, ReConnect, BEAD, all of
these programs, Treasury look at that 80 to 90 percent coverage
as kind of the basis.
Problem with 50 percent is you are really encouraging
overbuilding. And we have talked about when you have scarce
resources, the ability, because we are all so focused on
unserved Americans, to make sure that any money goes as far as
possible, the ability to overbuild in using government
resources, to overbuild government resources, really becomes
duplicative efforts that are just wasteful. So that 50 percent
is way too low, and I think leads to a lot of issues.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. I agree 100 percent, Mrs. Bloomfield,
and thank you for noting that. I mean, we have to be at 90
percent, and I agree 100 percent. Thank you so much for your
comments. And I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding back. I
now recognize Congresswoman Salinas from Oregon for 5 minutes.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to
the--you and the Ranking Member for holding this important
hearing, and thank you to all the witnesses for staying with us
for this long. So, as we have talked about, Congress has
essentially allocated billions of dollars to build-out
broadband capacity for our unserved and underserved areas
across the country, including mine in Oregon. Where my concern
lies is about the ability of our state and local governments
and small providers to successfully navigate this huge rollout
while keeping track of any ongoing opportunities that USDA
might have.
And so one of my top priorities for the farm bill,
especially as I am talking to my communities, is really
ensuring that we are providing that robust technical assistance
to ensure that our rural communities can easily access Federal
programs. And I will start with Congressman Matheson. Does the
existing Broadband Technical Assistance Program provide that
adequate assistance to help our rural utilities, co-ops, and
small businesses access that Federal funding?
Mr. Matheson. Yes. Yes, I think you have raised a fair
question. I do think the program's adequate, actually. I think
that people have access to enough information to make these
decisions. These are capital-intensive decisions people make to
go into this business. They should not take it lightly. Many of
my members, through electric cooperatives, are actually hiring
some third party entities to help them do their feasibility
analysis on the front-end to try to make the good decisions
that go into this. I don't see where there is a huge gap right
now, in terms of what you are asking.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And then for--the follow-up, for
anyone who might want to answer, how should we be thinking
about removing any barriers to access for these smaller
providers that don't necessarily have the same resources as
some of the bigger players?
Mr. Assey. Well, I will take a shot. I think one of the
things--and we represent large and small companies, but one of
the things really goes to what we talked about earlier, and the
fact that Agriculture has tremendous expertise in rural
America. They have a very capable Administrator in
Administrator Burke. But this really requires a whole of
government type of approach to the problem, and we have to
figure out a way to promote greater consistency and greater
coordination in how we apply for these programs where we can.
It makes little sense to me to have--to be able to have to fill
out a form one way for a grant in one agency and have to do
it--completely different way in another agency.
Ms. Salinas. Yes.
Mr. Assey. We ought to be trying to make it easy to get
more providers into the system that are experienced and that
can do the job.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. Does anybody else wish to comment?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just say, one of the things that I
think there can be a role somewhere in here is thinking about--
when you think about those local municipalities, or those
anchor institutions that really have that need, I think
creating the opportunity for collaboration, and thinking
about--and can USDA play that central point of--if you have an
area that is really tough to serve, what can you do about
bringing providers together? What can you do about connecting a
municipality with a broadband provider who knows how to do the
service. How about NTCA rural broadband provider along with an
electric cooperative?
How do you think about, in some of those really tough to
serve areas, where you just can't make a market case for doing
so, what is the role of some of these agencies, like USDA, to
actually support some collaboration?
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. And my time has almost expired, but
I really do want to get to this. Do we have the tools, through
other USDA/NTIA programs to support--and we see a lot of
wildfires in Oregon--to support resilient middle-mile
infrastructure? And to anyone on the panel who wants to answer.
Mr. Matheson. Look, I have advocated in my opening
statement that I want to make sure that when you--the Committee
considers--you look at the next farm bill about--important
investment in middle-mile. I think that that is a key factor in
creating a platform for last mile broadband service, and I
think it is something that USDA has looked at and funded in the
past. I think it should be continued in the next farm bill.
Ms. Salinas. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the
gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman De La Cruz, for 5 minutes.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you to all of the witnesses for joining us today and sharing
your valuable insight. As we all know, access to high-speed
internet is no longer a luxury, but a necessity for economic
growth, education, health care, and social connectivity.
Unfortunately, many rural communities across our country still
lack access to reliable broadband services. This digital divide
has created significant disparities in economic opportunities,
educational outcome, and healthcare access between urban and
rural communities. It is important that Americans, regardless
of where they live, have access to reliable and affordable
broadband services.
My question is, first, for Mr. James Assey, Executive Vice
President here for The Internet and Television Association,
what improvements should we consider to USDA broadband programs
to make broadband infrastructure grant programs more
accessible, flexible, and locally-led?
Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. As I stated in my
testimony, I think one of the things that it is most important
is for there to be kind of a review of the processes by which
we attract eligible providers to make sure that we are taking
stock of the different corporate profile and organizations that
we have in attracting applicants. I also think it is important
that we review and put limits on the types of scoring
priorities that our U.S. gives, and when those aren't related
to an entity's experience, or the performance of the network,
or the need of the particular area, we should get rid of those,
because what we really want to do is find who can provide the
best solution at the cheapest price for the area of need. So I
think those are two important places to start.
The last thing I think is very important is that we get
back, as has been stated earlier, to really focusing the
distribution of dollars to the areas that are unserved so that
we make sure we are getting the most bang for the buck that we
can.
Ms. De La Cruz. Thank you. And, Mrs. Bloomfield, we
continue to hear from stakeholders about struggles with USDA's
lengthy approval process for broadband loan applicants. In your
testimony you highlight the delay of Federal funding to
entities due to historical preservation requirements and
environmental reviews. What specific improvements should
Congress consider to streamline the application process?
Mrs. Bloomfield. It is a wonderful question, because I
think it is kind of the secret obstacle that nobody really
knows about. So when I think of some of my companies who were
actually awarded funding as far back as 2019 who have yet to
see the money flowing into the field, I think that obstacle of
not getting that process moving through quickly enough is
really holding up a lot of infrastructure deployment.
So I would say there are a couple of things. I think some
recent legislation, hopefully, is looking to streamline it. But
I also think that if you have gone through a process where an
area has been deemed previously disturbed, where you have
already gone through the historicals, and now you are going
back to deploy additional infrastructure, you have already gone
through those steps. So doing it a second time I think really
further holds it back. But it is a very important point, and
something we need to ensure that, as you do the farm bill, that
there is more streamlining available.
Ms. De La Cruz. So what I am hearing is that if they have
already done the research, or the analysis, for a prior
application, perhaps?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Exactly, and previous construction, but
they still have to go back through it additionally for a new
construction, whether you are building further out, you are
upgrading existing infrastructure. So once you have already
approved it, let us move on.
Ms. De La Cruz. Right. Sounds like a waste of time,
materials, and money, is what it sounds like.
Mrs. Bloomfield. And it becomes expensive, because with
inflation, honestly, the longer the delays go, you may have
gotten a grant 3 years ago, but the cost, between labor supply
and the supply of the actual infrastructure, has gone up
significantly. So suddenly you are in a position where you
actually got that award in 2019, and now your cost to build
what you committed to build to has gone up exponentially.
Ms. De La Cruz. Absolutely. That can pose a big problem.
Thank you so much. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentlelady yields back. I am now pleased
to recognize another gentlelady from Texas, Congresswoman
Crockett, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and to all
the witnesses for your time. I am glad to hear that so many
Members are talking about what we all know, which is that
reliable access to the internet is a non-negotiable these days.
Yet, sadly enough, there is a fringe group that believes we
have done everything that we needed to do and should go no
further. But tell me, how can we have accomplished our goal
when over ten million Americans still don't have access to
broadband?
For decades we let rural Americans fall farther and farther
behind. Without reliable internet access, it is harder to find
a job, harder to share special moments with your family, and
ultimately people are robbed of opportunities. Finally we are
lending folk a helping hand. But just as broadband is starting
to be deployed, our colleagues on the Agriculture Appropriation
Subcommittee want to cut broadband funding by almost $100
million. It seems some of my colleagues believe we have done
enough, and, after an initial investment, we need to just pack
up and go home. So let me set the record straight.
Mrs. Bloomfield, you make a excellent point about
healthcare in your testimony. Could you expand upon the
importance of telehealth access in communities, and maybe talk
a little bit more about other important use cases?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would be more than happy to. It is
something near and dear to my heart because I think it is an
application that we have only just scratched the surface of.
And to your point about USDA, and all of these other programs,
I will say, as we look at all this Federal funding coming down,
I encourage my members to look at ReConnect, the USDA program,
first because I do think it is that immediate opportunity with
a very well run program.
So we partner a lot with the National Rural Health
Association, and we have been working in collaboration to talk
about what it takes to build smart rural communities.
Healthcare is really a foundation. If you don't have access to
healthcare in these communities, you find that people don't
move there. It is one of those things people look for. So
really thinking through what we could do more aggressively to
not just build the right networks to ensure that you can do
healthcare, but how do you get the devices in people's hands?
How do you actually do digital literacy so you are educating
techs and healthcare clinicians on how to actually manage some
of this?
And the thing I will share, that--what we see from our own
experience, running a teledoc and other programs as an
association, mental health care in rural America is really
critical. And there is also a stigma in rural America. People
don't want to see their truck outside of a local mental health
care clinic. The ability to do mental health care using
telemedicine at home, in the comfort of your living room, is
powerful. So I think as we look at some of these applications,
and what we can do in terms of digital literacy to educate more
Americans, and get more Americans online to utilize these
resources, I think we are going to have a healthier rural
America.
Ms. Crockett. I think I will actually skip around on my
questions, since you touched on something, which was the
ReConnect Program. But I do want to highlight what you are
saying. As it was mentioned, I am out of Texas, I am out of
urban Texas, but we went through redistricting last cycle, when
I was in the Texas House. And when we went through
redistricting, what we saw is that rural Texas was bleeding
population. And when we talked to people, and they talked about
the next generation, they talked about the fact that there just
weren't opportunities, and so their children were leaving rural
Texas. So we have plenty of land in Texas, and we want to make
sure that everyone feels like they have all the opportunities
that they need, no matter where they want to live in the State
of Texas, so thank you for that.
So I am going to skip to a different question now. As we
are considering how to bring the ReConnect Program into the
farm bill, I would like to know, specifically from Mr.
Matheson, good to see you again, about--I know that you are big
on the co-ops, but talk to me about the things--and anyone can
feel free to kind of jump in--about opportunities that we see
to improve the ReConnect Program.
Mr. Matheson. Well, I am big on the co-ops, I appreciate
you noticing. Look, I think that this program that has had
success, but there are opportunities for improvement, and
that--it is not a program that has been around too long, so it
is good to assess where we can go. Number one, let's get it in
the farm bill. It is subject to the annual appropriations
process. It ought to be authorized by this Committee and by the
Congress. So that would be an important step to create
consistency and clarity for the program.
The program should include minimum speeds, 100 up, 100
down, symmetrical, we think, as a criteria. We think that the
middle-mile investment matters a lot. It is not the top of mind
issue for a lot of folks, but if you don't have robust middle-
mile, it is difficult to provide broadband service to rural
America in an adequate, so that ought to be important, probably
look at. Look, I think that this Committee's got great
opportunity with this farm bill to really make some important
steps to establish, ReConnect, and build on the success it has
already had.
Ms. Crockett. Thank you so much. With that, I will yield
back.
The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady. I now recognize the
gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Rose, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rose. Thank you, Chairman Thompson, and thanks to
Ranking Member Scott for holding this hearing, and thank you to
all of our witnesses for your time and thoughtful attention to
today's hearing. I want to talk a bit about the future of
telemedicine, and how important it is that we ensure that USDA
broadband programs keep up with new technologies. In an article
in Forbes entitled, An Exciting, Surprisingly Imaginative,
Techy Vision Of Telemedicine's Future,* author Michelle
Greenwald, who is the CEO of Catalyzing Innovation, described
some potentially game-changing advances in telemedicine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the article referred to is located on p. 89.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Greenwald describes the possibility of remote
monitoring devices for use at home, such as a stethoscope, or a
device for looking in the ear, nose, and throat. These readings
could be digitally transmitted to the doctor to interpret.
Additionally, Ms. Greenwald's article brings up the possibility
of using artificial intelligence, machine learning, and pattern
recognition to potentially flag serious illnesses, all from an
image of a patient.
In the not too distant future we could be living in a world
where AI flags a potentially serious illness during a
telemedicine visit that otherwise may not have been diagnosed.
What really scares me is the possibility that many Americans
will not be able to utilize these life-saving technologies
because they don't have access to broadband that is strong
enough, fast enough, to support these emerging telehealth
technologies. Mrs. Bloomfield, as the CEO of NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association, can you talk about the ways in which
USDA rural broadband programs help to support access to
telehealth technologies?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Absolutely, and thank you for the
question. So, as we look at the statistics about the number of
rural hospitals that are closing on a regular basis, I think
the ability to look at the evolution of telemedicine is going
to be really important. So you hit on a few of them. We also
see in rural America the ability to monitor your diabetes, your
cardiac care, some of those things that are really pretty
prevalent in rural populations is going to be important.
And I think another application to be thinking about, and
that will need some of this capacity and bandwidth, are things
like how do we allow seniors to age in place in their homes?
The ability to monitor has our mother taken her pills, because
you have the sensor that actually reads some of these things. I
don't even think we have scratched the surface on the different
things that we can do.
So USDA, with their program, has some additional support on
the telehealth side. I think it is getting folks comfortable
with some of the technology, but you absolutely need the
bandwidth. And the other thing that we find with rural
communities, where I think the bandwidth, and the ability to
transport whatever type of medical technology you are
transporting, is the expert care that you get in some more
urban hospitals. If you have something that's complex that you
can't deal with in a rural clinic, that you actually need to go
into Mayo, or you need to have that access.
The other thing that I will say is we think a lot about
privacy when we think about healthcare. And it is another
reason why, again, remaining technology-neutral, I think fiber
optics is a really important technology to look at because,
when you think about cybersecurity, the pulses of light that
move through fiber are actually harder to intercept. So when we
think about security of networks, and, again, when I think
about healthcare, and all of that private data, that's another
thing that I think is really important, and I think that's
where USDA has a role as they fund some of these programs like
ReConnect.
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money,
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America
wired with broadband access?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I hate to be a microphone hog, but I will
tell you, hit on a really important--it is not just building
these networks, it is making them sustainable and affordable,
and Universal Service is key. Yes, we need to reform
contribution reform.
Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about
that question. Thank you.**
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Editor's note: the responses to the information referred to are
located: for Mr. Assey, on p. 93; Mr. Zumwalt, on p. 93; Mr. Stroup, on
p. 94; and Mr. Hurley, on p. 95.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Matheson. I agree with Ms. Bloomfield as well.
Mr. Rose. I----
Mr. Baird [presiding.] Next we have Mr. Gluesenkamp Perez
from Washington.
Ms. Perez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We know that access to
high-speed internet is essential to participating in the
economy, including telehealth and telework. That's why it is so
important that the bipartisan infrastructure law provided
almost $2 billion for the ReConnect Program. In fact, last
week--in one of my counties, Lewis County, was awarded--$24.2
million ReConnect grant. And this money will be used to deploy
a fiber network and make high-speed internet available to 2,863
people, 119 businesses, 487 farms, and four educational
facilities. And this will serve an area in which 91 percent of
residents do not currently have access to adequate broadband.
And right--this all hit really close to home during the
pandemic. You can't attend online school if you don't have
internet. So I am thrilled that these dollars are getting to
where they need to be.
Mrs. Bloomfield, you state in your testimony that what
matters most to rural America is not the mere deployment of
network, but the quality of the service they receive. And I am
agreeing with you, but I also wonder, how do we balance that
pursuit of quality, pursuing quality, when we still have so
many places that don't have access at all?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Well, first, congratulations to Whidbey,
who received that USDA grant, which I think is going to go
really far. I think some of these Federal programs can also be
looked at as complimentary, right? Because we have BEAD coming
out in 2024, and they are really focusing primarily on getting
the unserved done first. So I think that all of these programs
kind of fit together, and I think about--it is one of the
reasons why I am pretty adamant about, like, let's not dumb
down what we have with ReConnect at the 100/100, because I
think complimentarily we are going to have NTIA's program
coming in--really filling in those unserved pockets as well. I
think the two programs should work very well together.
Ms. Perez. And following up on that, in many rural
communities like mine there will only be one internet provider.
So what are we going to ensure that these resources remain
affordable, and we haven't created an untenable situation?
Mrs. Bloomfield. Trying to spur competition in markets
where you can't even have one provider without getting Federal
support really makes it tough to actually subsidize competition
in these areas, so I think that there are going to be a lot of
checks and balances along the way. Washington State, for
example, has a pretty robust State Broadband Office. In
thinking through the affordability programs, thinking through
the digital education programs, I think all of those things
packaged together are really going to be an important part of
ensuring that you get unserved served, but then you are also
able to kind of ensure that you are utilizing the networks to
the best capability.
Ms. Perez. Yes. Thank you. Mr. Assey, in your testimony you
talk about some of the potential fixes that could be made to
better ensure that the ReConnect Program is able to serve the
most rural and unserved or underserved areas. I am wondering if
you could elaborate on some of the current challenges, on some
of the potential changes you would like to see made?
Mr. Assey. Sure, and thank you for your leadership on the
Rural Internet Improvement Act as well. I think chief among
them is to ensure that the funding goes to the projects just
like the one you mentioned, where we have 90 percent of the
households that are going to be reached are those that actually
are the most in need of being reached. So making sure that the
dollars are used efficiently is probably chief among them. I do
think we need to modernize the eligibility screens, and the way
in which the agencies attract eligible and experienced
participants so that we get qualified applicants who are
willing to provide service.
I think we need to, again, refocus the way in which a lot
of these applications are scored to make sure that we are not
giving priority just to companies based on who they are, but we
are actually focused on what they can perform and execute on in
building these networks. And last, we just need to really
promote coordination with the FCC, with NTIA, with state
governments, because this really is going to be a case in which
the holistic approach and working together is going to be
better than the sum of the parts.
Ms. Perez. Thank you all so much. And--yes?
Mr. Stroup. I would like to respond to the question that
you raised about competition.
Ms. Perez. Yes?
Mr. Stroup. There are at least three companies in the
satellite industry providing direct to consumer broadband
services in competition with all of the other industries that
are represented here. Another one will be launching within the
next couple years, and others that are providing partnership
with rural telco companies. So there are a variety of means of
providing that competition.
Ms. Perez. Thank you so much for that additional point.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Yes. Mr. Nunn, from Iowa, please.
Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you very much
for the panel being here today, specifically for the help that
we need in rural Iowa. I was just in Des Moines, Iowa
yesterday, at Mercy One Hospital talking with a nurse as she
was talking to me--or--conversation with a patient who was
getting their update as they went. We can see, even during that
quick conversation, from a metropolitan area to a very rural
area, how challenging it was based on latency versus the amount
of times we dropped and were interrupted, versus trying to keep
that patient engaged.
Now, if that patient had a critical issue, it had been one
of our veterans who needed assistance, if it had been somebody
who had a life-saving recommendation coming from their
physician unable to have that communication, think we--put us
all in a very dangerous spot. The alternative was that patient
could have driven 2\1/2\ hours to Des Moines to try and get the
assistance they needed. A single mother, leaving their job,
coming to Des Moines, when at the same time somebody in a
community right next door had unparalleled access to it.
Which gets me to my concern that my home state right now is
45th in the nation for broadband access and is the second
lowest speeds. So at a topical level, yes, are we covered? But
is it an effective use of the internet? Absolutely not. To fix
this, I have introduced a bipartisan ReConnecting Rural America
Act of 2023 (H.R. 4227), alongside many of my colleagues in
this room. We think it is very important to become part of the
farm bill conversation. Our bill would make permanent the
ReConnect Program and expand broadband access to increase
speeds in rural America.
Now, Mr. Assey, I know that you feel differently than I do
on this, and I think that we can get to a point where we can
help a lot of these folks. But my concern here is that if you
have ever tried to plant precision agriculture with a delayed
speed, you are losing crop. If you are a person in immediate
medical need, and you have a delayed speed, it is almost like
having no internet at all. Or if you are just an individual
who's trying to improve their education and you have latency
here, whether it is an urban area or a rural area, you are
being left behind. And I think we all agree that's
unacceptable.
So I would like to speak specifically here to Mrs.
Bloomfield on your comments, as well as Mr. Matheson, the 100
up, 100 down and the robust middle-mile. Now, how would you
respond to the difference between no access, or delayed access,
or diminished access? Because, in my mind, they are all not
enough access for what's necessary. Mrs. Bloomfield, I will
start with you.
Mrs. Bloomfield. So you--first of all, thank you for your
leadership, and thank you for the legislation that you have
introduced. It is very important, I think sets the future stage
on the right course. So when you reference latency, I will just
share that when you talk about the livestock, we have a lot of
folks who actually run livestock sales. You have just lost the
ability to either purchase or sell something if you are not
being able to do it in real time.
I think all of that--and when you look at the symmetrical
speeds that you set in your legislation, it is really to ensure
that rural Americans aren't second class citizens, that they
are able to receive the same robust services that those in
urban areas of the country receive, and I think that is a
critical reset for this country.
Mr. Nunn. I would like to turn further--thank you. Mr.
Matheson, on the ReConnect side, for our broadband networks,
versus just keeping what I would call low grade infrastructure,
everything in the future, from our combines, to our
refrigerator, to our medical devices are going to be connected
to this. Talk to me about the long-term needs of rural
communities and how broadband high-speed is going to be
essential for this.
Mr. Matheson. Yes. Appreciate--again, I will echo--I
appreciate your leadership on this legislation that you have
introduced. Look, we all know that the internet and use of
broadband is only increasing, in terms of--it affects every
aspect of our lives in rural America. There have been
challenges. The pandemic helped highlight some of those
challenges when it came to work at home, when it came to school
at home, when it came to access to healthcare. And so I don't
think we need to make that case. I think that is settled, that
we all agree there is value in having access to real broadband.
And I appreciate your comment about the difference between
the fully served or underserved or not served. And I made some
comments earlier about the fact that--let's be careful about
simplistic description of unserved versus underserved.
Mr. Nunn. Right.
Mr. Matheson. It is not that simple.
Mr. Nunn. Right.
Mr. Matheson. And that--while unserved clearly deserve
service, the underserved do too, if it is not adequate.
Mr. Nunn. And let's not leave them behind on that. I
appreciate that.
Mr. Matheson. Absolutely.
Mr. Nunn. I know that's where we all want to get to
ultimately.
Mr. Matheson. Yes.
Mr. Nunn. Mr. Hurley, I am going to change topics, very
quickly ask you, as a guy who served in cybersecurity for quite
a while, as we roll out this new infrastructure, talk to us
specifically about the vital equipment that's essential so that
we can maintain good hygiene throughout the network.
Mr. Hurley. Yes. I think, as you look at the technology
that's coming on, and the connectedness of it, I would
encourage this Committee, when you think about cybersecurity,
think about food security and ag security, because--and I would
equate that to national security. Because today, and all these
gentlemen and ladies do their job, we become more connected. We
have--it is not just a single tractor, it is not a planter, it
is a sprayer, or a hog house, or a poultry farm. They are all
connected, and can all be vulnerable, and we need to give that
the focus that it deserves.
Mr. Nunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has expired. I
yield back, and I appreciate all the ag references in today's
hearing as well. Thank you.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. And now we
go to Illinois with Representative Budzinski.
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
Ranking Member, and thank you to the panelists. I appreciated
your testimony and the discussion that's happened so far. I am
really building on that. I wanted to make a note, I am the
former Chairwoman of the Illinois Broadband Advisory Council.
This is a topic that is very near and dear to my heart, as it
is, I know, to many of us on this Committee. And very
important--more importantly to my constituents that I represent
in central and southern Illinois.
I really believe we are on the precipice of true
generational change in this space, where we can finally capture
underserved areas, and rural communities will no longer have to
settle, which I think we all want to see. This is why it is
important to set our sights high, and ensure that all residents
have access to quality, affordable, high performance internet
and cell phone access at home.
The 2018 Farm Bill amended the Rural Broadband Program to
require 90 percent of residents in proposed service areas be
without--in a proposed service area be without sufficient
access to broadband or unserved to be eligible for grant
funding, and a 50 percent unserved requirement to be eligible
for loans. Prior to the 2018 Farm Bill, the Rural Broadband
Program required just 15 percent of households in a proposed
service area be unserved. I agree that our first priority
should be to deliver services to areas most in need, but I also
strongly believe that the introduction of unnecessary and
unprecedented program rigidity does not serve rural Americans,
or our goal of closing the digital divide.
Furthermore, as we get closer to 100 percent nationwide
connectivity, it is critical, I believe, that USDA have the
necessary flexibility to reach those final communities. So my
first question, actually, is for Mr. Matheson. With the
historic broadband infrastructure investments made over these
last several years, wouldn't it make more sense to add more
program flexibility in order to reach every part of rural
America? What are your thoughts on the flexibilities that will
be necessary for the USDA's broadband programs to address as we
get closer to 100 percent nationwide connectivity? And maybe
you could connect this to under--the underserved donut hole
issue as well.
Mr. Matheson. Yes. Look, one thing that is often said in
the electric co-op world is when you met one electric co-op,
you met one electric co-op.
Ms. Budzinski. Thanks.
Mr. Matheson. They pride themselves on--they are in a
unique circumstance. Everyone is different.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. And so adding that flexibility you mentioned
to accommodate specific areas----
Ms. Budzinski. Right.
Mr. Matheson.--in terms of what the needs are and the
circumstances, of course that makes sense, particularly as we
are trying to fill in these gaps, which are the hardest ones to
fill.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. That's why they are still unserved today.
Ms. Budzinski. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. And so I think that flexibility is all the
more important now than perhaps it was previously, because of
the nature of the task at hand. That being said, I also think
it is important that we--that the flexibility--to not allow
specific parameters to shut people out. If you are in an area
where 50 percent have access to broadband and 50 percent don't,
you say, well, too bad for that 50 who don't we are defining
that as one block of area.
Ms. Budzinski. Right.
Mr. Matheson. When what happens is the economics go--the 50
percent who have it are probably in the high population density
areas, where there is money to be made and the folks out in the
low population density areas are left out. And if they are
coupled into one category, and we just looked at it through
that frame, they are never going to get service, right?
Ms. Budzinski. Right.
Mr. Matheson. So that's the argument--that's an example
where that flexibility matters.
Ms. Budzinski. Okay. Thank you very much. And just to add
onto that--so building out broadband infrastructure in rural
America must account for the needs of every facet of rural
areas. I believe households, farms, businesses, and anchor
institutions--though adequate for many households, a recent GAO
report found that 25/3 is likely just to be too slow to meet
the speed needs of many small businesses. Many small businesses
and farms reported wanting download speeds of up to at least
100, and as--as did the Connect Illinois--excuse me, the
Connect Illinois Broadband Grant Program that we helped to
launch.
So one quick question in my last less than 60 seconds, Mrs.
Bloomfield, do you think that 25/3 is sufficient broadband
access? What factors should we take into consideration when
determining the speed minimum?
Mrs. Bloomfield. I would just note, for example, this
hearing room itself is 126/113, I believe. So, if you look at
25/3, you are saying you are willing to give rural Americans a
standard that is lower than you have in this hearing room to
transmit this hearing. So I think we have just grown beyond. I
think, as--everybody on this Committee has been talking about
applications with healthcare, and, having served on the
Illinois Advisory Board, you know all of the different
applications, whether it is agriculture, economic development,
I think that speed is something that--it--we are beyond that.
And, again, when I think about the fact that I have
companies, Country Fiber in South Carolina just shared that \1/
3\ of their customers take their gig service. We are there. We
are not just looking at it, we are there. So----
Ms. Budzinski. Thank you very much, and I yield back the
rest of my time.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back. And next
we have Representative Molinaro from New York.
Mr. Molinaro. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
witnesses, and I come from a part of New York where this
continues to be a significant challenge. And, despite the
influx of significant Federal, and even state funding, we
continue to experience not only deep challenges, but a shortage
in workforce and the challenge of expanding job opportunities.
So workforce availability is one of the items that we have been
focusing on.
Last year the GAO published a report indicating that over
30,000 additional telecom workers are needed to deploy high-
speed internet infrastructure on a scale that matches the
recent funding levels. And, Mr. Matheson, although--do we call
you Congressman still?
Mr. Matheson. Call me whatever you want.
Mr. Molinaro. Jim, I know that you and your organization
have had a long history of trained skill workers out into rural
communities.
Mr. Matheson. Yes.
Mr. Molinaro. Could you speak to what you observe are the
causes of the workforce shortage, and what tools maybe we might
consider to open up those job opportunities?
Mr. Matheson. Yes. It is a timely question. And while it is
not unique to the telecom fiber space, or even the electric
utility space, I think we have seen workforce shortages hitting
a lot of segments of the economy. But in this place, where we
are talking about the significant infusion of Federal money to
make these investments, this is one of the potential trip
hazards, if you will for being effective, and we are feeling
that.
Mr. Molinaro. Yes.
Mr. Matheson. We are feeling that in terms of finding
qualified technicians, qualified people to do the construction,
the operations. Again, not unique to the telecom sector, but it
is important. I know, for our local electric cooperatives, they
are trying to partner with local community colleges, trying to
find other partnerships to develop and train people, and create
the workforce of the future. But I can tell you, we haven't
found the secret sauce that fixes this yet, and I do think that
it is an issue that merits some consideration at the Federal
level about what we can do to encourage folks to go into these
fields to meet these workforce needs.
Mr. Molinaro. Yes. I think we have undervalued this kind of
work. We certainly have diminished its presence in public
education, and, frankly, have encouraged people to only learn
in a particular way when we should be expanding those
opportunities.
Mr. Matheson. Right.
Mr. Molinaro. Mrs. Bloomfield, I just wanted to turn to
some of the obstacles we--I know that we are facing in New York
in particular. We held a roundtable recently with some of our
service providers. We are not even--in New York, in my part of
the state, it is not the last mile, it is not the donut hole. I
mean, it is truly, like, 50. I mean, we are talking about
making the last connection in very small numbers.
The challenges that many of them face, the providers in
particular, are costs related to redundancy and bureaucracy,
both state and Federal, but also, then, the make-ready costs
for pole access, working with public utilities. These are real
challenges that I don't think we look at with great detail
because they are fine--they are sort of granular, but I hear
more and more that that's the last challenge. Can you speak to
how those impediments have kept access--or expanding access,
and then what have others done to overcome them? And what might
we do to streamline that process?
Mrs. Bloomfield. They are very real. When I think about
pole attachments, I think about railroad crossings, I think
about local barriers, local permitting, everybody kind of--you
kind of go through your different pounds of flesh, you go
through the process. So I do think there is something to be
said for--from a Federal perspective, looking at some
streamlining. I also think that a lot of things that can be
done when you think about, like there is, going through Forest
Service land, and working with municipalities in these State
Broadband Offices to say what can they do? How do you trickle
down from the Federal Government to minimize some of those
barriers that folks are seeing on the local ground?
And if I could just jump in one last point, because I do
think it ties to broadband, we think a lot about workforce
development, particularly in rural communities, because, again,
you have fewer folks to actually choose from. We have actually
been working with our companies on--we produced a guide for--K
through 12 guides to careers in broadband, getting kids to
understand this is a great career, this is a great path
forward.
And, frankly, if you look at your gamers--we may talk about
different applications here today, your gamers--my companies
that sponsor their e-sport teams, that is their future--those
are their future technicians. Those are their future IT folks.
Mr. Molinaro. Yes.
Mrs. Bloomfield. So watching that evolution, using
broadband networks to do something kids love to actually groom
that workforce is something we are really very focused on.
Mr. Molinaro. I thank you for saying that. And I will say
perhaps establishing timelines, and sort of specific
expectations for states to move or remove some of those access
obstacles, if you will, tied to Federal dollars might
incentivize them. I have 10 seconds. I just would say you bring
up one point, there is a labor force, those with disabilities,
who rarely have access to jobs. Eighty percent are unemployed.
The gaming space is a space that creates a level playing field
for those individuals to learn and access your workforce, and
it would be something that we should pay attention to. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Baird. And the gentleman yields back, and next we go to
Mr. Sorensen from Illinois.
Mr. Sorensen. I would like to begin by thanking the
Chairman and Ranking Member for convening this important
hearing, and our witnesses for your testimony. I know it is
getting into the afternoon. I really appreciate you sticking
through this. I am proud to represent northwestern and central
Illinois, where we have farming, urban, and rural constituents.
Many of our constituents face the challenge of per--poor
quality broadband. They have service that meets the definition
of broadband set by the FCC, but the service is not sufficient
to meet their needs.
Yesterday, I introduced the bipartisan ReConnecting Rural
America Act, along with my colleagues in this Committee,
Representative Nunn from Iowa, Representative Craig from
Minnesota, along with Representative LaHood. This bill sets
standards to target broadband investment to unserved and
underserved communities. The approach my bill takes will ensure
that underserved constituents can benefit from ReConnect grants
and loans, just like unserved constituents.
Currently broadband providers can access ReConnect funds to
service areas that are 50 percent unserved. Now, my bill
increases the standard to 75 percent, with minimum service
speeds of 100 up--or 100 down and 20 up, with a preference for
service areas with 90 percent unserved. And, finally, the bill
sets mandatory build-out speeds, what we have been talking
about here today, 100 by 100 symmetrical. I am thankful, Mrs.
Bloomfield, you mentioned that in your opening statement today,
so I will begin with you. Could you speak to why this standard
needs to be met?
Mrs. Bloomfield. There are so many reasons the standard
needs to be met, but I would also--I think I would start off
with the fact that, again, it is looking at current usage,
current network capacity, and really thinking about--making
sure that we build for what we need right now, but also what we
need in a few years from now. And so I think the ability to
say, we are not going to get this type of funding again, so
let's make sure that what we are not doing is turning around in
3 years, and digging back up, and looking to upload the speeds,
and increase the speeds. Let's go ahead and ensure that we are
putting what is probably the most logical target in place as a
start. So, again, we commend you for your leadership, and think
that there are so many things in your piece of legislation that
are actually very commendable.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. I plan to introduce the
House version of the Access to Capital Creates Economic
Strength and Supports Rural America Act, or the ACCESS Rural
America Act (H.R. 4360), alongside Representative Tiffany, and
Senators Baldwin and Ernst. The bicameral and bipartisan bill
will provide regulatory relief to small rural broadband
providers, allowing them to focus on delivering broadband to
the most remote areas of our country.
So, if I could continue, Mrs. Bloomfield, could you share
with the Committee some of the potential impact of this, and
also maybe some of the stresses that we see in the rollout of
rural broadband?
Mrs. Bloomfield. So this is an area where your leadership
is really important, because I will say that when we think
about Sarbanes-Oxley, it was put in place because of large
corporate interests, large publicly traded companies.
Mr. Sorensen. Right.
Mrs. Bloomfield. My members are community-based providers,
but if you have a commercial company that is locally held, they
maybe have 490 shareholders, and somebody in the family decides
to gift to somebody else in the family some of their shares,
suddenly you hit 500, and all of these requirements from the
SEC kick in. That is hundreds of thousands of dollars a year
annually in terms of things that you need to file that are
compliance oriented. Then you need to get auditors, and then
you need to get lawyers.
And, again, what is--the regs are understandable, but they
are really meant for publicly traded companies, and what they
are doing in some of these small towns is they are really
having people focus spending money and dealing with these
regulations, rather--and reporting, and reporting, and
reporting, rather than actually being able to build the
broadband.
Mr. Sorensen. Yes.
Mrs. Bloomfield. So, we greatly appreciate your
introduction of the legislation.
Mr. Sorensen. Thank you for that. Mr. Stroup, you mentioned
in your testimony the need to incentivize satellite internet
providers. In the past there have been concerns for providing
Federal funds for satellite internet, given the limitations to
the technology. With technological advancements, and the
introduction of low-Earth orbit satellite networks, have those
concerns for satellite network capacity changed?
Mr. Stroup. Thank you for the question, and I think that
they certainly have. Given the advances in satellite
technology, the ever-increasing speeds, the ever-increasing
capacity--as I had mentioned in my testimony, companies are
providing speeds up to 200 megabits per second. They continue
to launch additional satellites just to--and in--10 years ago
there were 1,000 satellites. Today there are approximately
8,000 satellites, just to give you a sense of the expansion in
the numbers of satellites in the same capability. Ten years ago
the speeds were much different than they are today. So I think
that that's an argument--a relic of the past, quite frankly.
Mr. Sorensen. As the Ranking Member on the Space
Subcommittee, I appreciate you here, and there, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. And then we go to the very patient
Representative Van Orden from Wisconsin.
Mr. Van Orden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
acknowledge some of my constituents in the back from Grant
County. I appreciate you showing up, very much. Mr. Zumwalt,
are you related to Admiral Zumwalt?
Mr. Zumwalt. Yes, I am, distantly.
Mr. Van Orden. All right. He is a good dude. Politicians
have been running on providing rural broadband since Al Gore
invented the internet, and I want to share with you how broken
this system is. And it is not on your side, it is on this side.
I want to give you an example here. We have spent, over the
last 5 years, $166.6 billion. The private-sector has spent $185
billion. That's $351 billion. This is a penny. See the penny?
Look at it sideways. If you were to stack up 351 billion
pennies, it would reach almost 1\1/2\ times to the Moon, and
13.3 times around the Earth.
Speaking of the Moon, in 1961 John F. Kennedy said, ``We
are going to go to the Moon.'' Eight years later, a man stepped
on the Moon, Neil Armstrong. I met him. Another good dude. That
cost $257 billion. So for two--that's inflation adjusted
dollars. It cost $257 billion to put a man on the Moon, 8 years
after John F. Kennedy said we are going to do it. We have spent
$351 billion in the last 5 years, and I can't do precision
agriculture, going from Crawford to Grant County, where those
people are from. This is a stent--a systemic failure of this
system. I work with all my rural co-ops. I am good with all you
cats. I want to ask you one question. When is the last time you
all sat together in a room? When?
Mr. Matheson. Well, some of us sit----
Mr. Van Orden. No.
Mr. Matheson. All of----
Mr. Van Orden. When's the last time all of you sat in a
room?
Mr. Matheson. Well, all six of us have never done that.
Mr. Van Orden. Yes.
Okay. Guess what? I am planting a flag this morning. I am
appointing myself in charge of this. I am formally inviting all
of you to sit in my office and talk about things, regardless of
how you provide services. So right now you can Netflix and
chill, and smoke check a Russian check in Bakhmut, Ukraine,
right? And my combine, it can't do precision agriculture in
Grant County. That's wrong, okay? So I am formally inviting all
of you to my office. Leave your jerseys at the door, and let's
fix this problem. Because it ain't about you, it ain't about
me, it is about those people in the back of the room. With
that, I yield back.
Mr. Baird. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. Next we go
to Mr. Langworthy. You have 5 minutes.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking
Member. Whether it is managing a vineyard, operating a dairy,
broadband access plays a crucial role in supporting our farming
operations and initiatives. The nature of running a farm, much
like operating a small- to medium-size business, requires
reliable and fast internet connectivity to ensure efficient and
effective management.
Now, everything from ordering supplies, to monitoring farm
data, to managing pesticide use, it is all done using the
internet. We can't imagine a local convenience store or a gas
station operating without full broadband. Yet, today our
farming operations are really no different. Like too many parts
of our country, only 75 percent of my district is considered to
be served by fast, reliable broadband. So while billions of
dollars has been made available through new and existing
programs to deploy broadband infrastructure, I share the goal
of many of my colleagues here today to focus these abundant
resources first and foremost on the areas that are unserved.
And, with that, Mr. Assey, last month I sent a letter, with
several of my colleagues here today, to Secretary Vilsack
regarding the Rural eConnectivity Pilot Program. We expressed
to the Secretary that he prioritizes the pressing issue of
connecting unserved rural Americans in bridging the digital
divide by keeping the ReConnect Program of the Rural Utilities
Service focused on this objective. Unserved households are
unserved for a reason. They are often not economically viable
for private entities to provide networks there, so those
unserved areas require the help of Federal dollars.
And for this reason, we need to ensure that the mission of
ReConnect is to serve unserved areas first. This makes certain
that the government is overbuilding, and developing competing
networks where networks already exist. Like the cafeteria line,
we need to make sure everyone is served first, and then, if
there is still food left, others can get back in line for
seconds, to build their networks to even higher speeds and
higher capacities.
I am a little concerned with how new or additional funding
for ReConnect and other programs will be adequately and
appropriately targeted towards areas that are genuinely
unserved. So can you talk a little bit about the importance of
prioritizing unserved versus underserved areas?
Mr. Assey. Sure. And thank you for the question and for the
letter. I think what it expresses is consistent with what was
the original intent of the program, to really focus on our
hardest problems first, because if we don't, things have a way
of always trying to get places that may have a larger economic
return. And what we have seen in the past is the people that
don't have even standard broadband at 25/3 are continually left
behind. So I think it is a good reminder, it is a good way to
kind of refresh people's focus on the areas that we need to
focus on first that are the hardest problems to solve. But,
with resources and resolve, I believe they can be solved.
Mr. Langworthy. Well, we certainly have enough resources.
Mr. Assey, for the past 2 decades we have seen significant
Federal investment in broadband development. And given the
influx of all of these funds to build-out internet
connectivity, how can we prevent overbuilding and duplication
of Federal efforts in funding for the broadband systems?
Mr. Assey. I think we have to have consistent standards for
the areas that we are trying to serve with Federal dollars. We
have to recognize that, no matter how much money that we put
into the system to provide support, and I would say necessary
support in areas where it is otherwise uneconomic to serve,
there is a substantial capital investment that's being made by
private companies, and we need to harvest the benefits of
competition in order to solve the problem.
Mr. Langworthy. Mr. Matheson, is there anything you would
like to add on that topic?
Mr. Matheson. I am sorry, can you--I couldn't--the door--
what did you say again?
Mr. Langworthy. Okay. Is there anything you would like to
add on that topic of overbuilding?
Mr. Matheson. I think that comment I made--it is easy to
oversimplify the term overbuilding, and unserved and
underserved. I think there is a more nuanced approach we ought
to be talking about here. I am concerned about folks that are
underserved that are going to be left behind, and it is good
enough for them. And in--for rural--it is good enough for
rural. I don't buy that. So I understand that unserved are an
important priority. I don't think I would summarily reject all
unserved as being secondary to that. There is a more nuanced
approach that I think this Committee needs to think about as
they write the next farm bill.
Mr. Langworthy. Very good. Thank you very much, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia [presiding.] Thank you. And now
the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much----
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. You are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Thank you so much, Mr. Ranking
Member, and to all the witnesses who are here today. In eastern
North Carolina, which I represent in the First Congressional
District, broadband accessibility is one of the largest
roadblocks people face to advance: 42 percent of people in the
First Congressional District do not have broadband access.
Whether it be in their education, small business, or applying
for grants and loans, USDA often tells people in my district
that they can go online and apply for the grant. But how can
they do that when there is not internet connectivity? That's a
big hurdle. That's a comment. I would like to move into a more
technical question here and would love to hear from any of the
witnesses.
There are a lot of different ways, then, to bring broadband
connectivity to rural households. Fiber may work best in one
place, but then--increasingly noticed fixed wireless in certain
locations. How should USDA consider place-based policies when
constructing broadband networks? And I would love to hear from
any of the witnesses on this.
Mrs. Bloomfield. I will just jump in and say that I think
that you can be technology-neutral, because I do think it is
going to take every--you may be serving--you may have a
mountain that is tougher to lay fiber to. You may have an area
that has line of sight obstruction, which makes fixed wireless
a little bit more challenging. But that is where I think there
is a real value to USDA setting that speed of 100 symmetrical,
because what you are saying is it is about this capacity, it is
not about how you actually--what technology you are using to
actually bring the technology to the consumer.
Mr. Zumwalt. I think we can stipulate that Shirley likes
100/100, because we have heard this a lot today, and I am
certainly not trying to argue against the best that we can do
for every American. But when you look at actual streams of
data, a Zoom call or a Teams call is about 5 megabits per
second. A 4K stream from a streaming service like Netflix is
about 5 megabits per second. Gaming is about 5 megabits per
second each way. It takes a lot of those to get up to 100/100
in every single location. And if we insist on 100/100 service
everywhere, we will have people who are unserved because we
will overbuild existing networks that do have service today.
And I think that when we talk about future-proofing, we
need to be talking about future-proofing the people of the
United States of America, including the people who are unserved
today. And that's why we are passionate about making sure that
the unserved get served first, and then we can solve for how we
get connectivity enhancements along the way.
Mr. Stroup. And, Representative Davis, from the equipment
manufacturer's perspective, specifically focused on how do we
continue to deploy, and utilize, and reap the benefits of
precision ag, our position is strongly that we have to be
neutral on the technology because it is going to take all of
the different types of technology for us truly to be able to
utilize and reap the benefits, whether that is from increasing
yields, whether that is reducing fuel usage, all of the
advantages that precision technology brings, because it has to
be in the middle of the field, it has to be in the barn, and it
has to be at--wherever the analytics are being done.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes. Well, let me just ask
this question, then. Do we believe we have been neutral so far
in the technology?
Mr. Assey. Have we been neutral?
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Yes.
Mr. Assey. I look to a program like the FCC RDOF Program,
where we set a baseline. We obviously don't want to invest in
yesterday's technology, but we want to incent the best
technology platform we have. Cable is a connectivity company.
We offer hybrid fiber/coax solutions, we build fiber networks,
we offer wireless solutions. We want to provide whatever the
connectivity is that the consumer's going to need in the
future.
And what's important is that the technology platforms we
build can meet not only the needs of today and tomorrow, but
that they are scalable. And we believe that, in the very near
future, cable technology is going to make this entire debate
moot because we are going to be able to provide multi-gigabit
speeds in both directions.
Mr. Davis of North Carolina. Well, I greatly appreciate the
responses today, and, Mr. Chairman, I do yield back.
Mr. Langworthy [presiding.] Thank you very much. And before
we adjourn today, I invite--thank you. And before we adjourn
today, I invite Ranking Member Scott to share any closing
comments he may have.
Mr. David Scott of Georgia. Thank you very much. Lady and
gentlemen, this has been an extraordinary hearing at an
extraordinary and historic time. We are recognized around the
world as having the best, foremost, number one agriculture
system in the world. But a lot of that is at stake if we don't
connect with ourselves and the rest of the world where we
produce our food supply. And that is making what we have to do
now a national security issue. No more pussyfooting around. It
has got to end. Your testimony here today has opened our eyes
up on this Committee to much of what we were only dimly aware.
And thank you for this, but don't stop here. We have just
12 weeks to complete this task of making sure that we don't cut
any corners in connecting rural America full speed ahead on the
same basis that we have connected urban America. That's where
our food supply is. It is--and our food supply is becoming more
and more an issue. Precision agriculture, all of the
technological benefits that we need to make sure is in our
communities where we produce our food. There are worlds and
nations who are envious of us. We look at the European Union,
who looks at us, and says that they are more interconnected
with the internet than the United States. We have to put that
to an end.
And so I want to thank Mrs. Shirley Bloomfield, Chief
Executive Officer of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association.
Your testimony was most helpful. Thank you. Mr. James Assey,
Executive Vice President of NCTA--The Internet and Television
Association, you did a masterful job. David Zumwalt, President
and CEO of WISPA--The Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association. Mr. Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite
Industry Association, thank you. Jim Matheson, Chief Executive
Officer of National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association,
and my friend, and former Member of Congress. We have traveled
together, we have worked together. Keep up the good work. And
Mr. Bill Hurley, Chair of the Agriculture Sector Board,
Association of Equipment Manufacturers, AEM.
You all did a fantastic job, and you saw and heard, from
the participation of our Members on both sides of the aisle. We
are Republicans and Democrats working in a bipartisan way to
make sure we finally cross the Rubicon and establish rural
broadband in rural America. God bless you, and thank you for
your wisdom, your advice, and please continue to work with us
over next 12 weeks. We must get this farm bill done by the end
of September, and that's just 3 months away. So our work is
ahead for us, and we want you to continue to be involved. And,
most importantly, make sure we got the right amount of money so
that we don't short circuit our rural communities from having
the financial resources to do this job the right way. Thank
you.
Mr. Langworthy. Thank you, Ranking Member Scott, and thank
you to all our witnesses for their expert testimony here today,
and all of your cooperation and time. Under the Rules of this
Committee, the record of today's hearing will remain open for
10 calendar days to receive additional material and
supplementary written responses from the witnesses to any of
the questions posed by a Member. This hearing of the Committee
on Agriculture is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:19 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Article by Hon. John W. Rose, a Representative in Congress
from Tennessee
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegreenwald/2021/04/06/an-exciting-
surprisingly-imaginative-techy-vision-of-telemedicines-future/
?sh=6fbb57647a03]
An Exciting, Surprisingly Imaginative, Techy Vision Of Telemedicine's
Future
Michelle Greenwald,\1\ Contributor, Corporate Innovation Expert,
Systematic, Creative, Product Development
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellegreenwald/.
Apr. 6, 2021, 08:51 a.m. EDT
Avatar of Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal at Vanderbilt University
Medical Center to potentially use in future patient
interactions. Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal.
Avatars, virtual waiting rooms, virtual scribes, in-home testing
devices, ``syndromatic'' facial analysis using AI and machine learning,
screen-sharing, and sentiment analysis . . . There are many exciting
innovation possibilities on the horizon that will make telemedicine
even more productive, informative, helpful and dare I say fun and
personable, than current, in-person doctor visits. Several weeks ago I
heard Dr. Yaa Kumah-Crystal, MD MPH, Assistant Professor of Biomedical
Informatics at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, speak at the
Disruption Lab's excellent series on the Future of Health Care. Dr.
Kumah-Crystal defined telehealth as ``care unbound by distance,
physical location or setting.''
While many of the ideas Dr. Kumah-Crystal shared have a long way to
go, they paint a picture that's exciting to imagine, and can be
instructive and inspiring to a range of industries outside of
healthcare. The guiding objective for these ideas is how to make
telemedicine even better than current in-person care, in certain
instances. While telemedicine visits have been reimbursed by most
insurance companies at the same rate as in-person visits since the
onset of [COVID] due to restrictions and the need to encourage care,
going forward telemedicine may have to prove its comparable worth for
insurers to maintain parity payments. What follows are some of the more
exciting, creative, effective possibilities Dr. Kumah-Crystal shared.
Screen-sharing
It can be hard for patients to understand verbal explanations by
physicians of their conditions, or through wall-charts or plastic
models of body parts in their offices. With screen-sharing, it's easier
for doctors to show more still visuals that can be easier for patients
to understand, or even short, explanatory videos.
Chart Photos
It can be difficult for physicians to match patient names with what
they look like between or before visits. While not a common occurrence,
there can be errors in writing prescriptions for the wrong person. What
if each person's photo always appeared in their telehealth chart?
Syndromatic Facial Detection Using AI, Machine Learning & Pattern
Recognition
One way physicians diagnose is looking at the patient's eyes, face
and tongue. AI and Machine Learning benefit from millions of
observations, correlations with diseases, and pattern recognition.
Using image recognition of the patient, computers have more data points
to draw upon than any one physician, and therefore the conclusions can
be even more accurate.
Virtual Waiting Rooms
Waiting rooms can be boring and not a great use of a patient's
time. What if once a patient was logged in for their appointment, while
they were waiting for the doctor online, there was content tailored
either to their interests, or even better, relating to the issue they
came to see the doctor about.
Remote Monitoring Devices & Virtual House Calls
What if patients had in their homes, simplified yet effective
versions of routine monitoring devices normally found in a doctor's
office, such as a stethoscope or a device for looking in the ear, nose
and throat. These readings could be digitally transmitted to the doctor
to interpret.
Sentiment Analysis Based On Facial Expression
The patient experience, while historically not given enough
attention, can become easier to assess by analyzing facial expressions
in response to each step of their care journey, from filling out forms
(even digital ones), to speaking with the doctor, to understanding new
terminology, to understanding a bill. Anonymized facial expression
analysis could help interested doctors' offices realize what areas of
the end-to-end patience experience they most need to improve.
Better Understanding How Patients' Everyday Life Affects Their Health
Imagine how effective it would be for a patient to show their
doctor how they organize their medications, the foods they eat, or how
they exercise, right from their home. The patient could take the doctor
or physical therapist for a virtual tour of their medicine cabinet,
their refrigerator or pantry, or their exercise routine.
Avatars
It's been shown that people can feel more comfortable sharing
personal things with through avatars of themselves and people they're
interacting with. Avatars of doctors can seem more approachable and
easier to talk to about difficult subjects. Advances in avatar creation
has enabled them to be even more realistic, with movements like raising
eyebrows, smiling, and other facial expressions.
Virtual Scribes
Since the advent of electronic medical records, physicians have
found themselves spending more and more time, both during and after
patient visits, typing notes about the patients' symptoms and
condition. It's hard to make eye contact with the patient while doing
it. Virtual scribes that use voice recognition to hear and transcribe/
diarize the entire conversation, free doctors to make eye contact with
patients so they feel they're being paid better attention and getting
better care. Patients can then receive a copy of the notes with a
patient dictionary or glossary of terms, so they can more easily
understand unfamiliar terminology used by the doctor.
Improved Accessibility and Speech Captions
Due to [COVID] concerns and patients and physicians wearing masks
in-person or online, the sound can be muffled and patients can't read
lips to help decipher the speech. With virtual visits, there could be
captions to what was being said to be sure nothing was missed. For
hearing impaired patients this is even more essential.
Text Check-Ins Between Visits
While there will always be circumstances that require in-person
visits, some can be replaced by text check-ins, including photos.
Telemedicine is envisioned as only a partial replacement for in-person
care. For seniors, the disabled, and individuals without good
transportation options, the ability to not have to physically come into
an office is not only easier, it can increase medical provider/patient
communication, and therefore improve outcomes. This could correlate
with a different compensation mechanism that rewards how well the
patient does, rather than basing compensation solely on office visit
and procedure fees.
Doctor/Patient Portals
With digitized remote monitoring devices like glucose monitors,
heart monitors, and scales, doctors can check-in periodically to
monitor the data for aberrations that might warrant attention. The
software can be programmed to alert the doctor when aberrations occur
and is therefore a 24/7 kind of monitoring that's more effective than
waiting for a scheduled visit to discover an issue.
Conclusion
We live in a very exciting time for medicine because of the
combination of advances in science, technology, creativity, and
increased focus on customer experience, speed and efficiency. What's
key is bringing together individuals with different expertise to
jointly problem solve and imagine more effective processes, independent
of legacy procedures and systems.
I've heard Scott Friedman, another speaker at the Disruption Lab
series on the Future of Health Care, who is a Professor and Chief of
the Division of Liver Diseases at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York
(considered by many to be the most innovative medical center in New
York), speak about Mount Sinai's new BioMedical Engineering and Imaging
Institute. Launched in September 2019, its goal is to develop novel
medical inventions in the fields of imaging, nanomedicine, artificial
intelligence, robotics, sensors, medical devices, and computer vision
technologies that include virtual, augmented, and extended reality.
Mount Sinai's pioneering FlexMed medical school program allows
applicants to apply who don't have traditional science majors and
they're not required to take the MCAT for admission. It encourages a
student body with broader set of interests and skills such as
engineering, computer science, software engineering, or robotics, that
will help graduates create the healthcare of the future.
There's much to be learned by other industries in the way
healthcare, due to necessity, is adapting to a post-[COVID], more
contactless, more visual, virtual, and data driven world. [COVID] was
the accelerant for changes that were long needed, causing us to think
sooner, more intensely, broadly, and imaginatively about what the
future can hold.
Follow me on Twitter \2\ or LinkedIn.\3\ Check out my website
\4\ or some of my other work here.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://www.twitter.com/CatalyzingInnov.
\3\ https://www.linkedin.com/in/catalyzinginnovation.
\4\ http://www.catalyzinginnovation.com/.
\5\ https://books.apple.com/us/book/catalyzing-innovation/
id794016507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Submitted Letter by Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, a Representative in
Congress from New York
May 18, 2023
Hon. Thomas J. ``Tom'' Vilsack,
Secretary,
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Dear Secretary Vilsack,
We write to you today to request that you prioritize the pressing
issue of connecting unserved rural Americans and bridging the digital
divide by keeping the Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Pilot Program of
the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) focused on this objective.
For years, rural communities have long been neglected due to their
remote location and lack of economic viability, making it difficult to
provide them with broadband service without the aid of targeted
subsidies.
The Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Pilot Program has provided
funding for broadband deployment in rural communities without access to
broadband service since its establishment in 2018 and has two main
strategies to effectively distribute its funding.
First, it prioritizes rural areas where at least 90 percent of
households lack access to broadband, ensuring that the most unserved
regions receive support. Second, it avoids duplicative efforts by not
providing funding to areas that are already receiving broadband service
through other programs, thus making the most efficient use of its
resources. These measures, in addition to other improvements like
refining broadband coverage data and expanding program access to more
qualified providers, are meant to allow ReConnect to accurately
allocate funding and provide services to the most unserved rural areas.
However, as RUS begins to award a fourth round of funding, we are
deeply concerned that the program may not be focused on this objective,
and that these funds for the next round of ReConnect could go to places
that already have strong broadband service. In the Infrastructure
Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), Congress directed RUS to focus funding
on rural areas ``without sufficient access to broadband defined . . .
as having speeds of not less than 25 megabits per second downloads and
3 megabits per second uploads.'' In addition, Congress directed RUS to
set aside a portion of the appropriated funding specifically to
prioritize areas where at least 90 percent of households to be served
lack 25/3 megabits per second (Mbps). And yet, in its most recent
funding opportunity announcement, RUS increased the threshold for
``sufficient access to broadband'' to 100/20 Mbps. Coupled with IIJA's
lowering the percentage of households within a project that are
unserved, RUS could be allocating a significant portion of its
resources to subsidize additional broadband deployment in areas where
more than half of households can already subscribe to 100/20 Mbps or
better from an existing provider, diverting funding away from rural
areas that require broadband the most.
The concerns regarding the duplication of Federal resources are
amplified due to the significant amount of broadband funding that has
been allocated to NTIA through the IIJA. As you know, to ensure the
maximum impact of Federal and state broadband programs, it is crucial
for ReConnect to collaborate with other initiatives such as the FCC's
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) program, NTIA, Treasury, and
state broadband programs. This collaboration will prevent any
duplication of services in project areas that are already funded by
other government agencies. Duplicating services will not only hinder
the efforts to bridge the digital divide but also deprive numerous
rural communities of reliable, affordable, and high-speed internet
services.
Therefore, through the next farm bill, Congress should have proper
oversight and authority for ReConnect and other programs that directly
impact rural Americans, as the lack of checks and balances in the
ReConnect funding program have been a cause for concern. In addition,
we strongly urge the agency to make every effort to give priority to
communities with the highest percentage of unserved households and
those not being served by other broadband funding programs, as meeting
our shared goal of connecting all Americans is dependent on these
crucial actions.
Sincerely,
Hon. Nicholas A. Langworthy, Hon. Don Bacon,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Trent Kelly, Hon. Lori Chavez-DeRemer,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Zachary Nunn, Hon. John S. Duarte,
Member of Congress Member of Congress
Hon. Marcus J. Molinaro,
Member of Congress
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by James M. Assey, Jr., J.D.,
Executive Vice President, NCTA--The Internet and Television Association
Insert
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money,
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America
wired with broadband access?
* * * * *
Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about
that question. Thank you.
With the passage of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act,
there is a rare opportunity for policymakers to reassess the scope and
scale of the Universal Service Fund's (USF) programs to ensure optimal
use of USF's resources in achieving the goal of universal service. The
Infrastructure Act's programs, such as the $42.5 billion Broadband
Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) program, will fund new broadband
infrastructure in many of the same unserved and underserved areas that
are supported by USF's high-cost program.
NCTA recognizes that broadband providers that deploy broadband
networks with government funding will continue to incur operational and
maintenance costs in high-cost areas; however, there is no basis for a
blanket assumption that providers will be unable to cover these costs
in the future because modern, fiber-rich networks tend to have lower
operating costs than the legacy copper networks they are supplanting.
In the event a provider does seek USF support for operational and
maintenance expenses in an extremely rural, high-cost area, NCTA
believes the provider should be required to demonstrate such support is
necessary and not duplicative of other government support. All
stakeholders will soon have the opportunity to address these issues in
response to the Notice of Inquiry that recently was commenced by the
FCC.
The extensive and overlapping funding provided by the new programs
recently created by Congress should reduce the fiscal demands on USF.
NCTA believes this is an opportune time to focus on stabilizing USF
through increased efficiency and better targeted spending.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by David M. Zumwalt, President and
Chief Executive Officer, Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association
Insert
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money,
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America
wired with broadband access?
* * * * *
Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about
that question. Thank you.
Thank you for this important question. Many rural communities
across America do not have the same access to broadband as their urban
and suburban counterparts. This disparity has long-term adverse
economic and social consequences for those left behind. These
challenges are particularly acute for our nation's farmers.
Connectivity, real-time data, and opportunities to sell their
commodities in an expedient and efficient manner are more critical than
ever. And many applications used by farmers, such as precision
agriculture, require wireless broadband to blanket vast acres of
farmland. WISPA is committed to addressing this disparity.
The Universal Service Fund (USF) has played a major role in
connecting communities and remains important today. However, for it to
be most effective in today's technological environment, USF should be
updated to better accommodate small, broadband-only providers who
deliver needed internet access to millions of Americans in high-cost
areas that are on the wrong side of the digital divide.
More specifically, WISPA recommends the following:
Congress should update the FCC's USF programs from Title II
telecommunications programs to allow support for broadband
programs; an important step will be to decouple or eliminate
the hurdle that requires recipients of high-cost support to
first be designated as Eligible Telecommunications Carriers
(``ETCs'').
Federal and state broadband funding programs should be
carefully crafted and implemented to avoid duplicating
government support to providers in the same area.
USF programs should focus on functionality, consumer demand,
deployment costs and speed of deployment to encourage timely
and efficient distribution of ratepayer and taxpayer
contributions.
The E-rate program should fund support of off-campus use of
broadband services for library patrons/students who would
otherwise lack access; and allow schools/libraries to use funds
for broadband access for K-12 students within the footprint of
a school or school district, with such support available for
all technologies, including fixed wireless networks using
unlicensed spectrum.
The FCC should permit high-cost support recipients that are
not the only Lifeline provider in their Census block to fulfill
their obligations by either offering Lifeline discounts or
participating in the Affordable Connectivity Program.
And, if the Commission requires entities that do not provide
voice services to contribute to USF, it should raise the de
minimis contribution threshold to prevent unfair burdens on
small providers.
Every American--regardless of where they live--should have access
to the very best internet and reliability that they need. Americans in
rural areas have no less a need for broadband than those in urban and
suburban centers. Modernizing USF is an important step to ensuring that
all communities benefit from connectivity.
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Thomas A. ``Tom'' Stroup, J.D.,
President, Satellite Industry Association
Insert
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money,
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America
wired with broadband access?
* * * * *
Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about
that question. Thank you.
The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) submits this in response
to the request for formal reply to the question raised during the House
Agriculture Committee Hearing on June 21, 2023, concerning whether ``we
need to address the Universal Service Fund to make sure that it is
providing the resources to keep America wired with broadband access?''
The USF is one of many current Federal funding programs seeking to
support the deployment of broadband in rural and other unserved areas
of the United States. For example, the FCC, NTIA, Department of
Agriculture, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Treasury, and the
Institute of Museum and Library Services all provide funding to build-
out rural broadband infrastructure.\1\ *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. Congressional Research Service, Overview of the Universal
Service Fund and Selected Federal Broadband Programs (updated June 25,
2021), at https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46780.
* Editor's note: the referenced report is retained in Committee
file.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIA believes these programs should be technology inclusive and that
satellite operators should be eligible for funding through them. As
noted in SIA's written testimony, no single broadband technology holds
all the advantages. With finite resources and widely varying
topography, we need a flexible combination of all available access
technologies to bridge the digital divide and satellites are a key part
of that ecosystem. Fortunately, multiple satellite providers currently
provide broadband access to consumers nationwide, including in rural
and remote areas. They provide connection to all 50 states with speeds
of up to 200 megabits per second (Mbps) without the need for additional
build-out.\2\ Satellite companies continue to launch new capacity and
plan to deploy tens of thousands of new satellites adding to the
approximately 8,000 satellites on orbit today. The satellite industry
is currently increasing production of satellites capable of providing
connections to rural America while reducing costs. For example, the
cost of manufacturing satellites as measured by cost per throughput has
decreased approximately 90% resulting in lower costs to consumers,
including those in rural areas.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AG/AG00/20230621/116129/HHRG-
118-AG00-Wstate-StroupT-20230621.pdf.
\3\ BryceTech, Satellite Industry Association: State of the
Satellite Industry Report 2023, at 10, 16 (2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Supplementary Material Submitted by Bill T. Hurley, Vice President,
Distribution, Americas, AGCO Corporation; Chair, Ag Sector Board,
Association of Equipment Manufacturers
Insert
Mr. Rose. Thank you. And, I am going to use the remaining
time to prompt each of you on this question. We are here today
talking about the farm bill USDA programs as it relates to
rural broadband, but I have been of the opinion for a long
time, living in a rural area, that we simply have to think
about this in an ongoing, holistic manner, and that the money
that we are sending through USDA, and even the COVID-era money,
doesn't really address the fundamental challenge that we face
as a country of building-out broadband infrastructure that
reaches all Americans, and then maintaining it over time so
that we know we are always going to be on the cutting edge.
And my own view is that we found a solution to that decades
ago, but we haven't made the changes to keep it up to date, and
that is the Universal Service Fund. And I am curious--probably
not time for it--all of you to respond, but would anyone like
to dive onto that question and tell me, am I wrong or am I
right that we need to address the Universal Service Fund to
make sure that it is providing the resources to keep America
wired with broadband access?
* * * * *
Mr. Rose. And, I know my time has expired, but I would
appreciate for the record comments from the rest of you about
that question. Thank you.
The Association of Equipment Manufacturers (AEM) supports updates
to the Universal Service Fund that take into consideration advancements
in precision agriculture and the connectivity needs that they require.
We believe that the spirit of the Communications Act of 1934 called for
universal services to be administered as an evolving level of service.
Precision agriculture wasn't initially theorized until the 1980s and
policymakers then could not possibly have foreseen what innovations
would be developed 50 years into the future.
As such, as policymakers approach updating any Federal broadband
deployment program, AEM would encourage a multifaceted strategy that
includes fiber optic, low earth orbit (LEO) satellites, and 5G. It is
imperative that the system supports connectivity between all aspects of
rural America, from the hospital to the school and from the farmhouse
to the field.
[all]