Rural Broadband-Examining Internet Connectivity Needs and Opportunities in Rural America
Summary
The printed record of a hearing of the Committee on Agriculture, House of Representatives, titled Rural Broadband--Examining Internet Connectivity Needs and Opportunities in Rural America, dated April 20, 2021, Serial No. 117-4. The Committee met via Webex with Hon. David Scott of Georgia, Chairman, presiding; Hon. Glenn Thompson also gave an opening statement. In the opening statement, Chairman Scott states that 24 million citizens in rural communities have no access to the internet. Witnesses are Jennifer L. Prather of Totelcom Communications, LLC, Timothy R. Johnson of OEConnect, LLC and Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc., Vickie S. Robinson of the Microsoft Global Airband Initiative, and Johnny Park of the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network. The record includes prepared statements, submitted letters and maps, and submitted questions.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Rural Broadband-Examining Internet Connectivity Needs and Opportunities in Rural America.”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/rural-broadband-examining-internet-connectivity-needs-and-opportunitie-1645e99ddb/
, SHA-256 122d1e825b887ea972c613dfa484383c9550e5e53ea2874efcbb1f00184c3128.Full text
[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RURAL BROADBAND--EXAMINING INTERNET CONNECTIVITY NEEDS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
IN RURAL AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 20, 2021
__________
Serial No. 117-4
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Agriculture
agriculture.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
47-123PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
DAVID SCOTT, Georgia, Chairman
JIM COSTA, California GLENN THOMPSON, Pennsylvania,
JAMES P. McGOVERN, Massachusetts Ranking Minority Member
FILEMON VELA, Texas AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia
ALMA S. ADAMS, North Carolina, Vice ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
Chair Arkansas
ABIGAIL DAVIS SPANBERGER, Virginia SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee
JAHANA HAYES, Connecticut VICKY HARTZLER, Missouri
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York DOUG LaMALFA, California
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine RICK W. ALLEN, Georgia
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
Northern Mariana Islands TRENT KELLY, Mississippi
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire DON BACON, Nebraska
CHERI BUSTOS, Illinois DUSTY JOHNSON, South Dakota
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona CHRIS JACOBS, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
RO KHANNA, California MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
AL LAWSON, Jr., Florida TRACEY MANN, Kansas
J. LUIS CORREA, California RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota MARY E. MILLER, Illinois
JOSH HARDER, California BARRY MOORE, Alabama
CYNTHIA AXNE, Iowa KAT CAMMACK, Florida
KIM SCHRIER, Washington MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
JIMMY PANETTA, California JULIA LETLOW, Louisiana
ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
______
Anne Simmons, Staff Director
Parish Braden, Minority Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Cammack, Hon. Kat, a Representative in Congress from Florida,
submitted map.................................................. 130
Cloud, Hon. Michael, a Representative in Congress from Texas,
submitted maps................................................. 129
Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from California,
submitted statement on behalf of Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein,
President and Chief Executive Officer, Wireless Infrastructure
Association.................................................... 108
Craig, Hon. Angie, a Representative in Congress from Minnesota,
submitted fact sheet........................................... 110
Feenstra, Hon. Randy, a Representative in Congress from Iowa,
submitted comment letter; authored by Michael R. Romano, Senior
Vice President--Industry Affairs & Business Development, NTCA--
The Rural Broadband Association................................ 113
Scott, Hon. David, a Representative in Congress from Georgia,
opening statement.............................................. 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Submitted letters on behalf of:
Berry, Steven K., President & Chief Executive Officer,
Competitive Carriers Association....................... 101
Spalter, Jonathan, President and Chief Executive Officer,
USTelecomDThe Broadband Association.................... 102
Joint submitted letter on behalf of James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director, Western Governors' Association......... 104
Thompson, Hon. Glenn, a Representative in Congress from
Pennsylvania, opening statement................................ 3
Joint submitted letter on behalf of James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director, Western Governors' Association......... 104
Witnesses
Prather, Jennifer L., Vice President and General Manager,
Totelcom Communications, LLC, De Leon, TX; on behalf of NTCA--
The Rural Broadband Association................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Submitted questions.......................................... 131
Johnson, Timothy R., Chief Executive Officer, OEConnect, LLC and
Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc., Hartwick, NY................ 14
Prepared statement........................................... 16
Submitted questions.......................................... 133
Robinson, Esq., Vickie S., General Manager, Microsoft Global
Airband Initiative, Washington, D.C............................ 21
Prepared statement........................................... 22
Submitted question........................................... 137
Park, Ph.D., Johnny, Chief Executive Officer, Wabash Heartland
Innovation Network, West Lafayette, IN......................... 27
Prepared statement........................................... 29
Submitted question........................................... 137
RURAL BROADBAND--EXAMINING INTERNET CONNECTIVITY NEEDS AND
OPPORTUNITIES IN RURAL AMERICA
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 2021
House of Representatives,
Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to other business, at 10:11
a.m., via Webex, Hon. David Scott of Georgia [Chairman of the
Committee] presiding.
Members present: Representatives David Scott of Georgia,
Costa, Adams, Spanberger, Hayes, Delgado, Sablan, Kuster,
Bustos, Maloney, Plaskett, O'Halleran, Carbajal, Khanna,
Lawson, Craig, Harder, Axne, Schrier, Panetta, Thompson, Austin
Scott of Georgia, Crawford, DesJarlais, Hartzler, LaMalfa,
Davis, Allen, Rouzer, Kelly, Bacon, Johnson, Baird, Hagedorn,
Jacobs, Balderson, Cloud, Mann, Feenstra, Miller, Moore,
Cammack, Fischbach, and Letlow.
Staff present: Lyron Blum-Evitts, Emily German, Prescott
Martin III, Anne Simmons, Ashley Smith, Paul Balzano, Caleb
Crosswhite, Erin Wilson, and Dana Sandman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM GEORGIA
The Chairman. All right. Now, ladies and gentlemen, we are
here to deal with one of the most important issues that our
nation is faced with, and that is bringing rural broadband
internet connections to everyone, including our rural
communities. And I want to make it clear how important this is,
and this is a number one issue facing our Committee. And I
honestly believe that we are up to the task of getting it done
now. Our rural communities have waited long enough. We want to
be that galvanizing force to say let's do it now without delay.
Ladies and gentlemen, 24 million of our American citizens,
24 million in our rural communities have no access to the
internet at a time when it is critical. Ladies and gentlemen,
let me tell you another reason why this is so dear and
important to me. I was born in a rural area, grew up there on
my grandparent's farm back in the day when we had no running
water, but the urban cities had running water. We had to get it
out of the well, get it out of the pump for everything. I was
there when we had no electricity. We had the kerosene lamps
when in the cities and the urban areas, they had electricity.
Television was coming in. They could have the TV, radio, all of
that. We in the rural areas did not. We are in that same
situation now because our rural communities don't have access
to the internet. And I am telling you, we have talented and
gifted Members on this Committee, both Democrats and
Republicans, who have talked to me. We have shared our passion,
and I am convinced that we here on the House Agriculture
Committee can be the vanguard to now pass the money we need,
get it out there in our communities now.
To help us solve this issue, we have assembled expert
witnesses to come and tell us how we can do it now. They are
experts in constructing and maintaining broadband networks in
rural areas. And as I said, we are blessed to have the talented
Members of Congress. I can think of no Committee that has more
talent on it than ours. We can do the job because we are
committed to do it.
But in our rural areas where they have no internet, there
is no telemedicine. There is no rural healthcare there. And
what healthcare they have is at a disadvantage without the
technology and the internet. Students in our schools in the
rural areas are at a disadvantage without access to broadband.
And ladies and gentlemen, this is where our wonderful world of
agriculture produces the food we need, the clothing we need,
our timber for shelter. All the basic necessities are done in
the rural areas, and if we are not able to get our farmers
technologically up to date, we will gradually, and maybe even
quicker than gradually, fall behind our current position, which
we are hanging on by our fingernails, as being number one in
the world in agriculture. We won't be able to keep this much
longer if we don't put internet connections into our rural
communities.
Let me just tell you, the benefits of what we call
precision agriculture technologies that our farmers use, they
have to have the access to the broadband to do it. Our fight
for climate change, our farmers are moving with no-till
farming, cover crops, but they are also moving into an arena
now where a plethora of carbon markets are being established.
We won't be able to manifest our movements in the climate
change fight if our rural communities do not have that for more
accurate planning, pest and nutrient management, for
harvesting, for identifying new markets to sell their crops.
And so, this meeting is designed to help me and our Ranking
Member, Mr. Thompson, as well as those of you on this
Committee, to find out what we can do and what we must do. We
can do it, gang. We are here in the right place at the right
time to be the leaders in Congress to finally make sure that
everybody in our nation, including these 24 million in the
rural communities, finally have rural broadband internet
connections.
[The prepared statement of Mr. David Scott follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Good morning, we are here today to discuss the critical issue of
rural broadband and to hear from our witnesses about their experiences
constructing and maintaining broadband networks in rural America. As
always, I'd like to thank my Ranking Member for his bipartisan
cooperation and willingness to work with me on this issue. I think we
have a fantastic opportunity to seize this moment and take meaningful
action to close the digital divide.
Rural broadband is critical for the growth and development of our
rural communities. It's essential we act to finally close the digital
divide that has kept so many of our rural communities from reaching
their full potential. As we have seen laid bare throughout this
pandemic, we cannot delay in our efforts.
Rural broadband offers answers to many of the toughest issues
facing rural communities today. The COVID-19 pandemic further
highlighted the scarcity of health care resources in rural America.
Access to quality high-speed broadband can not only provide rural
residents with options for telemedicine, for health care facilities
that require access to broadband it also allows for health care
facilities to establish their operations in rural areas, bringing
quality jobs and increasing the overall health and development of the
community.
Our nation's students and businesses also experienced many changes
during the pandemic, with many becoming fully remote at some point in
2020. Students without access to broadband, or the internet connected
devices remote work relies on, were severely disadvantaged in their
ability to learn and succeed. Many businesses also relied on their
broadband connection to continue operating and stay afloat during the
pandemic.
Broadband also provides opportunities to help us reach our climate
change goals. The benefits of precision agriculture extend far beyond
the farm, but to use these technologies farmers must have access to
broadband. Precision agriculture provides farmers with information that
allows for more accurate planting, pest and nutrient management,
harvesting and provides farmers with opportunities to identify new
markets to sell their crops.
I am excited to hear from the panel of witnesses that are before us
today. Their experiences with building, expanding, and maintaining
broadband networks in rural areas will help us identify how we can
improve current broadband programs and target our investments to ensure
communities have access to the resources they need to establish quality
broadband services. I look forward to their important testimony.
I'd now like to welcome the distinguished Ranking Member, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Thompson, for any opening remarks he
would like to give.
The Chairman. And now, I certainly yield to my
distinguished Ranking Member for any remarks he would like to
make.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN THOMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Thompson. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much.
Mr. Chairman, for years, the digital divide has left many
Americans unable to access reliable, high-speed internet
service with sufficient bandwidth to support all of the
different programs or needs that we know that we have out
there, from precision agriculture, to healthcare, to education,
to commerce, and it has resulted in lost opportunities to
expand businesses, to learn new skills, or even participate in
daily activities.
I see this constant frustration every day. I am fortunate
to live in the service territory of a rural electric
cooperative which offers quality internet service to my home,
but just a few miles away, my neighbors are on the wrong side
of the digital divide. I represent 14 counties in rural
Pennsylvania, and I can tell you it is like this all across my
district, with digital haves and have nots just down the road
from one another. It is a checkerboard of connectivity.
In the height of the pandemic, I heard one too many
homeschooling horror stories that were the result of not having
reliable access to the internet. A number of families were
driving to the local library, sitting in a parking lot, and
hoping to connect with the public WiFi within that building in
hopes of completing assignments. COVID-19 laid bare the urgency
of rural broadband, but the connectivity struggles in rural
communities predate this pandemic, and they will not ease as we
return to normal. As more of American life is being put online,
more of it is being put out of reach for Americans without
high-speed internet access with sufficient bandwidth, and those
without are falling further behind.
Despite years of effort and billions of dollars spent, too
many communities are being left behind, and that is why today's
hearing is so important.
Broadband is not just needed in our homes; it is
desperately needed on our farms as well. The demands of a 21st
century farm economy depends on reliable connectivity. This
Committee has done tremendous work on a bipartisan basis to
address the digital divide, most recently with the broadband
provisions in the 2018 Farm Bill. Those changes reflected 2
years of work to develop policies and design programs which
meet the unique challenges of rural communities. Unfortunately,
those policies and programs are languishing. Changes and
improvements championed by the Members of this Committee
regarding eligible areas, long-term network viability,
assistance for our most rural communities, program integrity
and more, remain unfunded and unimplemented more than 2 years
after they were signed into law. This is unacceptable, and it
should be unacceptable to every Member of this Committee. We
simply cannot do that if our best ideas are discarded.
So, Mr. Chairman, today I am going to renew my request to
the Appropriations Committee to move past the ReConnect Pilot
Program and finally fund the programs which we wrote together
in the last farm bill. ReConnect has served its purpose as a
pilot program, and now it is time to deliver on policies and
programs that we promised the American people 2 years ago.
Now, I look forward to working with you as we engage our
colleagues to tell the story of the 2018 Farm Bill and the
improvements that we made. Now we have a great panel of
witnesses today who understand the challenges and the
complexity of operating rural broadband networks, bringing
innovative solutions to life, and most importantly, serving
their communities. So, welcome, Ms. Prather, Mr. Johnson, Ms.
Robinson, and Dr. Park. Each of you has a remarkable story to
tell of your work on behalf of rural communities across the
country. I thank you for spending your time with us today, and
I certainly look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, 100 years ago, if the electrification of
rural America was done with the same piecemeal and silos that
we experience today in our work with broadband, I fear that
many communities would still be in the dark.
So, I would like to close on a personal note, Mr. Chairman.
There was a lot of frustration on this side of the dais during
the reconciliation markup, but you committed then to making
broadband a priority, and making it bipartisan. And we are here
today making it bipartisan and a priority. So, thank you for
being true to your word. I look forward to working with you and
Chairman Delgado, Ranking Member Fischbach, and all of our
Members as we strengthen the case for the broadband investments
needed in rural America and our rural communities.
Thank you so much, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Yes, thank you, our Ranking Member Thompson.
I appreciate that.
The chair now would request that other Members submit their
opening statements for the record so our witnesses may begin
their testimony now.
We have such a distinguished panel that is here, and I
would just want to take a few minutes to tell you about them.
First, I am pleased to welcome our first witness, Ms.
Jennifer Prather. Ms. Prather is the Vice President and General
Manager of Totelcom Communications, a rural broadband and
telecommunications company headquarters in De Leon, Texas.
Totelcom Communications is a community-based provider that
employs fiber, wireless, and traditional copper-based
facilities to deliver quality broadband to its customers.
To introduce our second witness, I am pleased to yield to
our distinguished colleague, the gentleman from New York and
the Chairman of our Subcommittee on Commodity Exchanges,
Energy, and Credit, Congressman Antonio Delgado. You are now
recognized.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking
Member Thompson. It is my privilege to introduce our next
witness and my constituent, Tim Johnson. Mr. Johnson is the CEO
of OEConnect, LLC, and Otsego Electric Cooperative. Now, Tim
and I have had many conversations back home in the district,
both in person and virtually of late, about the critically
important work of Otsego Electric Cooperative. He is a true
leader in our community and has extensive knowledge about rural
broadband access and affordability. Otsego Electric Cooperative
provides broadband service to thousands of households in the
most rural and underserved parts of upstate New York. The
cooperative is located within the community it serves, and
understands that broadband access empowers our rural
communities. The cooperative also understands that rural
broadband access and affordability go hand-in-hand. It has made
these services available at a fair price. The COVID-19 pandemic
has made even more clear that having reliable internet
connection is a necessity, and Otsego Electric Cooperative has
worked tirelessly to expand broadband access, making sure
healthcare workers have service, helping students attend remote
learning, and ensuring small businesses can enter the e-
commerce marketplace. I am proud that New York District 19 is
represented here today by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson, I look
forward to hearing your testimony and learning more about how
Congress can best support you in making sure that rural areas
have equitable access to broadband. Welcome.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
And now to introduce our third witness, I would like to
yield to Congresswoman Kim Schrier, our distinguished colleague
from Washington.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
introduce Vickie Robinson, the General Manager of Microsoft's
Global Airband Initiative, as one of our witnesses this
morning.
Ms. Robinson joined Microsoft in January of 2018 after
nearly 2 decades in the service of the FCC in multiple
leadership roles. At Microsoft, Ms. Robinson leads the Airband
Initiative, which aims to close the digital divide and bring
high-speed internet connectivity to unconnected communities in
the U.S. and around the world. Ms. Robinson, I am so excited to
listen to your testimony this morning, and I am looking forward
to discussing the work Microsoft is doing to expand broadband
access in our home State of Washington later on.
Thank you.
The Chairman. And, I thank the gentlewoman for her remarks.
To introduce our fourth and final witness today, I am so
pleased to yield to our colleague on the Agriculture Committee,
our distinguished gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Baird.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Thompson. I really appreciate the opportunity to introduce our
next witness. He is a member of the Congressional District 4.
He is a product of Purdue University and the Research Park--and
the skills that he has, I think you are going to really enjoy
his testimony.
I want to give a little of his background, because I think
that helps understand how well he understands the need for
broadband at the last mile or in the agricultural arena, as
well as advanced manufacturing. But he is currently the CEO of
Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, or the short version of
that is WHIN, and that is a consortium of about ten counties in
north central Indiana, and they are devoted to developing the
region into a global epicenter of digital and agriculture next
generation manufacturing. And they are going to do that by
harnessing the power of the Internet of Things, IoT.
Anyway, prior to serving WHIN, Johnny found and he scaled
up and led a successful exit of an ag company, Spensa
Technologies, and he produced smart Internet of Things devices
that were able to analyze the data and help growers better
manage agronomic pests such as insects, weeds, and disease. So,
Spensa was named by Forbes as one of the top 25 most innovative
ag startups in 2017. So, Johnny has a lot of experience and a
lot of knowledge in this arena. He has a B.S. and a master's
and a Ph.D. from Purdue University in the School of Electrical
and Computer Engineering.
So, it is with great pleasure that I welcome Dr. Park to
serve as a witness to our Agriculture Committee. Welcome.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. So, I am so pleased to have such a
distinguished panel of witnesses before us today and I know we
are all excited to hear what they have to say. Each of our
witnesses will have 5 minutes and the timer should be visible
on your screen and will count down to zero at which time your
time will have expired. Ms. Prather, you are now recognized for
our first 5 minutes. Please begin when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF JENNIFER L. PRATHER, VICE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL
MANAGER, TOTELCOM COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, DE LEON, TX; ON BEHALF
OF NTCA--THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION
Ms. Prather. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for this
opportunity to testify about one of my favorite topics, the
importance of broadband infrastructure and how rural networks
are deployed and sustained.
I am Jennifer Prather, Vice President and General Manager
at Totelcom Communications in De Leon, Texas. My remarks today
are on behalf of Totelcom, as well as NTCA--The Rural Broadband
Association, which represents 850 rural community-based
providers of high-speed broadband and other advanced services
throughout the most sparsely populated areas of the country.
While high costs are the most imposing obstacle to
deploying and maintaining broadband in rural areas, other
barriers remain, too, to supply chain concerns and time
consuming and expensive right-of-way and access delay issues.
As Congress considers proposals to bridge the digital divide,
we offer several specific recommendations with respect to any
broadband infrastructure plan.
First, we should build networks that are built to last.
Over the last year, Totelcom saw an increase of more than 200
percent in both download and upload demand. That represents
almost 2 years of projected growth almost overnight.
Fortunately, our fiber-based networks were built to meet that
demand. Given that such demands keep growing over time, a smart
infrastructure plan should aim for the best return on such
long-term investments that meet future needs of consumers, and
enable the deployment of a variety of broadband technologies.
Putting resources towards infrastructure that must be
substantially rebuilt in only a few years' time will be a
waste, and risks leaving rural America behind.
Second, we must coordinate broadband programs and direct
funding to unserved areas to limit overbuilding of existing
network investments. Any new broadband program must coordinate
with existing Federal broadband programs at the FCC, Department
of Agriculture, NTIA, and state broadband programs.
Additionally, existing programs that have a proven track record
of success and promote accountability should receive additional
support to build upon those successes. For example, USDA
financing and Universal Service Funds support have long worked
in concert, directing all programs, both old and new, to model
on this history of success not only avoids duplication and
helps deliver high-speed reliable broadband, but it also
recognizes the hard realities of both deploying networks and
then delivering services in the most remote, sparsely populated
areas of the nation.
Third, it cannot be lost that networks must be maintained
after they are built. No provider can deliver high-speed, high-
capacity broadband in rural America without the ability to
justify and then recover the costs of sustaining broadband in
high-cost areas. Funding should be provided for this purpose as
well, to make sure rates for services in rural areas remain
affordable to consumers on these networks.
Fourth, there should be clear standards for what will be
expected of providers looking to leverage Federal resources to
meet the real-world needs of consumers and avoid using rural
America as a test lab for unproven technologies. Those
receiving any support should be required to show clearly that
they meet those standards, and then use those resources to
deliver better, more affordable broadband that will satisfy
consumer demand over the life of the network in question.
Fifth, any plans should promote local partnerships. Service
providers, like Totelcom, are based in their communities and
have deep, longstanding relationships with our local
governments and anchor institutions. The best results can often
be achieved when operators with significant experience in
building networks and delivering communication services work
together with stakeholders in the community to identify and
respond to specific needs. Regardless of whether a provider is
a cooperative or a commercial operator, we strongly urge
policymakers to look local when it comes to identifying
broadband solutions in rural America, and to leverage the
expertise and experience of smaller, community-based providers
like Totelcom, regardless of corporate form, in overcoming
these challenges.
Finally, barriers to broadband deployment must be addressed
as any part of a holistic plan to promote and sustain
infrastructure investment. Supply chain shortages and access,
particularly with respect to Federal lands and pole
attachments, can present significant obstacles to deployment of
rural broadband infrastructure. Permitting roadblocks, access
delays, and increased costs are especially problematic for
broadband operators.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and for the
Committee's commitment to broadband infrastructure investment
in rural America. Our industry is excited to participate in
this national conversation regarding broadband infrastructure
initiatives, and we look forward to working with policymakers
on a comprehensive infrastructure strategy to ensure that all
Americans will experience and continue to enjoy the numerous
agricultural, economic, educational, health, and public safety
benefits of broadband.
I look forward to answering any questions the Committee may
have for me. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Prather follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jennifer L. Prather, Vice President and General
Manager, Totelcom Communications, LLC, De Leon, TX; on Behalf of NTCA--
The Rural Broadband Association
Introduction
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify about the
importance of broadband infrastructure to rural areas and how rural
broadband networks are deployed and sustained. I am Jennifer Prather,
Vice President and General Manager at Totelcom Communications in De
Leon, TX. My remarks today are on behalf of Totelcom, as well as NTCA--
The Rural Broadband Association, which represents approximately 850
rural community-based carriers that offer advanced communications
services throughout the most sparsely-populated areas of the nation.
NTCA members and companies like them serve approximately \1/3\ of
the U.S. landmass; in most of these sparsely populated rural areas,
they are the only fixed networks available, providing essential
communications services to just under five percent of the U.S.
population and critical connections for businesses, anchor
institutions, and providers of wireless services across rural America.
Indeed, small telecommunications providers connect rural Americans with
the world--making every effort to deploy advanced networks that respond
to consumer and business demands for cutting-edge, innovative services
that help rural communities overcome the challenges of distance and
density. Fixed and mobile broadband, video, and voice are among the
services that many rural Americans can access thanks to the commitment
of small, local providers to serving sparsely populated areas.
Totelcom is a community-based telecommunications provider with 45
employees serving a 1,182\2\ mile area with an average of 3.4 customers
per square mile. Nineteen percent of our customers reside in just 2\2\
miles, while the remaining 81 percent reside in the other 1,180\2\
miles--so the population density of the more rural areas is just 2.75
customers per square mile. We provide more than 4,500 total connections
to customers, delivering voice services and broadband using a variety
of methods. Using every available ``tool in the toolkit,'' we employ
fiber-to-the-home technology and traditional copper-based facilities to
provide broadband to most customers, and we also leverage fixed
wireless point-to-point broadband to reach customers in some of the
most remote portions of our service area.
Our networks allow agricultural producers and other rural
businesses to communicate with suppliers and sell to new markets, they
enable education of our children on par with opportunities in urban
areas, and they make our communities attractive destinations for people
and businesses to relocate. Throughout the pandemic, our networks
connected the local hospitals, supported health care delivery, and
enabled thousands of Americans to work or learn from home. In rural
America, that translates into economic development that produces and
preserves jobs, not only in agriculture, energy, and other industries
with a strong rural presence, but also in the healthcare, education,
and other retail industries.
Unique Challenges of Rural Broadband Deployment
Building broadband networks is capital-intensive and time-
consuming; building them in rural areas involves a special further set
of obstacles. The primary challenge of rural network deployment is in
crossing hundreds or thousands of miles where the terrain is diverse.
The costs of constructing networks in areas where there are only a
handful of customers per route mile or square mile are significant, and
the ability to recover those costs is difficult when these communities
and rural areas are so sparsely populated. To complicate further the
unique rural challenges of distance and density, when crossing Federal
lands or railroad rights-of-way in rural America, network operators
must address environmental and historical permitting concerns or
contractual obligations that can delay construction projects and
increase their already high costs.
Then, once networks are built, they must be maintained over those
hundreds or thousands of miles--this requires technicians who regularly
travel long distances to make service calls and customer service
representatives trained to deal with questions about things like router
and device configurations. Even the best local networks in rural
markets are then dependent upon ``middle mile'' or long-haul
connections to internet gateways dozens or hundreds of miles away in
large cities. Reaching those distant locations is expensive as well,
and as customer bandwidth demands increase--moving from Megabytes to
Gigabytes to Terabytes of demand per month per customer--so too does
the cost of ensuring sufficient capacity to handle customer demand on
those long-haul fiber routes that connect rural America to the rest of
the world. Indeed, especially as applications like video streaming
increase and place greater strains on these connections, we incur these
costs and make the investments that make it possible for firms like
Amazon and Netflix and others to reach their customers in rural
America.
Small rural providers like Totelcom are eager to meet and overcome
all of these challenges for the rural communities in which they live
and serve, but it is important that they have the resources and
regulatory stability to do so considering the importance of broadband
to the current and future success and quality of life of rural America.
Again, the delivery of broadband involves not only the one-time act of
deploying a network, but the ongoing challenges of delivering services
and keeping pace with user demand over the decades that the network
will be operational. There is a great deal of understandable focus on
the challenges associated with connecting every American to broadband
in the first instance--and companies like Totelcom are front and center
in this effort--but it cannot be lost that we need to take steps as
well to make sure that these networks remain sustainable and that the
services offered atop them remain affordable and relevant to customers
for years to come.
Broadband Is Essential Rural Infrastructure
Rural broadband has far-reaching effects for both urban and rural
America, creating efficiencies in health care, education, agriculture,
energy, and commerce, and enhancing the quality of life for citizens
across the country. Totelcom serves many important community anchor
institutions, including a rural hospital and related emergency medical
services, a medical clinic that serves low-income populations in three
area towns, five school districts, three public libraries, and nine
public safety entities, including police and rural volunteer fire
departments. In recent years, Totelcom has built broadband to a number
of dairies in the area to provide the bandwidth necessary for state-of-
the-art smart dairy and farming practices, including radio-frequency
identification, or RFID, tags on cows to track production and health.
Totelcom also operates our own ``genius bar'' in the form of the
Totelcom Learning Center, open weekly to assist customers in a one-to-
one setting in a comfortable environment. Customers can bring in their
electronic devices and seek assistance with email, saving and sending
pictures, and even social media.
During the pandemic, we took the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC) Keep Americans Connected Pledge to keep customers connected,
regardless of their ability to pay. Totelcom stepped up to help our
community, and in the beginning of the lockdowns, worked evenings and
weekends to accommodate the sudden and intense increase in demand for
new connections--many at no additional cost to the consumer. We set up
several rural WiFi hotspots for anyone to use; upgraded area medical
and educational facilities' bandwidth at no charge; provided free
installs to any customer with a K-12 or college student in the
household; partnered with the local schools to provide free service for
students in need; and assisted the county emergency management center
in setting up a communications center free of charge. NTCA estimates
that on average, small, rural providers incurred $80,000 in
uncollectibles during the pandemic due to customers' inability to pay.
For Totelcom, we estimate our uncollectibles and lost revenue as a
result of all of these efforts to keep customers connected to be more
than $300,000.
As we look to future data needs of our customers and our
communities, we have taken aggressive steps to focus on the anticipated
increase in usage, including establishing a robust and reliable
connection to a statewide fiber network that provides our ``middle-mile
transport'' between our local communities and the rest of the world. We
have also added a second connection to a separate internet point-of-
presence as part of our network resiliency plan in case of an outage or
damage to our network's backhaul infrastructure. This puts our
customers in a great position as data needs grow, as we have seen our
average data usage increase over 750% in recent years. Due to this
demand, we continue to pursue fiber deployment as fast as possible,
even as we also look to employ new technology in our copper and
wireless networks to increase the pace of bandwidth upgrades to our
customers.
The pandemic has highlighted the need to continue these investments
as demand for bandwidth increases. Over the last year, while everyone
began to work and learn from home, we saw an increase of more than 200%
in usage, both download and upload. Due to our investments in our
networks, we had the capacity to meet that demand. The speed and
sustainability of deployment, however, will depend on both reasonable
access to capital to finance construction and the availability of
Universal Service Fund (USF) support to make sure user rates on these
rural networks, once upgraded, are not astronomical and unaffordable.
Again, while so many focus on the up-front financing aspects of this
debate--which is important, to be sure--it is equally important that we
not overlook the long-term viability of networks in these sparsely
populated rural areas and the kinds of support mechanisms needed to
sustain them and keep services affordable on them.
Much Progress, but Much More Work to Do
Despite the progress discussed above, many parts of rural America
still need better connectivity. The good news is NTCA members have led
the charge in getting rural America connected. Nearly \2/3\ of NTCA
member customers have access to 100 Mbps or better broadband and, on
average, roughly the same proportion of customers are connected by
fiber despite the very rural nature of the areas in question. But even
as we believe the data show that there has been no better sector of the
telecom industry when it comes to advancing rural broadband, seven
percent of their customers still lack access to 10/1 broadband. In a
country where the FCC has indicated that 94 percent of Americans
already have affordable access to 25/3 Mbps service and many urban
consumers and businesses benefit from 100 Mbps or Gigabit speeds,
broadband access in rural America lags behind urban areas despite the
best efforts, innovation, and entrepreneurial spirit of NTCA's members.
And, as I have noted earlier in this testimony, there is more to
the equation than just building a network. It does no good to build a
network if the provider cannot afford to operate it and repay the
capital used to construct it--and even the very best network is
certainly of little use if no one can afford to make effective use of
the services offered atop it. Services must be activated and delivered,
maintenance must be performed before troubles arise, ``middle mile''
capacity must be procured, and upgrades must be made to facilities and
electronics to enable services to keep pace with consumer demand and
business needs. In addition to these ongoing operating costs, networks
are hardly ever ``paid for'' once built; rather, they are often built
leveraging substantial loans that must be repaid over a series of years
or even decades.
All of these factors make the delivery of broadband in rural
America an ongoing effort that requires sustained commitment, rather
than a one-time declaration of ``success'' just for the very
preliminary act of connecting a certain number of locations.
Particularly when one considers that even where networks are available
many rural Americans pay far more for broadband than urban consumers,
it becomes apparent that the job of really connecting rural America--
and, just as importantly, sustaining those connections--is far from
complete. Federal law mandates that the Federal USF ensures reasonably
comparable services are available at reasonably comparable rates in
rural and urban areas alike. This mission cannot be lost as we focus on
deployment. The rural broadband industry and our nation as a whole has
a great story of success, but we also have much more work to do in both
deploying and operating networks--and this is where public policy plays
such an important role in helping to build and sustain broadband in
rural markets that would not otherwise justify such investments and
ongoing operations.
Aiming Higher and Doing Better
When it comes to solving broadband challenges, we as a nation can
aim higher and do better than we have to date. Too many programs end up
funding broadband that becomes irrelevant and unhelpful for consumers
in short order. Instead of creating programs where the goal is simply
that ``every provider can play'' on a ``technologically neutral''
basis, we must focus on the consumer experience and require the
deployment of networks that in a decade or more will still deliver
speeds and other performance capabilities that customers can rely upon
in working or learning from home and that businesses feel will be worth
the effort in considering relocation to a rural market.
If broadband is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century, we
should aim to build sustainable infrastructure rather than stitching
things together in ways that require starting the effort all over again
just a few years later. Put plainly, when we are choosing what kinds of
new networks to build, we need more fiber to help promote better
broadband and to further a 5G future. Driving adoption should also
become an express complementary goal of any efforts aimed at tackling
availability--we are not building networks for their own sake but for
the use of as many consumers as possible, and providers should be
charged specifically to promote digital equity and inclusion on
networks as they deploy them.
A Holistic Approach to Broadband Infrastructure
The critical role of communications infrastructure is as necessary
to the present and future needs of rural America as is electricity and
other infrastructure that enables the ordinary course of a thriving
society. President Biden expressly recognized the importance of
advanced communications networks by including broadband within his
broader infrastructure initiative. NTCA applauds the apparent consensus
that Congress is also making broadband an infrastructure priority and
welcomes the opportunity to participate in a further discussion on how
best to tackle this priority. Before turning to specific thoughts on
paths forward, it may make sense first to outline a few key objectives
for consideration with respect to any broadband infrastructure plan:
Future-Proof Networks: Any resources provided as part of an
infrastructure plan should look to get the best return on such
long-term investments. For networks with useful lives measured
in decades--especially private investments that leverage
Federal dollars--this should mean the deployment of
infrastructure capable of meeting consumer demands not only of
today and tomorrow, but for 10 or twenty years. Putting
resources toward infrastructure that needs to be substantially
rebuilt in only a few years' time could turn out to be Federal
resources wasted--and would still risk leaving rural America
behind.
Coordinate with and Leverage Existing Broadband Programs:
The plan should leverage what is already in place and has
worked before. Creating new programs from scratch is not easy,
and if a new broadband infrastructure initiative conflicts with
existing efforts, that could undermine our nation's shared
broadband deployment goals. Any new Federal broadband program
must coordinate with existing Federal broadband programs at the
FCC, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, and
also state broadband programs. Additionally, existing programs
that have worked well and are successful in promoting both
accountability and proven results should receive additional
support to build upon their successes rather than having all
new funds directed only to new programs that may duplicate
efforts.
Direct Funding to Unserved Areas: Prioritize funding for new
construction to unserved areas to limit overbuilding of
existing networks that are meeting Federal broadband standards.
We should focus funding on the areas most lacking in broadband
and seek to build the best kinds of networks in those areas--
and we can then turn our attention to the areas next most in
need once that is complete. This approach will ensure the best
possible use of Federal resources in the form of targeting
funds for new networks to the consumers that need help most and
ensuring that the networks then built to serve those consumers
will last for decades thereafter.
Hold Providers Accountable: There should be clear standards
for what will be expected of and achievable by providers
looking to leverage any resources made available through such
an initiative. Looking to providers with proven track records
in delivering real results makes the most sense, but whoever
receives any support should be required to show clearly that
they used those resources to deliver better, more affordable
broadband that will satisfy consumer demand over the life of
the network in question.
Networks Must be Maintained: Any broadband infrastructure
plan needs to be carefully designed and sufficiently supported
to tackle the challenges presented. This is a question of both
program focus and program scope.
From a focus perspective, any infrastructure plan
should aim toward getting broadband where it is not and
sustaining it where it already is; deployment of
duplicative infrastructure in rural areas that are
uneconomic--and may not even support a single network on
their own--will undermine the sustainability of existing
network assets.
From a scope perspective, deploying and sustaining
rural broadband is neither cheap nor easy; we need to
recognize that finite resources are available to address
any number of priorities, but any plan that calls for
broadband deployment--especially in high-cost rural
America--should match resources to the size of the problem
to be solved.
Leverage Community-Based Providers: Providers like Totelcom
live in or very close to the areas they serve--we know our
customers, we know the geography, and we know the business of
delivering communications services in these areas. As
policymakers look for solutions to deliver broadband in
unserved parts of rural America, small businesses based in or
near those areas offer the greatest promise for achieving
results quickly and effectively. Regardless of whether a
provider is a cooperative or a commercial operator, like
Totelcom, we strongly urge Congress and the Biden
Administration to ``look local'' when it comes to identifying
broadband solutions--and to leverage the expertise and
experience of smaller community-based providers like Totelcom,
regardless of corporate form, in overcoming these challenges.
Promote Local Partnerships: Based in the small rural
communities they serve, service providers like Totelcom have
deep long-standing relationships with their local governments
and anchor institutions. The best results can often be achieved
when private operators with significant experience in building
networks and delivering communications services work together
with stakeholders in the community to identify and respond to
specific needs. Creating programs that encourage and
incentivize such partnerships and collaboration could unleash
broadband investment and help sustain those networks once
built.
Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Telecom Financing
The Strength of RUS Experience
Deploying a communications network in a rural area requires a large
capital outlay due to the challenges of distance and terrain. The
number of rural network users (as compared with more densely populated
urban areas) is too small to justify investment in many cases and pay
the costs of deployment and ongoing operations through customer
charges. As Congress considers the details of legislation to promote
infrastructure deployment, the crucial role that USDA's Rural Utilities
Service has long played in addressing rural broadband challenges must
not be overlooked. Since the early 1990s, the RUS telecom programs have
financed advanced network plant at a net profit for taxpayers and
helped deploy state-of-the-art networks to rural Americans left behind
by providers unable or unwilling to serve low-population-density
markets. With rare exception, RUS, CoBank and Rural Telephone Finance
Cooperative are the primary lenders that small, rural providers can
turn to for outside financing. Not only does RUS help rural America
remain connected, but its various telecom programs make loans that must
be paid back with interest--creating a win/win situation for rural
broadband consumers and American taxpayers.
RUS and USF Work in Concert
While RUS lending programs finance the substantial up-front costs
of network deployment, the USF High-Cost Fund helps make the business
case for construction and sustains ongoing operations at affordable
rates. More specifically, USF by law aims to ensure ``reasonably
comparable'' services are available at ``reasonably comparable'' rates.
Not to be confused or conflated, RUS capital and ongoing USF support
serve distinctly important, but complementary rather than redundant,
purposes in furthering rural broadband deployment. Ensuring that USDA
financing and USF support continue to work in concert not only avoids
duplication and helps deliver high-speed reliable broadband to the
consumer, but it recognizes the hard realities of both deploying
networks and then delivering services in the most remote, sparsely-
populated areas of the nation.
Farm Bill and Other Considerations
Apart from infrastructure legislation, the pending expiration of
the current farm bill affords opportunity to review the Farm Bill Rural
Broadband Program--previously referred to as the Rural Broadband Access
Loan and Loan Guarantee Program--that was first authorized in the 2002
Farm Bill. Each subsequent farm bill has made extensive reforms to the
program with the goal of greater accountability, efficiency, and
effectiveness. Extensive rounds of program reforms in less than 20
years means that the Rural Broadband Program has been almost
continuously ``under construction'' since its inception, rendering the
program inaccessible to borrowers for long periods of time. While the
program is not perfect, it may be helpful to simply let borrowers use
the Rural Broadband Program in current form with minor updates--and
full funding--before undertaking another extensive reform effort. NTCA
urges the Committee to continue to support the Rural Broadband Program
that is subject to the farm bill reauthorization process at full
funding levels as you formulate recommendations. Furthermore, we urge
the Committee to continue its history of support for all RUS telecom
programs, which are also vital to the ongoing deployment and
maintenance of advanced communications infrastructure throughout rural
America. While more resources for rural broadband deployment are
needed, involving more government entities and programs in broadband
financing should be undertaken cautiously to avoid duplicating efforts
and undermining a coherent, cohesive approach to financing and then
sustaining rural broadband networks.
Infrastructure Investment and Barriers to Deployment
Infrastructure investment depends not only on financing but also on
prompt acquisition or receipt of permissions to build networks.
Barriers or impediments to broadband deployment must also be addressed
as part of any holistic plan to promote and sustain infrastructure
investment. Such roadblocks, delays, and increased costs are
particularly problematic for NTCA members, each of which is a small
business that operates only in rural areas where construction projects
must range across wide swaths of land. Permitting and access,
particularly with respect to Federal lands and pole attachments, can
present significant impediments to the deployment of rural broadband
infrastructure. Navigating Byzantine application and review processes
within individual Federal land-managing and property-managing agencies
can be burdensome for any network provider, but particularly the
smaller network operators that serve the most rural portions of the
U.S. landmass. The review procedures can take substantial amounts of
time, undermining the ability to plan for and deploy broadband
infrastructure--especially in those areas of the country with shorter
construction seasons due to weather. Additionally, obtaining reasonable
terms and conditions for attaching network facilities to poles that are
owned and operated by other entities can result in long delays and
costly fees charged to providers seeking to build out networks to rural
communities lacking service.
The lack of coordination and standardization in application and
approval processes across Federal agencies further complicates the
deployment of broadband infrastructure. From my experience at Totelcom,
I can attest that when building new fixed wireless towers for
deployment, the cost of the various permits and approvals normally runs
higher than the actual construction of the tower. We have seen much
agreement for some time now on solutions to simplifying the
administrative barriers to deployment. The standardization of
application, fee and approval policies and procedures across Federal
land-managing and property-managing agencies to the extent possible
should be a high priority.
Finally, though small rural providers have long enjoyed productive
working relationships with RUS, there is always room for improvement.
Small carriers typically spend about 2 years and about $250,000
securing loan approval from RUS. Some providers would love to take
advantage of RUS's low financing rates, but the procedural barriers to
borrowing from RUS send them to private lenders that offer higher
rates. In particular, we look forward to working with this Committee to
address some of the more time-consuming processes in the various RUS
programs that could expedite approvals and deployment.
Addressing Supply Chain Concerns
As numerous broadband infrastructure programs work now to help fill
gaps in coverage across our country, and as additional programs are
considered to help finally overcome persistent digital divides, it is
important to monitor the status of the communications supply chain. We
are currently hearing of shortages and increasing delays in order
fulfillment--ranging from several weeks to up to 1 year--for critical
communications equipment like fiber, routers, antennas, network
terminals, and customer premise equipment due to a mix of pandemic-
related impacts and increased demand for broadband investment. To
ensure that existing and new infrastructure initiatives are as
successful as possible in responding to consumer needs and demands, we
believe it is important that the Federal Government play a central role
in working closely and directly with manufacturers, distributors, and
other suppliers to avoid disruptions in the communications supply
chain. Just recently, we placed an order for fiber pedestals that has a
365 day lead time to delivery. As Congress is poised to make future
investments to solve the digital divide once and for all, supply chain
shortages must be addressed--or else the billions of dollars in funds
intended for immediate broadband deployment risk being tied up in held
orders and delayed shipments.
Conclusion
Robust broadband infrastructure is crucial to the current and
future success of rural America. But the characteristics that enable
the unique beauty and enterprise of rural America make it very
expensive to deploy advanced communications services there. Our
nation's small, rural, community-based telecom providers are deploying
faster broadband throughout their service areas, but no carrier--
whether cooperative or commercial, and regardless of size--can deliver
high-speed, high-capacity broadband in rural America without the
ability to justify and then recover the initial and ongoing costs of
sustaining infrastructure investment in high-cost areas.
A legislative infrastructure initiative offers a unique opportunity
to provide the resources needed to make these investments, and
mechanisms that ensure efficiency and accountability in the expenditure
of funds are already in place. Our industry is excited to participate
in this conversation regarding broadband infrastructure initiatives,
and we look forward to working with policymakers and other stakeholders
on a comprehensive infrastructure strategy to ensure that all Americans
will experience the numerous agricultural, economic, health, and public
safety benefits of broadband. Thank you for the opportunity to testify,
and for the Committee's commitment to broadband infrastructure
investment in rural America.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Prather.
And now, we will hear from Mr. Johnson, and you can begin
when you are ready.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY R. JOHNSON, CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OEConnect, LLC AND OTSEGO
ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., HARTWICK, NY
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
I am Tim Johnson, as I was introduced, the CEO of Otsego
Electric Cooperative and OEConnect here in Hartwick, New York.
Broadband is very personal to me. I had painfully slow DSL
service at my home before my co-op entered the fiber business,
and now I have 1 gigabit service and no spinning blue wheels.
Otsego now provides broadband service to almost 3,000
locations in our area. These are locations that were similarly
ignored when Otsego began offering electric service over 75
years ago.
In 2017, Otsego announced plans to build a fiber-to-the-
home broadband system, and now we offer 100 percent of our
members symmetrical speeds of up to 1 gigabit with no data
caps. This project has been vital for our members during the
worst pandemic, of course, in 100 years, and many services were
activated at the height of the pandemic. We connected medical
professionals, teleworkers, teachers, and students, including a
family whose kids were doing virtual school in a neighbor's
unheated garage, and electric cooperatives are playing a
critical part in this effort, with more than 200 electric
cooperatives deploying broadband solutions, and 100 more
exploring the feasibility of projects.
The electric cooperative industry, represented by the
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, serves one in
eight Americans and covers 56 percent of the U.S. landmass.
Electric cooperatives are member-owned, so we are uniquely
suited to best understand and solve rural broadband needs. We
believe you can provide critically needed flexible funding and
policies to support broadband in rural areas across the nation.
The job is not done. We still have many locations that
cannot access the internet with anything better than data-
capped, high latency prone satellite service. OEC would not
have entered the broadband business without grant funding.
Lower population density means construction and ongoing
operational costs cannot be met without public funding sources.
However, OEC and electric cooperatives in general have great
advantages in expanding broadband. We have served these
communities for over 75 years, and we have skilled manpower,
equipment, and vehicles, and we own the rights-of-way and the
infrastructure so we can control some of our construction
costs.
Balancing accountability and usability in all Federal
programs is very important. It is critical to ensure that all
award recipients are actually capable of deploying a network at
the speed and latencies they promised. In the case of how the
FCC distributes funds, vendors should be vetted before the
auctions are held. When it comes to usability, programs like
ReConnect and Community Connect have some positive attributes,
but they can be slow and administratively burdensome for small
organizations like Otsego. One fellow electric cooperative had
to wait 517 days between finding out that they received a
ReConnect award and the first construction approval. Broadband
program rules should give greater weight to technologies that
are expandable and proven to reliably provide at least 100/100
megabits per second. For example, fiber-to-the-homes systems
are more robust, time-tested, and future-proof than others.
Additionally, consideration should be given to prioritizing
community-based providers with existing presence in the
communities they serve.
Affordability is a critical issue, and programs like the
Emergency Broadband Benefit Program are desperately needed by
some of our members, but they are also needed on a permanent,
ongoing basis. From the consumer perspective, there is no
difference between having no access to broadband service and
having access, but not being able to afford it.
In addition to these points, my written testimony expands
on several aspects related to improving broadband
infrastructure, including improving our nation's broadband
maps, the importance of building networks that can keep up with
increasing speed and quality demands, and the critical need for
a smart grid. Otsego is currently working on an innovative
fiber-based metering system which could save us money and
greatly increase metering functionality in the smart grid.
In conclusion, national and state broadband programs
already offer an opportunity to promote broadband development.
As part of this effort, our cooperative is eager to continue
the conversation about broadband programs, and we look forward
to working with you to expand all the benefits broadband has to
offer so rural New Yorkers and rural Americans will not be left
behind.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your
commitment to rural broadband. I look forward to working with
you and answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer,
OEConnect, LLC and Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc., Hartwick, NY
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to testify about rural
broadband and its importance in our nation's rural areas. I am Tim
Johnson, Chief Executive Officer of OEConnect, LLC and Otsego Electric
Cooperative, Inc. (collectively ``OEC''), headquartered in Hartwick,
New York. OEConnect is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Otsego Electric
Cooperative, Inc. which is a member-owned and democratically controlled
tax exempt nonprofit organization under IRC Section 501(c)(12).
Otsego Electric Cooperative provides electric service to 4,900
rural locations that investor-owned utilities initially ignored or
bypassed many years ago. We serve some of the poorest, most rural parts
of our state in what was formerly a thriving dairy farming area with an
average of only about 6 meters per mile. History repeated itself in a
sense when it became apparent over the past decade or so that adequate
broadband service was not being made available to our members so, in
early 2017, OEC announced plans to begin offering high-speed,
affordable broadband service. This project now allows our members to
fully participate in the 21st century economy and to continue to work
and go to school during the worst pandemic in 100 years. OEC now has
service available for 100% of our members with state-of-the-art fiber-
to-the-home service at speeds up to 1 Gigabit per second download and
upload with no data caps at a very fair price. OEC has fiber passing
more than 5,000 locations over a 700 mile fiber network. Every one of
these locations is being offered the same superior level of service. To
date we have activated almost 3,000 broadband and voice services and
our subscribers have been ecstatic that we took the initiative to build
this project when we did. It has provided blessings in many ways during
the COVID-19 crisis. We immediately prioritized new service connections
to doctors, nurses, other health care professionals and support
personnel, teleworkers, and students when our state was shut down.
While we are off to a great start, we have also faced many challenges
and we believe you can provide critically needed funding and policies
to support broadband in our area and in rural areas across the nation.
OEC is part of a broader electric cooperative industry, represented
by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA) that
serves one in eight Americans and covers 56% of the U.S. landmass.
Electric cooperatives are owned by the members whom we serve and we are
uniquely suited to best understand and serve our members' and our
neighboring rural residents' needs. Most electric cooperatives are
small businesses; they don't have investors or access to significant
capital to help defray the costs of building and maintaining their
infrastructure. These costs are borne directly by the farmers,
ranchers, small businesses and other residents of the nation's rural
communities--including those in 93 percent of the nation's persistent
poverty counties.
Electric Cooperatives Play a Vital Role in Transforming Communities
While our priority at OEC has historically been to provide
reliable, clean, and affordable electricity to our members, our
commitment to our communities extends well beyond that service. We also
provide services that empower local communities to improve their
quality of life. As mentioned, that includes participating in efforts
to make sure they have access to a robust communications infrastructure
including access to quality and affordable broadband that enables rural
communities to thrive and compete in an increasingly connected, global
marketplace. Economic development, the education of our students to
compete with children from urban areas, agriculture, and healthcare all
require robust broadband access in the 21st century.
Many comparisons are drawn between the lack of access to robust
broadband service today and the need for electrification in rural
America 80 years ago--with the urban areas of the country well-served,
and rural areas being left behind. In part because cooperatives are led
by, and belong to, the communities they serve, there is an increasing
number of electric cooperatives studying whether they should be part of
the solution to close the digital divide. More than 200 electric co-ops
in 37 states, including Otsego, are currently deploying diverse
broadband solutions and as many as 100 more are exploring feasibility
of broadband either on their own or through partnerships to bridge the
digital divide and jump-start local economies. This cooperative
commitment is vital for the \1/4\ of all rural Americans who still lack
access to broadband, compared to less than two percent in urban areas.
Keys to Rural Broadband Expansion
We need continued public funding immediately to help broadband
expansion. OEC would not have entered the broadband business without
grant funding and this is true for most electric cooperatives. The
costs of construction, due to the lack of customers per mile, would not
be recoverable within commercial lending requirements. The costs of
operations are also much more difficult to cover due to the lack of
density and therefore lower revenues. However, it is very important to
point out that OEC and rural electric cooperatives in general have
great advantages in expanding broadband. We are located in these areas
so we are familiar with the terrain and existing infrastructure, and we
are stable organizations that have served these communities for over 75
years. Cooperatives have skilled manpower, equipment, and vehicles and
we own the poles and rights-of-way so we can control some of our make
ready costs--the process of ensuring poles are ready and in proper
condition to have fiber hung on them--through planning and proactive
maintenance schedules. Cooperatives have generally done a very good job
of maintaining their poles, right-of-ways, and infrastructure so make
ready costs--which can be 50% of the cost of building networks--can be
greatly reduced. OEC treats all attachers equally for make ready
purposes and pole attachment rates. In OEC's experience, total
construction costs within our system were over 50% lower than the costs
of building outside of our electric footprint on investor-owned
electric utility systems. Further, there is no cross subsidization
between OEC and our subsidiary, OEConnect, because that could create
problems for our tax-exempt status. OEConnect leases fiber from OEC on
commercially reasonable terms. While there is no one-size-fits-all
business model for providing broadband, it is an area that has required
a lot of time, resources and outside counsel to ensure we are doing it
all correctly. Making funding available to cooperatives will help
ensure that public funds will be used more efficiently. OEC has built
over 100 miles of fiber beyond our electric system and make ready in
those areas is double the cost of building inside the cooperative's
electric service area. Cooperatives are member owned systems with
elected directors so we are able to democratically decide where and how
to build a broadband system that will best serve our members over the
long-term.
OEC was just awarded $7.18 million under the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) Rural Development Opportunity Fund (RDOF) to extend
service into more areas. This funding will accelerate our ability to
provide fiber-to-the-home service to more unserved locations that
currently lack 25/3 Mpbs fixed, terrestrial service. We have been
inundated with requests for service beyond our territory since the
start of the pandemic so we know there is huge unmet demand and now we
will be able to provide it to some of these folks. We need more
flexible funding as the job is not done in our area and is desperately
needed right now. We have had school kids sitting in neighbors'
unheated garages and medical doctors who cannot access the internet
with anything better than data-capped, high latency-prone satellite
service. We have lists for many of these unserved and underserved homes
and businesses and there are many more to get to. Without grant
funding, however, we would not have extended service to our members or
to most of these nonmember locations, if at all. Being a cooperative
restricts our options to raise money and we are required to operate as
an independent entity governed solely by our members. Cooperatives
cannot issue equity or accept equity contributions from other partners
and still maintain control over our projects.
One of the major reasons that OEC entered the broadband business
was for rural development to stem population loss from rural areas. If
we did not address the problem, nobody else was going to do it and we
would continue to experience decline. We believed that if we built
fiber to these homes, people would decide to move here; or, if they had
a second home already, they would stay longer; or, they would be able
to engage in e-commerce and education while still living in our rural
areas. This proved to be prescient. Our cooperative members and a good
number of their neighbors--though hard hit by the pandemic just like
everyone--have been able to continue to go to school, work, engage in
e-commerce, and obtain healthcare when they would not have been able to
otherwise.
Existing Programs
OEC would like to see that the FCC is held accountable for valuable
broadband funding by ensuring that the winners of all RDOF funds
(including RDOF Phase I) are responsible bidders and capable of
actually deploying a network at the speed and latency they promised to
their awarded areas on time. Bidders should be vetted before the
auctions are held and funds are awarded, not after. In addition, it is
a mistake to group all technologies that can reach a certain speed
threshold as equal. Certain technologies like fiber-to-the-home systems
are more robust, time-tested, and future proof than others and public
funds should be allocated accordingly. Otsego would also like to see
the RDOF Phase II auction (``RDOF II'') accelerated and put into motion
as soon as possible or, if other programs can be made available sooner,
then use the RDOF II funds to supplement the funding. A reverse auction
format should ideally be used for awarding funds but it is difficult to
put auctions of this nature together fast enough with proper rules and
controls. We need to incentivize and give greater weight to
technologies that are expandable and proven to be capable of reliably
providing at least 100/100 Mbps and the technology needs to be based on
resilient assets that will last for the long-term to future-proof
service. Additionally, thought should be given to prioritizing
community-based providers with existing presence and ties to and near
the communities they're seeking to serve. Unfortunately, this was not
the case in the recent RDOF I reverse auction. Our national
association, NRECA, has expressed concern with specific subsets of
initial winning bidders in the RDOF I Auction. Specifically, NRECA
issued a white paper expressing concerns regarding the substantial
subset of bids in the RDOF Phase I auction awarded to fixed wireless
Gigabit tier bidders and low-earth-orbit (LEO) satellite providers
bidding at the 100/20 Mbps tier.\1\ These technologies are not proven
to deliver reliable service at these speed tiers, especially in rural
areas. There is a high likelihood that some of these questionable bids
will be deemed unqualified by the FCC. More thorough up-front vetting
should be required in future auctions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NRTC & NRECA, The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: Rural
America's Broadband Hopes at Risk, filed February 2, 2021, available
at: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filing/10202734510982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs to address rural broadband deployment also exist at the
United States Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Rural Utilities
Service (RUS), including the ReConnect (grants/loans & loan/grant
combos) program, Community Connect and others. These programs have some
very positive attributes, such as the ability for an applicant to
establish boundaries for its proposed funding area. However, the
programs have limited funding compared to the FCC and they can be
administratively onerous and burdensome which is why some, including my
cooperative, have not participated in them. The onerous nature of the
programs stem both at the agency and statutory level. Recently, our
national association, NRECA, submitted comments to RUS laying out
concerns with the ReConnect program and recommending changes before the
funding window opens for Round Three of the ReConnect program.\2\ NRECA
has also submitted comments \3\ to USDA for the rulemaking process to
implement the USDA RUS Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Grant program,
which was retooled when Congress reauthorized the Farm Bill in 2018 but
has not been funded. Electric cooperatives participated in and
appreciated the efforts taken to learn from some previous challenges by
reshaping this program. In addition to representing a bipartisan,
bicameral compromise, there are components of the farm bill broadband
program that are more appealing including increased speeds (from 10/1
Mbps to 25/3 Mbps) for areas to be eligible and prioritizing lowest
density areas for grant funding. We support a plan to transition from
ReConnect to the farm bill program, or otherwise exploring how to
combine the two to ensure that USDA broadband programs are accessible
to providers and meeting the goals of reaching rural Americans with
broadband.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ NRECA Comments on The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Final Rule
and request for comment on the Rural eConnectivity (ReConnect) Program.
The Rural eConnectivity Program provides loans, grants, and loan/grant
combinations to facilitate broadband deployment in rural areas (RUS-20-
Telecom-0023) (RIN: 0572-AC51), filed March 23, 2021, available at:
https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/
regulatory-issues/pages/nreca-files-comments-with-rus-on-rural-
econnectivity-boadband-program.aspx.
\3\ NRECA Comments on The Rural Utilities Service (RUS) Interim
Rules for the Farm Bill Broadband Loan and Grant Program (RUS-19-
Telecom-0003) (RIN number 0572-AC46), filed May 11, 2020, available at:
https://www.cooperative.com/programs-services/government-relations/
regulatory-issues/Documents/
NRECA%20Comments%20RUS%20Broadband%20IFR%205-11-20%20FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another recent change within USDA programs was enacted as part of
the 2018 Farm Bill. Section 6210 of the Agriculture Improvement Act of
2018 (Farm Bill) allows recipients of any loan, grant, or loan
guarantee from Rural Development (RD) to use up to ten percent of the
amount provided to construct broadband infrastructure in areas not
fully served by a minimum acceptable level of broadband service. This
provision will not only speed deployment of smart grid but will also
help bring desperately needed vital broadband to unserved rural
communities. It correctly recognizes the vital role of communications
in managing the electric grid and the ongoing technology convergence
between the utility and telecommunications industry.
Affordability
The new Emergency Broadband Benefit Program at the FCC is a very
positive approach to the high-cost low-income services across the
nation but it will need to be made permanent. Once a network is
constructed and broadband is available, there is also the issue of
affordability for many who have had their employment income disrupted,
or even worse, eliminated during the pandemic and otherwise. There are
many who simply cannot afford to pay for service due to unemployment,
underemployment, illness, disability or other conditions and we need to
provide ongoing sustainable help for them. Students--especially minors
who are too young to work--who live in these households cannot access
equal educational opportunities and adults cannot work remotely at
certain jobs without assistance that is more than the current monthly
Lifeline Benefit of $9.25 through one of the FCC Universal Service Fund
programs. The Lifeline program needs to be increased permanently and
the funding for it needs to be revised to a level that moves the needle
on affordability. The low-income, high-cost households are also being
deprived of telemedicine and valuable consumer research opportunities
when buying or selling goods and services. The marketplace is on the
internet more than ever these days. From the consumer perspective,
there is no difference between having no access to broadband service
and having access but not being able to afford it. The result is the
same and therefore affordability is a key component.
Data and Mapping
The FCC has launched the Digital Opportunity Data Collection
process to improve mapping and identify gaps in coverage as required by
the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA)
Act, signed into law in March 2020. Congress needs to monitor these
efforts closely to ensure that improvements to the broadband data
collection and mapping are granular enough to get an accurate picture
of where service is available and where it is not. Congress must also
insist that this data be made available as soon as possible.
Building Broadband Networks for the Future
Broadband is as needed in rural America as other infrastructure
systems to support a healthy economy and community. Policymakers in
Washington, D.C., have recognized the importance of rural broadband
networks by including increased funding and new programs to promote
rural broadband infrastructure.
It is our strong belief that fiber service is the best and longest-
term technological solution for these households and businesses.
Satellite, cellular, and fixed wireless, and other unproven solutions
are inferior to fiber for various reasons and our rural residents
deserve the same level of service that others in more urban and
suburban areas have available.
One of the key objectives for consideration with respect to using
the limited resources made available is that any broadband funding
plans should include clear expectations for whomever receives Federal
or state support. Recipients should be required to construct networks
capable of meeting consumer demand over the long-term and not just
today's minimum speed. In other words, resources should be used to
build networks which will be useful for decades. Spending Federal or
state dollars on broadband networks that are still in experimental
phases or will be obsolete in a few years doesn't make financial sense
and will leave rural areas behind again. The highest speed and capacity
solutions such as Fiber-to-the-Home projects should be given preference
over other less robust technologies. Other considerations affecting the
end-user experience, such as latency and data cap limits which lead to
a higher cost and diminished ability to utilize the service, should
also be considered in all broadband funding programs.
The Role of Public Investment in Reliable Rural Broadband Service
As a nonprofit cooperative, we operate at cost and our access to
capital is limited by what we ask our consumer member-owners to
contribute through the rates they pay. Additionally, our rural nature
lends itself to sparse population densities which means we have smaller
groups of consumers to spread the costs of deploying service. Because
OEC, similar to other electric cooperatives across the country, is a
small nonprofit that operates at cost, we entered this business with no
extra cash to spend on the project. This means we financed our portion
of the broadband infrastructure investment with borrowed funds. We had
resources to invest--mostly labor, infrastructure, and equipment--but
we would not have been able to proceed with the project without public
funds. We also will not be able to extend our service area to reach
additional rural Americans who don't yet have robust service without
additional public funds. Therefore, continued government funding to
reduce the up-front capital investment and help make the business case
to deploy robust broadband is necessary to achieve wide-spread
expansion of high-speed access throughout rural America.
As previously mentioned, there are currently Federal funding
programs operating and geared toward this purpose at the USDA's Rural
Utilities Service (RUS) and at the FCC. Programs at these agencies are
complementary and equally important. Electric cooperatives have
witnessed both success stories and challenges within these programs in
pursuit of bridging the digital divide throughout rural America.
Additionally, a few new targeted programs are to come online soon at
the National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA) at
the Department of Commerce, and we may see states and localities direct
a portion of their Coronavirus Flexible Recovery Funds or the
Coronavirus Capital Infrastructure Funds toward broadband.
While there has been a lot of investment and activity, it is
important to remember that the FCC estimated in 2017 \4\ that it would
cost $80 billion to bring high-speed internet to remaining parts of the
country that do not have access, and a 2019 U.S. Department of
Agriculture report \5\ estimated it would require ``between $130 and
$150 billion over the next 5 to 7 years, to adequately support rural
coverage and 5G wireless densification.'' Sustained investment is
required to truly close the digital divide. It is also very likely that
new more granular broadband data and maps will find the broadband gap
to be wider than currently estimated, requiring additional funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Federal Communications Commission Study: Improving the Nations
Digital infrastructure: https://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/
Daily_Business/2017/db0119/DOC-343135A1.pdf.
\5\ United States Department of Agriculture: A Case for Rural
Broadband: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/case-for-
rural-broadband.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rural electric cooperatives are uniquely suited to partner with the
government for these projects because of the existing infrastructure we
have in place throughout our service areas and unique local control. As
member-owned, locally operated, and democratically controlled entities
we feel we can best determine the needs of our local service areas
because our consumer-members have a direct say in the services we
provide, and we will continue serving these areas we call home long
after other companies have reduced the quality of their service or
ceased investment altogether.
Conclusion
As I have described, broadband is vital to the survival and growth
of both the communities OEC serves and all of rural America. Much
progress on broadband deployment has been made over the last few years
and it's important that we address the public policy challenges I've
shared to ensure that progress may continue. Electric cooperatives are
well suited for this task and we are committed to deploying broadband
in rural America and investing in these difficult to serve areas where
other providers are not willing to deploy robust broadband networks.
National and state broadband programs offer an opportunity to
promote broadband development. As part of this effort, our cooperative
is ready and willing to continue the conversation about broadband
programs and we look forward to working with you to expand all the
benefits broadband has to offer so rural New Yorkers will not be left
behind.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and for your commitment
to rural broadband. I look forward to working with you and answering
any questions you may have.
Timothy R. Johnson, CEO,
Otsego Electric Cooperative and OEConnect.
The Chairman. Mr. Johnson, thank you for that very
informative testimony that you gave. You and Ms. Prather are
really opening up with some very, very significant and
important information.
And now, I would recognize Ms. Robinson for your 5 minutes.
Please begin.
STATEMENT OF VICKIE S. ROBINSON, ESQ., GENERAL
MANAGER, MICROSOFT GLOBAL AIRBAND INITIATIVE, WASHINGTON, D.C.
Ms. Robinson. Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and
Members of the Committee, my name is Vickie Robinson, and I am
the General Manager of the Microsoft Airband Initiative. It is
an honor to testify here today.
My life's work focuses on extending broadband to unserved
and underserved communities. Prior to joining Microsoft, I
served at the FCC for nearly 15 years in multiple leadership
roles, and as acting CEO and General Counsel of the Universal
Service Administrative Company, which manages the Federal
Universal Service Fund.
Microsoft's Airband Initiative is a mix of innovative
technologies to extend broadband's reach to the last mile, and
to give communities access to the skills needed to use it. We
have committed to extending broadband access to three million
people in unserved rural areas in the United States by July of
2022. So far, we have extended broadband service to more than
two million people in 26 states and Puerto Rico.
I would like to share some insights from our experience.
First, we have learned that one size does not fit all. We must
use the right technology tools to reach Americans and meet the
individual needs of their communities.
Second, government funding is critical to bridging the
broadband gap. Many internet service providers, including
Airband partners, receive funding from the FCC, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, and state broadband programs. Funding streams
must be made available on a technology-neutral basis so that
broadband providers can use solutions that are tailored to meet
the specific needs of communities, and government must continue
to gather and share data to provide accurate information about
which communities lack access to broadband, and what the key
barriers are to that access.
Third, connectivity alone is not enough to bring people
online. Even when a community has access to broadband,
impediments remain for some populations to adopt and realize
the benefits of it. These include the inability to afford
service, the cost of a device like a laptop or desktop
computer, or a lack of digital skills to fully make the most of
new connectivity.
To address affordability and adoption challenges, our
Airband partners will use new Federal programs like the
Emergency Broadband Benefit, which offers support for those
that cannot afford broadband service or devices. They also look
forward to leveraging the Emergency Connectivity Fund to help
students, school staff, and library patrons stay connected.
However, these are temporary programs to bridge the gap. A
permanent solution is needed to address these challenges.
According to the National Skills Coalition, as many as one
in three Americans have few to no digital skills. To foster
digital skilling in rural communities, we and our Airband
partners are working with nonprofits like the National 4-H
Council and Future Farmers of America to provide critical
digital skilling resources to the community. Funding to support
digital literacy and skilling is important to increase
broadband adoption as communities come online.
In closing, I want to emphasize that the power of broadband
connectivity is not simply about connecting homes; it is about
transforming communities. We transform communities by using the
power of connectivity and technology to create new
opportunities to work or start a business, open new doors to
education, improve access to healthcare, and unleash the power
of precision agriculture. As you work to make broadband funding
available, we ask that you target funding to unserved and
underserved communities, prioritizing the speed of deployment
and allocating funding in a cost-effective manner to stretch
Federal dollars as far as possible. We also ask that Congress
and policymakers prioritize funding for deployment for people
who are income-insecure, and ultimately find a permanent
solution to address the cost of broadband service and devices.
Finally, we ask you to support efforts to increase digital
literacy and skilling to ensure that Americans can use their
broadband service to transform their communities for the
better.
Thank you so much for this opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Robinson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Vickie S. Robinson, Esq., General Manager,
Microsoft Global Airband Initiative, Washington, D.C.
Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspectives on
broadband, particularly efforts to address longstanding connectivity
needs in rural America. My name is Vickie Robinson, and I am the
General Manager for the Microsoft Airband Initiative, which is focused
on efforts to close the digital divide in the United States and around
the world. Prior to joining Microsoft, I served at the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) for nearly 15 years in multiple
leadership roles and served as Acting CEO and General Counsel of the
Universal Service Administrative Co., an independent not-for-profit
organization designated by the FCC as the administrator of the Federal
Universal Service Fund. I'm here today to share our thoughts on
broadband and closing the rural digital divide.
Broadband is critical to everything we do, and we deeply appreciate
the importance of broadband in enabling everyone to do more. Access to
broadband is essential to meaningful participation in society,
providing the foundation for enormous social and economic opportunity.
For many, high-speed internet access is as ubiquitous as electricity
and running water. From the comfort of our own homes, those of us with
connectivity can attend courses and earn degrees, shop for countless
products from around the world, and collaborate seamlessly with
colleagues in different time zones. Less than a generation ago, those
things were impossible.
The challenge, however, as this Committee so rightly highlights, is
that not everyone has access to a broadband connection and as a
population, some haven't benefitted equally. This gap
disproportionately affects communities that are traditionally
marginalized, including but not limited to, people experiencing income
and housing insecurity, racial and ethnic minorities, and people with
disabilities. Rural areas are especially disadvantaged, as telecom
infrastructure often fails to go as far as needed in low population
density regions.
The COVID-19 crisis has laid bare the fact that many people in
rural and other under-connected communities are without broadband and
unable to access distance learning, telemedicine, e-commerce, and other
tools necessary for modern life. This challenge is heightened in rural
areas: according to the FCC, more than 11 million Americans in rural
areas do not have access to a fixed broadband connection. Of the
Americans who do not have broadband access, rural Americans constitute
78 percent. Microsoft's data analysis suggests that the numbers of
unserved Americans in rural areas is even higher. Congressional passage
and funding of the Broadband DATA Act should help to pave the way to
accurately identify and address existing gaps in broadband coverage.
As I discuss further below, Microsoft believes we can--and we
must--do our part in the private-sector to help extend broadband
coverage. There is also an important role for the Federal Government
and Congress based upon our experience and insights with Microsoft's
rural broadband initiative. With this in mind, we would recommend the
Committee consider the following issues:
Funding is critical. Broadband is costly to deploy in rural
areas and providers need funding to help to defray the cost of
the capital investment and extend networks into unserved and
underserved areas.
One size does not fit all. Not all solutions are suitable
for all areas and it is best to rely on internet service
providers (ISPs) to determine what solution works best for the
communities they are working to serve. Microsoft Airband ISP
partners use a tool kit approach, and we rely on them to
identify what solutions work best. This requires a technology-
neutral approach to funding broadband, which affords providers
the flexibility to tailor technology to the community providing
broadband quickly and cost effectively and without sacrificing
speed. The concept of technology neutral funding is not new or
novel. The Agriculture Appropriations reports highlighted the
concept when it appropriated funding for broadband for Fiscal
Years 2019-21.
Pursue digital transformation. Communities embrace broadband
more quickly when doing so will help them to solve challenges.
For example, enabling telehealth or precision agriculture is
more likely to prompt further community use of broadband and
deliver transformational value. As such, policies that help to
unleash the power of connectivity and technology are critical.
Digital skilling, broadband service and broadband devices
can drive adoption. Having access to a broadband connection is
essential to tackling the digital divide, but many Americans
also need digital skills to take full advantage of broadband as
well as a monthly broadband service and a broadband device in
the home.
Microsoft's Airband Initiative: Partnering with Other Stakeholders to
Close the Digital Divide
In July 2017, Microsoft launched the Airband U.S. Initiative as
both a call to action and our programmatic effort to help close the
rural broadband access gap in the United States. The Microsoft Airband
Initiative is not an initiative that we do on our own, and Microsoft is
not itself a direct connectivity provider. We address the digital
divide by working with a network of people and organizations toward the
same goal--connecting people and bringing with that connectivity the
opportunity for a better life. We partner with internet access
providers, telecom equipment makers, nonprofits, and local
entrepreneurs to advance digital equity: access to affordable internet,
affordable devices, and digital skills.
Our goal is to extend broadband access to three million people in
unserved rural areas by July 2022. This marks an increase from our
initial commitment of two million. Our partners include 14 internet
service providers with projects in 26 states and Puerto Rico. As of
January 2021, the projects extended broadband access to over nine
million people, including more than two million people residing in
previously unserved rural areas. As we bring communities online, we
also are very focused on delivering technology solutions to expand
access to virtual healthcare, help increase revenue and reduce costs in
agriculture, facilitate online learning, and enable small businesses to
reach more customers. These digital transformation efforts can help
level the playing field for billions of people.
Our partnerships typically involve a four-part approach focused on
connectivity, digital skilling, digital transformation, and policy
advocacy. This work has provided insights into closing the broadband
gap.
Connectivity. First, we focus on connectivity through our
ISP partners to accelerate access to broadband among unserved
and underserved communities. These projects are designed to be
commercially sustainable and are intended to scale.
Digital Skilling. Second, digital skilling, from basic
digital literacy to leveraging computer applications and job
training, is a key component to broadband adoption. Therefore,
we provide digital skilling resources to support all our
Airband communities. These opportunities are spearheaded
through a collaboration with Microsoft Philanthropies, which
partners with nonprofit organizations that are focused on
serving rural communities, such as the National 4-H Council and
Future Farmers of America.
Driving Solutions through Digital Transformation. Next, we
partner with private and public sector organizations,
nonprofits, and others to provide relevant solutions that are
enabled by broadband networks. Our objective is to help improve
productivity and livelihood within newly connected communities,
while driving sustainable development. For example,
connectivity enables healthcare facilities to deliver critical
telehealth solutions throughout the community at a time when
physical access to rural health facilities is diminishing.
Policy and Advocacy. Last, our work is undergirded by policy
and advocacy efforts designed to address the immediate and
longer-term digital divide challenges, and in so doing, promote
a more inclusive world, where everyone has an opportunity to
participate in the digital economy.
Connectivity
We have learned a lot from our work on broadband issues over the
years and our more recent efforts to help bridge the digital divide
through our Airband Initiative. Rural communities are left behind
without broadband service, often because it is too costly to deploy and
operate broadband networks in sparsely populated communities.
Recognizing this, policymakers have perennially appropriated funding or
established mechanisms to fund broadband deployment. Without funding
from the government to address the cost of extending the network into
unserved areas, we will not be able to quickly close the rural digital
divide. We have also come to understand that broadband deployment
funding should be made available in a technology neutral manner
empowering broadband providers to craft the solutions that work best
for the community and balance factors such as speed of network
deployment and speed of broadband service as well as the cost of
network build out and service to the consumer.
The financial challenges of deploying broadband networks in rural
underserved and underserved areas often demand that our Airband
partners leverage government funding. Many of our partners are
recipients of the FCC's Connect America Fund Phase II Auction and the
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, as well as other funding mechanisms
from the U.S. Department of Agriculture and state broadband programs
that are funded through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act (CARES Act).
Choosing the best technology solution is key to quickly expanding
connectivity in unserved rural communities. In constructing projects
across 26 states and Puerto Rico, our Airband ISP partners make use of
a multi-technology and multi-frequency portfolio to connect the
unconnected and determine technology choices based on the requirements
of the various locations as well as the relevant broadband and
narrowband use cases. Airband ISP partners embrace a multitude of
technologies from fiber to wireless technologies leveraging multiple
frequency bands like TV Whites Spaces (TVWS), Citizens Broadband Radio
Service (CBRS), Educational Broadband Service (EBS), a wide range of
mid-band fixed wireless, WiFi 6E on 6GHz, and millimeter waves. For
example, Airband ISP partner Nextlink Internet uses a combination of
fixed wireless and fiber optic technology to deliver high-speed
broadband to rural customers across their growing footprint in the
central region of the United States.
The Airband Initiative and its partners are continuing to be
creative and flexible to meet short-term and long-term connectivity
needs. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Initiative launched a
public WiFi hotspot grant program to provide immediate relief where in-
home installation might not be possible in the short-term. Airband ISP
partners and partner organizations like the Public Library Association
and the University of Washington Extension campuses built over 300
public WiFi hotspots across the United States. In the Central Valley of
California, Airband partner Cal.net is working with school districts,
community college systems, and other educational entities to provide
affordable fixed wireless in-home broadband access to students who
would not otherwise have access during the pandemic.
Digital Skilling Efforts in Newly Connected Communities
Connectivity alone is not enough. There is a whole host of skills
that many of us take for granted that are needed to navigate the
digital world. These range from how to connect a device to the
internet, basic skills in navigating the internet (conducting searches,
using a mouse, setting up passwords and logins), to cyber safety. Yet
as many as one in three Americans have few to no digital skills.
Moreover, rural schools are less likely to have advanced computer
science classes. That is why it is critical for broadband access to go
hand-in-hand with useful digital skills that meet people where they
are.
To foster digital skilling in rural communities, Airband ISP
partners are working with the National 4-H Council, the Public Library
Association and Future Farmers of America to provide digital skilling
resources to the community. Many partners host Microsoft digital
skilling content on their website to provide access to content and
online training that provides digital literacy, computing, and AI
skills. For example, a collaborative effort between 4-H staff, after-
school mentors, and Airband partner Declaration Networks Group led to
providing internet access and the tools needed for students to engage
in virtual learning. As a result of the partnership, half of these
students received internet service within 1 week. Now, they can connect
with their after-school peers and mentors, while still accessing their
schoolwork at home.
Our partnership with PCs for People expands the breadth and depth
of our digital skilling program and creates a hotline that will be
available in English and Spanish to the customers of all our Airband
partners. The hotline will answer basic digital literacy requests, as
well as help partners navigate Microsoft online digital skilling
training and LinkedIn employability training. This training can lead to
remote job opportunities in ten career paths. On April 8th, Microsoft
and LinkedIn announced that we are extending our global skills
initiative through the end of 2021, providing free LinkedIn Learning
and Microsoft Learn courses and low-cost certifications that align to
in-demand jobs. Areas of focus include customer service, project
management, data analysis, software development and more.
Our work with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to
improve broadband access for our nation's Veterans and expand digital
skilling opportunities to Veterans living in rural areas highlights the
opportunity that skilling can offer. Last Fall, we held our first joint
workshop with the VA for Veterans living in Decatur and Dubois
Counties, Indiana, as an extension of new broadband connectivity made
available in these counties by Airband ISP partner Watch
Communications. The workshop included an introduction to Microsoft and
LinkedIn's digital skilling and employability training as part of our
cooperative effort to leverage new connectivity as a vehicle for
training and workforce development.
Driving Digital Solutions in Rural Communities
As we focus on the challenges of broadband deployment, we must not
lose sight of the fundamental promise of connectivity--the benefits
that come with digitally transforming our communities. As Airband
partners bring communities online, we work to provide solutions that
improve outcomes in education, healthcare, agriculture, and small
businesses.
For example, in rural Washington State, we have supported an
Airband partner's efforts to help one of its customers, a local lumber
company, increase its operational efficiency by leveraging connectivity
and technology to make data driven decisions. Now, the company's
operations are more efficient, and it is saving money due to the
improved use of resources. In Texas, another Airband partner has
connected dozens of schools to their respective Education Service
Centers that offer distance learning courses such as English as a
Second Language (ESL) and teacher instructional resources as well as
access to Microsoft, Google Classroom, and filtering services.
TechSpark is a Microsoft civic program designed to foster greater
economic opportunity and job creation in rural and smaller metropolitan
communities. In TechSpark regions, our Airband partners work to address
the broadband needs of local businesses and the related needs of the
surrounding community. For example, in North Dakota, we are
collaborating with the Dakota Carrier Network on a pilot project to
deploy a narrowband, Internet of Things (IoT) network that uses TV
White Space and other wireless technologies to support precision
agriculture solutions in the state, including supporting the North
Dakota State University Agronomy Seed Farm.
We're also excited to partner with Land O'Lakes, Inc. as part of
our shared commitment to drive economic development and innovation for
farmers and within rural communities. As part of our partnership, we
are connecting member agriculture owners and Land O'Lakes facilities
with Airband ISP partners to increase broadband speeds at these
facilities, while providing broadband to the surrounding communities.
To date, we've launched projects in Scircleville, Indiana and
Uniopolis, Ohio; these pilot projects use fixed wireless broadband
technology at speeds up to 100 Mbps, demonstrating the power of fixed
wireless to close the rural digital divide. We will deepen our
engagement in these projects by using the Microsoft FarmBeats platform
for precision agriculture, and IoT applications for propane tank
monitoring as part of these deployments.
Extending Access to Underrepresented Communities Often Involves More
than Building the Network
Even when a community can obtain broadband connectivity,
impediments remain for some populations to adopt and realize the
benefits of broadband. These impediments could include an inability to
afford monthly broadband service or the cost of a broadband device (and
as noted earlier it could be a lack of digital skills). Our Airband
partners encounter these challenges in the populations they serve and
have sought to creatively address them. Their actions though, in most
instances, offer only short-term solutions and these needs will
ultimately go unmet if a permanent solution is not implemented.
To encourage all community members to get onto the network, our
Airband ISP partners are leaning into the new Federal broadband
programs, like the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program, that offer
support for those lacking the ability to pay for broadband service and
devices. Our partners participating in the Federal Universal Service
Fund's School and Libraries Support Mechanism (commonly referred to as
the ``E-Rate program'') are gearing up their operations in anticipation
of fulfilling the needs of schools and libraries from the upcoming
changes to the E-Rate program. In response to the pandemic, Airband ISP
partners took action to ensure that customers experiencing financial
difficulties due to the pandemic remained connected, signing on to the
FCC's Keep Americans Connected pledge, while at the same time working
feverishly to meet increased demand for service in the face of supply
chain challenges. However, these are temporary programs to bridge the
gap. A permanent solution is needed to address these issues.
Tribal lands and Native American communities also face specific
challenges when it comes to broadband access and use: remote locations,
challenging terrain, and historical lack of service providers compound
existing challenges. In addition, many of the residents on Tribal lands
are income-insecure and particularly sensitive to the affordability
challenge and therefore are reliant upon programs like the Federal
Lifeline Universal Service Support Mechanism to secure broadband
service. To drive adoption in these communities, access to affordable
connectivity and devices, paired with digital skilling will be
critical. Two of our Airband partners, Sacred Wind Communications and
Native Networks, are squarely focused on serving Tribal communities.
They have rapidly deployed broadband using a mix of technologies (2.5
GHz, 5.8 GHz, CBRS, FTTH, etc.) to unserved and underserved Indigenous
communities in Arizona, Washington, and New Mexico in response to the
dire need due to the pandemic. Funding to address affordability
challenges in Indigenous communities is critical.
Building upon a recent partnership between Microsoft Philanthropies
and the 1890 Universities Foundation, a 501[(c)(3)] organization
created in 2016 by the nineteen 1890 Land-Grant Historically Black
Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), we are partnering with the
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff (UAPB) to use connectivity in support
of precision agriculture and digital skilling. Through our Airband
partner Aristotle Unified Communications, we will bring connectivity to
UAPB's demonstration farms to showcase precision agriculture for local
growers and support research opportunities and members who do not have
stable internet access once they leave the UAPB campus. In so doing, we
will help unlock the power of connectivity for historically
marginalized communities, but affordability will remain a challenge in
the absence of permanent solutions.
Recommendations for the Committee
The work of our partners highlights the importance of:
providing funding for broadband deployment;
taking a technology neutral approach to funding deployment;
imparting digital skills;
partnering to drive digital solutions; and
ensuring that low-income consumers have access to a
broadband service and a broadband device at home.
As we work together to design creative solutions to make broadband
more accessible and affordable for all Americans, I'd like to put forth
a few additional recommendations for consideration by this Committee.
First, as permanent broadband funding mechanisms are
designed, we must ensure they are targeted to address a known
market need; for example, the need to deliver broadband access
to unserved rural areas and connect students without broadband
access for remote learning. Funding should be prioritized to
reach unserved or underserved communities. This will require
comprehensive and accurate broadband availability data and
mapping as we cannot solve a problem we do not understand.
Second, funding amounts should be cost-effectively allocated
to technologies and deployments that provide the maximum value
through efficient use of funds. Through our learnings, we know
that there is no-one-size-fits-all solution to network
deployments and therefore encourage a technology-neutral
approach where a mix of technologies can be leveraged to
deliver broadband speeds.
Third, broadband funding should provide a long-term
meaningful benefit to make in-home broadband service affordable
for income-insecure households.
Last, given the urgency of the issue, preference should be
given to broadband solutions that will provide rapid deployment
of broadband networks and services. History has taught us that
technologies are deployed at different speeds, with wireless
technologies (e.g., mobile phones) being deployed much faster
than wireline technologies (e.g., electricity). We cannot leave
another generation behind. Speed of deployment must be a part
of the policy calculation.
The term digital divide was coined over 2 decades ago. So, we have
long known that communities are being left behind without access to
broadband and unable to benefit from the multitude of services offered
through the internet. The pandemic has made clear the value of
broadband and the internet in our new digital world where, in many
cases as we live our lives socially distant, there is no access to
school, healthcare, commerce and jobs without broadband. At this moment
in time, there is a unique opportunity to permanently fix the broadband
deployment gap through leadership and smart investments maximizing the
opportunity for all Americans.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this broadband
discussion. I look forward to your questions and welcome the
opportunity to discuss how Microsoft can assist in advancing broadband
access and adoption in rural America.
The Chairman. Excellent, excellent testimony. Each of you
have just given us valuable information. Thank you so much.
And now, our final witness, Dr. Park, you may begin for
your 5 minutes now.
STATEMENT OF JOHNNY PARK, Ph.D., CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, WABASH HEARTLAND INNOVATION NETWORK, WEST LAFAYETTE,
IN
Dr. Park. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Johnny Park.
I am the CEO of the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, or
WHIN. I would like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, and Members of the Committee for this opportunity to
speak with you today.
This invitation came about after a recent conversation we
had with Congressman Baird. We shared that we recently had a
successful test flight of a unique technology called the
aerostat to serve rural broadband needs in our ten-county
region in Indiana. He was struck by how valuable such
alternative technology could be to helping solve the digital
divide. He asked me to share this story with you.
You see, WHIN is not an internet service provider, and
broadband is not our primary business. In fact, we are a
501(c)(3) nonprofit community organization, and our overarching
goal is to build a regional ecosystem that can help our rural
region attract globally competitive businesses to plant and
grow in our Wabash Heartland region.
Towards that goal, our principle strategy has been to
accelerate the adoption of digital technology in our region,
especially digital agriculture and smart manufacturing. As you
might expect in Indiana, agriculture and manufacturing are
mainstays of our rural economy.
We began to develop our region as a very large Living
Laboratory for IoT. Very simply, we introduced innovative and
vetted commercial and near-commercial technology into the
region, incentivized the local farmers and manufacturers to
accelerate their adoption, and drive innovation from the real
usage of technology. And it is working. After just over 2
years, many farmers and manufacturers of all sizes in our
region have adopted various technologies that they had not used
before. But the spotty and inconsistent connectivity in our
rural region was hindering our efforts, not to mention limiting
all kinds of economic development and quality of life, as we
all know.
Which brings us to broadband. We began to recognize that we
can approach broadband with the same Living Lab model. That is,
introduce innovative, highly impactful technology, put it to
real use, and drive innovation from real usage by sharing
results so that solutions can be improved.
So, as a first step, WHIN is launching an aerostat
developed by RTO Wireless headquartered in Massachusetts.
WHIN's aerostat is an 80 tethered balloon that is approved by
the FAA to fly 1,500 in the air from a farm field in White
County, Indiana. It is tethered with fiber connection and it
has a payload capacity of 200 pounds that allows it to carry
multiple wireless communication devices. Our single aerostat is
expected to have a 50 mile radius coverage with LoRaWAN, which
is a network protocol suitable for IoT sensor connectivity. For
high-speed internet, we will utilize CBRS, which is going to
take some testing, but we expect it to provide high-speed
internet within a radius of 10 to 15 miles.
The aerostat has many features that make it very attractive
for rural broadband. Its transmissions are low latency.
Aerostats can be deployed typically in 3 to 5 months from start
to providing services. It is cost effective. It has excellent
line of sight, solving the problem of difficult terrain and
barriers that traditional solutions can't reach. It functions
well in high winds, and environmentally, the aerostat is quite
friendly, as there are no engines, just helium and the tether.
So, you might wonder how WHIN's network will be put to real
use as we are not an ISP. Our network is a resource that will
be available to any ISP or WISP in the region who wants to use
it to better serve their own customers, or attract new
customers. Note that this is actually a way to accelerate
adoption of state-of-the-art broadband in our region, and that
is always our main goal. We are using innovation to close gaps
quickly.
So, how can this model help you? We know that with very
large expenditures proposed and already made for rural
broadband, you would prefer to get it right the first time. But
technology evolves quickly, and so does the need in the
marketplace. And while innovation is necessary, it adds
uncertainty and complexity. WHIN's Living Lab model is a model
for taking out some of that risk by testing and validating
novel solutions in real conditions. We suggested to Congressman
Baird that setting aside a portion of rural broadband funding
for innovation and for models of advancing innovation could
really help solve the digital divide sooner and more cost
effectively.
Thank you for your time today, and we deeply appreciate
your work on behalf of rural America.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Park follows:]
Prepared Statement of Johnny Park, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer,
Wabash Heartland Innovation Network, West Lafayette, IN
I would like to thank Chairman Scott, Ranking Member Thompson, and
the Committee for the opportunity to speak with you today.
This invitation came about after a recent conversation we had with
Congressman Baird to catch him up on WHIN activities. He found out that
we recently had a successful test flight for the aerostat we are
deploying to serve rural broadband needs in our ten-county region of
North Central Indiana. Ours is the first aerostat, by the way, to be
deployed long-term for commercial rural broadband in the U.S.
As we explained why we had included an aerostat in our network,
Congressman Baird was struck by how valuable such innovative
alternative technologies could be to helping solve the digital divide.
We greatly appreciate his introduction on our behalf to Ranking Member
Thompson.
1.0 Revisiting the Rural Broadband Problem To Make Room for
Innovations Like The Aerostat
The aerostat is indeed a fascinating and potentially game-changing
contribution to solving rural broadband and we are happy to tell you
all about it. It is, however, but one innovation among many that will
be needed to solve the digital divide.
And innovation for rural broadband is in full swing. It is high on
university research agendas. U.S. Ignite and the NSF are due to
announce who will build out the next Platform for Advanced Wireless
Research (PAWR), this one dedicated to rural broadband. The FCC has
made CBRS and TV White space available, both high bandwidth spectrum
eminently suited to rural applications. Industry, from Big Tech to gear
companies to Elon Musk, are developing new products accordingly.
And so is funding pouring out. Just about every major funding bill
that has been signed into law in the past several years has included
substantial dollars for rural broadband.
But the digital divide remains: we can't get over the hump. The
finish line is ever out of reach. So far, the innovation value chain
that leads to solutions, even with help of major Federal investment, is
not delivering, or at least not delivering fast enough.
We also sensed from reading the report for the last farm bill a
certain frustration on the part of Members with how to reconcile huge
Federal investments with infrastructure that can become obsolete even
before it is built. There is a quite natural longing for solutions, if
and when they come, to be ``future proof'' and to be ``built right the
first time.''
Somehow, the enormous effort to solve rural broadband doesn't seem
to be satisfying anyone, and that is certainly true in the very rural
ten-county WHIN region of north central Indiana.
In part, this could be a problem of unrealistic expectations that
arise out of unchallenged assumptions and conventional wisdom. For
example, that word ``infrastructure'' can lead to the misperception
that telecommunications infrastructure should have the same kind of
long and stable future as physical roads and bridges.
There are indeed solidly physical aspects to telecommunications
infrastructure, but unfortunately they are nothing like roads and
bridges. Even the lowest, most physical layer in a network, like the
glass of fiber, has intelligence built into it, such as the ability to
transmit multiple wavelengths. This allows a physical medium to
interface with the higher layers in a transmission whose functions are
even more abstract, such as data, addresses, protocols, logic and so
forth. In other words, there is no ``dumb,'' neutral, physical--only,
part of a network, including fiber, that carries data inertly the way a
concrete road carries cars.
That is one reason that fiber is so expensive. And while it has a
relatively long useful life, at least in the telecommunications world,
fiber is fabricated to allow certain bandwidth limits that meet current
standards. Standards have a purpose and value in extending useful life.
But they can also limit innovation and make it harder to meet a growing
need. Eventually, something has to give because the spectrum on which
telecommunications depends is a fixed, limited resource. The only way
to get more of it is to innovate technology to get more performance out
of what is already there. This means standards have to change and
replacement of infrastructure must follow.
And by the way, the future of roads is that way, too. They are
becoming smart as they are equipped with sensors. All infrastructure is
going to look more and more like telecommunications infrastructure as
the Internet of Things (IoT) barrels toward us from the future.
Another expectation that deserves a hard look is the one around
fiber being not only stable, but the key to solving the rural broadband
problem. Wherever it is deployed, fiber is utterly necessary to
broadband, but it is not sufficient to accomplish broadband service.
This is because fiber rarely, if ever, delivers service directly to
user equipment (UE). All mobile and most non-mobile network use
requires some amount of wireless transmission, and however much fiber
we lay, what the user experiences in service is only as good as the
weakest link in the network. That link is wireless technology, which is
historically weaker than fiber. Wireless technology is indeed a complex
partner to fiber, embodying strength, weakness, opportunity and threat.
Finally, there is the related and subtle expectation that what
works for dense urban areas just needs to be stretched out to fit less
dense, rural areas. In this view, rural areas are vast swaths of
digital deserts: a lot of digitally-irrelevant empty space between
users, as if a city had been attached to a rubber mat and stretched out
over the countryside.
The danger is that seeing rural America that way leads to
implementing rural broadband that way. For one thing, rural terrain is
not homogeneous, and it can be very unfriendly to terrestrial solutions
of all sorts.
Rural areas are also digitally diverse. There are small communities
that are oases of density. Dense use can develop spontaneously when a
festival pops up and tourists arrive, or at a Friday night football
game when most of the population that is normally spread out across a
county finds itself packed into an acre or 2, with cell phones
ablazing. Rural residents tend to do a lot of driving and rely on
mobile phones en route.
Then there is the fact that rural areas are no longer digital
deserts at all, because those seemingly empty farm fields are
increasingly populated by sensors that need wireless service. Sensors
that serve digital agriculture are typically low power and operated by
batteries that must last for years. This means that traditional
broadband won't work because it draws too much power and that is okay:
sensors don't need broadband for their uplink. Their transmissions do,
however, need backhaul. So IoT needs something different to complement
broadband, and that service is going to be just as important to rural
development as broadband.
Rural broadband is also not starting from scratch. Recent
investment has resulted in very useful and important deployment of
fiber. That it hasn't always closed the gap to the user doesn't mean it
was a poor investment. And some fixed wireless providers are upgrading
to newly available spectrum like CBRS. They are also taking advantage
of grain legs and other built structures typically found in rural areas
to avoid building expensive towers.
But in the WHIN region alone, there are 30 service providers, with
widely varying levels of service, a multitude of technologies, and
inconsistent plans to upgrade. A huge challenge to consistent rural
broadband service is to incentivize the marketplace to provide the
consistent, high-quality service the region needs.
The bottom line is that rural connectivity needs are not always
what they seem to be: they are complex, dynamic and don't lend
themselves to one-size-fits-all solutions. Rural telecommunications
will have to be solved creatively and strategically, with a variety of
flexible and dynamic solutions that take into account not only the
distances in rural areas, but also environmental and terrain
conditions, the jumble of existing technologies, the variety and
unpredictability of connectivity usage patterns, and the need for
different kinds of spectrum for different problems.
Among other things, this puts a lot of pressure on wireless
technology to fill gaps and go where fiber can't without compromising
service. Accordingly, as noted above, wireless technology has been
enjoying a lot of attention. Notably, at the physical level at least,
wireless technology is a less problematic target of investment because
it is also less expensive to fabricate, deploy and redeploy than fiber.
There is still plenty of room for even more innovation as the new
spectrum, which is very different from conventional broadband spectrum,
becomes operational. Wireless transmission is still affected for better
and worse by physical issues like positioning, and in some bands, it is
always going to be hampered by obstacles.
And there is an opportunity to innovate fiber with different models
of deployment.
So what does this complex, vibrant view of rural broadband mean for
this Committee and others who are trying to find traction to justify
major investments in broadband infrastructure?
First, the notion of rural broadband infrastructure must expand to
include not only fiber but also whatever it takes to deliver
performance and solutions to users, including fiber.
For example, a percentage of fiber investment could be set aside to
support innovation of wireless technology for rural applications
including IoT; strategic and integrated use of fiber in conjunction
with wireless technologies to achieve optimal performance; middle and
last mile solutions that are sustainable; and, attention to ensure that
rural connectivity solutions are designed to solve complex problems
like e-learning, remote work, and telehealth beyond just providing a
lot of bandwidth.
We were very impressed to see the note in the House farm bill
report that an Innovative Broadband Advancement Program had replaced
the former Rural Gigabit Program, and to learn that it was signed into
law. Even though the provision was not funded, it hit the high points
of practical and cost-effective innovation, demonstration, methods of
deployment in addition to technology, and flexibility. We commend the
Committee for that vision.
We realize that encouraging innovation in a complex technology like
broadband, and in a complex service area like rural America, poses a
different and difficult set of challenges to funding than are usually
faced in infrastructure-related legislation. How, among all of the
choices that are emerging, is an investor, including government, to
know whether a solution works as intended? Whether it is necessary?
Whether it solves the problems users care about? How much value will it
return? Is there a sustainable business model? What are its unintended
consequences? What will come closest, fastest, to solving the digital
divide?
How, in short, can we get innovation funded? And what makes an
innovation in rural broadband a good investment? How is that
determined? And by whom?
WHIN's aerostat is an example of wireless innovation that can
benefit rural broadband. It is being deployed with private grants funds
and no public investment. That approach works because WHIN is itself an
innovation: a community-based nonprofit with a regional development
mission built primarily around scientific and educational purposes.
Though aerostat technology is the reason we are testifying, it is
but one example of innovative technologies that can accelerate rural
broadband. WHIN is technology-agnostic. The model it has developed
organizes innovation around cost effective, efficient, sustainable,
rapid results and it has demonstrated the ability to accelerate
digitalization, including both Internet of Things (IoT) and its
enabling technology, broadband, in the vital rural economic sectors of
agriculture and manufacturing.
Private funding is flexible enough to fuel the development of such
an innovative model and to demonstrate its value. But what WHIN is
doing has useful lessons for others who are trying to solve the
problem, including the Federal Government. For example, WHIN's model
addresses ``future-proofing'' to some degree. It is a project worth
continuing with public help, strengthening and scaling up the bold
experiment that WHIN's private grant dollars have enabled. That is how
public-private partnerships should work, aligning investment with the
stages of a project's life-cycle that best fit what a funder is able to
do within its purpose.
We begin with a brief description of WHIN. Then we describe the
aerostat as an example of how WHIN's unique Living Lab model is
demonstrating innovation. We then conclude with a fuller explication of
the model and its power to generally organize innovation around
results.
2.0 About WHIN
WHIN is the Wabash Heartland Innovation Network. With very generous
initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc., our task is to build a
regional ecosystem that can help our rural region attract globally
competitive businesses to plant and grow in the Wabash Heartland.
The WHIN region consists of Benton, Carroll, Cass, Clinton,
Fountain, Montgomery, Pulaski, Tippecanoe, Warren and White counties in
North Central Indiana. Its area is 4,321\2\ mile and includes a 90 mile
stretch of the Wabash River. The region's population is 391,476
(2019E).
The region's average BEA Per Capita Income in 2019 was $42,276,
about 75% of the national average. About 85% of the region's land area
is farmland, primarily in corn and beans.
The economic and population center of the WHIN region is in
Tippecanoe County, and especially in Greater Lafayette, home of Purdue
University in West Lafayette and a regional campus of Ivy Tech
Community College in Lafayette. Greater Lafayette hosts vibrant
manufacturing including Subaru's North American production plant;
Wabash National, North America's largest producer of semi trailers and
liquid transportation systems; a metals cluster including Arconic,
Nanshan America, Oscar Winski, and ProAxis; a Caterpillar large engine
plant; Evonik pharmaceuticals, and an aviation cluster including GE
Aviation and Rolls-Royce, with SAAB on the way. About half of the
region's population resides in Tippecanoe County.
WHIN is not an ISP, and broadband, rural or otherwise, is not our
primary business. And though, as a regional development organization
WHIN has a very close working relationship with Purdue University and
Ivy Tech Community College, it is a community-based 501[(c)(3)] whose
own purposes are scientific and educational, as well as charitable.
The WHIN innovation in regional development is that it not only has
the 501[(c)(3)] purposes of science and education that are unusual in a
community organization, those purposes structure its strategic
framework. WHIN does serve the charitable purpose of supporting the
quality of life projects and workforce development that are usually
expected from organizations like ours. But the organization mainly has
the not-so-modest and very specific grant obligation of making our
region a globally-recognized center of IoT, the Internet of Things.
WHIN is developing its region as a Living Laboratory for all of the
technology related to IoT.
Aerostat technology serves the I in IoT, which is to say the
internet. As a means of accessing the internet, it is a prospective
technology for rural broadband.
3.0 WHIN's Aerostat: A Case Study In Using WHIN's Living Lab To
Address Rural Broadband
3.1 How WHIN Chose Aerostat Technology for Its Living Lab
WHIN identifies innovative IoT technology, puts it to real use in
its regional Living Lab, and generates research and educational support
from that use. The process begins with an extensive vetting process
that examines both the prospective technology and the prospective tech
partner that produces it.
WHIN looks for promising technology that is commercial or near-
commercial, has a sustainable business model, can be deployed rapidly,
will have immediate impact, and that can offer interesting test cases
to move IoT adoption forward.
WHIN began its association with RTO Wireless through connections
both have in Silicon Valley. The company is headquartered in
Massachusetts with a research office in California. It offers fixed
wireless service on the east coast, but its principals are very
interested in wireless innovation, specifically for rural broadband.
RTO is a Microsoft Airband partner. It has strong connections with the
military. When WHIN met RTO, it had begun a new venture to adapt
military aerostat technology that has a long and successful record
serving telecommunication needs on battlefields, for use in domestic
applications, including rural broadband.
The company was far enough along in the adaptation to be nearing a
contract with AT&T to utilize an RTO aerostat for FirstNet services.
FirstNet is the government-funded program developed after 9/11 to
ensure that first responders can communicate when commercial
communications are down because of a national emergency or natural
disaster. AT&T has the contract and it, in turn, contracted with RTO to
do the work necessary to prepare an aerostat for flight, including its
payload of radios and antennas, as well as to provide flight operations
support until AT&T's crew could be trained.
Over time, that contract was executed and an RTO aerostat
successfully tested at the famous Tuskegee Air Force base in Alabama.
This test was conducted twice and closely tracked by the FirstNet
program and the FAA. AT&T and RTO demonstrated that the aerostat could
be operated safely, and earned the FAA's support for these emergency
deployments. During Hurricane Laura in Louisiana, AT&T and RTO deployed
the RTO aerostat and provided communications to emergency personnel.
RTO previously conducted successful flight and telecom tests in
Baltic, North Dakota, demonstrating a propagation map that far exceeded
the reach of terrestrial towers in the WHIN region.
Based on that information, WHIN recognized the disruptive potential
of the aerostat and decided to deploy an RTO Wireless
AeroSiteTM in its Living Lab, making it the first long-term
deployment of the technology in the U.S. for commercial rural
broadband.
3.2 Aerostat Technology and the RTO Wireless AeroSiteTM in
Particular
3.2.1 History and Use
Aerostats have been in service since the early 1900s. Since 1978
the United States has maintained eleven tethered aerostats sites along
its southern borders on a 24/7/365 basis, operating as high as 18,000
and carrying radar units for drug interdiction purposes, persistent
surveillance and other applications. Aerostats have also been used for
decades by the military for communications on battlefields.
The demonstrated use of aerostats in these situations suggests that
they would be an ideal technology for rural broadband because rural
terrain, user density, and user mobility have much in common with
military service areas.
Beyond communications, aerostats could be an IoT solution for rural
needs including forestry management (hyperspectral), fire and hot spot
detection (thermal), imaging for precision agriculture, environmental
monitoring, and livestock tracking and monitoring.
Aerostats can be used for emergency and law enforcement situations,
like the FirstNet service mentioned above. WHIN envisions the potential
for aerostats to serve as an immediate solution for deploying rural
broadband connectivity, as telehealth and remote learning needs are
immediate. In the event that fiber or other networks overbuild the
aerostat coverage area over time, then the permanent aerostats can be
switched to emergency networks that get deployed during massive natural
disasters or acts of terrorism or war.
3.2.2 Equipment
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The aerostat is a tethered balloon, filled in its center with
helium for lift and compartments of air in the nose and tail that can
be used to adjust its flight in various weather conditions. The
aerostat's aerodynamic design helps stabilize it in flight.
The aerostat is deployed in a fenced, secure, graveled compound
located and sized to allow for a 45 cone of operational space around
the tether that ensures the aerostat easily clears other vertical
structures during launch and landing.
The full AeroSiteTM system includes a mooring trailer
that is custom designed to anchor the aerostat in flight, allow it to
be launched and landed safely, and connect it with power and fiber.
The mooring trailer also contains avionics to assist flight, launch
and landing, as well as remote monitoring.
The trailer remains on wheels and is portable but is anchored to
concrete pylons for long-term deployment. The compound that serves the
aerostat contains a telecom cabinet, generator, equipment storage shed,
and the helium truck. The compound needs fiber service and commercial
power.
3.2.3 Performance Advantages and Constraints
The aerostat's tether contains fiber as well as power and its
payload consists of radios and antennas. It can therefore provide both
access and backhaul.
At an altitude of 500-2,500, depending on model and payload
design, the aerostat's altitude offers two significant performance
advantages. First, it can position radios and antennas at an optimal
altitude to provide line-of-sight communication that exceeds that of
typical terrestrial towers, while maintaining low latency that avoids
the lag and other problems associated with high latency at higher
altitudes. High latency is a problem with satellite technology, for
example. Greater line-of-sight benefits rural broadband by enabling
signals to reach behind treelines and other obstacles in often-
difficult rural terrain.
Second, the aerostat's higher altitude means that its radios and
antennas operate in free space, which gives them greater range than
they have on the ground. Aerostats generally extract more value from
gear.
The main performance constraint is weight: unlike terrestrial
towers, the number of radios and antennas an aerostat can carry in its
payload is capped. That means that capacity, the number of customers a
single aerostat can serve, is also capped, making aerostats unsuitable
for high-density areas like cities. But as long as the payload capacity
of an aerostat is aligned with the density of its intended service
region, which is typically low in rural areas, this constraint is not a
disadvantage: a single aerostat can serve a much larger area than a
single terrestrial tower. This CapX/OpX efficiency is what gives
aerostats their business model advantage.
The other main performance constraint has to do with up time.
Aerostats must be brought down monthly for a few hours for service and
helium top-off. Though designed to fly in winds up to 80 mph, depending
on the model size and actual payload, aerostats may have to be grounded
in exceptional weather conditions. Also, as tethered balloons,
aerostats fly under Section 101 of FAA regulations, meaning that they
are subject to visual flight rules and must stay below the cloud
ceiling.
With their low carbon footprint, minimal soil disturbance, and
relatively quiet operation aerostats are environmentally friendly.
Aerostats would not be typically deployed closer together than 20-25
miles, and at flight altitudes of 500-2,500, they are not visually
distracting.
3.2.4 Operational Considerations
Though the aerostat itself is unmanned, it requires 24/7 remote
monitoring on the ground. Manned operations contribute to the
aerostat's OpX, but that is mitigated if aerostats are deployed in a
network, allowing a single operator to serve multiple aerostats.
Launch and landing require a team that is well-trained, but only
needed occasionally. Though this also contributes to OpX, the team is
mustered infrequently. An analogy would be volunteer firemen. In WHIN's
case, Purdue University is close by and has an aviation program. It is
eager to supply student interns to assist, as they will benefit from a
unique opportunity to gain skill in this technology.
Helium is expensive and deflation is to be avoided to keep OpX in
line. Normally, only a top off should be required month to month
3.2.5 What Is Involved in Deploying an Aerostat
The overarching consideration for deploying an aerostat is that it
is regulated by a variety of entities, including local ordinances
governing zoning and land use, the FCC controlling telecommunications,
and the FAA controlling use of airspace. There are two main differences
in the process for aerostats compared to terrestrial towers. First,
aerostats are new and the governing mechanisms don't always account for
them. Second, the FAA has much more to say about aerostats than it does
about terrestrial towers.
For regulatory approvals, it is very important to become familiar
not only with requirements but timelines. The permits often depend on
each other, and not taking steps in the right order will cost time.
That said, WHIN, which had no experience standing up a commercial
network, coordinated with RTO on the site selection and permitting
process. RTO brought experience standing up commercial towers but had
only deployed aerostats in emergency situations where much permitting
is waived. WHIN and RTO used their collective resources to work through
the ordinances and processes that agencies required to construct a
communications site and a ``tethered balloon'' deployment. Even with
these challenges, WHIN still managed to go from needing to select a
site to maiden flight in 6 months. That time frame is not possible for
a terrestrial tower, which can take well over 1 year to construct and
require the ground frost to be thawed.
Specific aerostat ground needs are modest compared to a tower, with
no structure construction required. Most of the construction is in
grading and finishing the compound and access road, and fencing. The
site must have access and easements for power and fiber. An ideal
location is a farm field where the compound can be distanced from power
lines and vertical structures.
3.3 WHIN's Specific Configuration
In selecting both site and aerostat model, WHIN's goal was to be
able to at least touch the edges of six counties with broadband service
and provide LoRaWAN to the entire region with a single aerostat. The
intended spectrum is CBRS, with the ability to swap in other spectrum,
including very high frequency. The performance goal is 100 Mbps/20 Mbps
within a 15-20 mile radius, with capacity to be determined, but
sufficient to support a business model
The recommended model was an AeroSiteTM 800, which is an
80 balloon with a 200 lb payload capacity, and tether for a flight
altitude of 1,500.
3.4 WHIN Plan for Operations
As of the end of March, WHIN's aerostat had completed a successful
test flight. The LoRaWAN payload is presently being configured, and
that will be tested in early June. The next radios to be added to
payload will be 5.8 GHz radios that have been used for many years in
rural broadband networks. After 5.8 GHz testing is completed, WHIN will
replace the 5.8 GHz radios with CBRS radios and begin testing. WHIN
will be testing various antennas on all the wireless technologies on
the aerostat.
In the meantime, WHIN is contracting with local service providers
to provide retail services for the aerostat. WHIN is working with a
service provider to provide sufficient backhaul and radio equipment for
multiple wireless service providers to be able to utilize the aerostat.
3.5 WHIN's Research Plan
Over the next year, WHIN will test and produce use cases including
business plans to determine:
1. The propagation maps that are possible from the aerostat for
LoRaWAN, 5.8 GHz and CBRS networks
2. Service capacity for each configuration
3. Use of the aerostat for backhaul
4. The motion of the aerostat and its influence on performance and
compliance with any wireless standards, such as CBRS
restrictions on movements of certain antennas that are
cause by the aerostat
5. How operational considerations impact the business model
WHIN is also deploying terrestrial assets in conjunction with
existing commercial terrestrial assets to facilitate testing and
provide a variety of real world network configurations and ground-
truthing.
WHIN is seeking funding for a second aerostat to both elaborate the
business model and to do technical testing with a network of aerostats.
4.0 The WHIN Living Lab Model
WHIN is able to deploy the aerostat in real operations and test its
performance thanks to a model it has developed called Living Lab. The
model has its roots in a problem WHIN had to solve for itself. In order
to meet its grant requirements, it had to find a way to accelerate the
adoption of IoT, and, even more specifically the sensor side of IoT, by
growers and manufacturers in its ten-county region.
But of course it turned out that IoT is an all or nothing
proposition. It can't solve problems unless all of its parts are
present: data measurement (sensors), data transmission (broadband), and
data analytics/applications (the component that integrates the data
into an action plan or solution).
Because commercial sensor technology comes equipped with data
analytics, we were left with a two-part problem.
1. Sensor technology is at the stage of development where its next
customers, especially in rural markets, don't know yet that
they need it, or at least not with the urgency that would
lead to rapid adoption.
2. Broadband, on the other hand, is already at urgency and beyond in
rural markets. The problem with broadband isn't adoption,
it is a combination of affordable availability and slow
deployment.
Technology is always in a process of continuous improvement, or the
addition of value, by its stakeholders. At different points along this
innovation value chain, there are different stakeholders. Early on, it
may be a university and the NSF. At another, it is a startup and a VC.
At another it is a user with her wallet. Each addition of value
involves investment.
We aren't accustomed to thinking of users as adding value, but as
noted in the introduction, they have perhaps the most value of all to
contribute because only they are the arbiters of whether a technology
should stay or go. Of whether it has any value at all.
What WHIN's two IoT problems have in common is that somewhere in
their value chains, there is a barrier to real use. For sensor-
technology the barriers are related to adoption. For broadband, they
are related to being available and accessible. Looked at that way,
WHIN's problem was to eliminate barriers.
4.1 Connecting Products to Real Use
Lowering the barriers to adoption is such an important need for
WHIN that it has its own part of the Living Lab called WHIN Alliance,
consisting of the growers and manufacturers who are willing to adopt if
WHIN makes it easy.
A key barrier to easy adoption is the time and effort it takes to
identify and assess not only a technology but the company itself. As we
saw with the aerostat, WHIN has a process for vetting that is very
thorough.
We lower another barrier by subsidizing the initial cost of
adoption, requiring tech partners to also provide a discount. If WHIN
has done a good job of vetting, the users will benefit and be willing
to assume future costs. Once a technology is in wider use, the Alliance
serves as a community of users helping each other learn to solve
problems in a new way, reducing yet another barrier to adoption. And
WHIN remains in the picture to facilitate and advise.
The good news is that lowering these barriers is indeed
accelerating the adoption of IoT in the WHIN region. Thirty-nine
growers representing nearly 155,000 acres have become Alliance members
in the last 2 years, benefiting from WHIN's weather station network,
automated optimization of ag operations, robotic soil sampling, remote
grain health monitoring, and aerial imaging. Seventeen manufacturers of
all sizes have benefited from automated preventive maintenance
technology in a little over a year. Additional technology is in the
pipeline for both agriculture and manufacturing members and the
Alliances are growing.
WHIN tends to measure the success of its model by the willingness
of Alliance members to stay active and begin to invest their own
dollars in WHIN's vetted IoT. That won't happen unless farmers and
manufacturers are seeing value. The majority of members are being
retained in the Alliances from year to year and they are adding new
technology.
4.2 Connecting Tech Companies to Real Use
One key barrier to innovation is when there is no way to do product
validation, which requires real use. And the more expertise that can be
brought to bear on resolving problems the validation uncovers, the
better the result in both quality and speed.
Purdue University's presence in the WHIN region is of immeasurable
value to discovery and innovation. They are leaders in sensor
development, and in creating the next generation of digital agriculture
and digital manufacturing. They are a tremendous source of expertise.
WHIN's Alliance model brings tech partners into the region who are
learning from the real use of their products, whether that is early
stage product validation or later stage mature product innovation.
Purdue and the Alliances give tech partners every reason to develop
a permanent physical presence in the WHIN region: it is there that they
can develop and innovate most quickly and effectively. We have already
seen this to be the case. Digital ag company and WHIN tech partner,
Solinftec, moved its global headquarters from Brazil to West Lafayette
because of the WHIN relationship and proximity to Purdue. All of the
other tech partners have also added jobs because of increased business
in the Alliance. Some had no previous employment presence in Indiana at
all.
The tech partner relationship also leads to accelerated
commercialization of promising near-commercial technologies, helping
startups succeed, plant and grow. Two of WHIN's tech partners began as
startups in the Alliance and are now further along in their lifecycle.
Thus the Alliance model fulfils another WHIN goal: helping
globally-competitive businesses plant and grow in our region, which is
to say, to create good jobs.
4.3 Connecting Researchers and Educators to Real Use
Funding for university research is highly competitive. WHIN's
Living Lab offers Purdue faculty something no other university enjoys:
access to a wealth of real world data. The Living Lab actually reverses
the conventional science-to-practice model.
A key aspect of WHIN's 501[(c)(3)] status is that our scientific
and educational purposes must also be fulfilled for the public good.
WHIN accomplishes these purposes by requiring its Alliance members and
tech partners to license data to WHIN. WHIN maintains the data in
anonymized form in a data lake, with a data portal that makes it
accessible to interested faculty and students.
The intent of WHIN's data sharing is to spur the contribution of
university research and innovation toward making the region a global
center for IoT. In fact, WHIN data that is generated from sensors can
help inform research that is not specifically related to the sensor
side of IoT. Because IoT is a complex of data measurement, data
transmission, and data analytic technologies, researchers in any one of
those areas can benefit from real world data. And because IoT is about
the physical world, researchers interested in what the physical world
has to say for itself could benefit from real world data. And because
IoT is changing and guiding human experience, there is a sociological,
ethical, communicative, and even philosophical interest in what is
actually, objectively, happening. IoT will increasingly touch most of
human experience.
4.4 Connecting Products to Real Use--the Broadband Challenge
The digital divide points to a different problem with connecting
technology to real use. There is a third variable as the economics of
technology innovation and deployment works against adoption.
But building a network doesn't have to be a billion dollar project.
It is possible to build small scale networks and connect them to a
commercial network with the right technology, incentives, and
relationships.
The Living Lab has all of those. As the aerostat story shows, a
single piece of gear can make a difference, and WHIN's model is able to
incentivize industry partners to come together to help, from fiber to
retail operations.
5.0 Urgency
Just how important is WHIN's digitalization project?
According to the pivotal 2019 USDA report, ``A Case for Rural
Broadband: Insights on Rural Broadband Infrastructure and Next
Generation Precision Ag Technologies.'' (https://www.usda.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/case-for-rural-broadband.pdf), the
digitalization of agriculture can help growers by:
Integrated decision-making based on actionable data and
information=better decisions, more precise supply chain and
resource allocation
Automation of processes through the Internet of
Things=increased efficiency, reduction of repetitive manual
tasks, improved precision
Technology to support human tasks=improved speed, accuracy,
ability to access information and control remotely
Better connectivity=e-commerce, access to more markets,
online platforms that are not limited to geography, ability to
differentiate products
Quality of life applications=telehealth, distance learning
(including workforce development like developing coding skills)
The report concludes, ``While digital technologies are already
creating value within the agriculture industry today, realizing the
full potential of these technologies, according to USDA, could create
$46-$65 billion annually in additional gross benefit for the U.S.
economy. In other words, if broadband internet infrastructure, digital
technologies at scale, and on-farm capabilities were available at a
level that met estimated producer demand, the U.S. could realize
economic benefits equivalent to nearly 18 percent of total production,
based on 2017 levels.''
The impact of increased digitalization in manufacturing has also
been found to be critically important. ``State of renewal: Charting a
new course for Indiana's economic growth and inclusion.''
(indianagpsproject.com) was released in February 2021, by the Brookings
Institute, in collaboration from the American Enterprise Institute and
is the outcome of the Indiana GPS project.
The GPS study was commissioned by the Central Indiana Corporate
Partnership (CICP) with funding from Lilly Endowment, Inc., to identify
data-driven strategies to promote growth and prosperity in the state.
Specifically, those strategies were to be focused on increasing the
number of good jobs so that every Hoosier can support a family.
The study picked up on some very important and interrelated data
points. A leading indicator of the potential for good job growth is
productivity. The most impactful variable for lifting productivity is
technology, specifically information technology, which since the mid-
1990s accounts for \2/3\ of productivity growth nationwide. The number
one recommendation in the report for creating new good jobs is
therefore to accelerate digitalization, including closing broadband
gaps as broadband is critical infrastructure both for itself and for
digitalization.
This is of utmost importance to Indiana, a state that has suffered
from negligible growth in productivity between 2007 and 2019, and whose
2019 productivity gap relative to the nation was 20%. Not surprisingly,
given the interrelationship between productivity and digitalization,
Indiana's firms are found to be investing too little in IT, ranking the
state 37th in the U.S. in annual per worker IT expenditures in 2016,
the most recent year for which the data is available.
The report concludes that digitalization leads to economic
dynamism, productivity, and competitiveness, with productivity a kind
of first among peers as it affects competitiveness and, because of
multiplier effects, economic dynamism.
Thus WHIN's model of accelerating digitalization in jobs-rich
manufacturing has only become more urgently needed. And WHIN's
inclusion of product-rich agriculture in its digitalization project
gives ag a new role in impacting jobs as well. The ag tech companies
WHIN is working with to digitalize agriculture are creating new, good
jobs in Indiana. As part of the advanced services sector, those
companies are just as important to Indiana's growth and prosperity as
manufacturing.
WHIN now finds itself in the position of being the pilot for the
number one recommendation in front of Indiana policy makers and
officials for moving the state forward. It is a responsibility we do
not take lightly.
6.0 WHIN's Value Propositions and Why It Is So Important to Strengthen
and Grow Its Model
One of the great gifts of the LEI grant that created WHIN is that
it meant that WHIN is a 501[(c)(3)]. Being a not-for-profit
organization enables WHIN to function as an agnostic problem solver,
with no allegiance to any particular technology except that it has to
be IoT or related to IoT. This enables us to work holistically, with
the purpose of problem-solving, whatever it takes, and not simply
validating that something works.
That makes us a very new kind of stakeholder in technology
innovation that, from a position outside of the innovation value chain,
is able to disrupt the chain in the interest of both adoption/
digitalization and innovation simultaneously to get problems solved.
WHIN may be outside of the innovation value chain, but its way of
disrupting adds great value. WHIN disrupts by separating real use from
adoption and then accelerating the use ahead of adoption.
Real use, which is normally delayed until adoption, is the only way
to answer the questions that measure real value: does the technology
work as intended? Is it something the market needs? Does it solve a
problem users care about? How much value will it return and how
quickly? Are there any unintended consequences? And most of all, will
someone pay to use it?
This last point is key. WHIN describes itself as accelerating
adoption and it is. But it doesn't do that with its initial investment
in reducing the cost of adoption. Adoption doesn't really happen until
the user is paying for the technology, until they have literally bought
in. In the first years a technology is deployed in the region, WHIN
assumes the risk that adoption may not ultimately occur. Indeed, for
technology laggards like farmers and manufacturers, for whom seeing is
often the shortest route to believing, what WHIN offers is basically an
extended road test.
WHIN's ability to take on the risk is enabled by its own investors.
And the risk is worth it. Real use is what uncovers problems, and
WHIN's model of doing that earlier can mean the difference between an
inexpensive adjustment and complete failure of the product. The earlier
a problem is found, the less likely it is to damage the trajectory of
product development. Indeed, even failure can be innovation's best
friend, as long as it occurs early. Failure is the source of much
critical learning. This is called ``fail fast'' in technology
development and it helps ensure that companies adapt quickly and move
on without spending more time on something that isn't working.
Another trend in tech development is to send products to the market
early, when they are ready to do a meaningful task but could still
benefit from additional features. The products can often be easily
updated through software updates and, in the meantime, the user has the
benefit of the features that are available, and the tech company can
ensure the product is keeping pace with user needs. This solves the
problem of long development cycles aimed at perfection which can mean
that, by the time the product is perfect, user needs have changed and
the product is obsolete before it gets out of the lab. The principle is
to not let the perfect get in the way of the good.
More generally, these trends reflect how the private-sector is
adapting to the rapid pace of technological change during the
development phase, which also requires substantial investment. In
effect, the companies are protecting their investment in development by
accelerating real use.
Indeed, the strategies can be seen as a form of ``future
proofing.'' The concept of useful life that is the usual target of
``future proofing,'' is based on a rigid innovation value chain model
that positions the user at the end of product development, after all of
the value has been built in. When users need change, which is the main
source of obsolescence, the product loses use value.
But if real use is distributed all along a product's value chain,
the product can better keep pace with need and, as a bonus, uncaught
problems are less likely to interfere with future development and
value. Distributing the risk all along the value chain makes it more
likely that, barring a revolutionary shift in technology, the product
will last longer.
That is what is proven in the private-sector to handle accelerated
change for single technologies.
WHIN's Living Lab model takes those strategies further. First, it
creates a community of users in a very large lab with diverse
conditions that enables a much more robust test for even single
products.
And, because it is operated by WHIN, which is agnostic to any
particular technology, the model is able to accommodate complex
technologies like broadband, which depend on entire systems of products
to solve a problem. WHIN is able to help design and test complex
solutions, in the quest for what is cost-effective and sustainable,
beyond simply knowing whether an individual component performs
according to spec.
For investors all along the innovation value chain from the NSF to
VCs to the USDA investing in broadband deployment to users themselves,
early certainty--in whatever degree--reduces risk, and makes it
possible to release investment earlier throughout the innovation value
chain. This keeps innovation and digitalization moving forward.
Finally, and most important, it should not be lost that WHIN's
Living Lab, by being Living, necessarily includes the community itself
in finding the right solutions. Grounding the innovation of technology
in real use also keeps it grounded.
The Living Lab is the right model for the right time: a way to
manage both complexity and rapid acceleration of change in broadband
and all of the aspects of digitalization, and a way to connect
technology to what is humane and real.
PowerPoint Presentation
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[Ron Burns, Matt Gremelspacher, Blain Hizer--Grain and Hog
farmer.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Very good. Thank you.
As I said, Committee Members, as you can see, what a
bountiful amount of very valuable information we have already
heard. And now, we are going to get into our questions for our
panelists. At this time, Members will be recognized for
questions in order of seniority, alternating between Majority
and Minority Members. You will be recognized for 5 minutes each
in order to allow us to get as many questions in, and my goal
is to make sure we hear from each and every Member here. So,
please cooperate with me when I have to bring the hammer down
so we can be fair to everyone, because everybody has something
to say here.
Also, please keep your microphones muted until you are
recognized in order to minimize the background noise.
And now, I recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Panelists, as Chairman of this Committee, my goal is to see
if we can not get rural broadband out to these 24 million
people that don't have it. We can do it, and I want you all to
help me and advise me on how we can do it to reach my goal of
having internet rural broadband in place for access for these
24 million of our fellow Americans in rural areas by December
the 31st. Sometimes you have to set a deadline, measure what
you want to do.
So, please, each of you, if you could just tell me what it
is we need to do. You all know how much money it would take.
Give us what you think the amount of money we need, and tell
me, can we do that? That is our goal.
And, I will start with Ms. Robinson--no, Ms. Prather first.
I am sorry.
Ms. Prather. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. How much money would it take? What must we do
to get rural broadband to these 24 million people by the end of
this year, December?
Ms. Prather. Thank you, sir.
First of all, you are right. This is an extremely expensive
issue. I do want to state, too, that it is a two-fold issue. It
is not just the initial deployment, which is very much
necessary and where these programs can be very beneficial, but
it is also a matter of being able to maintain those networks
over the life of those assets that we are putting into the
ground.
I do want to be certain that while we have communities that
have waited this long for broadband infrastructure, that we
don't cheapen what we give them. If it has taken this long to
get broadband, we want to put something in the ground that will
last many, many decades because I don't know when we would get
back to them to upgrade that. So, I think using these sure
methods of providing sustainable broadband, and then the
government using programs that can help sustain the network in
an area where there are just not enough customers to do so is
what will get us there.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Robinson, how much money would it take? I
need you all to help us guide this. Nobody knows better than
you. If we wanted to say we could get this to these 24 million,
how much money are we talking about? You are the experts, and
you would know. Give us an estimate so when we go and put our
bill together, we will know how much money we need to have
allocated to put broadband up to reach these 24 million. That
is the question.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are estimates that suggest that the cost to actually
reach those who are unserved is anywhere from $60 to $80
billion. I submit, however, that it is hard to rely on such
estimates because we haven't first done the hard and necessary
work to accurately map where those gaps exist. And so, that is
the first order of business is actually mapping the gap, and
Congress has enabled the FCC to be able to do that by funding
the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L. 116-130). So, that is the first
step is actually mapping and getting a clear sense of where
gaps exist.
I would then submit that once you have that, you will have
a number. You then need to think about how do you stretch those
Federal dollars as far as possible. In giving your deadline,
think about which technology tools can be used to actually move
quickly. So, as you are thinking about funding for deployment,
it is important that the policymakers prioritize what is cost
effective to actually stretch Federal dollars, and then second,
the myriad of technology solutions that are available in the
market can be brought to bear to move quickly.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Park?
Dr. Park. So, our expectation is about $150 billion, but
again, that is without laying out, as Ms. Robinson said,
various novel technologies that are emerging nowadays.
So, our recommendation, again, is to promote innovation and
deploy those emerging technologies, gather data quickly, and
replicate those success stories in other regions in the nation.
And it is not a one-size-fits-all solution for sure. Rural is
very diverse, and we need to embrace the diversity by making
sure the right type of technology is deployed in those
situations.
The Chairman. Thank you, and now I recognize our Ranking
Member for his 5 minutes.
Thank you all.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Prather, in your testimony you said that: ``We must
require the deployment of networks that in a decade or more
will still deliver speeds and other performance capabilities
that customers can rely on.'' Can you talk more about the
importance of long-term performance and perhaps discuss some
prior funding failures the Committee should be aware of?
Ms. Prather. Yes, sir, thank you so much.
You are right. We have every indication that demand is only
going to continue to grow at really intense rates of expansion.
We currently provide service with numerous technologies today.
I utilize fiber, I utilized fixed wireless, and while we are
deploying maybe some of those other ways to get speeds out
faster, we see those as stepping stones. We do not see them as
the end game.
If you look at any wireless infrastructure out there, it
also tries to get back to a fiber backbone as fast as possible,
because they have to offload that data somewhere that can
handle it. As we are looking at building networks, we also look
at reliability. Just as an example, last week we had a fixed
wireless tower that got hit by a bolt of lightning. That
happens out here. We lost every single piece of equipment on
it. So, when we are looking at deploying infrastructure, that
creates a lot of customer disruption as well. Out here, we get
a lot of hailstorms, high wind, things like that. So, we want
to look at infrastructure that can handle those issues as well.
We obviously lost a lot of customer units in that storm as
well. We have to replace those. We didn't have any problems
with our fibers.
So, we look at what can take the capacity that is going to
be needed, and then also what will be reliable once it is
built.
Thank you.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Dr. Park, you have a different take in your written
testimony, expressing a preference for flexibility in network
design and rapid turnover technology. How can we make sure that
planning for obsolescence doesn't become settling for
obsolescence, especially when building networks through
necessary bureaucratic government programs?
Dr. Park. Thank you.
So, our suggestion is that we promote a Living Lab model,
such as WHIN, where, certain parts of progressive regions, we
use that as a test case. Without trying out this emerging
technology put to real use, it is really, really difficult to
assess how valuable, how reliable, and how scalable and how
cost-effective those technologies are. And we often find really
great, innovative ideas to move forward beyond that.
So, we would recommend, again, having a portion of the
funding dedicated to innovations like WHIN to promote use of
emerging technologies as a way to advance this innovation in
much-needed technology in broadband.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Dr. Park.
Ms. Prather, in your testimony you also encouraged full
funding of the Rural Broadband Program authorized in the 2018
Farm Bill. Why is it important to stakeholders to get the Rural
Broadband Program up and running before the next farm bill?
Ms. Prather. Great question, I think two-fold. There are
some very good ideas in that program. Tying the speed to the
length of a grant, and then also, we want to see what that
would do. Since it hasn't been fully funded, we haven't got to
see how well it works. So, I think it is important to see how
well it works currently before more changes are made.
Mr. Thompson. Very good. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, congratulations and thank you for your
leadership of your electric cooperative.
You had mentioned in your written testimony the number of
advantages rural electric co-ops have, including the governing
body who really--I mean, it is customer-owned, so you know the
area, you know the topography, you know the customers are
there. And I was--can you just expand just briefly on--you had
noted that 50 percent of the cost of building out networks, you
already have covered with employees and equipment and vehicles
and rights-of-way, those kinds of things.
Mr. Johnson. Right. I was referring to--thank you, Ranking
Member Thompson.
Yes. We were referring to make ready costs, which can
constitute a large portion of expense in construction. We own
rights-of-way, currently maintain electric rights-of-way for
the purpose of electric service. Adding fiber to those rights-
of-way is not as big a lift for us as it is for other entities.
We already are there. We have the poles and we know where
problem areas are, and the right-of-way is clear and trimmed so
that we can get in quickly and string a robust network. We have
skilled workers. Our linemen can easily be cross-trained, if
necessary, and we can bring in workers who can use their skills
to run the strand. We strand all of our fiber with steel strand
to make it more resilient in the event of outages and----
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
My time has expired.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This is, as
you noted, an important hearing, not just for our Agriculture
Committee, but for rural America. And I think most, if not all
of us, have portions of our Congressional district, as has been
noted, that are challenged when it comes to having access to
broadband. About 15 percent of my district does not have
access, and it is a problem, to say the least.
Some of the witnesses, I would like to ask you. As we are
talking about whether it is $60 to $70 billion as one has
noted, or as much as $150 billion, that is a big discrepancy
and difference in terms of cost for implementation. I would
like to understand that better.
But how can Federal efforts complement existing focus that
our states and in some cases, our local governments are
pursuing to get connected to broadband? Who would like to take
that?
Ms. Robinson. I am happy to respond.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Ms. Robinson.
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the question.
To the first part of your question in terms of the
discrepancy, a lot of that is going to be based on what kind of
technology solution you are talking about using. Everyone
recognizes that fiber is the gold standard in terms of speed,
but one tradeoff for fiber can be cost. And so, while you are
talking about the estimate from $60 to $80 billion to the $150
billion estimate, a lot of that is going to be driven on what
technology solutions that you are bringing to bear. So, I
wanted to raise that point.
And to the second----
Mr. Costa. So, your recommendation on that point in terms
of to ensure the broadband strategy is tech neutral, how do we
include an effort to make it inclusive both for fiber and for
wireless broadband technologies?
Ms. Robinson. I think that the Agriculture Appropriations
Committee has already kind of baked this in terms of the
appropriation by recognizing that technology neutrality is an
important concept to bake into funding. So, that is critical
and we see that the existing Federal programs that are in
existence today are also technology neutral by virtue of who
the awards have gone to. So, I think continuing to do that is
important.
It is also important to have coordination, to your second
point, amongst what is being done at the Federal level, what is
being done at the state level and the local level so that the
policymakers can have an aggregate view of the various programs
that can be brought to bear. There may be grants, loans, tax
credits or other mechanisms to ensure that you can get
broadband access deployed, but then also ensure that
affordability is addressed as well.
Mr. Costa. What is a realistic timeline in closing the gap?
Ms. Robinson. The first step----
Mr. Costa. Twenty-five percent, yes.
Ms. Robinson. I think the first step is, again,
understanding the scope of the problem. If that work can wrap
up fairly quickly, then we can be in a position to actually
move quickly to close the gap. But moving quickly will require
that toolkit approach that we referenced--I referenced in my
testimony and that has been brought up through witnesses as
part of our opening statements. Recognizing that if you want to
move quickly, say, we started the Airband Initiative, we had a
bold goal of closing the gap in its entirety by July of 2022.
If we bring all of our resources to bear using all technologies
at our disposal, it is possible, but you first need to
understand the real scope of where those gaps exist.
Mr. Costa. This is really a part of a worldwide
competition, but in terms of the technology, is it important to
note that we are still at the cutting edge and that the United
States has the best technology to deploy broadband on these
hard to serve areas, the 25 percent of rural America that
doesn't have it?
Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, I believe that we are first, and
we should continue that spirit of innovation to bring all
resources to bear to quickly and completely close the digital
divide. We are absolutely poised to do that as a country.
Mr. Costa. Does anyone else care to comment?
Dr. Park. I absolutely agree. Again, this innovative
broadband investment program is really the spirit, right. We
were really impressed to see the note in House farm bill report
that had replaced the former Rural Development Program. It
really hit the high points of practical cost-effective note in
innovation, demonstrating the technology, and methods of
deployment in addition to technology and flexibility. So, we
really commend the Committee for that vision.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. Absolutely. Thank you very much.
The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Crawford, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have a question for Ms. Prather. More attention and
Federal funds have been dedicated to broadband deployment in
recent years, but districts like mine and many others that look
like mine still don't have access. I am just wondering how we
can more quickly and efficiently deploy those resources? Can
you talk about that a little bit?
Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you.
I think that is a very good point, and to some of the
credit of my other witnesses, we know that some of those
problems deal with the maps that are currently out there
showing where is served and where is unserved. To piggyback on
an earlier question, that is a great place for the state and
local offices to step in as well, to do some of that more
granular help where there is a problem at the Federal level to
show what is served and what is unserved.
I think these programs--there is also a lot of money that
has already been put to the FCC that has not actually gone out
the door yet, so we have areas that have maybe been
appropriated to, but the money has not gone out yet. ReConnect
funds haven't gone out yet. There are holdups in some of those
processes that the work has been planned but is not actually
getting done yet.
I know a lot of my colleagues have had challenges with some
of that Federal funding, and I don't know if that, the log jam
seems to be sitting with some reviews and some processes.
Things that we can do at the Federal level to get that money
out the door much closer to when it has been promised will help
in those situations.
Mr. Crawford. While I have you, let me ask you this.
You mentioned supply chain disruptions in your testimony.
Can you talk a little bit more about those challenges that you
are experiencing? How are your supply chains arranged, and what
can the Federal Government do to help improve that?
Ms. Prather. Sure. That is a very real problem, both with
our fiber optic cable and with the electronics used at the
customer level and at our level. All of those things have some
pretty serious delays. Last week, we ordered some fiber
pedestals that have a 365 day lead time. And I know some of my
fellow colleagues in Iowa see that with fiber as well.
It may be a little above my pay grade to know what
government could do, but I will say any sort of incentives to
produce that domestically would definitely help in those
situations.
Mr. Crawford. Excellent, thank you.
Let me ask Ms. Robinson, we know that rural areas are
diverse in their topography. Some might be mountainous, some
might be heavily wooded, some might be flat, some might be all
of those. I have a very diverse geography and topography in my
district, and given the diverse landscape, how do you think we
should think about technology solutions for broadband
deployment, and what do you think the best technology--what
technologies do your Airband partners use to connect Americans
in rural areas and remote areas?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
I can give an example by an Airband partner who will be
deploying in their area--WISP [inaudible] internet access
company. They are actually using a bevy of different
technologies, including fixed wireless, but also fiber. And so,
I think the key to your point, recognizing that rural areas are
not homogenous, they vary, continuing to support policies and
funding that allow providers to use whatever technology tool is
going to work best in a given scenario is really key to closing
the broadband gap once and for all. So, I would say more of the
same.
I do think it is also important, as you are thinking about
these technologies and the companies that are deploying them to
meet the need, that they show that they can meet not only the
needs of today, but the needs of tomorrow. So, have a guide
path, as it were, to being able to continue to be useful in
meeting the needs of modern life.
Mr. Crawford. Thank you so much. I appreciate the witness's
testimony. Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, I recognize Ms.
Spanberger for 5 minutes.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you holding a hearing on a topic that is so near and
dear to my heart, and that is rural broadband access.
Broadband access or a lack thereof is as vitally important
as access to electricity was a century ago. And I believe it is
really imperative that we meet the challenges of ensuring
universal broadband access this century with the same urgency
and determination that our country met that challenge of
electrification a century ago.
A lack of broadband connectivity hurts the ability of
students to complete their homework, businesses to recruit new
employees, farmers to take advantage of the latest precision
agricultural technology, and the list goes on and on. And, I am
delighted that we have the witnesses here today who understand
and have lived that perspective.
So, my district is one of the districts across the country
that has been able to benefit from the USDA's ReConnect
Program, with multiple communities and rural co-ops in my
district receiving millions of dollars in funding to expand
high-speed internet connectivity to previously underserved
areas. While ReConnect has helped to expand broadband access
for severely underserved areas, many communities in my district
still lack internet service that meets the FCC's minimum speed
standard for broadband, 25 megabits per second for downloads, 3
megabits for uploads. And the COVID-19 pandemic has really
proven that high quality broadband access needs to keep pace
with technology and increased demands for services, such as
video conferencing, for example.
As we make investments in our digital infrastructure, it is
important that we do so with that in mind. So, on that note,
Ms. Prather, I would like to begin with a question for you, a
slight follow-up to the question that my colleague, Mr.
Crawford asked. From your perspective, would you say that
communities receiving at least that 25 megabits download, 3
megabits upload are underserved, and would a household
utilizing the service of 10 megabits per second downloads and 1
megabit per second upload be able to utilize some of the
technologies that have proven so vital during this pandemic,
such as video conferencing?
Ms. Prather. Thank you. That is an excellent question, and
I am going to give you a real-world example.
So, we serve a bunch of dairies in my area. Obviously,
dairies take up a lot of space. That is going to be a very
rural place. Also, a lot of them here are kind of at the far
ends of some really rough dirt roads, okay? So, we know that
they are doing a lot of smart dairy practices, too, some really
cool stuff. They put radio tags on the cow's ear. It can tell
them a lot about the health and the production of the animal.
They upload all of that to the vet. We are currently serving
these dairies with 25/3 fixed wireless. We are doing that
because to get fiber down those rough country road rights-of-
way is a long process. So, in the intermediary, we have
deployed fixed wireless to them.
Now, this year you have kids coming home, doing their
schoolwork from home. You have other family members trying to
work from home. The dairies trying to upload all of that
information to the vet, and it is simply not enough. During the
pandemic, we spent pretty much 24 hours a day giving more
bandwidth to schools, hospitals, these dairies, all of our
customers. We had really an unprecedented amount of growth
between people moving to rural areas to get out of the cities
and then the ones already here, we were increasing bandwidth as
fast as we could. Those people on those 10/1 services were
upgrading every single day because it simply wasn't enough.
Ms. Spanberger. Thank you very much, Ms. Prather, and I
have visited dairies in my district where we witnessed the
exact same thing, that incredible use of technology that is
really only as valuable as their ability to upload or download
the data.
Mr. Johnson, I have a brief question for you as follow-up.
In your testimony, you discussed the many advantages of the
Section 6210 of the 2018 Farm Bill compared to the existing
ReConnect Program, including increasing the speed thresholds
for eligibility to 25/3. In your opinion, regardless of which
program is funded or how we proceed with delivering this
broadband internet, how important is it for USDA to ensure that
funds are available to communities that have broadband speeds
above 10/1 but below 25/3?
Mr. Johnson. I mean, we are strong believers in the fact
that for future resiliency, we need to exceed 25/3 and go to
100/100; 25/3, we feel, may be inadequate. We have seen since
the advent of the pandemic increases in volume demands of up to
40 percent overall among our membership. Some of our members
are exceeding 1 terabyte per month, which is extreme. This is
because most are on Zoom calls almost all day long, the
students are, those who are going remotely. So, we feel
strongly that the push should be towards 100/100.
Ms. Spanberger. Wow. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
have gone over. Thank you for the additional 25 seconds, and I
yield back. Again, thank you to our witnesses.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Spanberger.
Now, Mr. DesJarlais from Tennessee.
Mr. DesJarlais. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our
panel.
I worry that President Biden's infrastructure plan,
including the Administration's proposal for broadband, will
undermine the system of private competition that our country
thrives on. Ms. Prather, the President had indicated that he
believes that Americans pay too much for broadband, and that
private providers, like you, might be subject to rate
regulation. How would Federal regulation of broadband rates
affect your ability to serve your customers?
Ms. Prather. Thank you. I think my biggest concern there
would be how that type of legislation would interact with
current programs. As you may be aware, the FCC is about to
introduce the Emergency Broadband Benefit Program that gives
$50 a month to consumers to help pay for broadband. My company
is going to participate in that, and I think it is going to be
a great thing for providers and consumers.
I think the biggest factor is also going to be the
sustainability and predictability. When we can plan for what
all programs we are utilizing and how long they are going to
last, that is what makes the competition between our companies
benefit the consumer the most.
Mr. DesJarlais. Okay. Well, I don't necessarily agree with
the President's approach to rural broadband. I do believe there
are things that Congress can do to lower the cost of broadband.
Ms. Prather, in your testimony, you mentioned a tower where
Federal permits cost more than the tower itself. Can you
explain what happened and what can we do about it?
Ms. Prather. Absolutely. So, as we are deploying especially
things dealing with spectrum--and this also happens in Federal
lands. I don't have as much of that, but when we are dealing
with spectrum, there are a lot of reviews that have to be done,
and those are not bad things. But sometimes the cost of that
and the time of that can sit on someone's desk for months or
even years. And so, when we are trying to deploy these
networks, we have to plan these large, large asset investments.
I am lucky that where I am at, we can construct year-round.
Some of my northern neighbors can only construct 4 to 6 months.
So, it is even more critical for them. But the time can take
years to be approved. I don't know if that is just too many
papers sitting on someone's desk, and then you are right.
Sometimes the cost can absolutely exceed the cost of building
that tower. The time is longer than the construction, the cost
is more, and I don't think that was ever anyone's intent.
Mr. DesJarlais. All right. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, that is all I have, and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, I recognize
Mrs. Hayes from Connecticut, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and thank you to the
witnesses today for your attendance and your expertise in this
area.
Connecticut is no stranger to the digital divide,
especially my district. A 2018 survey found that 23 percent of
Connecticut residents did not have internet access at home.
Twenty-one percent of those homes without access were White
households, 35 percent were Hispanic households, and 34 percent
were African American households. These problems are especially
acute in the northwest corner of Connecticut. In fact, there
are 100 miles in our state's northwest corner that have no
access to high-speed internet providers. This is especially
troublesome, as our district tries to rebuild from the economic
impacts of COVID-19.
Since the onset of the pandemic, Litchfield County in
Connecticut has seen an influx of new residents, primarily from
New York. These new residents represent a tremendous
opportunity for our state, which in past years has seen an
exodus of young families, threatening our long-term economic
impact and employment base, particularly in rural areas. State
and municipal leaders are hoping these new families will make
northwest Connecticut their permanent home, but it is hard to
imagine how these families can stay if telework is not an
option for them.
Ms. Prather, can you speak to the importance of rural
broadband connectivity in ensuring young families can live and
work in rural areas like Litchfield, Connecticut?
Ms. Prather. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
I think you bring up a great point. We are really seeing a
rural renaissance, and you may be seeing the same thing, of
these young families coming back to the rural areas for the
quality of life. However, if they can't Netflix, if they can't
work from home, if they can't do their online college
education, they are not going to come back.
I think another important part of that is also the digital
education that sometimes is necessary in some of these
communities. For example, we started a Totelcom learning center
in our community to help teach people how to stream and how to
do some of these things online. I think without that, they
don't understand how maybe to even utilize the access that is
there.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you.
But availability is not the only problem. The choice of
broadband providers is also a persistent problem in my home
State of Connecticut. Roughly 18 percent of Connecticut
residents have only one option of a provider, despite the fact
that 84 companies operate in Connecticut. In Cheshire, a
community in my district, the choice for high-speed internet
comes down to two providers. For some, while there maybe
surface level choice of providers, it is cost prohibitive, with
only 30 percent of people in Connecticut having access to a
plan that is below $60 per month, which is 20 percent lower
than the national average of 51.5 percent of Americans who have
access to a low-price internet plan.
Can you talk about how rural broadband programs and
ReConnect loans and grant programs enhance broadband options
for Americans in rural areas, and is there anything we can do
to further incentivize services to rural areas with very few or
limited options?
Ms. Prather. Yes, that is a great question.
So, it is two-fold. One, the Federal programs can help
deploy those networks, but then in order to maintain an
affordable service over the life of that network, that is why
programs like Universal High-Cost Funds step in and help make
the business case for a provider to be there. In order to
sustain that maintenance and keep their rates low, that ongoing
support is needed.
Mrs. Hayes. Thank you so much for your time today, and this
is something that is very close to constituents in the
northwest corner of my state who have no access or limited
access. Even myself, when I travel throughout my district, I
have to plan around the fact that I know that I will be offline
for several hours the farther out in my district I go. So, this
is very important.
Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this
conversation, and with that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hayes, and now, Mrs. Hartzler
from Missouri.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding this very important hearing.
Like many of my colleagues, I would add and say that this
is probably one of the highest priorities and needs in my
district in rural Missouri is that we have to get rural
broadband. But as we have heard here in Congress over the
years, we have been investing in this program for years. There
are multiple programs with multiple funding streams, different
speeds, different requirements, and I think it is--and it would
behoove us to have a time of analysis and making smart
investments, going forward, rather than just quickly passing
another funding bill. And I really appreciate the comments from
you, Ms. Robinson, about the first step should be to receive
the information from the FCC DATA Act, the Broadband DATA Act,
and could you talk about that a little bit, about why it is so
important that we determine really where the needs are first
before we act and establish a new program?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congresswoman.
We can't begin to solve the problem unless we understand the
extent of the problem. And so, from our perspective, getting
clear guidance around what exactly is the scope of the problem
we are trying to get our arms around is a condition precedent,
or at least needs to be done in parallel as Congress and
policymakers consider funding options.
And so, for us, we know that there are gaps based on
Microsoft's own usage data, which is publicly available, where
we look at the speeds at which our services are being
downloaded and see that there is a considerable gap between
what the FCC's numbers suggest and what our data--and not just
our data, but other data sources like Broadband Now suggest
that the scope of the problem is.
And so, doing that work has to happen quickly, and should
happen at least at minimum in parallel with any consideration
and all considerations about how to solve the problem from a
deployment standpoint in terms of getting the necessary
resources to once and for all close the digital divide.
Mrs. Hartzler. Sure, thank you so much.
So, in the 2018 Farm Bill, I led the initiative to increase
the standard of service rural Americans should receive through
the USDA farm bill broadband programs, and making sure that
they have 25 megabits download and 3 megabits upload in the
speed. Yet, we have heard and we have the current program--the
ReConnect Program only has 10 megabits and 1 megabit
requirements, and yet, Mr. Johnson, you had shared that you
think, going forward, we actually need 100 megabits and 100
megabits should be the standard. And I agree with the Chairman
that we should let the ReConnect Program pilot expire, and
fully fund the program that we authorized in the 2018 bill,
which has higher speeds.
But Mr. Johnson, could you just once again reiterate what
you think the standard should be and why you think it should be
100/100 now, not 25/3?
Mr. Johnson. The standard of 25/3 with heavy usage,
multiple--we ran our household during the shutdown and the
pandemic, four Zooms going on at once, and I never saw a
spinning circle, and that is in a 1 gigabit household. Granted,
I believe in a 100 megabit/100-megabit household, you will have
the same standard applied. These are fiber-based technologies,
and other technologies have not been proven to be able to carry
this amount, this load and demand on the networks.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
And being a CEO of a rural electric cooperative, I wanted
to switch gears and ask you to share a little bit about the
importance of the ability to refinance the RUS loans. And you
may or may not have those loans, but I know a lot of rural
electric cooperatives in my district do, and I am cosponsoring
a bill that during this pandemic would allow rural electric
cooperatives to refinance those loans and take advantage of
that lower interest rate and to waive the fee for the
refinancing. Because we know many of our rural electric
cooperatives have lost service. It has been expensive for them,
and so, if this passes and you have that ability, do you think
co-ops could perhaps use that additional revenue, not only to
make up their losses, but perhaps to have more capital to be
able to invest in rural broadband?
Mr. Johnson. Absolutely. There are--as we know, there are
200 cooperatives operating broadband systems now or deploying
them, and 100 more looking at it. The feasibility of these
projects would be pushed forward with the opportunity to
reprice outstanding debt so that new capital would be freed up.
So yes, it would be very beneficial.
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you.
I yield back. I appreciate it.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Hartzler, and now, I
recognize Mr. Delgado of New York.
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to be with
all of you virtually, and I appreciate the testimony of all the
witnesses today.
I do want to spend a little time talking to my friend and
constituent, Mr. Johnson, about your work at OEC and Otsego
Electric Cooperative.
I think the big picture of what I want to start off with is
I know you announced plans to offer high-speed affordable
broadband service back in 2017. Could you speak a little bit
more about just the demand within the community? I think it is
important to just hear a little bit about the demand and how
great the actual need is for this basic necessity at this
point, as COVID has made plain. Can you just speak a little bit
to the demand within the community?
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman.
The demand that we--we operated a satellite business,
broadband business before we got into the fiber business. We
could see when we were operating that business that there was
huge unmet consumer demand for better service. So, we had
numerous customers buying hundreds of dollars of additional
data cap space monthly. It was a very profitable business for
us, actually. We have now gone out--completely out of that
business because we could see that when a customer is paying
$300 a month in additional data cap demand, we can provide that
service for $49.95. So, we saw the pockets where the service
was needed and were able to design and deploy a system very
quickly that filled those gaps.
Mr. Delgado. Excellent.
Mr. Johnson. And actually, to add to that, during the
pandemic, during the shutdown, fortunately we were able to work
as essential workers, and we were absolutely inundated with
phone calls, praying, asking for immediate service if we could
get it to people. As a result of that, we have accumulated
quite a list of people in our service territory--well, outside
of our service territory, but adjacent to us that are in
extreme need.
Mr. Delgado. Right. So, that list is significant. That list
is significant, and extreme need, as you put it.
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Mr. Delgado. I do want to speak--I think in your testimony
you highlight some of the challenges and opportunities for
Congress to support rural broadband access, and you mentioned
that some cooperatives haven't fully utilized rural broadband
programs through the USDA Rural Utilities Service. Can you
speak more about how Congress can make that process easier?
What some of the challenges might be when it comes to our
cooperatives utilizing the Rural Utilities Service?
Mr. Johnson. Right. I think the simplicity of the
application process could be improved. There is a point system
that is used for desirability of projects. Many of these
territories that we were looking at had no favorable points. We
had households that didn't have service, but we didn't have
libraries and community service centers and hospitals. These
are literally--as Ms. Prather mentioned, these are people at
the end of dead-end roads and dirt roads where nobody else
goes. So, those point systems are not helpful. Awards have been
known to be slow to arrive, so time passes as you wait to see
whether your application has been approved, and then even after
approval, you wait a long time, over a year for money.
Mr. Delgado. Yes, good to know. Last, on the question of
mapping, I have introduced the Community Broadband Mapping Act
(H.R. 2400) which would go a long way in getting us better,
more accurate data, and it would make funding available to co-
ops, among other local groups, for broadband data gathering.
Can you speak a little bit about, in your experience, the
challenges that we confront in the absence of accurate
broadband data collection? What, from your vantage point, would
be the best approach to collecting this data?
Mr. Johnson. GPS is the best way to go to find these and
identify these locations, and funding to help with the expense
of doing that would be extremely useful. That is a--and also
feasibility programs. The funding to pay for feasibility
programs would be very helpful as well. Cooperatives are
nonprofits. We don't accumulate capital. We cannot accumulate
capital, so anything that we do in this space, we go to a
lender and ask for permission to use funds for this purpose.
So, any funding to help with that is very useful.
Mr. Delgado. Excellent. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Delgado, and now,
Mr. Allen of Georgia.
Mr. Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate you
continuing to hold hearings. Obviously, I believe this is the
most important hearing in our Committee in this Congress.
I would like to highlight two of the most important
broadband issues in my district. One county in my district,
Jenkins County, has faced many challenges with AT&T for years
now. According to the RDOF maps, well over 80 percent of the
county is unserved. However, when Planters Telephone
Cooperative attempted to service this area, they eventually had
to suspend their efforts due to AT&T. This is unconscionable.
Every year that my constituents do not have internet service,
they and their children are falling further behind in both
economic and educational development. What is worse is that
these constituents have absolutely no recourse. If another
company attempts to provide internet service to these people in
Jenkins County, all AT&T would have to do is prove that one
single household has internet service at a 1 to 10 upload/
download speed, and they would continue to have exclusive
service rights. Meanwhile, 99 percent of the county remains
living with less internet access than many third world
countries.
Another cooperative in my district, Altamaha EMC has had a
nightmare experience with the USDA ReConnect Program over the
past 2 years. They originally applied for funding under the
ReConnect round 1, but were wrongfully deemed ineligible
because of an incomplete service area validation survey. Once
they applied again for round 2 funding, after waiting over a
year, through no fault of their own, USDA refused to prioritize
their second service area validation survey. It seems to me
that with mapping of broadband access currently under the FCC's
purview, we may have the wrong people in the wrong seats on the
bus. I don't believe the FCC's original purpose was ever to
serve as a mapping agency. Perhaps we should consider moving
the responsibility of mapping broadband access to a Federal
agency that is actually built for that purpose. USDA's National
Agricultural Statistics Service is one that comes to mind, or
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is another
option.
Dr. Park, could you explain the marginal advantage of
satellite internet access versus fiber optic, and in what
scenario is it more feasible or practical to use?
Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman.
So, fiber is the gold standard. There is no question about
it. It is reliable; it is proven. But it is costly, and it is
also--it takes time. And I don't believe rural regions that
have such a diverse geography and patterns can be served all by
fiber. So, we really need to think about how other wireless
technology can complement the broadband technology.
No question, broadband is a necessary infrastructure for
serving rural broadband. We must think about other
complementary technologies, such as CBRS and other LTE
standards that really allows other providers to take advantage
of technologies to rapidly deploy these technologies to a
region.
Mr. Allen. Dr. Park, obviously I have one county next to
Jenkins County where every household is served by EMC, and each
household can get fiber optic run to their home through the
Universal Fund. Yet, in Jenkins County, because AT&T is for-
profit, they can't get internet service.
So, Ms. Prather, I would like to ask you and any of the
other panelists that would like to speak to the point I made in
my comments, that as far as mapping, it seems like we are
running up against a wall every time we try to do something
with broadband. And this government is spending tons of money,
yet this is probably the biggest economic engine available to
rural America in the history of the country. Ms. Prather, would
you like to comment on that?
Ms. Prather. Sure, I would. Thank you.
I think that you make some very, very good points. One
thing I would say is that the FCC has been undertaking more and
more mapping initiatives, but they want to wait until it is
perfect to get it out the door. Instead, the information that
they have, we need to get out and start utilizing it.
And you make a great point about it is no good if we don't
have some way to verify what is there. I will say that is one
good thing from the USDA, what they do is that they can bring
people to the local level and actually test that. So, if you
have an area that is deemed served, we can go out and test to
see if that is really the case and then update that. Because we
don't want to build just to those minimum standards today. If
we are going to put money forth and build a project, we want to
use those futureproof technologies and build for the future.
Mr. Allen. Well, thank you, and I am out of time. I yield
back. If any of you would like to comment further on what I
have said, please submit those to us in writing. Thank you.
The Chairman. Ms. Kuster of New Hampshire, you are now
recognized.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate the
Committee holding this important hearing.
This past year has brought countless challenges, but one of
the many that stands out is the critical need for universal,
affordable broadband access all across America. This need was
understood long before COVID-19, but the pandemic brought this
issue to the forefront in stark terms. Internet access was
critical for successfully quarantining at home and staying
healthy, for attending work and school remotely, to talking
with your doctor through telemedicine appointments. But
unfortunately, far too many Americans, including many in my
district, rural parts of my district, still must deal with low
quality, slow speed internet connections, or some have lack of
internet access at all.
The most recent USDA Census of Agriculture found that 13
percent of New Hampshire farms did not have internet access,
and we know that that lack of connectivity inhibits farmers
from fully engaging in the important USDA programs.
Even looking beyond these challenges facing farmers and
producers, we know that broadband connectivity is critical for
everyone who lives in a rural region, and that is why I am
proud to be a member of Majority Whip Jim Clyburn's Rural
Broadband Taskforce. Last month, our task force introduced the
Accessible, Affordable Internet for All Act (H.R. 1783),
authorizing $94 billion to build out our broadband
infrastructure nationwide with a special focus on areas with
little or no access. Additionally, as a Member of the House
Energy and Commerce Committee, I have worked with Chairman
Pallone on the LIFT America Act (H.R. 1848), including over
$100 billion to develop broadband infrastructure to guarantee
100 percent of Americans can connect to secure, high-speed
broadband.
We have a lot of work ahead of us in order to reach our
goal, but I firmly believe that we can make bipartisan
progress. So, let's use the hard lessons of the pandemic as the
impetus to close the digital divide and ensure that every
American will have a reliable connection.
Mr. Johnson, I appreciate hearing about your work and
challenges in upstate New York. I think there is a lot of
commonality with my district in New Hampshire. From your
perspective, how can Congress be most helpful to cooperatives
like yours in getting us to 100 percent broadband access, and
are there particular challenges that we should triage before
others?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
Yes, Otsego sees--as I mentioned, we know where the gaps
are, and we are submitting as a provider information and data
to the FCC now that they have on hand. So, accelerating their
process of data mapping, and then distributing those for
funding opportunities. FCC RDOF auctions are very useful. They
take time to put together, but if they can be accelerated, that
is what we need. That is the simplest, in our opinion, funding
and the fastest funding that can be made available out there to
get the job done. Now that is--co-ops are uniquely positioned
to be able to do this.
Ms. Kuster. Terrific. Thank you.
Ms. Robinson, I am glad to hear about the Airband
Initiative that is doing to increase the pace of broadband
access. Could you comment on the importance of broadband map
accuracy, and how more accurate data can help you identify
target areas of greatest need?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
To your point, Microsoft has been at the forefront of
really challenging this issue and challenging us as a country
to get the maps right so that we can understand the scope of
the problem. We think that there is a lot of good that is on
path to be able to get us to that point with the implementation
of the Broadband DATA Act, action dictated by the FCC to
actually begin to start help coordinating. That needs to happen
quickly. We need to have multiple sources of other information,
be it at the Federal, state, or local level, and pulling them
all together in order to understand the scope of the problem.
It is also important to leverage the power of technology to
ensure that what we are seeing in these maps is actually
accurate. Use the power of the Cloud, use machine learning to
validate what is being seen, and then actually make sure that
this information is publicly accessible so that, again to the
point that is being raised as part of the hearing, is that
there could be an error between what the FCC or some other map
is saying in terms of an area being served and unserved, and
what is the truth on the ground. And so, you need a way to
validate and make sense of that disconnect, and so, doing
things to bring in multiple data sources to do that is the key
to addressing this issue in a meaningful way.
Ms. Kuster. Thank you so much. My time is up, and I yield
back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Baird of Indiana, you are now recognized.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I can't tell, Dr.
Park, how pleased I am to have him here.
But one of the things that you do in your testimony and
that we have heard a lot about is the cost of going that last
mile. You make reference to what you are talking about, the
aerostat as being a Living Laboratory. You encourage us to
invest a certain portion of our research dollars in innovative
kinds of things. So, you are not--or WHIN is not an internet
provider. In fact, you must work with internet providers, and I
think that is a point here that needs to be understood, because
it is a way to get out to those more rugged geographic areas,
those last miles.
So, I would appreciate just having you elaborate on that,
because you are working with internet providers. So, I would
appreciate your perspective on that.
Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman Baird.
So, again, just to remind everybody, WHIN is a nonprofit
organization. We are a community, regional organization, and we
are not an ISP. But our goal is to accelerate the adoption of
technology in our region. And in that vision, broadband was a
necessary and very difficult challenge that we had to face. So,
we are using the Living Lab model of vetting new and
commercially available technologies, bring them to put to use
in our region, and really drive innovation and adoption out of
the usage, and by sharing the data with others so that the
solutions can be improved.
And this model has really worked well with agriculture and
manufacturing sectors, as we have developed many partnerships
with tech companies who are providing innovative solutions in
digital ag and precision ag and next generation manufacturing.
And we are approaching this, the broadband, because we believe
broadband is also a technology that needs to be deployed,
adopted, and have a business model for sustainability.
So, we are using our region as a way to accelerate the
innovation and adoption, and so that we can share the
information with other regions so they can learn from each
other.
Mr. Baird. So, if you would continue on in that
conversation, so if there were cooperatives in the region or in
that ten-county area that was providing landlines or providing
fiber, they could be on the end of the line or you could be on
the end of their line and try out some of these other
technologies without investing in a lot of towers or a lot of
fiber. Is that true?
Dr. Park. That is correct. In fact, we are working with a
local fiber company, and we are also working with a wireless
internet service provider to provide the end-user customer
services. So again, WHIN is not an ISP. We bridge the gap. We
bring those technologies. We work with local ISPs and WISPs
that perhaps have not had a chance to fully leverage and
utilize the new technologies. So, we are really lowering the
risk by vetting first and have them utilize these new
technologies to see how these technologies can help serve their
existing customers better, and also attract new customers in
our region.
Mr. Baird. And so, it is a way to get the--you mentioned
the high-speed internet, a 10 or 12 mile radius, and then a 50
mile radius for some of the other technologies.
Dr. Park. That is correct. Yes. I just want to mention one
quick thing. We have a saying that we not only want every home
in our region to have broadband access, but we also want every
stalk of corn to have connectivity as well. Rural broadband is
a very complicated issue, and I think one of the biggest
barriers, in my opinion, is that there hasn't been a viable
business model for providing broadband in rural America. I
think the emerging IoT application in agriculture will really
drive the economic incentive for the private-sector to invest
in rural connectivity, and we really want the private-sector to
be incentivized for sustainability.
So, it needs to be both the high-speed internet, also the
connectivity for sensors. And while we are building this
infrastructure, I encourage people to consider building it
together so that we can incentivize this next generation
operations to be incentivized.
Mr. Baird. Thank you, and I see I am out of time. I really
wanted to get to Mr. Johnson, but I appreciate all the
witnesses being here. I think this is a very important subject,
and I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman.
And now, Mrs. Bustos of Illinois, you are now recognized.
Mrs. Bustos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so much
for holding this hearing today.
There is no doubt that every single Member of Congress on
this Committee, we are all on the same page as far as agreeing
that rural broadband is extremely important to the regions we
serve, to our nation. And I think we are probably--we see it
similarly, and we also want to make sure that we are spending
taxpayer dollars as efficiently and as effectively as possible.
Something that is very important--I am on the Appropriations
Committee also, and this is something very, very important to
me, and I know to the Members as well.
So, to be efficient and effective with these essential
resources, something that we need to make sure that we are
keeping an eye on is to make sure that we are looking at what
is most needed out there to minimize the Federal agencies from
competing against one another in terms of funding rural
projects. It is nice to be in demand that there is kind of this
universal feeling that we got to address broadband, but we do
have to make sure that we are not overlapping what is going on.
So, Ms. Prather, I have a question for you. As a community-
based provider who has benefitted from Federal programs, can
you talk a little bit about the importance of coordination
between broadband deployment programs?
Ms. Prather. Absolutely. Thank you, ma'am.
You are absolutely right. We have to build these things
efficiently and using the most effective use of taxpayer
dollars. I mean, that is why it is important to remember that
these different programs sometimes do serve different purposes,
and they are all needed. We do need RUS and USDA to provide
that up-front financing for these really expensive asset
builds. I think it is important to note that we want to build
it once. If we are going to build something, we don't want to
have to redo it in a few years. We know what the growth
projections look like. That is not a question to anyone. So, we
want to build networks that are going to be able to sustain
that growth for the life of that network.
It is also important to note that if you are in an area
where without Federal support one network can't survive due to
the lack of people in the area, it is important that there is a
program like Universal Service to maintain affordable rates
over the life of that network as well. All of these programs
can work in concert.
I think it is important to note, too, that like you said,
whoever has the data on what is needed and where it is
currently being used, other agencies should coordinate. I am
not here to say who should be in charge of that, but whoever
has the best data is the one that we should look to, to seek
what is available and what is still needed.
Mrs. Bustos. Dr. Park, I see you nodding your head. Do you
have any other thoughts along these lines?
Dr. Park. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think WHIN is a unique organization that can serve as
that coordination effort that you just mentioned about, because
we are neutral. We don't provide internet service to end-
customers. We are in the best interest to bring this technology
to services to our regional folks as quickly as we can. So, we
work with 30+ ISPs in the region. We work with Federal
Government. We work with state agencies. We work with local,
regional economic developers. We work with farmers and
manufacturers who are main stakeholders in the region.
So, there is a unique place for an organization like WHIN
to play to coordinate this massive effort that is going to
happen across the United States.
Mrs. Bustos. Dr. Park, how do you see increased investments
in rural broadband through fiber-to-the-home and fixed wireless
impacting our growers and our producers? You said that that is
among who you are working in your part of Indiana, but can you
talk a little bit about how you see that impacting especially
their bottom lines?
Dr. Park. Well, the recent USDA report was clear that the
impact of connectivity in farmland is going to tremendously
increase the bottom line for agricultural production, no
question about it. So, again--but we have to be careful. Having
internet to residential applications versus having connectivity
to sensors in the farmland, they are two different
infrastructures. So, we--but if we build it together, it is
much more cost effective. We are not going to have millions of
people in rural areas, but we are going to have a vast amount
of farmland that is ripe for digital agriculture, precision
agriculture revolution, and that is where, in my mind, where
tremendous opportunity lies.
So, we cannot forget the opportunity of precision
agriculture in conjunction with meeting the needs of our rural
American residents.
Mrs. Bustos. All right, and the clock is at 0. Very well
done. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Yes, thank you.
Now, Mr. Jacobs of New York, you are now recognized.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for all
those that testified today. Very helpful and insightful.
In the eight counties I represent in western New York
State, this is the issue that is the common denominator of need
for each and every one, and a lot of good issues have been
raised already.
I agree with what has been said in terms of this time
during COVID, highlighting our dependence on rural broadband or
internet and that it is no longer an amenity but a necessity,
and certainly, we have seen it in telehealth. I have certainly
heard it, the challenges that many of my constituents have had
and their children in terms of having to learn from home and
remote learning and hybrid learning that they have gone
through, and I think unfortunately we will see in the years to
come those communities, many of whom I represent in rural
America, will have suffered more by the absence of being in the
classroom because they did not have sufficient internet access
at home to really be able to learn to the level that they
needed to, and there was learning lost this year.
I would also say that a former colleague mentioned the
opportunity I see here in terms of a rural renaissance and a
small-town America renaissance through investment in high-speed
internet, because I think people are appreciating again the
value in space, the value in small community, the value in
quality of life, and I think that we have a lot of that to
offer. I think people are wakening again to it.
I had first just a question regarding the Biden
infrastructure proposal prioritizes support for broadband
networks owned and operated or affiliated by local governments,
nonprofits, and cooperatives, providers with less pressure to
turn profits, et cetera. However, many communities like mine
are not--most of my communities are not served by providers
like cooperatives. So, I just was curious if anybody wanted to
weigh in on whether this policy is the right way to go to
prioritize nonprofits versus the broad-based providers that do
this sort of thing.
Ms. Prather. Yes, I will answer that. Thank you.
I do think we are missing a big piece here. For example, my
company is a small community-based telecommunications provider.
We were formed as a community-based shareholder-owned company.
We are now privately held, but we are in this community because
we want to be here. As the current plan stands, my company
would not be able to participate whenever we do the exact same
things as other co-ops across the state. Texas has 43 small
providers. About half are co-ops, half are commercial entities
like mine. I am not here because I am trying to increase my
stock price. I don't have one. I am not here because I am
seeing what kind of VC multiples I can get. We are here because
we live in this community. We serve our friends and neighbors,
and so, no matter the corporate structure, I think those local
community-based providers really provide a great benefit in
putting broadband in these communities.
Mr. Johnson. If I may, Congressman?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, go ahead.
Mr. Johnson. I just wanted to add, I think cooperatives are
partnered with many of these other entities as well, so it
hasn't excluded everyone else and should provide the impetus, I
should say, for cooperation among many different entities.
Mr. Jacobs. Could you elaborate what would be an example of
how you would partner?
Mr. Johnson. In discussions with it, and I am sure Ms.
Prather has run into this as well. Some of the cooperatives
across the country have made partnerships with private
providers, small town telcos are a very good example that are
privately held. Small organizations, somewhat nimble have very
similar roots in their communities, very long-term roots, and/
or perhaps they just partner on the basis for fiber transport
where they buy their wholesale access to the internet, so to
speak.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you very much.
Dr. Park. If I may?
Mr. Jacobs. Yes, go ahead.
Dr. Park. Just really quickly, again, I just want to
reemphasize my earlier statement that WHIN, again, non-internet
service provider, nonprofit organization that is focused on
regional development, because we are technology agnostic, we
are product agnostic, our end goal is to provide services to
our regional stakeholders. So, I believe there is a unique role
that organizations like WHIN can play by leveraging our
community partners and their resources and putting them
together.
Mr. Jacobs. Thank you all very much for those answers. Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. O'Halleran of Arizona, you are now
recognized. Mr. O'Halleran.
Mr. O'Halleran. Yes, I am now unmuted.
The Chairman. You are unmuted. There you go.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
the panel for their great conversation today.
I greatly appreciate this Committee's focus on closing the
digital divide, which still impacts far too many Americans in
rural America and Indian Country. In rural Arizona, only 66
percent of the population has access to broadband at the FCC's
minimum speed standard, which is way too low for us.
Consistently, constituents across Arizona note that access to
reliable high-speed broadband is a top priority for them.
Inequities in broadband access results in poorer health and
educational outcomes for those of us who live in rural and
Tribal communities. There is clearly more work to be done to
expand broadband access nationwide. We must continue working
together and across the aisle to help implement these new
programs and improve existing programs as well.
I am pleased to see that today's witnesses include various
sectors of the rural telecommunications sector, who are
offering different solutions to providing access to high-speed
internet.
I will say this. If we don't get it in rural America, we
are going to continue to have a problem with losing residents
instead of keeping them where we need to make sure we produce
the food of America, the transportation links of America, the
natural resources of America, and most importantly, the quality
of life of people that live there, whether it is healthcare and
telemedicine, because of the lack of specialists; whether it is
the ability to get a competitive education for our children;
and whether it is being able to have an active economic
development process that can compete across our nation.
Ms. Robinson, it is my understanding that Microsoft has
been working with Sacred Wind Communications to bring broadband
to 57,000 Navajo families. Could you discuss how USDA can play
a role in promoting the development of new technologies to
serve large numbers of rural communities?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
Yes, we are working with Sacred Wind, and what we have
noted is that their role in reaching Tribal communities has
become even more important now. I think in terms of what the
Department of Agriculture could do to continue to support a
company like Sacred Wind with a unique mission to close the
digital divide is to ensure that its application processes are
clarified and streamlined. I know that Sacred Wind has
previously sought funding from the Department of Agriculture
and Rural Utilities Services, and they have spoken to us about
some of the challenges inherent in that process. So, continuing
to find ways to clarify that critical plan that can be
leveraged to close the digital divide in Indian Country is
critical for companies like Sacred Wind, clarifying and
streamlining.
But then I would invite the Committee to continue to think
about ensuring the funding of deployments can be done in a
technology neutral way. Companies like Sacred Wind are using
fiber and fixed wireless to meet these needs in Navajo Country,
but also I would encourage the Committee to consider and
recognize the importance of adoption. When you are talking
about access on Tribal lands, you have a disproportionate
amount of people on the reservation who are income-insecure.
And so, just getting access to these areas is not enough. We
need to also ensure that we have mechanisms in place so people
can actually adopt the service.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you.
Mr. Johnson, you had mentioned that you do not use any of
USDA's programs. Can you expand upon the barriers, and what do
you believe would be most helpful in expanding broadband access
to co-op membership?
Mr. Johnson. Right. We do not--the administrative
application process was daunting and expensive, time consuming,
survey necessities, et cetera, and the point system didn't fit
our areas that we needed to serve. In addition, if we were
already receiving funding for particular areas, we were
disqualified from receiving ReConnect. Not that we would want
to be paid twice for the same development, but there were
overlaps in mapping that would have prevented us from competing
for some of the funding that was available. The slowness of the
funding, the slowness of the process, that is always difficult
for small organizations such as cooperatives to deal with. We
are asked because of that to perhaps once we are awarded
funding, our members come to us and say all right, we heard you
got your funding. You have been approved. Why haven't you
started spending money? So, we have to go out and borrow it.
The Chairman. Time has expired.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and have a good day, everybody.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mann of Kansas, you are now recognized.
Mr. Mann. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and thank you for making
this a priority for the Committee, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, in
this town there are a lot of areas that people are divided on,
but there seems to be bipartisan support for doing better when
it comes to rural broadband and connectivity. We all know that
is a priority for everyone here. It certainly is a big priority
for me and the big 1st District of Kansas. We cover a large
swath of the rural part of my state, and we hear a lot of
concerns a lot of time.
It is not just concerns with how it is, but what it
prevents us from doing be it telehealth, be it taking the next
steps in production agriculture and all of those things, so
thanks for the panel and our witnesses for being here today.
My question is for Ms. Robinson. Is it my understanding
that Microsoft's Airband Initiative is working in Kansas to
connect rural underserved communities to broadband, so I
especially appreciate that work. It is also great to see your
experience addressing rural broadband in the public-sector at
the FCC and administering the Universal Service Fund. Based on
your variety of experience, how do you think we can involve
more private-sector investment in our rural communities, and
what limits more involvement in the private-sector today as you
see it?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, and we are proud
to work with NeXT Link as they expand broadband access to rural
consumers in the great State of Kansas.
I think that the key to solving this problem is doing more
with public and private partnerships. This is not something
that any one sector or one part of the country can tackle by
itself, and so, being able to provide more certainty around
business models that are required to actually--that can
incentivize private-sector to actually do investments to show
that this is something that the business model can pencil out
in rural America will be key.
A part of that business model penciling out will be making
sure that there is actual funding in place to support, and that
can be leveraged alongside private-sector investments. So,
those two things need to work together, and it is certainly
part of our formula as we approach these issues in trying to
tackle the rural digital divide.
Mr. Mann. Okay, well wonderful. Thank you.
My second question, different vein, is for Dr. Park.
Dr. Park, can you talk more about the performance and
weather capabilities of an aerostat? As we discuss the vital
importance of broadband, we have to consider that high winds,
lightning, those sorts of natural disaster sort of things are
prevalent in Kansas and in other areas as well. Any perspective
that you would have on how those would perform under those
kinds of conditions?
Dr. Park. Thank you for that question.
Yes, so aerostats can withstand high wind up to 80 miles
per hour, and if there is a major, major storm, aerostats can
be lowered within hours, so it can be pretty safe. And while it
is down also, Congressman, aerostats can be deployed to overlap
coverage and provide redundancy. So, in areas where storms are
localized, any aerostat lowered will have adjacent aerostat
provide the redundant coverage in its area.
Mr. Mann. Okay. Okay, that makes sense. No further
questions, Mr. Chairman. I yield back, and thank you all very,
very much.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Carbajal, of California.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Prather, you mentioned in your testimony that your
networks connected Americans to vital institutions and services
which help drive economic development and produce and preserve
jobs in rural America. Specifically, in response to COVID-19,
you noted that Totelcom took action to increase broadband
availability, to lower installation costs for students who were
remote learning. Access to broadband has been a barrier for
many families during this pandemic to ensure kids can continue
to attend school remotely.
In my district, this has been no different. For example,
the Martinez family was driving around from parking lot to
parking lot to find access to WiFi. It has shown us the digital
divide that exists in our country, and the work we have ahead
to bridge these gaps. Can you please explain how Totelcom's
experience responding to the pandemic will impact its future
operations, and what innovations and partnerships were
particularly helpful for you to meet the increased need for
remote learning in rural America?
Ms. Prather. I would love to. Thank you, Congressman, for
the question.
So, we did a couple of things. First of all, any customer
that called in and had a student K-12 or college in the
household got free installation. We got them connected as fast
as possible. But the bigger thing that we did was we partnered
with all of our local school districts. We told them we know
you have students who are learning at home and cannot afford a
connection. If you will just give us an address, we will go
connect those students. We won't make them sign anything. We
won't bother the family. We will work with you to provide
access for any students who needs it. Even when the schools
went back to in-person learning, if we have students who are in
a home with someone at high risk or the student was at high
risk, we kept that going. We are seeing a lot of funds go out
to the FCC's E-Rate Program right now, and we would love to
continue those kinds of partnerships. We did that through no
cost to the school. We really just ate all those services,
because it was the right thing to do for our communities that
we serve. But we would love to see that on an ongoing basis to
partner with those schools, to serve their students that need
access at home and cannot afford it.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you, Ms. Prather.
Ms. Robinson, in your testimony, you discussed the
importance of and the need for basic digital literacy in
bridging the digital divide. Can you please explain what
Microsoft and its partners are doing to make sure these
programs and opportunities can be accessed by minority
communities, particularly those where English may not be a
first language?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much for the question.
We believe that digital skilling is critical to driving
adoption. You can't assume that if you build it, people will
come. People need to know and be informed about how to use
connectivity as a tool for empowerment.
So, working closely with our philanthropy group and various
nonprofits, we are providing digital skilling resources that
actually meet the needs of community, including providing
access to materials that are bilingual in nature, so that you
are able to shift and meet the needs and provide skilling
resources that are responsive to the needs of the specific
community. We don't have a one-size-fits-all approach, but they
are very much tailored by working with people on the ground,
and also focusing on historically marginalized communities
specifically where research shows that there tends to be larger
gaps from a skilling and literacy perspective.
Mr. Carbajal. Thank you.
Just to note, that nice orchid next to you probably comes
from my district where most of the flowers in the United States
are grown domestically. So, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Feenstra of
Iowa, you are now recognized.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Scott and Ranking Member
Thompson.
Mr. Chairman, first I ask to submit for the record a letter
from NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, which discusses
some considerations the Federal Communications Commission
should take in considering for its review of a long-form
application for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Could I
submit this for the record?
The Chairman. So ordered, Mr. Feenstra. Thank you.
[The letter referred to is located on p. 113.]
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank each of our witnesses for their testimony
today. We all know that in today's world, access is key to
reliability, affordability, and high-speed internet is critical
to daily life and necessary for rural Americans to not fall
behind. Whether it be telehealth, running a small business,
education, precision agriculture, all require connectivity.
In rural Iowa, I constantly hear about the need for better
connectivity in many areas. However, we also have a good story
to tell in other parts of rural Iowa where carriers have been
able to deploy futureproof networks that have closed the
digital divide for the communications that serve, like the one
being completed by Premier Communications throughout northwest
Iowa.
I am glad that we are taking the time today to examine what
has worked successfully in deploying rural broadband, and where
there are opportunities to make improvements.
Ms. Prather, as I stated, I believe it is imperative that
rural Iowans have the same quality of internet service as
people that live in cities. Like your company, many carriers in
Iowa have been able to deliver this type of service in rural
Iowa. You mentioned in your testimony that you use various
types of technology to serve your customers, but that you
prefer fiber, given its reliability to meet customer needs now
and into the future. Some claim that certain technologies can
perform at speeds that have not yet been proved, or based on
that claim, many folks, including me, worry that not all
providers who were awarded funding under the FCC's Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund will have the technical, financial,
and operational capabilities to deliver the services they have
pledged to deliver, regardless of the technology they are
using. This is why I joined a letter earlier this year to the
FCC to ensure that money from the Rural Digital Opportunity
Fund is used wisely and effectively.
Ms. Prather, as a provider who utilizes multiple types of
technology in your networks, can you talk about the constraints
to using other types of technology besides fiber in rural
areas, and how they might have concerns? Additionally, can you
talk about the scalability of futureproof capabilities of fiber
networks as demand for faster speeds and more capabilities
increase?
Ms. Prather. Absolutely. Thank you for the question,
Congressman, and thank you for your support regarding that
letter and that initiative.
I, too, have worries about some of the money that has gone
out the door and what is going to be able to be provided. As
you said, we utilize multiple technologies. I know what I can
get out of those different technologies today. You make a great
point about the reason that we like fiber the most is that it
can meet those demands. When we were hit with this sudden surge
and intense surge in demand due to COVID, our fiber network was
ready to handle it.
You make a great point about the reliability and
scalability. I have already talked today about how weather
affects our fixed wireless assets. We don't have that same
problem with fiber optics.
Another point is that whenever we need to change out and
upgrade some of those radios on our fixed wireless towers, we
then have to also upgrade every single customer unit. That is a
lot of disruption for the customer. It is also a lot of expense
that you may not think about when you initially deploy that
type of technology, but the ongoing maintenance is much greater
in some of those other networks.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Ms. Prather. I have one more
question for you, Ms. Prather.
So, when we look at Federal dollars that are going to be
used for rural broadband, my concern is that we use them in an
efficient way that we can put in the ground or use that one
time that they can serve for the next 20 or 30 years, because I
look at it as infrastructure. When we look at speeds, what
speeds are critical when you think out 10 or 20 years? I mean,
I am looking at 100 upload and download speeds. What are your
thoughts on the speeds, and when we start looking out 10 to 20
years from now, when we are investing all these dollars
federally, what do you think is the best speeds for those
dollars?
Ms. Prather. That is a great question.
I think we know how to predict this a little bit.
Currently, our speed and our capacity doubles with my customers
about every 14 to 16 months. So, when you look at 10 to 20
years, that creates a great amount.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Ms. Prather.
I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Sure.
Ms. Craig of Minnesota, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Chairman Scott, for yielding
and for holding this really important hearing here today.
I would first like to briefly ask unanimous consent to
insert into the hearing record a copy of the American
Connection Project Broadband Coalition's What We've Done:
Accomplishments. The American Connection Project Broadband
Coalition represents more than 140 companies and organizations
who are working together to bring high-speed internet access to
all Americans. It is comprised of a number of Minnesota-based
companies and institutions, such as Land O'Lakes, the
University of Minnesota, and the Mayo Clinic. Mr. Scott,
unanimous consent?
The Chairman. Yes, unanimous consent.
[The fact sheet referred to is located on p. 110.]
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Addressing the issue of rural broadband deployment
expansion and funding is one of my top priorities as a Member
of Congress from Minnesota's 2nd District. I am also a member
of Whip Clyburn's Rural Broadband Taskforce, and I am strongly
pushing for us to include a version of the Accessible,
Affordable Internet for All Act in our upcoming infrastructure
package. The proposal would invest over $94 billion to build
high-speed broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved
communities to close the digital divide, and ensure Americans
have internet connectivity to start businesses from anywhere,
learn and work from home, access virtual healthcare, and stay,
of course, connected to our loved ones. It is my hope that Whip
Clyburn's bill will again be included in this infrastructure
package.
With these comments in mind, I would like to direct my
first question to our panel on the topic of healthcare, which
we have seen during the pandemic is increasingly dependent upon
access to the internet. All four of you mentioned healthcare in
your testimony to us, and Ms. Robinson, you mentioned
specifically how connectivity enables healthcare facilities to
deliver critical virtual solutions throughout the community at
a time when physical access to rural health facilities is
declining.
Can you expand upon these thoughts just a little bit more,
and provide the Committee with a few more policy ideas you
might support to expand access to healthcare in our rural
communities?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you so much for the question. I want to
also mention that Microsoft is a member of the American
Connection Broadband Project, and so we support it because it
is super important as a way to ensure that we can continue to
invest in rural economies.
So, healthcare is critical and broadband is an enabler of
that, as referenced in my testimony and your question, we know
that many healthcare facilities are actually leaving rural
America, and people should not be penalized or suffer because
they happen to choose to live in a specific place and not have
access to first-class medical services. And so, from our
perspective, continuing to provide funding to enable use of
telehealth applications is critical, as the Committee and
policymakers think about how best to use and to amplify funding
that is going towards deployment of broadband. Really thinking
about innovations and applications in that space is critical to
ensuring that we can continue to meet the healthcare needs of
all citizens, including citizens living in rural areas.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, and of course, thank you to
Microsoft for being a part of that wonderful program.
I would like to just follow up with you a little bit more.
I know one of my colleagues really asked about how we improve
our broadband mapping. You argue that funding should be
prioritized to reach those unserved and underserved
communities, but that is going to require comprehensive and
accurate broadband availability data and mapping. I also happen
to sit on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the
Communications and Technology Subcommittee, and I have sort of
gone around asking why we have had such challenges mapping
accurately in the past.
But I have introduced the Broadband MAPS Act (H.R. 1044),
which would establish a taskforce at the FCC to help with
providing us accurate maps so we can make sure that the dollars
we are appropriating are getting to exactly the right places.
What else, in your opinion, do we need to do to help
improve the quality of our maps, and to really and honestly
determine which areas lack access to broadband?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the follow-up question.
So, continuing implementation of the Broadband DATA Act is
important, and we support your Act and anything else that is
going to get us in the direction of getting more accuracy in
those tools. I think critical to this effort is leveraging
multiple sources of data. It can't just be one data source.
States and local governments are great labs to show, and
oftentimes, they are close to the problem and can be an
important resource as policymakers try to map the gap, as it
were.
I would also say use the power of technology, the Cloud and
machine learning to be able to validate data sources that are
being used to evaluate the problem are critical.
Ms. Craig. Thank you so much, Ms. Robinson.
And my time has expired, so with that, I will yield back.
The Chairman. Now I will recognize Mrs. Fischbach of
Minnesota.
Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
just want to thank the chair for having this meeting today on
such an incredibly important subject, and thank you to all of
the witnesses for taking the time to join us today.
Access to broadband internet has become so much of a
necessity, and even more so important right now during COVID.
But also, it is important to the ag industry, healthcare, as
Congresswoman Craig was just pointing out, and to education and
to everyday life. And it is a necessity now, and high-speed
internet is a key to the world, and you need it to succeed in
today's modern world.
Farmers need the connectivity for their machinery and their
field work. Families need the connectivity for doctor's
appointments and schoolwork. Small businesses need the
connectivity to engage with suppliers and customers around the
world. And in my large rural district, the need for broadband
connectivity is very, very real. One in five farms do not have
access to high-speed internet connection. I even have
constituents that are out of range for both reliable cell
service and broadband connection. That is why I am glad this
Committee is prioritizing broadband, and I hope we focus not
only on investing in the infrastructure, but also making sure
broadband makes it right to people's doors. And it is up to us
to make sure that the programs are actually doing what they are
intended to do, and the taxpayer dollars are used wisely and
efficiently.
With millions of Americans still lacking high-speed
internet connection, this issue transcends politics, and so, I
appreciate that we are all here today hearing about what the
needs are for broadband.
But I do have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman, and Ms.
Prather, I have heard delays between when providers are awarded
the RUS funding and when they receive those dollars for
broadband deployment. Can you speak to some of the issues and
problems that may have been causing those delays?
Ms. Prather. Yes, ma'am, thank you for the question.
So, not being behind the curtain, I am not sure I know
exactly what some of those causes are. However, you made good
points about there is quite a lag, sometimes, between when
awards are given versus when they are actually dispersed. We do
feel like sometimes that has to do with reviews of the
applications, and so maybe the reviewing applications
beforehand can go a little faster. I am not sure if that is
because there is not enough staff to review the numbers that
they get in now that broadband has become such a hot topic, but
anything that could be done to maybe put a deadline on when
some of that money has to go out the door or those reviews can
be done. Anything that helps the planning of when we can
receive those funds would be very beneficial.
Mrs. Fischbach. Thank you, and Ms. Prather, so that's
streamlining the approval process, are there other suggestions
that you might have, because that is one of the big concerns I
have is that making sure that we have those dollars, let's make
sure we are using them properly.
Ms. Prather. Yes, yes, anything to be done to streamline
permits, anything that is done in an area that has been
disturbed before, I think there are streamlines that could be
done to maybe--to utilize past work and not have to reinvent
the wheel.
Mrs. Fischbach. And Ms. Prather, you mentioned in your
testimony the challenges of acquiring access to Federal lands
and obtaining the required review permits. We talked a little
bit about that for construction, but access to those lands and
construction. Can you elaborate on those challenges, those
particular challenges?
Ms. Prather. So, I don't actually have a lot of Federal
land in my territory, but other NTCA members do have those
challenges. Just the access, the permitting process, it is very
expensive as well from what I understand, and so, those delays
are just difficult, especially when they are trying to plan for
a shortened construction season.
Mrs. Fischbach. Well, and thank you, and maybe Mr. Johnson
has something to add on those issues?
Mr. Johnson. No, she made the point very well. That is very
true that these are costly, take a lot of time, and delay
projects.
Mrs. Fischbach. Okay. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank the
witnesses for their information, and I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. And now, we recognize Ms. Schrier of
Washington.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
convening this particular hearing. Broadband access is a
critical issue in my district, and in Washington State. In
fact, my district has a lot of rural territory, and these areas
do not have the same access to broadband as urban and exurban
parts of the district, or there may be a possibility that you
can't afford it.
In small Washington State communities, limited rural
connectivity for both internet and telephones means that
residents and public agencies can't reliably hold meetings or
meaningful public discussions. It creates a two-tiered system
like we have been hearing about where part of our country has
access to everything, information, technology, jobs, and the
rest is kind of left behind. And lack of broadband access has
exacerbated it by based on wealth or geography or even between
the haves and the have nots, and the pandemic has made this
digital divide even more transparent.
So, the free market didn't get electricity to every home.
It was the Rural Electrification Act in 1936 that brought
electricity to rural America, and likewise, we can't count on
the free market alone to get broadband to rural areas. It is
really Congress's responsibility to act, and that is why we are
here.
So, during this pandemic, we have seen how the divide has
played out in terms of education, remote work, and
telemedicine. It has hit harder in rural areas. So, that is why
I will soon be introducing legislation to create a year-long
competitive grant program available to established state
broadband offices with a goal of improving and rolling out
broadband connectivity. And the idea is to find the best ideas
and then roll them out to the rest of the country. And these
are things like mapping and data collection that we have heard
about, evaluating broadband costs and local community needs,
ways to use different technologies, increasing network
resiliency from natural disasters, and most relevant to today's
hearing, assisting underserved farmers and growers with access
to technology to increase productivity.
And so, I have a question for Vickie Robinson from
Microsoft. Can you share some of the partnerships that you,
that Microsoft has developed to expand rural broadband and
advance precision agriculture research and deployment?
Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, and thank you for the wonderful
introduction earlier, and thank you for the question.
For us, it has never been about connectivity, it is very
much about what connectivity can enable. And one of the great
things and what we see is a marriage between connectivity and
technology is to the precision agriculture opportunity.
So, by way of one example, I would like to talk about our
work in Washington State with Nelson Farm, where we have
leveraged the power of a Microsoft platform, FarmBeats, to
really provide data-driven smart farming by bringing together
the power of the Cloud and machine learning to actually enable
farmers to do better farming, so they can know how to monitor
soil--soil monitoring, and other planning, and it is all driven
by data. So, for us, this work is critical in rural America,
and we believe that not only farming, but other Internet of
Things applications are critical in order to meet the needs of
farmers, which are really the lifeblood of our community, if we
think about it, in terms of the food that we eat and the jobs
that are created.
And so, we would say do more of the same. We support your
proposed legislation as another tool in the toolkit as a way to
meet the needs of this constituency, and we appreciate the
space and your commitment in this work.
Ms. Schrier. Thank you. Ms. Robinson, I am so glad you
mentioned FarmBeats, because I know everybody on this Committee
is excited about precision ag as a way to really limit the
resources, whether that is inputs, fertilizer, water that we
need to have successful agriculture.
I have one more question, and I wanted to touch on the
important work going on in Washington State to provide free
temporary emergency internet access for Washingtonians who
don't have broadband service to their homes, and I know
Microsoft Airband has partnered with the Washington State
Department of Commerce and Washington State University on this.
Can you talk about this initiative and its success in
Washington State?
Ms. Robinson. Absolutely, happy to do so.
So, for us, in-home broadband connectivity is always the
gold standard, but in the pandemic, we wanted to be nimble and
be able to meet immediate need. And so, through the partnership
that you referenced, we were able to deploy hundreds of WiFi
hotspots so that you can use, what our anchor institutions like
libraries in order to get access that was vitally needed during
the pandemic.
They are also good from a resiliency standpoint, and so, we
will continue to do investments and believe it is a good tool
to complement broader in-home broadband access activity.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
And now, we will hear from Ms. Letlow, our newest Member
from Louisiana, for her very first question.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you, Chairman Scott, Ranking Member
Thompson, Members of the Committee, and witnesses. I am honored
to join this distinguished Committee and to have the
opportunity to represent the farmers, ranchers, and loggers of
the 5th District of Louisiana.
Agriculture is the backbone of my district, and is one of
the largest economic engines for the area. From rice to cotton
to soybean to corn, my district has been blessed with the
fertile soil to grow just about anything.
It is fitting my very first hearing is on an issue so
important to the 5th District and my state. In this day and
age, having a reliable and affordable internet connection is
crucial to success for businesses and schools, especially in
rural America. Bridging the gap on rural broadband connectivity
is a top priority that Congress should address on a bipartisan
basis.
Broadband access affects everyone, Republicans and
Democrats alike. In fact, I live in a rural area and see
firsthand the major challenges of not having high-speed
internet. The congressional district I represent makes up close
to 20 percent of the Louisiana population, covers the largest
geographic area, and represents a diverse economic base.
Recently, the Louisiana Governor created a purposeful,
statewide office of Broadband Development and Connectivity,
headed by Veneeth Iyengar. Veneeth and I have been
communicating about some of the most pressing issues facing
rural Louisianans.
In April 2019, a report to USDA was drafted evaluating
rural broadband infrastructure and next generation precision
agriculture technologies. In that report, the convergence of
broadband and agriculture was cited in reducing water usage by
20 to 40 percent for farmers, reducing chemical application up
to 80 percent, and making farmers more competitive in our
markets.
The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role in
bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules,
like many Federal broadband grants, are being rewritten to
reflect the pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband
access. However, I have heard that the application process is
quite cumbersome.
My question is to Ms. Prather and the other witnesses. What
specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
Ms. Prather. Thank you, Congresswoman, and first of all
real quick, congratulations on your new committee appointment.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much.
Ms. Prather. Like you, my area is very agriculturally
based, and every day we wonder about how we can help that
agriculture community thrive.
We did work on some ReConnect applications, and to be
honest, the biggest problem for us was that some of the mapping
of what speeds were available in certain areas was not
accurate. We did not have the time to do the necessary work to
prove what was available and not available, so for us, we were
unable to participate in those programs because of some bad
data that we didn't have a chance to fix.
So, anything that promotes a validation process would at
least help with that.
Ms. Letlow. Thank you so much.
Any of the other witnesses?
Mr. Johnson. I have added a couple of comments earlier on
yes, the application process could be simplified and
accelerated, perhaps by adding more staffing at RUS and USDA.
I also commented on the fact that I don't believe that the
speed requirements for the funding is adequate and future-
proof.
I also forgot to mention, the loan grant combination.
Grants are essential. The loan funding already having pretty
low interest rates is not as attractive as getting a grant, to
be real honest.
Dr. Park. Congresswoman, if I may, from my perspective, it
is very essential to have adequate speed, no doubt about it.
But think of the quality of life increased from having no
access to 25 meg versus increasing 25 to 100. And I believe we
should prioritize serving currently unserved regions. So, if
there is a choice between serving unserved to 25 and from 25 to
100, I believe we should prioritize the former.
Ms. Letlow. Great. Thank you so much to the witnesses.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Panetta of
California.
Mr. Panetta. Outstanding. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thanks to all the witnesses for your time and your preparation,
and of course, your testimony.
Look, ever since--well, in my limited time in Congress, I
can tell you one of the most bipartisan issues that I have come
across is rural broadband. I got to say, though, it is very
unfortunate that it took a pandemic to get it to this far along
in Congress, and I have to say that it is unfortunate that it
has taken a pandemic to highlight many of the issues we are
experiencing in my Congressional district. Obviously, we are
taking plenty of steps to try to address these challenges, from
San Benito County and looking at fixed wireless, to a small
town in southern Monterey County, San Gerardo. They gave them
hotspots but they can't do it because of the geography. Then
you have a place like Big Sur in which they can't necessarily
lay down fiber or wires, so they are pivoting to look at
satellites. And then you have a small town of Happy Valley up
in Santa Cruz county that were using the already previously
installed telephone lines, but those things are getting
degraded and dilapidated, and they are losing internet services
at this time. And then you have a town like Salinas that has a
lot of internet service, but not enough, especially for certain
communities, and that is why there was a picture that went
viral of a couple of kids outside a parking lot in Taco Bell
trying to link up their wireless to do homework, according to
them.
Look, I think we have to continue providing hardware to
schools for our students, but unfortunately, hardware is
useless when you can't have a signal. So, I also appreciate the
USDA for what they are doing in the ReConnect Program to bridge
the gap, especially in rural areas. However, the definition of
rural doesn't apply to a lot of areas not just in my district,
but in the State of California.
So, I think it is important that we have these types of
conversations because I do believe we are at a point right now
where we are going to see major investments in the next farm
bill, in the American Jobs Plan as well. But obviously, it
takes more momentum and this type of hearing adds to it, so I
appreciate that.
So, Mr. Johnson, let me talk to you. Obviously, 80 years
ago Americans decided that rural America needs to be
electrified, needs electrification. Give me your opinion as to
how you feel basic universal broadband would equal that
sentiment of the electrification of rural areas that we had 80
years ago.
Mr. Johnson. I think the sentiment is there, as you
mentioned in your earlier remarks. Thank you, Congressman. This
is a critical issue and I think generally agreed upon by
everyone involved and affected by it.
The need for it is immediately seen by electric
cooperatives. We are located in these spaces. We have poles,
infrastructure, rights-of-way that are already here, and our
members have come to us. In our case, our members came to us
immediately when I took this job in 2016. That was job number
one for me was what are we doing about losing our population?
What are we doing about getting access for teleworkers? And
with the onset of the pandemic, we saw that this was something
that was not just a like to have, it was a need to have, and we
were able to respond quickly. And I believe most electric
cooperatives are in that position.
Mr. Panetta. Great, thank you.
Ms. Robinson, my next question is for you. I introduced
legislation recently called the BOOST Act (H.R. 1362) to
provide tax credits for next generation broadband equipment to
receive wireless and satellite internet signals. However, there
are still obviously some questions about the reliability and
speed of those signals. How can we ensure new technologies are
reliable, and what have you found to be the most promising
outside of wired fiber when it comes to this type of
reliability and that technology?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question, Congressman.
So, in the first instance, I think doing things like Dr.
Park has alluded to, like test beds, is a great way to kind of
vet out and explore technologies. I think providing tax credits
to support that kind of effort to vet out technology is
critical to this space.
In terms of what is promising and what we see our partners
using, I would note that one of our partners, RTO Wireless, is
working with Dr. Park to use technologies like aerostats. We
believe that does hold a lot of promise for being able to close
the digital divide, but we also see things like Citizen's
Broadband Radio Service, low-Earth-orbiting, the possibilities
are endless. It is really about using the right tool for the
right use case, be it broadband or narrowband.
Mr. Panetta. Thanks again. Thanks again to the witnesses. I
yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, and now, Mr. Hagedorn from
Minnesota.
Mr. Hagedorn. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this
hearing, and thanks to the witnesses, and also, thanks to our
Ranking Member, Mr. Thompson of Pennsylvania.
This is a very important hearing. I mean, when I was
running for Congress and then wanted to be on this Committee,
one of the main reasons was simply to sustain rural America.
There are a lot of disadvantages out there in the rural
communities as compared to the bigger cities, and I think we
need extra attention and focus, and this is certainly one of
them.
Having access to the internet and broadband services like
this is just a basic infrastructure issue. I think we have
heard from many of the Members and witnesses that would say it
is nothing different than electricity or water or sewer or
anything else, roads and bridges. Because if we don't have this
access in rural communities--and I live in a small town of
3,000. We have a lot of rural folks in the farming community
around me. You don't have that opportunity for education,
business, and then, of course, telemedicine, which has become
so important, particularly to some of our elderly residents
that can't get out and about as much. So, I think if we want to
continue to preserve rural America and our rural way of life,
this is something that we have to tackle.
Now, I am very, very interested in the fact that these
witnesses have talked about the differences in some of the
broadband capabilities. I want to talk about that in just a
second. I do appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle really stepping up. This is a pretty bipartisan
committee, and this is a very bipartisan issue, and it is great
that we are all working together for this common goal.
But I guess I will start with Ms. Prather. If you need
broadband for really important things, telemedicine, education,
businesses that can't--have to be online all the time, should
we be striving for the fiber to get that last mile to the home
through fiber, and what are the basic differences between that
and the wireless that is available today?
Ms. Prather. Thank you, Congressman, and I just want to
say, I am coming to you today from rural America from a town of
2,500 people, so much like you described where you are from as
well.
That is a great question, and I do think there is a place
for all of these technologies. When we talk about test beds, I
think that is a great way to test these things out, but I would
be concerned about testing that out in a place that doesn't
have connectivity today, because should it not work out that
well, should it not be as reliable as a fiber optic technology,
we don't want to leave those customers behind even longer than
they have already been left behind.
You know as well as I do, in rural America, we don't have a
metro area covering our weather, for example. So, when we have
spring storms coming through, our customers are reliant upon
their internet service. I use Twitter to see what storms are
coming in the storm chaser reports. There is no other way to
get that information. So, I think it is really--it is public
safety and to have a reliable connection like that.
We also know that every sector of rural America is using
more and more connectivity, whether it is agriculture,
education, telehealth, everyone is expanding all at once. And
so, when you have a limited amount of resources to put towards
rural America, you want to use something that will last for
decades.
Mr. Hagedorn. I appreciate that. I mean, my experience in
getting around the district and talking with folks and some of
the companies that provide these services, and right in my
hometown of Blue Earth, you have Bevcomm and I know how
important they are to the local community and how they help
out. So, I think if we have an opportunity to choose whether or
not we are going to go with our local providers, the people
that can deliver that very, very high quality, I think we
should do that as opposed to maybe a company that is from far
away that really doesn't have that much interest in the
community, other than providing a service.
I mean, I think of Christensen Communications that was in
the Daily Minnesota about 8 months ago, and when all the kids
had to go to digital learning, all of a sudden there were a lot
of people in town that didn't have access to the internet. They
were capable of getting it, but they didn't. And that company
stepped up and actually provided it to them.
So, I think sometimes the rural electric cooperatives, the
local cable companies, and others are really going to look out
for what is going on in our small communities and our rural
areas, and the jobs that they provide are also important, too.
So, hopefully if it comes down to either/or, we can go as local
as possible. That would be my recommendation.
But thank you for your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, we will go to
Mrs. Axne from--Mr. Sablan from the Northern Mariana Islands,
you are recognized.
Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I
thank the witnesses as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing on this
very important issue. As many of you know, and maybe some of
you don't know, I represent the Northern Mariana Islands, which
is situated approximately 6,000 miles from San Francisco, and
maybe 8,000 miles from Washington, D.C., which receives
broadband through undersea fiber optic cables, actually two
fiber optic cables. The Department of Commerce, the
Commonwealth government Department of Commerce, published a
survey in 2014, a rather old survey, but about broadband usage
on Saipan, Tinian, and Rota. These are the three populated
islands. And at that time, even approximately 53 percent had
access to broadband, but seven in ten of the households without
broadband claimed the monthly cost is the biggest impediment or
deterrent to their having broadband.
This has actually been made worse in the pandemic when
schools had to go into virtual. We were able to locate money
and have MoFi or MiFi--the first time I heard of this word--
MoFi or MiFi secured them on boxes and they would go out to the
villages and that is when students were able to access the
internet.
But so now in 2021, cost remains the biggest deterrent to
broadband access, along with dark spots in connectivity and the
threat of typhoons disrupting the undersea cables and therefore
interrupting service. And as a matter of fact, a storm did
damage to one of the fiber optic cables, and we were with no
connection at that time for days actually.
So, of the five active USDA broadband programs in Fiscal
Years 2019 and 2020, the Northern Mariana Islands did not
receive any funding, and as you can imagine, we are talking
here about rural. We are talking, in my district, we are just
talking about completely rural, completely removed.
So, Ms. Robinson, your testimony focused on the fact that
one size does not fit all, and I agree with you. So, the
Northern Mariana Islands, along with other territories or the
States of Hawaii and Alaska, have unique challenges when it
comes to broadband. So, what can the U.S. Department of
Agriculture do to not only bolster infrastructure in the
Pacific, but also make it affordable, fill the dark spots of
connectivity, and provide futureproof--strengthen the undersea
cable?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
I think it is super important that the Committee think
about tackling this issue from two different angles, first from
a deployment standpoint, making sure that you use a variety of
different tools in order to meet the needs. You talked about
the fact that the cables went down. Having access to different
technologies is important from a redundancy standpoint so that
if something goes down, you have competition within the market,
you are able to meet that need and continue to ensure people
have critical access to broadband connectivity. And so, as you
think about funding deployments, doing so in a way where it is
technology neutral and optimizing first technologies that are
cost effective, that has a benefit of providing more tools
within a given geography, but also, it should help on the side
of the affordability, the actual service itself.
And so, I think it is important that the Committee think
about both sides of the coin for both the deployment itself
being cost effective, but also ensuring that you can build upon
things that are now focused on addressing things like you
talked about, the homework gap. And you now have a temporary
benefit and thinking about how to attack affordability from a
long-term, permanent perspective will be really critical as the
Committee thinks through, and we as a nation really think
through, how we get people not just access to the internet, but
actually connected to the internet.
Mr. Sablan. Yes, thank you. It is just, one of the islands
I represent is just 30 miles from Guam, and Guam, of course,
besides having more economic activity, Guam has the military,
and therefore, there is more ways for Guam to connect with
fiber optics through the ocean. As a matter of fact, our fiber
optics come from Guam.
But my time is up, so thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for holding this hearing.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sablan, and as you know, I am
well aware of your unique crisis and challenges in Northern
Mariana Islands, and certainly appreciate Ms. Robinson for
pointing out how we can approach your unique situation.
Now we--I believe it is Mrs. Cammack. You are now
recognized, 5 minutes.
Mrs. Cammack. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and thank you to all the witnesses for being here virtually. I
know it has been a little bit of a lengthy day, but thank you
for hanging in there with us.
One of the first action items that my office took on this
year was in-depth discussions with constituents throughout the
district and various stakeholders about this very topic of
rural broadband, and constituents have really shared with me
over the years how the gaps in broadband and technology have
impacted almost every aspect of their daily life. Farmers
struggle to implement precision technology. Our teachers and
students have struggled on the education front. People have
struggled to work from home. Doctors have struggled to stay in
touch with their patients, and small businesses have struggled
to deliver goods and services due to a lack of connectivity.
Now, at this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into
the record the following FCC broadband deployment map
illustrating my district's gaps in fixed wireless service.
Now, you can see here----
The Chairman. So ordered, thank you.
[The map referred to is located on p. 130.]
Mrs. Cammack. Oh, there we go.
The Chairman. No, I said so ordered.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
As you all can see from the yellow and lime green basically
covering this whole area that is my district in north central,
northeast Florida, that we lack connectivity pretty much across
the entire district and region. And according to the FCC's
latest broadband deployment report, over 90,000 constituents
across my district struggle to obtain basic access of speeds of
25/3. In fact, the town of McIntosh in my district has sadly
been recognized as the worst connected city in Florida. And in
2021, it is just simply unacceptable.
So, jumping in to some of the questions, I wanted to start
with Ms. Robinson, and I know you have answered this before,
but just if you could recap and maybe expand a little bit. In
your view, what are some of the key steps being taken to
produce maps that more accurately reflect broadband service
across the country? Because that is one of our biggest
challenges is just identifying the very basic baseline of how
can we get a starting point and measure success and quantify
it, moving forward?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for your question.
I think the first step has happened. Congress has passed
the Broadband DATA Act, which is a critical first step in the
journey to get a better view around what is actually the scope
of the problem that we are dealing with. Not only did you pass
the Act, you actually funded it. Congress has actually funded
that, and so now, the FCC is doing the important work of
actually implementing that Act, and we understand that they
have put together a task force that is really--will be really
critical to ensuring that they have multiple data sets to
inform their view around sizing the properties of the gap, be
it at the Federal, state, local level. So, that is important
work doing that coordination. And I would also submit
coordinating with Tribal entities and other actors as well.
There are also data sets that could be leveraged from the
private-sector. Microsoft itself has looked at this problem
based on our usage data, meaning the speeds at which our
customers are being able to have from a customer experience
perspective, download, or have interactions with our products
in the marketplace. And we see that there are gaps there. And
so, as we as a country try to get our arms around that, it will
be critical to bring these various data sets together, use the
power of the Cloud and machine learning to actually validate
inaccuracies, and then make that available to the public for
comment as well.
So, things are moving in the right direction, so I would
say more of the above, but also challenge to continue to use
resources from the private-sector as well as part of this
exercise.
Mrs. Cammack. Excellent. Thank you Ms. Robinson.
The next question that I have is for Dr. Park. A common
complaint that I hear over and over again is grants have been
received by different stakeholder entities within our district
and our region, and for one reason or another, the service just
never seems to reach its intended audience. So, these
municipalities, these different groups get stuck with this
program, and they are still left with no service. So, how can
we make sure that Federal programs don't trap customers with
ineffective technology?
Dr. Park. That is a great question.
I would say that, previously some of the technologies, I
mean, specifically with wireless technology, I don't think it
was lack of standard, first of all. There was no standard
established, and there was really no dedicated spectrum or
frequency for serving residents. But now that has changed, so
there is now LTE standard that allows wireless technology to be
upgradeable without doing further improvement on the customer
premises equipment, and with the CBRS, there is now a dedicated
spectrum that allows wireless technology providers to provide
services without interference.
So again, I think those innovative technologies----
The Chairman. Thank you. Your time has expired, but thank
you very much.
Mrs. Cammack. Thank you.
The Chairman. And now, we have Mrs. Cindy Axne of Iowa--oh,
and it is her birthday. Happy birthday to you. Well, Frank
Sinatra I am not, but happy birthday to a dear friend, Mrs.
Cindy Axne of Iowa. You are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for our witnesses for being here today.
No better topic to be discussing on my birthday than
broadband, something that Iowa is desperately in need of. I am
so glad we are having this.
I don't need to rehash exactly what all of my colleagues
are saying about the fact that we need to make sure that
everybody in this country has broadband. Listening to
Representative Cammack there in northern Florida, it is no
different than it is in Iowa, and of course, this pandemic only
exacerbated the issues that we are facing when we don't have
connectivity across this country.
I have had the opportunity to spend the last couple of
years working with the Rural Broadband Task Force to put
together our bill that is being included in the infrastructure
package to bring broadband investment of $100 billion across
this country and to address my colleague, Kat Cammack's
concern, also getting to those mapping issues. So, a very solid
bill.
One thing we have spent a lot of time talking about in this
task force is that we have to futureproof it to make sure that
we have got agreement with providers to continue to support it
so that nobody falls behind again.
As we look to investments like this, I would like to focus
a bit on how we can better coordinate and share information
across the Federal broadband programs. I think we have about 50
different programs right now, and we have state programs. I
spent a decade in state government actually talking about this
way long ago, and I am glad we have the ACCESS BROADBAND Act
(H.R. 1328) which we passed last year, of course, to help us
with this. But we have a lot more work to do.
And when I was working at the state, as I mentioned, the
lack of coordination across those programs was literally one of
the biggest issues that was so frustrating for us, to make sure
everybody had broadband, and I am glad that the task force that
we put together points out that we have to have required
coordination between Federal and state programs.
So, Mr. Johnson, I believe you said in your testimony that
your co-op has used FCC broadband funding, but not USDA's
programs. I am wondering if you could share one thing that you
think the FCC does well that we could bring over to the USDA,
and vice versa?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, thank you, Congresswoman.
The simplest answer to that, and most direct, is that it is
easier. It is simpler. The maps are generated in the RDOF
program by the FCC. They distribute them to everybody. They
specify available grant dollars that will be available, and
they conduct a reverse auction according to strict rules. It is
a fair playing field for everybody. We feel that fiber and 100/
100 service should be favored as it is, but the fact is the
application is much simpler. The process is simpler.
Mrs. Axne. So, you are--any thoughts on what the USDA is
doing or could be doing better, or is that the one suggestion
we should be taking from the FCC?
Mr. Johnson. Yes, I mean, there are others. Their loans
grant packaging is, relatively speaking, not as desirable to
us. The applications themselves give a point system allotment
to passing libraries, community centers, things of this nature,
and we are talking about rural here, so that is where--our
libraries are in the communities that are already served, so
putting extra points into a system where that type of farm
should be--perhaps get extra points, if you understand what I
mean.
Mrs. Axne. I like that idea.
Mr. Johnson. And I think the process is slow. The funding
that is granted, once it is awarded, it takes--we have a
specific co-op that it took over 500 days to get their first
money. That is too long.
Mrs. Axne. Okay. Thank you.
Ms. Prather, I would ask the same question to you. You
talked about providers spending 2 years and I think $250,000
just to get a loan from the USDA. Is that one of the biggest
things that we need to address is the efficiency of it, or do
you have other suggestions that we could move from one program
to another to help us?
Ms. Prather. That is another great point, and I would
second what Mr. Johnson said. It is a much more difficult
application process. We actually have some private loans
because those were much easier to get than going through the
full RUS process, absolutely.
Mrs. Axne. Well, thank you.
One thing I think everyone in broadband has heard a ton
about is the issues with mapping. Rep. Cammack brought it up.
The FCC is currently updating their maps, and there are other
efforts in states like Iowa as well.
Last question. Ms. Prather or Mr. Johnson, do you think we
could benefit from improving the coordination of maps we use to
determine where to put the funding, and could we get a really
good set of maps there that both the USDA and FCC and NTIA
could all use together?
Ms. Prather. Very quickly, I think using one definition for
underserved or unserved would go a long way in helping that
coordination, too.
Mr. Johnson. I agree. Yes. I think one agency perhaps could
be the clearing agency for all the data.
Mrs. Axne. So, if I am hearing you all correctly, we need
coordination in moving this forward. It will create a more
efficient and effective structure to roll this out across the
country. Is that correct?
Mr. Johnson. Yes.
Ms. Prather. Yes.
Mrs. Axne. Thank you. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, and now, Mr. Austin
Scott, my friend from Georgia.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I
want to say thank you to the people who are testifying here. I
am sorry that I had to step off briefly. I am on the Armed
Services Committee, and we are having a lot of discussions
about Afghanistan, as you can imagine, and I know other Members
are in those meetings as well, so just--thank you for
understanding what--some of the other things going on up here.
Dr. Park, you alluded to something that I think is going to
be a big part of our debate, going forward, and it is the 25
megabits versus 100 megabits. We have some extremely
influential people who have legislation to change the
definition from 25 to 100. Could you allude on what you were
talking about a little bit more, zero to 25 versus 25 to 100,
and the importance for rural America of keeping it at the 25?
Dr. Park. I am not advocating to keeping it 25, but my
point was that if we had a choice between serving a person with
nothing to 25 and improving----
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay.
Dr. Park.--the speed from 25 to 100, it should absolutely
be the former. We do not want to set a policy to hinder some
operators and providers to reach currently unserved people from
providing 25. Yes.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Fair enough.
Okay. So one of my concerns is we have watched an extreme
population shift from rural America to urban America, and part
of that has got to do with industry and jobs. I mean, people
are moving closer to where they work, and obviously, if you are
manufacturing in the United States today, if you are in any
type of industry in the United States today, access to the
internet is just as important as access to water, access to
power, access to labor, and so my concern is if you change the
definition from 25 to 100, then all of a sudden a lot of people
who are already served at that 25 megabits will take precedence
over people who currently have little to no service at all.
And so I think that is just a definition that we, as the
Agriculture Committee, those of us who represent rural America,
need to be very careful of, in that it seems like it is not a
big change, but when it comes to the money that is set aside
for rural America, and broadband for rural America, it is going
to make a lot of other people eligible for it, and my fear is
that it shifts the focus from rural America to areas which are
already served with the 25 megabytes a second. But thank you
for clarifying that. I think you have very interesting
technology with the blimps. And the tether--is the tether--does
the tether actually have fiber in it, or are you linking
wirelessly to a tower?
Dr. Park. Yes, it is tethered by the cable--fiber, so it is
fiber is connected to the aerostat, and from the aerostat there
is a wireless antennae--radios that is transmitting signals
down.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Okay. Fair enough. And so, Ms.
Prather, you talked about the middle mile. The Agriculture
Committee, in the last farm bill, we put language in there to
support the middle mile, and that build-out. Unfortunately, the
Appropriations Committee did not put funding in there for the
additional build-out of the middle mile. Could you speak to how
important it is in the build-out of the wholesale
infrastructure to rural broadband?
Ms. Prather. Yes. Thank you, Congressman, that is a great
question, and a very important part that we have not talked
about very much today. While it is important to serve those
last mile consumers, if you don't have enough backhaul to get
back to the internet at large, you are going to hit a roadblock
there, and they are still not going to get that service. And
not only that, but allowing companies to build-out maybe even a
redundant middle mile network can be very beneficial. We
actually hopped onto a benefit from another provider through a
different program that allowed us to have multiple accesses to
different internet presences. We go to Dallas, and we go to
Austin. So things happen, fiber gets cut. If something happens
between us and Dallas, all of our traffic can go to Austin. So
that is a very important part of the puzzle too.
Mr. Austin Scott of Georgia. Thank you all for what you are
doing, and, again, we need to watch the definitional change
from 25 to 100. I think that would shilf some of the funds that
have been set aside for rural America to have that build-out to
25 from the truly rural areas to the more metropolitan areas.
And with that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield the remainder of my
time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now, Ms. Alma Adams
of North Carolina. You are now recognized.
Ms. Adams. Thank you, Chairman Scott, and Ranking Member
Thompson, for hosting the hearing today, and thank you to all
our witnesses for their testimony. While my district is
substantially urban and suburban, I understand the urgency and
importance of this issue. Even in Charlotte-Mecklenburg, and
particularly in low-income areas of my district, we have
broadband deserts which don't have access to quality high-speed
internet. Our work here in Congress is helping to address this.
The City of Charlotte recently announced that it will be using
$3 million in funding from the CARES Act to make important
investments to promote digital inclusion and equity across our
city, so I know how important it is that we bridge these
divides, and ensure that all Americans have access to
broadband. And so, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you and Ranking
Member Thompson for convening the hearing today to talk about
how we can tackle these troubling disparities facing rural
communities.
According to the Census Bureau, about 30 percent of rural
America is comprised of historically marginalized communities,
and, as we know, the COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare inequities
across our country, and one such inequity is the disparity in
Americans' access to dependable and affordable broadband. This
particularly impacts our students, who have had to learn from
home, and our universities, specifically our HBCUs, and our
minority serving institutions, who had to get equipped quickly
to operate in a virtual world. So, given that so many of our
HBCUs are in the South, and are a part of rural America, it is
vital that they be included in any rural broadband
conversation.
Ms. Robinson, is there anything that Microsoft and your
Airband ISP partners are doing to address the needs of these
groups in rural America? In particular, I am interested to hear
more about the recent partnership between Microsoft
Philanthropies and the 1890 Foundation. So could you speak more
about that partnership?
Ms. Robinson. Absolutely. Thank you so much for the
question. From our perspective, working to connect anchor
institutions is a key way to actually extending out and meeting
the needs of the whole community, particularly when you are
talking about working and trying to reach historically
marginalized groups, and that is a key priority for us as we
build out and do this work in rural America. And so, as a part
of our recent partnership with the 1890 Foundation through
Microsoft Philanthropies, I am pleased to share that we, as a--
from an Airband perspective, will be working with the
University of Arkansas Pine Bluff to extend connectivity for
precision farming. And that is really exciting to think about
how--thinking about the mission of that--of land-grant
universities, like University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, to
show the power of connectivity, and support related research in
that space.
But not only are we working to provide connectivity to
enable precision agriculture, as part of that work, from an
Airband perspective, we also want to ensure that when staff,
members, and faculty leave the campus that they also have
access to conductivity because we understand that often it is
the case they may have connectivity on campus, but when they
get home, they are in a broadband desert, as you talk about.
And so, working through our partner, Aristotle Unified
Communications, we are excited about that work, and the
learnings that we will be able to take to replicate that across
the country.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Let me move on
quickly. To the rest of the panelists, what role do you think
1890 land-grant institutions can play in helping to provide
connectivity in rural communities?
Dr. Park. Well, thank you for that question. So one of the
unique roles that WHIN plays is by working very closely with
Purdue University. As we gather data, and as we work with these
innovative technologies and put them to use, we have access to
how it is performing, the data we are collecting, and we share
that with researchers and educators in the university, again,
to advance the innovation further. So I think it is a critical
partnership, as we move forward, to solve this digital divide
together.
Ms. Adams. Okay. We have about 45 seconds. Is there another
response from another panelist? Okay.
Mr. Johnson. We have cooperated with research that is being
conducted at Cornell University regarding the feasibility of
nonprofit developments in some of the hard-to-reach areas, and
we feel these partnerships, and this data, and this research is
very valuable.
Ms. Adams. Okay. Ms. Robinson, Native American communities
on Tribal lands have lacked reliable access, so can you speak a
little bit about that? You just have about 15 seconds.
Ms. Robinson. Absolutely. It is a key issue, and we have
various partners that are stepping up to meet the to expand
connectivity on Tribal lands, including Sacred Wind
Communications, who is serving access to Navajo Country in the
State of New Mexico, as well as Native Network, who is
extending broadband access in the States of Arizona and
Washington, again, specifically focus on closing the gap for
indigenous communities.
Ms. Adams. Right.
Thank you, ma'am. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman, I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you very much, Ms. Adams.
And I thank you for lifting up the important role that our 1890
land-grant African American colleges and universities are
playing. They are playing a very important role, and certainly
will be playing an important role in our efforts to bring
broadband to all of our rural communities. Thank you for that.
And now, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Yes. I would like to thank the Chairman, the
Ranking Member, my colleagues on this Committee, and our
witnesses for coming together to discuss such a critically
important topic. As a farmer myself, I know how important rural
broadband is to advance the future of American farming. The
agricultural industry continues to become more technologically
sophisticated, and reliable connectivity is essential to make
sure American farms can utilize new technology. I know this
firsthand.
Of course, American farmers aren't the only ones who need
better rural broadband. As our world becomes more
technologically centered, the digital divide becomes more stark
in rural America. The COVID-19 pandemic has particularly
highlighted this digital divide. In healthcare, Americans
increasingly use telehealth to access healthcare. Those who are
lacking reliable internet connections struggle to access this
option. Additionally, many schools closed their doors, and
started online instruction, and families found themselves
struggling to get their children online to do their work.
Eventually the pandemic will end, but the need for reliable
broadband connectivity will continue. I am committed to working
toward expanding broadband access, and I am glad to be
discussing this issue today.
Dr. Park, you described rural areas as digitally diverse in
your testimony. Can you explain that? It is a notion that I
think a lot of people might not understand if they have not
spent time in rural communities. How does that make rural
networks different from urban networks?
Dr. Park. Thank you for that question. So we all know that
urban is obviously uniformly dense, and can support high
concentrations of towers. The urban problem for broadband is
congestion of the network, right? In rural areas, broadband
service is challenged by areas that are sparsely populated,
with a few areas that have high numbers of population. And
density within the area could also change over time. For
example, county fairs last a couple of weeks, creating
temporary pockets of density that need service. There are--
migrant and seasonal workers come and go, and they bring kids,
and they need education. So, to solve this in the urban way,
rural networks would have to greatly overbuild to handle the
worst-case scenario. So we think a technology like an aerostat
can help, because it covers a large area with a fixed capacity,
but really does not care where the people are in the area, as
long as that total count remains fairly constant.
I would also say, again, IoT is another very important
source of diversity in rural areas, because agriculture is such
an important part of the rural community, and with the sensor-
based technology that needs its own connectivity on the
farmland. So the bottom line is that the rural connectivity
needs are not always what they seem to be. They are complex,
dynamic, and then don't really lend themselves to one-size-
fits-all solutions.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. And, Dr. Park, towards the end of
your testimony you mentioned the Indiana GPS study, and shared
some interesting insights from it, mainly that closing the
digital divide and accelerating digitalization are keys to
prosperity. Can you talk more about that report, and more about
what digitalization means to rural communities, please?
Dr. Park. Sure. So, that report came about in a very
critical time in the State of Indiana, and the key finding of
that report was that Indiana is actually lagging its
productivity compared to the national average, and its number
one recommendation to resolve that issue was digitalization,
meaning more of adopting technologies in farms and advanced
manufacturing sectors. How do we accelerate the adoption of
technologies so that these industry sectors can grow quickly
and increase productivity? And so, obviously, in order to
digitalize these industry sectors, we need connectivity, so
they come very much hand-in-hand with our state's new priority
of digitalization, and really making this infrastructure as
robust as possible.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Dr. Park, and I yield back the
balance of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And now Ms. Plaskett of
the Virgin Islands.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you very much to the Chairman and to
the Ranking Member for convening this hearing, and I really
want to thank our guests for being here as well, and sharing
some incredible information with us. This has been really
helpful as we continue the discussion of broadband deployment,
and how it fits in with the Biden Administration, and the jobs
bill that we are all working on right now to move America
forward, and to build back better.
I wanted to ask Ms. Prather or Mr. Johnson, can you talk
about the cost of broadband network deployment versus
maintenance? What are the resources most helpful to communities
or providers to ensure good network maintenance? I think
especially about, in my district of the Virgin Islands,
maintenance is so key when we have tremendous issues of natural
disaster and weather that may cause broadband deployment--and
not just the deployment, but eventually the maintenance of
broadband, to be problematic.
Ms. Prather. That is a great question, and I will take a
crack at it from our perspective. You bring up a great point
that there are two distinct costs with deploying quality
broadband network, that initial investment to get the network
to the consumer, and then that ongoing maintenance. These
networks are built to last for decades, and so if we have the
ability to make the business case for a service provider to be
there, and to continue to make those investments in the
customer service and the maintenance, that is what creates the
ability for a network to last as long as it should.
Mr. Johnson. I could add, if I may, thank you,
Congresswoman, that the startup costs for construction are the
heaviest lift. Operations, of course, will be ongoing.
Hopefully the business model will support by pricing, and
having the availability of extra benefit programs, like the
emergency programs and Lifeline, which should be enhanced,
would also help cash flow to these businesses. We operate at
cost to an electric cooperative, so, as a nonprofit, we have a
slight advantage in that respect.
Ms. Plaskett. Can I ask you, Mr. Johnson, in talking about
the startup, I know that this Committee has talked quite a bit
about how to extend broadband, but when I think about places
like the Virgin Islands, or my colleague also on the Committee,
Mr. Sablan, one of the concerns we have is that we really need
to support--incentivizing companies and others, particularly
private-sector, to deploy in communities in which payment costs
are not going to be as robust. What are some of the mechanisms
that we as legislators can put into some of this legislation to
incentivize, and to support service providers and others to go
into areas where it may not be as cost effective or profitable?
Mr. Johnson. Right, and I think that the grant approach is
the way to go in these situations, where high costs and low
revenue potentials are out there in the region that is to be
served. So grant availability is critical, and operational
expense subsidies as well. Otherwise, it can't be sustained. As
I mentioned, the affordability options, such as the emergency
broadband project, that should be made permanent, perhaps in
the form of enhancing the Lifeline benefit that is available
now.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. One last--another question I had
was the relationship between, in areas in which municipal
broadband exists, and it is there with ISPs, with internet
service providers, have you seen instances in which that
conflict sometimes, which naturally may exist, has been
overcome? And, before answering that question, I just want to
reach out to Ms. Robinson with Microsoft. It is been so good to
hear your testimony. I am excited about some of the work that
you are doing in Indian Country, and hopeful that you could
potentially have a conversation with those of us from the
Territories about how Microsoft can be supportive in areas
outside of the mainland. That would just be a fantastic
discussion.
Ms. Robinson. I would love to have that discussion, and
thank you for the question. I will point out that we are
working in Puerto Rico, so we are--and we are keen to work
outside of the mainland, in terms of solving this problem,
because we realize that it is a national problem, and it is not
restricted to the mainland, so we would love to continue the
conversation around what more we could do to expand broadband
access to the Territories.
Ms. Plaskett. Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you, and now we will hear
from Mr. Balderson of Ohio.
Mr. Balderson. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and thank
you for everyone being here. My first question goes to Dr. Park
and Mr. Johnson. Dr. Park, you may answer first, then Mr.
Johnson can follow. Are there technologies that we should
deploy in specific areas? Are there technologies we should not
deploy in certain areas? And final is, is it more effective to
use a one-size-fits-all approach, or should we be more granular
with our technology deployment?
Dr. Park. Thank you, Congressman, for the question. I think
it comes down to really balance, right? Fiber certainly has a
lot of advantages, as we talked about, but it does have
disadvantage of being costly, and also it takes time, longer
time, to deploy, typically. And so it is really about is it
more important to deploy in areas that are currently unserved
rapidly, right--I think the key is rapidly--to perhaps provide
25 mbps service, 50 mbps services using alternative
technologies like aerostat. And I am--I am not proposing,
again, one technology is--solves everything, so I think there
is a way to coordinate with local partners, because each region
has its own unique profile, its regional partners, and so we
have to let the regional partners work together to provide
adequate technologies to provide the service that is needed.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Congressman. Yes, I would urge
deployment of fiber. The FCC's approach has been to give
additional credit in bidding processes to those entities that
can provide faster service. We also need to look at the
reliability of the network that is being built. Many of these
other technologies, cellular as well, are dependent upon fiber
access. So, as the old saying goes, cellular follows fiber. So
that is the proven and robust tech that is out there. Would be
very long-term, and easily expandable for future needs.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you. My next question is for you, Mr.
Johnson. Your network is fiber network to some pretty rural
country. How did you decide that fiber was the right fit for
your needs, and what role did Federal systems play in that
decision?
Mr. Johnson. Right. Thanks, Congressman, again. Our
experience here was that fixed wireless was inadequate. We have
rolling hills, and lots of deciduous trees with leaves, so we
had latency and service interruptions, and the same applied for
satellite. We had weather issues. We ran a satellite broadband
business. We had people buying data--additional data, so they
were spending $200-$300 a month in some cases, those who were
high-tech workers, and those high-tech workers are exactly who
we want to keep in our region. So fiber became the default
decision, and the long-term decision, so that we could support
these other--perhaps other cellular towers, and other things
that may develop.
Mr. Balderson. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, I
yield back my remaining time. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you. And now I recognize Mr. Lawson of
Florida for 5 minutes.
Mr. Lawson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to
welcome everyone to the Committee. In the staff report, they
said that if millions of farmers, I guess in the rural areas,
had access to the internet and broadband, that it could
increase their bottom line by maybe $40, $45, $60 billion. And
to the staff, I need someone to explain that to me, because I
know for the last several years we have had issues with
hurricanes and so forth, and as Congresswoman Axne talked about
in the area about how they needed access.
I understand a great deal that--a little bit about
education, giving education outlets to them, but I am trying to
see if someone there can tell me, because most farms are
located quite a distance from other farms in certain areas in
what some people consider to be remote areas besides rural. How
is this access going to increase the bottom line of farmers?
And that is open to the panel.
Ms. Prather. Well, without actually seeing a farmer, I
can't tell you maybe the very specifics of it, but I will give
you an example. Like I talked about earlier, we have a lot of
dairy farmers in the area, and I know other agriculture happens
the same way. They are able to upload information to their
providers to make things happen much more efficiently than--
like you said, they are a long way from town--having to go into
town to talk about what they need. They can do all of that
electronically, and have instant access to their vets, to their
other consultants, to other resources. So they are not spending
as much time trying to do an information trade, but could make
it happen automatically. We also have cattle ranchers who are
able to participate in online auctions, so they can stay on
their farm, and do other chores and things that they need to
do, while still participating in the auctions of their cattle.
Mr. Lawson. Well, does anyone else want to comment on that
from the panel?
Ms. Robinson. I would be happy to comment on that, and I
appreciate the question. I think when we think about how having
access can be transformative for farmers is that, if you are
able to connect the farm, but also the farmlands, it enables
farmers to lean in to use technologies like Internet of Things
to do things like smart farming, data driven farming, that--if
there is--if you are able to do that by pairing connectivity
and technology, that can translate into improved productivity,
and your bottom line, because you are able to use the power of
data to marshal your resources as you go about doing the work
of farming. So I would say that in a very specific way, and
then just more generally, there is lots of scholarship on--
anecdotal information to suggest that broadband connectivity is
directly correlated to growth and improvement from a
socioeconomic standpoint when you have it in communities. So I
would offer these things as datapoints that may be relevant to
your question.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you. And I have a question for Mr.
Johnson. Mr. Johnson, you can recall how rural electric came
about all over the country, and the significant impact that it
had on many of them. And I guess I might have been one, living
in a rural area, because I could remember when we got
electricity, when my brother and I were staying up all night to
see what--when the light was going to go out, because we
weren't really used to having electric light, and it came
because of rural electric. What is the significant cost is
going to be to get broadband into all of these particular
areas? Now, there was a cost in getting electricity out into
rural areas. And I know my time is--but what is going to be the
cost to get it into a rural area, broadband, on the average
person who participates with----
Mr. Johnson. I guess I am not real clear on the question,
what the cost would be on a monthly basis, you mean, or an
aggregate basis nationwide?
Mr. Lawson. Well, it would be on an average basis for the
actual person, the same as rural electricity, how it came down.
Mr. Johnson. Right, yes. I mean, electric cooperatives, as
you know, operate as nonprofits, so we offer service at cost,
and that is our objective with our pricing, and that is why we
pursue as many grants as we possibly can to fund this
opportunity. Low interest loans are helpful, and that is what
funded REA, but this is a grassroots movement. Our members
demand the service, they demand comparable service to what is
available in urban and exurban areas, so we address their
needs, and do the best we can to get to them.
Mr. Lawson. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I
yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. And now Mr. LaMalfa of California.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate it, and for
our panelists here today. As is the craziness around here, I
had to step out for a while here, but I appreciate your
information you can impart to us here, just for a second, Ms.
Prather was--I think mentioned earlier about the--we were
talking about the challenges of acquiring the access to Federal
land in order to move broadband infrastructure in, and the
reviews, and permits, da da-da da-da, it takes forever. Like
doing stuff, as far as trimming trees on Forest Service land.
It is just a terrible process. So if you have any input you
would like--with us on how we can further streamline that in
the future, but I think that question has been posed today, so
I also wanted to talk about the--building things correctly the
first time, okay? Now, in the 2008 Recovery Act, we had some
missteps back then, so this is both for Mr. Johnson and Ms.
Prather, and--sorry about that.
So the Federal Government has spent billions to build
broadband, some of whom are still operating right now, and--so
we know that service could be substandard, and we know that
many are only a little--halfway--about halfway through their
agreements. So how do we step it up and make sure that
broadband, when it is not only on the way--that it will stay in
place, and at a good quality of service, through the lifetime
of the loan and the grant process? So Ms. Prather and Mr.
Johnson?
Ms. Prather. That is a great question, thank you,
Congressman. I think it is very important, like you said, to
try to tie that service to the life of the asset. If we are
going to put these assets in play, we want to make sure that
they are still available for their useful life over decades. I
think there are some really great ideas out there about tying
the length of loans and grants to what you are providing. That
goes along in hand with--what speed we consider unserved may be
very different from a speed that we want to build to. Just
because we have a certain minimum standard of speed--we may not
need to change that from what is being served, but why would we
want to build to that minimum threshold? So making sure that,
as we make more grants and funds available, that we really are
looking to the future, and building towards what we need.
I think your second point is excellent, about--we want to
make sure that those networks can sustain themselves. That is
an important component of Universal Service, and that that is
what affords an affordable rate over the life of that network.
Mr. Johnson mentioned Lifeline, the High-Cost Program, all of
those programs affect a different component, but work in tandem
to keep those rates affordable, and those networks sustainable.
Mr. Johnson. I would only add, Congressman, that I think
that--especially in the example of the FCC, regarding the Rural
Development Opportunity Fund, we need to vet bidders before
they bid. It is too late in the process to make an award to a
bidder that is unqualified, and is subsequently denied access
to the funding. We need it to be done ahead of time, ReConnect,
same thing, be it ReConnect, all the USDA funds, need to have
vetting before awards are made.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right. Thank you on that, both of you. Mr.
Johnson, previously there was a discussion about--a member-led
decision process could be perhaps more productive, or
efficient, so why would the members want to shoulder more of
this investment, especially as complex as this can be?
Mr. Johnson. Thanks, Congressman. Yes, the members see that
this is an essential service now, that--it has now gone from
what we previously thought maybe was a luxury to an absolute
necessity, especially with the onset of the pandemic. Many of
the kids were at home schooling, workers were put back home out
of work, unless they were able to telework. Patients needed
access for telemed, et cetera. So it is a grassroots--in our
case we saw grassroots. My directors spoke to me when I first
came on board and said, look, we have to solve this problem.
People are--tourists are coming to our area, are getting out of
their cars, and looking at their phones, and saying, good Lord,
I don't have a single bar here. So we knew that there was an
issue, and that is--the members demanded the action. We took on
what we thought we could handle, in terms of financing, and our
members have been ecstatic that we have made that effort.
Mr. LaMalfa. Let us stretch back on--Mr. Johnson, for a
moment to the USDA, and the Rural Utilities Service kind of
touches on one of my hot points with dealing with agencies.
Procedural barriers to working with them, can you elaborate a
little more on the barriers, and how we can address them, and
if there is still time, Ms. Prather too?
Mr. Johnson. Yes. We have seen procedurally barriers--
entity barriers in that we need more flexibility on the type of
entities that would qualify for financing. Most cooperatives,
of course, qualify, but we work with subsidiaries and partners
also that may not be the traditional form of a rural utility,
or a rural electric cooperative. And I pointed out some of the
application issues, that they are quite burdensome, and work on
a point system, require a lot of documentation and data
gathering that make those options quite expensive, and somewhat
prohibitive for small organizations.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. LaMalfa. Do you have anything to add on what you see as
those procedural barriers?
Mr. Johnson. On, procedurally, I don't have a lot more to
add on that, no. I don't.
Mr. LaMalfa. I am sorry, sorry, I was throwing that to Ms.
Prather. Sorry, Mr. Johnson. Thank you.
Ms. Prather. I think--nothing to add.
The Chairman. Just submit your question for the record.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I have given you a little extra time here,
but we want to be fair to everyone. Now I recognize Mr. Johnson
of South Dakota for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman,
and this is an issue of great interest to me. Before coming to
Congress I was the Vice President of a broadband engineering
and consulting firm based out of Mitchell, South Dakota. We did
a lot of wireless builds, we did a lot of fiber builds, about
8,000 miles a year of fiber optic cable, serving the most rural
communities in the country, so I have listened with interest to
what our witnesses have said today.
What is interesting is we talk about $80 or $100 billion in
some of these packages to deploy toward broadband. Obviously,
at the conceptual level, that is good news. It is welcome news.
We want to get America connected. As somebody who has been in
the industry, I have a little bit more concern about our
ability to actually deploy that in a time- and cost-efficient
manner, and so I want the take on some of the--from some of the
panelists about that. And just to give my colleagues on the
Committee some context, I mean, the first RDOF auction, which
really transformed the rural broadband industry, put a
tremendous amount of money on the street, more than $9 billion,
that really had an impact on people's ability to get a hold of
fiber optic cable, get a hold of wireless parts. It really
flooded the zone with a tremendous, and, of course, much needed
investment. I mean, as we talk about an investment, perhaps ten
times that large. Should we keep particular things in mind,
panelists, about the timeframe that should be deployed over,
and whether or not that is the most efficient, effective way to
do it? And I suppose I could probably call you guys in order,
or you will be talking all over one another. Ms. Prather, do
you want to go first? Go ahead.
Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think you
bring up some very good points, and you are right, the RDOF
auction has done a lot of good, but also does cause a lot of
concern. You are right in--we need to do everything we can to
get the money out the door so it can be put to use. One of the
concerns I think we have is that if you want accountability,
you have to have some sort of verification. I think we need
more verification on the front-end, that what providers are
promising to do we think they can actually do, and then we also
need that verification on the back-end to ensure that what we
have put out there to be done is actually getting done.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Do you have any concerns,
ma'am, about--I will be honest, I don't believe we could spend
$100 billion on broadband in the short-term without a degree of
waste, fraud, abuse, and inefficiency that I don't know that
Congress has the appetite for. Am I wrong about that?
Ms. Prather. No, I completely agree with you. I think not
knowing where money is going, and sending so much of it out at
once will cause duplication. I also think that a timeline issue
is going to be that supply chain, that if we can't get the
fiber and the electronics in to do it--or the radio equipment,
whatever it is, all of it is in a crunch now, and if we can't
get it, we won't be able to deploy it.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. Very good. Just going
down the witness list, and Mr. Johnson, your thoughts?
Mr. Johnson. I agree with much of what Ms. Prather said.
There are definitely supply chain issues, with your follow-up
question, that could affect everything. But I do know that many
of us have pre-ordered. Regarding, like, RDOF, we had already
ordered a lot of our--and have our equipment available and
ready to go, and that is really why we ask for faster
application processes, faster programming review, vetting of
bidders, and then let us say, for instance, RDOF, although we
were awarded RDOF money, and we knew we won our bids back in
November, we still don't have a dollar. So we need those things
to move on.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Yes. Well said, Mr. Johnson.
Ms. Robinson?
Ms. Robinson. Thank you for the question. So in terms of
how you structure the actual programs from a funding
perspective, I think it is important, if you want to talk about
being cost-effective, that you use a toolkit approach. And we
have seen that done--to your remarks, and based on your own
experience in the FCC's work as part of the Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund, but also the Connect America Fund II auction,
so that is important, using the right tool for the right use
case will be critical, because we are talking about finite
dollars. We have seen figures thrown out there, but we don't
even know if that actually reflects the real scope of the
problem, so being laser focused on being cost-effective, in
terms of the funding that is going out, and prioritizing speed
of deployment will be key.
I would also say, to your second point about concerns about
the sheer amount of dollars that are going out, it is important
to structure these programs in a way where you are ensuring
accountability, and not just on the audit side, but on the
application side, which has been raised by other panelists. And
so, I think if you are able to kind of bring those two things
together, those various factors together, that there is a way
to do it, but we do need to be mindful that the dollars are not
infinite, they are finite, and so we need to be precise as to
meeting the need--prioritizing unserved areas first, in terms
of where funding is going.
Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for
your indulgence, and, Dr. Park, if you have comments to add,
please submit them for the panel in writing. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson. I
understand Mr. Cloud is here from Texas. If so, you are
recognized.
Mr. Cloud. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much. I
appreciate the opportunity to be a part of this hearing. I
appreciate this topic, and one that we can find broad
bipartisan support on in general. Of course, the Constitution
provides for us, as the Federal branch of the legislature, to
make investments in infrastructure, so this is critically
important to what is going on, especially in these areas where
the initial investment is just going to be prohibitive, when it
comes to the free market, to make that initial investment. I do
think it is important, as it has been talked about quite a bit,
that we talk about the discussion of defining what it means to
be rural broadband.
Too often--we have the ReConnect Program, where 10/1 is
still considered broadband. I don't know anyone who would
consider that as broadband. Of course, you talk about going 25/
3, and it makes a big difference when it comes to grant
programs. Here, I will show you. This is basically where I
live. The blue is what is considered broadband, according to
25/3, but most people wouldn't consider that broadband. Their
experience at 25/3 is that, if you have a student who is doing
distance learning, someone running a business from home, and
maybe your ag workers trying to upload data, or whatever, that
you are going to--or if you have a neighbor who is streaming
Netflix, it is going to put a weight on what is going on. And
so this is the difference it makes when you consider what most
people would consider broadband today.
[The maps referred to are located on p. 129.]
Mr. Cloud. It is quite a difference, and I think it is also
important to note that when we are talking about 25/3 or 100/
10, that is really kind of the aspirational benchmark, in a
sense. That is what people are getting on a good day, when the
bandwidth is there, and often the daily experience is not that,
and--as was mentioned, because of the lack of accountability,
often, in providing service to meet those. And I know we have
indeed had major issues with that with our lone provider of
broadband in our community. They have become renowned in our
community for poor service, and poor customer service, and very
inconsistent technical service.
I am wondering how we can better prioritize the economic
sustainability of this, as been mentioned. Of course, coming up
with a business model that works--once we make that initial
investment, anything we can do to turn this over to the
business sector ensures sustainability. If they are able to
have a business model that makes it work, that is better. As we
all know, we are $28 trillion in debt, our interest spending is
about to outpace our military spending, so our discretionary
spending is getting smaller and smaller as each day passes. So,
first, to make that initial infrastructure investment, but then
there has been talk about turning this into a program that
would continue to be a burden on the Federal Government. I am
not sure if that is going to be sustainable nearly as well as
the private-sector would be if they are able to produce some
sort of sustainable business model. So I am wondering what
ideas that you all have for that. I know there are a number of
technologies that have been discussed when it comes to
satellite, when it comes to aerial sat balloons, when it comes
to, of course, the gold standard of us having fiber optic
cable. But could you speak to the technologies that are
available, and what we can do to--and empower a sustainable
profit motive in the industry? And maybe we start with Ms.
Prather?
Ms. Prather. Sure, thank you, Congressman. I think you make
a good point, and what we are dealing with here are rural areas
that do not have enough density of population, regardless of
the technology used to sustain that business case. That is
where programs that have proven successes, like the Universal
Service Fund, come into play.
Mr. Cloud. Right.
Ms. Prather. That is a self-funded program. And, yes, it
does need tweaks, but that helps provide that business case to
be there, regardless of technology, to maintain that
[inaudible] work over the life of the asset.
Mr. Cloud. Dr. Park, I believe you spoke to different
technologies that are available. Could you enlighten us as to
maybe some other options that are coming online? What should be
in that mix as we are weighing the landscape?
Dr. Park. Yes. So we talked about aerostat, but it is one
technology out of a lot of interesting and innovative
technologies coming in the pipeline, each of which have a
different strength and weaknesses, but one that is going to
prove out in the marketplace is the one that really is
sustainable economically. So I agree that we need to search for
the technology that is incentivizing private-sector that allows
the most for the rural region residents, as well as the
precision ag applications, to be there so that those incentives
are aligned to really make this business model possible.
Mr. Cloud. Thank you very much. I wish I had time to get
around to everybody, but, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
opportunity. Thanks so much for having this hearing. I yield
back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Thank you so very much. What a
hearing. Thank you. I think we have reached our all of our
Members. Is there anyone else before we adjourn? All right. I
can't thank you enough. I have so much to say, but what I want
to do is I want my Ranking Member to give his concluding
remarks, what a hearing. Ranking Member, I know you agree.
Mr. Thompson. I agree, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
for convening this hearing. It could not have come at a better
time. I thought our witnesses were outstanding, and quite
frankly, I think our Members were asking insightful questions.
The Chairman. Yes, they were.
Mr. Thompson. And, before I go too much further, I want to
thank all of our staff for the preparation, working to help us
prepare to have this hearing. They have done a great job. Now,
what we heard from our witnesses today is that the need across
rural America is great. We also heard about ways we can
simplify complex programs to improve access, and participation
by those providers and communities who we are desperately
trying to reach. Today's panel has left me with a lot of good
ideas for improving access to the assistance USDA provides, and
I hope we are able to work on those together.
As this debate on an infrastructure package heats up, there
is going to be a lot of debate around these halls around what
is in and what is out, which policies will save the world, and
which ones will ruin America. Now, just this morning I was
reading an article about the ``war over how to fix the
internet'' that talked about the lobbying and the jockeying
that is starting to happen here in Washington. Unfortunately,
this discussion happening light years--this discussion is
happening light years away from the people that we are actually
trying to help, the men and women in rural communities across
our districts. Truth is, we can't effectively make those
choices here. I want us to put the tools in the hands of people
like Mr. Johnson, Ms. Prather, Ms. Robinson, and Dr. Park, who
are living and working in rural communities, who are shaking
hands with the people they serve every day. They are the ones
who know best about what their communities need today,
tomorrow, and 10 years from now. I think the USDA has the right
framework. We built broadband programs during the last farm
bill which promote fast, future-proof networks that will stand
the test of time, but still recognize that every community has
unique geography and diverse needs, and that is why I am
pushing so hard for them to be funded. I believe their work
will meet the moment.
Mr. Chairman, as I said in my opening, you have been a man
true to your work, and I believe you called yourself the
Broadband Chairman, and I look forward to working with you as
the Broadband Ranking Member on the Committee that perhaps we
should rename the Rural Broadband Committee. And I look forward
to working with you, and all of our colleagues, in the coming
weeks and months to meet these challenges. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. And, first of all,
Ms. Jennifer Prather, Mr. Tim Johnson, Ms. Vickie Robinson, and
Dr. Johnny Park, thank you, thank you, thank you, for you all
have really opened out eyes to much of what we were only dimly
aware of what we must do, but we must do it. And I want to
thank my Ranking Member, I want to thank our Republican
Members, our Democratic Members, for their attentiveness, for
now, over a 4 hour hearing, and you all can see the enthusiasm
that our House Agriculture Committee has for this. And we are
doing a fantastic and marvelous job thanks to a great,
marvelous staff. And, Ranking Member, can you and I, and
Members who are left, give our staff a resounding round of
applause for bringing these witnesses to us?
Now, let me just say at the outset, folks, we have to move
on this. We have 24 million of our people not connected to the
internet, which means, in the rural area, we have our farmers
not connected to the internet. That has to change. Let me tell
you, I was just on a phone call last week with our friends
overseas in the European Union, and they are moving ahead. They
are looking at how we are lagging behind. And not only that, I
have done research. China is moving at a more rapid pace than
we are, in terms of internet connection. And let me tell you
something, China is after us. There is no mistake about it.
China wants to take our place as having the foremost leading
agriculture industry in the world. We cannot let that happen.
But the key to it, if we do not connect our farmers with access
to internet, they are not going to be able to compete. These
are not just any 24 million people. They are our farmers, the
heart and soul of our agriculture industry. We will not be able
to solve climate change. We will not be--our food insecurity
will be heightened. The quality of life in our rural
communities will continue to go downward.
Now, we must get together, and this is why I appreciate my
Ranking Member, because we know that we have to put together a
piece of legislation that addresses everything that we have
heard. There is nobody in Congress better suited right now to
provide this. With all due respect to our President, to the
infrastructure bill, that is wonderful, but that bipartisanship
is vital. We have that here, and that is why this is important
for us to lay the foundation. We have heard from you on the
level of money it is going to take. I think we should put that
deadline there to say that we can do this by the end of the
year, and put it out there so the American people can see.
I don't know what is going to happen with the President's
infrastructure bill, but I do know this. If we do not move
ahead right now and put together this plan, bring the money
in--we brought the experts in to tell us what to do, and what
it is going to cost. We have monies already out there that we
can consolidate, I believe. For example, President Trump has
put out $6 billion with the FCC. Where is it? We have money
going through the various pockets of the appropriation process.
All I am saying, folks, is that we have to understand the
critical nature that our nation is in with our situation, where
our rural communities are not connected to the internet, and we
are deciding right here today to be the answer for that. And I
want to thank everyone for coming and giving--the questions
that our Members asked were so on time, so everybody can see
this House Agriculture Committee is totally committed to doing
everything we can to make sure that these 24 million people in
our rural areas are connected. And my own personal goal is I
believe we can do this by the end of this year. It gives us 8
months, but we can do it, believe you me. With that, I will end
my remarks with a great thank you, and God bless you, and we
are going onward and forward. And I believe I have some things
to say to end, is that correct? All right.
Under the Rules of the Committee, the record of today's
hearing will remain open for 10 calendar days to receive
additional material and supplementary written responses from
the witnesses to any questions posed by a Member. This hearing
of the Committee on Agriculture is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:16 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
Submitted Letters by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in Congress
from Georgia
Letter 1
on behalf of steven k. berry, president & chief executive officer,
competitive carriers association
April 20, 2021
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Scott and [Ranking Member] Thompson:
Competitive Carriers Association \1\ (``CCA'') commends the
Committee for holding today's hearing on ``Rural Broadband: Examining
Internet Connectivity Needs and Opportunities in Rural America,'' and
respectfully requests that this letter be included in the hearing
record. As Congress considers a generational investment in our nation's
infrastructure, CCA commends policymakers for including access to
broadband as a top priority. CCA strongly urges Members to recognize
that the digital divide cannot be closed by fixed broadband services
alone, and to support ubiquitous access to mobile broadband services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ CCA is the nation's leading trade association for competitive
wireless providers and stakeholders across the United States, and our
members range from small, rural carriers serving fewer than 5,000
customers to regional and nationwide providers serving millions of
customers, as well as vendors and suppliers that provide products and
services throughout the wireless communications ecosystem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mobile networks and technologies support scores of everyday uses by
Americans today, with access becoming even more essential in the
future. As technology continues to advance, we are on the cusp of
innovations only imagined by previous generations. Mobile wireless
connectivity will be the technology that brings those innovations to
life. American agriculture, like so many industries, has been
revolutionized by technology and the growth of the Internet of Things
(IoT), which can only be supported by advanced mobile wireless
networks. Precision agriculture is creating opportunities for farmers
once unthinkable only a generation ago. Every stage of the American
food chain, from cultivation to consumer, will be enhanced by IoTs.
Smart farming, supported by widespread mobile wireless connectivity,
has the potential to change nearly every facet of farm life, boosting
yields, reducing costs and waste, and adding billions in value: from
planting and seeding, irrigation observation and management, pest
maintenance, and offer live-streamed crop fields viewing, real-time
data analysis, and remote livestock health monitoring.
Wireless-connected farm equipment is more precise in its abilities,
using mobile broadband connections to yield more accurate work product
in fields, structures, and pasturelands, providing the ability for
farmers to intervene remotely and immediately as they manage their
operations. It offers technological solutions to critical seasonal
labor shortages, allowing farmers more freedom and flexibility to
maximize their time and resources. Connected tractors and other farm
machinery can be remotely serviced by technicians trouble-shooting from
afar, rather than requiring in-person visits, saving time and even
identifying maintenance issues before they become disruptive problems.
Drones utilize mobile connections to monitor crops, irrigate and spray
fields, paddies, and orchards. Mobile telehealth is not just a service
for humans--the vital signs of herds and flocks can be remotely
monitored across ranchlands, in milking parlors, grazing fields, or
coops, offering real-time health and well-being statistical data to
farmers. Narrow-Band IoT (NB-IoT) sensors are being used to provide
more detailed weather forecasts, with data from the sensors compiled
into ``hyper-local'' weather forecasts giving farmers greater certainty
while conducting their operations and the ability to tailor their crop
management, labor, and supply chain more acutely. Autonomous vehicles
such as self-driving cars and trucks, will one day transport
commodities off the farm and on to processing and storage centers,
grocery stores and restaurants, relying on a seamless mobile wireless
connection to more safely and efficiently traverse from rural America
and onto urban and suburban centers, with tracking devices making sure
products reach markets with demand in peak condition. Farming in
America is quickly becoming as high-tech as any manufacturing assembly
line or distribution center, yet too often, America's farmers are
lacking the key element of this technological revolution: mobile
broadband connectivity.
Specifically, a lack of mobile broadband connectivity will hinder
the agricultural IoT revolution from being realized. The machines,
tools and devices being created for the future of farming, from the
massive to the handheld, are not intended to be static in nature. They
cannot run solely on a fixed connection, at any speed; rather they will
operate on the advanced mobile technologies being deployed by wireless
carriers. Even now, mechanized farm equipment is being adapted to
operate on mobile 4G LTE networks which can support many IoT
applications and will be the technological bridge to 5G.
Failing to invest in the technology needed to advance rural
America's agriculture operations just as we are on the cusp of a
technological revolution threatens to negate much of the investment the
Federal Government and private companies have conducted and committed
to in rural America. Policies that do not advance wireless deployment
in rural America curtail the future, because the future of products and
services across every aspect of American's lives will depend on robust
and ubiquitous wireless connections. Advanced wireless services that
connect the IoT will enhance education, medicine, finance,
entertainment, travel, manufacturing, homes, businesses, and
especially, agriculture. Mobile wireless is the only service with the
potential to connect all Americans with these innovations and can have
the benefit of providing immediate connectivity in areas lacking
service until other technologies are deployed.
Further, consumers are demonstrating that given the opportunity to
embrace these new technologies brought on by advanced wireless
services, they will do so. A Nokia market survey of thousands of IT
decision makers across the United States and the United Kingdom
revealed 77% percent of respondents find the idea of connected
machinery appealing and 5G mobile wireless is the preferred
connectivity by consumers for these technologies. Mobility will
continue to be a catalyst driving economic growth in rural America, and
any infrastructure efforts that do not ensure ubiquitous mobile
broadband could create a new digital divide of technological denial for
consumers as the latest innovations that rely on mobile broadband will
not function in rural America without connectivity.
The goal of connecting all Americans with broadband is commendable
and is rightly a bipartisan priority as Congress considers
infrastructure policies. To meet the moment of this extraordinary
opportunity to spur broadband development and provide all Americans
with services needed to compete for the next generation, Congress
should support mobile connectivity in addition to fixed services.
CCA appreciates the opportunity to submit our views and looks
forward to working with you and the entire Committee on these important
issues.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Steven K. Berry,
President & CEO,
Competitive Carriers Association.
Letter 2
on behalf of jonathan spalter, president and chief executive officer,
ustelecom the broadband association
April 20, 2021
Hon. David Scott,
Chairman,
House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.;
Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture
Washington, D.C.
Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:
Thank you for holding today's hearing focused on rural broadband
and expanding connectivity in rural America.
USTelecom proudly represents broadband providers, suppliers and
technology innovators in every corner of the country. Our broadband
networks have been resilient and fully capable of carrying the surge in
high bandwidth traffic during the last year, but this means little to
the millions who lack broadband access or simply cannot afford service
in the first place. We all must recognize the digital divide is not
solely an issue of access, but of affordability and adoption as well.
Like you, we believe there is still much work ahead to achieve our
shared goal of universal and affordable connectivity for all in
America. Even as the cost of broadband in the United States is
decreasing--too many still remain without broadband connectivity. That
is why we applaud the initial emergency broadband program that Congress
has passed--and urge you to pursue even bolder and bigger steps to
provide support on a long-term basis after the pandemic passes.
It is critical to engage across all sectors--public, private, and
nonprofit--to ensure support to help all unserved communities get and
stay connected. We can start with the estimated 17 million school-age
children who have no broadband connection at home.
USTelecom and our members are staunch advocates for the critical
direct spending on broadband infrastructure, as well as the important
Federal investments in broadband over the past few months that can help
achieve our shared goal of universal connectivity. This will only
happen if funding is spent with precision and coordination among all
Federal and state government agencies.
As Congress considers additional resources in high cost and
otherwise unserved parts of our country, we respectfully believe more
can be done to avoid waste and prevent overbuilding existing support
programs so that every new dollar reaches truly unserved communities in
rural America as efficiently and quickly as possible.
Three areas where we encourage the Committee to continue to focus
include:
Updated and Data Driven, 21st Century Broadband Maps
Thanks to the Broadband DATA Act, updating and modernizing our
nation's broadband coverage maps is currently underway and incremental
results should be available from the FCC later this year. We know many
of the Americans that lack broadband do not appear on any map today,
simply because their neighbor has service available. This updated map
must guide the distribution of all of the historic and essential
funding Congress has approved to reach the unconnected--including those
carried out by the states. Duplicative mapping efforts are
counterproductive and costly.
Stringent Interagency Coordination
The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce and the
Federal Communications Commission, along with various stimulus grants
over the years, have prioritized serving the highest number of eligible
locations possible through their broadband programs. While this goal
seems like a good one, the reality is it often results in funding the
same locations over and over again while leaving remaining unconnected
locations without connectivity.
To ``avoid'' overbuilding, each program continually changes the
definition of unserved, based on an ever increasing minimum speed
requirement. By doing so, new programs can essentially overbuild the
same locations covered by previous programs by simply upgrading speeds
to the locations that are less expensive and easier to serve. The fast
connections get faster while the unconnected stay unconnected.
Truly closing the digital divide means first connecting the
unconnected. To accomplish this goal, we must ensure that all
government broadband programs, both Federal and state, are using the
same sets of data and uniform minimum speed requirements when
identifying unconnected locations. Explicit and binding interagency
coordination is critical in this regard, as is ensuring the efficient
allocation of funds by avoiding funding duplication.
Public-Private Partnerships
We hope the Committee will focus on what we know is the most
efficient and proven way to allocate our finite resources and produce
connectivity results: public-private partnerships to connect
communities, particularly in rural parts of our country. Recent policy
proposals are pushing a bigger role for government, municipalities and
certain nonprofit cooperative organizations in solely running the
country's networks--even beyond areas where there are recognized access
gaps.
Putting government's thumb on the scale in favor of government-run
networks is the wrong approach to universal connectivity. Broadband
deployment is hard and expensive work, and the cost of maintaining and
upgrading state-of-the-art communications networks to meet modern
performance demands can strain taxpayer funds. The surest way for
government to help finish the connectivity job is by deepening its
partnership with private broadband innovators to serve communities
(already happening everyday all over the country, by the way) while
lowering the barriers to deployment that saddle projects with red tape
and wasteful delays.
Broadband plays an essential role in any plan to lift our families,
neighbors, and enterprises up and move our nation forward. USTelecom
members are committed to continuing to work side-by-side with you, and
with partners throughout government to build and invest in these
networks, and bring high-speed broadband deeper into all corners of
America. We look forward to working with you and the Committee to
ensure all in America are connected to the power and potential we know
our world-class communications infrastructure delivers.
Sincerely,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Jonathan Spalter.
______
Joint Submitted Letter by Hon. David Scott, a Representative in
Congress from Georgia; Hon. Glenn Thompson, a Representative in
Congress from Pennsylvania; on Behalf of James D. Ogsbury, Executive
Director,
Western Governors' Association
April 21, 2021
Hon. David Scott, Hon. Glenn Thompson,
Chairman, Ranking Minority Member,
House Committee on Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture,
Washington, D.C.; Washington, D.C.
Dear Chair Scott and Ranking Member Thompson:
In light of the Committee's April 20, 2021 hearing on internet
connectivity needs and opportunities in rural America, attached please
find Western Governors' Association (WGA) Policy Resolution 2020-08,
Broadband Connectivity.
In the policy resolution, Western Governors highlight the
importance of high-speed internet for rural communities and discuss
infrastructure challenges that complicate broadband deployment in the
West. To address these issues, the Governors recommend improvements in
broadband data and mapping and investments in scalable infrastructure.
I request that you include this document in the permanent record of
the hearing, as it articulates Western Governors' policy positions and
recommendations on this important issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. Please contact me
if you have any questions or require further information. In the
meantime, with warm regards and best wishes, I am
Respectfully,
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
James D. Ogsbury,
Executive Director.
attachment
Policy Resolution 2020-08
Broadband Connectivity
A. Background
1. High-speed internet, commonly referred to as ``broadband,'' \1\
is the critical infrastructure of the 21st century and a
modern-day necessity for businesses, individuals, schools
and government. Many rural western communities lack the
business case for private broadband investment due to the
high cost of infrastructure and the low number of customers
in potential service areas. This has left many rural
businesses and citizens at a competitive disadvantage
compared to those urban and suburban areas with robust
broadband access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal Communications Commission defines fixed
``broadband'' as service offering minimum speeds of 25 Megabits per
second (Mbps) down and 3 Mbps up.
2. Broadband connectivity promotes economic prosperity and
diversity. Broadband connectivity is a key element of
innovations in precision agriculture, telehealth, remote
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
work and distance learning across the West.
3. Many broadband applications that promote rural, economic and
community prosperity rely on speeds greater than 25/3 Mbps.
This is especially true for functions that upload large
amounts of data, such as telehealth, e-learning and
business applications.
4. Western states have unique factors that make planning, siting and
maintaining broadband infrastructure especially challenging
and costly. These include vast distances between
communities, challenging terrain, sparse middle mile and
long-haul fiber-optic cable, and the need to permit and
site infrastructure across Federal, state, Tribal and
private lands. Alaska, Hawaii, and the U.S. territories
face particular broadband deployment challenges due to
factors involving distance, cost and applicable
technologies.
5. Western Governors and states are taking significant action to
accelerate broadband deployment in rural communities. These
actions include direct investment of state funds, reduction
of regulatory hurdles, and promotion of public-private
partnerships to deliver digital connectivity to unserved
and underserved areas.
6. Many western states have sought to expedite broadband
infrastructure deployment by adopting ``Dig Once''
policies, granting non-exclusive and non-discriminatory
access to rights-of-way and facilitating efficient ``co-
location'' of new broadband infrastructure on existing
structures.
7. A number of Federal agencies directly support rural broadband
deployment projects and data collection in western states.
These include the Federal Communications Commission (FCC),
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
and Economic Development Administration.
8. Federal land management agencies, particularly the U.S. Forest
Service (USFS), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), play a crucial role in permitting
and siting broadband infrastructure in western states.
9. Both the Department of the Interior (DOI) and USFS recently
launched online mapping platforms identifying
telecommunications infrastructure sites on Federal lands.
This information can be used to inform private and public
broadband infrastructure investments.
10. High-quality data is necessary to ensure that public broadband
deployment efforts are cost-effective and prioritize areas
that either wholly or significantly lack access. Under its
current Form 477 reporting protocols, the FCC considers a
census block ``served'' if a single residence in the block
has access to broadband. This practice overstates broadband
availability in larger, rural census blocks common in
western states. The FCC's use of ``maximum advertised,''
not ``actual,'' speeds when mapping broadband coverage
further distorts reporting on the service customers
receive.
11. Whether or not an area is considered ``served'' has significant
effects on its eligibility for Federal broadband
infrastructure support. Inaccurate or overstated data
prevents businesses, local governments, and other entities
from applying for and securing Federal funds to assist
underserved or unserved communities.
12. S. 1822, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
Availability (DATA) Act (Pub. L. 116-130), was enacted in
March 2020. This law requires the FCC to change the way
broadband data is collected, verified, and reported.
Specifically, the FCC must collect and disseminate granular
broadband service availability data from wired, fixed-
wireless, satellite, and mobile broadband providers. The
FCC is required to establish the Broadband Serviceable
Location Fabric, a dataset of geocoded information for all
broadband service locations, atop which broadband maps are
overlaid, to report broadband service availability data.
13. Given the number of Federal agencies and programs involved in
supporting rural broadband deployment, it can be
challenging for small, rural providers and communities to
identify and pursue appropriate deployment opportunities.
Businesses, local governments, electric and telephone
cooperatives, Tribes and other rural entities can also face
burdens in applying for and managing Federal funds. These
barriers include areas being incorrectly identified as
``served'' on broadband coverage maps, excessive
application and reporting procedures, and significant match
or cash-on-hand requirements.
14. Wireless spectrum is a valuable resource that can help support
innovative and cost-effective connectivity solutions in
western states.
15. Internet Exchange Points (IXPs) are vital elements of Internet
infrastructure that enable networks to exchange traffic
with each other. IXPs help promote low-cost data
transmission and improved overall local Internet
performance in the areas in which they are located.
16. Electric and telephone cooperatives have invested in broadband
infrastructure across the West. In certain states, these
cooperatives are the entities principally providing
broadband to rural communities, often at relatively low
costs to their members.
17. The FCC's 2020 Broadband Deployment Report estimates that 27.7
percent of Americans residing in Tribal lands lack fixed
terrestrial broadband coverage, compared to 22.3 percent of
Americans in rural areas and 1.5 percent in urban areas. A
2018 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report \2\
asserts that the FCC overstates broadband coverage on
Tribal lands.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Government Accountability Office: FCC's Data Overstate Access
on Tribal Lands. September 2018.
18. Tribal Nations, the majority of which are in western states, face
many barriers to the deployment of communications services.
These include rural, remote and rugged terrain; areas that
are not connected to a road system; minimal access to
middle mile and long-haul fiber-optic cable; and difficulty
in obtaining rights-of-way to deploy infrastructure across
some Tribal lands. These factors can all increase the cost
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
of installing, maintaining, and upgrading infrastructure.
19. Tribal Nations also face challenges securing funds through
Federal broadband deployment programs. A separate 2018 GAO
Report \3\ included a review of four Federal broadband
programs (three FCC, one USDA), and found that from 2010 to
2017, less than one percent of funding has gone directly to
Tribes or Tribally owned providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Government Accountability Office: Few Partnerships Exist and
the Rural Utilities Service Needs to Identify and Address Any Funding
Barriers Tribes Face. September 2018.
20. Access to wireless spectrum is another crucial issue for Tribal
Nations. In February 2020, the FCC opened a priority filing
window for rural Tribes to access 2.5 GHz spectrum in
advance of an upcoming spectrum auction. This spectrum is
well-suited to provide low-cost broadband service in rural
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
areas.
21. Federal programs often direct broadband infrastructure funding to
community anchor institutions such as schools, libraries
and health centers. These anchor institutions can help
leverage additional public and private investments in
surrounding rural areas. Holistic funding approaches that
support infrastructure deployment ``to and through''
community anchor institutions can help promote connectivity
for students, patients and community members.
22. Western Governors appreciate USDA Rural Development's efforts to
promote broadband connectivity across the rural West.
USDA's many offerings, including the ReConnect Program,
Community Connect Grants, and Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Grants, all help promote prosperity and
quality of life in western states.
23. Western Governors have provided significant feedback on the
design of the ReConnect program, launched in December 2018.
Notably, Western Governors recommended that the ReConnect
Program, ``prioritize communities that either wholly or
severely lack access to broadband,'' and, ``reward project
applications that will deliver speeds that ensure rural
communities can prosper now and into the future as their
data transmission needs expand.''
24. The ReConnect Program contains a requirement that areas
designated to receive support through the FCC's Connect
America Fund Phase II (CAF-II) can only pursue ReConnect
funding through the entity that is receiving CAF-II
support. This restriction limits deployment of adequate
broadband capability in many rural areas.
25. The COVID-19 pandemic has amplified the importance of reliable
broadband connectivity as businesses, schools and health
care systems have transitioned to digital platforms and
practices. The transition to digital learning has been
particularly difficult for many rural and low-income
communities and K-12 schools due to lack of broadband
connectivity at home. Western states have employed creative
strategies to address student connectivity and ``homework
gap'' issues within our communities. These efforts include
using parking lots and school and transit buses to launch
public [WiFi] hotspots.
B. Governors' Policy Statement
1. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
recognize that the current definition of broadband--25/3
Mbps--does not correspond with the requisite download and
upload speeds necessary to support many business, education
and health care applications that promote economic and
community prosperity. We support efforts to adopt a higher,
scalable standard that more accurately reflects modern
innovations and bandwidth demands.
2. Regulations affecting broadband infrastructure permitting and
siting vary by state and can create additional obstacles to
private and public investment. Where possible, Western
Governors should work together to minimize this barrier.
3. Western Governors recommend the FCC, USDA and other Federal
agencies involved in broadband deployment pursue strong
partnerships with Governors and state agencies. Improved
coordination related to broadband coverage data collection
and verification and public investment can help ensure that
public funds are directed to areas in most need of
assistance.
4. Western Governors encourage the BLM, BIA and USFS to pursue
strategies to prioritize reviews for broadband
infrastructure permits on Federal lands. We support efforts
to improve permitting timelines for broadband
infrastructure co-located with existing structures and
other linear infrastructure, such as roads, transmission
lines and pipelines. We encourage improved planning and
permitting coordination between public lands management
agencies, as telecommunications projects in western states
can cross multiple Federal lands jurisdictions. DOI and
USFS's online mapping platforms identifying
telecommunications infrastructure sites on their lands will
be helpful tools to accomplish this goal.
5. Western Governors are encouraged that new data and mapping
platforms established by the Broadband DATA Act (Pub. L.
116-130) incorporate state-level data wherever possible.
State broadband offices and representatives can offer
invaluable information and on-the-ground perspectives
regarding broadband coverage in western states. We
encourage Congress to provide the FCC with the necessary
funds to implement the Act.
6. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
address application barriers for businesses, local
governments, cooperatives, Tribes and other entities
involved with broadband deployment in rural communities.
7. Western Governors appreciate the USDA and the FCC's efforts to
promote on-farm connectivity and the growth of the
precision agriculture sector. We encourage both agencies to
engage with Governors' offices, state broadband
representatives and state departments of agriculture as
they pursue policy and program initiatives to support
advanced agriculture technology development and adoption.
8. Western Governors recommend that adequate wireless spectrum be
allocated to support advanced and emerging agricultural
technologies.
9. Western Governors emphasize the growing importance of IXPs in
promoting cost-effective, reliable broadband service in
rural areas. We encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
promote investment in rural IXPs via applicable broadband
deployment programs, legislative proposals addressing
infrastructure, and other methods.
10. Western Governors encourage Federal agencies to continue
expanding the eligibility of electric and telephone
cooperatives to pursue USDA and FCC broadband deployment
program support, as cooperatives' existing infrastructure
and access to rights-of-way can help promote low-cost
connectivity solutions for rural communities.
11. Western Governors urge Federal agencies and Congress to pursue
policy, programmatic and fiscal opportunities to improve
broadband connectivity on Tribal lands. This includes
designing Federal programs in a way that promotes
partnerships between Tribes, states and various broadband
providers. We recommend that Federal broadband programs
allocate a designated portion of their available funding to
supporting projects on Tribal lands.
12. Western Governors encourage Congress and Federal agencies to
leverage community anchor institutions in rural communities
to spur connectivity to surrounding areas. We support
efforts to advance ``to and through'' policies that provide
flexibility to incentivize additional private or public
broadband infrastructure investment beyond connected
community anchor institutions.
13. Western Governors encourage USDA to address the ReConnect Program
eligibility criteria related to areas designated to receive
satellite support through the FCC's CAF-II auction. This
will enable many communities to pursue ReConnect
connectivity solutions that will support increased data
transmission needs into the future.
14. Western Governors request that FCC, USDA and other Federal
entities prioritize scalable broadband infrastructure
investments that meet communities' increased bandwidth
demands into the future. Funds for equipment maintenance
and upgrades are essential to ensure Federal broadband
investments continue to provide high-quality service.
15. Western Governors request that Congress and the FCC leverage
states' on-the-ground expertise by providing substantial
block grant funds to address rural connectivity challenges.
We support the use of state block grant funds to address
general broadband infrastructure issues and respond to
connectivity challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic.
16. Western Governors support efforts to promote flexibility within
the FCC's E-Rate Program in order to deliver home
connectivity solutions for unserved and underserved
students, and respond to connectivity issues associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic. We encourage the FCC to support
bus [WiFi] and other creative efforts that seek to address
the homework gap.
C. Governors' Management Directive
1. The Governors direct WGA staff to work with Congressional
committees of jurisdiction, the Executive Branch, and other
entities, where appropriate, to achieve the objectives of
this resolution.
2. Furthermore, the Governors direct WGA staff to consult with the
Staff Advisory Council regarding its efforts to realize the
objectives of this resolution and to keep the Governors
apprised of its progress in this regard.
Western Governors enact new policy resolutions and amend
existing resolutions on a bi-annual basis. Please consult
www.westgov.org/resolutions for the most current copy of a
resolution and a list of all current WGA policy resolutions.
______
Submitted Statement by Hon. Jim Costa, a Representative in Congress
from California; on Behalf of Hon. Jonathan S. Adelstein, President and
Chief
Executive Officer, Wireless Infrastructure Association
The Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA) is the principal
organization representing the companies that build, develop, own, and
operate wireless facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our
members include infrastructure providers, wireless carriers, equipment
manufacturers, and professional services firms. WIA is focused on
ensuring that the infrastructure is in place to make 5G a reality. Our
mission is to enable wireless broadband access everywhere. The wireless
industry is committed to making 5G wireless broadband available to more
Americans than ever before and appreciates the support of Congress to
expedite deployment, especially given the unprecedented COVID-19
crisis.
The United States has led the world in mobile wireless
communications, having won the race to 4G. This victory was made
possible by a strong, unified commitment between industry and
government to deliver greater connectivity across the country and spur
American technological innovation. Now, it will again take continued,
dedicated efforts by both the wireless industry and the Federal
Government for the U.S. to ensure that all communities are able to reap
the benefits of robust wireless services. Congress and the FCC have
already taken great strides to promote the deployment of mobile
broadband, but additional help is needed.
I commend this Committee for its focus on rural connectivity. Rural
access continues to be a challenge, and I know this all too well having
previously served as the Administrator of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service. During my tenure, we made
historic investments for deploying broadband in rural America, but much
work remains. Increased investments, developing accurate coverage maps,
and reducing regulatory costs will all help to bring better broadband
to more communities.
This Committee has an extraordinary opportunity to ensure
connectivity to all communities. As Congress drafts an infrastructure
bill, it should ensure that funds can be used for operational expenses,
such as leases, as well as capital expenses; infrastructure can be
deployed expeditiously; and recipients are held accountable for
outcomes. It should be truly technology neutral with the end in mind:
building infrastructure with the most cost-efficient means to get the
most bandwidth to the most consumers.
Most critically, it needs to include mobile 5G broadband, or
Congress could inadvertently grow a rural mobility digital divide in
which many rural residents would be limited to accessing the internet
through a wired connection in the home or farmhouse. This situation
would lead to many of the same problems we are seeing in rural
communities today. All broadband technologies, including wireless, are
needed to ensure that rural communities have robust connectivity.
Defining broadband as a connection offering symmetric, 100 Mbps
download and 100 Mbps upload bandwidth (100/100) is not technology
neutral as it excludes 5G mobile service from being delivered to rural
consumers. With currently technology, only fiber to the premise
supports that 100 Mbps uploads speeds, which few consumers ever use or
need given current applications. But it does preclude mobility, which
nearly every rural consumer wants and needs, given the long distances
they must traverse.
Robust wireless connectivity enables one of the most important and
innovative applications: precision agriculture. By increasing the use
of precision agriculture, the U.S. can, among other things, improve
food security, meet the growing demand for food, reduce the
environmental impact of agricultural practices, reduce food waste,
improve the profitability of U.S. agriculture, increase skilled labor
demand to support the farm, and increase U.S. competitiveness
internationally. Not incidentally, precision agriculture technologies
and the data they generate are also the key to farmers' participation
in carbon markets, an important objective of this Committee.
WIA member John Deere has been delivering leading-edge technologies
to agricultural producers since its inception and continues to do so
today. John Deere says that its innovations and technologies have been
shown to improve agricultural productivity by as much as 15 percent.
Clearly, precision agriculture is critical to the future of
agriculture operations. The key point this Committee needs to consider
is that to enable precision agriculture, it is essential that mobile
wireless broadband coverage is extended to all areas of the U.S.,
including the most rural and remote portions of the country. It is
imperative to have reliable connectivity across operations on farmlands
and ranches. The 100/100 standard would preclude broadband
infrastructure legislation from enabling precision agriculture directly
because it would only provide fiber to the farmhouse and not the
fields.
In June 2019, the FCC created a task forced to provide
recommendations on policies aimed at delivering connectivity so
American agriculture producers can use and benefit from precision
agriculture. The Connectivity Working Group within the task force has
made several very important preliminary recommendations thus far. One
recommendation is for the FCC to include up to $500 million in
incentives and subsidies from the $9 billion allocated for the 5G Fund
for Rural America. These incentives and subsidies would be used for the
creation of edge computing, private 5G systems, and precision
agriculture applications so that the critical infrastructure and tools
needed to deploy precision agriculture can be developed and deployed.
In addition, the task force recommended that the FCC provide incentives
to network service providers for high-speed, low latency, and mobile
coverage of agricultural fields and pasturelands as a provision within
the 5G Fund for Rural America. The Working Group made many other
important preliminary recommendations, and I urge all Committee Members
to read the full report.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Editor's note: the March 12, 2021 Federal Communications
Commission Precision Agriculture Task Force report entitled,
Accelerating Broadband Deployment on Unserved Agricultural Lands
Working Group Interim Report, is retained in Committee file; and is
also available at: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/precision-
ag-accelerating-deployment-wg-interim-report-03122021.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you again for your focus on these important issues. There is
undoubtedly more work ahead, and we look forward to working with this
Committee to advance the connectivity that has become so essential in
all our lives.
______
Submitted Fact Sheet by Hon. Angie Craig, a Representative in Congress
from Minnesota
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Submitted Comment Letter by Hon. Randy Feenstra a Representative in
Congress from Iowa; Authored by Michael R. Romano, Senior Vice
President--Industry Affairs & Business Development, NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association
February 1, 2021
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C.
RE: Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, WC Docket No. 19-126; Connect
America Fund, WC Docket No. 10-90; Auction 904, AU Docket
No. 20-34
Dear Ms. Dortch:
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association (``NTCA'') hereby submits the
attached whitepaper, ``Evaluating the Capabilities of Fixed Wireless
Technology to Deliver Gigabit Performance in Rural Markets,'' to aid
the Federal Communications Commission (the ``Commission'') in its
review of long-form applications in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
(``RDOF'').
Consumers in areas to be served by winners of the RDOF auction have
waited too long for the opportunity to receive high-performance
broadband service. As they sit on the cusp of finally realizing the
benefits of better broadband, it is important that the Commission take
careful steps now to ensure this happens. As one example, prior to the
RDOF auction, the Commission acknowledged in particular that those
proposing to offer Gigabit-level performance in rural areas using fixed
wireless or DSL technologies faced a ``high burden'' to demonstrate
they could do so. Even as the Commission may have allowed certain
parties to bid in the auction at such levels using these technologies
based upon a preliminary review, the Commission rightly noted that
``distance limitations, spectrum bands attributes, channel bandwidths
requirements, backhaul and medium haul requirements, tower siting
requirements, capacity constraints, required upstream speeds, required
minimum monthly usage allowances, and other issues raised in the
record'' required evaluation to confirm a provider's capability to
offer broadband at the Gigabit level in rural areas like those in the
RDOF auction.\1\ Since the auction, parties ranging from Members of
Congress to reputable and experienced wireless internet service
providers have called upon the Commission to undertake a careful review
of such proposals and to ensure that winning bidders promising such
levels of performance can in fact deliver to rural consumers what has
been promised.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction Scheduled for October
29, 2020 Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures for
Auction 904, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket Nos. 19-126 and 10-90, 35
FCC Rcd 6077, 6115-16 (2020), at 106.
\2\ See, e.g., Letter from Reps. James E. Clyburn and Tim Walberg,
Sens. John Thune and Amy Klobuchar, and 156 other Members of Congress
to Chairman Ajit Pai (dated Jan. 19, 2021); Ex Parte Letter from Skyler
Ditchfield, Chief Executive Officer, to Chairman Ajit Pai, et al., WC
Docket No. 19-126 (dated Jan. 14, 2021), at 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the Commission moves now to examine winning bidders'
capabilities to perform through the long-form application process, the
attached whitepaper is presented as a roadmap to help the agency in
articulating and then employing technical standards to assess the very
kinds of factors noted above in discrete service areas. This kind of
disciplined due diligence by reference to sound engineering principles
and transparently stated objective standards will be essential to
ensure that projects moving forward are capable of performing as
promised for the benefit of those consumers waiting for better
broadband.
Specifically, the attached whitepaper sets forth a series of
parameters for reference in evaluating the proposals of winning bidders
to use fixed wireless technologies for delivery of Gigabit-level
services in RDOF markets. Of particular note, as the paper describes
and justifies in further detail:
Mid Band Offerings: Although mid band spectrum holds promise
for better rural broadband generally, there is no viable path
currently to use such spectrum for the offering of Gigabit-
level service specifically in rural markets and for meeting
other RDOF performance requirements (such as the offering of
voice telephony and access to 911) in light of: (a) the limited
amount of capacity available in most of these bands; and/or (b)
the potential for interference from devices such as home WiFi
routers because most of this spectrum is unlicensed or subject
to shared use. Any long-form applications proposing to rely
upon mid band spectrum specifically for delivery of Gigabit-
level service in the context of RDOF should therefore be
rejected.
High Band Offerings: In more densely populated areas, some
high band spectrum (e.g., millimeter wave (mmW) deployments
have been reported as being capable of delivering Gigabit-level
service. These deployments, however, do not easily translate to
rural environments such as those at issue in the RDOF auction
for the reasons the Commission itself has previously noted. To
determine whether a given long-form application proposal based
upon use of such mmW spectrum can indeed deliver Gigabit
speeds, the following factors must therefore be carefully
evaluated and verified in light of specific conditions in the
area to be served:
Each and every location must be within approximately
500 feet of its specific serving tower/antenna.
Each and every location must have a clear and
unobstructed line-of-sight to that serving tower/antenna,
and the transceiver must be mounted outside (rather than
indoors) at each customer premises.
The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector
must be adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream
capacities of all users served by that tower or antenna.
In assessing capacity in that area, it will be essential
to measure the ability
to perform in light of the RDOF requirement that a
provider engineer its
network to serve at least 70% of locations as if
subscribed by the final mile-
stone.
A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1
or less should be ap-
plied, consistent with how many wireless internet service
providers and
others architect their networks today.
Each tower/antenna or sector must have sufficient
backhaul capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF
customers anticipated, taking into account again the
reasonable and realistic oversubscription ratio.
Congestion that would occur between nodes of a mesh
network will need to be assessed in addition to the
potential for radio frequency and backhaul congestion.
Thank you for your attention to this correspondence. We hope that
this paper provides a useful ready-made roadmap of technical standards
and sound engineering principles upon which the Commission can rely as
it reviews long-form applications to confirm that proposals will
deliver Gigabit-level services promised to consumers leveraging
ratepayer resources.
Sincerely,
/s/ Michael R. Romano
Michael R. Romano,
Senior Vice President--Industry Affairs & Business Development,
NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association.
CC:
Travis Litman
Ramesh Nagarajan
Joseph Calascione
Austin Bonner
Carolyn Roddy
Michael Janson
Kirk Burgee
Jonathan McCormack
Audra Hale-Maddox
Kris Monteith
Alexander Minard
Suzanne Yelen
enclosure
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Evaluating the Capabilities of Fixed Wireless Technology to Deliver
Gigabit Performance in Rural Markets
February 2021
Larry D. Thompson, PE
Chief Executive Officer
Vantage Point Solutions, Inc.
[email protected]
Table of Contents
Introduction and Summary
Gigabit Broadband and RDOF
The Wireless Sandbox
Wireless Network Design Considerations
Delivering Gigabit Service over Wireless
How Much Spectrum is Needed?
Available Wireless Spectrum for Gigabit Services
RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using Mid Band Spectrum
RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using mmW Bands
Summary/Conclusions
Author Biography
Introduction and Summary
The current pandemic has accelerated the profound impact that the
Internet is having on nearly every area of our lives, including
education, retail, healthcare, public safety, and entertainment. The
Internet continues to transform how we communicate, the size and scope
of our global economy, and even our political system. We are on the
cusp of the next Internet evolution--the Internet of Things (IoT). Over
the next 10 years, the Internet will evolve into a network that
overwhelmingly connects ``things'' rather than people. Customers will
continue to demand faster speeds and higher capacities as telehealth
becomes more commonplace as a means of medical care, as education
increasingly migrates online, as Ultra High-Definition television
(UHDTV) becomes commonplace, and with the dramatic growth of connected
devices of all kinds needing Internet access.
The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Tenth Measuring
Broadband America Report \1\ shows that the average speed was
determined to be 146.1 Mbps in October 2019. This speed has increased
by an average of 54% annually since the FCC's Eighth Report just 2
years ago.\2\ Over the past four MBA reports, the average annual
increase has been over 35% in both the download and upload speeds. At
this rate, the average broadband download speed will exceed 1 Gbps
within the next 6 years as shown in Figure 1. In January of 2019,
NCTA--The Internet & Television Association claimed that 80% of all
households can currently order gigabit service.\3\ This is largely
because over 80% of the United State population is urban.\4\ However,
the FCC believes there are 23.1 million Americans that cannot receive
the FCC's currently-defined minimum broadband standard of 25 Mbps down
and 3 Mbps up.\5\ The researchers at Broadband Now believe this number
could be as high as 42 million.\6\ Whatever the precise number, it is
clear that millions of Americans have been stuck on the wrong side of
the digital divide despite a decade of programs intended to reach them,
which makes it all the more important that new funding programs verify
that recipients will deliver the services promised for these users.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FCC's Tenth Measuring Broadband America (MBA), Fixed Broadband
Report, January 4, 2021.
\2\ Ibid, page 7.
\3\ https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/america-is-now-a-gigabit-
nation#.X_vnzVAGcIc.link.
\4\ https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-
areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html.
\5\ FCC's 2019 Broadband Deployment Report, May 29, 2019.
\6\ https://broadbandnow.com/research/fcc-underestimates-unserved-
by-50-percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 1. Average Upload Speeds--Based on FCC MBA Reports
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The FCC should be applauded for recognizing the trend toward higher
speed broadband services and developing a weighting system that favored
the networks that have higher speeds and greater capacity in the Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) auction (FCC Auction 904). On its face,
the auction could be seen as an overwhelming success, since more than
85% of the locations awarded were awarded at gigabit speeds. However,
as the layers are peeled back and the technical underpinnings of
varying proposals are analyzed, there is substantial question as to
whether these speeds will actually be delivered in some cases and
applications.
As one example of such analysis, this paper considers specifically
the extent to which fixed wireless services may be capable of
delivering Gigabit-level services in the kinds of sparsely populated
rural areas that the RDOF auction primarily seeks to serve. Most of the
RDOF winners that were successful at the Gigabit tier \7\ proposed
using Fiber to the Premises (FTTP) technology--although many of them
left the door open to use fixed wireless services. Others appear to
have contemplated using, and received permission to bid using, fixed
wireless technology specifically to deliver Gigabit level services.
While current FCC Form 477 data (among many other resources) confirms
that FTTP networks have been delivering gigabit services to urban and
rural customers for many years, there is no comparable track record
with respect to fixed wireless technologies. This makes it all the more
important to take a careful look, based upon objective engineering
criteria, at whether and to what degree fixed wireless networks can
deliver Gigabit level services--especially in rural areas where
serviceable locations can be several hundred feet to miles apart. This
paper concludes that there are significant technical (and related
economic) questions that must be confronted in delivering Gigabit
broadband using fixed wireless technologies in the predominantly rural
areas covered by RDOF and the FCC therefore needs to perform a careful
analysis pursuant to objective and well-accepted technical engineering
criteria during the long-form process prior to approving such claims of
capability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For RDOF purposes, a Gigabit service is 1,000 Mbps downstream
and 500 Mbps upstream (RDOF Gigabit-Level Service).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More specifically, as explained further herein, engineering
analysis by reference to objective technical standards indicates that
fixed wireless networks will face difficult, if not insurmountable,
challenges to provide RDOF Gigabit services \8\ in very select
circumstances when attempting to service distant, non-town rural
subscribers that were primarily the subject of the RDOF auction. U.S.
Senators John Thune (R-S.D.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), as well as 46
of their Senate colleagues, have previously highlighted the need for
such analysis in a Letter to Chairman Ajit Pai, whereby they observed
that, ``If a party is incapable of delivering broadband as promised,
the American ratepayer loses twice over--first for having contributed
sums that did not go toward the deployment of broadband as hoped, and
then again as those ratepayers who reside in the area that ended up not
receiving the promised service . . . It is important for the FCC to be
responsible for USF resources and ensure that those parties receiving
support can deliver on the commitments they make.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See FCC 19-104, Order on Reconsideration--FCC Takes Steps to
Enforce Quality Standards for Rural Broadband, adopted October 25,
2019, available at https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-takes-steps-
enforce-quality-standards-rural-broadband, (``FCC Quality Standards
Order on Reconsideration''), on the Order, DA 18-710, WC Docket 10-90,
adopted July 6, 2018, available at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/
attachments/DA-18-710A1.pdf, (``FCC Quality Standards Order''). 51 of
the Order states: ``For speed, we require that 80 percent of download
and upload measurements be at or above 80 percent of the CAF-required
speed tier (i.e., an 80/80 standard).''
\9\ Thune/Klobuchar RDOF Senate Letter of December 9, 2019 to
Chairman Pai, available at https://www.thune.senate.gov/public/_cache/
files/ec9ab287-8920-4353-b46e-1396ccdf103e/
F68789196918856CBDF441B3B801C99E.rdof-letter-12.9.19.pdf, (``Thune/
Klobuchar RDOF Senate Letter''), p. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
During the review of the long form applications, we believe it
essential for the FCC to consider technical and related economic
criteria such as those analyzed herein to determine whether and to what
degree each applicant will be capable of delivering Gigabit level
service based upon its proposed network design. When considering any
proposed wireless network designed based on mid band spectrum, it would
be difficult or impossible to conceive a scenario where a wireless
network in this band could reliably provide RDOF Gigabit-Level
Services. The only band that would have enough capacity to accommodate
even just a small handful of gigabit users would be the 5 & 6 GHz
unlicensed bands. When using these bands, the wireless provider is not
protected from interference from other wireless users and devices such
as common home WiFi routers. This is not an acceptable solution,
especially when considering the RDOF broadband services must also
provide voice services and access to emergency services such as 911.
Meanwhile, when considering any proposed wireless network designs
based on millimeter wave (mmW) technologies for any RDOF bidder to
satisfy their Gigabit service commitment, the FCC should verify the
following:
1. All customers must be within about 500 of their specific serving
tower/antenna.
2. All customers must have clear line-of-sight to that serving
tower/antenna.
3. The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector must be
adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream
capacities of all users served by that antenna or tower.
a. The RDOF 70% subscription requirement must be considered in
analyzing
the capacity of the service tower/antenna or sector.
b. A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1 or
less should be
applied.
4. Each antenna and/or sector must also have adequate backhaul
capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF customers
anticipated with a reasonable oversubscription ratio such
as 4:1. In most instances this will require the towers/
antennas to be served with a fiber network.
5. When considering mmW mesh networks, in addition to the preceding
factors, the FCC should also evaluate the congestion that
would occur between the nodes of the mesh network as well
as the potential radio frequency congestion and the
backhaul congestion.
Gigabit Broadband and RDOF
When considering the most effective and efficient use of resources
for broadband network investment, it is necessary to understand current
and future user demands to ensure the planned network can meet these
increasing demands over its economic life. In addition to cost,
performance factors such as speed, latency, capacity, and reliability
are of course important factors. Some networks may have lower initial
cost but be less reliable and less scalable to meet future customer
demands or have higher operational expenses. Some technologies
meanwhile may not be able to meet certain performance levels
altogether--or maybe only under limited or ideal circumstances. Such is
the case for those proposing to use wireless technologies to meet the
gigabit speed tier in the kinds of rural areas subject to the RDOF
auction.
The FCC has defined the gigabit speed tier for purposes of the RDOF
auction as 1 Gbps downstream and 500 Mbps upstream with 2 TB of monthly
usage allowance (defined hereafter for purposes of this paper as
``RDOF-Level Gigabit Service'').\10\ From a network engineering
perspective, the only logical interpretation of this requirement is
that the end-user should be able to simultaneously use 1 Gbps in the
downstream direction and 500 Mbps in the upstream direction. The
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), however,
appears to believe that Gigabit service could be half-duplex (meaning
it would be acceptable to limit customer use by permitting
communication in only one direction at a time at full capacity).\11\ In
this scenario, only 1 Gbps of total network capacity would be needed to
serve this end-user, since one would assume that the same capacity
could be used for the upstream as with the downstream. Considering the
large number of users and devices in a home today that are actively
using the Internet and the FCC's desire for broadband services that
will meet and keep pace with user demand, we presume that the FCC's
intent was not to approve ``one way at a time'' service and limit use
to ``upstream or downstream only'' and that the channel should
therefore have an aggregate throughput of 1,500 Mbps (upstream plus
downstream), which would allow the required capacity to be utilized in
both directions at the same time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ In the Matter of Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, WC Docket No.
19-126, Released Feb. 7, 2020 (``RDOF Order''), 31.
\11\ In an June 2, 2020 Ex Parte entitled, ``Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund, AU Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket
10-90, Notice of Ex Parte Presentations,'' WISPA argues in response to
technical concerns raised by one of its most prominent members,
``First, GeoLinks suggests that 1 Gbps/500 Mbps service needs at least
1,500 Mbps aggregate throughput. That assumes simultaneous or
inflexible uploading and downloading.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All successful bidders in the RDOF gigabit tier must provide RDOF-
Level Gigabit Service to all customers in the awarded Census blocks
within 6 years.\12\ While this time frame is necessary to accommodate
construction, it means that the FCC, affected customers, and other
stakeholders may not know whether RDOF-Level Gigabit Service will
actually be delivered as promised for years to come. By the time it is
apparent that an RDOF recipient cannot meet its FCC commitments, these
customers--already languishing in unserved areas--will be left behind
once again, and it may very well be too late to include these areas in
a second phase of the RDOF auctions. Because of this, it is important
for the FCC to ensure, prior to distributing funds (or ideally prior to
even making awards), that every RDOF awardee, regardless of technology
choice, has a reasonable chance of success based upon its technical and
operational capabilities evaluated against a backdrop of objective
engineering criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ RDOF Order, 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC conducted only a limited review of the technology during
the short-form process because it did not have ``more information about
exactly where the applicant will win support and how many locations it
will serve.'' \13\ At the same time, the FCC's own data indicate
whether and to what degree certain technologies are and are not being
used to deliver certain tiers of service today in varying kinds of
rural and urban applications. Indeed, WISPA argued that ``The record
also indicates that equipment that may support RDOF Gigabit speeds
under certain conditions has since been developed and is being
commercially deployed today.'' \14\ This statement may be true (subject
to the conditions and contingencies contained within it), but even just
a cursory examination confirms that the ``certain conditions'' to which
WISPA referred that ``may'' permit fixed wireless service to deliver
gigabit speeds rarely exist when considering residential broadband
deployments in the kinds of rural areas included in the RDOF auction.
This makes it all the more important that the FCC only award RDOF
support where an objective review against published and well-accepted
standards of conditions on the ground confirms that there is a
reasonable expectation of meeting the RDOF requirements based on the
technology proposed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I auction Scheduled for
October 29, 2020, Notice and Filing Requirements and Other Procedures
for Auction 904, June 11, 2020 (``RDOF Auction Procedures Order''),
125.
\14\ WISPA Ex Parte titled, ``Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, AU
Docket No. 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket 10-90, Notice of Ex
Parte Presentations,'' June 2, 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FCC should therefore continue its policy of awarding RDOF areas
only to those that can be ``reasonably expected to be capable of
meeting the relevant public interest obligations.'' \15\ Using this as
a standard and based upon a review of commonly accepted engineering
standards, we conclude in this paper that fixed wireless technologies
will face serious challenges at best to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit
Service in the kinds of areas subject to the RDOF auction. At the very
least, the FCC should utilize published criteria and analyses like
those employed herein to review the long form applications and
ultimately articulate in detail why it believes any given auction
winner will be capable of delivering RDOF-Level Gigabit Service using
fixed wireless technologies given what the standards otherwise
indicate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Comment Sought on Competitive Bidding Procedures and Certain
Program Requirements For The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction,
Released March 2, 2020, 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Wireless Sandbox
Immutable laws of physics permit only three primary ways to improve
wireless throughput. This can be done by (1) improving the signal-to-
interference-plus-noise ratio; (2) improving the efficiency of the
spectrum by using higher order modulation and coding techniques which
can be leveraged when the signal is strong and largely free of noise
and interference; or (3) increasing the amount of spectrum available to
a customer through adding more spectrum, segmentation (cell splitting),
or using sophisticated and expensive techniques such as high-order
multi-input multi-output (MIMO) and/or beamforming.
All wireless providers share the frequency spectrum or ``airwaves''
with many other wireless providers--even some that may be operating in
the same frequency band. In addition, all wireless spectrum transmitted
from a given antenna or sector is ``shared'' amongst all customers
served by that sector. Because of this, there are strict rules that
govern how the wireless operator can use this spectrum. Some of the
rules include:
Frequency Band--A wireless operator is authorized to operate
in specific frequency bands. These frequency bands may be
licensed (``licensed spectrum'') to this operator for their
sole use within a defined area or the spectrum may be
unlicensed (``unlicensed spectrum'') which is shared by many
users or devices. More recently, the FCC has allowed the use of
``lightly licensed spectrum'' which can be shared by many users
in a more controlled environment where each provider must
coordinate their use of the spectrum with others using the same
spectrum.
Radiated Power--The maximum transmit power allowed is also
controlled by Federal regulation. The radiated power must be
closely controlled to allow the wireless provider enough power
to provide service to a customer, but not so much to interfere
with another provider that may be operating in an adjacent
area. Generally, higher powers are allowed when operating in
licensed spectrum rather than unlicensed spectrum. Higher
transmit powers generally increase the signal-to-noise ratio
(SNR) of the radio frequency signal, which allows faster
throughput, but may also cause the signal to continue
propagating into neighboring areas causing interference that
pollutes the desired signal in these areas and impairs the
throughput other customers.
Modulation and Other Factors--The type of modulation,
coding, and other factors are also often governed and
controlled by the FCC or other standards bodies.
The importance of both wireless spectrum and radiated power of a
wireless system can be understood with a simple analogy. If we assume
the transmit power of the wireless system is like the water pressure in
a garden hose (i.e., the higher the water pressure, the farther the
stream at the end of the hose) then the wireless frequency spectrum
would be like the diameter of the hose. In order to deliver more water
(similar to more speed in a wireless system), one can either increase
the water pressure or increase the size of the hose. Since the FCC
closely regulates the amount of radiated power (water pressure) then
the next logical thing to consider for increasing wireless speed and
throughput is to increase the amount of spectrum (size of the hose).
To enable wireless providers to offer faster broadband, the FCC has
been aggressively making more spectrum available for broadband use. New
technologies, such as beamforming, higher-order MIMO, and higher order
modulation and coding techniques have helped providers use the spectrum
more efficiently. Nonetheless, despite the infusion of additional
spectrum capacity into the broadband marketplace and more sophisticated
techniques, the physics of radio wave propagation is always a limiting
factor to realizing a solid connection, much less an advanced
connection capable of delivering higher performance, especially in
rural areas with trees, hills and customers thinly spread out--like
those in the RDOF auction.
Wireless Network Design Considerations
As mentioned previously, wireless networks transmit their signals
over airwaves that are shared by many providers and users. There is a
fixed and finite amount of network capacity for the users sharing the
same spectrum, so as more users demand more capacity, data on the
network will travel slower for each user. Most have experienced slower
Internet on their wireless devices when in a crowded city or at a
large-scale event like a concert where many people are trying to use
the wireless network in that area at the same time. In simple terms,
the wireless signal from an antenna or ``beam'' is used by all users
served by this antenna, such that the wireless capacity is necessarily
divided amongst all these users and leaving less capacity for any one
user than would otherwise be the case.
The importance of oversubscription to wireless network design (or
the design of any network with elements of shared capacity, for that
matter) cannot be overstated. Understanding the concept of
oversubscription is essential to understand the actual broadband
capability of a wireless network. If there are 20 users sharing an
antenna, and each user has subscribed to 100 Mbps service, even as
simple math would indicate the potential for 2 Gbps of capacity use (20
* 100 Mbps), it is unnecessary to design the system for that level of
capacity because experience confirms that not all users will typically
require their full speed at the same time. To account for this, network
engineers use the concept of ``oversubscription.'' In essence,
oversubscription defines how many times you ``resell'' the same network
capacity where it is shared among multiple users of that network. Over
the last 20 years, acceptable oversubscription ratios have been
declining as network traffic migrates from its once ``bursty'' nature
of short web browser sessions to more continuous applications like
video. Today, it is not uncommon to design a wireless network with an
oversubscription ratio of 4:1 or less. Applying an oversubscription
ratio of 4:1 to the example above, only 500 Mbps of capacity rather
than 2 Gbps would be needed (in that antenna or sector) to serve the 20
customers (each subscribed to a 100 Mbps broadband package). When fewer
customers share the same antenna resources it is less likely that
customers will experience problems from spectrum sharing.
To increase the wireless speed and capacity that can be offered to
their customers, wireless operators often try to reduce the number of
customers served by an antenna (or sector or beam). This is often done
by increasing the number of towers serving a given area which is often
referred to as ``network densification.'' Network densification in
rural areas can reach a point of diminishing returns, however, since
the transmitted power from tower manifests itself as noise and
interference in a neighboring area serviced by a different tower. To
help minimize the interference in the neighboring areas, the power must
be reduced, the antenna height reduced, or additional downtilts applied
to the antennas. Reducing the power often results in decreased speed
and signal quality. Reducing the antenna height may put the signal at
the mercy of obstacles found in rural areas such as hilly terrain,
trees, buildings, or other obstacles, which most likely will block the
signal altogether or, at a minimum, decreases speed and signal quality.
This means that any effective wireless network design in a rural area
must take careful account of the trade-offs between power, potential
for interference, antenna height, and topography.
Three basic architectures are used in wireless network design.
These are Point-to-Point (PtP), Point-to-Multipoint (PtMP), and mesh.
PtP systems are generally used for applications such as wireless
backhaul or connecting two buildings together. They often rely on
directional antenna on each end to focus the signal and typically
consist of more expensive equipment. Because of the focused beam, they
can often achieve longer distances than PtMP systems. PtP systems are
not generally used for residential broadband, however, since each user
would require its own dedicated antenna on the central tower, which is
impractical for technical and economic reasons. Residential wireless
broadband is therefore most often provided using PtMP systems (a signal
antenna at a central site that serves multiple end-user terminals) and
occasionally mesh systems.
Mesh systems can often extend the reach of a wireless network since
each ``node'' on the mesh network acts as a relay point to extend the
signal before the next wireless ``hop.'' This can provide benefits,
especially when operating in the mmW bands where the distance is very
limited and there is a need for the intermediate mesh nodes to boost
the signal for the more distant users. These mesh nodes are often
placed on rooftops of houses in a neighborhood. Since mmW cannot
penetrate objects (trees, buildings, etc.), if you cannot see your
neighbor's roof from your roof, then neither can a mmW signal ``see''
the next node. There may be some instances where the neighbor's roof is
visible, most rural locations are not within sight of other locations--
being out of sight of neighbor is, in fact, a bragging point for many
rural citizens.
In the instances where a mesh network could gain some distance, the
overall network capacity suffers since each node on the mesh must not
only carry the capacity of the user which it serves, but also all the
other users that are transmitting their signals though that node. When
the capacity for several users is aggregated through a signal mesh
node, the speed of each user is reduced. Those customers closest to the
fiber backhaul connection point could possibly achieve the desired
speeds, but the customers added farther out on this ``daisy chain'' to
meet build-out requirements, could experience degraded service as the
links between the mesh nodes become congested. Another downfall of mesh
is that they rely on continued support of mesh nodes at neighboring
locations. Situations and sentiments change about technology and
neighbors may come and go. A new occupant may want nothing to do with
the mesh node on their roof and can instantly cripple multiple end-
users downstream by removing it.
It is against this backdrop that we can review the conditions under
which it may or may not be practical to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit
Service using a wireless network.
Delivering Gigabit Service over Wireless
Since an adequate amount of spectrum is critical to deliver gigabit
services to end-user customers and the wireless spectrum is highly
regulated, we must first determine if an entity proposing to deliver
RDOF-Level Gigabit Service via a fixed wireless solution has access to
adequate spectrum to do so. Without the needed spectrum, its efforts
will be futile.
How Much Spectrum is Needed?
When considering the amount of wireless spectrum needed, one must
consider both the upstream and downstream needs. For RDOF Gigabit-Level
Services, this is 1 Gbps downstream and 500 Mbps downstream. This would
mean that the wireless channel would need to support 1.5 Gbps for a
single user. Since the network will need to be designed to support more
than one user, the sector or antenna capacity would need to be greater.
If we assume, for example, that a provider would need to support a
modest eight users at the RDOF Gigabit level with a 4:1
oversubscription ratio,\16\ then the sector or antenna would need to
support 3.0 Gbps (1.5 Gbps 8/4). This is 3.0 Gbps of actual
throughout, not ``Over the Air'' (OTA) capacity as often quoted on
vendor datasheets. Actual throughput is much lower than OTA throughput
as will be discussed later.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Preseem's ``Fixed Wireless Network Report'', Fall 2020 Edition
shows that approximately 75% of all WISP networks employ an
oversubscription ratio of 4:1 or lower.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The broadband speed that a frequency band is capable of is often
referred to in terms of ``spectral efficiency.'' Spectral efficiency is
measured in ``bits per second per hertz'' (bps/Hz). A wireless system
with an average spectral efficiency of 2 bps/Hz would be capable of
delivering 20 Mbps, on average, to an end-user in 10 MHz of spectrum
(10MHz * 2 bps/Hz = 20 Mbps).
The most advanced MIMO techniques enable modern wireless networks
to achieve an average of 2 to 4 bps/Hz across their coverage areas.
Giving the wireless system the benefit of the doubt and assuming that
the deployed wireless system could achieve a spectral efficiency of 5
bps/Hz, a provider would need 300 MHz of spectrum for a single user and
approximately 600 MHz for eight users with a 4:1 oversubscription
ratio. The challenge then becomes finding 600 MHz of spectrum to use.
(It is also worth noting how highly conservative these assumptions are;
to support twice this number of customers, for example, approximately
twice this amount of spectrum would be required.)
Available Wireless Spectrum for Gigabit Services
There are three general areas of spectrum are used to deliver
wireless broadband services. These are the low band, mid band, and high
band (often referred to as the mmW band). The spectrum available for
broadband in the low band is so limited that it would not be possible
to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services, so we will focus only on the
mid band and mmW bands. The portion of the mid band of interest here
ranges from 2 to 6 GHz and the portion of the mmW frequencies range
from approximately 30 to 80 GHz.
The frequency bands that can be used for broadband can be seen in
Table 1. The FCC has made a variety frequency bands in the mid band
available over the years and is taking significant steps to make more
available. However, as can be seen in Table 1, the broadband operator
may be the secondary user of the spectrum (such as CBRS and C-Band) or
is unlicensed which is shared with many other users and devices (such
as the U-NNI band). The broadband provider also rarely has access to
the entire spectrum in the band and often must operate in smaller
blocks of spectrum within that band (shown in the ``Allocation''
column). As we will see later, this presents challenges when attempting
to use mid band spectrum for high-capacity broadband services.
Table 1--Portion of Radio Spectrum Available for Broadband
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total How
Band Name Frequency Spectrum Allocation Licensed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low Band Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
600 MHz 600 MHz 70 MHz 2x5 MHz Blocks Licensed
700 MHz 700 MHz 104 MHz 2x[1, 5, 6, or Licensed
11] MHz
Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid Band Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCS 2.3 GHz 30 MHz 2x5 MHz Blocks Licensed
ISM 2.4 GHz 85 MHz 10, 20, or Unlicensed
40MHz Blocks
BRS/EBS 2.5 GHz 190 MHz 6, 16.5, 49.5, Licensed
50.5 MHz
Blocks
CBRS 3.5 GHz 150 MHz 10 MHz Blocks Lightly
(secondary (PAL) Licensed
use)
C-Band 3.7 GHz 280 MHz 20 MHz Blocks Licensed
(secondary
use)
U-NII 5 & 6 GHz 1,525 MHz 10, 20, 40, or Unlicensed
80 MHz Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
mmW Spectrum
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UMFUS--Auct 28 GHz 850 MHz 425 MHz Blocks Licensed
ion 101
UMFUS--Auct 24 GHz 700 MHz 2x40 MHz Licensed
ion 102 Blocks
(secondary
use)
UMFUS--Auct 37/38/47 GHz 3,400 MHz 100 MHz Blocks Licensed
ion 103
V-Band 60 GHz 5,000 MHz 2,160 MHz Unlicensed
Blocks
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Figure 2 graphically shows the relative amount of available
spectrum in the various bands. The pie sections in Figure 2 are to
scale and include all the available spectrum in that band. In most
instances a single provider would have access only to a relatively
small portion of the larger band. Frequencies in the mid band were
generally allocated to providers as small channels. While some
providers may have several of these channels in the mid band for a
given geographical area, they are not always contiguous in the
frequency spectrum which makes it more difficult or even impractical to
combine the channels for achieve higher throughputs.
Figure 2. Broadband Spectrum
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using Mid Band Spectrum
In the conservative examples discussed earlier, one would need at
least 300 MHz (single wireless customer), but more likely 600 MHz or
more, to serve a small handful of customers with RDOF Gigabit-Level
Service. It would be difficult to find that much frequency in the mid
band that would have enough spectrum available for a broadband provider
to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services to even a modest number of
customers. The only band with possibly enough spectrum would be the 5.8
GHz and proposed 6 GHz bands which are expected to have 1,525 MHz
available. But even if these bands might offer enough capacity to
deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services to a confined number of customers,
they present other challenges--these bands are unlicensed and thus
shared with others with no interference protection, including nearly
all common WiFi routers. When considering options to satisfy the RDOF
requirements, sound engineering principles must be applied along with
equipment that can be deployed in a cost-effective and practical
manner. This widespread shared unlicensed use would make it impractical
for a provider to deliver RDOF-Level Gigabit Services on a consistent
basis. The 5.8 and 6 GHz bands are part of the Unlicensed National
Information Infrastructure (U-NII) service where higher power is
permitted for PtP \17\ networks, but these require large parabolic
dishes (or equivalent antennas) at both ends to provide service farther
than a few kilometers. However, these antennas and power levels are not
available to PtMP operations, which would be needed to serve
residential customers in rural areas, and large-scale use of point-to-
point for point-to-multipoint applications would be absurd. Costs of
employing PtP or PtMP networks in rural areas would resemble the costs
of FTTP drops--but providing only a fraction of the capacity in the
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Per 47 CFR 15.407(a)(3), ``fixed point-to-point U-NII
devices operating in this band may employ transmitting antennas with
directional gain greater than 6 dBi without any corresponding reduction
in transmitter conducted power. Fixed, point-to-point operations
exclude the use of point-to-multipoint systems, omnidirectional
applications, and multiple collocated transmitters transmitting the
same information.'' There is good reason for this--allowing high power
without these exclusions, even if automatically frequency coordinated,
will raise the noise floor for everyone and will only lead to limiting
of available channels for everyone and further overcrowding of the
band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from these two bands, there is nowhere else within the mid
band spectrum that a wireless provider could amass enough spectrum.
Sometime in the future, it may be possible to aggregate enough spectrum
across multiple licensed bands to provide higher speeds approaching a
Gigabit consistently, but the technology has not yet been deployed to
do so and it is unclear when it will in fact become available.
Furthermore, even if it were available, the distances over which a
customer could be served would be limited by the shortest reach of all
the aggregated frequencies.
Much attention has been giving to the recent CBRS and C-Band
auctions with respect to rural broadband. We agree that these bands
will be critical to providing improved broadband to rural customers
that have been on the wrong side of the digital divide. However, our
purpose here is to identify the mid band spectrum that can deliver RDOF
Gigabit Services, which is significantly more challenging than a couple
hundred megabits per second that might be achievable under certain
conditions using the CBRS and C-Band. The total amount of spectrum
available in the CBRS band, when including both the licensed and
lightly licensed portions is only half of what would be needed to
deliver RDOF Gigabit Services to a single customer. Furthermore, the
maximum amount of spectrum that could be secured by any one bidder was
only 40 MHz. Because of this, CBRS is not a realistic option for
delivering RDOF Gigabit Services.
C-Band, on the other hand, may have enough spectrum to deliver RDOF
Gigabit Services to a very small pocket of customers that are very
close to the tower if a provider had access to the entire C-Band
spectrum (280 MHz). However, it would be very unlikely that one of the
RDOF winners could have secured enough of the 280 MHz in any given
area. Furthermore, the RDOF areas are generally outside of the top 46
PEAs, so there is no requirement for this C-Band spectrum to be cleared
until December 5, 2023. This would likely not be soon enough for the
RDOF awardee to deploy a wireless network using C-Band spectrum in time
to meet their first build-out requirement.
Likewise, the EBS band consists of only 116.5 MHz of spectrum if
the bidder were able to secure all three of the EBS licenses. Not only
is this not enough to deliver RDOF Gigabit Services, but the auction
has not yet occurred. It would not be appropriate to award RDOF areas
to a bidder that was counting on the possible success in a future FCC
auction. It is important that any spectrum that a bidder is relying on
to deliver any RDOF services be secured prior to the FCC awarding them
the RDOF areas.
Some believe that additional mid band spectrum will be released by
the FCC and eventually stem this inevitable capacity insufficiency.
However, it is important to recall again that over 85% of the mid-band
spectrum currently available, or even contemplated for use for fixed
wireless broadband, is shared-use. Shared-use spectrum has been
allocated by the FCC to two or more different purposes and fixed
wireless uses are often the secondary user and must protect the
existing services of the incumbent. To do this, fixed wireless
providers have modest permissible power limitations. To compound these
mid band problems, nearly \2/3\ of the spectrum is governed by the U-
NII \18\ (generally, ``Unlicensed'' or ``Part 15'') service rules, and
thus comes with much lower permissible power \19\ and lower associated
range.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ See 47 CFR 15[.]
\19\ Compared to up to a few thousand Watts (depending upon sector
arc) that is permissible for 2.5 GHz EBS/BRS--which represents only
13.4% of mid-band spectrum potentially available to independent
operators, and of which the large majority of current licenses are
controlled by T-Mobile, only up to 50 Watts per channel is permissible
for ``lightly licensed'' 3.5 GHz CBRS, and only up to 4 Watts is
permissible for Unlicensed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is also no guarantee that enough of this shared-use spectrum
will continue to become available, especially in the exponentially
increasing volumes necessary to support future demand demands. Despite
the efforts of the FCC to free-up scarce mid-band spectrum such as in
C-Band and 6 GHz, it is far-fetched to believe that unimpaired bands in
a necessarily shared-use arrangement among primary and other secondary
users in such coveted spectrum can be found and freed-up indefinitely,
and in the exponentially increasing volumes necessary within the narrow
and finite mid-band range, to match exponentially increasing fixed
demand volumes--and that is even if one accepts that the coverage range
limitations of mid-band spectrum could suffice for non-town, rural
fixed applications.
In short, for Gigabit level service to become viable as a
widespread commercial broadband solution in rural areas over fixed
wireless technologies, there are at least four important technical
barriers that must be addressed first: (1) more mid band spectrum would
be needed (even beyond that identified as being in the pipeline now);
(2) more contiguous channels of capacity would be needed for individual
providers within those bands; (3) new equipment would need to be
developed to aggregate spectrum within or across those bands; and (4)
power and range limitations arising out of shared uses of such
unlicensed spectrum.
RDOF Gigabit-Level Services Using mmW Bands
If such technical challenges persist in the offering of Gigabit
services in rural areas leveraging mid band spectrum, it is logical to
ask whether mmW spectrum, which is already being used to achieve higher
speeds in densely populated, more urban environments, might be extended
to offer Gigabit speeds in rural areas instead? While vendor claims and
product specifications in the lead-up to the RDOF auction sought to
justify promises of capability to deliver Gigabit speeds in rural
markets based upon limited deployments in urban areas, careful
engineering analysis against objective technical standards shows where
these claims fail.
We showed previously that a few hundred MHz would be required to
support just a handful of customers receiving RDOF Gigabit-Level
Services. While, as discussed above, there is no such capacity readily
available and acceptable for use within mid band spectrum, there would
appear in theory to be enough spectrum available to do RDOF Gigabit-
Level Services in the mmW band. More specifically, the bands that could
be used include:
Upper Microwave Fixed Use Service (UMFUS)
``24 GHz band''--24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz
(Auction 102)
``28 GHz band''--27.5-28.35 GHz
``37 GHz band''--37-38.6 GHz
``39 GHz band''--38.6-40 GHz
``48 GHz band''--47.2-48.2 GHz band (Auction 103)
V-Band
``60 GHz band''--57-71 GHz (Unlicensed)
These mmW bands have channel widths ranging from several hundred
MHz of spectrum to a few GHz of spectrum, which is in theory more than
enough needed to provide RDOF Gigabit-Level Services.
But a rigorous and disciplined technical analysis cannot and must
not stop there. An essential and immutable characteristic of spectrum
is that the higher it is in frequency, the less propagation and
penetration power it will have. Frequencies in the mmW band can only
propagate to very short distances before decaying to unusable levels
when used in wireless networks. In addition, these frequencies are
highly susceptible to fading due to diffraction by rain and moisture,
and even to absorption by oxygen molecules. The result is that their
usable reliable range--even on a clear day--is measured in the hundreds
of feet, not in miles. This, along with the fact that they do not
penetrate buildings or other obstacles such as foliage and must have an
unobstructed Line-of-Sight (LOS) path makes high frequencies very
undesirable for serving rural customers. Because mmW cannot penetrate
walls, it is necessary that the customer install an antenna on their
house or a nearby structure (such as a pole) that has clear LOS to the
provider's transmitting antenna. Using indoor customer equipment
similar to what can be used at low and mid band frequencies is not
possible when using mmW bands. Because of this, customer installs are
typically more challenging and often require a professional
installation. They can also become unreliable or stop working
altogether if the LOS is partially or fully lost due to an obstruction
such as new building or tree growth.
Applying such considerations to the areas auctioned off in the RDOF
highlights the technical impediments to any proposals or vendor claims
of capability based upon use of mmW bands. The areas to be served
through the RDOF awards are some of the most rural areas in the
country. Many of these census blocks are a few miles across and were
auctioned off as part of larger census block groups, which could have
been 10 miles across or more. Some of these census blocks or census
block groups have smaller clusters of homes within them, but most of
the Census block groups have multiple Census blocks that contain
sparsely populated customer locations. Because of this, it is likely
that the wireless equipment will need to provide broadband service
several miles from central tower sites; otherwise nearly every customer
would require his or her own tower given propagation limitations.
Realities on the ground in rural America only compound the
challenges of using mmW spectrum to deliver high-speed broadband and
confound the claims of vendors based upon laboratory or limited urban
conditions. To make it more difficult to deploy mmW wireless systems in
rural areas, it is also common for homes to be behind a
``shelterbelt.'' Shelterbelts are lines of tall trees planted around
one's property to block prevailing winds from wreaking havoc on one's
home, and in colder climates, to prevent drifting snow on the downwind
side. Customers living in rural areas must intentionally plant
shelterbelts to protect their homes, especially necessary during the
colder months. Consequently, where there is not already dense tree and
foliage growth we often find shelter-belts. In either case, there is a
strong possibility that trees will obstruct the radio path--which is
especially devastating for higher frequency bands like mmW. This is a
realistic example of the less than perfect conditions that will be
encountered by many RDOF awardees which will further reduce the
distance at which a single user may expect wireless broadband service.
In its RDOF auction comments arguing for the ability for fixed
wireless providers to submit gigabit-level bids, WISPA identified
equipment from four vendors that claimed to be ``producing and
distributing inexpensive equipment that can enable Gigabit service.''
\20\ Yet, the very vendor data sheets included with the comments in
fact highlight some of these challenges that companies will face when
used to serve customers in rural markets. As described previously, the
equipment would need to support a minimum of 1.5 Gbps (to account for
both the downstream and upstream to provide RDOF Gigabit-Level
Services) for a single user, which some of the equipment is unable to
provide. In addition, the short distances over which the materials
indicated that the equipment can provide broadband reveals the
challenges these vendors will have providing services in the kinds of
rural areas presented in the RDOF auction.\21\ More specifically:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ WISPA ``Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association'', AU Docket No 20-34, WC Docket No. 19-126, WC Docket No.
10-90, March 27, 2020.
\21\ Ibid, Appendix A.
Siklu Multihaul--Operates in the 60 GHz band. The base
station has an aggregate throughput of 1.8 Gbps and end-user
terminals have an aggregate throughput of 1.0 Gbps. Not only is
that not enough total capacity available to provide the needed
1.5 Gbps to meet the RDOF Gigabit-Level Service requirement but
the equipment has a typical reach of only 900-1,300
(approximately \1/4\ mile), which even putting aside LOS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
concerns, hardly squares with densities in many rural markets.
Adtran Metnet--Operates in the 60 GHz band and others. Has a
range of 1,640 (approximately \1/4\ mile) at a capacity of 1
Gbps at the end-user in a mesh configuration.
IgniteNet MetroLinq--Operates in 60 GHz band and others and
claims to enable an Over the Air (OTA) rate of 4 Gbps per
sector. However, as one of the most prominent wireless Internet
service providers itself has noted, it is not uncommon for the
actual equipment data capacity to be \1/3\ to \1/2\ of the OTA
line rate.\22\ In addition, even with its highest gain and
largest CPE antenna available (35 cm) the range is limited to
only 2,270 (0.43 miles).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Geolinks Ex Parte, ``Competitive Bidding Procedures and
certain Program Requirements for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,''
AU Docket No.20-34, May 29, 2020, page 2.
RADWIN TerraWin--Operates in the 60 GHz band. Operates in a
mesh network configuration and claims to have up to 3.6 Gbps
throughput per user. No distances are given but does not claim
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
to be a solution for rural areas.
This kind of equipment is often used for 5G small cell wireless
backhaul or connectivity in densely populated areas where a single base
station can reach several customers within a short distance (typically
around 1,000). In addition, as noted previously, there must be clear
line of sight between the tower and each customer, which is often
difficult, if not impossible, in rural areas due to the terrain, trees,
and shelterbelts. Even though the vendors above quote longer distances,
they are not able to RDOF Gigabit Service on a PtMP basis to even a
small number of customers at these distances. When using mmW PtMP
systems, the distance the customer could be from the provider antenna
would be limited to only be a few hundred feet--likely around 500 if
they are to ensure reasonable reliability.
These are not theoretical difficulties; practical experience in
deploying mmW networks illustrates these challenges: Scott Mair,
President of AT&T Operations, referred to AT&T's experience with its
mmW deployment at a recent conference \23\ by saying, ``. . .
millimeter wave provides unique characteristics in terms of bandwidth
and speed. And that is going to play a part. But the millimeter wave
and the propagation properties of that, take your pick anywhere, 200,
300, 350 yards, is really not going to fulfill a coverage layer need
for 5G.'' \24\ Even after deploying in 36 cities, Mair went on to say,
``And for the most part, it's enterprise use cases and maybe what I
would call venue-specific use cases that we're using it for at this
point.'' \25\ These venue-specific places were not rural areas, but
Mair said they were ``Entertainment districts and stadiums, health care
and manufacturing plants are kind of the business side, if you will,
the enterprise side, with a lot of promise. And in those areas, I mean,
the economics work really well, dense traffic specific use cases.''
\26\ In short, AT&T has found that mmW-based services work well in
dense traffic areas, but not in the kinds of rural areas at issue in
RDOF. Neville Ray, President of Technology at T-Mobile has said
regarding the mmW deployments currently underway for 5G, ``Verizon's
mmWave-only 5G plan is only for the few. And it will never reach rural
America'' he added, ``Some of this is physics--millimeter wave (mmWave)
spectrum has great potential in terms of speed and capacity, but it
doesn't travel far from the cell site and doesn't penetrate materials
at all. It will never materially scale beyond small pockets of 5G
hotspots in dense urban environments.'' \27\ Qualcomm, which makes many
of the underlying hardware used for 5G and mmW equipment has similarly
indicated, ``mmWave best accommodates dense urban areas and crowded
indoor environments . . .'' \28\ Hans Vestberg, Verizon Communications
Chairman and CEO, has likewise said of mmW, ``We all need to remind
ourselves this is not a coverage spectrum because we will do it as far
as the economic is sustainable, of course.'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ AT&T Inc at Barclays Global Technology, Media and
Telecommunications Conference, December 9, [2020].
\24\ Ibid, page 6.
\25\ Ibid, page 6.
\26\ Ibid, page 7.
\27\ Neville Ray blog post, April 22, 2019, https://www.t-
mobile.com/news/network/the-5g-status-quo-is-clearly-not-good-enough.
\28\ Understanding mmWave: Faster connectivity highways for 5G, The
OnQ Team, November 28, 2018, https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2018/11/
28/understanding-mmwave-faster-connectivity-highways-5g.
\29\ Q1 2019 Verizon Communications, Inc. Earnings Call, April 23,
2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary/Conclusions
Wireless networks play an important role in connecting customers--
but when it comes to assessing the justification for expending public
or private funds for broadband deployment, it is equally important to
take a realistic picture of the capabilities and limitations of such
networks. The broadband speeds promised by future wireless technologies
may sound promising, but marketing claims and tests under ideal
conditions are no substitute for a rigorous and disciplined technical
analysis of what such networks can and cannot deliver.
The promise of wireless solutions deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level
Service appears difficult to justify in most rural applications. Apart
from some very limited circumstances presenting ideal conditions as
summarized herein, the technical and related economic hurdles will be
substantial, if not insurmountable.
Mid band spectrum may have adequate reach to provide service to
customers in rural areas, but there are significant challenges with
current technologies and spectrum to provide even 100 Mbps service to
sparsely populated areas, much less the Gigabit services promised in
the RDOF auction. The spectrum is very desirable for wireless broadband
services but there simply is not enough of it available to accommodate
most RDOF winners. Use of the crowded unlicensed bands, such as 5.8
GHz, should be rejected due to reliability issues associated with
unlicensed frequencies, especially when considering the RDOF voice
requirements that must provide reliable access to emergency services
such as 911. In short, considering objective engineering criteria,
there is no viable path currently available to offer reliable RDOF-
Level Gigabit Services in rural America leveraging mid band spectrum.
Providing RDOF Gigabit services in the mmW band presents different
challenges--but challenges nonetheless. The mmW band has adequate
spectrum to deliver RDOF Gigabit-Level Services, but the spectral
characteristics are not well suited to provide rural broadband as was
the subject of the RDOF auction. In most areas, using mmW would require
each rural resident to have his or her own wireless tower. Most of
these towers would be required to have fiber connections to deliver the
needed broadband capacity to the network connection point.
When considering any proposed wireless network designs based on mmW
technologies for any RDOF bidder to satisfy its Gigabit service
commitment, the FCC should verify the following:
1. All customers must be within about 500 feet of their specific
serving tower/antenna.
2. All customers must have clear line-of-sight to that serving
tower/antenna.
3. The capacity of the serving tower/antenna or sector must be
adequate to accommodate the downstream and upstream
capacities of all users served by that antenna or tower.
a. The RDOF 70% subscription requirement must be considered in
analyzing
the capacity of the service tower/antenna or sector.
b. A reasonable oversubscription ratio on the order of 4:1 or
less should be
applied.
4. Each antenna and/or sector must also have adequate backhaul
capacity to accommodate the number of RDOF customers
anticipated with a reasonable oversubscription ratio such
as 4:1. In most instances this will require the towers/
antennas to be served with a fiber network.
5. When considering mmW mesh networks, in addition to the preceding
factors, the FCC should also evaluate the congestion that
would occur between the nodes of the mesh network as well
as the potential radio frequency congestion and the
backhaul congestion.
Author Biography
Larry D. Thompson, PE, Chief Executive Officer
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Larry Thompson is a licensed
professional engineer and has been
designing satellite, wireless, and
broadband wireline networks for more
than 30 years. Larry received his
bachelor's degree in physics from
William Jewell College and his
bachelor's and master's degrees in
Electrical Engineering from the
University of Kansas. Prior to founding
Vantage Point Solutions in 2002, Larry
held several engineering and management
positions with TRW's Space and Defense
sector, CyberLink Corporation, and
Martin Group. Larry is currently the
CEO of Vantage Point Solutions, which
has over
400 employees and is a national provider of engineering and consulting
services. Over the years, he has assisted many wireless and wireline
companies successfully manage their technical, regulatory, and
financial challenges.
Larry serves on the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee
(BDAC), he is a frequent speaker at state and national conferences and
a frequent expert witness at utility commission and legal proceedings
relating to telecommunication technology and regulatory matters.
About Vantage Point Solutions
Better Broadband means Better Lives. Vantage Point Solutions, Inc.
helps providers bring this promise to life through comprehensive
engineering and consulting solutions tailored to the unique needs of
the companies, Cooperatives, and communities we serve.
Headquartered in Mitchell, South Dakota and with six additional
offices across the country, Vantage Point works with broadband and
telecom providers in more than 40 states. Our 400+ employees include
ten licensed professional engineers, three attorneys, and industry
leaders in technology and advocacy. With professional engineers and
regulatory experts under the same roof, we are able to understand the
big picture for any individual company decision or broader industry
policy.
Vantage Point is an employee-owned company. As such, we hold
ourselves to a high standard for both service delivery and business
ethics. These high standards extend to our industry involvement, where
we are staunch advocates for the broadband deployment everywhere tied
to the responsible use of broadband investment.
______
Submitted Maps by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress from
Texas
[https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-
summary?version=jun2020&type=nation
&geoid=0&tech=acfosw&speed=100_10&vlat=28.80600185677126&vlon=-97.13230
612770428&vzoom=7.323845130384493]
Broadband Connectivity in East Texas--100/3 megabits per second (mbps)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Broadband Connectivity in East Texas--25/3 megabits per second (mbps)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Editor's note: the interactive map data could not be retained
for these maps as the supplied hyperlink did not contain the
location information.
______
Submitted Map by Hon. Kat Cammack, a Representative in Congress from
Florida
[https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/area-
summary?version=jun2020&type=cd&geoid
=1203&tech=acfw&speed=25_3&vlat=29.71954418351038&vlon=-82.04261442386
144&vzoom=8.360689971205383]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Editor's note: this is an interactive map. The sidebar chart
information shows the statistics when hovered over by pointer.
The charts' data is retained in Committee file.
______
Submitted Questions
Response from Jennifer L. Prather, Vice President and General Manager,
Totelcom Communications, LLC; on behalf of NTCA--The Rural
Broadband Association
Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
from Nebraska
Question 1. Two-thirds of my home state is rural and more and more
dependent on enhanced broadband connectivity. Anecdotally, there are
broadband connection gaps in rural areas where the FCC shows coverage.
University of Nebraska researchers developed a simple plug-in device
and survey to scientifically measure and map household broadband
connectivity over time, but have not found Federal funding or programs
that support broadband mapping.
Could this approach help measure and map connectivity in rural
Nebraska and other frontier states that have become so reliant in
recent months on enhanced broadband connections for education, health
care and rural economic expansion including on-farm applications?
Answer. While these measures may help with gathering data, there
are a number of important caveats to consider. As an initial matter,
simply plugging such a device into a laptop or tablet will not in and
of itself necessarily render an accurate performance test. If the
laptop or tablet is old, if the test is conducted distantly from the
router on a bad WiFi connection, or if there are multiple users within
the home all at the same time making significant use of it, these
factors can all render a result that does not accurately reflect what
is provided to that location. Thus, such efforts at ``crowdsourcing''
information can be helpful, but they do not provide dispositive or
conclusive indications of what is actually available at any given
location.
Moreover, it is important that all efforts to map broadband
connectivity do so in coordination with the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), which is tasked with developing a national broadband
map under the Broadband DATA Act passed by Congress to address this
issue. Congress just provided millions in funding to the FCC for this
very purpose, and work is underway to use that funding to develop
better maps. It is important that all broadband programs use the same
map so that we efficiently use limited funds and do not risk
undermining investments made in rural areas, many of which are
federally supported through the FCC's Universal Service Fund.
Question 2. As we consider deploying more resources to address
rural broadband challenges, how can we be certain that the resources
provided to USDA are being put in communities which are truly
underserved, given the current service gaps?
Answer. USDA has carefully administered its programs, specifically
the ReConnect program, to minimize the potential duplication of the
work of other RUS programs, the FCC's Universal Service Fund High-Cost
program, and other Federal and state programs. However, we support USDA
taking further steps to ensure close coordination between all broadband
network support programs, so that it avoid deploying duplicative
government-funded networks in rural areas that will not even support
one provider on its own. We recommend that USDA's Rural Utilities
Service formally establish a rule to clarify the ways in which its
program funds may interact with funds already awarded under other
programs.
Question Submitted by Hon. Michael Cloud, a Representative in Congress
from Texas
Question. Ms. Prather, you commented on the ``procedural barriers
to borrowing from RUS'' programs.
Can you describe how these barriers affect NTCA members in greater
detail and offer suggestions to the Committee for how to address those
``time consuming processes'' and to ``expedite approvals and
deployment?''
Answer. Carriers must secure approvals to cross government and
privately-owned lands, and the processes for doing so can be very time
consuming and expensive--further delaying broadband installation. NTCA
is aware of a number of ReConnect awards that have sat for months, and
in some cases well over a year, awaiting clearance of historical
preservation requirements. This is particularly frustrating as, in many
cases, the approval relates to placement of communications facilities
along roadways in previously disturbed land. In such cases where the
network is being placed in areas where other construction of some kind
has already occurred, there would appear to be no good reason for the
sizeable delays associated with approvals. Addressing this problem
should be of the highest priority if Congress wants to see more
accelerated deployment through RUS programs.
Moreover, the standardization of application, fee, and approval
policies and procedures across Federal land-managing and property-
managing agencies should be a high priority, and Congress should ensure
that agencies have the resources to timely complete reviews and are
given reasonable but firm timelines for doing so. Furthermore, Congress
should look to implement the recommendations of the Federal
Communications Commission's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's
final report issued in January 2018. NTCA--The Rural Broadband
Association participated in the development of these recommendations,
which address streamlining of environmental and historical reviews and
application review periods, among other pertinent recommendations in
removing further regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.
Question Submitted by Hon. Michelle Fischbach, a Representative in
Congress from Minnesota
Question. Ms. Prather, you noted that operating on or crossing
Federal lands poses challenges that can delay construction and drive up
costs. In particular, you noted the Byzantine application process for
permitting and access on Federal lands.
Can you elaborate more on those challenges for NTCA members and
what the Committee might do to streamline delays and reduce
construction costs for rural network operators, particularly with
respect to lands and processes controlled by the Department of
Agriculture?
Answer. Carriers must secure approvals to cross government and
privately-owned lands, and the processes for doing so can be very time
consuming and expensive--further delaying broadband installation. NTCA
is aware of a number of ReConnect awards that have sat for months, and
in some cases well over a year, awaiting clearance of historical
preservation requirements. This is particularly frustrating as, in many
cases, the approval relates to placement of communications facilities
along roadways in previously disturbed land. In such cases where the
network is being placed in areas where other construction of some kind
has already occurred, there would appear to be no good reason for the
sizeable delays associated with approvals. Addressing this problem
should be of the highest priority if Congress wants to see more
accelerated deployment through RUS programs.
Moreover, the standardization of application, fee, and approval
policies and procedures across Federal land-managing and property-
managing agencies should be a high priority, and Congress should ensure
that agencies have the resources to timely complete reviews and are
given reasonable but firm timelines for doing so. Furthermore, Congress
should look to implement the recommendations of the Federal
Communications Commission's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's
final report issued in January 2018. NTCA--The Rural Broadband
Association participated in the development of these recommendations,
which address streamlining of environmental and historical reviews and
application review periods, among other pertinent recommendations in
removing further regulatory barriers to broadband deployment.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress
from Louisiana
Question 1. The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role
in bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules, like
many Federal broadband grants, are being re-written to reflect the
pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband access. However, I
have heard that the application process is quite cumbersome.
What specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
Answer. While Totelcom is not currently a USDA borrower, many NTCA
members participate in its various telecommunications programs and
report delays throughout the application and approval process
generally, but particularly as they relate to environmental and
historical reviews. One solution would be for USDA's Rural Utilities
Service, given its expertise and history of success in advancing rural
communications networks, to play a more active role in working with
State Historic Preservation Offices and Tribal Historic Preservation
Offices to ensure timely completion of required reviews. NTCA offered
further recommendation to USDA in its comments regarding the matter of
USDA's ReConnect regulations (RUS-20-Telecom-0023 RIN No. 0572-AC51),
including recommendations to improve the contract bidding approval
processes and implement a timeline by which reviews must be completed.
Question 2. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure
investments to address access is important, it is also important we
ensure that access is affordable.
For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing
broadband to rural areas.
Answer. We recognize that even where services are available, that
does very little if a consumer cannot afford to pay for those services.
It is worth noting in the first instance that the FCC's High-Cost USF
program, while mission-critical in promoting both availability and
affordability of services in rural areas, aims for baseline voice and
broadband rates pursuant to a formula that sets the target rates much
higher in rural areas than what urban users pay on average. This
almost-always-overlooked fact means that even with USF support and
subsidies, as a matter of long-settled Federal policy, every rural
resident is paying more on average for voice and broadband services to
start than urban Americans. Moreover, low-income consumers obviously
face additional challenges when it comes to adoption. While the FCC's
Lifeline USF program is available to help such consumers purchase
broadband, the subsidy is too low to make a meaningful difference on
most broadband bills, especially in rural areas where it costs more to
deliver broadband services. Totelcom is supportive of the FCC's
Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB) that was enacted in December 2020 to
provide eligible consumers with at least $50 a month to purchase
broadband service. We are participating in the program so that every
consumer in our service area who wants broadband service will have it.
As its name makes clear, however, the EBB is a temporary program
designed to help consumers pay for service during emergencies. The EBB
will provide good opportunities to learn what works best to overcome
challenges to adoption by low-income consumers, and those lessons will
hopefully then be applied to permanent solutions with more predictable
and sufficient funding.
Response from Timothy R. Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, OEConnect,
LLC and Otsego Electric Cooperative, Inc.
Question Submitted by Hon. Doug LaMalfa, a Representative in Congress
from California
Question. Mr. Johnson, the 2018 Farm Bill included significant
updates to communications application process at the Forest Service.
Can you comment on the implementation of these reforms and any
additional changes the Committee or the Forest Service should consider
to further improve timely access to Federal land for NRECA members and
other broadband providers?
Answer. In 2020, NRECA generally supported the improvements made by
the Forest Service to streamline the communications application and
permit approval process. However, electric co-ops continue to
experience unreasonable delays. A few examples of these delays and
potential solutions are below.
Several co-ops with existing powerline rights-of-way crossing
Federal lands are facing a year or more to obtain approvals to attach
fiber cable to already authorized and permitted electric facilities.
Simply put, electric co-ops are seeking approval to hang a single fiber
cable onto existing power poles. However, the Forest Service is
considering this activity a new special use, outside of the original
permit for the utility rights-of-way. Therefore, electric co-ops must
undertake a new, full environmental review and permitting process with
no end in sight. This is happening in the George Washington, Huron-
Manistee, and several other National Forests. These delays are having a
significant impact on the ability to provide and expand broadband
access to rural communities. The irony is that in some cases, the new
fiber will provide improved internet access to the local Forest Service
field office, which they desperately need.
Part of the issue is that there are no existing categorical
exclusions (CE) within the agency's environmental procedures to cover
fiber installation within existing easements. Some projects may
beneficially fall within the November 2020 Forest Service's expanded
categorical exclusion if the installation occurs on less than 20 acres
of National Forest System lands. However, given this administration's
review and potential rewrite of the overarching Council on
Environmental Quality's NEPA rule, there seems to be a considerable
amount of confusion and reluctancy of Forest Service staff on whether
and if this applies.
This is my long way of saying that the agency should establish and
implement a CE for fiber installation along existing rights-of-way on
an accelerated permit issuance timeframe and ensure staff are given
clear applicability guidelines to streamline the approval process.
Waiting over a year for a permit to attach a single fiber wire to an
existing pole unnecessarily impedes the ability to bridge the digital
divide, provide equitable opportunities, and jump-start local economies
of rural communities.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Don Bacon, a Representative in Congress
from Nebraska
Question 1. Two-thirds of my home state is rural and more and more
dependent on enhanced broadband connectivity. Anecdotally, there are
broadband connection gaps in rural areas where the FCC shows coverage.
University of Nebraska researchers developed a simple plug-in device
and survey to scientifically measure and map household broadband
connectivity over time, but have not found Federal funding or programs
that support broadband mapping.
Could this approach help measure and map connectivity in rural
Nebraska and other frontier states that have become so reliant in
recent months on enhanced broadband connections for education, health
care and rural economic expansion including on-farm applications?
Answer. Collecting the necessary data to truly gauge the extent of
the digital divide has been elusive and has been a hindrance to meeting
our national goal of universal broadband access. This has been
exasperated by the FCC's focus on ``advertised'' speeds versus the
``actual speed'' a consumer experiences, which is often lower. While
actual speeds can sometimes be lower due to valid factors such as
customers' computers or routers, internet traffic, etc., we are aware
of countless experiences where some providers are overly reliant on
``advertised'' speeds that their networks actually cannot deliver to
all their consumers on a reliable basis. Last year Congress adopted the
DATA Act requiring the FCC to implement more granular and accurate
broadband data collection and mapping. Unfortunately, funds were not
appropriated until the December 2020 end of year funding and stimulus
bill. The agency is moving forward with implementation and Acting
Chairwoman Rosenworcel is aiming for adoption of a new data collection
program by the end of the year. As proposed, the new system would
improve upon the current system in several ways. In addition to
requiring providers to submit more granular data, the FCC will seek to
verify data by comparing it against other data sets, such as state
broadband data. Most importantly, The FCC will implement a challenge
process by which a consumer, or a nonprofit or even locality on behalf
of residents and businesses, can challenge a broadband provider's claim
of service at their location. Third party speed testing services, such
as those run by Ookla or Mlabs, will play an important role in this
challenge process and ensuring consumers receive the level of service
promised by providers. We are hopeful this new broadband data regime
will provide the level of specificity needed. Congress should exercise
ongoing oversight to make sure that the data collected is of sufficient
granularity and accuracy.
Currently, carriers that receive Federal Universal Service Funds
(USF) from the CAF II and recent RDOF Phase I broadband auctions are
required to run speed tests on a regular basis, starting in about year
3, until the end of their funding obligation. Early on, such devices
were a separate add on. Many co-ops have found customers hesitant to
permit their broadband provider to add a device that will allow testing
that will be shared with the government. As a result, there has been
investment in integrating speed testing mechanisms into customer
premise equipment, such as modems and routers. The FCC has discussed
sharing the testing data collected from USF program recipients with
state agencies so they can benefit from the data. While this would only
be a subset of providers it would still be very useful to policymakers.
Question 2. As we consider deploying more resources to address
rural broadband challenges, how can we be certain that the resources
provided to USDA are being put in communities which are truly
underserved, given the current service gaps?
Answer. All USDA broadband programs currently include extensive
rules and in the field verification and challenge processes to ensure
areas/applicants that are awarded funds are eligible and in need of
broadband funds. We understand the need and desire to ensure efficacy
of Federal broadband program. However, the intense focus put on seeking
out hypothetical bad actors in programs can make them cumbersome,
bureaucratic, and unattractive, especially to small businesses such as
cooperatives. One challenge that can prevent communities from
benefiting from these programs is the asymmetrical challenge process
that exists in the current ReConnect program. The current challenge
process disadvantages applicants because they never get to learn what
provider or where the challenger is saying there is adequate existing
service. This makes it next to impossible to modify an application so
that it would qualify, which further emboldens incumbent providers to
continue filing challenges that overstate their service quality and
coverage abilities, and results in unserved areas being denied vital
robust broadband for years. Congress should ensure the challenge
process is not asymmetrical in this way and implement adequate
flexibility in the programs to allow program administrators to consider
and respond to new situations that arise.
Question Submitted by Hon. Troy Balderson, a Representative in Congress
from Ohio
Question. Mr. Johnson, your testimony described USDA programs as
``administratively onerous and burdensome.''
Can you elaborate on how regulatory and procedural burdens fall on
NRECA members who seek assistance through USDA's broadband programs,
both those who are considering applying and those who have applied?
What can the Committee do to help alleviate these burdens for
applicants and streamline participation in USDA's programs?
Answer. Since my cooperative, OEC, is not participating in USDA
broadband programs, NRECA helped with the following answer to provide
the broader electric cooperative experience. Before going over some of
the main regulatory and procedural burdens, let me say that USDA has
been responsive to concerns in many cases. In each round of the
ReConnect program USDA has made improvements. The agency recently
sought comment and updated the program rules for Round three and we
anticipate updated rules to be released in late summer. Discussions
with USDA officials have left NRECA and member co-ops are cautiously
optimistic that additional positive changes will be implemented.
Approved applicants face varied environmental and administrative
burdens, including contracting, construction, and material challenges.
For example, under current rules, environmental approvals are required
to be done sequentially. ReConnect awardees can spend up to a year or
more obtaining required environmental approvals. Allowing a winning
applicant to file for approvals concurrently would allow for parallel
evaluation thus speeding the process along and leading to faster
deployment.
Broadly, a good amount of administrative challenges may trace back
to CFR 1753, most of which haven't been updated since the 1980s and
1990s. Because of this, they are largely written specifically for small
telcos. The result is they keep RUS from having appropriate leeway
responding to nonstandard situations or requests, causing delays and
added costs and electric co-ops not being able to participate. In this
case, ``nonstandard'' means literally anyone that isn't organized or
run like a small telephone company/co-op.
One simple compliance example: RUS Telecom compliance
reports require ``standalone'' financials from `xCo-op', which
only show lease revenue for the fiber from `xCo-op subsidiary'
and no retail internet customers. The report then flags awardee
as out of compliance.
Co-ops are subject to state laws in how they set up
their retail broadband business, which vary from state to
state. There are mixed business case reasons for having
fiber in their system--it's not 100% for smart grid or 100%
for retail broadband. Some co-ops may lease to their own
subsidiary, others may lease or trade with other business
entities to help get service to those who don't have it.
Flexibility in using 515 contracts for contractors.
Current rules require at least 50% of the employees
working on the project be employed by the lead contractor.
Many electric co-ops rely heavily on outside contractors,
and often subcontractors, particularly for fiber deployment
and installation. This is especially critical when under
program build-out deadlines.
Construction: difference between telecom and electric
programs
Example: ``Their [telecom program] construction
contracts require that the contractor provide all
materials. The electric program allows electric co-ops to
purchase its own materials and provide them to contractors
for projects, which lowers our cost and controls quality
for us. For the ReConnect contract, we have to issue the
materials to the contract and have their bond cover the
materials we provided them, which creates issues for the
contractor bonding company who is bonding against defective
materials and any shortage of materials among other
things.''
Fellow cooperatives hear about the myriad challenges and delays,
combined with the expensive up-front costs to apply for and comply with
grant reporting requirements that they determine it is not feasible or
worth it to apply.
Questions Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress
from Louisiana
Question 1. The USDA ReConnect Program can play an important role
in bridging the broadband gap. It is my understanding the rules, like
many Federal broadband grants, are being re-written to reflect the
pandemic and the importance of increasing broadband access. However, I
have heard that the application process is quite cumbersome.
What specific actions can Congress and the Department take to ease
the application process so it can be more accessible for all?
Answer. The application and review process for ReConnect is
cumbersome. As was mentioned in response to an earlier question many
USDA program regulations were written in the 1980s and 1990s. As such,
many of the application processes and software also are out of date
making the process more cumbersome. I will go through a few examples of
specific challenges that could be updated to streamline and simplify
the application process, some of which are potentially software issues.
Applicants are required to input extensive financial data to show they
have the financial viability to complete the proposed project. However,
the current application user interface requires financial information
to be entered line by line instead of using an upload function like for
an excel document.
There are also difficulties in the ability of the application
software to accept applications from equal partnerships. Despite rules
that encourage partnerships, the system requires one entity to be the
lead applicant which contradicts the letter and spirit of a
partnership. Partnership negations can be complex and agreements
delicately worded. These agreements can be upended by a lack of
flexibility in the software that can upset the partnership balance.
Partnerships should be allowed to apply as true and equal partnerships.
USDA has made many improvements since the ReConnect program was
launched. In the first round the portal repeatedly crashed and
interested entities couldn't submit applications and some missed the
application deadline as a result. One recommended solution was to
accept paper versions of the applications and [are] a `just in case'
option.
Question 2. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure
investments to address access is important, it is also important we
ensure that access is affordable.
For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing
broadband to rural areas.
Answer. Collectively, electric cooperatives serve 92% of persistent
poverty counties as identified by the U.S. Census Bureau so we are
acutely aware of affordability. Affordability must be a consideration
in closing the digital divide. The current FCC administered low-income
program, Lifeline, provides a nominal subsidy of $9.25 a month. This
amount does not move the needle to address affordability for low-income
consumers. Otsego is participating in the temporary Emergency Broadband
Benefit Program (EBB) established in the December stimulus. The EBB
provides qualifying low-income households with $50, $75 on tribal
lands, towards their monthly service bill. The significantly higher
subsidy in the temporary EBB program will prove informative in whether
this level of subsidy is effective in addressing affordability. What we
already know for sure is that a permanent program to address
affordability will be required.
We feel the better approach would be to update and enhance the
existing FCC Lifeline program to make it more effective in addressing
affordability.
Response from Vickie S. Robinson, Esq., General Manager, Microsoft
Global Airband Initiative
Question Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress
from Louisiana
Question. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure
investments to address access is important, it is also important we
ensure that access is affordable.
For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing
broadband to rural areas.
Answer. Thank you for this important question which gets to the
heart of the digital divide. In our efforts to address this challenge,
the Microsoft Airband Initiative has adopted three important pillars:
(1) access to affordable broadband, (2) access to affordable devices,
and (3) access to digital skilling. Each of these pillars are essential
to ensuring that everyone is able to participate in the digital age.
However, before addressing these pillars, it is important that we have
accurate data that reflects the state of the broadband gap, and
Congress makes sufficient funding available to extend broadband
networks and connections to rural and other areas that are unconnected
and unserved. Such funding should be distributed on a technology
neutral basis allowing broadband providers and communities to determine
which technologies best meets their deployment and service needs and
preference should be given to broadband solutions that provide rapid
deployment of networks and services.
In order to address the three adoption challenges noted above, the
Federal Government should establish a permanent program that provides
annual funding. While the Federal Communications Commission's Emergency
Broadband Benefit (EBB) program authorized by Congress is a temporary
program, it provides a meaningful example of the needed elements of a
permanent program. The EBB provides internet service providers with a
monthly reimbursement up to $50 for broadband service provided per
eligible household and up to $75 for households on Tribal lands as well
as a discount on laptops, desktops, or tablets. A permanent program
will help to ensure that consumers can afford a broadband subscription
and device. Permanent Federal funding must also include funding for
digital skilling to ensure that everyone has the ability to use their
broadband connection and device. Also, we believe that a successful
permanent program will be easy for consumers to access and use.
Response from Johnny Park, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer, Wabash
Heartland Innovation Network
Question Submitted by Hon. Julia Letlow, a Representative in Congress
from Louisiana
Question. At least 350,000 households in Louisiana do not have
high-speed internet as defined by the Federal Communications
Commission. Most of these households are in my district. Equally
important, we have an acute affordability challenge and many
individuals lack digital skills. While focus on infrastructure
investments to address access is important, it is also important we
ensure that access is affordable.
For all witnesses, please share with the Committee your recommended
best practices to help address the affordability challenge in bringing
broadband to rural areas.
Answer. This is an excellent question and gets to heart of the
issue for low density rural areas. The problem is the business plan,
which is especially challenging if fiber is the only option being
considered. Wireless solutions can be quicker, much less expensive to
deploy and offer options for difficult terrain.
Our overall recommendations to reduce cost are (1) be proactive in
deployments, (2) use fiber strategically, (3) take advantage of new
options and innovation in wireless technology.
Be proactive in deployments
Even if all service is provided by the private-sector, parishes and
counties should still pay attention to deployments, especially after
Federal auctions that award funds to companies who bid to provide
services in the parishes. Know the rules, get to know the service
providers that will be coming, work with them and existing providers to
help them stand up networks efficiently, using existing fiber and
wireless networks, existing vertical assets, and other resources when
possible. Also make sure the deployments happen timely.
Find ways to incentivize service providers to work together.
Use fiber strategically
Fiber's business plan depends on density, and there are often high-
density pockets even in rural areas. This can be leveraged. For
example, fiber-to-the-home in a small town, or run to a large anchor
tenant like a grain operation, can work affordably. That fiber can then
be used to backhaul a wireless solution to the surrounding countryside
where density is low.
Fiber doesn't have to be buried: it can go up on lines. Engage
partners with assets that can be used to reduce the capital cost (e.g.,
rural energy and telephone co-ops.)
Don't be afraid of wireless: it can be great for middle and last mile
solutions, and even backhaul
Though fixed wireless has historically struggled to match the
performance of fiber, this has been due in large part to the wireless
industry having no access to the high-quality bands that support LTE
and 5G-quality solutions. Lower quality spectrum has also meant lower
quality gear. The best gear goes to better bands because that is where
the mobile business is.
The FCC has recently made new, very high quality spectrum
available, including CBRS, that is ideally suited for rural areas. This
has not only helped with bandwidth and performance, it has created a
new market for higher quality wireless gear companies: they can adapt
their gear easily to the fixed wireless industry, creating affordable
high quality gear.
This opens the door to strategic, mixed use of fiber and wireless
to solve specific problems as described above.
As well, wireless gear can go on existing vertical assets like
grain legs, saving capital cost.
There is also a lot of innovation happening right now in the
wireless world. The aerostat that WHIN described in its testimony is
designed for rural applications. Its altitude also allows for wireless
backhaul to small towns.
And there are other companies that are offering affordable last
mile solutions with creative use of spectrum and network design.
WHIN's Living Lab is testing new approaches to affordable rural
broadband that utilize these strategies, and we are happy to share
results.
File and source
- File
- CHRG_chrg-117hhrg47123_chrg-117hhrg47123.htm
- Size
- 509,723 bytes
- SHA-256
- 122d1e825b887ea972c613dfa484383c9550e5e53ea2874efcbb1f00184c3128
- Original
- No public link identified.