[House Hearing, 119 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
FIXING BIDEN'S BROADBAND BLUNDER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND
TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 5, 2025
__________
Serial No. 119-10
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Published for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
59-922 PDF WASHINGTON : 2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
Chairman
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia Ranking Member
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia DORIS O. MATSUI, California
GARY J. PALMER, Alabama KATHY CASTOR, Florida
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
DAN CRENSHAW, Texas YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania, Vice RAUL RUIZ, California
Chairman SCOTT H. PETERS, California
RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia MARC A. VEASEY, Texas
TROY BALDERSON, Ohio ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas DARREN SOTO, Florida
DIANA HARSHBARGER, Tennessee KIM SCHRIER, Washington
MARIANNETTE MILLER-MEEKS, Iowa LORI TRAHAN, Massachusetts
KAT CAMMACK, Florida LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ, New York
JOHN JAMES, Michigan JAKE AUCHINCLOSS, Massachusetts
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina KEVIN MULLIN, California
LAUREL M. LEE, Florida GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
NICHOLAS A. LANGWORTHY, New York JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey
MICHAEL A. RULLI, Ohio
GABE EVANS, Colorado
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota
------
Professional Staff
MEGAN JACKSON, Staff Director
SOPHIE KHANAHMADI, Deputy Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
Chairman
RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia, Vice DORIS O. MATSUI, California
Chairman Ranking Member
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DARREN SOTO, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia RAUL RUIZ, California
NEAL P. DUNN, Florida SCOTT H. PETERS, California
JOHN JOYCE, Pennsylvania DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
RUSS FULCHER, Idaho ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
AUGUST PFLUGER, Texas NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
KAT CAMMACK, Florida TROY A. CARTER, Louisiana
JAY OBERNOLTE, California ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
ERIN HOUCHIN, Indiana GREG LANDSMAN, Ohio
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina JENNIFER L. McCLELLAN, Virginia
THOMAS H. KEAN, Jr., New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
CRAIG A. GOLDMAN, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
JULIE FEDORCHAK, North Dakota officio)
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Richard Hudson, a Representative in Congress from the State
of North Carolina, opening statement........................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Doris O. Matsui, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, opening statement............................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Hon. Brett Guthrie, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, opening statement.................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 20
Prepared statement........................................... 21
Witnesses
Grant Spellmeyer, President and Chief Executive Officer, ACA
Connects....................................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Tim Donovan, President and Chief Executive Officer, Competitive
Carriers Association........................................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Answers to submitted questions............................... 149
Greg Hale, Chief Executive Officer, LTC Connect.................. 52
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Answers to submitted questions............................... 151
Sarah Morris, Former Deputy Administrator, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department
of Commerce.................................................... 69
Prepared statement........................................... 71
Answers to submitted questions............................... 154
Submitted Material
Inclusion of the following was approved by unanimous consent.
List of documents submitted for the record....................... 118
Letter of September 5, 2023, from Mrs. Houchin to Eric J.
Holcomb, Governor, State of Indiana............................ 119
Letter of December 21, 2022, from Sen. Warnock, et al., to
Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman, Federal Communications
Commission, and Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce
for Communications and Information, National Telecommunications
and Information Administration................................. 121
Letter of March 4, 2025, from Alex Etchen, Vice President,
Government Relations, Associated General Contractors of
America, to Mr. Hudson and Ms. Matsui.......................... 124
Letter of February 3, 2023, from Senators Ted Cruz and John Thune
to Alan Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for
Communications and Information, National Telecommunications and
Information Administration and Jessica Rosenworcel, Chairwoman,
Federal Communications Commission.............................. 125
Statement of the Communication Workers of America by Nell Geiser,
Director of Research, March 5, 2025............................ 129
Letter of January 12, 2023, from Mr. Joyce, et al., to Alan B.
Davidson, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications
and Information, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration................................................. 136
Statement of the Rural Wireless Association by Carri Bennet,
Outside General Counsel, March 5, 2025......................... 140
Letter of September 5, 2023, from Mrs. Houchin to Alan Davidson,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and
Information, National Telecommunications and Information
Administration................................................. 145
Letter of March 5, 2025, from Christine Hallquist, Executive
Director, Vermont Community Broadband Board, to House Committee
on Energy and Commerce......................................... 147
FIXING BIDEN'S BROADBAND BLUNDER
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2025
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:00 p.m., in
the John D. Dingell Room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building,
Hon. Richard Hudson (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Hudson, Allen, Latta,
Bilirakis, Carter of Georgia, Dunn, Joyce, Fulcher, Pfluger,
Cammack, Obernolte, Houchin, Fry, Kean, Goldman, Fedorchak,
Guthrie (ex officio), Matsui (subcommittee ranking member),
Soto, Ruiz, Peters, Dingell, Kelly, Barragan, Carter of
Louisiana, Menendez, Landsman, McClellan, Castor, and Pallone
(ex officio).
Staff present: Jessica Donlon, General Counsel; Emily Hale,
Staff Assistant; Kate Harper, Chief Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Megan Jackson, Staff Director; Noah Jackson, Clerk,
Communications and Technology; Daniel Kelly, Press Secretary;
Sophie Khanahmadi, Deputy Staff Director; John Lin, Senior
Counsel, Communications and Technology; Joel Miller, Chief
Counsel; Elaina Murphy, Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; Seth Ricketts, Special
Assistant; Dylan Rogers, Professional Staff Member,
Communications and Technology; Chris Sarley, Member Services/
Stakeholder Director; Matt VanHyfte, Communications Director;
Hannah Anton, Minority Policy Analyst; Waverly Gordon, Minority
Deputy Staff Director and General Counsel; Tiffany Guarascio,
Minority Staff Director; Dan Miller, Minority Professional
Staff Member; Emma Roehrig, Minority Staff Assistant; Michael
Scurato, Minority FCC Detailee; and Johanna Thomas, Minority
Counsel.
Mr. Hudson. The subcommittee will come to order.
The Chair recognizes himself for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD HUDSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Closing the digital divide is a top priority for this
committee. Too many Americans, particularly those in rural
America, like so many places in my home State of North
Carolina, lack access to reliable high-speed broadband. With so
much of everyday life requiring an internet connection, this is
a vital need.
Since 2020, Congress has provided billions of dollars to
connect unserved Americans. The most significant effort is the
Infrastructure Investments and Jobs Act, or IIJA. This massive
bill included the $42.5 billion Broadband Equity Access and
Deployment, or BEAD, program with the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, NTIA.
It has been over 3 years since IIJA became law, and we are
still waiting for the first home to be connected using these
funds. I think we should understand how this happened.
First, FCC maps that Biden's FCC Chairwoman Rosenworcel
said would be ready in months instead took much longer to
develop. Then the Biden-Harris administration saddled the BEAD
program with regulations unrelated to broadband to appease
left-wing interest groups. These included technology
preferences, burdensome labor rules, and climate change
requirements, to name a few.
Worse, the Biden administration flagrantly ignored the law
by forcing States to regulate broadband rates before NTIA would
approve their proposals, even though the law explicitly
prohibits rate regulation.
These actions did nothing to deploy broadband but instead
created confusion while making the program less attractive to
providers and deployment more expensive.
Energy and Commerce Committee Republicans are committed to
fixing these mistakes so that every American has access to
broadband as quickly as possible. That is why today, I along
with many Republicans on this committee introduced the Speed to
BEAD Act. This bill would eliminate the burdensome Biden
regulations so that we can get money out the door, shovels into
the ground, and broadband into as many homes as possible.
Specifically, this bill would eliminate the unnecessary
expensive regulations NTIA imposed, further clarify the rate
regulation by NTIA or any other entity is prohibited, ensure
that the program is run on a technology-neutral basis, and more
efficiently use tax dollars by ensuring that awards to
providers are cost effective and that funds are only used for
deployment.
These changes to BEAD program can be implemented quickly,
provide certainty to the States and not hinder the progress
that States have already made.
And I am excited to hear that Secretary of Commerce Howard
Lutnick just a few minutes ago announced that he is launching a
review of the BEAD program to cut red tape, eliminate waste,
and make sure Americans get connected faster.
I am thrilled to have him join me in this effort.
Performing BEAD is one important step to ensuring every
American has access to broadband, but it is not enough. We also
need to reform the permitting process for broadband projects.
If we do not reform this process, all the money will get tied
up in burdensome permitting reviews, resulting in more
unnecessary delays.
For the past three Congresses, Energy and Commerce
Republicans have introduced legislation to streamline the
broadband permitting process. We have proposed codifying
existing shot clocks to provide predictability in State and
local permit reviews, exempting previously disturbed lands from
duplicative and burdensome environmental and historic
preservation reviews, and instilling transparency and urgency
in permitting on Federal lands.
Some of these bills had bipartisan support and passed the
House last Congress. I wish my Democratic colleagues had been
willing to work with us on the most meaningful reforms, which
were included in Representative Buddy Carter's American
Broadband Deployment Act.
I hope this new Congress and the urgency of the moment will
inspire bipartisan cooperation on this effort, and I certainly
extend my hand to my colleagues across the aisle. We must do
everything we can to remove these unnecessary barriers to
deployment.
In conclusion, unserved Americans have waited too long for
the promise of connectivity, but now is the moment to close the
digital divide once and for all.
Today's hearing is an opportunity to hear from stakeholders
about how to address these challenges and how to stop it from
happening. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hudson follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague, Ranking
Member Doris Matsui, for her opening statement.
You are recognized.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DORIS O. MATSUI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today also.
We all recognize that reliable high-speed internet is no
longer a luxury, it is a necessity. It powers our economy and
supports education. It strengthens public health, and it
connects us to our loved ones.
That is why under the Biden administration, Congress passed
a Bipartisan Infrastructure Law investing $65 billion to close
the digital divide. This includes over $42 billion for the
Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment program or, as we call
it, BEAD, to bring high-speed internet to tens of millions of
Americans who still lack access.
Just as critically, Congress also directed nearly $3
billion in digital equity grants to ensure all communities have
the skills, training, and technology to reap the full benefits
of online access.
During the last administration, NTIA worked diligently with
State and local partners to make the most of this once-in-a-
generation investment to connect all Americans. Thanks to this
diligence, States like Louisiana, Nevada, and Delaware stand
ready to put shovels in the ground this year to connect their
communities, but only if this administration moves quickly to
allow them to go ahead.
Many other States, including California, are hard at work
launching a fair and competitive award process and implementing
digital equity plans so that our Federal broadband dollars go
to where they are needed the most.
Yet, instead of building on this program, President Trump
is actively sabotaging it, delaying and injecting uncertainty
into Federal broadband programs. Freezing broadband funding
ignores the law and harms the tens of millions of Americans who
are counting on these programs to get connected. They can't
afford to wait, and neither can we.
That's certainly true in the Sacramento region. Just 20
minutes outside the city, rural communities still suffer major
gaps in broadband coverage due to years of underinvestment.
Head further into the California delta, and the need is just as
urgent. Our farming communities rely on broadband for economic
growth, education, and basic quality of life.
BEAD is a critical lifeline for these communities. Yet,
Republicans are delaying BEAD so they can water down or
outright eliminate protections for affordability, good-paying
jobs, and climate resilient networks. These changes will drive
up costs for consumers while driving down the quality of
service.
I am also deeply concerned by attempts to divert funding
from fiber to Elon Musk's Starlink satellite service. Unlike
satellite, fiber is a gold standard in futureproof technology
that will grow with consumers' data needs over time.
Granted, some remote areas may be better served using
nonfiber alternatives, but existing BEAD guidance already
recognizes this. We need smart broadband investments that will
last, not short-term fixes that can cost taxpayers more in the
long run.
Republicans claim they are just being technology neutral,
but can we trust this when the Trump administration has given
Elon Musk nearly unfettered authority to further his business
interests by taking over government contracts and dismantling
agencies regulating his companies?
And last week, not a single Republican voted with Democrats
to ensure this committee conducts oversight into conflicts of
interest like Musk. So forgive me if I find it hard to believe
that Republicans will ensure that the Trump administration
applies broadband rules fairly.
Let's be honest. It seems to me that today's hearing is
about Republicans fishing for excuses to toss 3 years of work
into the trash, undermining our efforts to connect every
American.
I urge my Republican colleagues to stop the delays, stop
the sabotage, work with us to fully implement all Federal
broadband programs, including BEAD and digital equity. This
includes holding the Trump administration accountable for
delays, conflicts of interest, and violations of the law.
Otherwise, the American people will be paying for Republicans'
broadband blunders for generations to come.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Matsui follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Matsui. And with that, I yield the balance of my time.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I will now recognize the chairman of the full committee,
the gentleman from Kentucky, for 5 minutes for his opening
statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRETT GUTHRIE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate that.
And we are going to do oversight of this, and we are going
to move forward in this area. I think what was just said is 3
years of effort, and not one inch of fiber has been built.
Our people are clambering in our area for local broadband,
to have access to the internet and broadband.
And, you know, Congress appropriates and authorizes
spending of this amount of money, and 3 years into it, for some
reason--because not following the law, trying to put more in
the law than the law requires--unfortunately, people are just
starting to speak up about that now instead of over the last 3
years.
But I want to start with introducing Greg Hale from Logan
County, Kentucky. He is a great friend of mine. I have known
him for a long time, and he really is passionate. He is a
believer in getting broadband to rural America, rural
Kentucky--in particular, rural Logan County.
And if there is somebody better in the country that knows
this issue and is also a practitioner of this issue, trying to
get it done, they may exist but I haven't met them yet. You are
the best that I know of. And so that is why we wanted you to be
here, because we know you can share the most important part.
But as I said, I represent rural and growing communities in
Kentucky's Second District. Access is critical for our students
to do their homework, for people to connect with their doctors
and to stay in touch with their friends and loved ones.
Connectivity helps bolster communities.
In the private and public sector, investments totalling in
the billions of dollars to build out communications
infrastructure across the country have yet to close the digital
divide for many Americans, including many of my constituents
who lack access to the broadband at home.
On the Federal level alone, there are more than 130
broadband programs across 15 different agencies, all with
varying amounts of funding and requirements and varying amounts
of success.
In 2021, the BEAD program had more than 42 billion in
taxpayer dollars for broadband expansion in unserved areas. And
yet, as I said, not a single inch of fiber. What is 2021? Four
years. And so it is 4 years. Not a single inch of fiber has
been laid as a result.
Despite naming Vice President Harris as the broadband czar,
the Biden administration failed to deliver on their promise of
connecting all Americans through BEAD by failing to connect
even one American.
A one-size-fits-all approach does not work. As a first
step, the program needs to be reformed to be technology neutral
so States have the flexibility to choose what technologies are
appropriate for them.
We need to eliminate the burdensome and unnecessary
regulations that the Biden administration imposed that have
nothing to do with the bill, except to slow down the process.
This program has been a failure of mass proportions, and we
must act quickly to course correct so that billions of American
taxpayers, their dollars are not wasted, where people get
access to service and in a quicker and prompt way.
In addition to BEAD, today we are going to be talking about
the FCC's Universal Service Fund. And this program supports
broadband service in high-cost, often rural areas at schools,
libraries, rural health centers across Kentucky and the country
and access connectivity for low-income Americans so they can
afford broadband service.
The constitutionality of the USF is being challenged in the
Supreme Court, and if the court ultimately holds that USF is
unconstitutional, the program will come to an end, and it will
be a devastating outcome if that happens, leaving many
Americans without service.
Congress must act to affirm the constitutionality of this
program, and I hope this is an area where we can find
bipartisan agreement to react quickly if we have to react
quickly.
In addition to addressing the immediate need, we also need
to address the long-term sustainability of USF. After almost 30
years, Congress needs to reevaluate the role that USF should
play in providing support, particularly after the significant
investment in broadband over the past 5 years.
So I really look forward to today's discussion. I
appreciate my good friend from Kentucky for many years to be
here, and I look forward to what will be the outcome of this
hearing.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Guthrie follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Guthrie. And Mr. Chairman, with that, I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Chairman.
I now recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, the ranking
member, for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Hudson.
The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $42 billion BEAD
program was designed to ensure every American household can
connect to high-speed, reliable, and affordable internet. Not
one Republican on this committee supported those investments.
Instead, committee Republicans have done nothing but undermine
our efforts to deploy more reliable and affordable broadband.
And I regret that today's hearing is more the same, with an eye
in the rear-view mirror.
Just so the record is clear: Former Assistant Secretary
Alan Davidson and his team at NTIA rose to the occasion to
build and implement the largest and most sophisticated
broadband program in our Nation's history, one with 56
different nerve centers and unique sets of considerations, with
independent planning and decision making taking place in every
single State and territory.
Three States have received approval of their final
proposal. Four States have completed their selection of
internet service providers after widely successful application
rounds. And 30 States are in the midst of running highly
promising application rounds.
In 6 weeks, however, the Trump administration has not moved
one State forward in the process. And this is not a surprise,
since the administration has instead prioritized dismantling
the Federal Government by gutting agencies and firing Federal
employees, and congressional Republicans have silently watched
from the sidelines.
And we know that Elon Musk is salivating over the prospect
of steering BEAD dollars to his companies. Just yesterday the
Wall Street Journal reported Musk's SpaceX and Starlink could
receive up to $20 billion worth of BEAD funding under new plans
being developed inside the Commerce Department.
Musk is a grifter, and Republicans are going to just stand
by and watch.
To be clear, many of the changes our colleagues have
suggested for BEAD can be done without delays or mandates.
Loosening funding requirements they don't like, while
misguided, does not require States to go back to the drawing
board.
The policies we see at the Department of Commerce, however,
are like shackles on broadband providers in Louisiana, Nevada,
and Delaware who need only basic administrative approvals to
begin their work in as little as 6 weeks. And instead,
companies are sitting on tons of supply with a labor force
questioning if there will be work next month.
Make no mistake, the current threat to the BEAD program
could be avoided if only Republicans in the Trump
administration would get out of their own way and let this
program move forward as intended. This opportunity to connect
every American to reliable high-speed internet will not come
around again, unfortunately.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Pallone. But I want to yield the balance of my time to
Representative Carter of Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone.
In January of this year, Louisiana became the first State
of the Nation to secure Federal funding--Federal funding
approval for our plan to deploy $1.3 billion in Broadband and
Equity Access and Deployment, or BEAD, funding.
This achievement is a testament to the bipartisan nature of
Louisiana's approach to universal connectivity and illustrates
how we all should strive to treat broadband access in our
States.
The State began the BEAD process under the Democratic
Governor, John Bel Edwards. It completed its plan under the
Republican Governor, Jeff Landry, who called this program a
generational investment that will create thousands of jobs,
drive billions in economic growth, and transform Louisiana's
communities in all 64 parishes.
The State's plan will connect approximately 140,000
locations to high-speed internet through funding awards to 20
internet service providers, and nearly 70 percent of the funds
awarded to Louisiana companies. More than 90 percent of these
locations are set to transition from zero connectivity to
futureproof broadband fiber.
Altogether, these broadband investments will drive
significant economic growth for the State, creating
approximately 10,000 new jobs and generating an estimated 2 to
3 billion dollars in new revenue for Louisiana companies.
However, since the Trump administration took office, just a
week after Louisiana received approval for its final proposal,
the Commerce Department has withheld final funding approval
that would have otherwise put shovels in the ground in just 6
weeks in my home State.
And now we see reports just yesterday that Commerce
Secretary Lutnick is considering wholesale changes to the
program that would cut or jeopardize all of the hard work that
has been put in to this point, allowing significant--
significantly more money to go to Elon Musk's satellite
services.
This unexpected delay has stalled progress, frozen
investments made by small internet service providers and
contractors, and left rural communities still waiting on the
promise of broadband access.
This administration must act and provide the certainty to
Louisiana residents and internet service providers looking for
answers and receiving none.
We have worked too hard and come too far to start over
again. Any action by the current administration that would
threaten this progress would be a grave mistake.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. The gentleman yields back.
I assume the ranking member would yield back.
We have now concluded with Member opening statements.
The Chair reminds Members that, pursuant to committee
rules, all Members' opening statements will be made part of the
record.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today to
testify before this subcommittee. Our witnesses will have 5
minutes to provide an opening statement, which will be followed
by a round of questions from our Members.
The witnesses here before us today are Mr. Grant
Spellmeyer, president and CEO, ASA Connects; Tom Donovan,
president and CEO, Competitive--Tim Donovan, excuse me. Tim
Donovan, president and CEO, Competitive Carriers Association.
Thank you. Greg Hale, CEO of LTC Connect; and Sarah Morris, the
former Acting Deputy Administrator for the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration.
Again, thank you all for being here. We look forward to
hearing your testimony.
Mr. Spellmeyer, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF GRANT SPELLMEYER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, ACA CONNECTS; TIM DONOVAN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION; GREG HALE,
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, LTC CONNECT; SARAH MORRIS, FORMER
DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND
INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
STATEMENT OF GRANT SPELLMEYER
Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you.
Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, Chairman Guthrie,
Ranking Member Pallone, it is always an honor to appear before
this committee.
America's Communications Association, ACA Connects, proudly
represents more than 500 independent broadband and cable
operators across the country. We serve all 50 States, offering
connectivity to nearly one in four American households.
Although, some of my members serve hundreds of thousands of
customers, most of them serve only a few thousand customers and
only in a county or two in one particular State. They remain
committed to finding ways to make quality broadband service
available and affordable to all Americans. They live in the
communities alongside their customers.
In the past 5 years, in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic,
they have expanded coverage of broadband by 64 percent. While
my members often prefer fiber builds because of their superior
performance and durability, they deploy all available
technologies to get the job done.
My members have deep roots in the communities they serve
that can be traced back generations. I was explaining this to
my children the other day, but folks don't understand any
longer how cable television started. It started because the
largest providers were ignoring rural America, and my members
needed a way to bring programming to places where broadcast TV
signals couldn't reach.
Providers actually dragged cables over the hills in order
to bring that signal to customers. Today, it has evolved into
what we see in the broadband world.
This history is why many of my members were initially very
eager to participate in BEAD when it was passed by Congress.
Unfortunately, their enthusiasm has waned due to the way NTIA
subsequently implemented parts of the law.
The areas that remain to be served today are the most
costly in the country. The job won't get done but for things
like the BEAD program. The reality is every dollar a provider
spends complying with unnecessary regulatory burdens is a
dollar that is gone from investment and drives up prices.
By happenstance, ACA Connects has a large presence in town
this week. We are up on the Hill. The timing is good. We really
have a simple message. We, my members, are ready to finish the
job in rural America. We urge Congress to fine tune the program
and to get shovels in the ground later this year.
In order to do that, Congress should direct the NTIA to
strip costly and extraneous requirements that are deterring
participation and ensure that States have reasonable
flexibility in evaluating the broadband technologies that
should be used in each State.
The one thing we can't afford to do is to materially delay
implementation. States that are ready to proceed quickly should
have the flexibility to do so.
Beyond the BEAD program itself, Congress must act to speed
up the deployment of broadband by adopting permitting and
right-of-way reforms. Specifically, we encourage Congress to
adopt reforms that encourage consistency in State and local
permitting and to take action to streamline and harmonize
permitting policies across Federal agencies.
ACA Connects was proud last year to support Congressman
Buddy Carter's bill, the American Broadband Deployment Act. And
we are also glad that Congressmen Pfluger and Soto are leading
again this year on the Federal Broadband Deployment Tracking
Act.
Backing up to the 50,000-foot level, as you all know, this
committee has a long and proud legacy of bipartisan problem
solving. As the courts have recently affirmed, Congress writes
the laws, and Federal agencies implement them.
The issues that we are discussing here today, in my
opinion, are all ripe for action by this committee. The
committee should act to codify clear direction to the Federal
agencies involved on both of these subjects and move forward
quickly.
We also urge the committee to apply this approach--let's
call it regular order--to tackling other thorny
telecommunications issues under its jurisdiction, whether that
be universal service reform or guaranteeing a free and open
internet.
Congress has a golden opportunity to codify rules that will
remove uncertainty and encourage investment.
And with that, we look forward to working with the
committee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spellmeyer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF TIM DONOVAN
Mr. Donovan. Thank you.
Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, members of the
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify about
the challenges facing rural communications providers.
CCA members range from small rural providers serving fewer
than 5,000 customers to regional and nationwide operators
serving millions, as well as vendors and suppliers throughout
the communications ecosystem, connecting communities using all
technologies available, including mobile, fixed wireless,
wired, and satellite.
Every day CCA members work to provide high-quality
broadband services by upgrading and expanding their networks,
including in the most remote and hard-to-serve areas across the
country.
I would like to take a moment to say thank you for the work
to fund the shortfall in the rip-and-replace program, which
created an existential threat to rural connectivity in several
areas. We look forward to working with you and the FCC to see
this program to completion and continued work on network
security.
As policymakers consider the future of rural connectivity,
we are at an inflection point. Decisions made today will either
advance American leadership in the communications industry,
including 5G and future wireless services, and close the
digital divide or risk abandoning critical investments that
rural Americans rely on every day.
Decisive action is needed in several key areas. First, the
Universal Service Fund must be sustained and modernized. USF is
the most effective tool for bridging the digital divide,
including preserving existing networks while work continues to
expand broadband access. It is the backbone of rural broadband.
The Supreme Court's review of USF's constitutionality
presents a direct threat to connectivity across America.
Congress must be prepared to act swiftly to preserve USF if the
court identifies concerns.
Additionally, USF should be modernized to broaden the
contribution space to include those that benefit from the
networks it supports, and support must be available to maintain
and preserve networks.
Second, the 5G fund needs improvements. Within the USF
high-cost fund, the 5G fund is intended to support rural mobile
broadband but needs adjustments to ensure success.
Specifically, the 5G fund must base any transition away from
legacy support on availability of ongoing operational support,
use updated service and speed eligibility thresholds, and have
a budget based on anticipated needs to complete the work.
Additionally, funding decisions must be guided by reliable
data with a robust challenge process. Currently, the mobile
coverage map is not living up to the promise of your goals in
passing the Broadband Data Act. The fund should also be aligned
with other programs, like BEAD.
Third, targeted BEAD improvements will maximize deployment.
The BEAD program is an important investment in rural broadband,
but its implementation must allow flexibility and technology
choices.
BEAD should empower local providers who know their
communities the best to select the technologies that make the
most sense for each situation, including fiber, wireless, and
satellite.
Additionally, policymakers should avoid conditions that
make BEAD participation prohibitively challenging and maximize
the program's impact by reducing permitting delays and ensuring
BEAD funds are not taxed as income.
Fourth, restoring spectrum auction authority is urgent. It
has been nearly 2 years since the FCC's auction authority
expired. This delay threatens America's wireless leadership.
Congress should not only reinstate auction authority but also
ensure there is sufficient spectrum available for full-power
commercial use and build on policies that ensure carriers
serving rural America have a meaningful opportunity to secure
spectrum.
Policymakers should also maximize the utility of spectrum
currently available for wireless use, including increasing
power levels in the CBRS band to better serve rural America.
Finally, sighting and permitting reforms can accelerate
deployment. As Congress explores ways to support deployment
through broadband programs like BEAD and USF, updates to
sighting and permitting processes should align and enhance
those initiatives.
CCA members need permits from Federal, State, and local
authorities, depending on the area, to deploy, maintain, and
upgrade their networks. Current processes for acquiring the
necessary permits from various agencies can take months or even
years.
Efficient, manageable, and predictable permitting processes
will be increasingly necessary to process the volume of
applications and workload, which will inevitably come with the
rollout of BEAD and other programs.
In closing, every CCA member has an interest in ensuring
that all Americans have access to the latest broadband
services, especially those in rural and high-cost areas. CCA is
committed to working with all stakeholders to accomplish the
challenging task of promoting broadband connectivity for
millions of consumers in rural America.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important
hearing, and I welcome any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Donovan follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Mr. Hale, you are recognized for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
STATEMENT OF GREG HALE
Mr. Hale. Thank you.
Chairman Hudson, Ranking Member Matsui, Chairman Guthrie,
Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to participate in today's hearing
focused on how best to promote access to broadband.
I am Greg Hale, CEO of LTC Connect in Auburn, Kentucky.
Incorporated in 1954, LTC Connect is a Smart Rural
Community cooperative owned by our members. We provide up to 5
gigabit broadband internet and voice services to an area of
more than 500 square miles in rural south-central Kentucky.
We are members of NTCA, the Rural Broadband Association,
which represents about 850 rural broadband providers that are
delivering broadband services in deeply rural communities. NTCA
members collectively serve less than 5 percent of the
population of the United States but nearly 30 percent of its
landmass.
Today, I would like to emphasize the essential mission of
universal service, which is not just getting Americans
connected but keeping them connected. If we do not meet this
challenge, we will see hearings like today being held 5 or 10
years from now asking how we missed the mark.
The rates that rural consumers pay are rarely sufficient to
cover the cost of building and operating a network. The single
biggest challenge to connecting rural America and keeping it
connected is simply making the business case to build and
operate any broadband network at all.
This is where the high-cost USF program created at the FCC
to fulfill the requirements of Congress' 1996 Telecom Act hits
the mark. With USF's support, providers can make a business
case for delivering and sustaining broadband services for rural
citizens at affordable rates.
Rural providers have been able to leverage grant funding to
get to some locations previously unserved. Most grants require
some percentage of capital match.
Many projects like ours at LTC Connect do not involve grant
funding at all but leverage the use of loans or private
capital. Projects are undertaken after a business analysis that
involves the continued receipt of universal service funding.
USF does not reimburse capital expenses immediately but
reimburses expenses gradually over the depreciable life of the
network. For NTCA companies, this cost recovery often takes
place over a period of 18 to 30 years.
Unfortunately, USF programs are under attack, and the
sustainability and affordability of connectivity for millions
of rural Americans is at risk.
A 9-to-7 Fifth Circuit decision declaring the USF
contribution method unconstitutional is now before the Supreme
Court for review, and a negative decision could have
devastating impacts for broadband in rural America.
A recent NTCA member survey shows rates could skyrocket to
an average of $165 a month where service even survives, and all
new investment is chilled.
We urge all Members of Congress to stand ready to support
legislative efforts that could help ensure that rural Americans
stay connected while also reforming USF contributions so all
that benefit from universal connectivity do their part.
The BEAD program is of great importance and, if executed
effectively, will provide required capital to reach most, if
not all, unserved Americans. Many NTCA members are actively
evaluating participation in the program. There are parts of the
BEAD program that should be closely examined for modification.
These changes need not reconstruct the program from scratch but
just recalibrate as the program continues to move forward to
serve those in desperate need of broadband.
First, I would recommend that NTIA consider publishing all
waivers that have been granted to various States and consider
where these can be made available to all States.
NTIA could also develop a more reasonable approach to the
low-cost option that better reflects the challenging economics
of rural areas.
Additional considerations may include relaxing the letter
of credit requirements, relaxing workforce obligations and
other policy changes that do not relate directly to the
deployment of broadband.
It is important to use every tool in our toolkit to achieve
the BEAD's program mission. We will not get the same kind of
networks everywhere, but this does not mean we should settle
for the lowest common denominator either.
Since dial up internet was launched over 30 years ago, we
have consistently underestimated the amount of speed and
capacity customers will require in the future.
Robust networks that can provide what businesses and
customers need today and what they will need well into the
future should be the goal even as we empower States to make the
best decisions for their unique circumstances.
In my written testimony, I also outline other issues that
require attention, including permitting delays, the accuracy of
the broadband map, and the taxing of broadband grants.
NTCA members like LTC Connect are deeply committed to the
consumers we serve, and given our track record of success in
rural areas, small, community-based providers should be seen as
a critical component of any strategy to achieve universal
service.
We look forward to working with you and other stakeholders
to ensure that all Americans will experience the many benefits
of broadband for decades to come.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address these
issues, and thank you for your commitment to getting and
keeping every American connected.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hale follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
Ms. Morris, you are recognized for 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF SARAH MORRIS
Ms. Morris. Thank you.
Chairman Hudson, Chairman Guthrie, Ranking Member Matsui,
Ranking Member Pallone, and members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify today.
We stand at a pivotal moment in our Nation's broadband
expansion efforts. Over the least 3 years, States have made
tremendous progress implementing the broadband programs
established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
Middle-mile projects are under construction with over 4,500
miles of fiber being built, digital equity grants are being
awarded, and States are in the final stages of the 14-step BEAD
process set by Congress.
Through BEAD, the States are working to connect everyone in
America to affordable, reliable high-speed internet. We are on
the verge of historic broadband deployment in each of your
districts, but right now all progress is at a standstill.
Since the new administration took office, the Department of
Commerce has issued no new guidance or approvals. This inaction
means the communities in your districts remain disconnected.
If we do not restart these programs very soon, we risk
throwing away years of careful planning and bipartisan effort
in the States. These investments are critical. The broadband
grant programs were designed to overcome the economic and
social barriers that have kept the hardest-to-reach communities
offline.
As this subcommittee knows, connectivity is not just about
convenience. It is about access to healthcare, education, jobs,
and economic opportunity.
For example, the Department of Veterans Affairs has found
that telehealth can be just as effective as in-person mental
health treatment. When veterans received improved connectivity,
suicide-related emergency room visits decreased by 36 percent,
allowing veterans to receive critical care in the comfort of
their homes. For these individuals, broadband access is, quite
literally, a life-or-death issue.
In rural areas, broadband can transform communities,
sparking entrepreneurship and increasing business revenue. Even
before shovels hit the ground, communities see the benefits.
In North Carolina and Georgia, fiber companies have
invested hundreds of millions of dollars in new fiber
manufacturing facilities, bringing jobs and revenue directly to
these States.
And by boosting domestic manufacturing capabilities, these
programs ensure, for example, that U.S. AI data centers will be
connected with American-made fiber rather than Chinese fiber.
Despite these investments, some have expressed concerns
about the pace of the BEAD implementation. The reality is that
States are almost finished with the 14-step process Congress
designed. All 56 States and territories have completed key
planning steps and most are in the final stages of selecting
providers and approving project funding. More than half are
already reviewing bids from ISPs.
To halt progress now or, worse, for States to redo their
work would be disastrous. It would delay broadband deployment
for years and waste taxpayer dollars.
Congress intentionally gave States flexibility in
implementing BEAD. States know best how to address their unique
geographic and economic conditions, and they should be allowed
to make the transformative investments that they are poised to
do.
States have already addressed the most controversial areas
of the law. The law requires ISPs receiving BEAD funding to
offer a low-cost plan defined by States in consultation with
NTIA. States have already developed reasonable, flexible,
market-driven solutions to meet the statutory requirement.
Similarly, the law prioritizes futureproof technologies
like fiber-optic networks, ensuring that communities receive
infrastructure that can meet their needs for decades. However,
the law also allows flexibility. If fiber is too expensive in
certain areas, States can deploy other technologies, including
fixed wireless or satellite service instead.
The three final proposals we have seen reflect the range of
ways that States are implementing these statutory requirements.
And we know that access alone is not enough. Many people,
especially seniors, veterans, and rural residents, need support
to adopt and use broadband effectively. The law includes
digital equity grants to help individuals gain digital skills,
access devices, and feel safe online.
These programs are already well underway. Cutting or
delaying these efforts would undermine the entire purpose of
the broadband expansion, ensuring that everyone in America can
fully participate in the digital economy.
We are closer than ever to closing the digital divide. More
than half the States are actively soliciting bids to deploy
broadband, and three States have completed every required step
in the BEAD program. But without action from the Department of
Commerce, these efforts are stalled.
Congress must ensure that States can proceed with their
plans. We have a rare opportunity to connect every home, every
farm and business in America to high-speed internet. Let's not
squander it.
Thank you. And I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Morris follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Hudson. Thank you.
I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Ms. Morris, you were a senior advisor at NTIA when the BEAD
notice of funding opportunity was developed and implemented.
You know as much about this program as anybody. So I appreciate
you being here with us today.
Was it NTIA's decision or the White House's decision to
include the fiber preference?
Ms. Morris. So it is a complicated question to answer. The
NOFO, it was NTIA's decision. The Assistant Secretary signed
off on the NOFO and released it, and a lot of discussion went
into the preparation and decision making behind the NOFO.
And as we were drafting--as NTIA was drafting the NOFO, a
lot of factors went into how each equity was threaded and the
ultimate goals of the program that we wanted to achieve. And
the goals that we wanted to achieve were to push fiber as far
out as economically possible and to allow other technologies,
which we recognized would be important in reaching the goal of
connecting everyone in the country to affordable, reliable
high-speed internet, to allow those technologies to be a part
where fiber was not economically feasible.
Mr. Hudson. Gotcha.
Did the extraneous requirements on labor and climate come
from NTIA or the White House?
Ms. Morris. The entire NOFO came from NTIA and was signed
off by leadership at NTIA.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate that.
And so then it was NTIA's decision to force States to
regulate rates despite the law's prohibition for that, or is
that from the White House?
Ms. Morris. The law is very clear that every State is
required to set a low-cost option in consultation with the
Assistant Secretary and--in consultation with NTIA and with
approval of the Assistant Secretary, and NTIA followed the law
in regard to that requirement.
Mr. Hudson. Well, were you aware that NTIA was violating
the law by forcing States to include a rate or formula for a
rate in their initial proposal?
Ms. Morris. NTIA followed the letter of the law as we
interpreted it.
Mr. Hudson. OK. Well, I appreciate that answer.
Mr. Spellmeyer, I have heard from many providers that plan
to participate in the BEAD program that these unnecessary
requirements will continue to delay broadband deployment. Do
you agree that removing labor requirements, rate regulation,
climate standards, as well as streamlining permitting will
speed up the broadband deployment?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Mr. Chairman, my members support all
of those items you just listed. It certainly has been a--in
some of those instances, it causes delay. In others, it
increases prices, cost, and therefore, you know, the number of
areas you can cover.
Mr. Hudson. I agree with that.
Mr. Donovan, NTIA has not administered the BEAD program in
a technology-neutral way. How has the lack of tech neutrality
in BEAD affected CCA's members?
Mr. Donovan. As our members look at the opportunity for
BEAD, they are just asking to be able to use every way they
possibly can to connect their neighbors. They know their
geographies. They know the challenges. They know if they need
to go around the river. They know where wireless makes the most
sense. They know where to put fiber. So they are just asking
for that flexibility.
Mr. Hudson. Well, you know, my State experienced a
devastating hurricane last fall. We had folks disconnected from
loved ones for days, unable to reach emergency workers for
help. What can we do to restore connectivity faster during
recovery efforts in the future?
Mr. Donovan. Since we work with our members, especially in
North Carolina and in places where entire wired networks were
completely washed away, restoring wireless and mobile services
is an immediate way to provide connectivity. And what would be
really beneficial for that is making sure that those carriers
can use their spectrum resources most efficiently to connect
their neighbors in their communities.
So that includes things like taking spectrum licenses they
have and their CBRS band and being able to use power levels
that are comparable to neighboring bands that allow a signal to
go three to five times further from the same tower.
So things like that would be really helpful to make sure
you can restore services immediately.
Mr. Hudson. Well, I appreciate that.
I will now recognize the ranking member of the committee,
Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Roughly one in five American households lack access to
high-speed internet. They can't afford to wait on broadband,
yet Republicans are risking changes to the BEAD program that
would delay and weaken this once-in-a-generation investment.
This is even more frustrating when States are nearly at the
finish line. States like Louisiana, as Mr. Carter said, you
know, they are ready to push shovels in the ground in a matter
of weeks. And what happens if the Trump administration gets out
of their way, if they get out of their way, then they can do
that.
Ms. Morris, what is at stake for American people if BEAD
funding is further delayed and disrupted?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
Everything is at stake. This is a once-in-a-generation
opportunity. I don't believe that we will ever again get $42.5
billion to connect every corner of the country to high-speed,
affordable internet. And without access to high-speed,
affordable internet, communities are losing access to
healthcare, jobs, education, economic opportunity. And that is
being exacerbated every day that we pause this program and fail
to put shovels in the ground, especially if States are right on
the cusp of doing so.
Ms. Matsui. All right. Thank you.
Congress made clear that providers taking Federal BEAD
dollars must offer at least one low-cost plan.
Ms. Morris, how would Americans be impacted by a Republican
proposal to weaken this requirement?
Ms. Morris. Well, if we are investing all of these
resources into building these networks but they aren't
affordable to the communities they are designed to serve, then
we are building bridges to nowhere. We are building networks to
no one.
And States have worked through the analysis and have done
careful planning to understand what affordability means in
their State and have implemented the guidance of the statute
appropriately and in a variety of ways.
Ms. Matsui. Now, I am also concerned about Republican
attempts to divert BEAD funding from fiber broadband
infrastructure to satellite technologies, like Elon Musk's
Starlink.
The BEAD rules' reference for fiber where economically
vital isn't just happenstance. Optical fiber infrastructure can
support the connectivity needs of consumers for decades. And
fiber is a superhighway for data intensive technologies, such
as AI and fixed wireless.
Unlike fiber, satellites need replacement about every 5
years and can be wildly more expensive in the long run.
Ms. Morris, why would cutting back on BEAD's investment in
fiber technology risk a two-tier system? And who would these
changes hurt the most?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Ranking Member.
As you note, fiber is the platform for our next generation
of innovation, and communities that lack access to fiber will
continue to suffer.
If you want 5G and 6G connectivity in your districts, you
need fiber to your districts. If you want advanced healthcare
systems to your districts, you need fiber in your districts. If
you want next-generation 911 service in your districts, you
need fiber in your districts.
Now, we recognize--NTIA recognized in the BEAD NOFO that
fiber is not an economically viable solution for every single
household, but the goal of the notice of funding opportunity
and the goal of the statute is to push fiber as far--push high-
capacity internet as far as possible and to rely on other
technologies to fill in the gaps where it is not economically
viable.
Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
Reliable high-speed broadband access is a fundamental
pillar of modern life, from rural broadband deployment to vital
programs like Lifeline and E-Rate.
The Universal Service Fund has been a savior for millions
of Americans. That is why I am coleading the bipartisan,
bicameral group, USF working group, to find solutions and
ensure USF remains resilient for years to come.
That is why I also joined the Bipartisan Congressional
Advisory Committee to the Supreme Court defending the
constitutionality of USF.
Mr. Donovan, as we expect a decision regarding USF in June,
can you describe what the impact to your consumers will be if
USF is eliminated or significantly altered by the Supreme
Court?
Mr. Donovan. Certainly. And thank you for joining 28 of
your colleagues on that bipartisan, bicameral brief. It was
greatly appreciated. And for your ongoing work with the USF
working group to provide long-term solutions to that.
I am here to ring the alarm that there will be immediate
problems of connectivity for Americans--immediately if the
Supreme Court ends the Universal Service Fund. This isn't
waiting for systems to degrade, and customers will eventually
be cut off.
Those impacted that you mentioned, both in high-cost areas,
low-income schools and libraries, there will be immediate,
devastating effects.
And so if I can leave you all with one thing today, it is
that Congress needs to be prepared to immediately act and to
act decisively to restore this program if the Supreme Court
goes in that direction.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Hale, do you agree?
Mr. Hale. I agree completely.
Ms. Matsui. OK, great. Thank you very much.
And I have run out of time. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. The gentlelady yields back.
The Chair now recognizes the chair of the full committee,
Mr. Guthrie----
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Allen, the gentleman from
Georgia--oh, there he is.
All right. We are going to try this again. The Chair now
recognizes the chair of the full committee. Mr. Guthrie, you
are recognized.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I had to come back to see my good
friend, Mr. Hale.
Mr. Hale, so Logan Telephone--or LTD Connect received
support from the universal fund. Would you kind of walk through
for the committee what would happen, the impact on consumers? I
know a lot of people have similar businesses to yours.
Tell them who Logan Telephone is and then--it is a co-op,
and what would happen if we had--what would be the impact on
constituents and consumers?
Mr. Hale. Yes, it would be devastating for----
Mr. Guthrie. It is not a for-profit, but it is a co-op. I
want to stress that. Right?
Mr. Hale. For my company and companies like mine. You know,
we are finishing up a fiber project now. Within the next few
months, we will be 100 percent fiber.
And the way the Universal Service Fund works, again, as I
mentioned, is the depreciation. So we have huge depreciation
expenses. And if the Court ruled, assuming it meant that USF
went away completely--they are, you know, arguing primarily
over the contribution factor. If USF went away completely, then
we would quickly have very negative operating income.
And I am a co-op. I am a nonprofit. We don't have to make a
profit, but we can't lose money every year. So it would affect
the long-term viability of my company. It would affect,
obviously, the broadband that we provide to customers today,
which is very robust, and the customer service that we provide
to our members.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And Mr. Spellmeyer, my understanding is, as we are talking
a lot about what is happening here in DC, and the argument is
that Congress authorized the money and spent it, and the
executive branch isn't spending the money that was authorized
by Congress.
We are barely over 3 years, almost 4 into the BEAD program,
and we know that the executive branch is putting restrictions
that Congress did not put on to spending the money. I guess we
are kind of fortunate that that is the situation, because now
we have the opportunity to fix it with trying to get this out.
Would you talk about what the biggest obstacles for
participating in the program and the requirements--what it
causes to prevent you from being able to expedite the program,
participation in the program?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman, and I would agree
with you first.
The good news is this is an opportunity to reset the table
and get the job done. And as I said in my statement, my members
are anxious to do that.
I think the requirements that NTIA allowed the States to
impose in a number of the areas that have been enumerated are
particularly problematic because they raise the cost of
providing the service--be that prevailing wage rates as one,
there are a whole number, as we have talked about. Climate-
change-related items that depending upon how a State has
interpreted that is causing issues.
We all are committed to affordability. We have seen some
States that have gone beyond low-income affordability to
middle-class affordability that are causing issues. And there
are a whole slew of permitting challenges that make it very
difficult for my members on a day-to-day basis to build
broadband.
I was talking with a provider last night from Ohio and
talking about how he regularly has a slew of projects that are
3 years in the queue at utilities.
Mr. Guthrie. Because of permitting reform.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Because of permitting reform.
Mr. Guthrie. Permitting problems, so the need for
permitting reform.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Permitting problems.
Mr. Guthrie. So Mr. Hale, have you heard similar things
from other providers? Have you experienced similar things? Or
has the Commonwealth of Kentucky done things that would make it
difficult for us to use this program?
Mr. Hale. There have definitely been issues in the
Commonwealth. There are other States that it is much worse.
Mr. Guthrie. What are our issues? What is our executive
branch putting on that?
Mr. Hale. Well, the environmental and historical, the
timing on environmental, 7 or 8 months once you maybe get
approval from projects. This is going back--like USDA projects,
reconnect.
We had issues with the Army Corps in sometimes, you know,
taking 18 months to get approval to attach to an existing pole
line that is already there. You just need to add anchors to
string fiber. So we have had those areas.
And, you know, the business plan for the areas that are
left is tough. Any provider is going to be taking a pretty good
risk because we don't really know what it is going to cost to
build these networks when all the money starts flowing.
Mr. Guthrie. So the low-hanging fruit--
Mr. Hale. So any burden that you add or any requirement
that is not absolutely necessary hurts the business plan to
build these last high-cost areas.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. That is helpful.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair now recognizes the ranking member of the full
committee, Mr. Pallone, for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Hudson.
A report from the Wall Street Journal yesterday indicated
that the Department of Commerce is considering changes to the
BEAD program that could award nearly $20 billion of BEAD funds
to Starlink, a service that is already available to every
single American today. And anyone who wants to sign up can do
so without a dime of taxpayers' money.
The BEAD program was designed to overcome barriers dividing
the communities that are economically feasible to serve with
private capital from the communities that are not, while also
ensuring those on the wrong side of the digital divide are not
subjected to second-class service.
Now, my question--I have three of them, Ms. Morris. Do you
think there is an appetite among States for awarding nearly
half of the BEAD program funds to satellite program providers?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Ranking Member.
I have not heard that type of interest from States. I did
not hear that type of interest in my time at NTIA, but I think,
moreover, what I have heard from States and continue to hear
from States is a desire to move these plans forward that they
have spent the last 3 years working through.
They have worked through the FCC maps. They have had their
initial proposals approved. They have worked through their
subgranting process and their internet service provider
selection process, and some of them have submitted their final
proposals and had them approved by the Assistant Secretary at
NTIA.
States are on the 1-yard line at this point, and they just
want the ability to get into the end zone, get the shovels in
the ground, and get things built. And anything that will set
back or create more redundant work on these plans, I think,
will be frustrating to these State broadband offices.
Mr. Pallone. I like the football analogy.
Over the past 2 years, we heard a steady course of
fearmongering from a small number of stakeholders who claim the
requirements of the BEAD program were so onerous that providers
would not participate and the program would fail.
So again, Ms. Morris, what is the level of BEAD
participation in States currently? And are providers refusing
to participate in application rounds, or is it more robust than
we were led to believe?
Ms. Morris. I mean, I think you just look at the three
States that have had their final proposals approved, that have
worked all the way through the 14 steps of the BEAD program
laid out by Congress and to see that they have, in Louisiana,
95 percent fiber participation and other providers filling in
the remainder.
Nevada also has robust fiber participation, other providers
filling in the remainder, and Delaware, which was able to use
all of its BEAD support to build fiber to every home.
Mr. Pallone. OK. And then my third question--I think it is
good to hear that State broadband also says it is seeing such
promising levels of participation, given some of the rhetoric
today, although I am concerned that companies will be
discouraged from participating in the Trump administration's
redo of BEAD, especially now that we know the Commerce
Department is planning to stack the deck in favor of Elon
Musk's SpaceX this time around.
But the third question, Ms. Morris: If the Trump
administration forced the State and internet service providers
to restart the BEAD process from square one, what effect would
that have on States and providers' confidence and the future of
the program, and what would that mean for consumers?
Ms. Morris. Well, I think a dramatic reset of the program
that involved redoing any of the significant amount of work
that the States have already completed would be very
challenging for States and would be--States have invested 3
years of their time standing up broadband offices, navigating
the mapping process, drafting their initial plans, working with
industry in the State to get these plans to the final stages of
the process. And, you know, I don't think there is any
guarantee (1) that every State would continue to participate.
And, you know, it is hard to say what the full impacts of the
program would be if we were to walk things back that
dramatically.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you very much. And I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the ranking member.
The Chair now recognizes the vice chairman of the
subcommittee, Mr. Allen. You will be recognized for 5 minutes
to ask your questions.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for being
here today, and as we talk about implementing this important
program that we have been working on for some time in Congress.
During my time in Congress, we have worked continuously to
expand rural broadband across my district. And we have made
great progress, particularly with our co-ops and whatnot using
the universal fund. But where we have for-profit companies, you
know, obviously we are having to use other funding methods.
The BEAD program provided 65 billion in additional funds to
support broadband activities. It has brought the total amount
provided by Congress to broadband to well over a hundred
billion dollars. BEAD was full of unnecessary requirements, and
as a result not a single inch of fiber has been laid with these
funds. And then all of a sudden we are talking about the new
administration, which I think he got confirmed about 2 weeks
ago. You know, that is interesting.But, you know, and we are
seeing--you know, Georgia, right-to-work State. And so we are
seeing now in government projects, these project labor
agreements, which are very complex. In fact, if you actually
have a bidder on your project, and he is the low bidder, and
the government can dictate that, you know, that, OK, you don't
have a project labor agreement, so they give it to the next
contractor. I mean, are we seeing that kind of stuff in these
programs, Mr. Spellmeyer?
Mr. Spellmeyer. We absolutely are, Congressman, and as I
have reflected on the dialogue here back and forth. So ACA
Connects has a study we did in 2023 that I believe we shared
with NTIA that estimated that the cumulative layering of all of
this was approximately 60 percent additional.
Mr. Allen. Additional cost?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Additional cost.
Mr. Allen. Wow.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, the actual reality is, as we have
come further we have seen differences across the States as it
is played out. But I just heard yesterday from one of my
members in Pennsylvania that the prevailing wage issue there
alone was driving almost a 70 percent difference in the State
of Pennsylvania for my providers. There is lots of stuff out
there--
Mr. Allen. As it stands now, do many ACA Connects members
plan to participate in BEAD because of additional unnecessary
burden?
Mr. Spellmeyer. There are some that are participating.
There were many more that were initially interested. As I
talked with them this week, they want to come back, and they
want to come in. And the good news is I don't think we need to
restart the process, as has been suggested.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Spellmeyer. I think we can move expeditiously to strip
out the stuff that needs to be stripped out and then get about
the business of finishing it. I think NTIA could grant waivers,
either through NTIA or the Department of Commerce, that would
allow States to proceed but remove some of the provisions.
Mr. Allen. Yeah, because we are seeing this in the DOGE
effort today about the excessive costs of doing business and a
waste of taxpayer money by the Federal Government.
Mr. Hale, are you seeing the same thing in Kentucky?
Mr. Hale. Not as much. Of course, we are not as far along.
Mr. Allen. Right.
Mr. Hanson. But that is definitely a potential issue that
we could see that we hope we don't.
Mr. Allen. What is one barrier, Mr. Hale, that you would
like removed as far as deployment is concerned, either related
to BEAD or not?
Mr. Hale. You know, to be honest, the Kentucky office has
been open and flexible to try to follow the NTIA guidelines and
not make them any more burdensome. I mean, they are walking the
line. They had wanted to get the----
Mr. Allen. Get it done, yes.
Mr. Hale [continuing]. Job done in Kentucky. But,
obviously, the permitting--the low-cost option, we have got a
lot of flexibility in Kentucky, but there are States that
don't.
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Hale. You know, and a lot of NTCA members have
problems. And it will restrict them from participating in BEAD.
Mr. Allen. How about you, Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. I think some of the workforce issues from an
industry overall, we do not have the workforce that we need to
complete this--
Mr. Allen. Yes.
Mr. Donovan [continuing]. Across the country. Oh, and that
is why we have been pleased to work with partners or groups
like Warriors for Wireless that are helping transition vets
into the wireless tower climbers programs at Nate and WI and
other partners. But the bigger picture is that we need more
workforce education. We need more workers in this industry.
Mr. Allen. So we have got 7 million open jobs in this
country right now, and everybody is screaming about, you know,
layoffs and all of that stuff. I mean, it is ridiculous. But,
anyway. All right.
Well, I am out of time, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hudson. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes
Representative Soto for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman. You know, I was proud to be
able to vote for the American Rescue Plan, which already
started delivering a rural broadband to areas of my district
like Deer Park, Old Creek, Kenansville. One of my constituents
even wrote Spectrum, which is doing some of this work: ``Good
afternoon, everyone. I had to just share my excitement with you
all. After an entire lifetime of not being able to have so much
as a phone line at a rural Osceola County Kenansville home, as
of today we now have WiFi. As I type this, Spectrum just
finished installing. It is incredible to experience firsthand
the very goal that we all contributed to beginning sometime
ago. I know it is not complete for everyone yet, but it still
is amazing.''
Tiffany Chapman is on the Double C Bar Ranch in south
Osceola and is sixth-generation Osceolan. And, unfortunately,
my colleagues across the aisle, they all voted no on that bill.
And then we got together to pass the rural broadband
program that we are talking about today, the BEAD program. I
would call it the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, but every
single Republican on this committee also voted no on that bill.
And so to hear things like suddenly now you are the champion to
rural broadband, I think you guys call that fake news, right?
We need to work together, and I think it is great.
Look, if we would have sped up the program, y'all would
have said there was fraud or waste. Since the program was you
felt too slow, now it needs to be more efficient. The reality
is we had to go through maps, the States presented plans, and
we are moving forward. But I suppose it is better late than
never. And we welcome the bipartisan help.
The good news is that the States are ready. The plans had
been approved, were cued up to deliver for rural America.
But now the Trump administration wants further reviews,
further delays, and you are still talking about Biden. I got a
great name for this hearing, ``Stopping Trump's Broadband
Plunder,'' as an alternate. Because we see delays. And then I
am worried. Is this going to go into billionaire tax cuts? Is
it going to be moved to other areas?
You know, this delay, 45 days and counting, is a big
concern. Now we worked both with broadband, we worked with
satellite in that area. We know fiber is faster. It is costly
in some areas. And so we got a balance. We saw the FCC adjust
with the NTIA to allow for some satellite internet to be part
of this 4.1 billion. It is even part of Florida's plan. But we
know broadband is the foundation of this.
And so, Ms. Morris, the States have submitted the plans. Do
you feel like they are ready to go? It seems like you think
they are.
Ms. Morris. I absolutely think they are ready to go. They
have invested years upon years of working in these plans, have
worked with the providers in their State, have worked with
other stakeholders in their State, and have worked with NTIA,
and are ready to get shovels in the ground, as we heard from
Congressman Carter from Louisiana.
Mr. Soto. Now, do you know why the funds are still frozen
45 days into the Trump administration?
Ms. Morris. I don't have any insight into how the current
administration or the current leadership at the Department of
Commerce is overseeing.
Mr. Soto. Have you seen any public statements by the
current NTIA officials about why the funds are frozen?
Ms. Morris. Other than today right before this hearing, a
desire to take another look at the program and reevaluate, no.
Mr. Soto. And what do you think this would mean as far as
delays? Do we have any timetables as far as how long these
delays could go? Have you seen them talk about that?
Ms. Morris. I don't have any timetables. I will say that
the scale at which--if the Wall Street Journal yesterday is
correct, the scale of that shift that is proposed in that
article, it is hard to know exactly how that would play out,
but could involve a pretty significant reset of the program and
going back and asking States to redo their plans.
Mr. Soto. Based upon your experience from working at NTIA,
how long do you think that could set back if they have to
reassess all these plans?
Ms. Morris. Years,
Mr. Soto. So you couldn't tell us if the uncertain amount
of time that we could see delays for a program, that today they
are talking about there are delays. And yet what is happening
right now at this very moment with the Trump administration is
causing uncertain delays.
Mr. Chairman, you know, we want to work together, we want
to get this done. You have rural areas, I have rural areas, a
lot of my friends across the aisle have rural areas. We want to
make sure this thing gets moving forward. And if we have to
have States redo all these plans----
I know North Carolina, I know New York, and I know Florida
would be upset by that. So I am committed to work with you and
others to try to get this thing moving. And this is the
challenge that faces our community today, and I yield back.
Mr. Hudson. I appreciate the gentleman, and I appreciate
your comments. I look forward to working with you on this.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Latta. You are
recognized for 5 minutes to ask your questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. Thanks
everyone for being here this afternoon, and this is a really
important topic. I have been very fortunate to be on this
subcommittee since the day I joined this committee back in
2010.
And we are talking broadband and getting it deployed. It is
one of the things that we have talked and talked and talked
about. And I think that it is important that we get this thing
solved so we can get it done. Because I think we had successes
out there.
There's about 8 million families across this country that
don't have access to broadband. If you don't have broadband,
not only for schoolwork, for telehealth--and you think about
small businesses, especially in my district--if you don't have
broadband, you are done.
So it hurts the small communities because those small
communities have a problem. And, you know, all of a sudden this
company goes, ``You know what, if I don't have broadband, how
am I going to connect with the outside world?''
And then I think about the connectivity we need to have for
our farmers, and the legislation I had in the last farm bill is
important for our agricultural producers. And we want to make
sure--another piece I am working on right now where you think
about keep moving that so our rural folks out there can have
that broadband deployed.
But, you know, the problems that we have--and, again,
before I can ask a few questions--a report came out in 2022
from GAO that we have over 130 different programs administered
by 15 different departments and agencies for broadband. It is
crazy. You know, why not just have one? Could we do things
faster instead of having 15 different departments and agencies?
And jump our limited resources out there and fragmentation,
that is a problem.
And you know, then we had the issue several years ago with
the FCC maps. And they brought out the maps. And I remember I
called the Commission and I said, ``I hate to tell you this''
when they asked us to look at the maps. They said, ``What do
you think?'' I said, ``I am going to tell you what I think.
They are wrong.'' They had like the whole entire State of Ohio
being covered. And so we invested $7 million at that time to do
something about broadband, and we are up to about $98 million
the last time I saw them making sure we had accurate maps.
And so one of the things that I would just like to ask, you
know, as we have the folks here. When you think about on the
broadband on deployment and those maps and with the FCC's
change--and I know when the Commissioners were in here in the
last Congress, I asked them, I said, ``Are the maps working?''
And there was pretty uniformity among the Commission at that
time that, you know, they thought the maps were working.
But can I just go down the line and just ask everyone a
simple question: Do you think the maps are working for everyone
out there right now? Mr. Spellmeyer?
Mr. Spellmeyer. My members believe that the wire line maps
have been improved substantially. I have testified in front of
both the House and the Senate about many challenges in the
wireless world previously.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. I will pick that up right there. There has
been a lot of improvement on wired on the fixed maps. There is
a lot of work left to go on mobility. To put some data on that,
in the broadband data, a set of processes to challenge these
maps, so if you or your constituents know that map is not
right, you have a mechanism to say, ``Look, we have to fix this
before we move forward.''
There has been approximately 3.7 million challenges that
were accepted on the fixed maps, and there is about 175
challenges that were accepted on mobile. So there is about a
little more than 2 million percent more challenges have been
accepted. More work is left to go on the mobile maps to make
sure that we can challenge them and fix them so that they can
actually guide where we know mobile coverage exists.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Hale, what about you?
Mr. Hale. I would say much improved. There's still
significant issues. You know, the wire line is good. It is
pretty easy to report. Wireless is a little tougher, and not
enough accountability for companies that overstate their
coverage still. There is still significant overstatement of
coverage in the map.
Mr. Latta. Ms. Morris?
Ms. Morris. Just to echo what others have said, the wire
line maps, which is what NTIA was most primarily concerned
about, giving the statutory mandates to rely on them for the
BEAD allocations, these are the best maps we have ever had in
the history of Federal mapping. And they continue to get better
with every round of challenge processes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. And, you know, in my last 36 seconds,
here is another one. You know, as I was noticing about the 14
steps that are here and about trying to get everything that
everyone has to do through NTIA, I ask this question. I was
back in the district, and I was at a meeting at one of my
community colleges, and they are training people out there to
go out there and help deploy. But one of the persons there told
me something.
I asked this question to NTIA later: Did anybody consider
that it takes 18 months or 24 months to get a bucket truck to
even get somebody up on a pole? And then how are they getting
people trained?
And so I think when we are looking at what we got to do out
there, we have a lot of work to get done, but this has got to
get done quickly, and we just can't keep it up.
And, Mr. Chairman, I have overdone my time, and I yield
back. Thank you.
Mr. Hudson. I thank the gentleman.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Ruiz for 5 minutes to ask your
questions.
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today my colleagues on
the other side of the aisle can't seem to get their stories
straight. On one hand, they acknowledge the need to coordinate
broadband programs--which I agree with--but then criticize that
broadband equity acts as in deployment or the BEAD program's
timeline to claim President Biden has not acted on that digital
divide. But let's talk about the facts.
Under the Biden administration, millions of Americans,
especially in rural and travel communities, have gained access
to high-speed internet. These investments are not handouts,
they are lifelines to education, healthcare, and economic
opportunity. Through the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program,
the Biden administration invested $3 billion towards expanding
broadband access on Tribal lands.
In my district alone, the Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians
and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians received over $820,000,
and the Colorado River Indian Tribes secured $28.4 million to
connect 1,700 households to reliable high-speed internet.
But my district is not the only one benefitting.
Nationwide, the Biden administration allocated over $276
million to 44 Tribal communities across 14 States, with more
projects underway. These benefits don't just benefit the Tribal
community. These benefits benefit all the surrounding rural
areas that are neighbors to these Tribal communities.
Ms. Morris, how do Federal broadband investments under the
Biden administration support economic development, education,
and healthcare in Tribal communities?
Ms. Morris. Thank you for the question, Congressman. And I
appreciate you highlighting the incredible work that NTIA has
done to connect Tribal communities, along with other
departments and agencies throughout the Federal Government, and
in coordination, as you know.
There is more work to be done, more money available through
the Tribal Broadband Program, and certainly more money
available through the BEAD program to help fill in where those
investments have not yet occurred. And I think that is--sort of
stepping back for a moment, that is the beauty of the way that
these Federal programs work together.
Mr. Ruiz. And so how do they develop the education,
healthcare, and economic development in Tribal lands?
Ms. Morris. Well, we know that the Tribal entities face an
acute divide, even more acute than many other areas.
As I noted in my oral testimony and in followup questions,
the access to high-speed affordable internet is a precursor for
economic development, access to education, access to
telehealth. It is the platform on which all of these key
resources live. And without connectivity, the digital divide
becomes a human and basic resource divide.
Mr. Ruiz. And as you said, it enables telemedicine for
remote families, online learning for students, and growth for
small businesses and Tribal entrepreneurs. But expansion must
respect Tribal sovereignty and be done in true partnerships
with meaningful consultation.
Last Congress I spoke out forcibly against Republican
efforts in this committee to change permitting in a way that
would cut Tribes out of the process. And if they want to try to
tackle permitting reform again this Congress, I would suggest
they reach out across the aisle and work with us. I am game to
work with anybody to help bridge this digital divide, but
rather than pushing forward the same old tired ideas.
Ms. Morris, can you discuss the Biden administration
efforts to streamline permitting and how Tribal sovereignty was
prioritized in the process?
Ms. Morris. I would just say, Congressman, that Tribal
sovereignty and Tribal consultations are bedrock to the ways in
which NTIA has engaged with Tribes, whether in permitting or
just the subgranting process through these areas--repetitive
grantmaking processes through these various grant programs. It
is something that I hope to see continue at NTIA. They have a
Tribal office that is made up entirely of folks who come from
Tribal communities, and that, I think, has driven a genuine
authentic commitment to ensuring that Tribal sovereignty----
Mr. Ruiz. What have y'all done to help streamline the
permitting?
Ms. Morris. We have been working with other Federal
agencies to identify areas where there are hurdles, whether it
is something as simple as the form can't be filed
electronically, it has to be filed in paper, to getting more
capacity, which I think is truly the biggest hurdle here is
getting the capacity in place in the permitting office, is to
process permits more quickly and more efficiently. And that I
think has to be part of the----
Mr. Ruiz. You know, what is interesting, I just had a
meeting with the utility company. Everything has slowed down
because of the mass layoffs. The personnel that was working on
the permitting for wildfire prevention access and all that is
gone. And so it is going to take even longer to permit, to
process these permitting. But yet they are complaining about
permitting time, and they are making the problem worse.
Thank you.
Ms. Morris. Thank you.
Mr. Ruiz. I yield back.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. Next is Representative Bilirakis
from Florida. I yield 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. I appreciate it, Mr.
Chairman. And I appreciate the testimony today.
When I first started representing Citrus County in 2021--
that is in Florida--one of their top three needs was reliable
cell phone internet services. And that is probably true with a
lot of the rural areas around the country.
In November of 2022, I filled with excitement for the
anticipated community investment. Tthe Citrus County Chronicle,
one of the newspapers there, one of the major newspapers, wrote
two newspaper articles, one article on the promise that the
BEAD program provided to the county, and the second article
charging residents to review the broadband maps and report
errors to ensure accurate funding availability for the county.
Sadly, the slow execution of the BEAD program means that
connectivity remains a top concern. And the original hope in
the program is turning to disappointment, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, the States have been trying to navigate the process
to get the necessary applications and approvals for
participation in the program.
In October, Florida's initial proposal volume 2 was
approved by NTIA, starting another 1-year clock for their State
to submit a final proposal.
Mr. Spellmeyer, your written testimony outlines some
specific changes to enhance the effectiveness of the BEAD
program. Would enacting these changes impact the progress that
the States have already made under the current program
structure, or can they be folded in seamlessly?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I would agree that they would help. They
would improve the program, the changes they have outlined. And
I think it can be done, let's say, nearly seamlessly. I think
we are talking months, not--let's call it weeks or months, not
months and years. I think they can move quickly without
tremendous disruption.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, that is encouraging. OK. During a NTIA
oversight hearing in late 2023, I asked former Assistant
Secretary Davidson about the prohibition on rate regulation
within the BEAD program. The IIJA included a clear prohibition
on rate regulation, and former Secretary of Commerce Gina
Raimondo rearticulated that ban at a Senate hearing that same
year.
Mr. Davidson's response was the same: The law was very
clear that NTIA could not regulate rates within BEAD. But,
subsequently, we heard that pressures and incentives were put
on States that included rate regulation in their draft
proposals.
This question is both for Mr. Hale and Mr. Donovan. I still
have some time left. First, Mr. Donovan, your written testimony
briefly mentions that policymakers should avoid pitfalls like
affordability claim conditions that could negatively impact
BEAD participation. Can you expand on how rate regulations
harms the marketplace?
Mr. Donovan. Thank you for the question. So particularly
for rural providers in these markets and at a time when the
Universal Service Fund is under threat, that there are external
pressures that regulation that these programs can push on the
carriers that they simply can't afford the business case to
provide the service at certain levels without the resources
through programs like USF that provide support to provide
reasonable comparable services and rates for those in rural and
urban areas. And so it is really important that we don't have
some of those requirements without the support necessary for
rural carriers to comply.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Mr. Hale, do you have anything to
add?
Mr. Hale. I am sorry?
Mr. Bilirakis. Do you have anything to add, please, sir?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I agree with everything Mr. Donovan just
said. There is a bottom-line impact. This is about cost to
deploy, it is about density, and everything that you layer on
makes the case worse. You want as policymakers maximum
participation in this program. You want us going to the States
and attempting to be the providers selected. And the more you
layer on, the more difficult you make it. And that is what we
are seeing play out across the country today.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
And I will yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Next, I will
give be 5 minutes of questioning to Representative Peters from
California.
Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I came to
Congress sometime ago. Every single Member that I talked to
here, Republican and Democrat, wanted to do infrastructure. And
the Republicans, in particular, were frustrated with the
inability to deploy rural broadband. They were just
disconnected. And one of my colleagues, she was on the
Transportation Committee, she said, ``Scott, we are going to do
a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill.`` '' And I just laughed
at her. I said, ``If we could get two or three hundred million
dollars for highways, I think that would be pretty good.''
But lo and behold, in the last couple of Congresses, we
did. We got a trillion-dollar infrastructure bill. We got all
of this money for rural broadband. And I just want to say that
before I move on to criticizing that. That was quite an
accomplishment for this place. And I know that that vote was
not necessarily bipartisan, but even though Democrats
controlled that vote, it was not like we just invested in blue
areas. We invested in red areas and rural areas mostly
represented by Republicans. And I thought it was a really good
thing.
Now, I have sat in this seat in various places on other
subcommittees and criticized the Biden administration for the
red tape that we did not get around. And I think that is a
legitimate question to ask. And I am very frustrated with how
slowly we deployed some of these investments with the money
that we put in the bank. Mostly I talk about energy, but here
it is again with broadband.
And Mr. Hale, Mr. Donovan, maybe you can tell me what you
think specifically would be permitting obstacles to bridging
the digital divide and what we can do, from your perspective,
to see that we get shovels in the ground.
Mr. Hale. Thank you, Congressman. Well, you know, I think
we mentioned, you will see it in our testimony different things
that can definitely affect that ability. Again, I mentioned
environmentals, just the length of them, and those are
important things to do, but they just take--
Mr. Peters. I wouldn't know what you meant by
environmental. Is that NEPA, or is that something else?
Mr. Hale. Well, I know specifically like with the reconnect
program in USDA, there is an environmental process at USDA that
you have to go through. I haven't been through those. A lot of
my friends around the country have. That is one of the big
ones.
It is not the process of going through it, it is just how
long it takes. We say with the Army Corps of Engineers, we have
sometimes with the railroads, we have some issues, but Mr.
Donovan, I think, probably with his knowledge of what is going
on across the--has probably got better----
Mr. Peters. I did notice that there were 17 different
agencies that needed to be involved with project reviews. So I
know that must be very frustrating. But go ahead, Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. Yes, I think it is (1) it is making sure that
there's the resources to process these things that come up.
Things like the Broadband Incentives for Communities Act can
help to provide additional resources to process it. But it is
also sticking to shot clocks that exist now, to having them be
actionable so that it actually matters. So that these operators
have some certainty as they go through the process that if they
do their part, that the Federal partners are going to be
working with them on the permits. So that there is a
collaborative of trying to get to done.
You know, I hear from some members that they hear from
local on the ground that NEPA is used as a verb. You know, ``If
you try that, I am going to NEPA you to death.'' That is not
the right incentives----
Mr. Peters. Yes, you have some of that here. I would just
say this: I have never thought that just hiring more people was
the way to make things go faster. I think there are process
reforms we need to make things go faster, but when you fire
people indiscriminately, it is going to slow stuff down.
And what we are seeing out of DOGE now is this incredibly
scattershot approach that is supposedly to save money. Only 4
percent of the entire Federal budget is the workforce. So you
are not really going to save big money on it, but you really
are going to make processes like this, processes at the IRS,
you are going to make it a lot more difficult, and it is
counterproductive.
I hope my colleagues on the other side know, of all the
people here, I really want to work to make these processes
faster. I just want--I think the way we are seeing this
deployment of cuts, probationary ploys--and I have seen this in
the Navy, I have seen it in NIH, I have seen it in IRS--is
making it harder for Americans.
Let's take a step back. Let's all agree we want to get rid
of waste, fraud, and fraud abuse. Let's all agree we want to
improve processes. Let's all agree we want to get rural
broadband done. But the way this is happening is really
counterproductive. And I would just suggest that we have the
power of the purse, we also have the power to let the President
know what we are hearing.
And by the way, I think technological solutions might be
available here as well. And we have a technologist involved at
DOGE. I would much like to see him--rather see him involved in
what he knows, which is technolog,y than what he doesn't know,
which is how to manage these agencies. And I yield back.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I now yield 5 minutes for my colleague from Georgia,
Representative Carter.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
my colleague from California. I know he is sincere about
permitting reform, and I appreciate that very much. But let's
face it: The past 4 years under the Biden-Harris administration
has been nothing short of a disaster for broadband deployment
and expansion through America. And it is because of the
permitting process. Permitting delays have resulted in halting
the construction of broadband infrastructure, even in my own
district of Georgia in the First Congressional District.
Take for instance the Bureau of Land Management and U.S.
Forest Service frequently exceeding the 270-day deadline for
viewing broadband permitting request on Federal lands. You
know, there was a study--listen to this now--a study conducted
by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that about
half of the permitting requests processed by the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Forest Service exceeded the 270-day
deadline in that both agencies currently lack a method of
alerting staff appropriately when the deadline is approaching.
Mr. Spellmeyer, let me ask you: How do these lengthy
reviews and delays impact Americans' access to reliable and
high-speed internet?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, as I said earlier, Congressman, you
know, I have talked to providers just last night who were
telling me 3 years is a regular time to sit around and wait for
some of this stuff to move through. I was thinking we all live
with shot clocks. I got a shot clock in front of me right now.
You have got one in front of you. We have deadlines every year.
I got to file on April 15. We just need--that alone would make
a huge difference.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. You know, you mentioned I believe in
your opening statement, my legislation, the American Broadband
Deployment Act, that will streamline the broadband permitting
processes. And that is a bill that focuses on standardizing
regulations and expediting Federal and local approvals and
improving coordination among agencies by cutting red tape. And
if we do this, these reforms will result in accelerating
deployment, particularly in rural areas.
You know, I am a former mayor. I will tell you, you know,
it is also the locals that sometimes hold this up. And we need
to address that as well. But it obviously supports economic
growth.
Mr. Donovan, how would this legislation, the American
Broadband Deployment Act, how would it impact your members and
the industry's efforts?
Mr. Donovan. You are increasing certainty for the operators
as they go into the process that they know if they get to the
end of it, there will be a decision--you can proceed with your
build, or here is what you need to fix. But you are not sitting
in limbo forever waiting. As my colleague said, when the shot
clock goes off, you need somebody to blow the whistle to make
sure that that is enforced.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Spellmeyer?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, and certainty encourages investment
and uncertainty discourages investment, and that is what we are
talking about.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. No, we have just had a change in
administration. I have so many companies come into my office,
and they want the same thing. We need certainty. We need to
understand. We need to know what the future--in order to
invest, we have got to know what the future holds and what is
going to be there when it is not going to be there.
You know, I was in business for 32 years, and I will tell
you without certainty, it is difficult to make business
decisions. I think that is what we are up against.
Mr. Spellmeyer. As Mr. Hale said earlier, you know, he is
depreciating his investments over 15, 18, 20, 30 years. And it
is the same thing for my members. And it is really dangerous to
make--to ask providers to make commitments without that
certainty.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. If we were to have this permitting
reform bill enacted that we are talking about here, how soon
would organizations like your members be able to start serving
rural communities that are in need of broadband?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I am confident that we could do that by
September 1 of this year.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Donovan?
Mr. Donovan. I don't know I think that the timing of these
reviews actually matters a whole lot in a lot of rural America.
Especially out West, there's places where you can't start the
review until a certain amount of the snow is gone from the
ground. It takes time to process. By the time you get the
permit, you may be past your build window, and you can't get
back out to those sites until the next summer.
So that is where the sequencing of this really matters if
you want to take it from an exercise of going through
permitting to an exercise of deploying broadband.
Mr. Carter of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I would submit to you
that as many people come into our office--and I don't care what
sector of our economy you are talking about--whether you are
talking about technology, whether you are talking about
healthcare, whether you are talking about energy, it is all the
same. Permitting, regulations, questions, questions. That needs
to be reformed. And I hope that we can get this bill passed so
that we can have some reform here.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Now I recognize Representative Dingell from Michigan for 5
minutes of questions.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to all
the witnesses for joining us. Broadband is not a luxury. It is
an essential infrastructure that determines whether families,
businesses, and communities can succeed in today's economy. I
strongly support continued investment in the Broadband Equity
Access and Deployment, BEAD, program and other broadband
initiatives.
As we all know, it is bringing high-speed internet access
to underserved areas by funding broadband planning,
infrastructure deployment and adoption programs in all 56
States and the U.S. territories. And we have made a lot of
progress with States already implementing BEAD to expand
access.
Let's be clear. The work is far from done. We have got to
ensure that the Federal Government follows the law, upholds
affordability measures for eligible customers, and delivers on
the promise of universal broadband. I remain committed to
finding solutions that makes broadband accessible and
affordable for every American.
But I am concerned that the Trump administration and my
colleagues across the aisle are actively working to delay the
broadband implementation to push changes that would directly
benefit Elon Musk by funneling billions of taxpayer dollars
into Starlink, a blatant conflict of interest.
The Department of Commerce is withholding approvals that
would otherwise have shovels in the ground in States across the
country. The BEAD program demands a comprehensive, efficient,
and collaborative approach. We need to be thorough, thoughtful,
and deliberate. Michigan's broadband office, like many others
across the country, has worked extensively with stakeholders to
craft a strategic, long-term approach to broadband expansion.
However, concerns have emerged that Federal mandates or
sweeping program changes at this late stage could force States
to go back to square one and restart their selection processes,
leading to significant delays.
And State broadband offices are voicing frustrations over
recent delays and BEAD implementation, with many pointing to a
slowdown in the approval process at NTIA and on IST. These
delays are slowing the efforts to get shovels in the ground and
connect communities.
Ms. Morris, what steps could this NTIA take to speed up the
approval process for State BEAD plans?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Congresswoman. The easiest step
would be just to push forward those--that the three States who
already have plans approved by NTIA are just sitting in a
queue, essentially to push those through and allow the money to
flow--the money to be released and the shovels to go into the
ground.
Mrs. Dingell. Michigan has led the way in leading BEAD
responsibly. But Federal interference could slow or even
jeopardize the program. My State is telling me this.
Ms. Morris, what are the risks if political interference
continues to obstruct Federal broadband programs?
Ms. Morris. So, you know, the biggest risk I see right now
is just timing and momentum. States are, as I said, at the 1-
yard line, and they have spent blood, sweat, and tears getting
these plans drafted, approved, doing these sub award--
subgranting processes, all of which is required by the statute.
They have been meticulously working through all 14 steps laid
out in BEAD to get to where they are now. Any step backward (1)
is going to undo--it is going to be wasteful of all the work
that they have already spent, as waste of tax dollar money. And
the confusion that abounds about what that means next, I think,
is exacerbating concerns within the States.
And I would also say there is risk that the more
fundamental changes that we make to the program and the more we
try to rush a new plan forward, the more we risk outcomes like
RDOF, which is now seeing a 37 percent default rate.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. Republicans are attempting to
rewrite BEAD's statutory requirements to weaken its focus on
high-speed futureproof networks. If successful, these changes
would funnel billions in taxpayer dollars to Starlink, despite
its well-documented shortcomings compared to fiber broadband.
Mr. Hale, what would be the implications both today and in
the long term of allowing Starlink and other satellite
providers broader access to BEAD funding? Are there any
drawbacks to consumers and businesses by prioritizing satellite
broadband over fiber technologies?
Mr. Hale. Yes, I think you all know I am a fiber fan. That
is what we are building. There is no technology that can match
what we can provide for fiber. If we are talking about long
term, I think it is the best solution in many cases. That being
said, I think you hear a common chorus that we need to use
every tool to reach every American, if that is our goal.
So, you know, best thing to do is to absolutely take a
long-term view of what that would mean, and I think that is
best done at the State level. They know their locations better.
They know their unique circumstances. They know what
technologies will work. They don't know what that will be until
they see applications and proposals that come forward that may
include fiber.
So I think, you know, we need to use every tool in the box
to get to every American. And it is going to be a different
business case by State. So giving States the flexibility to do
that exercise to figure out what is best long term for citizens
in that State is the best approach.
Mrs. Dingell. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Joyce [presiding]. The gentlelady yields.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Dr.
Dunn.
Mr. Dunn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Americans do
indeed have every form of technology at their fingertips for
broadband, deployment, and related applications, including
fiber optic, fixed wireless mobile, and robust satellite
systems. All are important to Florida. Thank you for those
comments, Mr. Hale.
Historically, America has done a stellar job at building
out telecommunications infrastructure, and much of this was
done before commercial entities received any government grants
to provide that service. Now we have thrown $42 billion in
broadband in taxpayer money. And like you said, we need to
solve this problem. We haven't laid an inch of fiber yet. Not
one single additional customer.
But, sir, so, in fact, I drive around in my district with a
purely commercial satellite link in my car because reliable
cell service is absent in half of my district. And I know there
is plenty of healthy competition in our market to fix that.
Mr. Spellmeyer's testimony on evolving technology in the
market was encouraging. Your members are providing fiber pipes
to data centers, cell towers to offer all kinds of service
bundles. And broadband prices have fallen from 87 cents per
megabyte per second in 2015 to a mere 16 cents for a comparable
service last year. Yet millions of Americans still lack any
reliable access to broadband at a reliable speed--a useful
speed, I should say.
We spent 65 billion in the Infrastructure Investment and
Jobs Act, the IIJA, to support broadband activities, and we
have nothing to show for it. We have a poster that shows how
much money was put into a number of these different programs.
[Poster displayed.]
Mr. Dunn. Now, these aren't all of the programs. This is
just some of the bigger ones. In fact, there are over 130
programs. Somebody made reference to that earlier. And, you
know, we have that much money sluicing around in the system. We
wonder if there is a bit of a boondoggle gold rush going on
here.
Most concerning is that the Biden administration allocated
infrastructure, the IIJA money, the largest appropriations to
date, without any accounting for other broadband programs
already existing.
Yes, I think it illustrates in some ways how complex the
broadband ecosystem actually is between the big ISPs. rural co-
ops, cable companies,, et cetera. Hard-to-serve areas still
don't get the broadband on a priority basis.
Now, the truth of the matter is that connection underserved
areas can be difficult and not economically viable. So, you
know, that is true in Florida, in any rural district, as it is
in Latin America, Asia, Africa, et cetera.
Satellite broadband is affordable. It can be deployed
today. It can be, you know, offered at a much lower-cost price
than to try to drag a fiber to every single farm in my
district. And these are remote areas.
Another advantage is resilience. Satellites are not
vulnerable to having a wayward Chinese ship dragging anchor
across their fiber in the bottom of the ocean.
Ms. Morris, I understand NTIA finally amended the
implementation of the requirements to allow alternate
technology to fiber for locations that are difficult to reach
by fiber. I guess that is better late than never. I am
supportive of the chairman's bill, which I cosponsored, to
reform the BEAD program allowing full access for alternative
technologies. You know, it is, in a word, technology agnostic.
And I am OK with that. I think that is the way we should be.
Mr. Hale's comments, I think, underscore that. The all-
technology-eligible section in a speed-for-BEAD bill allows an
eligible entity to deploy reliable broadband service through
any technology that meets the performance criteria.
Now, the question, Ms. Morris, is that how did the Biden
NTIA, the Department of Commerce, plan to ensure that there
is--that needed broadband--and, you know, obviously, satellite
was the obvious answer. You know, you can't drag a fiber
everywhere. How in the last administration were you planning to
address those people?
Ms. Morris. I am sorry, I couldn't hear the last part of
the question.
Mr. Dunn. Well, your BEAD program by regulation, by edict,
did not include anything other than fiber in the last
administration. And there's places in the world--think Pacific
island nations--it just makes sense.
Ms. Morris. Sure, Congressman. Thank you for the question.
The NTIA, within the BEAD program, did contemplate a wide
variety of types of networks to be participants in the program.
And as you note, the alternative technology guidance that came
out in early January of this year further clarified the ways in
which satellite companies, in particular, along with other
alternative technologies could participate and were expected to
participate in the program.
We see--NTIA has historically seen that the primary goal is
to push fiber as far as possible and economically feasible, but
certainly to support other technologies that make sense in the
areas where they make sense.
Mr. Dunn. So my time has expired, but I would say we ought
to be just technology agnostic. Tomorrow, some bright person is
going to invent something we haven't thought of today.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Joyce. The gentleman yields.
The Chair now recognizes Ms. Barragan from California for 5
minutes.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
the witnesses for being here today. It is a little challenging
to sit in this hearing and hear my Republican colleagues
criticize something they didn't even support.
We are talking about delays. The BEAD program is even there
as an option because of the infrastructure bill. Because the
last--the first time this President was there promised an
infrastructure bill and couldn't get it done. And House
Democrats were able to get it done. And now they have no
problem when there is an infrastructure project approved going
on their television set and trying to take credit for it. And
now House Democrats have invested in broadband.
Now, one of my colleagues across the aisle just said, ``We
already have 15 programs, I don't know why we need another
one.'' Like, why don't we just have one?
Ms. Morris, is there a benefit to the BEAD program? Why
can't it just be--why can't that money just be somewhere else?
Or why do we only need one?
Ms. Morris. So the way--it is right to acknowledge that
there are a variety of funding programs with a variety of
purposes that are funding high-speed internet investments
throughout the country, all with different goals--some with
specific rural goals, some with Tribal goals, some with digital
equity goals--and they are all working in concert together. And
I will say that in my time at NTIA I saw some of the closest
and most integrated partnership across the Federal agencies and
departments that are tasked with this money to make sure that
the money was spent wisely, efficiently, and that programs like
the BEAD program, which Congress recognized would take a long
time to implement, could be the cleanup batter when it comes to
finally connecting the last remaining locations that had not
been served.
So, you know, on some ways we are at the mercy of the way
Congress passed the laws, and it is the way that they are
directed to different agencies and partnerships. So in other
words, it creates a lot of opportunity for agencies and
departments to work together to leverage these different
sources of money and to do what we have never been able to do
and have at this moment the opportunity to do, which is finally
close the digital divide once and for all.
Ms. Barragan. And is it my understanding that the State of
Louisiana is on the doorstep of actually being able to get
these dollars and put it into effect?
Ms. Morris. More than on the doorstep. Their final proposal
has already been approved. It is sitting with NIST. I don't
know if there's employees to remove the special award condition
that is holding it up, but that is the step that needs to be
taken.
Ms. Barragan. Yeah, so it sounds to me like that always is
a program critically needed. But even States like Louisiana
felt it is needed and is on the verge or could be on the verge
if it were not for this administration putting a hold and
delaying of this program. And it is no surprise to me that
Republicans want to weaken the protections around BEAD to
funnel taxpayer money to Elon Musk. We have already seen this
scheme play out with the FAA.
You know, last week Elon Musk falsely claimed on X that
Verizon failed to meet the conditions of its $2.4 million FAA
contract to upgrade air traffic control systems. According to
press reports, the FAA is now considering handing the contract
over to Musk's Starlink. This news comes merely weeks after
Musk's DOGE accessed the FAA's sensitive information and
systems.
There is a word for this. It is corruption.
Ms. Morris, given Elon Musk influence over Federal agencies
that regulate his businesses, how can we ensure that BEAD
funding is put toward actual broadband infrastructure as
currently planned rather than diverted to any one individual or
company?
Ms. Morris. So there is a couple of ways in which I will
answer your question, Congresswoman. I think it is critically
important to look to the States that have been doing this work
for the past 3 years and ask them what they need, what they
want to do, what they have planned to do. And to the extent
that they are prepared to move forward to either the next phase
in the 14-step process or to the finish line--or the end zone,
given an earlier metaphor--that we give them the tools to do
it.
Second, I think Congress has an important role to play in
making sure that the BEAD program, which has been teed up to be
spent very soon, is spent wisely and carefully and doesn't fall
into the same traps that we have seen time and time again over
the years in investments in broadband, infrastructure in this
space. See again RDOF.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you. I also understand that our chair's
own home State of North Carolina is projected to create 6,100
jobs that would provide vital economic opportunities for
middle-class and working families, that these jobs are stuck in
limbo. And with today's announcement that there is going to be
a review of the program, that is only going to cause further
delays. I don't understand why we don't have more champions
trying to make sure this program continues and stays on
schedule as is. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. Thank you for yielding.
The Chair now recognizes Representative Joyce for 5 minutes
of questions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks for our
witnesses for testifying here today. In Pennsylvania's 13th
Congressional District, over 25,000 households lack connection
to high-speed internet. Since joining this subcommittee, my
priority has been clear: Connect each and every one of these
households to affordable, reliable high-speed internet.
Repeatedly, I have heard from providers and my colleagues
about the critical role of the BEAD program. I share that goal.
Yet, despite the last administration's pumping over $40 billion
into the program, not one shovel has been put into the ground.
Why is that? The regulatory red tape that the Biden
administration has tied to the funding is the answer.
Back home in Pennsylvania, the Biden administration's self-
sabotage is on full display. The Biden administration's BEAD
wage requirements have, in fact, tied the hands of the very
agency tasked with implementing the BEAD program in the
Commonwealth by forcing applicants to pay workers at the highly
skilled electric lineman rate of almost $90 an hour versus the
traditional rate of $60 an hour paid to telecommunications
technicians.
If you are forcing program participants to pay a 50 percent
premium in labor and overhead to even be eligible for the BEAD
dollars, you have already, in effect, limited the universe of
applicants and eliminated smaller providers and contractors
from the bidding process--smaller providers and contractors
that often reach into rural America, where I represent.
Mr. Spellmeyer, in your written testimony, you offer an
example of an ACA Connects member who applied for BEAD funding
and reported that compliance with the program's requirements
would carry a 70 percent increase in per-mile deployment costs
above those comparable projects funded through the Department
of Treasury's Capital Project Funds. So we recognize that.
How can we say that the BEAD system is helping lower the
cost of broadband deployment in rural American when the
Government itself is adding so many additional expenses to the
deployment process?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Congressman, thank you for your leadership
on this issue. I think I would acknowledge that to date it
hasn't helped because dollars haven't flowed. Pennsylvania,
unfortunately, is the poster child, worst case of how the
requirements have been layered on and adopted--proposed by the
State and adopted by NTIA.
The good news is I do think we can--as I have said several
times here--we can fix this. I don't think it is a debate
between do nothing, do everything. I think--or start over. I
think a quick set of waivers----
Mr. Joyce. Do you feel we can fix this by passing Chairman
Hudson's legislation? Is this a pathway to success?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I do. We support the legislation.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I as well.
Mr. Hale, what has been the immediate impact on providers
who are looking to or currently operate in the State's BEAD
programs that have prevailing wage?
Mr. Hale. It just hurts the business case again. These are
market failure areas. You are really needing to have a great
business case to serve them, and prevailing wage hurts that.
And I am going to tell you. You know, wages jumped after
COVID. And if this money starts rolling, there's not enough
contractors and workforce out there, those wages are going to
go up anyway, to be honest. So I think the prevailing wage is
unnecessary.
Mr. Joyce. So you are saying that the market should
determine the wage?
Mr. Hale. The market will. It will push----
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I agree with that.
Mr. Hale [continuing]. Not enough there.
Mr. Joyce. Mr. Spellmeyer, what reforms can we make to
ensure that States are following and adopting any potential
labor reforms to the point that we are discussing?
Mr. Spellmeyer. That is a great question, and, to be
honest, I haven't given it the level of thought that I wish I
could have in advance. I think there is--NTIA controls the
money. NTIA has got the money. They can make sure that the
States follow however NTIA interprets it, and that would be a
function of the current Commerce Department, to make sure that
it does get followed. And if it doesn't, the money doesn't
flow.
There would be other problems if the money didn't flow, but
I think States will enforce the provisions.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you.
I have one goal, and that is to connect those households in
my Pennsylvania district to the internet, and if there is a
commonsense solution that can eliminate the hurdles that stand
in the way of achieving that goal, then we owe it to our
constituents and to the parents in my district who take their
kids to the Sheetz convenience store so they can log on to do
their homework because that is where there is Wifi.
We owe it to all of America to get shovels in the ground.
We need to get America connected. We need to allow the farmers,
the educators, and all of those involved to have the
connectivity that they deserve.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I yield back.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Now the Chair recognizes Representative Carter from
Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And what a perfect segue to hear my colleague say that we
need to have shovels in the ground. Wow! Louisiana is just a
stone's throw away from shovels in the ground.
Louisiana is a perfect example and demonstrative of this
being a bipartisan issue and not one that is partisan. The
program started under the Biden administration, started
implementation under the Democratic Governor, John Bel Edwards,
and has since been moving with warp speed under the Republican
Governor, Jeff Landry.
And I will quote. Jeff Landry said that the BEAD program is
``a generational investment that will create thousands of jobs,
drive billions in economic growth, and transforms Louisiana
communities in all 64 parishes.'' Ready to have shovels in the
ground.
However, since the Trump administration took office, just a
week after Louisiana received its final approval, the commerce
committee has withheld final funding approval that would
otherwise put shovels in the ground and we would be moving
forward.
Yet, we find a way to take something that is clearly
bipartisan and somehow want to make it partisan. Take something
that Louisiana has demonstrated our ability to work together,
Republican and Democrat, to have a smooth transition to bring
fiber to all parts of our State.
This is one of those matters that we have such a clear
example of how it is working. So why do we want to stop it? It
is moving. Why do we want to stop it?
A question for Ms. Morris. Ms. Morris, can you tell us
about the time, detail, and planning that goes into creating
the States' BEAD deployment plan? And what happens if this
administration starts pulling threads that make the fabric of
these plans and awards, specifically for States like Louisiana,
who is ready to go?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Congressman.
As I have referenced, there is a very detailed process laid
out in the statute that States must follow in order to get
their full funding essentially unlocked and approved and ready
to go.
Each of those steps has different equities. Some of them
are outside of the State--inside the State's control, like the
mapping process, which took a year for the FCC's maps to--
initial maps to be released. Others are a factor of, you know,
the unique characteristics of the State.
There is, you know, States will draft their plans. They
will submit them for approval. There is usually back-and-forth
to try to help get to a workable place within the construct of
the statute for the BEAD implementation. And States have
navigated all of that. They have spent hours upon hours.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So given that we have done all of
that and we were literally ready to put shovels into the
ground, any delay that stops and starts over will likely cost
more money, not less.
Ms. Morris. Will likely cost more money.
And if we are talking about something like reclassifying
satellite or other services as reliable broadband, States could
not only have to redo their entire bids, but it raises
questions about whether or not locations are even available to
be served under----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. So we would actually go backwards.
Thank you.
Mr. Hale, based on your experience managing small fiber-
based companies, what challenges do the internet service
providers and contractors that have received awards--rewards in
Louisiana to this moment, what will that do to them?
Mr. Hale. Well, I would just say in general that----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. I have got a minute. So just say
it quickly.
Mr. Hale. We think there needs to be a recalibration, not a
restructure, and that should happen quickly to move forward for
providers. That recalibration----
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Is there a risk that we go
backwards?
Mr. Hale. There is risk that you go backwards, but, you
know, it may cost a little bit more, but the final result could
be improved. So that is the recalibration I am talking about.
But it should happen very quickly, especially in Louisiana.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Mr. Donovan, how would this affect
your company's efforts to connect underserved communities, if
BEAD funding was eliminated?
Mr. Donovan. If it was eliminated?
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Yes.
Mr. Donovan. You would be removing a significant investment
to connect everyone using fiber.
And I don't know how we got this far without giving credit
to the Louisiana plan of the--credit of the GUMBO plan, which
is a great name for it.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. Thank you.
Mr. Donovan. But of using that, of using fiber, of using
fixed wireless, of using satellite where it is necessary, but
using all of those tools.
Mr. Carter of Louisiana. And Louisiana is leading the way
and very proud of that fact. And I am very proud of the fact
that every single one of our congressional districts--two
Democrat and four Republican--will benefit greatly,
particularly in these rural areas. Everyone wins.
And I will tell you, this program has been heralded by
Republicans and Democrats in my State, and I urge us to not go
backwards in making this partisan when, in fact, it shouldn't
be.
Mr. Chairman, I yield.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Votes have been called, but we are going to go to Mr.
Pfluger.
And the Chair recognizes Mr. Pfluger for 5 minutes of
questioning, and then we will go to votes.
Mr. Pfluger. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Donovan, I want to say thank you for your help and the
support in last year's Congress on supporting the National
Security with Spectrum Act. I really appreciate what you all
were able to do.
I will quickly go--and I know several of my colleagues have
talked about this, but Mr. Spellmeyer, we were talking about,
you know, for 1,200 days, not a single dollar of the 42-plus
billion has been spent on broadband deployment. And, you know,
look, part of the reason for this delay was the Biden
administration's effort to force States to adopt union
workforce agreements, climate change provisions, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera.
And in Texas, in the BEAD plan, the prevailing wage
requirement, which would increase labor cost by 20 to 30
percent for rural internet service providers and prevent them
from participating in the program.
So my question is, If one of my constituents wanted to know
if the NTIA required Texas to include prevailing wage
requirements or climate assessments that could serve as
barriers to deployment, where could they see that information?
I mean, how do they know? It is a very specific question but
any----
Mr. Spellmeyer. I am not as fluent with the Texas
negotiations that have gone on, and perhaps Ms. Morris can
allude to that a little bit, but I would think that would be
inside the plan itself as it sits out there today.
A number of States have agreed to move forward on
prevailing wage proposals that we think have done nothing but
delay and raise the cost.
Mr. Pfluger. And I think that is kind of the expected
reply, is that we just don't know in a lot these--what a lot of
these States are doing. Not just State to State but also just
the plan is complex, and there is a lack of accountability.
And I want to highlight that I have a broadband bill--
excuse me, a Broadband Buildout Accountability Act that would
help us with these kinds of things. Because that is a lot of
money, $42.5 billion, and to not have accountability for what
is happening besides just planning but is actually not building
out and not helping rural Texas, that is unacceptable.
You know what, I am going to yield at this point in time
to--we said we would split the time here before votes--to Mr.
Fulcher.
Mr. Fulcher. Thank you, Congressman Pfluger.
And I am going to deviate here because of the conversation.
Permitting is clearly a huge, massive issue, and in my
State we have a tremendous amount of Federal lands, and so that
even makes it more complex.
But I have got a technology question that, as far as I
know, hasn't been raised. And, frankly, I should probably know
the answer to this, but if I don't, chances are some other
people don't, either.
But I know we have got to have certain backbone
requirements to handle bandwidth and all that kind of stuff. I
will ask Mr. Donovan: Technologywise, with all of the struggles
we have with permitting across terrestrial sites, where does
wireless and satellite fit? And how far away is the technology
where some of that can be infrastructural backbone?
Mr. Donovan. So both satellite and fixed wireless
technologies have come a long way in recent years. And so that
is where, especially with permitting, fixed wireless is a
really important tool here, where if you can bring fiber to the
tower, you can then serve the surrounding areas of that with a
fixed wireless solution to provide the speeds that are, in many
instances, comparable. But you are able to get those speeds and
get that service to your constituents much faster.
And especially in States like yours where there is some
challenging geographic terrain, there are some places that you
are never going to string fiber, and that is where wireless is
an important tool to be able to serve everyone.
Mr. Fulcher. Mr. Spellmeyer, in the last minute, I know you
have talked about this, but I will just try to use this and say
your input, especially on permitting needs for Federal land
access.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes. We have members that serve your State
and a number of similarly situated States. It is a huge issue.
I was talking this morning with a former member of this
committee, Senator Curtis, about the impact in Utah and the
need to fix it there. Anything we can do to speed that along is
huge.
As Mr. Donovan just alluded to--and I think he would
agree--even on the wireless side, permitting reform is still
needed there too. We have got to fix this. There are a variety
of technologies that can serve, but they all face, to one
degree or another, permitting challenges that have to be
addressed, as I talked about shot clocks before.
Mr. Fulcher. Well, speaking of shot clocks, mine is up.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back. I yielded to Congressman
Pfluger.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And my apologies to our panel. We have to go to votes.
I remind the Members that we have been reminded we have got
20 minutes. So we have got to get down there.
And we will reconvene maximum 15 minutes after the last
vote, but if you can get back here quickly, we will get
started.
Thank you.
[Recess.]
Mrs. Houchin [presiding]. The hearing will be called to
order.
The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Cammack of Florida for 5
minutes for questions.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
important hearing today.
And thank you very much for our witnesses for hanging in
there with us. It is always a fun experience when votes get
called in the middle of a hearing, and I am sure you
appreciated the reprieve. So, yes, Mr. Spellmeyer. I can see
you were very appreciative of the break.
So as my colleagues have stated today, we are all
collectively very concerned about the broadband, really the
spectrum of the broadband programs that are spread across the
Federal Government. Now, according to GAO, over 130 programs at
15 different agencies.
Now, I know that many of them have different standards and
eligibility criteria too. And at the very least, we can make
sure that they have the same requirements.
Now, I tried to do this for the U.S. GAO Reconnect program
last Congress with my Rural Internet Improvement Act.
Mr. Spellmeyer, Mr. Hale, how should Congress try to
standardize requirements for the different broadband programs
across the various agencies? I would love to hear your feedback
on this.
And I will start with you, Mr. Spellmeyer.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you, Congresswoman.
Certainly, the GAO report--I think it was the GAO report--
--
Ms. Cammack. Yes.
Mr. Spellmeyer [continuing]. That you just referenced--was
quite eye opening, even to those of us in the industry who are
familiar with the programs, to see them all detailed. There is
a need for standardization and streamlining.
I think part of my answer to that would be conduct a
review. Do it through regular order here in the committee.
Figure out what the programs are.
Congress has a habit of, you know, throwing one program on
over here and then somebody else throws it over there, and
pretty soon you have got 113 programs. I think it would be
useful to streamline and combine some of those. Some of them
are no longer, I think, completely relevant.
Mrs. Cammack. Right. So consolidation.
Mr. Spellmeyer. My message earlier was let's streamline the
BEAD program and get back to work putting fiber in the ground
and using the other technologies that are out there.
Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you.
Mr. Hale?
Mr. Hale. Yes, I would agree that they should be
streamlined. It would be helpful to have a common definition, a
well-thought-out definition of what broadband needs are
currently as well as into the future.
We talked about the programs a little bit earlier, and, you
know, just to clarify, the USF is not appropriated. That is the
essential program to make sure that networks are built,
sustained, and remain affordable. And then, of course, the BEAD
programs, the grant programs come along for a greater capital
infusion when you have still got market failure areas where USF
doesn't work.
So a combination--you know, the USF program would be the
best place to establish those guidelines, those standards. And,
you know, if USDA has some projects which have been very
helpful in closing the digital divide, if they could be the
same standards, that would be perfect.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
And Mr. Donovan, what about wireless?
Mr. Donovan. Well, I think it is important to recognize
that, with those different programs, that there is an inherent
difference in fixed connectivity and mobile. And Americans want
to have access at home but also on their devices as you are not
connected to a fixed connection. And so making sure that you
don't lump those different programs together. You need both of
them to have those two different uses and purposes.
And as my colleague mentioned, looking at also the
difference of what is a deployment program versus what is a
program to sustains that deployment.
Ms. Cammack. OK.
Mr. Donovan. Because ultimately, there is no futureproof
technology of any kind if there isn't sustained involvement,
sustained investment to keep it going.
Mrs. Cammack. OK. Perfect.
Mr. Spellmeyer, NTIA added some pretty onerous labor
requirements to BEAD. Now, do you think that these requirements
make it easier or harder to find skilled workers needed to
build these broadband networks?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, there is no doubt in my mind that
they make it significantly more difficult to find skilled
workers.
And I should have added in response to your first question,
I think the other thing you have to sort out is what agency is
going to administer what program. That is a real challenge.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, and kind of going back to what you
said, Mr. Donovan, would you agree that the requirements that
we are trying to create some uniformity for across the
broadband program should apply and have some--maybe
synchronicity isn't the right word--but there should be some
sort of mirror in the wireless realm?
Mr. Donovan. Yes, and it should be based on what consumers
are actually expecting to receive. It is a big problem we have
in the current 5G fund at the FCC, is that there is an
artificially low speed threshold. That means that you are not
going to----
Mrs. Cammack. You don't say. Like dial-up speed.
Mr. Donovan. We could use your help fixing that when the
program moves forward.
Mrs. Cammack. Well, on behalf of basically every American
in the United States, we will do everything possible to
increase the upload/download speeds that are so desperately
needed to be updated.
So thank you all so much for your time.
My time has expired. I yield.
Mrs. Houchin. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Menendez from
New Jersey for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Menendez. Thank you, Chairwoman.
Access to reliable high-speed internet is as integral to
educational and job success as access to textbooks or
transportation. Connectivity allows students to learn,
entrepreneurs to run small businesses, workers to access
training and job opportunities, and for families to connect.
But Republicans left working families in a lurch last year
after they refused to extend the Affordable Connectivity
Program, a lifeline that connected people across the country
with internet services, including 338,000 families in New
Jersey.
Thankfully, the FCC stepped up, after the ACP lapsed, to
modernize the Schools and Libraries Program of the Universal
Service Fund, also known as E-rate, to help our constituents
get connected at home through hotspot lending. This service is
transformative.
Learning isn't one-size-fits-all, and students need access
to digital tools outside of traditional working hours at
schools and libraries. Extending access to broadband at home
can change and has changed lives. And as classes and skill
building increasingly rely on virtual classrooms and digital
textbooks, students and teachers need to be connected at home
to keep from falling behind.
Without broadband at home, completing homework is nearly
impossible, forcing students to fast-food restaurants or
library parking lots after hours just to get a Wi-Fi signal.
Thankfully, with hotspots, it doesn't have to be this way
anymore.
In my district right now, schools and libraries, like the
Guttenberg School District and Elizabeth Public Library system,
are taking advantage of this new service provided through the
E-Rate program by applying for hotspots and service to help
families in New Jersey's Eighth Congressional District.
And 1,200 schools and libraries across the country are
currently applying for close to 1 million hotspots. That is 1
million families that could have access to a brighter future
because of this innovative modernization of the E-Rate program.
Unfortunately, like some of the other groundbreaking
broadband programs we have discussed today, this program is
under threat by Republicans who have introduced CRAs in both
chambers to repeal this FCC action and prevent libraries and
schools from getting access to these hotspots.
And I appreciate earlier my colleague Mr. Joyce referring
to students in his district having to use parking lots to
access Wi-Fi. I would hate to think--and I do hate to think--of
the kids in his district sitting at Sheetz in the evenings to
do homework, as I wouldn't want that for my constituents or any
of my colleagues' constituents.
Luckily, we have seen those cases plummet because of the
FCC's hotspot lending program. So I hope he and all of my
colleagues will join me in fighting against efforts to pass a
CRA that would undo that progress.
It is difficult to imagine why they would want to set our
students back to the days of sitting for hours in parking lots
just to keep up in school, but that is exactly what they are
trying to do. This would make their own constituents worse off.
Ms. Morris, you have spoken extensively about how our
broadband programs are designed to work together to address
aspects of the digital divide. Can you explain how the FCC's
modernization of the E-Rate program helps keep families
connected at home?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Congressman.
Yes, I mean, this seems to me to be a no-brainer,
particularly, you know, while we are waiting to see BEAD
through the finish line, when hopefully all of your homes in
your districts will be connected to an affordable, high-
capacity connection. Hotspots are an incredibly useful tool to
provide connectivity for students, and I would hope that it
remains a program that could be viable for some time.
I would also note that the CRA is a pretty blunt tool and
has a preclusive effect from agencies implementing a similar
rule down the road. And, you know, in this case I think the
preclusive effect of getting kids help with their homework
connectivity is a particularly sharp one.
Mr. Menendez. Yes, I agree. And especially with the
learning laws that people are already challenged with after
COVID, we shouldn't make it an additional burden to access the
educational opportunities that exist but are only accessible
through a hotspot. So I agree with you there.
If congressional Republicans successfully end this FCC
program to support hotspot lending, what will be the impact on
students and library patrons in districts like mine?
Ms. Morris. Well, it would just make it much harder for
students to do their homework. It would put the burden on
libraries to carry that water and would likely have a dramatic
effect on the success of these students in their schools.
Mr. Menendez. I will give you a second on that, and I
appreciate your answer.
And speaking of water, please have a sip. Take care.
Hotspot lending should not be partisan. We can all agree
that kids shouldn't be forced to sit in the fast-food parking
lots late at night to be able to do their homework. In fact,
schools and libraries in 46 States have submitted hotspot
applications. So this is applicable across the country, in red
and blue districts, to help families across the country.
I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to
recognize the tremendous benefits of this program and to
abandon any efforts to destroy it.
Thank you.
With that, I yield back.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you, Mr. Menendez.
I now recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of
questions.
Thank you to the witnesses.
Back in the Indiana State Senate, I worked on broadband
legislation, trying to get access to unserved areas. As noted
in some of your testimonies, we have seen overbuilding and
technologies that are picking winners and losers in some of
these funding opportunities.
And one of the things that I wanted to do is make sure that
any broadband that was deployed went to areas that had zero
access first, and then we would build toward higher speeds.
I happen to serve in the Indiana State Senate in one of the
most unserved areas of the State of Indiana for access to
broadband. Leaving my part of the State adds an extreme
disadvantage when it comes to economic opportunities, precision
agriculture, telehealth, and also education, small businesses--
you name it, we were at a disadvantage.
I was once speaking to a high school group, and I asked
this high school in my district if they knew where the most
unserved area of the State was for broadband access, and a
student raised his hand and said, ``My backyard.'' And it was
just that.
In fact, when BEAD--when the notice of funding opportunity
came out, I sent a letter to both NTIA and our Governor in
September of 2023 sharing my concerns with the funding
opportunity. And of particular concern were the mandates that I
thought could delay and complicate deployment of funds, which I
understand we have seen.
So I would ask Mr. Spellmeyer how much broadband funding--
after BEAD passed 3 years ago, how much broadband funding has
been distributed to date?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Under the BEAD program, my understanding is
that answer is zero.
Mrs. Houchin. Zero.
Mr. Donovan, how much broadband funding has been
distributed to date?
Mr. Donovan. That has been distributed to the States, is my
understanding, but has not yet gone to providers to provide
services.
Mrs. Houchin. So the very thing that many of you raised
concerns about and that I raised concerns about seems to be a
part of, at least, in part of the problem.
Another concern of mine was the notice of funding
opportunity's general prohibition on nonfiber projects. It is
explicitly in conflict with Congress' intent for the funding to
be technology neutral, and it would likely impact deployment.
State flexibility and prioritization, consistent with the
law, should be protected, and it included flexibility with the
workforce necessary to execute the projects, which the funding
opportunity did not provide.
Making sure that internet access is available to unserved
communities first remains a top priority of mine as we work to
try to figure out some of these issues, including the great
number of different broadband programs we have throughout the
Federal Government and streamlining that so we can make sure
that broadband resources are utilized to get to these unserved
areas and make sure that citizens in the unserved areas not
only are connected but are connected at the highest speeds
possible to compete globally in the economy.
So I appreciate your written testimony. I do have a couple
questions with the remaining time.
Coverage for our broadband maps seems to be a real issue,
particularly for precision agriculture and agricultural land.
Our mobile coverage is lacking. Do you think it is possible we
can improve the coverage maps to better show what areas are
agricultural and what is necessary to build it out?
And I will put that question to Mr. Donovan.
Mr. Donovan. We have to, right. If we move forward with
these programs with there is overstated coverage, especially
over agricultural ranchlands, then you are going to continue to
be unserved and unavailable to use the latest technologies.
Mrs. Houchin. So Mr. Donovan, I want to talk about the 5G
fund. I understand that CCA has concerns with how the Biden FCC
structured the program. You outline some of that in your
testimony. You say the way the program is structured could
unintentionally lead to mobile connectivity in rural areas that
would be worse than what is currently available.
What do you mean by that?
Mr. Donovan. So as it is currently structured, there are
some places that have service today because of USF support,
where USF has been invested to it. But if the speed thresholds
for what can qualify for the program are artificially set, then
places that only have service today because of USF will be
ineligible for the 5G fund.
So you will apply all the money into some super-expensive
sites in the most remote areas where maybe satellite is the
best way to serve it. Meanwhile, the places that rely on USF to
stay online today are going to go dark. This will lead to rusty
towers and less service.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
With the remaining time I have, Mr. Spellmeyer, is it your
impression that the labor requirements in BEAD have impacted
deployment?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Unquestionably.
Mrs. Houchin. Thank you.
I would like to submit for the record both letters that I
sent not only to our Governor but also to the NTIA, submit
those letters to the record.
Without objection.
Thank you.
I will now recognize Ms. McClellan of Virginia for 5
minutes for the purpose of questions.
Ms. McClellan. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The good news here is there are lot of areas where this is
universal agreement. We agree that universal broadband is as
necessary today as universal electrification was in the
beginning of the '30s and universal service for the old
landline telephone was.
Broadband has basically replaced our landline telephones,
but it also ensures that we can have the most up-to-date and
highest technology in a wide variety of places.
We agree that every community should have access to
affordable, reliable high-speed internet services that can
adapt to ever-increasing demand and that we don't want our
rural and low-income communities to get the short end of the
stick for reliability and affordability.
But building a broadband network is complicated. It is more
complicated, I would argue, than building highways and bridges
and roads because the broadband network can become obsolete
that much more quickly.
So let's talk about the reason for the BEAD delays. We hear
from our Republican colleagues that they are worried about
waste, and we agree, and so we wanted to make sure that Federal
funding through the BEAD program was used to build out unserved
areas. I have heard that a couple of times.
It is not permitting delays that have caused the delay up
to now, because you don't get a permit until you know where you
are putting your equipment, and you don't know where you are
putting your equipment until you know who is unserved.
So that was why the Act said FCC build a map that will be
the starting point for how money is allocated, to who, and
where. But the FCC doesn't know who is served. They don't know
where the networks are, and they don't know what is in the
pipeline to be built. So they needed to get that information
from the broadband providers. That is a complicated process I
don't have time to go into, but let's just say it took a long
time. It took a year.
Then, because we want to make sure we are not going to
overbuild and waste money, there was a challenge process led by
the States. That took 6 months.
As we did with the communications, the telecommunications
infrastructure, we left to the States the primary
responsibility of figuring out how to allocate this money. That
is appropriate.
States were all over the map. Some States, like Virginia,
had broadband offices, had programs that were already giving
out grants to build networks. Other States had to start from
scratch.
States are public entities, and when they take public
actions, they have to follow open record laws, open meeting
laws so that they can get input from the public so that the
public can be sure what the requirements are going to be in
whatever plan they ultimately adopt. That takes time--public
notice, et cetera.
That was a 6-month process just to do the challenge
process, but at the same time, before they could get to the
challenge process, they have got to build up the broadband
capacity, bring the stakeholders together, et cetera, et
cetera. So that is what has happened in the first year and a
half.
Once you get the map, then you build your plan. Once you
know who needs the broadband, then you build the plan for how
to get it there. That is what has been happening in the rest of
the time--not permitting, because there is nothing to get a
permit for yet.
Now, there has been a lot of discussion about should this
be technology neutral. The Act says that whatever Federal
dollars are spent on needs to be scalable and reliable.
Scalable means it needs to meet demand. What we are talking
about are the upload speeds and download speeds of everything
from healthcare infrastructure or information to the
infrastructure for a manufacturing plant to my son playing
video games on his phone, all happening at the same time.
So you need to make sure you have a network that is
reliable and sustainable no matter what the weather.
Fiber, in most cases, meets that need more than in other
cases. And so what the Act does is say, whatever the technology
is, we want you to choose the one that is the most reliable.
That may be one thing today, but build a plan that is
futureproof, so we can build a network that is futureproof, so
that when we spend Federal money, we don't waste it on
something that is obsolete tomorrow.
Now, I don't have a question. I just wanted to make sure
that we all understand the starting point of what we are and
are not talking about when we decide what changes need to be
made to be and what the long-term implications will be.
And I yield back.
Mrs. Houchin. The gentleman from South Carolina, Mr. Fry,
is recognized for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Fry. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you to all our witnesses for being here.
I actually have really enjoyed the testimony. I know we
have been bouncing around when we were on the floor, but it has
been really good as a new member of the committee to hear.
Broadband is critical. It is absolutely essential to our
students, our healthcare providers, our rural communities. We
have got some folks that are here with me, constituents of mine
from some of those rural communities.
Yet, you know, in the criticism from us--and I think
broadly, at least, some on the other side--is that, under the
previous administration, mismanagement and regulations have
really slowed that expansion, leaving many Americans,
particularly in undeserved and rural communities without that
necessary access.
In South Carolina's Seventh Congressional District, where I
represent, Horry Telephone Cooperative, HTC, is bridging that
digital divide. If you look at a map, basically you can tell
where the county lines are because they have installed so much
fiber and connected so many people, tens of thousands across
the county and expanding into others.
They have made major investments in high-speed internet,
but without these streamlined policies, their ability to
provide that reliable, affordable broadband, I think, is at
risk. And they are not the only ones, right.
We must fix those programs, preserve the Universal Service
Fund, cut some of this red tape, and improve the grant
programs, as discussed, like BEAD. And so I look forward to
hearing how we can modernize that, and we have heard a lot of
that testimony today.
But Mr. Hale, what role do you think the USF plays in
ensuring broadband access generally to people along the Grand
Strand or in rural communities in South Carolina?
Mr. Hale. Yes. I mean, as I stated before, USF is the
essential program. It is not necessarily designed to bridge the
digital divide completely with capital projects, but it does
provide that in South Carolina. It does provide that in every
State. And if you want it to last long term and be there 10
years from now, be sustainable, and promote affordability, it
is the program that you have to do.
Again, you have to have interjection of these other
programs at the same time to do that capital for these market
failure areas where USF is not providing that. You know, that
is where BEAD comes in.
But it is critical. It is going to be critical for a long
time. These networks aren't going to last forever. You are
going to have to rebuild them again at some point, you know. So
you have got to have a strong USF program.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Mr. Donovan, can you discuss the importance of ongoing USF
support in maintaining initial investments in those broadband
networks?
Mr. Donovan. Absolutely. And I will hold up FCC as a
success story for how this program can work. As I said before,
there is no such thing as a futureproof technology if you can't
continue to preserve and invest and maintain it. That is just
part of operating and network.
And that is why it is so critical to have the backs of USF,
for preservation of service as well as the expanding broadband
connectivity. And that is why we are so concerned that, if the
Supreme Court does something to jeopardize USF, I strongly
encourage you to be ready, for Congress to step in and to
maintain it.
Mr. Fry. Speaking of--I mean, that was honestly where I was
going to go next. I was going to go to Mr. Hale, but we are
going to continue right with you, sir. I think you just got in
the hot seat in a good way.
You know, given that uncertainty, what should Congress do
now to prep for maybe the inevitable or maybe just general
things that we can do to fix it with the funding gaps, the loan
defaults, broadband price hikes for consumers resulting from
Supreme Court action?
Mr. Donovan. So CCA is part of this at the Supreme Court
because we do think that what Congress did in the '96 Act is
constitutional and that we were successful. But we are
defending it because of the grave situation if this Court goes
the other way.
So Congress can affirm again the constitutionality of the
Universal Service Fund. The challenge while the Court case is
pending is that if you don't know how the Court could say that
it is unconstitutional, it doesn't really give you the roadmap
for what Congress needs to do to fix it, again, because we
think that it is already pretty clear that it is
constitutional.
Mr. Fry. Thank you for that.
Mr. Hale, also kind of in that same vein, do you believe
that Congress should consider--I know that there is a proposal
to address the private delegation issue before the Court of the
universal service administrative company. Do you believe that
Congress should consider that option in preparation of?
Mr. Hale. Congress should be prepared, yes. I think there
is a plan B. We still think USF is constitutional. We are
hopeful that the Supreme Court will rule that way.
But yes, Congress should be prepared to step in because we
have talked about today the devastating impact if USF went
away, and it would be immediate. So definitely need to be ready
for--and I know this committee and staff and leadership have
had discussions about that for a long time, along with the
Senate Commerce Committee.
Mr. Fry. Just a few.
Thank you so much.
With that, I see my time has expired, Madam Chair, and I
yield back--Mr. Chair. You switched.
Mr. Allen [presiding]. We had a switcheroo.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Fry. I wasn't assuming your gender.
Mr. Allen. Well, it is whatever you think you are these
days, right. Anyway, enough of that.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes for
questioning.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Ranking Member Matsui,
for hosting this hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.
Expanding broadband access has long been a priority of mine
because high-speed internet is no longer optional, it is
essential. That is why the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law's $42
billion investment in the BEAD program is an historic victory
for the American people in ensuring every American has access
to affordable and high-speed internet.
But instead of seizing this opportunity, House Republicans
have sought to undermine it, sowing doubt, weakening program
standards, and putting corporate interests ahead of hard-
working Americans.
Despite these challenges, States are making headway. New
York is one of 22 States that has completed the challenge
process and is moving forward with provider selection and
finalizing its BEAD proposals. That is real meaningful
progress, but we can't afford to slow down.
Every day of delay means families and students and small
businesses in underserved communities remain disconnected. Yet,
instead of ensuring shovels hit the ground, Republicans and the
Trump administration are trying to rewrite standards not to
help our communities but to benefit billionaires, and this is
unacceptable.
Let's be clear: Affordability is not negotiable. Broadband
isn't truly accessible if people can't afford it.
So when the Affordable Connectivity Program expired last
Congress, over 3,000 of my constituents reached out, worried,
frustrated, and rightly demanding action, but Republicans
refused to extend it.
So Ms. Morris, first, thank you for your outstanding work
as the former Deputy Administrator at NTIA.
Given your experience at NTIA working on the BEAD program,
how would weakening or removing affordability provisions impact
broadband access for both rural and low-income Americans?
Ms. Morris. Thank you, Congressman.
Well, I would just note that in the statute, affordability
is a bedrock principle. It is mentioned three times in the
first section alone, and there is a requirement in the statute
that States adopt a low-cost--ensure that there is a low-cost
option available in concert with NTIA and with approval from
the Assistant Secretary, which all States have done.
The reason that it is so foundational in the statute is
because when we are investing billions of dollars, as you note,
into these networks, we want to ensure that they are actually
reaching the households that need the connectivity most. If we
are building networks that people on the ends cannot afford, we
are building bridges to nowhere, networks to no one, and these
households will not be able to--and these communities will not
be able to reap the full benefits of the connectivity.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you.
And as you indicate, making certain that we ensure funds
reach the communities that need them the most, that requires
strong Federal coordination. That is why in 2020, I fought to
establish the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth
through my Access Broadband Act to improve coordination and
ensure funding is deployed efficiently and equitably.
So Ms. Morris, given the complexity of BEAD's mission, how
does coordination through OICG help ensure these funds reach
the right communities?
Ms. Morris. Well, so within the Department and within NTIA,
ample coordination is happening, but I think the real success
story of coordination is the coordination that this influx of
funding has driven across the Federal Government at large.
In my time at NTIA, I saw an impressive amount of day-to-
day--I mean, we were on the phone with other agencies, other
departments day in, day out to make sure that our grant
programs were coordinated in a way to maximize the Federal
investment and take that money as far as it can.
And truly, the Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth
was at the epicenter of that, and very incredible people
working in that office doing great work day in and day out.
Mr. Tonko. And another key pillar of the BEAD program is
investing in a workforce that reflects the community it serves,
ensuring good jobs, strong labor protections, and inclusive
hiring practices. We cannot let these critical provisions be
stripped away.
So how would removing these provisions impact equitable
workforce development in broadband expansion?
Ms. Morris. I think the untold story with BEAD is that it
is one of the best workforce development programs that we have
seen, and these investments in infrastructure will drive a
workforce to build them that is unprecedented in scale and
scope.
The provisions in NTIA's NOFO for BEAD related to workforce
were designed to ensure that the workforce building these
networks was skilled, safe, and well compensated.
Mr. Tonko. Well, at the end of the day, this is about
ensuring that all Americans--rural, urban, or suburban--have
the broadband access they need to thrive, and we cannot let
political games or corporate greed derail this mission. The
stakes are too high, and the time for action certainly is now.
And with that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
Mr. Allen. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Seeing there are no further Members wishing to be
recognized, I would like to thank our witnesses for being here
today. Thank you so much. This has been an important hearing,
and I think we kind of understand how we have got to move
forward.
I ask for unanimous consent to insert in the record the
documents included on the staff hearing documents list.
And without objection, that will be the order.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Allen. And we are adjourned.
Sorry. Page 2. Sorry. This is my first time doing this.
I remind Members that they have 10 business days to submit
questions for the record, and I ask the witnesses to respond to
questions promptly.
Members should submit their questions by the close of
business on Wednesday, March 19th.
Without objection, this subcommittee is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]