[Senate Report 116-174]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 328
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-174
_______________________________________________________________________
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACCURACY AND TECHNOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
on
S. 1822
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
December 12, 2019.--Ordered to be printed
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
99-010 WASHINGTON : 2019
SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION
one hundred sixteenth congress
first session
ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
ROY BLUNT, Missouri AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
TED CRUZ, Texas RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
DEB FISCHER, Nebraska BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
JERRY MORAN, Kansas EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska TOM UDALL, New Mexico
CORY GARDNER, Colorado GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
MIKE LEE, Utah JON TESTER, Montana
RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona
TODD C. YOUNG, Indiana JACKY ROSEN, Nevada
RICK SCOTT, Florida
John Keast, Staff Director
David Strickland, Minority Staff Director
Calendar No. 328
116th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 116-174
======================================================================
BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT ACCURACY AND TECHNOLOGICAL AVAILABILITY ACT
_______
December 12, 2019.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Wicker, from the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1822]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, to
which was referred the bill (S. 1822) to require the Federal
Communications Commission to issue rules relating to the
collection of data with respect to the availability of
broadband services, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment (in the
nature of a substitute) and recommends that the bill (as
amended) do pass.
Purpose of the Bill
S. 1822 would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC or the Commission) to take certain steps designed to
improve the FCC's broadband deployment data collection and its
related maps documenting broadband deployment in the United
States.
Background and Needs
The United States faces a persistent digital divide.
Although more than 98 percent of Americans have access to high-
speed broadband,\1\ over 20 million Americans still lacked
access to these services at the end of 2017.\2\ A significant
number of these unserved Americans live in rural and Tribal
areas: 98.3 percent of those living in urban areas have access
to high-speed broadband, while that number is 73.2 percent for
rural areas, and 67.6 percent for Tribal lands.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\High-speed broadband is defined as fixed terrestrial service at
25 megabits per second (Mbps) upload speeds and 3 Mbps download speeds
and mobile long-term evolution (LTE) service at 5 Mbps/1 Mbps.
\2\Inquiry Concerning Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications
Capability to All Americans in a Reasonable and Timely Fashion, 2019
Broadband Deployment Report, GN Docket No. 18-238 at para. 2. (rel. May
29, 2019) (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-19-44A1.pdf).
\3\Id. at para. 36, Fig. 3a.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mapping--graphically displaying where broadband is
available at certain speeds--is a critical tool in closing this
digital divide.\4\ For example, maps produced by the FCC are
used to determine the unserved areas eligible for billions of
Federal subsidy dollars for broadband deployment. Other
broadband deployment programs at the Federal and State level
also rely on the FCC's maps, or alternatively try to develop
their own maps of where broadband is and is not deployed. Thus,
these maps must accurately display served and unserved areas.
Flawed and inaccurate maps can result in wasted resources and
the stifling of opportunities for economic development,
especially in rural and Tribal areas.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solutions: Hearing Before the
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Senate, Apr. 10,
2019, hearing webcast (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm/2019/4/broadband-mapping-challenges-and-
solutions); written testimony of Tim Donovan, senior vice president,
Competitive Carriers Association, at 1 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/335DCD54-07D6-4140-A286-
0B59F6527F6B) (``[W]e cannot close the digital divide if we do not know
the size and location of our country's existing coverage gaps.'');
written testimony of Jonathan Spalter, president and CEO, US Telecom,
at 2 (https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1C4BBCD1-E586-
4C1D-94EB-3D2FE7FF9360) (``Today, it is equally true that when it comes
to broadband, ``if you can't map it, you can't deploy to it.''
\5\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solutions
(testimony of Mike Oblizalo, vice president and general manager, Hood
Canal Communications) (``But the lack of accurate maps makes for a
challenging process to determine potential areas for broadband
deployment and availability of funding. ... Accurate mapping data is
critical to delivering and sustaining services in Rural America--and
bad mapping data risks leaving rural consumers stranded without
broadband for years to come.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC relies primarily on data reported by fixed and
mobile broadband providers on Form 477 submissions to develop
its maps. Fixed broadband providers, such as terrestrial fixed,
fixed wireless, and satellite providers, identify the census
blocks where they currently--or could within a standard service
interval of approximately 7 to 10 days--provide service. Mobile
broadband providers submit polygons in a shapefile format that
represent the geographic areas where a customer could expect to
receive the minimum speed the provider advertises for that
area.\6\ Mobile providers also report the census blocks where
their service is advertised and available to potential
customers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\FCC, FCC Form 477 Local Telephone Competition and Broadband
Reporting Instructions (Dec. 5, 2016), section 5.3, ``Fixed Broadband
Deployment'' at 17-18, section 5.8, ``Mobile Broadband Deployment'' at
24 (Dec. 5, 2016) (https://transition.fcc.gov/form477/477inst.pdf).
\7\Id., section 5.9, ``Mobile Broadband Service Availability'' at
25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the use of Form 477 data by the FCC to develop
broadband maps has come under scrutiny. A general criticism of
using this data to build broadband maps is that the way the FCC
directs providers to report broadband deployment data is
unreliable.\8\ Census blocks that fixed providers use to
identify service areas vary significantly in size. Census
blocks in urban areas can be compact, whereas census blocks
covering rural areas can be very large.\9\ Because a provider
can report that a census block is served if it provides
broadband service in any part of that census block, regardless
of how many consumers in the census block are not able to
access the service, there are many areas of the country
(especially in rural areas) that are reported as having
broadband service, when in fact, they may not.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\See written testimony of Jonathan Spalter at 2 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1C4BBCD1-E586-4C1D-94EB-
3D2FE7FF9360) (``The `one-served-all-served' reporting is simply not a
reliable tool to accurately understand broadband availability, nor is
it a viable approach to identifying where scarce Federal support for
broadband deployment should be allocated.'').
\9\Improving Broadband Reporting and Mapping, NCTA-The Internet &
Television Association (Mar. 21, 2019) (https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/
improving-broadband-reporting-and-mapping).
\10\Id.; written testimony of Jonathan Spalter at 2 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1C4BBCD1-E586-4C1D-94EB-
3D2FE7FF9360).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other criticisms of the FCC's current broadband data
collection and mapping processing include that the data is
self-reported by providers and does not undergo an independent
validation or verification process; and the data may not be
collected in a timely manner to reflect the current
availability of broadband service in a particular area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\See, e.g., Rob Pegoraro, CITYLAB, ``The Problem With America's
New National Broadband Map,'' February 28, 2018 (https://
www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/fcc-high-speed-broadband-internet-access-
map/554516/); Kelcee Griffis, Law360, ``FCC's Broadband Maps Obscure
Reality of National Coverage,'' March 7, 2018 (https://www.law360.com/
articles/1017156/fcc-s-broadband-maps-obscure-reality-of-national-
coverage).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate attempts by the FCC to collect broadband data
outside of the Form 477 process have been criticized as well.
In August 2017, the FCC conducted a one-time collection of
fourth generation long-term evolution (4G LTE) coverage data to
establish a map of areas eligible for Mobility Fund Phase II
(MF II) support from the Universal Service Fund. The Commission
required providers to file propagation maps and model details
indicating their current 4G LTE coverage, based on prescribed
parameters.\12\ The FCC also included a challenge process,
where a challenger had 150 days to challenge an area initially
deemed ineligible in the Commission's map.\13\ However, one
trade association, in testimony to the Committee, argued that
the parameters the FCC set were inadequate,\14\ and the initial
map of MF II-eligible areas overstated the availability of
mobile broadband in the country.\15\ On December 7, 2018, the
FCC launched an investigation, which remains ongoing, into
whether certain carriers violated the MF II reverse auction's
mapping rules by submitting incorrect coverage maps.\16\ The
investigation, which is ongoing, came after a preliminary
review of the 20,809,503 speed tests filed as part of the
challenge process.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Connect America Fund, Order on Reconsideration and Second
Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6282 para 28 (2017) (https://docs.fcc.gov/
public/attachments/FCC-17-102A1.pdf).
\13\Id. at para 29.
\14\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and
Solutions (testimony of Timothy Donovan) (``[A] primary flaw is that
the parameters that the FCC asks carriers to report data are
overstated, so that carriers can report data that is both correct in
terms of what the FCC asks for, as well as not useful for what you or I
would consider to be reliable.'').
\15\See, e.g., letter from Senator Roger F. Wicker et al to the
Hon. Ajit Pai, Chairman, FCC (Mar. 8, 2018) (https://
www.wicker.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/f03ebd53-a4fe-4b5d-b21e-
594a3180d0f5/letter-to-fcc-re-mf-ii.pdf); see hearing webcast,
Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solutions (testimony of Timothy
Donovan) (``You know that the representation of coverage in your States
is overstated and, in some cases, substantially so ... While taking
steps to standardize the data should be commended, we now know that the
parameters selected did not sufficiently improve the accuracy or
credibility of the resulting coverage maps, which continue to
dramatically overstate coverage, especially in rural areas.'').
\16\FCC, FCC Launches Investigation into Potential Violations of
Mobility Fund Phase II Mapping Rules, press release, Dec. 7, 2018
(https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DOC-355447A1.pdf).
\17\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Various telecommunications stakeholders agree that the FCC
needs to improve its broadband data collection and maps.\18\
Fixed broadband stakeholders argue that the FCC needs to
collect data that is more granular than the census-block data
the agency currently collects.\19\ For example, USTelecom-The
Broadband Association suggests that the FCC create a national
dataset identifying all locations where broadband could be
provided upon which providers would identify where they are
providing service or could provide service within a standard
service interval.\20\ Alternatively, NCTA-The Internet &
Television Association recommends that fixed providers submit
polygon shapefiles that represent where the provider offers
broadband service.\21\ Either of these proposals would result
in maps more granular than those created today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\See, eg., written testimony of Jonathan Spalter at 2 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1C4BBCD1-E586-4C1D-94EB-
3D2FE7FF9360) (``There is broad agreement between industry and
government on the deficiencies of current reporting methods.'');
written testimony of Mike Oblizalo at 3 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/B2350064-BD5B-4AA8-91F2-
186A8D66A700) (``The accuracy of broadband availability maps is often
in question as maps show service as available where consumers cannot
get them at all and other places these maps show speeds available at
levels that cannot be consistently delivered.'').
\19\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and
Solutions (testimony of Jonathan Spalter) (``All stakeholders, from the
Administration to Congress to consumers to broadband companies to my
fellow panelists this morning, agree that the current yardstick
collecting data by census block is inadequate.''); id. (testimony of
Mike McCormick, president, Mississippi Farm Bureau Federation) (``I
think one of the keys is going to be to move away from the census block
data and go to more granular data, smaller areas of use.'').
\20\Written testimony of Jonathan Spalter at 3 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/1C4BBCD1-E586-4C1D-94EB-
3D2FE7FF9360); letter from B. Lynn Follansbee, vice president--law &
policy, US Telecom, to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket
No. 11-10 (filed Oct. 17, 2018).
\21\Letter from Steve F. Morris, vice president and general
counsel, NCTA-The Internet & Television Association, to Ms. Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WC Docket No. 11-10 (filed Feb. 27, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile broadband stakeholders argue that more precise
parameters for signal propagation are important to developing
more reliable maps.\22\ As part of MF II, the Commission
required providers to submit propagation maps and model details
indicating the provider's 4G LTE coverage, as defined by
download speeds of 5 megabits per second (Mbps) and an upload
speed of 1 Mbps at the cell edge with 80 percent probability,
and a 30 percent cell loading factor.\23\ \24\ However, an
official from an industry trade association testified that the
industry standard for commercial networks requires at least 90
percent cell edge probability to demonstrate more accurate
service availability.\25\ The 10 percent difference in cell-
edge probability between the FCC's parameters and industry
standards results in a 60 percent increase in covered areas,
creating maps that may show unserved areas as served.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solution
(testimony of Tim Donovan) (``[A] primary flaw is that the parameters
that the FCC asks carriers to report data are overstated, so that
carriers can report data that is both correct in terms of what the FCC
asks for, as well as not useful for what you or I would consider to be
reliable.'').
\23\See Connect America Fund, Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 6282, para. 34 (2017).
\24\Written testimony of Tim Donovan at 8 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/335DCD54-07D6-4140-A286-
0B59F6527F6B) (``Cell edge probability determines the likelihood that
the minimum speed will be possible at the furthest point from the base
station and cell loading determines the extent to which available
resources from a given base station may be used by consumers while
providing minimum coverage speed.'')
\25\Id.
\26\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other tools also could help improve the data used to create
broadband maps. Commercial and other third-party data is one
such tool. Ookla, which provides broadband speed tests,
collects data on performance, quality, and accessibility of
broadband networks. This data could be used in the FCC's
mapping process.\27\ Consumers also could have a role in
collecting data for broadband maps. For example, crowdsourcing
data from consumers could help improve the FCC's data by
providing on-the-ground information on the availability of
broadband.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\See generally, written testimony of Chip Strange, vice
president, Strategic Initiatives, Ookla, LLC (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/073F0773-F518-4625-8636-
184225FDB6E3).
\28\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solution
(testimony of Chip Strange) (``[C]rowdsourcing can be a much more vital
component to our national mapping initiatives than I think the Federal
Government has utilized thus far. ... If you simply downloaded our
publicly accessible speedtest application, you could collect similar
type of information and then all of that gets rolled up for use by a
Federal agency that is licensing it. ...''); id. (``With respect to
crowdsourcing, I think that regardless of how we cut the data up, we
have to get measurements in the field and crowdsourcing can be a huge
activator for that.''); (testimony of Jonathan Spalter) (``We're going
to de-duplicate and improve the confidence score of that data through
crowdsourcing.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to improving data collection, the Committee
heard testimony on the need for a challenge process for all FCC
data collection efforts, not just for MF II.\29\ Challenge
processes allow the public--consumers, private industry,
government stakeholders, among other entities--to submit their
own coverage data to challenge the accuracy of the data
submitted by providers. Although a more granular map should
reduce the need for a challenge process, such a process is
still important as a way to help verify the data submitted to
the FCC. The MF II included such a process, however it was
criticized for being burdensome for challengers--both
financially and logistically--with respect to what was required
to initiate a challenge.\30\ Less burdensome requirements could
improve participation in this process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\See hearing webcast, Broadband Mapping: Challenges and Solution
(testimony of Mike Oblizalo) (``While getting more granular is useful,
a meaningful challenge process is critical to validate the data prior
to any map being used by the FCC or the RUS to make final decisions on
funding or financing.''); (testimony of Tim Donovan) (``[T]here's a
reason why of the 106 entities that entered into the portal, only 21
were able to present valid challenges at the end.''); id. (``[H]aving
some sort of a public feedback mechanism can certainly be a positive
step in the right direction on how you fix this.'').
\30\See written testimony of Tim Donovan at 3-6 (https://
www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/335DCD54-07D6-4140-A286-
0B59F6527F6B); see hearing webcast (testimony of Mike McCormick) (``We
found very quickly that we were not equipped to be able to handle this
challenge, that we didn't even have the staffing or the capabilities of
doing it. ... [W]e wanted to show that this is so complicated for us
that it was impossible and it was absolutely impossible for a consumer
to do.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC has taken some action to improve its data
collection. On August 6, 2019, the FCC released a Report and
Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Second
Further Notice) on data collection.\31\ The Report and Order
calls for more granular information reporting for fixed
providers via shapefiles, creates a process for crowdsourcing
data, and makes changes to the Form 477 data collection to
reduce reporting burdens. The Second Further Notice also seeks
comment on the collection of more accurate, reliable mobile
wireless voice and broadband coverage data, ways to incorporate
location-specific fixed broadband deployment data in this new
data collection, and sunsetting the current Form 477 data
collection as a result of the newly adopted process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\Digital Opportunity Data Collection, Report and Order and
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket Nos. 19-195,
11-10 (rel. Aug. 6, 2019), (https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/
FCC-19-79A1.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of Provisions
S. 1822, as enacted, would do the following:
Require the FCC to issue final rules for the
collection of granular data on the availability of
terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, satellite, and
mobile broadband internet access service from providers
that must meet certain benchmarks set forth in the
legislation. The data collected, as well as data from
other sources, would be used to create various
broadband availability maps that could be used for
several purposes, including distributing funds for the
deployment of broadband.
Require the rules to include processes for
challenging the maps and submitted data, crowdsourcing
data from the public, and verifying submitted data.
Direct the FCC to provide technical assistance to
Indian tribes and small entities, conduct audits of
submitted data, develop enforcement mechanisms, and
submit to Congress an annual report on implementation
of this Act and associated enforcement activities.
Prohibit the FCC from using the Universal Service
Fund to pay for the costs associated with this bill and
exempt the FCC's initial rulemaking from Office of
Management and Budget and Paperwork Reduction Act
review.
Legislative History
S. 1822 was introduced on June 12, 2019, by Senator Wicker
(for himself and Senators Peters, Thune, and Klobuchar) and was
referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate. There are 48 additional
cosponsors. On July 24, 2019, the Committee met in open
Executive Session and, by voice vote, ordered S. 1822 reported
favorably with an amendment (in the nature of a substitute).
Estimated Costs
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate and section 403 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee provides the
following cost estimate, prepared by the Congressional Budget
Office:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
S. 1822 would require the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) to collect detailed data twice a year on the availability
of broadband internet access services. That data would be
reported by providers of those broadband services. Under the
bill, the FCC would establish and maintain a comprehensive
database and create detailed and publicly available broadband
coverage maps. The bill also would require the FCC to develop
processes for any person or entity to submit broadband
availability data to verify or challenge the FCC's database or
maps.
Using information from the FCC about the scope and
complexity of the required work, CBO estimates that the FCC
would spend $28 million over the 2020-2021 period to issue
rules, establish reporting requirements, and hire contractors
to establish a comprehensive broadband database and maps. CBO
estimates that maintaining and updating the database and maps
would cost about $9 million a year starting in 2021.
In total, CBO estimates that implementing the bill would
have a gross cost of $65 million over the 2020-2024 period.
However, the FCC is authorized to collect fees sufficient to
offset the costs of its regulatory activities each year;
therefore, CBO estimates that the net effect on discretionary
spending for those activities would be insignificant, assuming
appropriation actions consistent with that authority.
S. 1822 contains private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) but CBO cannot determine
whether the cost of those mandates would exceed the threshold
established in UMRA ($164 million in 2019, adjusted annually
for inflation).
S. 1822 would direct the FCC to develop rules requiring
broadband service providers (terrestrial fixed, satellite,
mobile, and fixed wireless) to disclose data and information to
the agency. Those disclosure requirements would vary based on
the type of broadband provider and would include, among other
things:
Areas where providers have developed (or
could potentially develop) infrastructure for a
broadband network,
Download and upload speeds for various
thresholds as established by the FCC, and a
List of addresses or locations for the
service area of the provider.
Because the rules defining content and threshold
requirements (such as the frequency of data disclosures or the
format for data submissions) are not complete, CBO cannot
determine the cost for broadband providers to comply with the
bill's requirements.
If the FCC increases annual fee collections to offset the
costs to implement provisions in the bill, S. 1822 would
increase the cost of an existing private-sector mandate on
entities required to pay those fees. Using information from the
FCC, CBO estimates that the incremental cost of the mandate
would be small, about $13 million annually, and would fall well
below the annual threshold established in the UMRA.
The bill contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are David Hughes
(for federal costs) and Rachel Austin (for mandates). The
estimate was reviewed by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In accordance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides the
following evaluation of the regulatory impact of the
legislation, as reported:
number of persons covered
S. 1822 would direct the FCC to reform its broadband
deployment data collection and mapping rules, processes, and
procedures. The bill would affect the FCC and entities already
subject to the jurisdiction of the FCC, so the number of
persons covered by this legislation should be consistent with
current levels already regulated under the Communications Act
of 1934.
economic impact
S. 1822 is not expected to have an adverse impact on the
Nation's economy. The legislation would promote access to
broadband by improving the data collected by the FCC regarding
broadband deployment, and in turn the maps used by the FCC and
other Government agencies to target funding for broadband
deployment to close the digital divide.
privacy
S. 1822 would have a minimal impact on the personal privacy
of individuals. The bill would require the collection and
reporting of more granular information about broadband
deployment, including potentially at the address level. But
provisions in S. 1822 would require the FCC to develop
processes and procedures to protect the security, privacy, and
confidentiality of such information.
paperwork
The Committee does not anticipate a major increase in
paperwork burdens for private individuals or businesses
resulting from the passage of this legislation. This
legislation would reform the broadband data collection,
validation, and mapping already conducted by the FCC. It would
direct the FCC to develop systems by which individuals and
third parties may challenge data submitted to the FCC or to
submit their own broadband deployment information to the
agency, but such actions would be voluntary. This bill also
would require annual reports to Congress on the implementation
of the Act and associated enforcement activities conducted
during the previous fiscal year.
Congressionally Directed Spending
In compliance with paragraph 4(b) of rule XLIV of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee provides that no
provisions contained in the bill, as reported, meet the
definition of congressionally directed spending items under the
rule.
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title.
This section would provide that this bill may be cited as
the ``Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
Availability Act'' or the ``Broadband DATA Act''.
Section 2. Definitions.
This section would define 14 terms used throughout the
bill. The following six definitions included in S. 1822 are of
particular importance:
Broadband Internet Access Service.--The term ``broadband
internet access service'' has the same meaning given the term
in section 8.1(b) of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations, or
any successor regulation.
Broadband Map.--The term ``Broadband Map'' means the map
created by the Commission under section 3(c)(1)(A) of this
bill.
Fabric.--The term ``Fabric'' means the Broadband
Serviceable Location Fabric established under section
3(b)(1)(B) of this bill.
Provider.--The term ``provider'' means a provider of fixed
or mobile broadband internet access service.
Shapefile.--The term ``shapefile'' means a digital storage
format containing geospatial or location-based data and
attribute information (1) regarding the availability of
broadband internet access service; and (2) that can be viewed,
edited, and mapped in geographic information system software.
Standard Broadband Installation.--The term ``standard
broadband installation'' means the initiation by a provider of
fixed broadband internet access service with no charges or
delays attributable to the extension of the network of the
provider; and includes the initiation of fixed broadband
internet access service through routine installation that can
be completed not later than 10 business days after the date on
which the service request is submitted.
Section 3. Broadband maps.
Subsection (a)(1) of this section would require that, not
later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this Act,
the FCC issue final rules for the collection of accurate and
granular data on the availability of terrestrial fixed, fixed
wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband internet access
service from providers on at least a biannual basis. The
Commission would be required to use the data collected to
compile publicly available coverage maps pursuant to section
3(c)(1) that show where broadband is and is not available. The
rules adopted by the Commission also would be required to
establish the following: (1) processes for verifying data
submitted by providers pursuant to the bill; (2) challenging
submitted data and maps consistent with section 3(b)(5) of the
bill; and (3) processes for protecting the security, privacy
and confidentiality of information in the Fabric, the data
supporting the Fabric, and data collected under section
3(b)(2); and (4) develop a crowdsourcing system consistent with
section 5(b).
Subsection (a)(2) of this section would direct the FCC to
develop a process to collect verified data for use in the
coverage maps from State, local, and Tribal government
entities, other third-party sources; and other Federal
agencies. With respect to third party data, the FCC would
collect such data to the extent that the agency finds that it
is in the public interest to use that data in the development
of the coverage maps, or verification of data submitted under
section 3(b). The Committee intends public interest to be
interpreted as necessary for the creation of accurate and
granular broadband availability maps. The FCC should not use
data that does not help identify where broadband is or is not
made available by providers. Finally, the FCC would collect
data from other Federal agencies that collect information about
broadband internet access service from providers, and from
agencies that collect such information directly in the course
of their primary work.
Subsection (a)(3) of this section would direct the
Commission to update the rules it adopts pursuant to section 3
to reflect changes in technology, ensure the accuracy of
propagation models, and improve the usefulness of the coverage
maps.
Subsection (b) generally would set forth a further
explanation of the content of some of the rules the FCC must
adopt pursuant to the general rulemaking required under section
3(a).
Subsection (b)(1) would establish the Broadband Serviceable
Location Fabric for fixed broadband internet access service.
Under paragraph (A) of this subsection, the Commission would
need to create a common dataset of all U.S. locations where
fixed broadband internet access service can be installed (as
determined by the Commission). The paragraph would permit the
FCC to contract with an entity with expertise on geographic
information systems (GIS) to create and maintain this dataset.
Such a contract would last for a maximum term of 5 years before
being rebid and must comply with the Federal Acquisition
Regulation. The bidding process for the contract would be
required to be open, transparent, and competitive.
Subparagraph (B) of this subsection would provide more
details about the Fabric itself. The Fabric would contain
geocoded information for each fixed broadband internet access
service serviceable location identified by the FCC under
paragraph (A). It also would do the following: (1) serve as the
foundation upon which all information about the availability of
fixed broadband service would be overlaid, (2) be compatible
with commonly used GIS software, and (3) be updated at least
annually. Paragraph (c) of this subsection would direct the FCC
to prioritize its implementation of the Fabric for rural and
insular areas in the United States. The Committee intends for
this provision to direct the FCC to focus initial
implementation of the Fabric on high-cost, unserved parts of
the country that would be eligible for Federal Universal
Service Fund high-cost support--where supplemental information
about fixed broadband internet access service serviceable
locations could be most relevant and useful when distributing
funds. But at the same time, the Committee does not intend for
this language to preclude implementation of the Fabric in other
areas to the extent that the dataset permits such
implementation.
Subsection (b)(2) would require the FCC to adopt rules
setting forth mandatory standards for the reporting of
broadband internet access service by providers, and would
provide further details about such standards.
Subparagraph (A) of this subsection would pertain to
providers of terrestrial fixed, fixed wireless, and satellite
broadband internet access service. The FCC would need to create
standards for the collection of the following information from
such providers:
Data that documents where the provider has actually
built out its broadband network infrastructure such
that the provider is able to provide service.
Data that documents where the provider is capable of
performing a standard broadband installation.
Data on the download and upload speeds, at various
thresholds established by the Commission, and if
applicable, latency for the broadband internet access
service the provider makes available. (The Committee
intends that the latency requirement only apply to
fixed wireless and satellite providers.).
Data that the agency determines is appropriate for
specific technologies to ensure the Broadband Map is
granular and accurate.
The Committee understands that there may be no material
difference between the area where a fixed broadband provider
has actually built out its broadband network infrastructure to
the point of being able to provide broadband service and the
area where the provider could provide service within a standard
broadband installation interval. In such circumstances, a
single shapefile would accurately represent the provider's
service area. To the extent there is a material difference
between these two areas for a provider, the FCC may require the
provider to report each area with a separate shapefile. But, as
stated later in this subsection, the Act would prohibit the
Commission from requiring any provider of terrestrial fixed,
fixed wireless, or satellite broadband internet access service
to identify or report addresses or locations for any part of
this Act.
Subparagraph (A) also would require that data collected
from fixed broadband internet access service providers would
need to be georeferenced to the GIS data in the Fabric.
Subparagraph (A) would further direct the FCC to adopt
specific rules by which fixed broadband internet access service
providers must report the data required by the paragraph. Fixed
wireless broadband internet access service providers would be
permitted to submit the relevant data by the following means:
(1) propagation maps, along with details about the propagation
models those maps are based on; or (2) a list of addresses or
locations that constitute the provider's service area.
Paragraph (A) would require fixed wireless broadband internet
access service propagation maps and models to satisfy standards
that are similar to those applicable to mobile broadband
internet access service providers under section (3)(b)(2)(B),
taking into account material differences between the two
technologies. With respect to any reporting by addresses, the
Commission may only permit but not require such reporting and
the agency must provide a mechanism for using that method of
reporting for Tribal areas.
Terrestrial fixed and satellite broadband internet access
service providers would be permitted to submit the relevant
data by the following means: (1) polygon shapefiles, or (2) a
list of addresses or locations that constitute the provider's
service area. With respect to any reporting by addresses, the
Commission may only permit but not require such reporting and
the agency must provide a mechanism for using that method of
reporting for Tribal areas.
Subparagraph (A) would further permit the Commission to
request additional data that it determines is appropriate for
specific technologies to ensure the Broadband Map is granular
and accurate. The Committee expects that the FCC, in
establishing uniform standards for the reporting of data from
fixed providers, would seek to improve the accuracy of existing
maps while minimizing the reporting burdens on providers.
Subparagraph (B) of this subsection would pertain to
providers of mobile broadband internet access service. The FCC
would need to collect from such providers propagation maps
depicting the provider's current (as of the date on which the
information is collected) 4G LTE mobile broadband coverage,
along with details about the propagation models those maps are
based on. The propagation maps and models would be required to
comply with the following rules:
They would be required to take into consideration
the effect of clutter.
They would be required to show where the provider
can provide 4G LTE mobile broadband service with a
download speed of 5 Mbps and an upload speed of 1 Mbps
with a cell edge probability of not less than 90
percent and cell loading of 50 percent. These
parameters are more stringent than those used for the
MF II information collection,\32\ and should create a
more precise and reliable mobile broadband map.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\In the MF II information collection, the Commission required
providers to file propagation maps and model details indicating their
current 4G LTE coverage, as defined by download speeds of 5 Mbps at the
cell edge with 80 percent probability and a 30 percent cell loading
factor. See Connect America Fund, Report and Order, Order on
Reconsideration, 32 FCC Rcd 6282, para. 34 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
They would be required to comply with any other
parameter the FCC determines is necessary to create a
map under section 3(c)(1)(C) that is more precise than
the map produced under the MF II information
collection.
Subsection (b)(3) would direct the Commission to
immediately commence a rulemaking to update the prescribed
reporting standards for providers of mobile broadband internet
access service if it determines that the standards set forth in
section 3(b)(2)(B) are insufficient to collect accurate
propagation maps and propagation model details for future
generations of mobile broadband internet access service
technology. Any new reporting standards would have to be (1)
the functional equivalent of those in section 3(b)(2)(B); and
(2) allow for the collection of propagation maps and
propagation model details that are as accurate and granular as,
or more accurate and granular than, the maps and model details
collected under section 3(b)(2)(B).
Subsection (b)(4) would direct that each provider
submitting data to the FCC pursuant to section 3(b)(2) include
with that submission a certification from a corporate officer
of the provider that such officer has examined the information
contained in the submission and that, to the best of his or her
knowledge, information, and belief, all statements of fact
contained in the submission are true and correct. Subsection
(b)(4) also would require that the Commission verify the
accuracy and reliability of the information submitted to the
agency under section (3)(b)(2) in accordance with the measures
established by the Commission in the rulemaking under section
3(a).
Subsection (b)(5) would direct the Commission to adopt
rules creating a user-friendly challenge process as part of the
rulemaking under section 3(a). This challenge process would
provide a process by which consumers; State, local, and Tribal
governmental entities; and other entities could submit coverage
data to the Commission to challenge the coverage maps,
information submitted by providers regarding the availability
of broadband internet access service, and information in the
Fabric.
The Committee believes that the reforms mandated by S. 1822
will substantially improve the granularity and accuracy of the
information being collected by the FCC. Nonetheless, the
Committee recognizes that the data submitted will be self-
prepared and self-certified by broadband internet access
providers, and that there is a need to verify such data. The
Committee therefore urges the Commission to use the challenge
process not just as a way to collect information from the
public, but also to provide timely opportunities for input and
evidence-based corrections to, or updates of, the coverage maps
as the agency prepares to distribute funding for broadband
based upon the availability of broadband internet access
service. Similarly, the Committee intends for the crowdsourcing
process created in section 5 of the bill, as well as the
Commission's own verification obligations pursuant to the bill,
to serve as important ongoing checks on the accuracy of the
information being submitted to the agency and used in the
coverage maps.
Subsection (b)(5) would direct the Commission, in
establishing the challenge process, to ensure that the process
is not unduly burdensome for challengers or those responding to
challenges. To do so, the Commission would be required to
consider: (1) the types of information that an entity
submitting a challenge should provide to the Commission; (2)
the appropriate level of granularity for that information; (3)
the need to mitigate the time and expense incurred by, and the
administrative burdens placed on, both the entities submitting
challenges and those responding to challenges; and (4) the
costs to consumers and providers resulting from a misallocation
of funds because of a reliance on outdated or otherwise
inaccurate information in the coverage maps.
In addition, subsection (b)(5) also would direct the
Commission to include in the challenge process a process for
verifying the data submitted to ensure reliability; allow
providers to respond to challenges; and include an online
mechanism for submitting challenges that is integrated into the
coverage maps. The Commission also would be directed to include
a process for the speedy resolution of challenges, as well as a
process for regularly and expeditiously updating the coverage
maps as challenges are resolved. With respect to the process
for resolving challenges, the Committee understands that the
Commission may decide to prioritize certain challenges or
groups of challenges over others in light of their impact on
the coverage maps.
Finally, subsection (b)(6) would require that, not later
than 180 days after the new rules take effect, the FCC reform
its Form 477 broadband deployment service availability
collection process to make that process consistent with the
bill and rules issued pursuant to the bill, and to remove
duplicative reporting requirements and procedures regarding the
deployment of broadband internet access service. Subsection
(b)(6) further provides that the Commission shall continue to
collect and publicly report the subscription data that the
Commission collected through the Form 477 process as in effect
on July 1, 2019.
Subsection (c) generally sets forth the actions the
Commission would be required to take regarding the creation of
maps using the information collected by the agency pursuant to
subsection 3(b).
Subsection (c)(1) would direct the Commission to create
three different maps (collectively termed the ``coverage maps''
in S. 1822) concerning the availability of broadband internet
access service as follows:
The Broadband Map, which would depict the
availability of broadband internet access service in
the United States--both fixed and mobile--based on the
data collected from providers and show the areas that
remain unserved.
A broadband availability map for fixed broadband
internet access service, based on the data collected
from providers.
A broadband availability map for mobile broadband
internet access service, based on the data collected
from providers.
Subsection (c)(2) would direct the FCC to use these
coverage maps (1) to determine the areas where broadband
internet access service is and is not available, and (2) when
making any new award of funding with respect to the deployment
of broadband internet access service.
Subsection (c)(3) would direct the Commission to update the
coverage maps not less than biannually using the most recent
information collected by providers under section 3(b).
Subsection (c)(4) would mandate that the Commission develop
a process requiring the Department of Agriculture and the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) to consult the coverage maps when distributing funds for
broadband internet access service deployment under programs
administered by those agencies. Subsection (b)(5) would further
require the Commission to establish a process for sharing the
data it collects under section 3(b)(2) with the NTIA.
Section 4. Enforcement.
Subsection (a) of this section would make it unlawful for a
person to willfully and knowingly, or recklessly, submit
broadband internet access service availability information or
data that is materially inaccurate or incomplete.
The Committee recognizes that data submitted by providers
under this Act may contain minor mistakes or omissions, which
is why crowdsourcing and challenge processes are included to
check and refine the accuracy of providers' data submissions
and the maps created pursuant to S. 1822. Thus, the standard
set forth in this provision, including the word ``recklessly,''
is not intended to apply to providers who submit information or
data under this Act that contains minor mistakes, small
omissions or overstatements, or other unintentional errors. As
a result, this subsection makes clear that FCC enforcement
action should focus on situations where a provider submits data
that is materially inaccurate or incomplete, meaning it would
have a significant impact on the Commission's collection and
use of the information and data under this Act. The Committee
intends that the focus of this inquiry should be on the nature
of the inaccuracy or incompleteness, and that the agency should
issue enforcement guidance to providers.
Subsection (b) of this section would deem violations of the
bill to be violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and
would direct the FCC to enforce S. 1822 in the same manner and
with the same jurisdiction, powers, and duties as if the
provisions of the bill were incorporated into and made a part
of the Communications Act of 1934.
Section 5. Improving data accuracy.
Subsection (a) of this section would require the Commission
to conduct regular audits of the information submitted by
providers under S. 1822 to ensure that providers are complying
with the bill. The Committee believes that this subsection is a
necessary corollary to section 3(b)(4), which requires that
providers certify the accuracy of the data being submitted to
the FCC pursuant to the requirements of this bill, and section
4(a), which establishes standards and penalties for the
submission of inaccurate or incomplete information to the FCC.
Thus, the Committee intends for the FCC to implement this
requirement in a rigorous fashion such that the agency can
judge the validity of such certifications and avoid past issues
related to the submission of inaccurate broadband internet
access service deployment and availability information to the
agency.
Subsection (b) of this section would require the FCC to
develop a process through which the public could submit
specific information about the deployment and availability of
broadband internet access service to verify or supplement the
information collected from providers and used in the maps. The
subsection would further require the Commission to develop
guidance and other information to make sure that the
information submitted through this crowdsourcing process is
uniform and consistent with the data submitted by providers
under section 3 of the bill. The Committee intends for the
Commission to implement this latter directive in a flexible
manner, balancing the need for consistent data with the need to
make this crowdsourcing process useful for consumers and third
parties who may not have sophisticated tools at their disposal
to collect such data. The Committee recognizes, however, that a
variety of factors outside of a broadband internet access
provider's control, such as equipment, software, or viruses and
malware, may affect a person's broadband internet access
service. The Committee expects the Commission to account for
these factors when developing this process. The Committee also
intends for the FCC to seek specific recommendations from the
public on how best to craft this crowdsourcing system as part
of the rulemaking required by section 3 of S. 1822.
Subsection (c) of this section would direct the Commission
to hold workshops for Tribal governments in each of the 12
Bureau of Indian Affairs regions to provide technical
assistance with the collection and submission of data under S.
1822. The subsection also would direct the FCC, in consultation
with Indian Tribes, to review the need for such workshops.
Subsection (d) of this section would direct the Commission
to provide technical assistance to small service providers,
which is defined as those providers with fewer than 100,000
active broadband internet access service connections. This
technical assistance would pertain to GIS data processing so
that the small provider can comply with the data collection
requirements of the bill.
Section 6. Cost.
Subsection (a) of this section would require the Commission
to include in its annual budget submission to the President an
amount sufficient to ensure proper and continued functioning of
its responsibilities under S. 1822. The Committee intends for
the Commission to use the annual appropriations process as the
means by which the agency shall pay for the costs of
implementing the bill.
Subsection (b) of this section would prohibit the
Commission from using monies for Universal Service Fund
programs collected pursuant to section 254 of the
Communications Act of 1934, and the regulations issued by the
FCC pursuant to that section, to pay for the costs associated
with this Act. The Commission would, however, be allowed to
recover costs associated with the implementation of S. 1822
under section 9 of the Communications Act of 1934, to the
extent provided for in an appropriations Act.
Section 7. Other provisions.
Subsections (a) and (b) of this section would exempt the
initial rulemaking under section 3(a)(1) of the bill from
review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This is intended to ensure
that the first rulemaking is completed expeditiously. Future
rulemakings, however, would be subject to both OMB review and
the PRA.
Subsection (c) of this section would provide a limitation
that, aside from the ability of the FCC to enter into a
contract related to the Fabric under section 3(b)(1)(A)(ii),
the Commission, including the offices of the Commission, must
carry out the responsibilities assigned to it under this bill.
The FCC would not be permitted to delegate any of its assigned
responsibilities to third parties, including the Universal
Service Administrative Company.
Finally, subsection (d) of this section would direct the
Commission to submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and
Commerce of the House of Representatives a yearly report that
summarizes its implementation of the bill and associated
enforcement activities conducted during the previous fiscal
year.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that the
bill as reported would make no change to existing law.
[all]