[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DEFINING AND MAPPING BROADBAND COVERAGE IN AMERICA
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 21, 2017
__________
Serial No. 115-40
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
26-635 WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
Chairman
JOE BARTON, Texas FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
FRED UPTON, Michigan BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ANNA G. ESHOO, California
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas GENE GREEN, Texas
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi DORIS O. MATSUI, California
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey KATHY CASTOR, Florida
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETE OLSON, Texas JERRY McNERNEY, California
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia PETER WELCH, Vermont
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia PAUL TONKO, New York
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BILLY LONG, Missouri KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
BILL FLORES, Texas Massachusetts
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana TONY CARDENAS, California
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma RAUL RUIZ, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina SCOTT H. PETERS, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
Chairman
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Vice Chairman Ranking Member
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky RAUL RUIZ, California
PETE OLSON, Texas DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
BILL FLORES, Texas DORIS O. MATSUI, California
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee JERRY McNERNEY, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota officio)
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, opening statement.......................... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Prepared statement...........................................
Hon. Bill Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Ohio, opening statement........................................ 5
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, prepared statement..................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 8
Witnesses
Doug Brake, Senior Analyst, Telecom Policy, Information
Technology and Innovation Foundation........................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 13
Answers to submitted questions............................... 122
J. Brent Legg, Vice President of Government Affairs, Connected
Nation......................................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Robert Wack, President, Westminster City Council, Westminster,
Maryland....................................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
Answers to submitted questions............................... 125
Carol Mattey, Principal, Mattey Consulting, LLC.................. 45
Prepared statement........................................... 47
Bryan Darr, President and CEO, Mosaik............................ 57
Prepared statement........................................... 59
Answers to submitted questions............................... 129
Submitted Material
Article entitled, ``The Westminster P3 Model,'' by Robert Wack,
Broadband Communities, November/December 2015, submitted by Mr.
Doyle.......................................................... 105
Statement of the Connecticut Consumer Counsel, submitted by Mr.
Doyle.......................................................... 109
Statement of the Satellite Industry Association, submitted by
Mrs. Blackburn................................................. 114
Article entitled, ``Sorry, Chairman Pai: Your Investment Numbers
Don't Add Up,'' Free Press..................................... 118
DEFINING AND MAPPING BROADBAND COVERAGE IN AMERICA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 2017
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta,
Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Flores, Brooks,
Collins, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, Welch,
Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney,
and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff Present: Elena Brennan, Legislative Clerk, Energy and
Environment; Kelly Collins, Staff Assistant; Zachary Dareshori,
Staff Assistant; Chuck Flint, Policy Coordinator,
Communications and Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach
and Coalitions; Gene Fullano, Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Giulia Giannangeli, Legislative Clerk, Digital,
Commerce, and Consumer Protection/Communications and
Technology; Kelsey Guyselman, Counsel, Communications and
Technology; Bijan Koohmaraie, Counsel, Digital, Commerce, and
Consumer Protection; Tim Kurth, Senior Professional Staff,
Communications and Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel,
Communications and Technology; Drew McDowell, Executive
Assistant; Katie McKeough, Press Assistant; Alex Miller, Video
Production Side and Press Assistant; Paul Nagle, Chief Counsel,
Digital, Commerce, and Consumer Protection; Dan Schneider,
Press Secretary; Madeline Vey, Policy Coordinator, Digital,
Commerce, and Consumer Protection; Evan Viau, Staff Assistant;
Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Jeff Carroll,
Minority Staff Director; Alex Debianchi, Minority Telecom
Fellow; Evan Gilbert, Minority Press Assistant; David Goldman,
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry
Leverich, Minority Counsel; Lori Maarbjerg, Minority FCC
Detailee; and Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn. The committee will come to order.
As we begin today, and before I recognize myself for an
opening, I would like for us to remember Steve Scalise, a
member of this committee, and also those that were involved in
the shooting last week. And I thank Mr. Doyle, who is the team
manager, team leader for the Democrats' victorious baseball
team, for the gesture of kindness last week in sharing the
trophy.
And at this time, I recognize myself for 5 minutes for an
opening. And welcome to all of you to our subcommittee hearing,
which is titled ``Defining and Mapping Broadband Coverage in
America.'' Delighted to see the interest in this topic and
delighted that you all are here. And I thank our witnesses for
appearing as we examine the definition of broadband and
existing challenges in updating the National Broadband Map
which has not occurred since June 2014, if you can believe
that.
Broadband is the infrastructure challenge of this decade,
and the digital divide continues to plague rural America in
particular. We must be good stewards of taxpayer money by
ensuring that there is access to accurate data so that areas
with the greatest need for broadband services are targeted by
both public and private investments.
This hearing will be divided into two discussions: Defining
broadband coverage and mapping broadband coverage. The FCC
redefined minimum broadband download speeds at 25 megabits per
second in 2015 as part of its broadband progress report. This
represented a dramatic shift from the previous standard of 4
megabits per second and resulted in a significant change in the
number of Americans considered covered by broadband. Broadband
services and usage run the gamut from basic and light to
advanced and high.
Americans utilize the internet for a variety of things, and
we realize that there is increasing demand for higher speeds.
However, we should examine whether a totality of the
circumstances test is perhaps appropriate in determining how we
define broadband connectivity. Particular weight should be
given to factors such as the current level of coverage, or lack
thereof, and the cost of deployment.
Mapping broadband coverage will be a second discussion
point. Each administration has taken action to spur broadband
deployment, beginning with the Clinton administration's efforts
in 1995, when GSA tried to streamline the permitting process
for wireless antennas. Approximately $7.2 billion in Federal
grants and loans were awarded through NTIA's BTOP and the RUS
BIP as a part of the Obama administration's American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009. $293 million of this money went
to the state broadband initiative, which numerous states used
to create public/private partnerships to generate a map. NTIA
had authority over the National Broadband Map, but it was
transferred to the FCC when BTOP funding to update the map ran
out in June 2014. More importantly, a GAO analysis of the
ARRA's implementation revealed that data collection methods
needed improvement in order to be more effective.
In short, billions in taxpayer money was spent on broadband
deployment by the last administration but failed to achieve
desired results as little more than 183,000 miles of network
infrastructure was built. The economic, educational, and
healthcare opportunities that come with unleashing broadband
are undeniable.
I love this report. It is an essential report. And it notes
that smart cities' growth could result in a $500 billion impact
on GDP over 10 years. However, accurately defining broadband
and ensuring access to accurate mapping data is imperative so
that hardworking taxpayer money targets areas most in need of
broadband service.
Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past are
doomed to repeat them, so let's learn and let's not repeat the
mistakes. We should proceed as expeditiously as possible but
with caution and with wisdom from those learned mistakes.
At this time, I yield back my time, and I recognize the
gentleman from Pennsylvania for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome everyone to the Communications and Technology
Subcommittee's hearing titled ``Defining and Mapping Broadband
Coverage in America''. Also, thank you to the witnesses for
appearing as we examine the definition of broadband and
existing challenges in updating the National Broadband Map--
which has not occurred since June 2014. Broadband is the
infrastructure challenge of this decade and the ``digital
divide'' continues to plague rural America in particular. We
must be good stewards of taxpayer money by ensuring that there
is access to accurate data so that areas with the greatest need
for broadband services are targeted by public and private
investments.
This hearing will be divided into two discussions:
``Defining Broadband Coverage'' and ``Mapping Broadband
Coverage''. The FCC redefined minimum broadband download speeds
at 25 megabits per second in 2015 as part of its Broadband
Progress Report. This represented a dramatic shift from the
previous standard of 4 megabits per second and resulted in a
significant change in the number of Americans considered
covered by broadband. Broadband services and usage run the
gamut from basic and light to advanced and high. Americans
utilize the Internet for a variety of things and we realize
that there is increasing demand for higher speeds. However, we
should whether a ``totality of the circumstances'' test is
perhaps appropriate in determining how we define broadband
connectivity. Particular weight should be given to factors such
as the current level of coverage--or lack thereof, and cost of
deployment.
Mapping broadband coverage will be a second discussion
point. Each Administration has taken action to spur broadband
deployment beginning with the Clinton Administration's efforts
in 1995 when GSA tried to streamline the permitting process for
wireless antennas. Approximately $7.2 billion in Federal grants
and loans were awarded through NTIA's Broadband Technology
Opportunity Program or ``BTOP'' and the RUS Broadband
Initiative Program or ``BIP'' as a part of the Obama
Administration's American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA)
of 2009. $293 million dollars of this money went to the State
Broadband Initiative, which numerous states used to create
public-private partnerships to generate a map.
NTIA had authority over the National Broadband Map, but it
was transferred to the FCC when BTOP funding to update the map
ran out in June 2014. More importantly, a GAO analysis of the
ARRA's implementation revealed that data collection methods
needed improvement in order to be more effective. In short,
billions in taxpayer money was spent on broadband deployment by
the last Administration, but failed to achieve desired results
as little more than 183,000 miles of network infrastructure was
built.
The economic, educational and healthcare opportunities that
come with unleashing broadband are undeniable. A recent
Accenture report notes that smart cities growth could result in
a $500 billion impact on GDP over ten years. However,
accurately defining broadband and ensuring access to accurate
mapping data is imperative so that hard-working taxpayer money
targets areas most in need of broadband service. Those who do
not learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat
them. We should proceed as expeditiously as possible, but with
caution.
Thank you.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for
holding this hearing and say thank you to the witnesses for
being here. I also want to take a moment, in light of the
events last week, to reiterate to my colleagues on the
Republican side of the aisle and to the public that while
Republicans and Democrats may disagree on a lot, we share many
of the same goals and aspirations: We love our country, and we
want to do well by the people who have sent us here to
represent them.
We also agree that broadband deployment is critical for the
future of our Nation and for our economy. And while much
progress has been made to bridge the digital divide, we are
still struggling to connect unserved and underserved
communities across the country.
While the FCC continues to make critical investments in
broadband deployment through the Universal Service Fund, we are
still falling short in terms of meeting the needs of
underserved Americans.
Ranking Member Pallone, myself, and the rest of our side of
the committee have put forward an infrastructure proposal that
would invest an additional $40 billion in broadband deployment.
This investment could significantly close the broadband
deployment gap and bring high-speed internet service to 98
percent of the country. Representatives Loebsack and Ruiz also
have bills that respectively seek to improve mobile coverage
maps and expand and improve universal service funding on Tribal
lands. And Representatives Welch and McKinley have a bipartisan
bill that directs the FCC to establish standards for what
constitutes reasonably comparable service in rural and urban
areas. These bills all have merit, and I strongly urge the
chairman to allow this subcommittee to consider these bills.
I would also, again, urge the chairman to call the FCC
before this committee for an oversight hearing. The oversight
hearing that was scheduled for March 8 has never been
rescheduled. The commission has received roughly 5 million
comments in their proceedings to eliminate net neutrality
rules, and they have yet to come before this committee to
address the public's concerns. I hope that we can work together
and get a hearing scheduled with the commission as soon as
possible.
With that, I would like to yield 1 minute to the gentlelady
from California, Ms. Matsui, and then an additional minute to
Representative McNerney.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle, for yielding me
time.
I appreciate the subcommittee's continued focus on
broadband infrastructure, but I am disappointed that we are
having another hearing exploring the topic rather than a
legislative hearing to advance the bills we have worked on. I
hope that this committee takes action to ensure everyone has
access to the tools they need to succeed in the digital
economy.
Whether you live in an urban district, like my
congressional district in Sacramento, or a rural area, there
are many challenges to broadband deployment. Affordable access
to truly high-speed broadband for every American is going to
require significant and sustained Federal investments. Those
investments should include improving our Federal broadband
data. The National Broadband Map has not been updated in 3
years, and the public is losing out without this important
tool. That data was used by communities across the country
whether it was connecting small businesses in New York or
saving jobs in rural Utah.
We all want the United States to have world-class
communications networks, and we should have the data that shows
whether we are truly leading the global economy. This has been
a bipartisan issue, and I urge my colleagues to work with us on
real solutions.
Thank you, and I yield to my colleague.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the ranking member for yielding time
to me, and I thank the chair and the ranking member for holding
the hearing today.
As we examine the issue of broadband access, I want to
highlight the importance of this issue to our Nation's
veterans. Access to broadband internet service is critical to
the more than 20 million veterans across our Nation. Having
broadband internet access helps veterans apply for jobs, obtain
vocational training, communicate with friends and family, and
access services at the VA.
Without broadband internet access, it is difficult to fully
participate in today's society. Veterans face many challenges
when they return home, and not having internet access makes
what can be a tough transition process even harder. This is
especially important for the more than 1.4 million veterans
living below the Federal poverty level and the 5.3 million
veterans living in rural areas.
Last Congress, I introduced bipartisan legislation that
would put us on a path to helping more veterans get access to
internet service. This bill passed the House. It is my hope
that this year we can move this bill again and this time get
the Senate to move on it, although, we don't have any control
of that.
With that, I thank the ranking member and yield back.
Mr. Doyle. And, Madam Chair, I would like to ask unanimous
consent to enter into the record letters from the City of
Westminster, the Consumer Council, and the Satellite Industry
Association.
Mrs. Blackburn. So ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Johnson, we will yield to you. We are waiting for the
chairman. I know he has an opening statement he wants to make.
So I yield to Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BILL JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Johnson. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I won't use the
entire 5 minutes, but let me just say how glad I am that we are
having this hearing and others yet to follow in the coming
weeks and months.
This is a tremendously important topic for people that live
in rural America. I can tell you that in eastern and
southeastern Ohio, I have young people that have to go to a
neighboring town and drive some distance to be able to get
access to do their homework and to do their school research
projects.
I don't know about you, but I never had to go to Tim
Hortons to do my homework, but that is where some of them have
to go to a neighboring town where they can get a Wi-Fi
connection, if they can get a Wi-Fi connection. And so it is
really important.
I was in Youngstown, which is not so much rural, by the
way, a very industrialized city, an island, an enclave of
businesses just outside of Youngstown; yet, all they have is
DSL capability, and the business is struggling. They want to
grow. They are prepared to grow. They want to hire more people,
but they can't advance their business because they can't get
access to broadband internet capability.
So, Madam Chair, count me in, full speed ahead. Let's get
this problem solved for America.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this issue.
Is there any other member on the Republican side seeking
time?
A couple of points, my Democratic colleagues have raised
it, I just want to touch on. The reason we are doing this is
because we do think this hearing is important to how we close
the digital divide, and we are focusing on those infrastructure
needs for broadband, the mapping issue, which is important.
The FCC commissioners, to my colleague from Pennsylvania,
we have been working with them to reschedule a date. We
anticipate having them before us in July. We will keep you
posted on this.
On the concerns that I know Mr. Pallone has about net
neutrality, you know that the FCC is dealing with that, and it
would be premature for us to discuss those issues before or not
to discuss but to take an action before the commission finishes
their work.
And on the privacy issue, we had a very robust debate with
this around the CRA process to set aside those FCC rules that
had not yet been implemented and reserve the status quo on that
issue. And I will say to my colleagues, I would be happy to
discuss my BROWSER act with you on the privacy issue.
And we have reached out to all the Democratic offices in
the House on this issue, and I will say this: It was
disappointing to me to get a response from one Democratic
office that suggested when I did the Dear Colleague, and I am
quoting from that response, ``Can you please remove the 200
other people who have expressed no interest in engaging in this
topic.''
So that was disappointing. I do hope that my colleagues do
want to engage on privacy and that indeed we can move forward
on this issue this year.
And the chairman has arrived and I will yield to Chairman
Walden the balance of the time.
Mr. Walden. I thank the gentlelady. I thank the chairwoman
for her leadership on these communications and privacy issues.
If you asked somebody in rural America, like in my giant
district in eastern Oregon, whether they have broadband access
that meets the speeds quota as defined by the FCC, they likely
don't know. But if you ask them whether they get internet
access to match their needs, they can probably give you a quick
yes or no answer.
That should be our primary objective as policymakers
looking to allocate Federal resources, counting for consumer
demand, putting the consumer first, and getting the most people
the best access we can to a productive level of internet
service.
People in the remote parts of our country, including in
Oregon, and other unserved parts of our country probably would
tell you they would be happy just to have a connection, because
some of them don't have that today, as you all know.
And so that is the importance of, I think, this hearing and
the work that we are doing going forward is figuring out how do
you connect the unconnected. They should not be left behind in
America, whether you are in Montana or Wyoming or Oregon or
North Dakota or an urban setting where there are issues as
well.
So I think this is really important that we have this
discussion about mapping. We learned a lesson frankly the hard
way from our experience with the rural utilities service and
the 2009 Recovery Act. As outlined by an investigator with the
nonpartisan Government Accountability Office, he said, ``We are
left with a program that spent 3 billion. We really don't know
what became of it.'' And that is because at the time that went
through the money went out before the maps were drawn.
And I hope this time when we look at infrastructure
expansion in America to connect places that we hit the mapping
first. We focused on the areas that are unserved first and
connect this country to one of the most important economic and
social tools in our history.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
If you ask someone in rural America--like my district in
Oregon--whether they have broadband access that meets the
speeds `as defined by the Federal Communications Commission,'
they probably don't know. But if you ask them whether they get
internet access to match their needs, they can probably give
you a quick ``yes'' or ``no'' answer.
That should be our primary objective as policy makers
looking to allocate federal resources-accounting for consumer
demand, and getting the most people access to a productive
level of internet service. People in the most remote parts of
Oregon and other unserved parts of our country probably would
tell you they'd be happy with just about any level of high-
speed internet service, they just want to be connected. While
we want to be sure that everyone can participate in the modern
digital economy, we should also make sure that any definition
of broadband is driven by what an average consumer needs, not
just an arbitrary standard.
I think we all agree that there are places in our country
where private investment would never go, but in order to
identify those places, we must take the time to properly study
where an infusion of infrastructure funding will be most
effective. As we continue our discussions around broadband
infrastructure, we must ensure we are prepared to offer
effective solutions with the precious federal dollars that may
be available, and that means starting with reliable data to
identify those Americans that are most in need. Without the
best data available, we will continue to leave rural areas
behind. What we've unfortunately seen over the years of debate
on how to deliver fast, reliable internet access to all
Americans, is that the folks that need it most often get lost
in the rush to dole out government funds. All we have at the
end of such exercises is failed government intervention in the
marketplace. If earlier efforts had been successful we wouldn't
be having this conversation today.
We learned this lesson the hard way from our experience
with the Rural Utilities Service and the 2009 Recovery Act. As
outlined by an investigator with the nonpartisan Government
Accountability Office, ``we are left with a program that spent
$3 billion and we really don't know what became of it.'' This
time around, we must remember what happened when policy makers
didn't take the time necessary to identify parts of the country
that needed funds the most.
During the debate around the funding in 2009, I pushed for
an amendment that would require mapping before funding-and
while my amendment was unfortunately not adopted then, I stand
by this principle. If we intend to invest taxpayer dollars, we
should target those resources carefully and thoughtfully. We
owe nothing less to the hardworking people of this country.
Let's do it right this time. Let's not repeat mistakes of
the past, let's get the data, let's use the data, and target
those places that need help the most. Let's connect rural
America to new economic opportunities and increase the quality
of life in these communities.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Pallone, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Three months ago to this day, this subcommittee held a
hearing on this same topic. We heard from witnesses how in
these uncertain economic times deploying more secure high-speed
internet means providing more opportunities for more people.
Yet, here we are, 90 days later, reopening that same hearing
while we still haven't had a single hearing on important issues
like net neutrality, privacy, or oversight of this
administration.
And I listened, Madam Chair, to what you said as to why
that wasn't happening, but I don't agree. Look, first of all,
let me say that it is quite clear that this administration
wants to get rid of both the privacy rules at the FCC as well
as net neutrality.
And I have said before that on the day when we repealed the
privacy rules in the Congress, I think the next day the
President's spokesperson Sean Spicer had a press conference,
and he literally said, well, now we got rid of the FCC privacy
rules, and we are going to get rid of net neutrality next. And
then the next week the FCC started that process. So I am not
going to be naive enough to assume that the FCC on a partisan
vote isn't going to get rid of net neutrality. I think that is
clear. But regardless, there is no reason why we can't have
hearings on both of these issues.
Clearly, if you have a hearing, you are not necessarily
deciding anything. You are basically having a discussion about
the issue of net neutrality and privacy and what the FCC did
and what the options would be moving forward. So I think that
we should have those hearings, and, again, I will make a plea
on behalf of the Democrats that we do that. And we also haven't
made progress on broadband deployment even though Democratic
members of this committee have introduced a number of good
bills that would help deployment.
One of our bills, called the LIFT America Act, would use a
reverse auction to allocate $40 billion on new broadband
deployment across the entire country. Our proposal would not
only create new opportunities for millions of Americans, it
would prioritize schools, libraries, and 9-1-1 services.
Congressman Loebsack has also introduced a commonsense bill
that would direct the FCC to improve its broadband data. We
heard at the last hearing about all the problems with the FCC's
data. We also heard unanimous support for Mr. Loebsack's
proposal.
Congressman Ruiz has introduced legislation that would make
sure people living in Indian country don't get left behind and
aren't ignored when it comes to broadband deployment. We should
follow Congressman Ruiz's example and do everything we can to
help those who live on Tribal lands.
And finally, Congressman Welch and McKinley put forward a
bill that would let us better compare the broadband services in
rural areas to those in urban areas.
But for some reason, the Republican leadership on this
committee refused to recognize any of these bills for our
hearing today. In fact, this is the second week in a row in
which this subcommittee is holding hearings on topics addressed
by our bills with no acknowledgment of the significant benefits
that these bills would bring to the American people. These
democratic proposals address real problems faced by real people
and will help improve our Nation's security, opportunity, and
connectivity. I hope the Republicans will eventually recognize
the importance of these bills and will begin to work with us in
moving them forward.
And with that, I would yield the remainder of my time to
Congressman Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
As has been mentioned already, 3 months ago when our
committee had its last hearing on broadband development, we
heard broad agreement that the FCC's data needed improvement.
We heard members on both sides of the aisle comment on how
these bad data shortchanged rural America. We can all agree on
that in this committee. And that is why I did introduce H.R.
1546, the Rural Wireless Act. This bill directs the FCC to
improve its data collection that feeds its broadband coverage
map.
During our previous hearing, I was encouraged that even the
Republican witnesses strongly supported my bill. They testified
that my bill is necessary to give residents of rural areas a
chance, and I am looking forward to hearing what some of you
folks have to say about that bill as well.
And, folks, that is because in Iowa and many rural
communities, and we can agree on this, I think, on a bipartisan
basis, broadband means jobs. But in Iowa, access to broadband
is even more than that; it is a manner of survival, literally
survival.
If rural communities in Iowa cannot get access to
broadband, they simply cannot survive. And as I have said many
times before, in order to make that happen, we need both
dollars and good data. And as heartened as I was at the last
hearing, I am disappointed at where we are today.
Despite the strong expert support for my bill, this
committee hasn't made any progress legislatively. This hearing
is supposed to be about improving broadband data and mapping,
but in 3 months since the last hearing, I have been
disappointed at the lack of cooperation that we have seen
within this committee.
And I am not normally one, publicly to go out and complain
about such things. I try to do what I can to cooperate with the
other side and vice versa, but it is at a point now where we
have really got to work together because this is that
important.
And I thank you very much, Mr. Pallone, for the time. And I
yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Anyone else seeking time?
No one else is seeking time. This concludes our opening
statements. I will remind all members that pursuant to our
committee rules you may enter that as a part of the record and
put that opening statement in the record.
We do thank our witnesses for being here today and taking
the time to testify before the subcommittee. Each of you will
have the opportunity to give an opening statement. We will
follow it with a round of questions from members.
Our witness panel for today's hearing includes Mr. Doug
Brake, who is the senior Telecommunications Policy Analyst at
the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation; Mr. Brent
Legg, who is the Vice President of Government Affairs at
Connected Nation; Dr. Robert Wack, who is the President of
Westminster City Council in Westminster, Maryland; Ms. Carol
Mattey, who is Principal at Mattey Consulting, LLC; and Mr.
Bryan Darr, a good Tennesseean, who is President and CEO of
Mosaik.
Mr. Brake, we would begin with you. You are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENTS OF DOUG BRAKE, SENIOR ANALYST, TELECOM POLICY,
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION FOUNDATION; J. BRENT
LEGG, VICE PRESIDENT OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, CONNECTED NATION;
DR. ROBERT WACK, PRESIDENT, WESTMINSTER CITY COUNCIL,
WESTMINSTER, MARYLAND; CAROL MATTEY, PRINCIPAL, MATTEY
CONSULTING, LLC; AND BRYAN DARR, PRESIDENT AND CEO, MOSAIK
STATEMENT OF DOUG BRAKE
Mr. Brake. Thank you very much, Chairman Blackburn and
Ranking Member Doyle and members of the subcommittee for the
opportunity to testify before you today and share the views of
the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, or ITIF,
on defining and mapping broadband in the United States. ITIF is
a nonpartisan think tank whose mission is to formulate and
promote public policies to advance technological innovation and
productivity growth, with broadband policy a core concern.
We all understand and respect the importance of broadband
access. Broadband is necessary to participate in the 21st
century economy. It underpins social opportunity, economic
growth, and national competitiveness. Expanding the geographic
footprint of the Nation's digital infrastructure should be a
significant part of any infrastructure package.
Thankfully, the existing private investment framework for
broadband has seen tremendous achievement attracting capital
expenditures that make U.S. networks an international success
story. The light touch oversight of increasingly competitive
broadband has worked incredibly well, overseeing dramatic
increases in network coverage and capacity and supporting a
flourishing U.S. digital ecosystem.
Generally speaking, innovation and investment are best
encouraged when infrastructure deployment can be led by the
private sector, especially in dynamic markets like broadband.
However, in rural or otherwise high-cost areas, it is often
impossible to achieve adequate return to see private companies
invest.
A common metric for assessing the viability of a network
build is the number of homes passed per mile of fiber. In rural
areas, you can see that metric invert, where you are measuring
miles of fiber per home passed, which begins to capture the
economic challenge of covering rural America.
Considering the tremendous benefits of broadband, more can
and should be done to ensure that virtually all U.S. residents
have access to robust services. In addition to existing support
through the Universal Service Fund, a potential infrastructure
package offers a unique opportunity to considerably accelerate
the deployment of both fixed and mobile networks.
But providing the funds to support more universal broadband
is expensive, and public dollars should be targeted where they
are most effective: In achieving our policy goals. Priorities
should be given first to connecting the unconnected, the truly
unserved, until costs grow untenable. Only after that task is
completed should subsidies support increasing speeds in already
served areas, aiming for cost-effective upgrades, not
necessarily future proofing.
There is a misperception that the economic benefits of
broadband require significantly higher speed networks. Contrary
to those who insist that gigabit fiber networks are a national
imperative, study after study repeatedly show that the economic
benefits of broadband investment are greatest when adding
additional users, even if at lower speeds. Additional download
speed sees a clear and large diminishing marginal utility, and
lawmakers should avoid tunnel vision on achieving ever higher
speeds. Instead, as a general matter, we should allow our
understanding of broadband to evolve with networks themselves
over time.
When attempting to achieve cost-effective support
policymakers are essentially faced with a price and quantity
problem: How much coverage at what speed can be achieved at
what price? Answering those questions, deciding where Federal
support is most justified, and achieving the biggest return on
necessarily limited investment requires well-defined policy
goals, mapping of existing deployment, and modeling a projected
cost, all of which the FCC has experience with.
The FCC's Form 477 data collection process should be the
starting point for understanding existing broadband
deployments. The institutional knowledge and expertise at the
FCC should be relied upon rather than standing up an expensive
one-off mapping program. However, the Form 477 collection or
the related challenge process may have to be refined for
particular purposes. We will always be able to imagine more
perfect data. For example, the granularity of Form 477 data is
a parental concern.
However--and this is an important point--while more
information is generally better than less, if infrastructure
funding is distributed through a market-based approach, such as
reverse auctions, the need for highly detailed maps is greatly
reduced.
To summarize, broadband support in an infrastructure
package should go to where it is most effective, focusing first
on the truly unserved before aiming to support reasonable speed
increases by one provider in a legitimately unserved area
through an auction mechanism. We must attempt to understand how
much coverage at what speed can be achieved for what price, but
highly granular maps are less necessary at the more bottom-up
your approach is.
The FCC is experienced in both defining and mapping
broadband. Form 477 data collection process as well as the
streamline challenge process generally work well, and the FCC
should be trusted to implement a broadband component of an
infrastructure package.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Brake follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. We thank you.
And before I yield to you, Mr. Legg, I just want to make
everyone aware that the moving and shaking that you are hearing
is not something adverse. It is construction that is taking
place in the garage of this building. So we are going to hold
to that.
Mr. Legg, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF J. BRENT LEGG
Mr. Legg. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to share
our insights in this important proceeding this morning.
My name is Brent Legg, and I am Vice President of
Government Affairs for Connected Nation, a national nonprofit
organization with a 16 year history of improving lives and
strengthening communities through increased access to and
adoption of broadband technologies.
Headquartered in Bowling Green, Kentucky, Connected
Nation's work has impacted more than 30 states, and we served
as the Nation's single largest grantee under NTIA's State
Broadband Initiative Grant Program. Under SBI, we managed
broadband mapping projects across 12 states and one territory,
representing 42 percent of the U.S. land mass. And our
techniques have widely been recognized as best practices by
NTIA, the FCC, and others.
Today we look forward to discussing lessons learned from
the SBI program and the current Form 477 process. Our intent is
not to be critical but rather to foster an understanding of how
we believe the process could be improved for the future.
The SBI program created by Congress in 2008 enabled states
to establish broadband mapping programs and submit data to NTIA
twice a year, starting in 2010 through 2014. This data was used
to create the first National Broadband Map, which unfortunately
has not been updated since the program ended.
In 12 states and Puerto Rico, we collected, analyzed, and
mapped broadband data while also collecting feedback from the
public on where revisions to the map should be made. We
averaged provider participation rates of 95 percent, despite
the fact that the program was largely voluntary because of the
emphasis we placed on provider relationship building and our
willingness to accept raw information in whatever format it was
available, assisting providers that needed help.
We established relationships with more than 1,200 providers
with NDAs in place with many of them to ensure protection of
their proprietary information. While our mapping efforts were
highly successful, the SBI program as a whole faced a number of
challenges. Since every state had its own mapping agent,
multiple methodologies were employed in collecting and
analyzing provider information and mapping the results. This
meant that providers, many of whom operate in more than one
State, had to juggle not only multiple points of contact and
data requests, but they had to report their information in
varying ways to satisfy those requests.
Additionally, known best practices were not required to be
adopted across all states. As the SBI program transitioned to
the Form 477 filing process in October of 2014, we began
mapping and refining this data for states that had chosen to
continue their own mapping programs.
Unfortunately, a number of challenges remain. First, Form
477 requires providers to report census blocks where they
provide service. Unfortunately, if one household in a given
block is served, the entire block is considered as having
service, resulting in a significant overstatement of
availability. This is particularly problematic in rural areas
where census blocks can be very large, some being larger than
the entire State of Connecticut. Yet, these are the areas where
broadband availability is most lacking and needs to be most
accurately defined.
Secondly, many smaller providers lack the technical
capability to visualize their Form 477 filings, often resulting
in misreported data.
Thirdly, some known providers are simply missing from the
477 data, meaning that they are not even filing as required.
And fourthly, wireless coverage under Form 477 is reported
by census block rather than from propagation modeling based on
tower locations and signal penetration often resulting in
significant overstatements of service.
With these lessons learned in mind, we would like to make a
few recommendations for the future. First, Congress must
prioritize the accuracy and granularity of the maps to ensure
that coverage is fully understood at the street address or
parcel level of detail. Census block data is not sufficiently
granular to close the Nation's broadband gaps.
Second, such a level of granularity requires the protection
of providers' proprietor and confidential information. The good
news is that the public disclosure of that information isn't
necessary to serve the public interest. Instead, it can be
protected and analyzed by a neutral agent to derive broadband
footprints and speed capabilities without revealing the more
sensitive characteristics of any given network. We have proven
that a neutral third-party aggregator of infrastructure data
can both hold that information tightly and produce accurate and
granular coverage from it.
As Congress considers incentivizing broadband deployment,
we believe that it should establish a single independent third-
party clearinghouse for broadband data collection and mapping
that is accountable to Congress and the public, serve all 56
state and territorial jurisdictions, and having responsibility
for carrying out four primary tasks: First, broadband data
collection and analysis, working with the provider community
through a rigorous nondisclosure agreement framework; secondly,
GIS mapping of broadband availability and speeds produced from
infrastructure and subscriber data submitted to the providers;
third, field validation and audits of the maps once they are
produced; and fourth, processing feedback submitted by
consumers to ensure that continual refinement of the maps take
place.
We hope that Congress will consider this independent
clearinghouse as a path forward to informed decisionmaking on
Federal investments, ensure accountability for those dollars as
they are spent, and protect sensitive provider data all at the
same time.
We look forward to answering your questions. Thank you,
Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Legg follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Sir, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT WACK
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you members of the
committee, Congressman Doyle, for having me here today to
testify about broadband infrastructure.
My name is Dr. Robert Wack, and I am the President of the
Westminster City Council where we are building the Mid-Atlantic
region's first community-wide gigabit fiber network. The
Westminster fiber network was born out of decades of
frustration waiting for our incumbent providers to upgrade
their infrastructure and service levels. Although technically
Westminster meets current standards for broadband service
availability, the city's survey of businesses and residents
revealed widespread discontent and dissatisfaction with the
services available at that time.
One anecdote in particular is illustrative. A local graphic
design business, a premium customer of one of the incumbents,
needed to send a multi-gigabyte graphics file to a client in
the Midwest for a rush job. Their business-class internet
connection kept timing out because the file transfer was so
slow. To get the client's files delivered before the deadline,
the business had to put them on a memory stick and overnight
them in a mailing envelope. This is unacceptable in the 21st
century data-driven economy.
After extensive research and public input, Westminster
settled on an innovative public/private partnership, or P3
model, to build the first community-wide gigabit fiber network
in the Mid-Atlantic region. Successful P3 projects are at their
core true partnerships where both parties achieve their goals
while sharing in the risks and rewards of that partnership in
ways they are comfortable with and can sustain over the life of
the deal.
The city of Westminster entered our discussions with
potential partners with three firmly held core principles: One,
public ownership of the dark fibre network; two, a multitiered
service model for the network to partition risks and
responsibilities to separate operational layers; and three, a
commitment to open access at the retail service level as the
end state of the service environment. Each of these is
important on their own but also closely interrelated.
Only with public ownership and control can current problems
of red lining in the growing digital divide be comprehensively
addressed and solved. A commitment to public ownership enables
universal access, which in turn is a major source of public
support for the resource commitment that network construction
requires.
In other words, when a local government assures its
citizens that all will benefit from an infrastructure project,
including rural areas, public support for the necessary
expenditures to implement that project become much easier to
secure. That was certainly our experience in Westminster.
The multilayer service model lays the groundwork for the
creation of a true open-access environment at the service level
where customers can switch providers for any given service
without barriers. They can try new services as they are
developed and where there is better transparency on cost and
quality between providers.
By lowering the barrier to entry for new providers, real
competition can take place and service providers delivering
better services at lower prices will be rewarded. In addition,
there are no barriers to entry for new innovative services from
any provider accelerating innovation and economic development.
The consumer wins in all instances.
In summary, the Westminster model of public/private
partnership provides a scaleable blueprint for any local
government of any size to implement a community-wide broadband
network in a financially sustainable manner. By dispensing with
the assumption of service delivery by vertical integrated
monopolies and focusing on public ownership of the
infrastructure, partitioning of the network operations by
layer, and a commitment to open access, any community in the
country can realize the economic development potential of
massive broadband.
The project positions Westminster to survive and prosper
through the disruptive economic transitions created by the
transformational information revolution and ensures that all
our residents can participate in the economic growth and
prosperity of decades to come.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wack follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. And we thank you.
Ms. Mattey, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CAROL MATTEY
Ms. Mattey. Thank you very much, Chairman Blackburn and
Ranking Member Doyle and members of the subcommittee. I am
deeply honored to appear before you today.
I have worked on advancing broadband in rural areas through
the Universal Service Fund for more than a decade as deputy
bureau chief at the FCC and now in my business as a consultant.
I bring personal knowledge of how the FCC has used fixed
broadband coverage data in the course of implementing the
Connect America Fund.
I commend you for recognizing the critical role of
broadband infrastructure in our country. I am heartened that
this issue is a priority for you. I am firmly convinced that
broadband must be built in rural areas to improve education,
healthcare, agriculture, commerce, and more. It is an
investment worth making.
The definition of broadband matters because where you draw
the line determines which areas are considered unserved. The
FCC's current definition of broadband for purposes of the
Connect America Fund is 10 megabits downstream, 1 megabit
upstream.
To date, the FCC has focused its efforts on trying to get
access to broadband service in the areas of the country that
are lacking all together rather than upgrading networks in
areas that have some level of service. If 25/3 megabits is set
as the dividing line for unserved in any future infrastructure
legislation, that would expand the geographic areas that are
deemed unserved compared to what the FCC considers unserved
today for purposes of the Connect America Fund.
If Congress provides additional funding to expand broadband
infrastructure in rural areas, it is important to consider the
implications if one governmental agency is potentially
providing funding to overbuild a service provider that is
currently receiving funding from another government agency.
It is critically important to coordinate and harmonize
various programs administered by different Federal agencies to
advance broadband so that the government as a whole is tackling
the problem efficiently and not working across purposes.
Now I will turn to the issue of determining where broadband
is available. In my view, any future infrastructure initiative
should focus on improving the FCC's existing data collection
rather than starting anew. While there may be a desire to map
fixed broadband coverage in a more granular way at the sub
census block level, there are practical difficulties in doing
so.
I am not aware of any comprehensive current data set
showing the geocoded location of every structure in the United
States. Requiring all broadband providers in the country to
report fixed deployment at the address level or by geocoded
location would be a significantly more burdensome data
collection than what exists today.
Reporting such detail for every census block in the
country, which number over 11 million, is unnecessary given
that most of those census blocks are in urban and suburban
areas that are served.
There are other ways to improve the existing FCC data for
use in future infrastructure initiatives. For instance, one can
treat a block as served only if the provider makes service
available to all locations or nearly all locations rather than
just one location in the census block.
In a challenge process, the FCC Form 477 data can be used
as the starting point not the end point for determining which
areas are served. I have firsthand experience with this, as I
oversaw the team that conducted two challenge processes to
determine areas that would be eligible for Connect America
funding.
One key to success is defining in advance what information
is relevant to the inquiry and how it is to be submitted. There
are several advantages to using a challenge process to refine
the data rather than a whole-scale revision of the FCC's Form
477 data collection.
First, participation in a challenge process is voluntary,
so parties can make their own determination of whether the
regulatory benefits outweigh the regulatory burdens of such
participation.
Second, a challenge process is likely to focus on a much
smaller set of rural census blocks that are likely candidates
for new infrastructure deployment initiatives rather than the
more numerous suburban and urban census blocks that are
unquestionably served.
Third, a challenge process can take into account
information that is not part of the Form 477 data collection
that may be of policy interest.
To conclude, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mattey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank you.
And, Mr. Darr, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRYAN DARR
Mr. Darr. Good morning. My name is Bryan Darr, and I am the
President and Chief Executive Officer of Mosaik Solutions. I
would like to thank Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle,
and the fellow members of the subcommittee for this opportunity
to speak with you.
I appeared before this committee in March 2017 and
appreciate the opportunity to return the focus on defining and
mapping broadband coverage. Broadband deployment is a
bipartisan national priority, but expanding and accelerating
broadband deployment requires reliable information and data-
driven decisionmaking.
Without trusted data about coverage gaps, underserved
populations, network speeds, and other indicators, we will not
stimulate private sector investment, advance universal service,
expand broadband into more rural areas, or improve the
broadband market.
Despite healthy competition and increasingly sophisticated
data analysis among private sector companies, the FCC has
sought to displace this industry by mandating use of its own
data analytics tools. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
recently stated that its Form 477 coverage data is the best
available we have today. It is not.
The FCC's Form 477 mobile broadband coverage data is
flawed. First, there are no defined specifications for what
radio frequency conditions or methodologies are required.
Second, the FCC's data is out of date almost as soon as it is
filed. Form 477 data is too infrequently updated and has too
large of a time gap between reporting date and release date.
That is precisely why Mosaik's LTE coverage data sets are
updated monthly.
In the map shown in figure 1 we overlay the latest
available Form 477 data with the most recent coverage data from
T-Mobile. In the 18 months between the vintage of the FCC's
data and our own, T-Mobile has added more than 339,000 square
miles, covering more than 5 million people, ensuring that
broadband funds go to areas that meet the no-service criteria
will be more successful with access to better, fresher data.
Better data can also help to minimize the number of
objections brought forth during a challenge process. Higher
quality coverage can also surgically identify unserved areas
and enable operators to replicate these successes across the
rest of the country.
Relying exclusively on antiquated or inferior datasets
threaten to harm American consumers, and the exclusion of other
types of data threatens to crowd out private investment from
U.S. companies that compete to provide far superior products
about network coverage and performance.
Just as important, private companies have long-term
obligations to their clients. They provide a continuity of
service and are less susceptible to the natural swings in
priorities that affect governments.
In a rapidly changing industry, shutting down research for
even a few months can create a backlog of issues. Approximately
$350 million was spent creating the original National Broadband
Map. Once funding was discontinued, most states dropped the
program. Three years after its release, the map is little more
than a snapshot of a brief moment in the history of the
broadband industry. We can do better.
The next image, figure 3, shows how overlaying coverage for
available tower assets can speed the site acquisition process.
Intelligence about the surrounding telecom landscape is
critical to defining priorities and understanding where the
taxpayer can get the most return for their considerable
investment.
Some operators offer multiple levels of signal strength on
their maps. The next map, figure 4, represents this type of
depiction as good, better, best, which is sometimes referred to
as on street, in car, in building.
There is no defined industry standard as to what specific
signal level is used to represent the demarcation between each
of these boundaries, and different spectrum blocks have
different abilities to travel distances and penetrate
buildings.
The map in figure 5 shows signal strength readings
collected anonymously from consumer devices. This information
is overlaid with the typical predictive RF model. No network
can offer maximum signal quality everywhere, and frankly, that
is not required to have a robust and high-performing network.
Congestion can also impact the user's experience, so throughput
speeds and latency also need to be considered.
We commend Congress and the FCC for recognizing the
importance of data driven decisionmaking. When government
agencies embrace the capabilities of private companies, instead
of competing with them, taxpayers can spend less must be and
policymakers can adopt more accurate and timely data decisions.
Let's make sure we use the best of what the private sector has
to offer.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Darr follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. I thank each of
you for your testimony, and we will now begin the question-and-
answer portion of this hearing. And I yield myself 5 minutes
for questions.
Mr. Legg, I want to start with you. In your testimony, you
noted that pursuant to Form 477, if even one home on a block
has service then the entire block is considered served. And
then you talk about some of the rural census blocks can be
larger than the State of Connecticut, so this shows you what a
flaw there is in the data collection.
Why does this requirement exist, and how do we fix it? And
how significant is the particular issue when it comes to
comparing that to other flaws that are in the system? And each
of you have mentioned different things that you have a flaw and
the things we can change as we look at the mapping process.
Mr. Legg. Certainly, Madam Chairman. Thank you for the
question.
It is certainly true that measuring broadband connectivity
by census block is a major challenge because oftentimes
broadband coverage that we are trying to help foster in rural
areas is actually in the areas where the blocks are the
largest.
There are, in fact, 3,200 census blocks in the country that
are larger than the entire District of Columbia. There are five
in Alaska that are bigger than the State of Connecticut, the
biggest one being about the size of the State of New Jersey.
So the unit of measure being the census block is really the
most granular unit of measure that is available to the FCC to
collect data. But we believe that the SBI program actually
allowed for more granular representations of coverage in rural
areas.
As I mentioned in my testimony, there were certainly issues
with the SBI program, but granularity in rural census blocks
greater than 2 square miles during the SBI program was measured
at the road segment level of detail. And we think that that
should at least be the minimum standard for census blocks that
are larger than 2 square miles.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Darr, do you want to weigh in on this?
Mr. Darr. There is no question that many of the rural
census blocks are going to be problematic, to say the least, to
try and cover. Looking at it differently within the rural areas
than the urban areas should be considered.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. And, Mr. Brake, let me come to you now,
because you looked at the definition of broadband and the
various elements that are in there. And you talk and touch on
speed a factor that we need to give great weight, but there are
other factors such as latency and pricing, and Ms. Mattey
touched on this just a little bit too. So are you suggesting
that we take a more holistic look?
Mr. Brake. Absolutely. I think a more holistic and
pragmatic approach, depending on the particular policy
objectives that you are trying to achieve, should be taken into
account.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. So how would you prioritize that?
Mr. Brake. I think speed remains the priority, but I worry
that sometimes we can have something of a tunnel vision where
we focus only on speed and don't take other characteristics
into account. I would say speed and latency are probably the
two most important.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Ms. Mattey.
Ms. Mattey. I also think the amount of usage that the
consumer has at what price is very important. With the advent
of unlimited wireless data plans, that has changed the dynamic
in how people use their wireless phones, and I think it is
important to keep in mind usage at what price.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Darr.
Mr. Darr. I would agree. The operators are certainly under
significant price pressure right now as there has been a price
war going on that has helped a lot of consumers but at the same
time has also pulled away dollars necessary for additional
infrastructure build.
Mrs. Blackburn. And then how would you prioritize the
factors in the definition?
Mr. Darr. The areas with no service at all should certainly
be looked at first. Understanding what level of service is
feasible into these areas is also critical. In order for the
American taxpayer to get the biggest bang for their buck, the
more areas that can be covered, for the least number of
dollars, to cover the most amount of people, and provide them
with the speeds desired is going to be an important part of the
analysis process moving forward.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Legg, I see you shaking your head. Go
ahead. I have got a couple of seconds left.
Mr. Legg. Yes, I agree completely with Mr. Darr. I think
focusing--as my colleague here, Mr. Brake, mentioned--on speed
and latency is very important. And obviously, broadband mapping
is critical to defining areas in the country that need
investment.
So I think focusing on the areas where the greatest number
of people can be served for the lowest possible cost should be
priority, but we shouldn't forget that there are a lot of areas
that are very remote in the United States where those people
need access as well.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you. My time has expired.
Mr. Doyle, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I know that you had
stated that you thought it would be inappropriate to have
hearings on net neutrality while the FCC has a pending
proceeding, and I just want to remind everyone that the
subcommittee held three hearings before the FCC adopted its net
neutrality protections in 2015. Two of those hearings were
specifically about the FCC's pending proceeding, and one of
those hearings was an FCC oversight hearing where Republicans
specifically raised the net neutrality proceedings in
statements and questions.
Dr. Wack, as we are considering options for increasing
broadband deployment, using direct and partial support payments
as well as regulatory streamlining, you have come to represent
a really interesting and promising approach using public/
private partnerships.
For your broadband deployment in Westminster, you said that
the major carriers just weren't interested in deploying
sufficient service. What kind of service was available? What
did you need? And ultimately, what are you building?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congressman Doyle.
The service available at the time when we were beginning to
consider this project, which was in the 2010, 2011 timeframe,
we had pretty fairly widespread 25 meg, down 5 meg up service
through our incumbent cable provider. There was patchy DSL
service and then satellite service out in the more rural areas.
So the 25 meg service, even in 2010, 2011 was considered
adequate coverage, and yet, our business community
overwhelmingly said that this was insufficient for their needs
for moving large files and was holding them back. They were
suffocating because of inadequate access.
So that is what started us down this road, and we didn't
want to just meet current standards or even sort of exceed
them. We wanted to leapfrog the whole process and build
something that is basically future proof, which meant a fiber
network throughout the whole community. And we figured we might
as well just go large and build for a gigabit.
I think the comments that you hear today about, oh, nobody
needs a gigabit, there is certainly an element of truth to
that, but that won't remain true forever. There is nothing that
we use in technology that doesn't increase, whether it is
process or speed, memory, bandwidth. So we know we are going to
need a gigabit, and so we want to make sure Westminster has a
gigabit when Westminster needs a gigabit.
Mr. Doyle. I know that many states have restricted
municipal networks. And if you had such a restriction in place,
what would your community be left with in terms of service, and
what options would you have had?
Mr. Wack. We would be continuing to suffocate under the
current or what was the current service at that time. But I
have got to tell you, we would be manning the barricades and
storming the State House, storming Congress, because my
constituents were not going to settle for the inadequate
service that we were getting.
Mr. Doyle. As you should.
Ms. Mattey, in your testimony, you talk about the process
of updating the definition of broadband at FCC periodically.
Tell us why that is necessary and what happens when we let
these definitions languish.
Ms. Mattey. Well, first of all, I think it is required by
the statute. The statute says that universal service is an
evolving concept, and therefore, it is important to reassess
what we are aspiring for.
If the definitions remain stagnant, you run the risk of
locking in the rural areas of the country at a level that is
not reasonably comparable to what is available in urban areas.
We started at the FCC with the definition of 4/1. The FCC moved
it to 10/1. And the fact that that happened in just 3 years and
what is on the horizon makes it very clear to me that the
definition needs to go higher in the future.
Mr. Doyle. Very good.
Ms. Mattey, do you think the current investment in the USF
fund is sufficient to close the broadband gap? You know, some
have said it would take an investment of $40 billion to $80
billion to fully serve our country with high-speed internet.
So if Congress acts on an infrastructure spending bill that
includes broadband, it seems like tax incentives alone won't be
sufficient to close the gap. What do you think about this?
Ms. Mattey. I definitely think that the Universal Service
Fund needs to be larger. The FCC set the budget in 2011, and it
is time to reassess that budget.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back at this time.
Mr. Lance, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Mr. Brake, you have noted that Light Touch Regulation has
allowed the U.S. digital ecosystem to flourish. Can you please
discuss how government intervention has hurt the marketplace
through heavy governmental regulation and government-owned
competition to the private sector?
Mr. Brake. Sure. I think the most explicit example of that
would be the recent decision to classify broadband internet
access service as a telecommunications service under Title II,
Communications Act.
Mr. Lance. After Title II, yes.
Mr. Brake. Is that what you are getting at?
Mr. Lance. Yes, it is. Yes, of course.
Mr. Brake. Right. So I think Title II has likely seen a
drag on investment. There are conflicting reports on exactly
how those numbers shake out. But the real question is a
counterfactual one, which is much more difficult to answer,
right? Now, whether investment is up or down, what it would be
other than Title II. And I think the evidence is there are good
reasons to believe that investment would be higher if it wasn't
for that reclassification. I also think the Title II in the
particular net neutrality rules that were implemented as part
of that reclassification unnecessarily constrain broadband
access ability to evolve to provide new services over time. So
I think returning to a Title I Light Touch approach is the
right answer.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Would anyone else on the panel like
to comment?
Dr. Wack, you are a distinguished public servant. Mr. Brake
has mentioned the private sector has an incentive for
innovation efficiency. How do we also instill that in a
governmental run provider?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congressman Lance. I guess the first
thing to clarify is that our project is not a government run
network. We own the infrastructure, just like we own the roads.
We don't dictate how the network is operated. We have set some
minimum service levels and minimum customer service
requirements, but we want to create a competitive open access
market so that the market dictates how that innovation unfolds
and what the service levels are and the price points.
So we are in the process of doing that. I realize that is
not the same as other municipal networks around the country,
but that is the model we have chosen.
Mr. Lance. And that was chosen by your local governmental
body, is that how it worked, sir?
Mr. Wack. That is correct. We went through an exhaustive
research process, looked at other municipal networks around the
country and around the world, compared pros and cons, assessed
what we were capable of in terms of our local municipal
resources, and frankly, the political environment. I live in a
very conservative community, it is one of the most red counties
in the State of Maryland.
Mr. Lance. There are red counties in the State of Maryland?
Mr. Wack. Oh. Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lance. I like your tie.
Mr. Wack. Thank you.
Mr. Lance. I wish we in New Jersey had a similar tie.
Mr. Wack. Not everybody can have a State of Maryland flag,
sir. So, anyway, we knew that having a municipal ISP like some
other communities have would be politically unacceptable in our
community. So I think we found a model that, as I said in my
notes, is applicable across the country in any community.
Mr. Lance. Thank you. Mr. Brake, would you like to comment
on that? I see you were interested.
Mr. Brake. Yes. I think it is important to realize, even in
these sort of dark fiber open access models, it fundamentally
shifts the sort of nature of the investment, even the retail
provider is looking at improving over time.
It shifts from what economists call dynamic efficiencies,
trying to find new ways to compete in the marketplace, offer
new products, improve through R & D, and improve through
technology. It shifts instead toward what economists call
static efficiencies, right? So these are just simply things
like price or quality of service. While those are important to
improve, in a broadband market, I worry that if we move toward
this dark fiber model, this municipal model over time, it zaps
the incentive to invest in the long term.
Mr. Lance. And you believe that it is more likely that
there will be dynamic efficiencies if this is controlled by the
private sector?
Mr. Brake. Correct. Yes.
Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. I yield back 32 seconds.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman. We will take that
time back. And, Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have to apologize,
I had to step out during a lot of the testimony and meet with
constituents, so some of what I am going to ask may have
already been answered, and if that is the case, if you don't
mind repeating that, it would be wonderful. I appreciate that.
It is sort of what happens on these committees sometimes, we
have a lot of things we have to be doing at the same time.
But as I mentioned in my opening statement, I often mention
at these hearings, I travel to all my counties. I have 24
counties. Chairman Walden likes to remind me that while I have
a big district, it is not nearly as big as his, but it is a
pretty big area. And I do consistently hear concerns about,
obviously, the lack of access to good quality broadband in
rural areas.
Yet, interestingly, if you look at the claims out there,
from whether it be the FCC or whatever, the claims having to do
with the existing data, apparently most of Iowa, if not all of
Iowa, is pretty much served, and we know that that is just not
the case. And so I do have my own bill that I mentioned. But
without getting into the public/private controversy and all the
rest, because no matter who is going to provide the service,
they are going to have to have good data in the first place to
know where the service is and where it isn't.
And so what I want to deal with is first order questions
having to do with the data that are available in the very first
instance. No matter whether it is a missed for a utility or
private sector or whatever that is going to end up laying the
fiber and doing what we need to do to make sure that everybody
has broadband.
And I just want to ask you, Dr. Wack, first have all, was
the city of Westminster in the same situation like many
communities in my district where they are theoretically served
in the eyes of the FCC and service providers, but they are
really not? And a lot of that has to do with the data issues.
Is that the case?
Mr. Wack. Yes, sir. According to existing standards at the
time, we were adequately served both in terms of service level
and numbers of providers. The reality was that in terms of
number of providers, the DSL service that was available in our
community was very patchy, as it is in most communities,
limited by distance from the central office.
So even in downtown Westminster there were areas where you
could not get DSL service because of the proximity to the
central office. And then in terms of the cable provider, the
service level just wasn't adequate for what businesses needed
today. And so, with all due respect to this data collection
effort, it was irrelevant to us because functionally we were
underserved. We were effectively underserved, even though
technically we were adequately served.
Mr. Loebsack. And I find when I am traveling throughout my
district, even along Interstate 80, one would think, that I
should be OK along Interstate 80, a major thoroughfare and all
the rest through our state, it is just simply not the case. So
we have to make sure that we are all covered. And that is
Interstate 80. Then we got, not to mention, the rural areas out
there, right with county roads and all the rest. There is just
a lot of areas that are pretty much not served at all.
I would like to ask Mr. Legg and Mr. Darr, can you speak to
some of the challenges or deficiencies there currently are with
the data collected by the FCC. And, again, if you already
addressed those issues, I apologize, but I would like to hear
from you.
Mr. Legg. Sure. Congressman Loebsack, thanks for the
question. The biggest challenge with regard to the Form 477
process that the FCC administers right now is that the fact
that the data is collected at the census block level of detail,
which is fine in urban and perhaps even some suburban areas.
But in rural areas like the areas that you represent in Iowa,
census blocks are quite large.
I mentioned earlier that there are more than 3200 census
blocks in the country that are larger than the District of
Columbia and several that are larger even than the State of
Connecticut. If reporting is happening at the census block
level of detail and even one household in the given census
block is served, then that entire census block is considered as
having service, and that is a problem.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you. Mr. Darr?
Mr. Darr. Thank you. As was illustrated in one of the maps
I showed earlier, there is no standard as to exactly what is
defined as the level of service necessary in order to meet
these requirements. The different operators have challenges
that are both economic and technical, but largely economic, in
order to be able to cover these areas.
There are certainly concerns with how this data is being
collected at the FCC, in part because of the length of time
that it takes to move from the carrier reporting it to when it
is actually in place. But the fact that there are no standards
associated with it is of significant concern as well. You may
very well be able to get a text message out at the very edge of
that network, but it is not good enough for a voice call. It is
certainly not good enough to be able to download a video.
There are ways now, there are new technological
capabilities today to understand more of what we call ground
truth, which was on the last map that I had up on the screen
earlier, that is collecting information directly from
consumers, trying to utilize RF propagation maps to define
exactly where you are going to get service or not get service
is an inexact science.
We have all been in the underground parking lot in a
building that, according to the coverage map, shows service. We
don't really expect to be able to get it there. And so these
types of issues and concerns are part of the difficulty in
collecting this. The information that we have in our data sets
that the FCC has used for many years is based upon the
marketing maps. There is, in some cases, better data from
operators, and in other cases, not.
There is a sixth slide. If I could ask Giulia to pull that
one up, please, that shows the ways that we grade coverage
information. And if we can see it on the screen here.
We started out with what we used to call amoeba maps, they
were just rough drawings of where the coverage was. Or they
would just fill in their license area, and say, this is your
rate area. But things have gotten better and better, as you can
see.
The multilevel RF is the highest that we consider very
good. Not all carriers share this information publicly. We have
some information from the operators at this level, and not from
others. Where we have it, if they have asked us to keep it
proprietary, we do. It is interesting Mr. Legg suggested a
clearinghouse operation that would assist the Government in
doing this. This is what we have done for over a quarter
century. We are recognized as the clearinghouse by the wireless
industry. And I think having something similar in place to take
care of the other parts of broadband would be good as well.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Darr.
Mrs. Blackburn. Great answers, and we like looking at your
data. You got a good process. Mr. Loebsack, I will recoup that
2 minutes at some point in time.
OK. Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized.
Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks for being
here. Great testimony. Love to talk about technology, it just
keeps moving faster and faster and there is just always a need
for more.
So I have 33 counties, so the folks from the rural areas
are always going to talk about how we are left behind and rural
areas have co-ops to make sure that we can have phone
connectivity. We have power co-ops. That is just the way rural
areas have been able to--much like the city, they are on--the
public demanded it, they got together, they started making sure
that they had services.
This accuracy of information is really important. So I have
got enough, the testimony, we went through it, understanding
the 477 filing and the problems with that. But Ms. Mattey
mentioned this challenge thing, that when someone says: It says
I am covered, but we are not, we are going to challenge this
census block? And then they may be able to get that revisited.
Is that it?
Ms. Mattey. That is correct. That is what we did while I
was at the FCC implementing the Connect American Fund.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go to Mr. Legg, and actually, Mr. Darr.
Because you don't talk about that process, you talk about there
is other information available. So why doesn't that work?
Mr. Legg. Congressman, I think as the Federal Government,
the FCC, currently there are many agencies across the Federal
Government that deal with broadband infrastructure spending,
NTIA, the Rural Utility Service at USDA, as those agencies are
making decisions about where to invest and support broadband
infrastructure buildout, they need to know on the front end.
Mr. Shimkus. There is a big lag in time just to go through
the process of filing and doing an appeal?
Mr. Legg. That is right.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Darr?
Mr. Darr. The speed at which this takes place is important
as well.
Mr. Shimkus. Right.
Mr. Darr. Because as decisions are being made, you are also
holding up the private sector in making decisions to make their
own investments. So once the decision is made and the operators
know what is going to be funded and what is not, then they know
how to better direct the other funds that they have to
continue.
Mr. Shimkus. Let me go quickly, because I don't want to
pull a Mr. Loebsack and go 15 minutes past my time.
Mr. Loebsack. I didn't have the gavel.
Mr. Shimkus. But if this is kind of a national incented
money to help, shouldn't there be a national broadband standard
as far as speed that is accepted and then can change as the
time changes? We would accept that proposition, wouldn't we?
Mr. Legg. Congressman, yes, I would agree with that. I
think the need for speed is going to always continue to
increase. Some school districts across the country are seeing
30 to 60 percent year-over-year growth.
Mr. Shimkus. Mr. Brake, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Brake. Right. I would generally agree that we want to
have sort of a national standard if we are looking at a
nationwide infrastructure buildout. But I think the point that
Ms. Mattey made earlier, to have that coordinated with the
existing USF support, and make sure that you are not working in
cross purposes is incredibly important.
Mr. Shimkus. Yes. And we will have that USF debate, too, as
far as what are we are incenting and are we transferring it to
something which brings up the issue, I don't think I want to
address, because the telecommunication companies are talking
about the requirement to continue to pay money to keep up a
copper wire system, right? Is that money well spent, Mr. Brake?
Mr. Brake. I would argue, no. To the extent that that is
preventing them from transitioning to more modern networks,
toward fiber networks, that is an impediment that we should be
working at getting away.
Mr. Shimkus. Because the reality in the ground and in the
world is that people are cutting their own copper wire--they
are not using the traditional copper wire anymore.
Mr. Brake. Right.
Mr. Shimkus. Although we still by law and regulation
require the companies to pay money to keep that up while they
could be using that money to deal with fiberoptic technology.
Mr. Brake. That is right. That is the gist of it. It is a
big complex transition right to move wholesale from copper all
the way to fiber. There are a number of legacy services that
depends on copper networks, and so finding a way to make that
transition is incredibly important, it is complicated. But to
the extent that there are undue regulations that are preventing
that from happening, that is a problem.
Mr. Shimkus. Madam Chairman, I will yield back my time, but
I think that is something we should be discussing also in this
debate.
Mrs. Blackburn. I agree. Good points. And let's see, Mr.
McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chair. I thank the witnesses.
Even though I missed your testimony, I read it, and it is good
to hear from you.
Dr. Wack, a significant portion of my district is rural, so
I understand some of the challenges that we have talked about.
In your view, is it sufficient for rural areas to have
broadband speeds 10-1, 10 download and 1 upload, or is that
going to leave a lot of rural areas without the services they
really need?
Mr. Wack. 10-1 is inadequate for doing anything of use in
the 21st century.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Enough said. About the 5.3 million
veterans we have in this country, many of them have that same
10-1 access, is that going to give them enough power to
function?
Mr. Wack. No. It is not even close.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Legg, I am going to kind of go over some territory we
already trotted over, but I am looking for specific answer. In
your testimony you mentioned that reliable broadband mapping is
a matter of critical importance to residents, businesses, and
communities, anchor institutions, and there is where broadband
is lacking. Can you expand on that point a little bit, please?
Mr. Legg. Yes, absolutely. It is as Dr. Wack said, it is
hard to do anything in the 21st century with inadequate
broadband. It is just as important as roads, and perhaps even
more so. I work a great deal on school connectivity for our
organization.
School connectivity is largely lacking across the country.
We are seeing that there are still many schools across the
county that aren't on fiber, much less have the minimum
standard of connectivity, which is regarded by the FCC at one
gigabit per 1,000 student. As you can imagine, there are a lot
of rural areas that can't reach anywhere near that speed. So it
is critically important for the future of learning and many
other services.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Concerning the Form 477 reporting and the
idea that the census blocks may just take out one person and
use that as an example for the entire block. Is that more
likely to result in underreporting or overreporting in terms of
25 to 3, 25 upload and 3 download?
Mr. Legg. Certainly that means that broadband services
being significantly overreported in rural areas across the
country.
Mr. McNerney. So the 10 percent estimate by the FCC is
probably a small number compared to the real number.
Mr. Legg. If it is based on the Form 477 assessments, yes.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Our estimates for the availability of
baseline fixed broadband service in rural areas especially
prone to being overstated? I am asking the same question over
again.
Mr. Legg. Yes. Yes, that is right.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I understand that the data reported
through Form 477 can be outdated quickly. Do you have any
suggestions on how that can be remedied?
Mr. Legg. Yes. During the SBI program years where we
managed 13 different state and territorial mapping programs, we
were effectively working with providers on a near realtime
basis to update their information. We believe, as I suggest in
my testimony, that a neutral third party clearinghouse, instead
of updating data every 6 months to a year could be working in
realtime with providers as known deployments are being made.
And that is why establishing a relationship with the providers,
that there is a back and forth between the two to know where
new infrastructure is being built in realtime, that is
incredibly important.
Mr. McNerney. And you think that can be done?
Mr. Legg. Yes.
Mr. McNerney. Mr. Darr, do you have any comments on that?
Mr. Darr. I do. We provide this capability today for the
wireless segment of the industry and we have close working
relationships with almost every operator in the country,
including the big four national operators, and almost every one
of the rural operators, we are very engaged with RWA, CTIA,
CCA, et cetera, to make sure that those relationships are
maintained.
I do think that this can be done in away where the
information can be collected more quickly, and that information
can be provided to the Government in a way that allows them to
make the best decision and direct the funds faster and more
efficiently.
Mr. McNerney. Whoever wants to answer this. Is there
something that this panel could do--introduce legislation or
create a statute--or is this a regulatory issue, to increase
the frequency of reporting and accuracy of the 477?
Mr. Darr. That is a good question, Congressman, I am not
sure I know how to answer that. It may be both.
Mr. Legg. I believe, as we mentioned in our testimony, we
do believe that there is a solution to solving this challenge.
Creating a neutral independent third party clearinghouse that
is responsible for mapping and data collecting and validation
and consumer reporting across all 56 state and territorial
jurisdictions, that is viable and that is something that
Congress could address.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Latta, you are recognized 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thanks panel
witnesses for being here. It is very, very informational and
very, very important.
Mr. Legg, I know we have been talking and you had a lot of
questions today about this. But broadband support programs
aimed to increase broadband coverage in rural America where
agricultural production generates significant value to the
national economy and also are essential to the revenue and jobs
in the rural communities.
In my area, I represent the largest farming and producing
district in the State of Ohio, as well as having 60,000
manufacturing jobs. But today with modern high position farming
operations, which requires the high speed broadband to support
advanced operations and technologies that significantly
increase crop years or decrease costs and improve the
environment. A program that only seeks to measure broadband
coverage based on population centers, households, and road
miles, were overlooked coverage gaps in the agricultural
communities.
Will you speak to the importance of ensuring that broadband
mapping and coverage measurements are updated to adequately
identify underserved and unserved crop land in other
agricultural areas for the purposes of high speed broadband
deployment?
Mr. Legg. Certainly. Congressman Latta, thank you for the
question. Rural areas across the country are the next explosion
in terms of innovation of technology, is going to happen
actually in rural America, we believe. And an example is the
one that you cited, how farming in the United States is
changing rapidly. And the only way that it can continue to
change rapidly is for adequate infrastructure in those rural
areas to exist.
And so, getting the mapping right is incredibly important
for rural areas. That is why we have such a concern about
collecting data at the census block level of detail because
those are the areas that area most overrepresented in terms of
current data collection processes, and yet those are the areas
that we need the try to fix. Those are where the broadband
coverage gaps exist.
Mr. Latta. Well, and again, maybe you can go into a little
more detail, how do we fix it and make sure we got it mapped
correctly?
Mr. Legg. Well, again, we believe that there is a viable
path forward for creating a neutral, independent, non-
government clearinghouse for broadband data, where there is a
responsibility between the providers and this clearinghouse to
collect data in real time, to map it, and to put it out there
for public consumption and feedback, and then to do validation
and auditing of that data to make sure that it is as accurate
as possible.
This is effectually how we were so successful during the
SBI mapping years, as we played that clearinghouse role on
behalf of the 13 different states and territories.
Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Darr, it is well-known that the
national demand for wireless services is growing rapidly as the
usage of innovation wireless applications of the internet of
things proliferates, and we know that from specifics right now,
by the year 2025 there could be about 50 billion interconnected
devices by that time.
Essential health applications, state-of-the-art
agricultural tools, educational services, business operations
all employ wireless methods to improve our daily lives. And,
again, in rural America wireless is often the only reasonable
economic means to providing high speed broadband coverage.
In what ways can Congress or the FCC improve data
collection for wireless services to identify areas where access
to high speed mobile broadband is lacking or nonexistent?
Mr. Darr. I think the first thing to do is consider not
only population covered, but also area covered, and
specifically, agricultural farmed areas covered. Your point
about IoT is absolutely dead on. We have got the technology in
the field now, that it is looking at moisture content, yield,
and a number of hours of sunlight per day. This could all help
us dramatically increase the efficiency of our crop land.
So as we are looking at the mapping aspect of this, taking
into consideration not only where the people are that need
access to broadband for education, entertainment, et cetera,
but also from the standpoint of what level of service actually
do these devices in the field need?
Where some devices are going to be very simple, they are
simply going to spit a little bit of information out every hour
every day, and run on batteries, and they have a limited life
span. But you have opportunities for people in the field that
may be driving a large piece of farming equipment to actually
gain training and expertise and be able to communicate back and
forth with the manufacturer of the vehicle.
And of course, the vehicle manufacturers are collecting
telematics information off of these vehicles as well. It is
important to make sure that they are maintained properly,
understand how many hours they have been running, and also
gather the information on the yield off of the crop land.
So this is a critical part of this moving forward. There
are going to be more devices out there that are communicating
with the networks than there are people in the very, very
future.
Mr. Latta. Well Thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, my
time has expired.
Mrs. Blackburn. I thank the gentleman. Ms. Eshoo, you are
recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you to
all the witnesses. First, Madam Chairwoman, you said something
at the beginning of the hearing, and I want to clear it up.
In terms of outreach from your office on the issue of
privacy, there was an e-mail sent to our legislative director
asking for cosponsorship, but it wasn't a form of invitation to
have a round table discussion about it, et cetera, et cetera. I
would welcome that. You know that all of us on this side of the
aisle were appalled that the Congress, like a bolt of
lightning, eliminated all privacy protections on the internet.
So I am not so sure about everything that you have in your
bill. I would be happy to sit down at a round table to discuss
it. But the way you characterized a refusal of participation,
it wasn't an invitation to sit down and talk about it. It was
just, ``Legislative director, do you want to be a cosponsor or
not?'' So I just wanted to clear that up.
I would like to go to Mr. Brake first, given the question
that was posed by Congressman Lance to you about Title II
investment. You know, of course, that CEOs of publicly held
companies are obligated under the law to put forward
information that is factual and accurate relative to their
forecast about investment.
Can you name any CEO of a major company in the country that
stated to their shareholders that there was--they anticipated
lack of investment or smaller investments because of Title II?
Mr. Brake. No, not off the top of my head.
Ms. Eshoo. No, not just off the top of your head.
Mr. Brake. No, I can't.
Ms. Eshoo. That Title II has chilled investment, then give
me the example of a publicly held company and their
representative, their CEO, stating to their shareholders that
Title II is responsible for a chilling investment of their
company.
Mr. Brake. Part of my concern is that----
Ms. Eshoo. No. Not your concern. Answer my question. You
stated something earlier, I am asking you to back it up.
Mr. Brake. I am happy to submit for the record a piece we
have written on this analysis.
Ms. Eshoo. No, that is not what I am asking you for.
Mr. Brake. No.
Ms. Eshoo. I don't think you have an answer. I just don't
think you have an answer. You can't give me the name of one CEO
or one company that has stated that to their shareholders.
Mr. Brake. That is correct. I am happy to discuss the issue
further.
Ms. Eshoo. No, we don't have to. You finally gave me the
answer, which I thought would be the case anyway. People come
in and make all these wild statements and they don't have
anything to back them up, and that is point that I wanted to
make.
I would like to go to Dr. Wack. I served in local
government, and I have a real reverence for it, so bravo to you
and what you have accomplished.
We have a real problem in the country in that we are
getting close to half of the states in our country now have put
laws in place preventing or restricting local communities from
building out their own networks, which I think helps
constituents get the better broadband service that you came
here and testified about, and it really concerns me. I think
that we should be paying more attention to that.
In your experience in Westminster, did you encounter any
kind of resistance from incumbent ISPs when you went down the
path of building your own fiber networks?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congresswoman. We did not. Our
networks, for whatever reason, was either too small or they
just didn't believe we were going to do or it would work or
something.
Ms. Eshoo. What is the population?
Mr. Wack. Eighteen thousand inside the city limits and then
38,000 in the greater Westminster area. And so we have been
ignored for the most part. I suspect that is probably not going
to last very much longer.
Ms. Eshoo. I would like to go to, is it Mr. Darr that spoke
about--no I don't think it was Mr. Darr, I think it was Mr.
Legg--an independent clearinghouse. What would the cost of that
be?
Mr. Legg. That is a good question, Congresswoman. I don't
know the answer to that question off the top of my head, but
that is certainly something we could calculate.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. Thank you. My time is expired. I have some
more questions for the other witnesses, but I will submit them
in writing. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Guthrie,
you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate it
very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Mr. Legg
thanks for coming up from home. I appreciate you being here.
I remember when your organization first came to pass.
President Ransdell of Western Kentucky University convened. I
was in the state legislature at the time. Some of us together
with professors like Linda Johnson Vitale, and we were going to
go figure out how to do broadband throughout the Commonwealth,
I think we then became Connected Kentucky and then Connected
Nation. And I appreciate all the hard work and the things and
the difference that you guys have made.
But we just want to talk about something. The other day we
had somebody call our office who lives about a 20 minute drive
from Bowling Green. So I explained to the people who don't
understand the Chamber of Commerce picture of Bowling Green, is
one of the fastest growing cities in Kentucky, an hour from
Nashville. A lot of the development going forward. It is like
Spartanburg, South Carolina, a new south growing town, not a
rural community, at about 165,000 in the immediate area and
serves about 250,000.
We got a phone call for someone that said--a university
there, and all the great things, about 20 minutes away, and
say, they don't have access to broadband. And you know my
district, if you were three or four counties away, it is
extremely rural, it is as rural as probably anywhere in the
country.
But Bowling Green is really not that close. Is that a
matter of mapping? Is that a census track? I know you talked
about that quite a bit. And just where those holes are within
our community, which as you get outside of our immediate area
it gets even bigger?
Mr. Legg. Absolutely. Congressman Guthrie, it is good to
see you again, and thank you for your question.
Yes, I believe that it is an issue of inaccurate mapping. I
don't know exactly where the household or business is that you
are referring to, but I can imagine, knowing the Bowling Green
area and that part of Kentucky north of Nashville, that there
are census blocks that are considered as having service,
according to the FCC's Form 477 data, where service doesn't
actually exist to every household within that block.
And that points to the issue that I was referring to
earlier, that the size of the block and the way the information
is reported and collected, naturally lends itself to
overstatement in rural areas.
And so I would guess that the Federal Government views that
area as served, when in fact it is not.
Mr. Guthrie. I think it is an entire neighborhood. So you
have talked about in your testimony earlier, I believe, the
need to send deployment network engineers. So how can you do
that in these kinds of communities within a reasonable amount
of time, and quite honestly, with a reasonable amount of
resources?
Mr. Legg. Sure. We believe as part of any clearinghouse
role that there should be a validation and audit process, and
that those areas where consumers provide feedback to the
clearinghouse, that, hey, this mapping information doesn't
quite look correct, we need you to check it out. Then there
should be a process for actually deploying field engineers on
the ground to check whether the data represented on the map is
correct. And this is a constant or a continual refinement
process that would need to happen over time.
No map is going to be absolutely, 100 percent accurate from
day one, but there should be a validation audit and refinement
process involved. And we believe, based on our experience under
the SBI program, where we did deploy field engineers to check
provider submitted data, that that process is viable if the
country is divided up into regions of jurisdiction for the
purposes of mapping data collection and audit.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. And, Mr. Darr, I know you
specialize in wireless. Can you explain briefly how technology
itself has been able to broaden the coverage amount? Just the
wireless. Not just fiber broadband, but wireless and all the
others been able to expand the map?
Mr. Darr. If you look back at the beginnings of the
industry we all just had car phones early on, we didn't have
these wonderful little computers in our pockets.
Mr. Guthrie. Bag phones.
Mr. Darr. Bag phones. Eventually portables. And the systems
were engineered for us to use the phones in our vehicles or
outside. I think it comes from mapping overall, has to do with
the fact that people are now using these devices in their
homes, in their offices, in the library, in this building here.
There is an expectation that these devices are going to
work inside. There are new technologies that are coming along
today that have been out for a number of years, distributed
antenna systems, small cells, picocells that are even suitable
for residential homes, that can assist boosting that signal
indoors. And that is going to be a critical part of the mixture
going forward.
It can play a role within the rural areas as well. The maps
show what you should expect outside, the type of construction
on the structure is going to have a significant impact on
whether or not the signal can penetrate.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks. My time has expired and I yield back.
I appreciate it. Appreciate it.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Pallone for 5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. I am sorry. Thank you. OK. The Democratic
members of the Energy and Commerce Committee recently
introduced the Leading Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America
Act for the LIFT America Act, I mentioned it in my opening. And
that bill focuses on areas within the committee's jurisdiction
where we can work on solving our country's infrastructure
problems.
Part of the LIFT America Act includes $40 billion for
broadband deployment, and recent reports suggest that is how
much it will cost to build out to 98 percent of the country.
And as part of our initial draft we used a competitive bidding
system to award this $40 billion.
So I wanted to ask initially, Mr. Brake, do you think this
is the right mechanism to disburse funding for broadband
deployment?
Mr. Brake. Thank you, Representative Pallone. The devil is
always in the details, but absolutely, the general framework
and the competitive bidding mechanism laid out in the LIFT
America Act is the right place to start, yes.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Thanks. Now, of course, many here in
Washington are talking about using tax cuts as a way to improve
broadband deployment. So I wanted to ask you, do you think
using tax cuts or certainly using tax cuts alone in lieu of
direct spending is sufficient to bridge the urban/rural divide?
Mr. Brake. I would say no. I think the tax incentives as
well as looking at ways in which localities can reduce barriers
or in upgrading existing networks that are important for steps,
but alone they are not sufficient, we should be looking at
direct grant and Federal spending to accelerate deployment.
Mr. Pallone. All right. Thank you.
I wanted to now move to Dr. Wack. Earlier this year I had
the opportunity to speak to small businesses in Asbury Park,
which is a community in my district, about how a free and open
internet can be a boost to the local economy and create jobs,
which it certainly has in Asbury Park.
So, Dr. Wack, has the deployment of broadband with open
access have similar effect on the economy in Westminster in
terms of boosting the local economy and creating jobs?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congressman Pallone. I would love to
tell you a big story today that that is exactly the case, but
it is too early yet. Our network has only really been
operational for less than 2 years, and we are only about 40
percent of the way through our construction. However, there are
anecdotal instances where businesses have either hired
additional staff or expanded their capabilities because of the
gigabit service that they now have access to at very affordable
prices.
We see early signs of this, but I can't really tell you
definitively that the economic development question has been
answered in Westminster because of our broadband project, but
stay tuned.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Now, what about your model. Do you think
the model you used to deploy broadband could work in other
communities?
Mr. Wack. I do. I do.
Mr. Pallone. OK. Then I wanted to ask you a little bit
about the data. We have heard a general consensus on this
committee that the data the FCC uses to determine broadband
deployment is flawed, and I am concerned that the FCC is
nonetheless basing many of its current policy decisions on this
flawed data.
So, Dr. Wack, in your experience in Westminster, do you
think this data is a reliable source for policymaking?
Mr. Wack. Short answer, no. I think not only is the data
possibly corrupt, but the underlying premise of the data
collection exercise is probably off as well. What the data
collection exercise is really doing is ratifying the status quo
of vertically integrated incumbent monopolies.
There are other models that can work, which make the data
collection exercise irrelevant. So it is a policy question for
you all, but I don't think, as we demonstrated in Westminster,
it is irrelevant for us. We are looking to the future, and so
current service levels are irrelevant to our policy decisions.
We are looking 20 years to the future.
Mr. Pallone. Well I was going to ask the next question, but
I think you have already answered it.
But let me just say, how helpful do you think it would be
for small communities like yours or mine in New Jersey if the
FCC spent more time figuring out how to correct this data
before rushing into larger projects.
Mr. Wack. Again, I think it is going to be irrelevant. It
is like assessing your future water capacity based on drinking
straws or your road capacity based on bicycles. That may work
today, but in 10, 15, 20 years, all those numbers are going to
be irrelevant. And these are long term investments. Fiber
projects are or expensive, they are difficult, they take a long
time. So this is a long game here. And talking about current
service levels, it is a waste of time. Sorry.
Mr. Pallone. That is all right. You don't have to be sorry.
That is my question. Thank you for answering it. Thank you,
Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Bilirakis,
you are recognized.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it so
much, and I appreciate the panel being here. Thank you for your
testimony. My first question, it is clear that we must have the
most up-to-date and complete information to avoid wasting
taxpayer dollars. I am particularly interested in ensuring that
funds are distributed efficiently and effectively to Americans
with no broadband access.
Each of you identified the need for continually updated
maps to show where broadband has been deployed. Considering the
rapid changes in broadband data, it may be also advisable to
include information where there has been a commitment under a
federal or state subsidy program to deploy broadband to an
area.
Mr. Darr and Mr. Brake, what are your thoughts on including
committed broadband subsidies in future maps as opposed to
ongoing deployment efforts? We will start with Mr. Darr,
please.
Mr. Darr. The challenge with the mapping, if I could get
you to please repeat the last two sentences.
Mr. Bilirakis. Yes, let me go on to do that. What are your
thoughts on including committed broadband subsidies in future
maps as opposed to just ongoing deployment efforts?
Mr. Darr. If I understand the question correctly, yes.
Serving these areas is not just a matter of getting over an
initial hump. Many of these areas are going to continue to be
more expensive to serve than the revenues that can be generated
from them.
You have got to have continuous mapping going on and
understanding how the landscape overall is changing because the
needs, as has been discussed on the panel already, what we may
need 10 years from now could be very, very different. The
opportunity to present this type of service to the rural areas,
what meets their needs today may not meet their needs in 2, 3,
5 years.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Mr. Brake, do you want to comment on
that?
Mr. Brake. Right. There has been a lot of talk about the
challenges with 477 process. I think, again, as I stated in my
testimony, if you work towards a more bottom up distribution
method, as well as incorporating a more market-based approach
as was outlined with the challenge process. There are ways in
which we can improve this data collection process.
We are already collecting data twice a year, right? So the
need to move to a wholesale different system in order to find
more accurate data you can either go to a more grandular 477
reporting or there are other ways in which we can really solve
this information problem, rather than throwing hundreds of
millions of dollars at a one-off mapping project.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Let me get on to the next question. Mr.
Brake, you discussed the definition of broadband and various
elements of how it is defined. If I understand your testimony
correctly, speed is a factor we should give great weight, but
other factors as well, such as latency and pricing are also
relevant.
Are you suggesting that we take a holistic approach to
defining broadband? And how should we prioritize factors other
than speed?
Mr. Brake. I think that is right. So obviously the speed is
the predominant metric by which we define different service
levels of broadband and how we define underserved areas, right?
But my primary concern is much more long term. Right? I worry
that broadband networks will continue to evolve to support
different services over a multi-decade timeframe.
So if in legislation we lock in a particular very narrow
understanding of what broadband is, it doesn't give room for
these programs to change over time. And so, absolutely, speed
is most important. But I think we have to be holistic and
pragmatic, and here the FCC, again, has lead the way, at least
within the USF program.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. Again, for you, Mr. Brake, you
referenced the FCC's 2016 broadband progress report, and
statements by then Chairman Wheeler about the marked reduction
of unserved Americans over the course of the year. Do you or
does anyone else on the panel know how much of that progress
was actually connected to nonserved areas, meaning zero
coverage?
And how much was simply bumping up speeds of those who
already had the 4-1 or 10-1 download or upload speeds? Why
don't you comment on that?
Mr. Brake. I am not sure I know the exact answer to your
question. So to be clear, the definition for the purposes of
the broadband progress report is different from the definition
for the purpose of Universal Service Funding. So this
definition of Advanced Telecommunications Service is 25
megabits per second, I have criticized that decision under
former Chairman Wheeler, as being seemingly designed to paint a
particular picture of competition choosing the 25 megabits per
second rather than, say, a 20 megabits per second standard,
which would paint a much different picture.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, I am over.
If anyone would like to respond in writing to that particular
question, we would welcome that. Thank you very much. I yield
back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Welch for 5
minutes.
Mr. Welch. I thank Madam Chair for having a hearing and
Ranking Member Mr. Doyle. And I thank the panel. I just want to
make a few comments.
Everybody has agreed that this challenge of getting rural
broadband is absolutely essential to tackle. Seventy of us
wrote to President Trump, and we heard from Secretary Ross who
said that broadband is an essential part of our nation's
infrastructure and vital component of economic policy.
In February we met with Chairman Pai and we urged him to
have a targeted goal of what successful broadband deployment
would look like. Chairman Pai came to the rural telecom working
group and said that this was going to be a priority.
There is a number of bills that have been introduced that
would start to address the challenge, some of them bipartisan,
and the frustration I am having, quite frankly, is we haven't
had a markup. It is 6 months into this, there is a consensus on
what the challenge is, because it affects all of our districts,
and even folks from really urban districts have rural
components that need this help.
In the broadband report of 2016 from FCC talked about what
that divide is, 39 percent of rural Americans lack access to
advanced broadband.
In Vermont over a quarter of our population lacks access to
advanced broadband, and it is a brutal problem for us. Rural
America is getting left behind. So this is really a plea to our
committee, Madam Chair, for all of us to start having markups
and doing the tough work of having legislation that can
actually concretely move us ahead.
We have got to, one, define what broadband deployment
success in rural America is. We are getting some information on
that now. Second, we are going to have to make some decisions
about what is necessary to reach the goal. Does it mean public
investment? That is a tough environment around here. But these
broadband infrastructure deployments don't build themselves,
they take money, and maybe it is a combination of direct
investment in perhaps some loans. But that is a bottom line
question, that unless we are willing to address, we are not
going to be able to have a realistic plan to move ahead.
So this is just, from a representative who serves a rural
district, a plea that we start having markups on some of the
bills that are before us.
I will just ask a few questions because I have taken my
time with this statement. But, Mr. Brake, if you were to
recommend two things to start accelerating the deployment of
broadband into rural areas, what would they be?
Mr. Brake. Well, I do think the FCC is taking a good start
at evaluating potential legacy regulation developing model code
that can help reduce the barriers to investment. So that is one
area to start. But I do think that, at the end of the day, if
we really want to see a real acceleration in deployment, a
greater investment at the Federal level is required.
Mr. Welch. Ms. Mattey, do you have any comments?
Ms. Mattey. Yes, two things. You need money and you need
more money. And you have to decide to spend it.
Mr. Welch. If we have money and more money, how do we have
confidence that it will be wisely deployed?
Ms. Mattey. Well, as I said in my opening remarks, I think
it is very important if the committee decides to have money
disbursed by an entity other than the FCC, that it be carefully
coordinated with the FCC, to ensure that different Federal
programs are working in harmony.
Mr. Welch. Dr. Wack.
Mr. Wack. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. Yes. Same thing. Same question.
Mr. Wack. I would say I am biased. I would say, give it to
the municipalities with lots of strings attached. Require
certain things, open access, certain project management
oversight. But local problems are best solved locally.
Mr. Welch. What about rural areas?
Mr. Wack. Rural areas, I think there are some great models
on the ground today. I would suggest you look at RS Fiber in
Minnesota, it is a cooperative venture between a couple dozen
municipalities and cooperatives rural Minnesota that are
solving their local access and broadband problems through a
public private partnership.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. All right. Mr. Johnson, you are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And, again, I thank
the panelists for being here today, a very, very important
topic.
Mr. Brake, you noted in your testimony that of the 6
percent of Americans that lack access to 10 megabits per
second, close to a quarter of that number come from rural
areas. And I can tell you, from personal experience, that that
number is probably a lot higher in Appalachia, in eastern and
southeastern Ohio along the Ohio River.
How is it that we keep missing large swaths of our nation
in this otherwise well-intentioned effort to advance broadband
access?
Mr. Brake. It is a very good question. I think it
legitimately is a very hard challenge to get broadband into
these very rural areas. When the homes are so widely dispersed,
the revenue base is very wide and the cost per home is much
higher. It is a real economic challenge.
If we do not define the goals very specifically in
geography, I worry that sometimes money that is disbursed ends
up inevitably pooling in the areas where the opportunity to see
revenue return is greatest. I think this is more a concern when
you are talking about broadband or loans rather than grants.
So, I mean, it is just a continuing challenge. But, as I
said, the potential infrastructure package is a real
opportunity to take another crack at it.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Mattey, do I have that right?
Am I pronouncing that right?
Ms. Mattey. Yes.
Mr. Johnson. In your opinion, how has the accuracy of our
broadband maps improved since the responsibility for mapping
shifted from NTIA to the FCC?
Ms. Mattey. That is a complicated question. I think that
the FCC has been working hard and has the advantage of
requiring the information to be provided. But I have to be
perfectly candid, I am aware of inaccuracies in the
information. I am aware that some entities have made mistakes.
I have heard that there are concerns that some overreport. I
think, and I actually agree with several of the panelists today
that have talked about the importance of validation and even
auditing the data to ensure that the data are accurate.
Data collection companies are required to provide the
information, but I will be candid and say, they don't
necessarily have the strongest incentive to make sure that they
are taking good care in submitting that information, and that
is a problem.
Mr. Johnson. OK. All right. We will continue with you, Ms.
Mattey. In rural areas, how significant is it that a rural
census block is considered served as long as part of the block
is served. Isn't a census block based approach to broadband
mapping very grandular?
Ms. Mattey. The issue, obviously, is if you require
something more detailed than a census block, that imposes a
greater burden on the parties that are submitting the
information. Whether they are submitting it to the government
or an independent clearinghouse or a private sector entity that
is collecting the information, either way, that is burdensome.
A different approach is to just shift the presumption
rather than saying you are going to deem the block served. If
there is one location you can say the block is unserved unless
all locations are served. That is a simple fix.
Mr. Johnson. Yes. That strikes me as problematic, though,
because aren't there just a few homes in those census blocks?
That is part and parcel to the question that I asked Mr. Brake
earlier, when you are working on simply a census block, you
miss folks.
Ms. Mattey. Well, that is the issue. It is just a question
of which way. Do you want to presume something is served or
unserved, and obviously, the issue is to make sure that you
aren't declaring a block unserved, and then having a situation
where you potentially are funding somebody to compete against
another provider that serves a corner of the block.
I have seen that in rural areas where, in the course of the
challenge process, folks submitted maps, and you could see that
there was a cable plant that was crossing perhaps a corner of a
census block, but not touching all of the homes within. That is
the policy dilemma, which way do you push the lever.
Mr. Johnson. And I think you are highlighting the problem
and making the case about why it is so important that these
maps be accurate, because that is one of the reasons why we
continue to miss swaths of rural America is because of the way
we are mapping it out and the detail we are going down to. OK.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Matsui, for 5 minutes.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I want to thank the panelists for being here today.
I think we all agree that good broadband data is essential
to determining the public policies that we need to help
facilitate broadband buildout. Now, I represent the city of
Sacramento, the state capital of California. But I also
believe, because we are the hub of the region, that it is
really important to relate to the rural areas. And as Mr.
Johnson and Mr. Loebsack and others, Mr. Welch will attest, I
do attend the rural-urban kind of coalition because I believe
we need to work together.
Now, I believe that, for a region to succeed, you really
have to look at both the urban and rural areas being unserved
and underserved. And there are areas outside of my district
that I work with really well, and there are very successful
farming operations that I believe will be going on the longest
time. There are other areas close to me that are farming now,
but I can see the changeover to development and housing. And
the region that I represent, the city and the suburbs, there
are areas in Sacramento which were successful suburbs like in
the 1960s and 1970s and no longer are that successful. And we
see young people there not being able to have broadband to
access their homework and all that.
So I am looking at this thinking that, for economic
benefits, looking at urban and rural together, because, quite
frankly, what is happening now is we are having sort of a
leapfrog type of situation where the developers are doing
something in the rural areas, and a suburban area that used to
be successful no longer is.
And I am really wondering what we can do to tackle this. Is
there different data we need to address that type of situation?
We have a city area, which we are now getting a partnership
with Verizon there for 5G. But then we have a suburban area,
and then we also have the area that is developing from rural to
suburban now.
I would think that there could be more harmonizing there.
And I don't know whether the data even looks at something like
that because you are looking, I think, Ms. Mattey said, we need
to have more dynamic data. So I would like some comments on
that, Ms. Mattey.
Ms. Mattey. Well, obviously, there are multiple ways one
can try to improve the quality of the data. One of the
questions is, whether the government does it or the private
sector does it, who is going to pay? Whoever is doing the work.
Ms. Matsui. It is always that. Right.
Ms. Mattey. Yes.
Ms. Matsui. Can I just say this? Our subcommittee has
discussed legislative proposals to create an inventory of
Federal infrastructure and property which could be used for
broadband. Local and municipal governments would be permitted
to add their existing facilities to the inventory so they might
be better utilized by broadband providers.
I am also looking at utilities and as we build transit,
laying fiber and all that. And is there this type of
coordination of data sharing now between the Federal, state,
local governments? And have we also invited some of the
utilities and transit people to be a part of this? Anyone?
Mr. Legg. Congresswoman Matsui, I think you are
highlighting a very important issue that access to conduit,
access to pole attachments, access to public rights-of-way,
permitting through Federal lands, BLM, forestry, all of that,
all of those are challenges to broadband deployment. Frankly,
there is quite poor coordination on all of the things that I
just mentioned, and there is much room for improvement.
Ms. Matsui. So that would mean that you would have another
type of cooperation agreement, in a sense, other than we are
talking about today?
Mr. Legg. That is right. I think so. I think the
participation of state, Federal, and local entities in a common
framework that would allow for the sharing of information on
how to get access to those things is very, very important.
Ms. Matsui. Well, I would think that would benefit both
rural and urban areas.
Mr. Darr. Yes, absolutely. One of the significant hurdles
right now within the urban areas particularly has to do with
the need to streamline zoning and permitting for small mobile
and Wi-Fi antennas. And this is going to impact the rural areas
as well.
I was having a conversation with an operator last week who
has a lot of coverage in rural Mississippi, and they are using
small cells on a telephone pole that are the size of Coca-Cola
cans. And as long as you can get fiber to that point, then you
can provide very high-speed directed service to an area that is
relatively nearby. You don't always have to have the 200-foot
tower.
Ms. Matsui. Sure.
Mr. Darr. But it is also important to understand that that
fiber has to be there. If you don't have the fiber there, it is
extraordinarily difficult to provide a high-speed signal.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
I have been urged to wind up here. So thank you very much,
and I will submit the rest of my questions.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Ms. Matsui. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Walters, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mrs. Walters. Thank you.
I would like to thank the chair for holding this hearing
this morning and for our witnesses for appearing.
Unfortunately, as we have been discussing, there are
significant portions of this country that don't have access to
broadband, which limits economic potential but, far more
troubling, increases the digital divide. And in order to get
there, it is clear that we need to find a way to properly and
appropriately identify the areas that need coverage, and that
starts with accurate and up-to-date data. That being said, as
we look to improve this data, we must ensure that taxpayer
dollars are spent wisely and efficiently.
Mr. Brake, you mentioned in your testimony that Federal
support dollars should be given first to areas that are truly
unserved. You state that priority should be given to these
communities until the cost of connecting each additional
premises becomes untenable. What cost should policymakers
consider untenable?
Mr. Brake. I am not sure I can give you an exact number. I
worry that that is, to some extent, a political question, what
amount of money we are willing to spend to advance truly
universal coverage. The real challenge is, as you approach the
very last few percent, the cost of connecting each additional
user really takes off like a hockey stick. And so I would
assume that we have to draw the line at the last 2, last 1
percent. And at that point, it becomes reasonable to be looking
at other technologies, such as satellite.
Mrs. Walters. So, if public investment does not reach these
remote areas, that very last section you were talking about,
will these communities ever be served?
Mr. Brake. They are served now by satellite, except for
some extremely far north regions of Alaska, is my
understanding, so perhaps not with as robust a technology;
perhaps the coverage would be less reliable or the latency
higher. But the very final last percent satellite remains an
option.
Mrs. Walters. OK. Switching gears, Mr. Brake, I have got
another question for you. In regard to smart infrastructure,
can you touch upon the advancements we have seen in the
networks themselves?
Mr. Brake. I can talk for a while about that. There are all
sorts of ways in which the underlying technology that underpins
these broadband networks is continually changing. I do worry,
especially with the conversation about dark fiber, that there
is a sense that these are simply dumb pipes, that if we put the
infrastructure in the ground, then nothing has to change. That
is simply not the case.
While a lot of the innovation, to be fair, is happening at
higher layers of the stack, if you will, there are ways in
which a lot of the routing and the real smarts of the network
is being developed within software rather than hardware.
That is a very important transition that, while pretty
obscure and technologically advanced, is an important
transition, and so finding ways in which private sector can
continue to drive those innovations. And I think the real
balance is providing Federal funding to continue to see this,
networks built out into rural areas, but leaving a lot of the
actual innovation in the core of the network to the private
sector is the answer.
Mrs. Walters. OK. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I thank our panelists for their expert witness
testimony this morning.
Dr. Wack, just following Ms. Matsui's line of questioning,
rural and urban areas often experience similar socioeconomic
dynamics. I represent an urban area. So, while we would not be
defined as unserved, that doesn't mean that there aren't issues
that also need to be addressed, such as maximum available
speeds that aren't sufficient to support business needs or
limited competitive and affordable options.
Can you speak to the conditions that preceded the city of
Westminster's decision to explore building its own dark fiber
network, and why are quality broadband speeds essential to
businesses in your city?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congressman Clarke.
As I mentioned before, we went through an exhaustive
planning process looking at our current levels of service, what
the satisfaction with those levels of service were in our
business community and in a residential population. And the
resounding answer was that they were unsatisfied.
And I did not mention before, there was also a parallel
effort working with our incumbent providers to get them to
upgrade their infrastructure and their service levels, which
took the better part of a decade, that conversation unfolded,
and it was all for naught. There was no movement. Lots of
promises, lots of talk, but no action. So we finally took
matters into our own hands and started pursuing this project.
Ms. Clarke. I am also very concerned about redlining and
the digital divide that seems to continue to grow. While many
urban areas are defined as served, using the most recent
definition of broadband from the FCC, I am concerned that there
could be pockets within these areas that are still ignored by
service providers. What can be done to address these concerning
issues to ensure that everyone can have the opportunity to have
access to broadband services? Dr. Wack.
Mr. Wack. Thank you. So this is a very important question,
and I am glad you asked it. One of the things that we hear a
lot today is an unfortunate conflation of service levels with
the existence of the infrastructure. And we are debating a lot
about service levels and the prevalence of service levels, but
that sort of is making the service tail wag the infrastructure
dog. And you can't have service at all until you have
infrastructure.
And what we have pledged in the city of Westminster is that
the city is going to extend just the infrastructure but make it
available to every single person in our community regardless of
the neighborhood, their economic situation, et cetera, so that
everybody has access to the infrastructure, which then allows
service providers to provide whatever level of service they
think they can make a dollar off of, because we believe in the
power of the free market to solve these problems.
It is kind of a waste of time debating what features you
are going to have on a car when you don't have any roads. We
want to build the road first, and then we can have that
conversation about big car, small car, red car, blue car, air-
conditioning, CD. That is later. First, we need to build the
roads, just as we first need to build the infrastructure and
make sure that every citizen in our community has access to it.
Ms. Clarke. So, Dr. Wack, I wholeheartedly agree with your
statement in your testimony that high-capacity data services
and the infrastructure to provide them are essential in 21st
century. I also agree that there is a duty for government to
ensure that the infrastructure is in place.
What can the Federal Government do to help local
municipalities like the city of Westminster achieve wide
deployment of quality high-capacity data service? I think you
went into that a bit in your last answer, but if you could just
drill down a little bit deeper.
Mr. Wack. Sure. So the city of Westminster ship has sailed.
We have already committed $21 million to that project, and we
are going to see it through to the end.
The barriers for other municipalities to do this really
boils down to three things. One is their finances. Some
municipalities unfortunately have a lot of debt, and that is a
problem. So, to the extent that the Federal Government can help
them with that, that would lower the barrier for them to do
these kinds of projects.
The second thing is they have competing infrastructure
projects: bad roads, bridges, water systems, et cetera. So,
again, to the extent that the Federal Government can help
relieve those problems, it would help.
The third is political will. They just have to be able to
feel like they can see this project through, because as I said
before, these are hard projects. They are taking many years.
They are expensive. But our model shows that the infrastructure
can end up paying for itself so that it doesn't unduly burden
the rest of the municipal finances and still provide open-
access infrastructure to allow the market to develop services
and pricing levels that are suitable for that opportunity.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. Just in time.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. You always do a good job, Ms. Clarke, and
we appreciate that.
Mrs. Brooks, you are recognized.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Just a couple months ago, the State of Indiana passed
legislation that empowered the deployment of small cell devices
to bring 5G technology, similar to what my colleague from
Sacramento was talking about, to Indianapolis. And our city is
currently a test site for 5G evolution buildout.
And while these are incredibly important, much of my
district is also rural and may not necessarily be experiencing
the same high-speed broadband access, and, in fact, one out of
six Hoosiers live in an area of the state without any broadband
access at all. And so I very much appreciate these discussions,
particularly for those of us who are in both urban, suburban,
rural, small-town districts.
One of the things that I would like to delve into a little
bit more, and I haven't heard about it talked about enough
probably, but, Dr. Wack, you talked about the importance of
public/private partnerships, and I don't think we have really
talked much about that. And you just talked about barriers in
response to my colleague from New York's question.
What would you say are the keys to success, or is it
overcoming these barriers that you just talked about with
respect to public/private partnership in this space? Can you
expand on what you--and I might ask some of the others for what
they think keys to success could be to have successful public/
private partnerships in this space?
Mr. Wack. Thank you, Congresswoman. I am sorry.
The public/private partnerships are all about allocating
risk appropriately between the partners and making sure that
the incentives for pursuing the partnership are aligned so that
both parties get something out of it.
That is hard to do between the public sector and the
private sector for a variety of reasons, but it is not
impossible. And there are many examples of successful public/
private partnerships in a variety of industries. There is no
one-size-fits-all. Every community is unique. The private
partners that come to the table are going to have unique skills
and assets.
But I guess the key factors for success are appropriate
risk sharing, that it is not one party is taking all the risk,
not one party is footing all the bills, not one party is
accruing all the benefits. Both sides have to have skin in the
game. Both sides have to be able to gain something from it. But
what they need from it are very, very different from the public
sector and the private sector. The public sector doesn't need
to make money. They just need to solve problems for their
community. The private sector needs to make money. And there is
nothing wrong with that.
And those are some of the challenges that need to be
overcome sort of culturally between the two partners, getting
both sides to understand that solving a policy problem really
doesn't have anything to do necessarily with the bottom line,
but the private partner has got a bottom line, and the public
partner has to be cognizant of that.
Mrs. Brooks. And thank you for that.
I am curious if any other panelists have any other ideas,
because I think we need to think very creatively here in trying
to bring broadband to everyone in the country. Anyone else like
to add as to what you would like to see if we were to promote
concepts of public/private partnerships? Yes.
Mr. Brake. So one thing I agree with Dr. Wack on is there
is no one model of public/private partnerships. So there are
different ways in which private industry and local governments
can work together to try to find ways to accelerate deployment.
I would say, as a general rule, advancing a public/private
partnership of this sort of type where the local government
actually publicly owns the infrastructure itself should be off
the table when there are already two existing providers in a
particular area.
Part of my concern is that, especially when these are
dynamic markets and two existing providers can be competing on
other terms other than broadband access itself, if we come in
with a simple fiber model and you are not competing on video or
potential wireless play, it can become financially difficult
for the public offering.
And I worry that then you see the public fiber model
looking to pick off the highest revenue entities, such as the
local government or businesses, and ultimately sees it more
difficult to serve the overall area outside of where the
municipal network itself is provided.
Mrs. Brooks. And very briefly, Ms. Mattey, do you have any
comments or any thoughts, briefly?
Ms. Mattey. I think it is very important at the state and
local level to find providers that actually want to serve the
area. If it is a provider that doesn't want to serve the area,
you are not going to get anywhere. And so it is really
important at the grassroots level, whether it is through
something that we have heard about today or other methods
trying to find folks in the community, providers in the
community, folks that are actually committed to actually making
this happen.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Olson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair.
And welcome to our five witnesses. You are 5 minutes away
from lunchtime.
Mr. Brake, my first question is for you, sir. You talked
about the need to have reasonable broadband goals and the
policy implications of defining broadband as 25 megabits per
second versus 10 megabits per second. When I talk about
broadband speed, I get my guidance from my sweet daughter Kate.
She is 20 years old, a sophomore in college.
My question is, what type of a service can a consumer, like
my Kate, expect with a 10/1 connection?
Mr. Brake. So it is a very good question. So part of the
context of putting out those sorts of questions is ultimately
there are tradeoffs involved, right? What kind of service can
you achieve for 10? You can do a lot of things that are
economically productive. You might not be able to stream the
highest definition resolution of video, right.
And so, when you are looking at providing funds to build
broadband out to the entire country, I would say we should look
at providing that sort of level of service, where you can
participate in the economy, you can do productive activities
online, but you might not have access to the highest bandwidth
applications. We should get those out to as many people as
possible before then turning to the higher bandwidth
possibilities.
Mr. Olson. My daughter Kate wants to stream video at the
highest speed. So it sounds like that is a challenge for Kate.
Does the average consumer--and I doubt this is my Kate--use
more than 10/1 on a regular basis?
Mr. Brake. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Mr. Olson. Does the average consumer use more than 10/1 on
a regular basis? Is it normal? Higher than that? Lower?
Mr. Brake. I would say lower. It depends on what you are
trying to use it for. If you are doing a large file transfer or
something like that, over time, you could use up as much
bandwidth as you have available.
But for most purposes, no, it would be much less than that.
You can stream 4k video or at least encode 4k video at 15
megabits per second. So it is like, we are talking, you can
easily do probably 720p--you can still do high-definition video
but not the very highest.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Ms. Mattey, ma'am, I realize I would be maybe playing with
you by making you the judge, the jury, the executioner. But
what suggestion do you have as the Federal Government looks to
exploit broadband deployment when we have multiple programs at
the Federal level doing the same jobs? So basically, where will
you terminate? Cut? What will you restructure? What is your
vision if you could make the government do what you want us to
do? Judge, jury, executioner.
Ms. Mattey. I can't answer that question in 2 minutes.
Mr. Olson. How about the number one?
Ms. Mattey. As I said earlier, if Congress chooses to
appropriate funds and direct those funds to a Federal agency, I
presume it will be separate from the FCC because those are
appropriated funds. And I would absolutely mandate that there
be coordination with the FCC so as to ensure that the Universal
Service Fund funding is not working at cross purposes with the
additional infrastructure funding that Congress mandates.
And I will also say one thing: I too have a sweet Kate, and
it takes more than 10 when you have got three kids in the
house.
Mr. Olson. Oh, boy, probably way more than 10.
I asked you that question about the judge, jury,
executioner. What would you do? Mr. Brake, I see a smile on
your face.
Mr. Brake. I would agree. I think that one of the most
important things is coordination with the Universal Service
Fund, Connect America. But, yes, I think there is widespread
agreement that money needs to be spent to see additional
buildout in rural areas. I think getting over that hump is
challenging enough.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Wack, you have a chance to file your last
statement. Anything you want to take out from the Federal
Government? I know it is not quite your bailiwick, but being a
local operator, are you concerned about what D.C. is doing to
the State of Maryland, your business there?
Mr. Wack. That is also too much for 28 seconds. I would
just say build a lot of fiber, open it up, refer it to as many
users as possible and make a commitment to reach every citizen
of the United States regardless of where they live.
Mr. Olson. Mr. Darr, Mr. Legg, 15 seconds. Any comments or
too short of time?
Mr. Legg. I would say, Congressman, that the need for speed
is only going to increase. What is available or should be
considered a minimum standard today will not be the minimum
standard in a very short period of time: Applications, video,
things we do over the internet constantly evolving, and we want
that to be the case. So shoot for as much infrastructure, as
much fiber as possible, especially with the advent of 5G on the
horizon.
Mr. Olson. As a naval aviator, the need for speed is very
dear to my heart. So thank you.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
And we will UC Mr. Tonko and Mr. Griffith to the committee
to ask questions.
Mr. Tonko, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for the
hearing.
And thank you to our witnesses.
In the digital age of the 21st century, broadband is
essential to how we communicate and exchange information,
conduct business, and engage in the democratic process. From
young children working on school assignments to college
students studying for exams to adults working from home or
running a small business, easy and affordable internet access
has become an integral part of our daily lives.
I hear from my constituents all the time about the lack of
access to broadband internet throughout the region I represent.
Some of these areas are rural and mostly unserved or
underserved, and other areas are underserved with a few houses
having access while many others are left without affordable
options in sight.
I have heard from doctors who depend on the internet to
read X-rays when they are on call, from librarians who see
students sitting in the parking lot after hours so they can
finish homework, from workers who are forced to leave their
home to find high enough speeds so that they can upload or
download large files. They all ask, when will we have access to
broadband?
As a committee, we owe all of these people an answer. I
appreciate that we are holding this hearing today, but we must
take action. A lack of access to broadband internet in the
capital region is one of many reasons why I made it a priority
to join this very committee.
Let's work together to invest where we need to so that we
can give these communities the service they deserve. These
communities have been asking for help for a very long time, and
as we heard, it is only going to become exacerbated from this
point forward.
I am especially proud that New York State is helping to
lead the way on expanding broadband, especially in upstate New
York. This year, the New York congressional delegation helped
to secure more than $170 million in funding to expand high-
speed internet access in upstate New York.
This will be added to $500 million that has already been
set aside by the state. The program has raised the goals for
internet access speeds with an aim of 100 megabits per second
across New York and 25 in the most remote and rural areas.
I hope that, by partnering with states like New York that
are dedicating their own funds to broadband deployment, we will
create a positive incentive, encourage other states to create
their own broadband funding programs.
I am concerned that some of the census block data that are
relied upon to determine if communities are served might show a
misleading picture, especially in communities that may be
partially served.
With all that being said earlier, Dr. Wack, you had
discussed how Westminster was underserved despite meeting
criteria for adequate broadband coverage. I would like to drill
down a little deeper on that. Just how did this affect the
people and businesses of your great community?
Mr. Wack. In short, it just slows them down. So the
anecdote I related, that company almost lost that contract
because they couldn't deliver their product on time, which
relied on their internet connection. And as I related, they
ended up mailing it. And again, this was just a few years ago.
This is the 21st century. That is not acceptable.
And that is the constraint on future growth. So, sure, some
of these businesses may be able to get by today, but if we are
talking about growth, we are talking about growing the economy,
creating jobs, and creating opportunities for our constituents,
we have to plan for future capacity. And existing capacity is
already inadequate.
Mr. Tonko. What would this mean for home values or funding
for schools and for students?
Mr. Wack. For home values, there is data that is out there
that says that just having a dark fiber connection to the house
increases the value of the home 3 to 5 percent. We are going to
test that proposition in Westminster, and we were already
seeing increased interest in some of the residential
communities that are already lit. The realty community is
excited about this. They are starting to market it. And they
are seeing people coming saying: I want to go to a neighborhood
that has the fiber service.
Our schools were already connected because of a Middle Mile
Project that actually enabled our project. So we have already
seen the benefit there. But I would imagine that, as the whole
community gets connected and those kids are able to connect
back to the school, there will be all sorts of opportunities
for distance learning enabled by that as well.
Mr. Tonko. Why don't I just ask the entire team here, what
progress would you suggest has been made at expanding broadband
access? What would you cite as the progress for broadband, Mr.
Legg?
Mr. Legg. Congressman Tonko, thank you for the question. I
think that we have seen a rapid expansion of gigabit service in
urban and suburban areas across the country just in the last
few years.
I think that highlights the fact that there is actually a
growing digital divide in the country where urban and suburban
areas have gigabit service and rural areas are still struggling
on dialup or low-grade DSL services. So I think the divide is
actually increasing.
It is great for urban and suburban areas. I think that
there is a need for that speed. Our concern as a nonprofit
organization is what is happening in some suburban and rural
areas where they are simply not able to keep up.
Mr. Tonko. And that is of a great concern.
Anyone else?
Mr. Darr. I would like to add that, capturing a picture of
how the networks are behaving today, we need to keep in mind
that even though we have accomplished bringing a specific level
of service to a given point at a given time, that doesn't mean
that that will be maintained.
If you take a look at a two-lane, a four-lane freeway and
it was designed for perhaps 40,000 cars, this is the same
concept. If you put 70,000 cars on that highway, everything
slows down. As you attract more people to the network and they
learn they can do new things, then it is going to create
further congestion on the network.
And so, if you are able to provide service to an area at
10/1 or 25/3, whatever that is defined by, then that can
degrade over time if you continue to put more and more people
and more and more load and stress on that network.
Mr. Tonko. OK.
Madam Chair, you have been most kind and generous. I have
exceeded my time, and I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman did exceed his time, but that
is perfectly OK.
Mr. Griffith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and
appreciate all the members of the committee being here.
We have been monitoring it, the testimony that you all have
been giving, and so a lot of the things that I am going to ask
or talk about, you all have already touched upon. But I did
mention to the chair lady how much I appreciated her holding
this hearing.
We have got to have accurate maps, as you all have all
said. My district, for those of you who aren't familiar with
it, is the rural corner of Virginia that stretches from
Kentucky and Tennessee and North Carolina and West Virginia up
to, I call it the cornucopia of the State, up to the edge of
Roanoke.
In it, we have Virginia Tech, a highly wired community.
And, yet, I have professors outside of Virginia Tech who do not
have any service at all. It is not a matter of speed; they
don't have anything. If they want something, HughesNet is their
only option. Also, in Montgomery County, a few more miles, that
is about 5 or 6 miles outside of Blacksburg, that we have that.
Now, part of that has to do with the fact that the district
does have a lot of mountains and a lot of nooks and crannies.
But still, in Montgomery County, I have an area where the laid
wire gets to within about 2 miles of the edge of the county,
and the people out there have nothing.
I have got huge sections geographically, maybe not huge
population, but huge sections geographically that the FCC
thinks they are serving, and it appears they might. They
aren't. It is not there. I have looked at their maps, and there
are lots of areas I know are white with no service that they
don't seem to understand there is no service.
Public-private partnerships that you all touched on, I
think, are very important. We are not going to lay wire to
every one of those nooks and crannies, but we have got to get
them some service. And while it may not be as fast as they can
get it in downtown Blacksburg, it ought to be at least
serviceable for kids doing their homework.
And I think all of you agree with that. The question is how
we do it. And I don't know how we can craft it at the Federal
level. So, if you all sleep on this and come up with an idea,
let me know.
But I happened to stop by a couple weeks ago to see some
folks in Bland County in their administrative offices. They
started talking to me, and they had a fellow there from
GigaBeam, which is a local startup that started in 1994, just a
computer service company. And they saw that nobody was
providing internet service so they started doing it where they
could. It is expensive.
Bland County has been bartering with all kinds of folks. So
when they needed to get a tower put up in one location, they
were telling me they happened to know that a power company
needed a little easement from them. So they said: We will give
you the easement if you help us put the tower up. They already
had all the equipment there.
Now, I don't know how you put that into a piece of
legislation, Madam Chairman, because that is just good
commonsense. The equipment was all sitting there. They said:
All right, we need your help. We will give you the easement you
need; you get your guys to put the tower up.
And, you know, there they made a deal.
That is the kind of stuff we need if we are going to get it
out into a lot of the rural areas like mine where it is not
easy. Bland has got two tunnels so the interstate can get
through the county. So it is not an easy terrain, but there are
a lot of good folks there, and they need their kids to be
educated, and they need the ability maybe to bring in some jobs
to the areas that aren't flat enough to build buildings on.
So you all have all touched on that. I want to work with
you, as I know the chair lady does and the rest of us do, to
try to solve these problems. And I think the first step is to
get the mapping done, because if you don't know you have got a
problem and you are building up the speeds in certain areas of
the country because you think that is the problem and I have
got people that don't have--and a fair number have no service
at all. That is something that we need to be looking at to fix.
So I am happy to give whatever time I have remaining to if
anybody wants to respond or make any comments. But, frankly,
you all have done a great job of getting the information out
there already. And I am aware of that. So thank you.
Anybody want to respond?
Mr. Wack. Congressman Griffith, thank you.
Mr. Legg. Congressman Griffith, thank you for your
comments. I grew up just across the Kentucky-Virginia line. I
understand some of the areas that you are dealing with there.
I think one of the things that Congress can do is look at
ways of incentivizing ease of pole attachment, ease of locating
facilities and easements on public right-of-way within other
easements that are granted to railroads and to power companies.
I think there is a lot that can be done. We talked a little
bit earlier. I think it was Congressman Matsui that raised the
comment that conduit easements, pole attachments, those are all
things that actually either inhibit or promote the growth of
broadband service, and that is certainly something that
Congress could help with.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
And seeing no further members wishing to ask questions of
this panel--and you all have done a wonderful job, and we thank
you, that you have been here today.
Before we conclude, I do ask unanimous consent that we can
submit a letter from the Satellite Industry Association.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. And then I know that the minority has two
articles to submit regarding the exchange between Mr. Brake and
Ms. Eshoo, and one relates to chairman--they are both from Free
Press and one relates to Chairman Pai and his investment
numbers and the other two AT&T CEO regarding ``Net Neutrality
Rules Haven't Harmed Investment.'' And I have one article from
The Verge that cites statements from the CEOs and the deputy
counsel from Verizon, the CEO from Charter, the CEO from
Comcast, and AT&T discussing how it did inhibit or slow
investment.
Mr. Tonko. If I could just clarify, the minority is asking
simply for the one Free Press article to be introduced into the
record.
Mrs. Blackburn. The one, OK.
Mrs. Blackburn. Amended. So ordered. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, I remind
members that they have 10 business days to submit additional
questions for the record.
And I ask that each of you, upon receiving those questions,
answer within 10 business days.
Seeing no further business to come before the subcommittee
today, we are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]