[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
REALIZING THE BENEFITS OF RURAL BROADBAND: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 17, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-150
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
energycommerce.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-384 WASHINGTON : 2019
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).E-mail,
[email protected].
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
MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee GENE GREEN, Texas
STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
GREGG HARPER, Mississippi G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey DORIS O. MATSUI, California
BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky KATHY CASTOR, Florida
PETE OLSON, Texas JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia JERRY McNERNEY, California
ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois PETER WELCH, Vermont
H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida PAUL TONKO, New York
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
BILLY LONG, Missouri DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
BILL FLORES, Texas JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana Massachusetts
MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma TONY CARDENAS, California
RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina RAUL RUIZ, California
CHRIS COLLINS, New York SCOTT H. PETERS, California
KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
TIM WALBERG, Michigan
MIMI WALTERS, California
RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
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. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State
of New Jersey, prepared statement.............................. 4
Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 4
Prepared statement........................................... 6
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Witnesses
Tom Stroup, President, Satellite Industry Association............ 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Answers to submitted questions............................... 170
Justine Forde, Senior Director of Government Relations, Midco.... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Answers to submitted questions............................... 174
Claude Aiken, President and CEO, Wireless Internet Service
Providers Association.......................................... 37
Prepared statement........................................... 39
Answers to submitted questions............................... 178
John C. May, President, Ag Solutions, and Chief Information
Officer, John Deere & Company.................................. 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Answers to submitted questions............................... 181
Jenni Word, Associate Administrator and Chief Nursing Officer,
Wallowa Memorial Hospital...................................... 60
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Answers to submitted questions............................... 185
Suzanne Coker Craig, a Former Commissioner of the Town of
Pinetops and Managing Partner, Curiositees of Pinetops......... 70
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Answers to submitted questions............................... 187
Submitted Material
Statement of coalition including the African-American Mayors
Association, the American Library Association, the National
Black Chamber of Commerce, and the Taxpayer Protection
Alliance, submitted by Mr. Lance............................... 109
Statement of the Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc.,
submitted by Mr. Loebsack...................................... 111
Statement of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, submitted by
Mr. Olson...................................................... 114
Statement of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, submitted
by Mr. Olson................................................... 115
Statement of the Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives,
submitted by Mr. Long.......................................... 116
Study by the Federal Communications Commission, submitted by Mr.
Doyle.......................................................... 118
Statement of the ITTA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............... 126
Statement of the Wireless Industry Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 127
Statement of the American Hospital Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 128
Statement of USTelecom, submitted by Mrs, Blackburn.............. 133
Statement of NTCA--The Rural Broadband Association, submitted by
Mrs. Blackburn................................................. 134
Statement of ACT, the App Association, submitted by Mrs.
Blackburn...................................................... 135
Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association, submitted by
Mrs. Blackburn................................................. 137
Statement of the Advanced Communications Law & Policy Institute,
submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.................................... 139
Statement of the CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............... 162
Blog post from NCTA, July 17, 2018, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn.. 163
Letter of February 21, 2018, from Rural Broadband Caucus members
to House appropriators, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............ 165
Chairman Walden's slides, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn............ 167
REALIZING THE BENEFITS OF RURAL BROADBAND: CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2018
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in
room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus,
Latta, Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long,
Flores, Brooks, Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex
officio), Doyle, Welch, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Eshoo,
Butterfield, Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio).
Staff present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator,
Communications and Technology; Kristine Fargotstein, Detailee,
Communications and Technology; Sean Farrell, Professional Staff
Member, Communications and Technology; Margaret Tucker Fogarty,
Staff Assistant; Theresa Gambo, Human Resources/Office
Administrator; Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Paul Jackson,
Professional Staff, Digital Commerce and Consumer Protection;
Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications and Technology; Brannon
Rains, Staff Assistant; Austin Stonebraker, Press Assistant;
Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Communications and Technology;
Michelle Ash, Minority Chief Counsel, Digital Commerce and
Consumer Protection; Jeff Carroll, Minority Staff Director;
Jennifer Epperson, Minority FCC Detailee; Alex Hoehn-Saric,
Minority Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology; Jerry
Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan Lewis, Minority Staff
Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; and C.J. Young,
Minority Press Secretary.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Mrs. Blackburn [presiding]. The Subcommittee on
Communications and Technology will now come to order, and the
Chair recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
And I want to welcome you to today's subcommittee hearing
on rural broadband challenges and solutions. Extending the
reach of broadband in rural Tennessee and across America is
critical to ensure that everyone can participate in the digital
economy. While the percentage of rural Tennesseans still
lacking access to high-speed internet has decreased from 34
percent to 23 percent, we have to continue to push. You can't
have a 21st century economy without a 21st century internet.
Since passage of the 1996 Telecom Act, the private sector
has invested roughly $1.6 trillion in their networks using
different technologies. Understanding different technologies is
key because broadband is more than just fiber. Moreover, we
should acknowledge private investment in rural deployment and
ensure that government-based solutions complement private
investment instead of competing with it. For example, I am
pleased to have the Satellite Industry Association testifying,
so we can learn about the strides they are making to deploy
modern satellites capable of delivering broadband internet
anywhere in the country.
Almost 6 months ago, I chaired a hearing on closing the
digital divide. These hearings are useful, but, as chairman, I
like to focus on results. Today's hearing allows us to check
our progress, finding solutions and getting work done.
I am proud to report that members of this subcommittee have
worked together and accomplished quite a bit when it comes to
expanding broadband access in rural America. In March, Congress
passed RAY BAUM's Act, the most significant rural broadband
legislation to become law in the last 6 years. The bill is
named in honor of the E&C Committee Staff Director Ray Baum,
who passed away earlier this year. Ray was a champion for rural
America, and naming this bill for him is a fitting tribute.
RAY BAUM's Act incorporated several legislative proposals
we examined at our hearing in January. I will allow
subcommittee members to discuss the legislative solutions, but
I would like to highlight a couple that positively impact the
people of Tennessee and Americans everywhere.
Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McKinley took the reins on the broadband
conduits, the idea that the Department of Transportation should
facilitate broadband infrastructure on highway projects that
use Federal dollars. I am pleased that we could work with Ms.
Eshoo, who had this great idea, common sense, and we finally
got it done.
Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Loebsack worked together to require
the FCC to study the potential of using spectrum more
efficiently for rural areas.
Lastly, our full committee chairman, Greg Walden, took on
the difficult issue of ensuring the solvency of the Broadcast
Relocation Fund. Wireless broadband providers spent over $19.8
billion at auction for TV spectrum. Ensuring the solvency of
the Relocation Fund is crucial to getting this spectrum to use
for broadband, especially in rural areas.
After passage of RAY BAUM's Act, the subcommittee passed
two more rural broadband bills, the Precision Agriculture
Connectivity Act from Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack, the ACCESS
BROADBAND Act from Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance. These bills were
reported out of full committee last week. All of this shows
that Congress can, in fact, roll up our sleeves and get things
done.
Rural broadband remains a challenge and there are still
unserved areas that need to be connected. With limited federal
dollars to go around, we simply cannot afford to allow
overbuilding to take place while so many areas are left
completely unserved. We need to encourage states to find
solutions that best suit their needs. We will not stop working,
and I am proud to lead this subcommittee in working with the
President to find good bipartisan solutions.
I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Lance.
[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Marsha Blackburn
Welcome to today's subcommittee hearing on rural broadband
challenges and solutions. Extending the reach of broadband in
rural Tennessee, and across America, is critical to ensure
everyone can participate in the digital economy.
While the percentage of rural Tennesseans still lacking
access to high speed internet has decreased from 34% to 23%, we
must continue to push. You can't have a 21st century economy
without a 21st century internet.
Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
private sector has invested roughly $1.6 trillion in their
networks using different technologies. Understanding different
technologies is key because broadband is more than just fiber.
Moreover, we should acknowledge private investment in rural
deployment, and ensure that government-based solutions
complement private investment instead of competing with it.
For example, I'm pleased we have the Satellite Industry
Association testifying so we can learn about the strides
they're making to deploy modern satellites capable of
delivering broadband internet anywhere in the country.
Almost 6 months ago, I chaired a hearing on closing the
digital divide.
Hearings are useful, but as Chairman, I like to focus on
bipartisan results. Today's hearing allows us to check our
progress finding solutions and getting work done.
I'm proud to report the members of this Subcommittee have
worked together and have accomplished a lot to expand broadband
access in rural America.
In March, Congress passed RAY BAUM'S Act--the most
significant rural broadband legislation to become law in the
last 6 years. The bill was named in honor of the Energy and
Commerce Committee's staff director, Ray Baum, who passed away
earlier this year. Ray was a champion for rural America, and
naming a rural broadband bill for him is a fitting tribute to
his career of public service.
RAY BAUM's Act incorporated several legislative proposals
we examined at our hearing in January.
I'll let our subcommittee members discuss their legislative
solutions, but I would like to highlight a couple that
positively impact the people of Tennessee, and Americans
everywhere.
Ms. Eshoo and Mr. McKinley took the reins on broadband
conduits--the idea that the Department of Transportation should
facilitate broadband infrastructure on highway projects that
use federal dollars. I'm very glad we could work with Ms. Eshoo
to finally get it done.
Mr. Kinzinger and Mr. Loebsack worked together to require
the Federal Communications Commission to study the potential of
using spectrum more efficiently for the benefit of rural areas.
Lastly, our full committee Chairman, Greg Walden, took on
the difficult issue of ensuring the solvency of the Broadcaster
Relocation Fund. Wireless broadband providers spent over $19.8
billion at auction for TV spectrum. Ensuring the solvency of
the Relocation Fund is crucial to putting this spectrum to use
for broadband, especially in rural areas.
After passage of RAY BAUM'S Act, the subcommittee passed
two more rural broadband bills:
The Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act from
Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack; and
The ACCESS BROADBAND Act from Mr. Tonko and Mr.
Lance.
These bills were reported out of full committee just last
week.
All of this shows that Congress can--in fact--roll up its
sleeves to get things done. But we cannot rest on our laurels.
Rural broadband remains a challenge, and there are still
unserved areas that need to be connected.
With limited federal dollars to go around, we simply cannot
afford to allow overbuilding to take place while so many areas
are left completely unserved.
We need to encourage states to find solutions that best
suit their needs.
We will not stop working, and I'm proud to lead this
subcommittee in working with the President to find bipartisan
solutions.
Mr. Lance. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
I have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with Ranking Member
Doyle which, among other things, would help spur rural
broadband deployment by dedicating 10 percent of spectrum
auction proceeds under the bill to rural broadband. Had this
rural dividend been in place during the previous two spectrum
auctions, over $6 billion would have been raised for rural
buildout. I think that it is incredibly important that rural
America be treated the same way as the rest of America.
It is also important that we recognize that any federal
funds for broadband deployment will be finite. I have worked
hard to pursue policies to ensure coordination between various
agencies.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to introduce a
coalition letter of support for the AIRWAVES Act, and it
includes the African-American Mayors Association, the American
Library Association, the National Black Chamber of Commerce,
and the Taxpayer Protection Alliance.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Lance. And I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Leonard Lance
Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and thank you to our
distinguished panel members for appearing before us today.
As broadband access becomes more and more important to
success in the 21st century economy, closing the digital divide
is an increasingly important issue facing our Nation.
For my part, I have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with
Ranking Member Doyle, which, among other things, would help
spur rural broadband deployment by dedicating ten percent of
spectrum auction proceeds under the bill to rural broadband.
Had this ``rural dividend'' been in place during the previous
two spectrum auctions, over $6 billion would have been raised
for rural buildout.
It is also important that we recognize that any Federal
funds for broadband deployment will be finite. I have worked
hard to pursue policies to ensure coordination between various
agencies involved in broadband deployment, encourage
concentration on unserved areas and generally avoiding over
building of areas already served by a broadband provider.
I ask unanimous consent to introduce a coalition letter of
support for the AIRWAVES Act into the record and yield back the
balance of my time
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Before I get started, I want to express my deepest
condolences to Robin Colwell, the majority's chief counsel, on
the passing of her husband, Bill. I know Robin and her family
are grieving their loss, but our thoughts and prayers are with
her and her family.
Madam Chair, thank you for holding this hearing.
We live in a divided nation when it comes to broadband
access. All too often, people living in urban areas are the
digital haves; whereas, those living in rural areas are being
left behind with few or no choices, higher prices, and lower
speeds.
As I and many of our colleagues have said in the past, if
we are going to bring more broadband to rural America, our
government needs to make a sustained investment in building out
more infrastructure. That is why I am proud to support Ranking
Member Pallone's LIFT America Act, which would dedicate $40
billion to building out broadband infrastructure in the
unserved and underserved parts of the country. We also need to
give communities like Pinetops the freedom and flexibility to
provision their own service. That is why I am proud to continue
to support Ms. Eshoo's Community Broadband Act. Ms. Coker
Craig, reading your testimony, reiterates exactly what this is
such an important option for rural communities.
I am also proud to have introduced the AIRWAVES Act with
Mr. Lance. This bill directs the FCC to conduct a number of
spectrum auctions as well as to make significant amounts of new
unlicensed spectrum available. The bill would set aside a
portion of the revenue from those auctions for the deployment
of new wireless broadband infrastructure in unserved and
underserved parts of rural America.
Mr. Aiken discusses in his testimony a number of the bands
in the bill which would be ideal for buildout of broadband in
rural areas, specifically the Citizens Broadband Radio Service,
or CBRS, and the lower C-band. It is important to keep in mind
that these bands could be structured in a way that would
enhance rural broadband deployment, but they don't have to be.
The Commission is currently considering changes to both these
bands.
The CBRS band was envisioned as a model for an innovative
new spectrum licensing system that would cover smaller areas
than traditional cellular licenses. This licensing model was
supported by a broad range of industries, including rural
broadband providers who see tremendous potential in being able
to access smaller, more affordable blocks of license spectrum.
But the Commission is considering changes to this band that
would drastically increase license sizes, crowding out smaller
players, so that only the largest wireless providers could bid
on these licenses.
The Commission also opened up a proceeding on the lower C-
band. Several satellite companies that operate in this band
have proposed making a portion of the band available for mobile
broadband, which is great, but I agree with Mr. Aiken that this
band has a lot more potential. The rest of the band could be
shared between satellite operators and broadband providers
using fixed wireless service. This proposal has the potential
to greatly expand broadband deployment in rural parts of the
country.
In both of these bands, the Commission has before it two
roads. They can work to make as much spectrum available for
mobile broadband services. At the last hearing we had on that
topic, every witness acknowledged 5G would not solve rural
urban broadband divide. Or the FCC can adopt spectrum policies
that bring broadband to all Americans. I think it is important
for members on this subcommittee to realize that these are the
decisions that the Commission is making right now that could
affect the future of broadband in rural communities.
With that, Madam Chair, I want to yield the remainder of my
time to Mr. Butterfield.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Michael F. Doyle
Before I get started, I want to express my deepest
condolences to Robin Colwell, the majority's chief counsel, on
the passing of her husband Bill. I know Robin and her family
are grieving their loss. My thoughts and prayers are with her
and her family.
Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing, and
thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today.
We live in a divided nation when it comes to broadband
access. All too often people living in urban areas are the
digital have's, where as those living in rural areas are being
left behind with few or no choices, higher prices, and lower
speeds.
As I and many of colleagues have said in the past, if we
are going to bring more broadband to rural America, our
government needs to make a sustained investment in building out
more infrastructure.
That's why I am proud to support Ranking Member Pallone's
Lift America Act which would dedicate $40 billion to building
out broadband infrastructure in unserved and underserved parts
of the country.
We also need to give communities, like Pinetops, the
freedom and flexibility to provision their own service. That's
why I'm proud to continue to support Ms. Eshoo's Community
Broadband Act. Ms. Corker Craig, reading your testimony
reiterates exactly why this is such an important option for
rural communities.
I'm also proud to have introduced the Airwaves Act with Mr.
Lance. The bill directs the FCC to conduct a number of spectrum
auctions as well as make significant amounts of new unlicensed
spectrum available. The bill would set aside a portion of the
revenue from these auctions for the deployment of new wireless
broadband infrastructure in served and underserved parts of
rural America.
Mr. Aiken discusses, in his testimony, a number of the
bands in the bill which would be ideal for buildout of
broadband in rural areas. Specifically, the Citizen's Broadband
Radio Service or CBRS and the lower C-Band.
It is important to keep in mind is that these bands could
be structured in a way that would enhance rural broadband
deployment, but they don't have to be. The commission is
currently considering changes to both these bands.
The CBRS band was envisioned as a model for an innovative
new spectrum licensing system that would cover smaller areas
than traditional cellular licenses. This licensing model was
supported by a broad range of industries, including rural
broadband providers, who see tremendous potential in being able
to access smaller more affordable blocks of licensed spectrum.
But the Commission is considering changes to this band that
would drastically increase license sizes--crowding out smaller
players so that only the largest wireless providers could bid
on these licenses.
The Commission also opened a proceeding in the lower C-
band. Several satellite companies that operate in this band
have proposed making a portion of the band available for mobile
broadband, which is great. But I agree with Mr. Aiken that this
band has a lot more potential. The rest of the band could be
shared between satellite operators and broadband providers
using fixed wireless service. This proposal has the potential
to greatly expand broadband deployment in rural parts of the
country.
In both of these bands the Commission has before it two
roads. They can work to make as much spectrum available for
mobile broadband services. At the last hearing we had on that
topic, every witness acknowledged 5G would not solve the rural-
urban broadband divide. Or the FCC can adopt spectrum policies
that bring broadband to all Americans.
I think it's important for members on this subcommittee to
realize that these are decisions that the Commission is making
right now that could affect the future of broadband in rural
communities.
I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Butterfield.
I'd like unanimous consent to include letters from CCA and
NCTA in the record.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Doyle, for
yielding time this morning.
And thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
Madam Chairman, one of the privileges extended to members
of this committee is to introduce their constituents when the
committee invites them to testify. So, you can imagine my
surprise when I learned that the committee had extended an
invitation to one of my constituents from the town of Pinetops,
North Carolina, population 1300, to serve as a witness for
today's hearing on rural broadband.
The town is a small, rural community located in my district
in Edgecombe County. The town, with a population of 1300,
comprises an area of about 1 square mile. In fact, I was in the
town on Saturday night. I pass through there quite often. I
stopped at Abrams Bar-B-Q, and former Sheriff James Knight was
there. And he bought me a plate of barbeque, slaw, and hush
puppies just this past Saturday night.
Pinetops, Madam Chairman, is home to my constituent Suzanne
Coker Craig, who accepted the Committee's invitation to
testify. Ms. Craig and her husband Doug are small business
owners in the town. Before starting her business in 2010 that
continues to grow, Ms. Craig was Director of Advocacy Programs
for the North Carolina Hospital Association. She served as
Pinetops' Town Commissioner from 2009 to 2017, played a key
role in securing high-speed internet service for the
constituents in the town. And so, I am proud to welcome Suzanne
to the committee. Suzanne will share her experience of living
in an extremely rural community and the challenges that she and
others face when not connected to the digital world.
Thank you for yielding this time, Madam Chairman and Mr.
Doyle. At this time, I will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
At this time, I recognize Mr. Walden, chairman of the full
committee, for 5 minutes for an opening.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I want to thank my
colleagues, and certainly our panelists, for being here today.
Mr. Butterfield, we would have thought we would get to
sample some of that fine barbeque. Yes, oK, we got that on the
record.
I want to welcome our witnesses, as I said, and I really
appreciate your being here. Particularly, I want to thank my
constituent, Ms. Jenni Word from the Wallowa Memorial Hospital,
for coming here all the way from Wallowa County. She is there
in Enterprise, a population of 1,916 people, and the county,
with 6800 people, spans 3,152 square miles. So, this is big,
wide-open country, beautiful mountain ranges, and forests and
farmland. It is tucked in the far northeast corner of Oregon.
It is larger than the state of Delaware and very rugged and
remote.
I have worked over the years with the health center there
and the hospital and others on their efforts to build out fiber
and get really good connectivity. We recently worked together
with the FCC. Chairman Ajit Pai was in Oregon just after he
announced he was raising the cap on the FCC's Rural Health Care
Program. This really helps the folks to allow a county
healthcare district and other rural providers to get affordable
broadband service.
Ms. Word will detail the telehealth opportunities that
broadband access has opened up, and, most importantly,
expanding the care patients can receive locally without having
to travel hours to other hospitals. This is certainly of huge
benefit in a place where, as a county commissioner once told
me, Susan Roberts, it is winter 11 months out of the year and
sometimes it snows in August. And that is true.
Telemedicine, however, is only one example of the
opportunities provided by broadband access in our rural
communities all across America. Eastern Oregon University, Blue
Mountain Community College, and others, are taking advantage of
distance learning to expand access to higher education in
isolated communities. Farmers and ranchers across America, and
certainly in my district, are using precision agriculture more
and more to regulate their inputs, and the transition to Next
Gen 9-1-1 is critical for strengthening public policy.
After all, broadband is the infrastructure investment of
the 21st century. Broadband means jobs, and jobs come from
deployment of broadband, including towers and cell sites,
fiber, launching satellites, upgrading facilities that
constitute the physical infrastructure.
And the economic benefits don't stop at that infrastructure
investment. Maintaining this infrastructure requires high-
skilled jobs in engineering, network management, cybersecurity,
advertising, customer service, and much more. Beyond all that,
we know broadband is a force multiplier for job creation and
providing efficiencies for every sector of the economy.
Our Chair ran through some of the bills, including the RAY
BAUM's Act, but the Chair herself deserves credit for
spearheading the overall effort. This legislation, now law,
included many provisions to improve broadband buildout.
Spectrum auctions, for example, raise billions of dollars
in federal revenue for deficit reduction and other investments,
but a quirk in the law prevented the FCC from taking upfront
payments of auction bidders and depositing the money directly
with the U.S. Treasury. Though spectrum is the lifeblood of
wireless broadband, this effectively stopped the FCC from
conducting further spectrum auctions.
So, this committee, and under the Chair's leadership, took
care of that in the RAY BAUM's Act. RAY BAUM's Act fixed this
by including a bipartisan bill from Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui
that allows the FCC to deposit legally upfront payments
directly with the Treasury. As a result, the FCC is now moving
forward with its upcoming spectrum frontiers auction, which
will make more high band spectrum available for 5G.
RAY BAUM's Act, signed into law March 23rd, as you have
heard, I have a feeling the bill's namesake Ray, who was from
eastern Oregon and actually represented Wallowa and Union
Counties in the state legislature, and called them God's
country, would be very proud of our efforts then and now.
While some may have been content with that accomplishment
that we did earlier this year, this subcommittee continues to
process important bills through regular order. And just last
week, the full committee took up four more bills that were
unanimously approved by this subcommittee. So, these bipartisan
bills include Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance's ACCESS BROADBAND Act,
which is an important and necessary step to coordinate funding
for broadband across different agencies. We also passed Mr.
Latta and Mr. Loebsack's Precision Agriculture Connectivity
Act, which requires the FCC and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture to form a task force to evaluate the best ways to
leverage broadband for modern high-tech farming and ranching.
These bills illustrate what we can accomplish when we work
together, as we do often, on a bipartisan basis.
However, other Members have put forward bills to address
rural broadband challenges, and these proposals will deserve
our attention and consideration as well. And I expect we will
hear about some of those today and we will continue to work on
those.
I look forward to this hearing as a followup to our January
hearing on closing the digital divide and the numerous other
infrastructure-related hearings we have conducted this
Congress. So, we have got more work to do to improve access and
for telehealth, precision agriculture, education, and jobs
across America.
But I want to thank Ms. Word for being here today. We
really appreciate your coming out. I look forward to your
testimony.
I will say in advance we have another hearing going on at
the same time, so I will be bouncing back and forth. But we
have the testimony from all of you and we appreciate your
input.
With that, Ms. Chair, I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Madame Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses
to this hearing on the benefits of rural broadband. In
particular, I want to thank Ms. Jenni Word with Wallowa
Memorial Hospital for trekking in clear from Wallowa County,
Oregon to testify here today.
Tucked up in the far northeast corner of Oregon, Wallowa
County is larger than the state of Delaware and has a
population of just over 6,800 people. It is rugged and remote.
I worked closely with the hospital and community to help get
fiber built out into the county, and we recently worked
together with FCC Chairman Ajit Pai to raise the cap on the
FCC's Rural Health Care Program. This helps the Wallowa County
Health Care District and other rural providers get affordable
broadband service.
Ms. Word will detail the telehealth opportunities broadband
access has opened up, most importantly expanding the care
patients can receive locally without having to travel hours to
other hospitals. That is certainly a big benefit in a place
where, as a county commissioner once joked, it's winter 11
months out of the year and sometimes snows in August.
Telemedicine, however, is only one example of the
opportunities provided by broadband access in our rural
communities. Eastern Oregon University, Blue Mountain Community
College, and others are taking advantage of distance learning
to expand access to higher education to isolated communities.
Farmers and ranchers across my district have taken advantage of
precision agriculture technology to reduce inputs. And, the
transition to next generation 9-1-1 is critical for
strengthening public safety.
Broadband is the infrastructure of the 21st century.
Broadband means jobs.
Jobs come from deployment--building towers and cell sites,
laying fiber, launching satellites, and upgrading facilities
that constitute the physical infrastructure.
The economic benefits don't stop at construction.
Maintaining this infrastructure requires high-skilled jobs in
engineering, network management, cybersecurity, advertising,
and customer service.
And beyond all that, we know broadband is a force
multiplier for job creation, providing efficiencies for every
sector of the economy.
Chairman Blackburn ran through some of the bills included
in RAY BAUM's Act, but the Chairman herself deserves credit for
spearheading the overall effort. The legislation, now law,
included many provisions to improve broadband buildout.
Take spectrum auctions for example. Spectrum auctions raise
billions in federal revenue for deficit reduction. But a quirk
in the law prevented the FCC from taking upfront payments of
auction bidders and depositing the money directly with the U.S.
Treasury. Though spectrum is the lifeblood of wireless
broadband, this effectively stopped the FCC from conducting
further spectrum auctions. Bear in mind that we are in a global
race to 5G.
RAY BAUM'S Act fixed this by including a bipartisan bill
from Mr. Guthrie and Ms. Matsui that allows the FCC to deposit
upfront payments directly with the Treasury. As a result, the
FCC is moving forward with its upcoming Spectrum Frontiers
Auction, which will make more high-band spectrum available for
5G.
RAY BAUM'S Act was signed into law on March 23rd. I have a
feeling the bill's namesake, Ray, who was from eastern Oregon
and often referred to Wallowa County as ``God's country,''
would be very proud of our efforts and the positive impact RAY
BAUM'S Act has made and will make across the country.
While some may have been content with that accomplishment
alone, this subcommittee continues to process important bills
through regular order. Just last week, the full committee took
up four more bills that were unanimously approved by this
subcommittee.
These bipartisan bills included Mr. Tonko and Mr. Lance's
ACCESS BROADBAND Act, which is an important and necessary step
to coordinate funding for broadband across different agencies.
We also passed Mr. Latta and Mr. Loebsack's Precision
Agriculture Connectivity Act, which requires the FCC and the
U.S. Department of Agriculture to form a task force to evaluate
the best ways to leverage broadband for modern, high-tech
farming and ranching.
These bills illustrate what we can accomplish when we work
together to fix problems on a bipartisan basis.
However, other members have put forward bills to address
rural broadband challenges, and these proposals deserve
consideration as well. I expect we'll hear about some of those
other bills today, and I hope we can continue working on a
bipartisan basis to get them signed into law.
I look forward to this hearing as a follow-up to the
January hearing on closing the digital divide, and the numerous
other infrastructure-related hearings we've conducted this
Congress.
I hope we can continue to work together to expand broadband
for telehealth applications, precision agriculture, education,
and economic opportunity across rural America.
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.
From the start of the Trump administration, there has been
a bipartisan call to modernize America's infrastructure,
including expanding broadband to communities that need it. And
this takes significant resources and cannot be done simply
through deregulation or streamlining processes. Actual
investments are needed, and we must see states and local
governments as partners, not adversaries.
Committee Democrats recognize the need for real investment
and to develop legislative proposals to build the modern,
resilient infrastructure that Americans need and deserve.
First, the LIFT America Act authorizes this $40 billion in
grants for the deployment of secure and resilient broadband.
This comprehensive infrastructure bill, which is supported by
every Democrat on this committee, will also invest in drinking
water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, healthcare
infrastructure, and brownfields redevelopment. These
investments will make Americans more competitive, safer,
healthier, and connected.
Second, Mr. Lujan, along with a number of other Democrats
on the committee, introduced the Broadband Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act. This bill would authorize $5
billion worth of secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of
credit to finance public/private partnerships for broadband
deployment.
Third, Mr. Tonko has introduced the ACCESS BROADBAND Act,
which was just reported by this committee to the full House of
Representatives last week. This bill would create an Office of
Internet Connectivity and Growth to help ensure we are using
existing broadband programs, and new ones, to get the most bang
for the buck. I urge my colleagues to bring this bill to the
House floor as soon as possible.
Committee Democrats have also put forward many other
innovative solutions that could make a real change in
connecting the unconnected and opening up our airwaves for new
wireless broadband services.
Unfortunately, the administration and my Republican
colleagues have placed infrastructure legislation on the back
burner behind its tax scam that benefits large corporations and
the wealthiest few. Rather than making real and substantial
investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, they
instead choose to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks at
the wealthy who simply do not need them.
So, I think we need to invest in broadband infrastructure,
particularly in rural and urban communities that have been left
behind. According to the FCC, 30 percent of Americans in rural
areas and 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands lack
access to baseline broadband service, and this is based on
mapping data that we know underreports the scope of the
problem.
So, it is time to act. Democrats have bold proposals that
will actually drive broadband deployment in all 50 states.
These proposals are technologically-neutral and open the door
to all internet service providers that can deliver fast and
secure broadband access. We need to think outside the box in
our effort to connect all Americans to the benefits of the
internet. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how
we can ensure access to high-speed broadband throughout
America, including rural communities.
On a brief personal note, if I could just say I was
incredibly saddened to hear that Robin Colwell of the
subcommittee's majority staff lost her husband, Bill, over the
weekend following his battle with cancer. I want to offer our
deepest condolences from the Democratic side and sympathies to
her and her family in this trying time.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
From the start of the Trump Administration, there has been
a bipartisan call to modernize America's infrastructure,
including expanding broadband to communities that need it. This
takes significant resources and cannot be done simply through
deregulation or streamlining processes. Actual investments are
needed, and we must see states and local governments as
partners--not adversaries. Committee Democrats recognized the
need for real investment and developed legislative proposals to
build the modern, resilient infrastructure Americans need and
deserve.
First, the LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion in
grants for the deployment of secure and resilient broadband.
This comprehensive infrastructure bill, which is supported by
every Democrat on this Committee, also invests in drinking
water infrastructure, energy infrastructure, health care
infrastructure, and brownfields redevelopment. These
investments will make Americans more competitive, safer,
healthier, and connected.
Second, Mr. Lujan, along with a number of other Democrats
on the Committee, introduced the Broadband Infrastructure
Finance and Innovation Act. This bill would authorize $5
billion worth of secured loans, loan guarantees, and lines of
credit to finance public private partnerships for broadband
deployment.
Third, Mr. Tonko has introduced the ACCESS Broadband Act,
which was just reported by this Committee to the full House of
Representatives last week. This bill would create an Office of
Internet Connectivity and Growth to help ensure we're using
existing broadband programs, and new ones, to get the most bang
for the buck. I urge my colleagues to bring this bill to the
House floor as soon as possible.
Committee Democrats have also put forward many other
innovative solutions that could make a real change in
connecting the unconnected and opening up our airwaves for new
wireless broadband services.
Unfortunately, the Administration and my Republican
colleagues have placed infrastructure legislation on the
backburner behind its tax scam that benefits large corporations
and the wealthiest few. Rather than making real and substantial
investments in our nation's crumbling infrastructure, they
instead chose to throw billions of dollars in tax breaks at the
wealthy who simply do not need them.
We need to invest in broadband infrastructure, particularly
in rural and urban communities that have been left behind.
According to the FCC, 30 percent of Americans in rural areas--
and 35 percent of Americans living on tribal lands--lack access
to baseline broadband service. And this is based on mapping
data that we know underreports the scope of the problem.
It is time to act. Democrats have bold proposals that will
actually drive broadband deployment in all 50 states. These
proposals are technologically neutral, and open the door to all
internet service providers that can deliver fast and secure
broadband access. We need to think outside the box in our
effort to connect all Americans to the benefits of the
internet.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on how we can
ensure access to high-speed broadband throughout America,
including rural communities.
On a brief personal note, we were all incredibly saddened
to hear that Robin Colwell of the subcommittee's majority staff
lost her husband-Bill-over the weekend following his battle
with cancer. I want to offer our deepest condolences and
sympathies to her and her family in this trying time.
With that, I yield the balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back. No one is
seeking to claim his time.
We appreciate so much the thoughts and condolences for
Robin. We know that you all wish Robin and her girls well
during this sad time.
This concludes our member opening statements. The Chair
would like to remind members that, pursuant to the committee
rules, all members' opening statements will be made a part of
the record.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today
and taking the time to accept the invitation and come before
the subcommittee. Today's witnesses will have the opportunity
to give their opening statements, followed by a round of
questions.
Our panel for today's hearing will include Mr. Tom Stroup,
President of the Satellite Industry Association; Mr. Justin
Forde, Senior Director of Government Relations at Midco; Mr.
Claude Aiken, President and CEO of the Wireless Internet
Service Providers Association; Mr. John May, President of Ag
Solutions and the Chief Information Officer at John Deere &
Company; Ms. Jenni Word, Associate Administrator and Chief
Nursing Officer at Wallowa Memorial Hospital in Oregon, and Ms.
Suzanne Coker Craig, a former Commissioner of the town of
Pinetops and the current Managing Partner at CuriosiTees of
Pinetops.
We appreciate each of you being here today, and we
appreciate your testimony.
We will begin with you, Mr. Stroup, 5 minutes for your
opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF TOM STROUP, PRESIDENT, SATELLITE INDUSTRY
ASSOCIATION; JUSTINE FORDE, SENIOR DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT
RELATIONS, MIDCO; CLAUDE AIKEN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, WIRELESS
INTERNET SERVICE PROVIDERS ASSOCIATION; JOHN C. MAY, PRESIDENT,
AG SOLUTIONS, AND CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER, JOHN DEERE &
COMPANY; JENNI WORD, ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR AND CHIEF NURSING
OFFICER, WALLOWA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL; AND SUZANNE COKER CRAIG, A
FORMER COMMISSIONER OF THE TOWN OF PINETOPS AND MANAGING
PARTNER, CURIOSITEES OF PINETOPS.
STATEMENT OF TOM STROUP
Mr. Stroup. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for having
me testify here today.
I am Tom Stroup, President of the Satellite Industry
Association.
Satellite communication services are positioned to be the
keystone for bringing 21st century broadband capabilities to
the entirety of the United States. These services are capable
of providing broadband to rural and remote areas of the
country, where it remains uneconomical for terrestrial services
to deploy, and both provide speeds and prices comparable to
terrestrial alternatives. These services are available directly
to the consumer today, covering all 50 States and delivering
broadband offerings up to 100 megabits per second.
Satellite broadband is also used by business and government
enterprises for both fixed and mobile purposes, using a range
of spectral bands to deliver assured access to broadband
communications. Further, satellites are providing critical
backhaul internet connectivity to local internet service
providers and community institutions in remote locations.
Today, approximately 2 million customers nationwide are
enjoying high-quality satellite broadband services at
reasonable rates and at speeds that meet and exceed the FCC's
definition of broadband service.
The satellite industry is investing tens of billions of
dollars to innovate and increase broadband connectivity to the
U.S. and across the globe. High-throughput satellites, for
example, rely on frequency reuse and spot-beam technology to
produce increased output factors upward of 20 times that of
traditional satellites.
The industry has seen similar increases in the capacity of
its systems. The first broadband satellite began service in
2008 with a capacity of 10 gigabits per second. Today's
satellites have capacities of up to 260 gigabits per second, a
number expected to increase to 1,000 gigabits per second by the
end of the decade. These terabit-capacity geostationary
satellites will provide orders of magnitude capacity increases.
In another highly anticipated advancement in the industry,
thousands of new, high-throughput, non-geostationary satellites
will soon join existing operators in low-earth and medium-earth
orbits to provide additional high-speed broadband at low
latency levels. Indeed, prototypes of these satellites have
already begun to launch.
As Congress develops its broadband policies, it should
consider the many positive attributes of satellite broadband.
These include, No. 1, competition. Just as it has with radio
and television services in the past, satellite services provide
market-based competition to terrestrial broadband services.
Satellite broadband brings additional package options, pricing,
and innovative services to consumers, often in areas with only
a single or small number of providers.
No. 2, wide geographic coverage. To address the digital
divide, broadband services need to be available for the most
rural and remote areas of the country. The nature of
satellite's wide coverage ensures that all communities within
the satellite's footprint receive the same quality of service,
whether they are remote communities or big cities. Public
policy makers should leverage terrestrial-style incentives with
satellite's geographically-independent cost structure to
achieve universal communication services.
No. 3, availability. Unlike terrestrial service, satellite
broadband is available today across a significant portion of
the country without the buildout of additional infrastructure.
Customers can obtain satellite broadband services by simply
ordering and awaiting at-home installation.
No. 4, cost efficiency. Because satellite systems have
inherently wide area coverage, when technology-neutral
incentives are made to encourage capacity redirection, there is
no additional cost to build out to rural and remote areas, only
lost opportunity costs in more lucrative service areas. This is
unlike terrestrial services, where the low density of rural and
remote areas makes it costlier and in most cases not
economically viable to build out and cover these areas.
And, 5, reliability. Natural and manmade disasters can
interrupt terrestrial broadband services. Satellites, however,
are less affected by these events, and satellite ground systems
or satellite-enabled airborne equipment can be quickly deployed
to restore connectivity.
Of course, all of the breakthroughs we have seen because of
satellite technologies should not be taken for granted. They
depend upon our industry's ability to access spectrum. In order
for our industry to sustain and meet the growing demand for
satellite services, we encourage regulators to continue to
allocate sufficient spectrum for satellite use and to support
the national broadband mapping system as to provide a clear and
complete map of broadband services.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stroup follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Forde, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JUSTIN FORDE
Mr. Forde. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and
members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss the challenges we face and the solutions we
are working on to bring the benefits of broadband to rural
America.
My name is Justin Forde, and I am the Senior Director of
Government Relations for Midco. Midco is the leading provider
of internet and networking, cable TV, phone, data center, home
security, and advertising services in the Upper Midwest. We
serve more than 385,000 residential and business customers in
South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin in
communities ranging in size from less than 100 people to more
than 180,000.
Midco has a history of innovation in the Upper Midwest that
continues to motivate our business today. In 2017, we launched
the Midco Gig Initiative, a commitment to bring gigabit
internet speeds to our entire service area. We have invested
over $56 million in the Gig Initiative over and above the
millions of dollars we invest in our network annually. Today,
Midco Gig is available to more than 80 percent of our
customers, with more communities to come in 2018.
We are also focused on expanding our service to more cities
and more communities across the region, but there are
challenges and high costs associated with building fiber in our
area of the country. While thinking about a creative solution
to this challenge, we were contacted by the rural community of
Brooktree Park, North Dakota, to help them obtain broadband
access. We quickly determined that bringing wireline service to
the area was not economically feasible, but we partnered with
InvisiMax, a fixed wireless provider, and we were able to offer
broadband service to that area within 30 days.
Recognizing the potential of the fixed wireless solution to
provide broadband to more rural residents, Midco has acquired
InvisiMax, and we have begun to expand fixed broadband wireless
with service more broadly in rural areas within our footprint.
Fixed wireless allows us to reach areas that are up to 50 miles
away from our fiber network, and we can implement that solution
relatively quickly without the expense of constructing fiber
networks.
We can use fixed wireless to offer internet where the
terrain can make it difficult, if not impossible, to provide
wire internet, such as the Badlands of North and South Dakota,
the granite fields of northern Minnesota, or the limestone
cliffs in eastern Minnesota. We can also reach vast areas of
farmland where it is not economically feasible to run fiber to
every single acre. We can deploy new fixed wireless during the
winter months, when difficult winters make new fiber
construction impossible.
I, myself, am a Midco fixed wireless customer. I get my
internet from the top of a grain elevator in Prosper, North
Dakota, to my small farmstead 6 miles west of Argusville, North
Dakota. On a normal day, my three kids are streaming video or
other content while my wife is using the internet to run a
small business. This service has been a great asset to our
family. Even today, it allows me to keep an eye on the farm
from Washington, D.C., through a video and security systems
enabled by fixed wireless.
Midco supports your hard work to ensure that all Americans
have access to broadband services. We greatly appreciate the
bipartisan commitment of this committee to produce bills that
nurture a broadband-deployment-friendly atmosphere. Your
efforts on the RAY BAUM's Act and the MOBILE NOW Act to include
broadband deployment provisions like the dig-once policy and a
spectrum policy bouncing licensed and unlicensed uses, your
thoughtful consideration of the ACCESS BROADBAND Act, have
contributed to an environment in which we are more able to
easily invest, expand, and deploy.
Today, I would like to offer two suggestions for how you
might help us further advance the reach of broadband networks.
First, in some cases, government help is needed to bring
broadband access to areas it is not financially viable to
build. In the past, some broadband funding programs have
allowed funds to be uses in places that already have broadband
service. We were encouraged to see the pilot funding program in
the Omnibus Appropriations Act and in the Senate farm bill that
both seek to limit funding to areas that need it most. We ask
your support efforts to keep broadband funding dollars to
unserved areas.
Second, to serve the greatest number of rural residents via
fixed wireless, we must have the ability to purchase spectrum.
We need more wide channels and spectrum bands where we receive
interference protection, and we must have a fair ability to
compete for access to any spectrum that is open and appropriate
for fixed wireless service.
Congress should support the FCC in its effort to expand the
categories of eligible uses for certain underutilized spectrum
bands, like 2.5 gigahertz, and support the FCC in adopting
smaller license sizes and appropriate auction rules for bands
that have potential for fixed wireless in rural areas. These
actions will help all Americans, including those in rural
America, to receive the full potential of America's broadband
networks.
Thank you again for inviting me here today, and I look
forward to working with all of you on these important issues.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Forde follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Aiken, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF CLAUDE AIKEN
Mr. Aiken. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, and members of the subcommittee.
I am Claude Aiken, President and CEO of WISPA, the Wireless
Internet Service Providers Association, representing more than
800 small businesses who are closing the digital divide in
rural America. I am honored to offer our perspective on how
fixed wireless broadband is making a difference in rural
America.
The majority of our members got their start the same way.
They were bootstrapping entrepreneurs who saw the need for
better broadband in their communities and answered the call.
Whether it was via maxed-out personal credit cards, small loans
from family members, or putting their life savings on the line,
our members have built workable, cost-efficient, local networks
and given their neighbors what they never had before, high-
speed broadband internet.
Our members use whatever spectrum is available, unlicensed,
lightly licensed, or licensed spectrum. They lease whatever
infrastructure is available to hang radios. It may be
commercial towers, local water towers, or a neighbor's grain
silo or barn. They transmit internet data, often over many
miles, to small fixed receivers on their customer's premises,
and they provide high-speed, low-latency, uncapped broadband,
typically in the range of 5 to 50 megabits per second, and
speeds of up to 1 gigabit per second are possible with current
technology.
Our members are overwhelmingly small, local, rural
providers. More than half have fewer than 1,000 customers.
Almost three-quarters have fewer than 10 employees. But,
despite their small size, they are making a difference, serving
more than 4 million people across our nation, and the majority
do this without any government subsidies.
Most importantly, WISPs can deploy fixed wireless service
to residential consumers at about one-seventh the cost of fiber
and one-fourth the cost of cable. That is right, we can deploy
broadband for a fraction of the cost of fiber and cable, and we
can deploy much more quickly, usually in months, rather than
years.
Clearly, we are a significant part of the solution. So, how
can we in D.C. help unleash the power of fixed wireless
economics to better serve your communities? The most important
thing the subcommittee can do is to support more flexible,
shared, and lightly licensed use of underutilized spectrum
bands. Our members are often frustrated that they have
potential customers within range of their towers, but
insufficient spectrum to serve them, all the while licensed
spectrum in their areas goes unused.
Thankfully, this subcommittee has been a part of the
solution. We commend your work to lower barriers to
infrastructure deployment, streamline regulations, and widen
the spectrum pipeline. Legislation like the AIRWAVES Act and
the ACCESS BROADBAND Act will make a difference in rural
America.
WISPA also commends the FCC for moving forward on
rulemaking proceedings that could and should make more spectrum
available for rural broadband deployment. The FCC is at a
critical juncture on one proceeding that I will briefly
highlight, the ongoing Citizens Broadband Radio Service, or
CBRS, proceeding. It is no exaggeration to say that this
proceeding is vitally important to the future of rural
broadband.
In 2015, the FCC adopted innovative rules that would have
auctioned seven 10-megahertz spectrum licenses in blocks the
size of Census tracts, about 4,000 people each. But, last
summer, the FCC reopened the rule seeking comment on greatly
enlarging the license areas, up to the size of a partial
economic area which generally contain both urban and rural
areas and often cross state lines.
For our members, enlarging the license areas would be like
requiring an entrepreneur who wants to open a kiosk to purchase
an entire shopping mall. Our members need the FCC to keep the
existing unlicensed or GAA spectrum allocation intact and
retain small, Census-tract-sized licenses in the CBRS band.
This would increase auction participation and revenues and
enable our members, and all kinds of entrepreneurs and
innovators, to participate in the auction, not just our largest
companies.
And here's another reason why balanced spectrum policy is
so important. If rural service can be deployed at much lower
cost by fixed wireless providers, there is much less need for
doling out subsidies to large carriers to offset their much
higher costs. For example, ZIRKEL Wireless in Colorado is
serving areas with one person per square mile without any
government subsidies. With the right spectrum policy, access to
private capital will become easier for small providers, and
broadband deployment in rural and small town America will
accelerate.
To the extent subsidiaries are necessary, they should be
made available in a technology-neutral and a provider-neutral
manner. Too often, small WISPs find themselves overbuilt by
providers receiving state or federal subsidies. We need to work
together to find solutions that will prevent small companies
that have invested private capital from facing competition from
large companies backed with government subsidies, grants, and
loans.
Madam Chairman, our members are closing the rural broadband
gap without subsidies, and we call on you to help modernize and
rebalance U.S. spectrum policy, so that we can reach even more
Americans in underserved areas.
We thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aiken follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. May, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MAY
Mr. May. Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, thank
you for the opportunity to be here today and speak about rural
broadband, a very important issue for many farmers and others
in the agricultural sector.
My company, John Deere, is the global leader in manufacture
of agricultural, construction, turf, and forestry equipment.
For 181 years, Deere has been helping farmers get more
production from their fields in an efficient and sustainable
manner. Technology, a big part of agriculture and the John
Deere story, is the key to helping farmers meet the world's
needs for food and agricultural goods in the future. And having
access to broadband internet services is absolutely essential
to leveraging the benefits that technology has to offer.
The evolution of technology in agriculture is critical.
That is because global demand for agricultural output, which
has more than tripled since 1960, shows no signs of easing.
Given forecasts of global population growth and dietary
improvements, farm output will need to roughly double from 2000
levels to meet the projected demand in 2050. What's more, these
output gain will need to take place with essentially the same
amount of land and water, and probably less labor. By and
large, the technologies needed to produce these gains depend on
the delivery of reliable internet connections to farmers in the
field, something many farmers can't count on today.
The extent of the broadband access problem in agriculture
is hard to measure in exact terms, but we know anecdotally it
is a significant issue. Based on the rate of successful
connections between our John Deere customers and our data
management platforms, we know there are many instances where
producers cannot fully leverage the benefits of their data on
account of nonexistent or unreliable internet service. This is
to say nothing about connections that are never made or even
attempted by those who lack internet service and don't bother
to invest in the technologies in the first place.
The nature and the extent of the problem is exactly why we
believe Federal policy and programs should give more
consideration to the needs of farmers and ranchers. Without a
better understanding of the problem, we can't begin to design
the right solution.
John Deere commends the Energy and Commerce Committee's
approval of H.R. 4881, the Precision Agricultural Connectivity
Act. Along with our partners in the Agricultural Broadband
Coalition, John Deere endorsed the bill. We see it as an
important first step to addressing agricultural broadband
issues. We are hopeful this legislation will be enacted this
year, either as part of the farm bill or on its own.
We also believe federal agencies with broadband deployment
mandates should view access through an expanded lens, one that
incorporates a geographic and functional usage metric, as
opposed to looking only at population centers. In our view,
broadband access on active cropland should be included as a
metric for identifying areas where broadband infrastructure
investment is most needed.
Cell towers are for the time being the key for delivering
high-speed LTE terrestrial signals, and we need more of them
over croplands and ranchlands. As you know, farms represent a
significant source of commercial activity in rural communities.
Owners, employees, buyers, vendors, and service providers all
conduct business in and around the farm operations. Supporting
increased wireless broadband deployment in the very places
where farming activities occur, in the fields, will bring many
benefits to rural communities. These include increased economic
growth, improved environmental stewardship, and enhanced food
security.
John Deere's higher purpose or mission is to help people
live better lives through our commitment to those that are
linked to the land. Today, we are expressing that commitment in
the many ways we are developing and using technology, almost
all of which is digital in nature and internet-based. That will
help feed the world in a sustainable manner for generations to
come.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. May follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the gentleman.
Ms. Word, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JENNI WORD
Ms. Word. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member
Doyle, members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this
opportunity to appear before you today.
My name is Jenni Word. I serve as the Associate
Administrator and Chief Nursing Officer at Wallowa Memorial
Hospital in Enterprise, Oregon. Our facility is a 25-bed
critical-access hospital and Level IV trauma center. I am proud
to report we have been named one of the top 20 critical-access
hospitals in the Nation for the past 2 years.
Our hospital serves Wallowa County and, as Congressman
Walden referred to before, has a population of just under 7,000
people spread over 3,152 square miles in frontier northeastern
Oregon. That is a population density of 2.2 persons per square
mile. The next nearest hospital, also a critical-access
hospital, is 65 miles away.
I would like to focus my testimony on the important role
broadband plays in bringing telehealth services to rural and
frontier areas. Our hospital provides a wide array of services,
but not all the services our community needs. Telehealth has
enabled us to fill this gap and ensure access to high-quality
care in our frontier county.
In my written testimony, I provided three examples that
illustrate the lifesaving role telehealth can play in areas
like ours. Broadband infrastructure is the foundation on which
providers like ours can use telehealth technology to meet
health crises like these.
Moving forward, reliable, affordable broadband in homes and
remote rural hospitals and clinics will be critical as we
transform the current healthcare delivery system. Our goal is a
system that effectively coordinates care for our patients,
rewards value, improves quality and patient safety, and reduces
costs. Broadband is the lynchpin of that effort.
We are fortunate in Wallowa County to have good broadband
infrastructure. But, even so, our county has many remote areas
that do not yet have broadband connectivity. Nationwide, the
Federal Communications Commission reports that 34 million
Americans still lack access to adequate broadband.
Oregon has made significant progress in the deployment of
broadband connectivity. However, a 2014 survey of broadband
adoption in Oregon found that rural areas lagged behind their
urban neighbors in having access to broadband connectivity and
rural residents are less likely than their urban counterparts
to use broadband technologies.
The Mississippi State Extension Service Index identified
Wallowa County as one of 10 Oregon counties with the highest
digital divide index. Congress took steps in the fiscal year
2018 omnibus appropriations bill to address the digital divide,
and the FCC recently increased funding available through the
Rural Health Care Program, which supports broadband adoption
for the nonprofit rural healthcare providers. We applaud both
of these actions and thank you for your role in making them a
reality. As these programs are implemented, we look forward to
taking advantage of these new resources.
Finally, I would like to say something about telehealth.
The potential for telehealth to expand access to medical
treatment seems limitless, especially in rural and frontier
areas where vast distances make it difficult to get to a doctor
or to a hospital. However, there are barriers preventing us
from realizing that potential. For example, Medicare payment
policy restricts sites eligible for reimbursement, limits
distance site providers, and restricts the services for which
Medicare will reimburse. Medicare does not reimburse for remote
patient monitoring, a potentially vital tool in monitoring
patients with chronic conditions, especially those in rural
areas. Medicare also doesn't reimburse for phone, email, fax-
based services, or store-and-forward technology.
Providers would like these geographic and setting location
requirements eliminated and expansion of the types of
technology that can be used, and coverage for all services that
are safe to provide. Rural communities also need additional
capital to develop telehealth capabilities as well as adequate
funding to operate systems, once they are up and running.
I am pleased that the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018
expanded Medicare coverage for telestroke and provided waivers
for some alternative payment models, but more should be done.
Every week, it seems, new technologies become available to help
patient needs. The use of telehealth and other new technologies
will improve access to healthcare, improve outcomes, and reduce
costs. Public policy should not hold us back as we seek to
realize the potential these new technologies hold.
I applaud the Committee and its Chair and my Congressman,
Greg Walden, for the leadership it has shown in addressing
these challenges. There is certainly more work to do, and
Wallowa Memorial Hospital and other rural hospitals stand ready
to work with you in that effort.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Word follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. We thank the gentlelady.
Ms. Coker Craig, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF SUZANNE COKER CRAIG
Ms. Coker Craig. Thank you all for your invitation this
morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here.
And thank you to Congressman Butterfield for the
introduction. I am glad to hear you are hanging out at Abrams.
[Laughter.]
My name is Suzanne Coker Craig, and I am a small business
owner and former Commissioner in the town of Pinetops, North
Carolina. Our little town is 65 miles east of Raleigh and is
centrally located between Greenville, Wilson, and Rocky Mount.
We have a significant number of our residents who live well
below the poverty level, and we are located in Edgecombe
County, which is one of the poorest counties in the State.
Unlike much of North Carolina, our local population has
declined over the last 20 years, and we struggle to attract and
keep college-educated people as well as small businesses and
small industry in our area.
Even with all of these challenges, Pinetops is a wonderful
community in what I consider to be the best part of North
Carolina. We have all the benefits of small town life, but are
an easy drive to small cities around us. We are a great place
to live and to raise a family. And in March of 2016, our little
town got symmetrical gigabit speed broadband internet service
that made my 25-year-old nephew in Raleigh jealous.
But our own State legislature has constantly fought to
disconnect us and take away the best economic, educational, and
lifestyle benefit we have had in 50 years. Like most small
areas, ours got left way behind in the technology boom. As the
internet exploded, we struggled to get much more than a dial-up
connection. Our only provider showed little interest in
upgrading their antiquated services beyond what they billed as
high-speed internet, which was defined as up to 10 megabits of
service. Speed tests commonly showed that that was really
between 4 and 6 megabits download with less than 1 megabit
upload. And that was within a quarter mile of their hub. This
would have been great service in 2000, but in 2015 it was a
serious challenge to running a small business and providing
access to modern education or healthcare. Other providers
served nearby towns in our area, but were not at all interested
in serving Pinetops.
So, around 2008, the city of Wilson, which is 17 miles west
and in neighboring Wilson County, began providing gigabit-speed
fiber-to-the-premises internet service to their citizens. They
borrowed money from private investors and have repaid them with
revenues from the network without using taxpayer dollars.
The city of Wilson has provided electric service to the
town of Pinetops for well over 40 years and has been a great
partner for our little town. So, we asked Wilson if they could
bring that fantastic internet service our way. Well, in 2011,
the North Carolina General Assembly passed a law that not only
put significant restrictions on building municipal broadband
networks, but also specified that Wilson could not take their
network beyond the Wilson County line, which was 6 miles away
from Pinetops. So, we were sentenced by our own legislature to
being 6 short miles away from technology that could help us
help ourselves.
In 2015, the FCC preempted that state law and opened a
window for Pinetops to invite Wilson to bring their internet
service, which is called Greenlight, to us. So, in March of
2016, Pinetops residents eagerly began signing on as Greenlight
customers.
I spoke with several people in town who telecommute or have
small businesses, and the difference in service was amazing.
One neighbor who works for a large banking operation described
downloading and uploading her daily work files in 15 minutes
instead of the hours it had taken with the fastest service that
CenturyLink could provide. A small furniture manufacturer in
town reported downloading large files from international
customers in an hour or two rather than the 12-plus hours it
had taken earlier. A local fire chief was able to use for the
first time online video resources to train his volunteer
firemen. Families with multiple children no long had to
timeshare to finish their online assignments. The service was
fantastic, and we on the town board were working to promote
Pinetops as the little town with symmetrical gigabit internet
service.
But, once again, our legislature betrayed us. The state
sued to overturn the FCC's ruling, and they won. Greenlight
would have to be forced to leave Pinetops, and we would be
forced to take 10 giant steps back economically.
About the same time, Hurricane Matthew hit, and we were
flooded terribly. The Greenlight techs were there within hours
of the roads opening and hooking up the emergency shelters and
the disaster operations. Our town board, with the enthusiastic
backing of the residence and business, were eager to fight to
keep Greenlight. And so, we were able to get an exemption, with
a lot of fighting, that would allow Pinetops to keep
Greenlight. But, if another provider came in providing fiber
services, Greenlight would have to leave. And we couldn't get
language in the legislation that would make that service have
to be comparable or serve everyone in town.
So, we got the exemption and we were happy with that. But
now, Suddenlink has decided that, since they didn't want to
serve us with basic service, now they are bringing fiber to
Pinetops. So, Greenlight has to leave.
Good internet service in today's economy is as essential as
electric power was in the forties and fifties. Rural areas and
small towns then had to be creative and resourceful and rely on
municipalities and co-ops to provide electricity in areas that
private providers weren't willing to serve. If not for the
forward-thinking leaders of that time, it is hard to imagine
how small-town America would have survived. We still have to be
creative and resourceful in keeping our towns alive. We have to
be given the freedom to use all the tools we have.
I need to emphasize that, while Pinetops now has broadband
access, that great service is limited to our 1-mile-square town
limits. Wilson would be connecting those homes, small towns,
farms, and outlying areas if the state barriers didn't exist.
The solution to getting rural communities connected will
not come from one-size-fits-all legislation. It will not come
from waiting for large providers to come to our communities.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady's time has expired. If you
can wrap up?
Ms. Coker Craig. Yes, ma'am. I am sorry about that.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Coker Craig follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mrs. Blackburn. You are perfectly fine. We are so
appreciative that each of you are here. We appreciate your
testimony.
This concludes our testimony, and we will now move into our
Q-and-A portion of our hearing. And I will yield myself 5
minutes for questions.
Mr. Stroup and Mr. Aiken, I want to start with you. In your
testimony, you mention existing alternatives in the marketplace
to a big government approach that removes the ability for
states to make important decisions that directly impact their
financial health. One of the bills that does cause me concern
is the Community Broadband Act, which I think would threaten to
undo much of the progress that is being made across the
country. The bill is essentially a further-reaching version of
the FCC's failed 2015 Municipal Broadband Order, which
basically preempted the fiscally-responsible measures that
Tennessee had put in place regarding municipal networks.
So, Mr. Stroup, can you expand on the differences, the
specific advances, that some of your member companies have made
in recent years that have positioned them to become competitors
in the broadband market across the country? And is there
anything additional that we can do to help increase
competition?
And then, Mr. Aiken, to you, kind of looking in that same
vein, but from the wireless side, talk about how fixed wireless
has become a viable alternative. And are there specific
examples that might be illustrative to the committee?
Mr. Stroup, to you first, please, sir.
Mr. Stroup. As I noted in my testimony, certainly the most
important things that our members have done is to increase the
capacity of the satellites that have been launched as well as
the speed, which ultimately makes the services more cost-
effective. So, I noted just the change in the last 10 years,
there has been a 20 times increase in the capacity of the
satellites. Satellite services start at $49 a month. And so,
those are the two and three most important things that the
industry has done.
As I also noted, there are plans to launch additional LEO
satellite systems. To give you a sense of that, there are
approximately 1700 satellites on orbit today. There are
satellite applications that have either been granted or pending
at the FCC for over 18,000 satellites. So, the growth in the
industry is tremendous. The capacity that will be available is
increasing accordingly.
And the thing that is most important to us is continued
access to spectrum and technology neutrality. Without spectrum,
we do not have the opportunity to grow, and we just want to
make sure that neither Congress nor the FCC weights the scale
against any one industry against the other.
Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Thank you for the question.
I think it is best illustrated with a story. Many farms
across our great country are not connected to broadband, and
this was the story of Lone Oaks Farm in Middleton, Tennessee,
that didn't have any broadband connectivity to the farm. Along
came Crossroads Wi-Fi, a fixed wireless provider who offered a
robust business-grade broadband connection to that farm using
the spectrum band that I mentioned in my opening testimony, the
CBRS band.
Through that broadband connection, that 2,000-acre farm was
on the short list to be considered by the University of
Tennessee for purchase. The University of Tennessee purchased
that farm, turned it into a 4H state facility and a research
institution. And that small, local provider was able to grow
the bandwidth with the university, and it is just a great story
of how a small provider can provide big solutions to rural
America.
Mrs. Blackburn. I appreciate that, and that is a beautiful
property.
Mr. Forde, permitting issues are a struggle. I would assume
small providers are disproportionately impacted. But we hear
about permitting issues regularly. They talk about the
burdensome application process. I wish you would elaborate on
that and, also, the fact that the Senate now has a discussion
draft that would streamline small-cell deployment.
What we need to do is look at what more is needed to
unleash this private capital, to streamline this process, and
to make available more small cells that are like on the grain
elevator at your location.
Mr. Forde. Well, thank you, Chairman Blackburn.
Regarding the first part of your question, we have worked
very hard to continue to deploy broadband. We have had some
issues in some areas. Recently, in North Dakota we tried to run
some fiber from the Killdeer area up to Watford City and to
Williston. We had to hire several engineering firms, and some
difficult permitting issues crossing the Missouri River. So,
that is certainly one of the issues that we faced. That project
was delayed by several months that allowed service to get to
those areas.
Regarding the small cell, certainly utilizing those areas
and some of our more urban areas in our footprint in that
legislation, but also I don't know if that is the solution for
some of our rural areas. We believe that the fixed wireless
technology will be able to cover much greater distances between
those elevators, between those farms, and the small cell will
be good for some areas that are a little bit more urban, a
little bit more populated.
We want to make sure, also, that we have a level playing
field there, us as a provider, that those folks----
Mrs. Blackburn. My time has expired.
I recognize Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Aiken, the Commission is currently considering changes
to the license structure of the CBRS band. Based on your
testimony, it sounds like many of your members had already
started making investments in new technology based on how this
band was to be structured.
First, I would like to ask you, do you think that if the
Commission acts to expand the geographic size of the spectrum
licenses, that your members and other rural providers will be
able to successfully bid for those licenses?
Mr. Aiken. The short answer there, Congressman, is no.
Mr. Doyle. And what do you think will be lost if the
licenses in these bands are made to be like traditional
cellular licenses?
Mr. Aiken. So, this band, it is absolutely critical to
expand rural broadband. As you mentioned, a number of our
members have already built out in the band. We polled our
members. Over 60 percent of them had made investments in
reliance on the rules. Like I said in my testimony, these are
small companies providing big service in rural America, and
this would hamper their ability to reach new customers that are
within range of their towers.
Mr. Doyle. Basically, it is your opinion that expanded
license size will actually hurt the deployment of broadband in
rural areas?
Mr. Aiken. I believe so, and we have a proposal before the
FCC that is backed by a large number of rural providers that
would retain some small area license that would enable our
providers to participate in the auction.
Mr. Doyle. I want to talk about the lower C-band, too. In
the lower C-band, several satellite providers have proposed
freeing up a portion of the band to be auctioned for mobile
broadband license service. However, a broad array of
stakeholders have proposed spectrum-sharing rules in the rest
of the band that would enable fixed, locked, wireless
broadband. What are the merits of this proposal over the other
proposals that would seek to transition the entire band to
mobile broadband use? And to be honest, are these proposals
even realistic?
Mr. Aiken. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
I think in this band we have a fantastic opportunity to
enable gigabit fixed wireless in rural America and a way to do
so consistent with everybody getting a win here. We are part of
a much broader Broadband Access Coalition that includes, again,
a broad array of rural interests. And we put forth a proposal
that would effectively clear some of the spectrum for 5G, would
put some rational protections in place for satellite earth
stations, and would make the remainder of the band available
for license point-to-multi-point fixed wireless. We believe
this approach would have a significant impact of the
availability of broadband in rural America.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Coker Craig, your testimony and the story of your
community is very compelling. And apparently, you have good
barbeque down there, too, although Butterfield didn't share any
of that with us.
[Laughter.]
But we have had other people from communities that have
provisioned their own broadband infrastructure here to testify
before us. It seems to me that every one of them seems to be
happier with the service they provided themselves than any
other available commercial option.
Tell me what some of the advantages are of self-
provisioning.
Ms. Coker Craig. Well, it was amazing the difference to be
able to call if there was any problem or any problem with
anything with the connection, to call and you talk with someone
in Wilson who knew where Pinetops was. And the speed and the
reliability of their services and technicians were amazing.
They know us. They are our friends and neighbors. We could
usually get things fixed sometimes within a couple of hours.
Sometimes they could do it over the phone. But, if not, they
would have a technician there sometimes in 30 minutes.
And it was just a tremendous asset to a business. When you
are operating a business, that time is money. And when you are
having to wait for 2 and 3 days for a technician to come and
fix your internet, it is well worth it to switch over to
Greenlight.
Mr. Doyle. Yes.
Well, Madam Chair, I see my time is almost expired. So, I
will yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
The chairman of the full committee, Mr. Walden, is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walden. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
And again, to our witnesses, thank you for being here. I
thought I might put a photo up, or two, of Wallowa County, just
so you can enjoy the home view.
And while we are working on that, Ms. Word, this is Chief
Joseph, a statue--they do a lot of bronze work there--with the
Wallowas behind. And Chief Joseph Days are coming up the
weekend after next. So, if you have got spare time and want to
come out and enjoy Chief Joseph Days, we would be happy to host
you. But you can see these photos, the wide-open spaces, some
of the farming community out there, and then, another look with
the Wallowas in the background.
When I learned for the second year in a row rural
healthcare facilities like yours were facing a 25-percent cut
in their requested funding under the Rural Health Care Program,
I encouraged the FCC to take a close look at the program in
order to help telehealth facilities pay for the cost of this
connectivity. I talked to the Chairman and his team.
So, I was really pleased in June when the FCC increased the
funding for the Rural Health Care Program by $171 million a
year, increasing the cap for the program to $571 million,
effective immediately. It is a 43-percent increase in funding.
It represents what the funding level would have been today if
the original $400 million cap that was established in 1997 had
been adjusted for inflation.
If the additional funding had not been provided, what would
these cuts have meant to Wallowa Memorial Hospital from your
perspective?
Ms. Word. Thank you for the question.
I think, simply, it would have been decreased access,
increased travel time, inconvenience for patients. It is ones
that aren't feeling well; travel is difficult. Family members
are often taking time away off work as well. And then,
increased cost to the patient and to the community to provide
services or allow services out of town.
Mr. Walden. In your testimony, you identified several
barriers to expanding telehealth. You mentioned restrictions on
Medicare reimbursements for remote patient monitoring,
burdensome state licensing requirements, and the capital
associated with developing and maintaining telehealth programs.
Of these barriers, which do you think is most significant? What
impacts you the most?
Ms. Word. Because we are very patient-centered and patient-
focused, I think the biggest barrier is the remote monitoring
or access for those remote, whether it be a remote clinic,
hospital, so that we can service the patients.
Mr. Walden. And are there additional barriers the way the
current Rural Health Care Program is formulated by the FCC?
Anything there we need to be aware of?
Ms. Word. Not that I can think of off the top of my head.
Mr. Walden. All right. When you mentioned that the nearest
critical-access hospital after yours is 65 miles away, do you
want to describe what that journey is like in the winter?
Ms. Word. Well, if the roads are open, not snow and ice, it
is a windy, two-lane highway. You are traveling with log
trucks, potentially farm equipment, not so much in the winter
probably. It is 65 miles, but it takes over an hour to make the
journey.
Mr. Walden. That is down a narrow, windy, two-lane road
down into the river bottom and, then, up the canyons and out
and around. It is tough territory. So, if you lose service, if
the fiber gets severed, what happens then?
Ms. Word. You have no connections. You are relying on your
own internal services within the county, within the cities. And
that is not unusual. We have lost all connection. Your
electronic health record goes down, your phone communication.
We do drills around this. We are prepared for it because, for
us, it is a reality.
Mr. Walden. And talk to me about the interconnectivity
among the other providers in the community there, the clinic,
pharmacy, some of those things.
Ms. Word. Sure. We are really very fortunate in eastern
Oregon and Wallowa County, especially that we have separate
clinics, we have our hospital, but we really function together.
If you came from the outside, you would think it was one
entity. Some of these specialists, they may be initially
contracted with a non-hospital-owned clinic. Yet, we can still
use them for an inpatient in the hospital. The clinic will use
services that we have set up in the hospital as well. Wallowa
Valley Center for Wellness, mental health and behavioral
health, has a great telemedicine program that benefits everyone
as well.
Mr. Walden. All right. My time is about expired, Madam
Chair.
Thank you. And thanks again for making the journey.
Mrs. Blackburn. The chairman yields back.
And, Mr. Welch, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much.
Mr. Butterfield has left, but I will tell a story behind
his back, but don't tell him. Shortly after he got elected to
Congress, he thought he was kind of a big deal, like a lot of
us. And he was back in Wilson, right next to Pinetops, and he
went into a diner. A number of women were there, and they knew
him. They looked at him and they said, ``You know, that is
pretty good you got elected. Someday you may amount to
something. You may be mayor of Wilson.''
[Laughter.]
And it is that hometown commitment, actually, that is so
wonderful about a lot of your testimony.
Mr. Walden, just the description in those pictures, they
are very evocative for so many of us in our rural areas.
I just loved your testimony about how important it is to
get that broadband there.
Now there are two things. No. 1, I think, Madam Chair, it
is a little premature for us to congratulate ourselves on what
we have done for rural broadband because it kind of stinks in a
lot of places. It really does.
No. 2, what Congress has to do, first and foremost, is we
have got to dedicate funds to the buildout of broadband. There
is just no escaping that. It is just like we made a decision in
this country in the thirties about electricity. There was no
economic case to be made for our utility companies to build out
electricity in rural America, none. But we made a decision
here, our predecessors did, that there was a social case to be
made for it because rural America has the kind of people like
you are describing, like Mr. Walden is describing. And we need
them.
So, money is really going to be important. I just have to
say this. All of us who are dedicated to our rural
constituencies, unless we are going to put some money in there,
it is not going to go there. So, that is No. 1.
No. 2, how to do it? We have got to be flexible. That is
why I really enjoyed your testimony, Ms. Coker Craig, because I
live on a dirt road, an 8-mile dirt road, and we have got great
broadband. It was local people created a nonprofit. I don't
know how they managed to defy expectations, but they went up
and down the roads and they got each of us to invest a little
bit. And we get that kind of service that you are talking
about.
So, I want to start asking a few questions. I will start
with you, Mr. Aiken. If we get the money--and that is what we
need--how do we deploy it in a way that is flexible? Because
some of those pictures I saw from Mr. Walden, we don't have
those in Vermont. There is a lot of hills and valleys. And one
size does not fit all. So, how could we, if we had the money,
deploy it in a way where we don't micromanage how to do it in
Pinetops versus Tennessee? Do you want to comment on that?
Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
We represent predominantly small businesses. We have a
couple of dozen providers who are participating in the upcoming
Connect America Fund Auction. But what I have heard from my
members time and time again is that complicated applications
and difficulty----
Mr. Welch. Well, how do we make it simple, but accountable?
I do think it has got to be done at a local level. Anybody
else, comment on that? You did it in Pinetops, right?
Ms. Coker Craig. We did.
Mr. Welch. How did you do it?
Ms. Coker Craig. Well, like I said, we worked with the city
of Wilson. The only thing, we had that small window of time
with the FCC ruling. That was the only way we were able to do
it because the state legislature had said there would be no
more expansion past the Wilson County line.
Mr. Welch. OK. Anybody else want to comment on that? How do
we have accountability if we deploy money, but flexibility? So,
where a community is ready to go and they have got whatever it
takes, we can get them going. Anyone?
Mr. Aiken. I can take a stab at that, Congressman.
I think accountability on the back end is important. I
think we are comfortable with a reverse auction design like
that which is included in the LIFT America Act. We think that a
streamlined, but accountable application is important. That is
one of the reasons why we think the principles in the BROADBAND
ACCESS Act are so important.
Mr. Welch. OK. Thank you.
Ms. Word?
I am going to yield back. I am out of time. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
I will say, we put $670 million in the omni, our U.S., for
deployment, and $171 million at the FCC for rural healthcare.
Mr. Lance, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Lance. Yes, thank you.
That brings me to my questions regarding the additional
funding that we put into our U.S. for a new loan and grant
program for rural broadband.
To Mr. Forde and Mr. Aiken, from your perspective in rural
America, what is the best way this funding could be deployed in
order to reach the most Americans in need with the amount of
resources that the government has placed in that program?
Mr. Forde. Certainly, focusing on those areas that are
truly unserved to make sure that we take care of them first I
think is very important, and, obviously, being technology-
neutral. We, of course, have our fiber networks. We deliver gig
through high-frequency cable, and then, we use the fixed
wireless tools to reach the last mile. So, having all those
things work.
And I think there are some unique broadband grant programs
out there. The State of Minnesota has a program where you get
more points if you put more private capital into it. There is a
challenge process to make sure that there is no overbuilding
taking place, and a lot of unique things with that program that
we work with that really help to find those areas that are
truly unserved that need it most, and we are not spending too
many federal dollars on those.
Mr. Lance. Do you know, do other states intend to proceed
the way Minnesota has proceeded, as you have outlined it?
Mr. Forde. Not currently in our Midco footprint. Kansas, I
believe, has looked at it a little bit, but they are in the
initial stages of that process.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Yes, I would echo what Mr. Forde said, that a
focus on unserved areas is critical. Ensuring that private
capital isn't overbuilt by government subsidies is also
critical. And we also believe that there should be a focus on
cost-effectiveness in the program. We have a limited number of
dollars. We have a lot of people to serve. And we need that
money to go as far as possible.
Mr. Lance. There is, of course, a difference between
underserved and unserved. Mr. Aiken, from your expertise, how
many Americans are completely unserved?
Mr. Aiken. The number is smaller than those that are
underserved. I think the FCC counts 24 million as not having
access to advanced telecommunications capability. That number
includes folks who have access to less than 25/3 broadband. But
our members are focused on providing that high-speed service
that rural Americans need.
Mr. Lance. Thank you.
Would anyone else on the panel like to comment?
Mr. Stroup. Yes, I would like to comment a minute.
Mr. Lance. Yes, of course.
Mr. Stroup. I would like to emphasize that last year alone
two of our member companies, ViaSat and EchoStar, launched
satellites with the advanced technologies that I talked about
with 25/3 FCC-defined broadband speeds. Both of those companies
have announced plans for their next satellites. And I talked
earlier about the LEO systems that have been announced. So, our
members are not looking for subsidies in order to provide these
services. They are moving forward with launching this capacity,
and certainly, as I noted earlier in my testimony, provide
coverage across the entire country. So, certainly the industry
is moving forward with launching additional capacity to provide
service to all areas of the country without any subsidies.
Mr. Lance. Yes. Thank you.
I live in a State, New Jersey, that is the most densely
populated in the nation. We are well served, by and large, but
I want to assure the panel that I will continue to work on this
issue, as the sponsor of one of the pieces of legislation that
is important for this area.
And to those from the great State of Tennessee, my wife and
I met in law school at Vanderbilt, and I have a great affection
for your wonderful state, not only because the chairman is from
that state, but also from personal experience.
I yield back a minute, Chairman.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do, first, want to
thank the Chair and the ranking member for holding this
important meeting today. It has been great testimony.
And thanks to all of you on the panel today for your
testimony and for answering the questions.
It is clearly no secret to those of us on the committee
here that I do like to talk about rural broadband. I am from
Iowa. I have 24 counties in Iowa. It is not quite a fourth of
the State geographically, but it is quite a bit. And then, how
to build out capacity in Iowa and the rest of rural America. At
one point, the Chair even called me ``Broadband Loebsack,'' and
that is a flag that I am very happy to fly while I am on this
committee, while I am in the Congress.
In my district, as many of you know, farming is a huge part
of the economy. I thank Mr. May and John Deere for all the
great work that those folks do with respect to the farming
community in Iowa and around the country, and, indeed, around
the world for John Deere.
Farmers across America are facing a lot of challenges right
now. We don't need to talk about trade, but there are a lot of
things that are facing these farmers right now, a lot of
challenges. It makes it more important than ever I think for
our communities in the rural areas and the agricultural
communities to be as efficient and productive as possible.
To help lend our farmers a hand, I joined with
Representative Latta in introducing the Precision Agriculture
Connectivity Act. I really appreciate the fact that you folks
were behind that, obviously, Mr. May. That bill, as was stated,
as you know, would create a task force to help the FCC figure
out how to deploy broadband on agricultural land to promote
more precise farming techniques.
Mr. May, I would just like to ask you, from your company's
perspective--you did mention this already a little bit--what
would having robust broad access mean to so many of your
customers who really need precise and efficient farming
equipment? What does this technology mean for agricultural
productivity as well?
Mr. May. Sure. Thank you for the question.
Maybe I will give you a couple of examples of products that
will unlock a lot of productivity and, frankly, more
sustainability within agriculture. No. 1, I will go back to the
sixties and where we saw a three times increase in productivity
because of technology introduced at that time. That journey
continues. Today, what is driving that journey is access to
machines in the farm, on the farm field.
For example, we have the ability today to stream computer-
generated prescriptions directly to a planter based on the
field conditions in that field and have the planter plant in
the most optimum way. When the farmer is in combining, picking
the corn in the field, we are sensing the environment that that
combine is in and connecting back to the cloud to stream
recommendations on how to optimize that combine, based on
exactly what it is sensing within that field.
Also, when we have a machine go down, you know what that
means to a farmer. When that machine stops, it is dollars
flowing out the window of the cab, and we need to get the
machine up fast. With internet connection, we can connect
remotely directly to that machine and diagnose the problem that
is happening and get them back up and running quickly.
So, we believe this phase of internet-based agriculture is
going to unlock tremendous value and productivity and
sustainability.
Mr. Loebsack. Right, and feed America and feed the world.
Mr. May. Absolutely.
Mr. Lance. Just briefly, last September I went to visit a
farmer in one part of my district. I got there and he was
getting the corn in. And I knew how important that time was to
him. So, I said, ``Listen, we don't have to go in your house
for an hour and talk about the issues. Do you mind if I get in
the cab with you?'' And that is what we did to bring the
harvest in. And he was talking to me about the technology. It
was really quite amazing.
But this particular bill, I am proud. I have worked with
Congressman Latta on that. We have got to make sure that we
have the information, so that these machines can operate as
effectively as possible.
Are there any other things you would like to add that we
could be doing along those lines?
Mr. May. First of all, thank you for your work on that. We
believe that that will bring a significant amount of value to
agriculture across the United States.
I think one of the other things that could be helpful is
maybe a joint study between the FCC and the USDA----
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Mr. May [continuing]. To truly understand where do we have
the issues, where it is unserved, as was mentioned----
Mr. Loebsack. That is right.
Mr. May [continuing]. And underserved, so that we can
attack these problem areas directly.
Mr. Loebsack. And that is connected to my other question,
actually, too. I am probably just going to have to ask this
question for the record of you, Mr. Aiken, but it has to do
with mapping, obviously. I am very happy to get my mapping bill
through.
But I do have a letter, Madam Chair, from Chariton Valley
Electric Cooperative. If I could put that in the record with
unanimous consent?
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Loebsack. And then, I will just submit a question to
you, Mr. Aiken, for the record.
Mr. Loebsack. And I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
And next week, he will have the opportunity to ask the FCC
about doing that study, and I am sure he will.
Mr. Latta, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Latta. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks very much for
having this hearing today. It is very, very needed.
I represent the largest farming and producing district in
the State of Ohio. It is important to our agricultural
producers out here to have this technology.
I have served and serve as the Co-Chair of the Rural
Broadband Caucus and also Co-Chair of the Rural
Telecommunications Working Group. We believe that it is
absolutely important that we get the broadband out to our rural
areas of our country. And it is not only the ag side, but from
the testimony we have heard from the other witnesses, if you
can't operate a business or you can't operate a hospital, you
can't do certain things out there if you don't have that
technology. So, it is absolutely important that we have that.
My area is a little bit different from the chairman of the
full committee, where you saw the mountains in the background.
If you look at my district, it is probably as flat as your
table that you are sitting at. But we grow things and we are
very productive there.
But if I could ask my first question, Mr. May, does it
matter to you what type of technology is used to deliver that
broadband service to connect agricultural producers, customers,
and vendors across America, as long as the service is safe,
affordable, and effective at meeting the needs of those users?
Mr. May. There are lots of technologies that can be applied
to make agriculture more productive. Frankly, we think each one
of them has a place and we are open to all of them, whether you
talk guidance, GPS systems, using satellite-based networks, to
guide vehicles in the field within centimeters, that plays a
critical role. Internet connections and the ability to stream
large quantities of data is also significant. For us, we think
there are several technologies that can be leveraged within
agriculture, but, certainly, internet connectivity is critical
from the data side of agriculture.
Mr. Latta. What would you say especially on the GPS and
being able to be within centimeters? About 2 years ago, I was
out in the southwest part of my district. What we were doing at
that time, they were showing how--my mom grew up on a farm. My
grandfather used horses back in the thirties. I saw in your
testimony that Deere has been around now for 181 years. My
wife's family has been on the same farm in northwest Ohio for
185 years.
Mr. May. Excellent.
Mr. Latta. But that day that we were out, they were putting
in fertilizer in furrows to keep from having runoff or anything
like that. But in the spring, when they were going to go out
and plant that corn, they were going to be able to put it
within an inch of where that furrow was. That is what that
technology does. So, we appreciate that.
Mr. May. Absolutely.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Stroup and Mr. Forde, if I can ask you, will
both of you provide examples of how your industries are working
to promote rural broadband for precision agriculture, and what
are some of those broadband solutions?
Mr. Stroup. I would like to start by noting that precision
begins with GPS, as you noted. It is important to recognize
that GPS is provided via satellite. Also, precision agriculture
involves earth observation, weather information which is
gathered via satellite, and the ability to take the imagery and
refresh it on a daily basis, all one of the capabilities of the
satellite industry.
But, to get to the communications aspect of it, the
addition of the capacity that we have been talking about is an
important aspect of what the satellite industry is doing. That,
in combination with flat-panel antenna technology, which
provides the ability to build it into every tractor/combine and
provide continuous connectivity, because, ultimately, one of
the great advantages of the satellite industry is ubiquitous
coverage. So, we have complete coverage of rural America. The
important thing that we are doing in terms of the capacity is
adding additional satellites and the high technology that we
have talked about.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Forde, I have got about 49 seconds, if you can answer
that?
Mr. Forde. Absolutely. One of the greatest examples is we
have a small group of elevators, and the farmers in that region
are now able to use Midco fiber running to some of those
elevators and connecting that group of elevators through fixed
wireless technology. So, the farmers are able to tell and
direct their trucks when they are dumping out their grain and
instantly be able to see where their grain was going in, and
being able to see those records immediately online. So, I think
that tool has been great for that, that group of elevators and
the farmers in the area to make sure they know how much grain
was going and how much was unloaded.
Additionally, we have grain dryers. Of course, drying corn
takes a tremendous amount of stuff. You have folks and farmers
that are monitoring grain dryers almost 24 hours a day to keep
those things running. Well, fixed wireless technology allows
them to do some of that from their easy chair in their homes
and spend more time with their families
Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. Madam Chair, my time is
expired.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. McNerney, you are recognized.
Mr. McNerney. I thank the chairwoman and I thank the
panelists.
Ms. Craig, state and local governments in California are
doing important work right now with private industry to build
out broadband in the state. I believe our state is leading the
Nation when it comes to forward-leading policies in this area.
But I am worried about calls to preempt state and local
government in the name of streamlining wireless siting
policies. In fact, California just rejected such a proposal on
the state level. What we need, I believe, instead, is industry
and cities working together to meet individual constituents'
needs like what just happened in San Jose. Do you think the
Federal streamlining of local government siting policy will
make meaningful progress for bringing high-speed fiber to
unserved and underserved areas?
Ms. Coker Craig. Well, I think if that streamlining would
give us the flexibility in local areas to work with our
partners--and like I said, our partnership with Wilson was
well-established. To me, it was a natural partnership. We
trusted them. We knew that they were being fiscally responsible
with this network. So, if that streamlining would simplify and
give us the flexibility that we need, because rural areas are
very unique. Some things may work for one area, but not in
another.
Mr. McNerney. Well, that is the point, isn't it, that you
don't want a uniform federal policy that preempts local/state
policies in some name of streamlining?
Ms. Coker Craig. Right, but we also need to get past those
barriers, those barriers that we had, and our response was the
state government.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thanks. Rather than fighting against
local governments, I think local governments and industry could
work together to find meaningful solutions. The Broadband
Finance, Investment, and Innovation Act that Congress Lujan
introduced--and I am cosponsor of--would help public/private
partnerships gain access to capital for deploying high-speed
broadband. I think you could make a real difference in
districts like mine and others. Do you think the use of PPPs,
as this legislation envisions, would allow Federal Government
to work constructively with local governments?
Ms. Coker Craig. It sounds like it would. I am not terribly
well-versed on that legislation, but it sounds like it would.
Mr. McNerney. OK. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. May, for some time now I have been raising concerns
about cybersecurity and internet-connected devices. The LIFT
America Act, of which I am a cosponsor, would acknowledge these
concerns by requiring that all broadband projects funded by the
Act would have to work to meet network and security
specifications. What might cybersecurity vulnerabilities mean
to farmers who are using advanced agricultural technology?
Mr. May. Farmers today that are utilizing these advanced
technologies are streaming large quantities of data, not only
to their own farm, but to their trusted advisors to help them
make better decisions.
John Deere has been very transparent in our role to make
sure that that data is as secure as possible, it is accessible,
and it is easy to share. We have also tried to work with Farm
Bureaus to develop more standards around what sort of security
protocols should be in place. We believe that the security of
data is critical and we support continuing to invest in that.
Mr. McNerney. But what risks do farmers have, the ones that
are actually using the technology?
Mr. May. The risk the farmer could have is if their data
gets in the hands of somebody they didn't intend it to. So,
their yield data or how they planted the fields, what seed they
used, that is their IP, and if that got in the hands of, I
planted this hybrid, I sprayed with this sort of application,
and I created a yield 10 percent higher than you, that is IP.
And if that were to get in the hands of somebody else, then it
is a loss to the farmer.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Word, in your testimony you point out that fewer than
50 percent of households in the bottom income quintile use
internet at home, and that narrowing this divide would become
even more important as healthcare moves to a value-based
system. Can you expand on your testimony and talk about the
health implications if lower-income middle Americans are unable
to afford access to broadband at home?
Ms. Word. Sure. Thank you for the question.
Those patients at that lower socioeconomic status are often
some of the less healthy patients or they don't access
healthcare as frequently. So, there are ways that we could do
in-home monitoring, whether it is video, phone, email,
monitoring of their health conditions that would prevent
readmissions maybe to the hospital, improve their health, get
them regular visits with their doctor when maybe they can't
even afford to drive in to the clinic.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Guthrie, 5 minutes.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this
meeting.
I would like to start by thanking my Co-Chair from
California, Doris Matsui. We have worked on the Spectrum Caucus
together. It seems like every meeting we have here we talk
about spectrum, but it is so important.
I just want to point out, in the RAY BAUM Act, there was
also just nuances of technology policy. It is amazing. We had
actually put in there the Spectrum Auction Deposits Act, just
so they could deposit bank deposits for selling of spectrum.
That was asked for by Chairman Pai. And the chairwoman was
great to work with us and have this in the mark, so that we
could move forward. And I appreciate you doing that.
I am also pleased with the Commission's work on midband,
licensed and unlicensed bands, that can help us keep the U.S.
on the cutting edge of 5G, rather than letting China or any
other person try to beat us to that.
Mr. Forde--and also Mr. Aiken, I might ask you to comment
on the question for Mr. Forde, but if you would comment?
Starting with the spectrum question, I know that you are trying
to provide service for unserved areas by using fixed wireless
technology. And you say in your testimony that you need access
to more spectrum in order to accomplish that. Charter is doing
similar things in Kentucky. So, thanks for your efforts.
And for Mr. Forde and Mr. Aiken, how much spectrum do you
think is needed for fixed wireless and what would be the
results for consumers? And what more can we do on this front?
We can start with Mr. Forde and, then, Mr. Aiken.
Mr. Forde. Yes, certainly, access to more spectrum, most
importantly, the type of spectrum that works best for our
customers and our people in rural areas. We need to make sure
that the spectrum is offered, provides interference protection
out there. I know the C-band has been talked a little bit about
today, but we are, of course, an existing cable television
provider and we use that C-band to provide television service
to tens of thousands of customers across all the states that we
serve. And that is the only option that we have. So, if we were
to look at that band for fixed wireless, we need to make sure
that that is also protected.
And one of the bands that isn't being used as much in our
area is the 2.5, the educational broadband. One of the reasons
we really like that spectrum is because it is able to go
penetrate dense forests, tree lines, things like that, and get
through those obstacles. Obviously, it does have a certain
educational benefit. I live in a very rural area. My kids go to
a school out in the country 5 miles from my house. And I am
amazed, even at their young age, how much work that is destined
on having that good, reliable internet connection.
So, yes, I think we need more spectrum in all these areas
to accomplish it, but let's make sure it works for everybody.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you.
Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Thanks for the question, Congressman.
Yes, I would echo what Mr. Forde said. We are looking at a
lot of midband spectrum, so the same sort of spectrum bands
that Mr. Forde mentioned, the EBS spectrum at 2.5 gigahertz,
the 3.5 gigahertz spectrum, the CBRS band which the FCC is
currently considering, as well as the 3.7 to 4.2 spectrum band.
That midband spectrum has great characteristics to be able to
go a long ways and carry a significant amount of bandwidth,
which is perfect for radios that have to go many miles to
houses in rural America.
Mr. Guthrie. Thanks.
Another concern, I have a district that could be a little
bit of--Bob Latta just said his is as flat as a table, some of
the best farmland in the country. And I have some that doesn't
have the mountains quite that my friend from Oregon has, but
beautiful mountains and lakes, and Mammoth Cave, if anybody
wants to visit, is there as well. So, it is a beautiful place,
but it is rural and, also, it is suburban and urban.
I live in Bowling Green, which is kind of a boom, tied in
with the work our chairwoman has done in Middleton, such a boom
town. We are kind of tied in with that. I am hour from
Nashville.
If you look at mapping, so I am talking about if you look
at mine, you would say Bowling Green is covered with broadband.
And we have some friends out here from Connected Nation which
is a local hometown group that does the mapping. But it depends
on where you live. I have very rural counties that is exactly
what we are talking about. But, even where I live, some people
won't develop; they can't move forward because people don't
want to buy a home that doesn't have broadband access moving
forward. So, just in mapping, getting more specific in mapping,
I think we are talking about it is just too broad to say that
one county is covered or not.
My question is for the panel. I didn't leave you much time.
But what recommendation do you have to improve the granularity
and accuracy of the data collected? And what recommendations do
you have to improve it? Should NTIA coordinate with the
Commission or are there other ideas about giving it to NTIA
solely? Anybody? I only have two seconds, so if one of you
wants to get that? Just making mapping better, NTIA.
Mr. Stroup. Certainly, I would start with ensuring that the
information is up-to-date. We have recognized that, given the
advances in the satellite industry, the fact that we do provide
25/3 coverage is not included in the current map.
And one other technology that I would acknowledge that I
think will be useful in terms of the broadband mapping is
technology that is being deployed that allows for RF mapping
from space. Ultimately, I would recommend that that company's
technology--they are launching their first three satellites
this year--be considered to be able to identify where there is
actually a signal, rather than just identification of hopes
that there is a signal.
Mr. Guthrie. Thank you. We are out of time. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Ms. Matsui, you are recognized.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
We talked about spectrum is absolutely necessary to meet
the coverage requirements of rural broadband networks. In 2004,
Congress created the Spectrum Relocation Fund to assist Federal
agencies relocating or sharing spectrum for wireless broadband
use. And in 2015, Congress made improvements to the SRF by
allowing agencies to use SRF funds for engineering research and
development. But current law limits how much of these funds can
be used by agencies to fund the research and related activities
necessary to potentially reallocate or share their spectrum.
Last month, my spectrum partner, Congressman Guthrie, and I,
along with Senators Wicker and Schatz, introduced the SPECTRUM
NOW Act to fix this problem. Specifically, the framework of the
SPECTRUM NOW Act could provide a pathway for NTIA and DoD to
make additional 100 megahertz of spectrum available in the 3.4
gigahertz band.
Mr. Aiken, what potential does a 3.4 gigahertz band have
for WISP networks, and how could the SPECTRUM NOW Act help meet
the growing demand for networks across rural America?
Mr. Aiken. Thank you, Congresswoman, and thank you for your
leadership on this issue. We are incredibly supportive of that
legislation, and it could make a real difference in rural
broadbands, particularly if the FCC gets the rules right on the
3.5 gigahertz or CBRS rulemaking, because that would allow
these fixed wireless radios to just simply have a software
upgrade and be able to utilize the spectrum in that band as
well.
Ms. Matsui. Right. OK. Thank you.
Narrowband IoT networks are particularly useful for long-
range, low-power applications. Specifically, these networks
improve capacity, spectrum efficiency, and power consumption
levels of user devices. Narrowband IoT networks have potential
both nationwide and particularly for rural coverage. These
networks can co-exist with commercial mobile networks, and
their propagation characteristics provide better range and
reduce coverage costs for consumers in both rural areas and
across the country.
The entire panel, what potential benefits do narrowband IoT
networks have in rural areas from a spectrum efficiency, cost,
and deployment perspective?
Mr. Stroup, would you like to start?
Mr. Stroup. Certainly. I think, as you noted, narrowband
signals are more spectrum-efficient and you can put them in
smaller allocations. Companies like Iridium, which is a
satellite-based company that has been providing IoT services in
rural America for some time. So, those services are already
deployed. They tend to be more cost-effective just because they
do not have the same power requirements, either, that broadband
systems do.
Ms. Matsui. Thank you.
Mr. Forde?
Mr. Forde. We would be happy to get back to you on that.
Ms. Matsui. Oh, certainly.
Ms. Matsui. Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Sure. We generally view those networks as
incredibly complementary to fixed wireless networks. It enables
a lot of connectivity on farms that have a lot of benefit to
precision agriculture efforts. We view those networks as
complementary, and we see customers of our members who are
farmers utilize both.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine.
Mr. May?
Mr. May. That technology we believe will play a role in
machine-to-machine communication----
Ms. Matsui. Yes.
Mr. May [continuing]. But very limited capability if you
have to upload data to the cloud. So, where we are sharing maps
within a field between planters, it makes a lot of sense. But
if we need to transfer data to or from that machine, it has
limited capability.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine.
Ms. Word. I will claim a little bit of ignorance, being a
healthcare practitioner and not as much on the technology side.
But I can say, with our diverse terrain in our county, I think
we take advantage of just about every opportunity that is out
there.
Ms. Matsui. I am sure.
Ms. Word. Certain technologies are going to work better in
different areas.
Ms. Matsui. Absolutely.
Ms. Craig?
Ms. Coker Craig. I will also claim ignorance in this,
proudly. But it sounds to me like it is just another option,
and it points again to the flexibility that small communities
need to have in working with whatever tools they can get.
Ms. Matsui. OK. I don't have much time, but I want to ask
the question on the C-band, about the particular clearing
mechanism that could be used to allow additional terrestrial
use in the 3.7-4.2 gigahertz band. In particular, NRPM has
sought comment on whether market-based or the auction approach
could be utilized to clear the spectrum that could, then, be
made available for terrestrial mobile use.
Mr. Stroup, I am interested in how a voluntary market-based
mechanism would function for the very services currently being
utilized in the C-band.
Mr. Stroup. I think one of the most important things to
keep in mind with respect to the C-band is just how heavily
used it is. As part of the NOI process that the FCC went
through, there were a number of users that came forward, and
there are thousands of earth stations serving over 120 million
people for video distribution services. Ultimately, if the FCC
does decide that they are going to make any of that spectrum
available, a market-based approach where they have an
opportunity to work with a customer base, meaning the satellite
companies have an opportunity to work with the existing
customer base, is more likely to achieve the goals in the short
term.
Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you very much, and I have run out of
time. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Olson, you are recognized.
Mr. Olson. I thank the Chair.
And welcome to our six witnesses. Not to mislead you all,
Texas 22 is two-thirds the suburbs of Houston, Texas, and one-
third rural. That means corn, milo, cotton, and cattle. Our
smallest farms and ranches are doing just fine. They have the
broadband access that greater Houston has, but that access can
disappear in a few hours in a natural disaster, like Hurricane
Harvey.
We learned a lot from Hurricane Ike that hit us in 2008. We
bury our lines deep in the soil, so that stayed up a lot. We
still lost some connectivity during the storm. And as you know,
the most precious, lifesaving commodity in a disaster is
information. We found out, too, our process for permits needs
to be streamlined to provide that lifeline.
And that is why I introduced H.R. 4045, the Connecting
Communities Post Disasters Act. This legislation allows Federal
disaster areas to be exempt from the National Environmental
Policy Act and the Historical Preservation Act. That just lets
communities get going quickly to rebuild.
Madam Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
introduce two letters of support for my legislation, one from
the NTCA and one from the WIA.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Olson. Mr. Stroup, a question for you, sir. What are
your main considerations from your perspective in the industry
that Federal agencies can streamline disaster requirements and
just streamline process for permits overall, especially in
disasters? Any advice for Federal Government to act, so we
don't have the problems we had with Hurricane Harvey?
Mr. Stroup. Certainly, the satellite industry provides
important capability in hurricane and natural disaster events
because we have our infrastructure in the sky. From a
permitting perspective, just the opportunity to be able to get
our earth stations located, if they are not already in place,
and work with existing customers, like the cellular industry,
in order to be able to get their portable systems up and
running. So, our infrastructure we don't need permitting with
respect to that. It is the earth stations where we can benefit
from a streamlined process.
Mr. Olson. As a side note, DIRECTV addition to our home was
basically weather radar. Without the TV, guess what is going to
hit us in about 10 minutes? A big, nasty thunderstorm. So,
thank you for that.
My next question is for you, Mr. May. I saw the third
generation of agriculture revolution in northwest Fort Bend
County a few years ago. The farmer was not a farmer. He was
what I call a manager of farm technology. He had this massive,
huge John Deere tractor, a big, self-contained cockpit, air
conditioning. It had a little radio, a satellite radio. The
tractor was driving itself. What made that so special is he was
putting every seed down perfectly, the same distance apart, the
same depth, making all the turns. And so, that is exciting.
You talked about, also, 4G. It is just the fourth
agricultural revolution which uses artificial intelligence and
machine learning to allow farmers to be more productive, be
better farmers. Can you discuss the benefits of AI in the
agricultural sector?
Mr. May. Absolutely. We are really excited. We call this
the fourth generation, if you will, of farming. The new
technologies that are available to us are going to bring--the
way I like to describe it is, today, a farmer, that farmer
still relies heavily on his eyes for vision to see what is
happening in the field. He relies on the 30 years of knowledge
he has in head. And then, he makes adjustments with his fingers
on the computer to optimize the machine. Computer vision,
artificial intelligence, and robotics are going to help make
that farmer even more better.
We recently acquired a company called Blue River that is
focused on eliminating up to 90 percent of chemicals that are
used in the field by only spraying the weeds that are located
within the fields. So, it is a huge advantage to productivity
and, more importantly, sustainability.
Mr. Olson. Thank you. I have 18 seconds left. So, I would
like to offer my help to you, Mrs. Coker Craig, the whole town
of Pinetops, North Carolina. My dear friend, Mr. Butterfield,
talked about having barbeque at Abrams. With all due respect,
ma'am, if you want the best barbeque in America, that is in
Texas, Texas barbeque.
[Laughter.]
I offer you to come to either Killen's in Pearland, Texas,
or The Swinging Door in Fort Bend County to have the best
barbeque in America.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. And I will challenge that.
[Laughter.]
Anybody ever heard of Memphis and the barbeque competition?
[Laughter.]
All right, Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Well, I can't recommend a barbeque in Silicon
Valley, but----
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having this. This is a
very important hearing. When at least a third of our country is
either underserved or not served in the second decade of the
21st century, that is a major issue for our country. Our
Founding Fathers knew that, to be a united country, that
Americans needed a nationwide communication system. And so,
this is a very important responsibility that we have.
I want to thank the witnesses. Each one of you I think has
been excellent. And you have touched, in a deep and broad way,
either what your association members are doing, what your
companies are doing, what is happening in healthcare, and what
is happening in municipalities.
I want to thank the chairwoman for, in her opening
statement, making a positive comment about the dig-once policy
that was in the RAY BAUM legislation. It is sensible, dig once.
I don't know why no one ever thought of it before we did it. I
guess it was, as my grandmother used to say, the most uncommon
of the senses is common sense. But, at any rate, we got that
one done.
Now, at the same time, she was critical of the Community
Broadband Act, and that undermines state legislatures. Now I
had very purposefully introduced that legislation because I
think it is important to examine what is standing in the way,
why are we not making headway, especially in rural areas. And I
have that, too, in my district. Imagine, in Silicon Valley
there are people that are either underserved or have no service
whatsoever. I think most people would be stunned to realize
that.
There are today about 20 states that have outright
prohibitions or bans relative to municipal broadband. Now I
think that these state legislatures are undermining local
municipalities from coming up with their own solutions. I come
from local government, like you, Ms. Craig, and I really have a
reverence for local government. I prefer a bottom-up than a
top-down in many cases. Now there are some cases where I
believe a national umbrella is very important relative to
Federal policy for our country.
I want to ask you, Ms. Craig, why do you think anyone would
do that? It has been proven to be effective. Cities like
Chattanooga and Wilson were stopped from deploying high-speed
broadband access to people who want it. Now there is a whole
variety of reasons that we can stitch together why we are where
we are, one-third of the country. But who did this in your
state?
Ms. Coker Craig. Well, the primary----
Ms. Eshoo. Who are the interests? Who are the interests
that went to the state legislature to make sure that this
access was banned?
Ms. Coker Craig. My understanding is it was the big telecom
industry.
Ms. Eshoo. You got it.
Ms. Coker Craig. It was the large----
Ms. Eshoo. That is my softball or hardball question to you.
So, I think we need to put the facts on the table. And that
is that the very large interests, very large money holds sway,
and this is holding back local communities from creating a
choice. In most cases, it is much cheaper, too. So, that is
what is happening in the country. If people want to stay with,
stand with their state legislature for especially screwing
their local communities, so be it, but that is what is
happening. That is what is happening, and that is a very big
thing in our country, especially because one-third of the
country is not getting what they need.
I want to ask the panel--well, I don't have enough time.
So, I will put that question to the full panel. Your single one
best idea on how we can advance? I will put that in writing and
look forward to your response.
Thank you for being here today. I think you are all part of
the solution.
Ms. Eshoo. Again, I thank the chairwoman for having this
hearing.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentlelady yields back.
Mr. Johnson, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thanks to our panel for joining us today.
I represent a very rural part of the country, the entire
eastern flank of the State of Ohio, all along the Ohio River.
Broadband access is one of my top priorities. We must figure
this out. A one-size solution doesn't work everywhere in the
country. And the digital rural divide is very, very real. We
are losing a tremendous amount of intellectual capital from
young people to entrepreneurs, to you name it, kids that can't
do their homework, businesses that won't come into a rural area
because they can't get access to the internet to connect with
their customers, their suppliers, manage their employees. There
is a host of reasons why this is somewhat urgent, I would even
say in many cases desperate, situation for economic
development.
And some people think that it is a pie-in-the-sky luxury to
have access to high-speed internet, and that is simply not
true. In a digitized world that we live in today, where we do
business across the oceans like we used to do business across
town, you have got to have access to the internet. And I think
that starts with being able to accurately identify those areas
that are unserved and underserved. And that has been a
complicated, and yet, inadequate effort up until now.
That is why I was glad to introduce the MAPPING NOW Act,
reasserting NTIA's authority to go do this. I am also pleased
that the discussion draft to reauthorize NTIA tasks the
administration with facilitating more accurate granular maps of
broadband coverage, so that we can get on with this process.
Mr. Aiken and Mr. Stroup, Administrator Redl recently
stated in his testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee
that ``NTIA has long been a leader in gathering and analyzing
broadband adoption and data, and on May 30th, 2018, NTIA
published a Request for Comment to determine the most efficient
path forward.''
Gentlemen, could you offer your thoughts as to what NTIA
should consider when thinking about how to get the most
accurate and reliable data to properly inform broadband
investment decisions? I don't think it is rocket science, and I
am really frustrated with the length of time and the lack of
progress.
Mr. Aiken, let's go with you first; then, we will come down
to Mr. Stroup.
Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thank you, Congressman.
We are actively engaged with NTIA on its rulemaking on
mapping efforts and appreciate their work on this issue.
We share the frustration at the lack of good data out there
on broadband deployment. It means that folks who might be
eligible for the Connect America Fund aren't. And there are a
host of other problems that you accurately identified.
One of the things that we think we can potentially do is
move, particularly for a fixed wireless perspective, to a
polygon method of characterizing deployment. That is something
that we think we can do without unduly burdening our smallest
members. Our association is made up of mom-and-pop companies.
So, regulatory burden is a pretty significant concern. But we
are actively working towards finding solutions that will work
both for our members and for the data needs of our country.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Stroup?
Mr. Stroup. We also have engaged with NTIA and encouraged
them to take advantage or to reflect the most up-to-date
capabilities, as I note with respect to the satellite industry,
the 25/3 capabilities. And also, the point that I had made
earlier about utilizing new technologies to be able to do RF
mapping, to be able to determine where there is, in fact, a
signal.
Mr. Johnson. Sure. Well, like I have said, I don't think it
is rocket science, but guess what? Even if it is a rocket
science, we have got rocket science in this country.
[Laughter.]
We ought to be able to figure this out, and it ought not to
be this dadgum complicated.
But, with that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Ms. Brooks, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and thank you so
much for holding this really important hearing.
And thank you all. I am sorry some of us have been going
back and forth between other hearings.
But this is critically important. I represent Indianapolis
suburbs and rural communities in central Indiana. Not too long
ago, I had the opportunity with FCC Chair--and one of the
members of the committee--Carr to visit Beck's Hybrids and saw
something that was really quite amazing.
And so, I guess, Mr. Aiken, and maybe Mr. May, they have
what they call FARMserver, where they have created their own
server and service to help with precision ag. And it is
simplified, but it allows their clients, not just their own
customers, but others who are participating in FARMserve, to
generate reports such as yield by soil type, yield by hybrid,
yield by prescription. It is seed selection streamlined, field-
focused recordkeeping, full support, taking information from a
farm office out into the field very precisely, but, then,
aggregating all of this data. And they have this massive server
system data storage up in northern Hamilton County. I was not
aware they were doing something of this level of
sophistication, although they are an incredibly tech-savvy
company, and always have been.
We talked about data security, and that is not what I am
going to go into. But their customers and those who they are
working with, I asked about whether or not 5G, which is now
being implemented in Indianapolis and some of the surrounding
areas--you mentioned 4G. That is what, Mr. May, made me think
about 5G. This type of service could have, I think, a dramatic
impact on the ag industry. They used a WISP called On-Ramp.
Can you all talk with us? Is this happening anywhere else
in the country or are they truly unique in the country? I am
just curious, Reynolds Farm Equipment, a great John Deere
dealer, is right down the road from them. Can you all talk
about this a little bit, Mr. Aiken maybe, and you may or may
not know about this, Mr. May, in 5G. Yes?
Mr. Aiken. Sure. So, thank you, Congresswoman, and I really
appreciate you going out to visit our member, On-Ramp Indiana,
and see the work that they are doing as a really small company,
but bringing big connectivity and enabling the kind of
innovations that you just mentioned in your statement.
I think this is indicative of what our members are doing
across the country. A lot of our members are actually farmers,
in addition to being broadband providers. So, they understand
what farms need in order to be able to be successful, both in
the broadband world and in the farming world.
But, as far as 5G is concerned, I think we have to
remember, when we talk about 5G, that 5G is not only mobile. 5G
is also fixed wireless.
Mrs. Brooks. Right.
Mr. Aiken. And a lot of the same technical innovations that
we see going into the mobile space also will be in the fixed
space. So, our members, if we have adequate access to spectrum,
can provide these gigabit or multi-gigabit speeds to farms who
desperately need the connectivity for big data.
Mrs. Brooks. Mr. May, anything you would like to talk about
5G?
Mr. May. Yes. Yes, absolutely. First of all, 5G would bring
additional capability in streaming larger sets of data. But,
today, we have a similar system. It is the John Deere
Operations Center, where a John Deere farmer today is streaming
on a real-time basis from the field directly to our cloud-based
ecosystem all of their agronomic data that, then, they can
share with any of their trusted advisors in order to make
better decisions and stream it directly back to the machine in
the field. So, as we advance the internet connectivity, that is
only going unlock more value within the field.
Mrs. Brooks. Are there many companies like John Deere and
Beck's doing this across the country or is it really just the
largest? And the other thing I want to mention is, so many of
these companies are also near small towns. We often think of
urban and rural, but small towns like Pinetops and others. Do
we think we are going to get 5G to small towns, to Pinetops,
North Carolina? I mean, what are we going to do? Because I
think we are going to be jumping to 5G very fast.
Mr. May. Yes, our system is a global system that extends
across the globe that uses multiple different internet
capabilities. 5G, frankly, is a luxury from a data transmission
standpoint, but we are leveraging today 3G and 4G as well to do
the same thing.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you. Thank you all so much for your
testimony. I really appreciate all your work.
I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Yields back.
Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it very
much.
I thank the panel for their testimony.
One of the most important topics of discussion as we
continue to build new connections and upgrade systems is
resiliency. We saw what happened, of course, in Florida, Texas,
and Puerto Rico. Now we are hurricane season, 2018 hurricane
season. Similarly, other parts of the Nation face their own
natural disasters, not just hurricanes. They face the threats
that can impact connectivity and slow emergency communications.
Mr. Forde, as Midco continues to expand to unserved
markets, as well as upgrade existing systems, what precautions
are being taken to help ensure that these systems are resilient
to natural disasters, which for your area would be tornado
threats, of course?
Mr. Forde. Yes, the first thing is, obviously, we build a
lot of redundancy into our system. Multiple fiber rings of
sizes large and small allow that technology to go back around
the ring. So, if we do have a fiber cut or an instance, that
instantly reroutes, and is the first step in keeping up for
lost service.
Additionally, we have had some disasters in North Dakota
and tornadoes and flooding. We have responded with providing
free Wi-Fi and things for those communities on an instant
basis. We have some trailers and things that we do. They are
our friends. They are our customers. We do the best we can to
make sure their communications are always working and up and
running as fast as possible. If, for some reason, the main
lines aren't working, we provide alternate forms of technology
to get them up and running right away.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
Continuing on the top of natural disasters, Mr. Stroup, in
your written testimony you stated that satellite technology can
deploy temporary-fix installations and very small aperture
terminal antennas in the aftermath of a disaster to help
communities get reconnected. The question is, how long does it
take to deploy these systems to an impacted area? And what
actions need to be taken by consumers in order to use these
temporary systems if they do not have a preexisting
relationship with that satellite provider?
Mr. Stroup. The systems can be deployed in a matter of
hours, depending upon where the equipment is located. I think
what happened in Puerto Rico is a good example, where carriers
have come forward and noted that satellite needs to be
considered an important part of the infrastructure for the
rebuilding process because of the speed and capability of the
industry. For consumers, very often it is a matter of going to
a point where there is a satellite connection. A good example
is in Puerto Rico where people lined up at a grocery store to
be able to use satellite technology. So, it is something that
very often is used in conjunction with cellular systems. So,
they are providing the backhaul where the cellular system has
gone down. With other technologies, point-to-point
technologies, it is not necessarily as applicable in terms of
providing the point-to-point technology, but more being able to
provide the backhaul capability.
Mr. Bilirakis. OK. Very good. I appreciate it very much.
And I yield back, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Cramer, you are recognized.
Mr. Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks to all of you. My goodness, I am sitting here.
As you know, I have sat here the whole time, and I have loved
every minute of it because I see solutions. I have to agree
with Ms. Eshoo. She said, you look at the six of you and you
find the solution to the problem.
I was thinking about the Precision Agriculture Connectivity
Act, and what would that task force that the FCC will set up,
should we pass this bill, look like. And I think it looks a lot
like this, quite honestly.
We do have competing technologies collaborating to create a
ubiquitous network that is not reliant on any one of you. It is
reliant on all of you and several others. That has, I think,
been both the opportunity and the challenge, that we do have
competing technologies. We didn't have that with the Interstate
Highway System. We need a ubiquitous transportation system to
move products to market and people from coast to coast. And so,
we have this very public highway system. When it was time to
bring electricity to the farm, the REA did it beautifully, but
there weren't competing technologies. Today, of course, there
are more community-based power sources, things like that, but
not at the time.
But you all are in something where there is a lot of
competition, and you all are in something that needs the
product. How it gets there is not as relevant as that it gets
there, right? So, I think we have the makings of a great
collaboration among competitors.
We hear a lot now today, of course, about satellite. We
hear a lot about cable and fiber and fixed wireless and
community-based, all of those things. And then, we haven't
talked a lot about mobile, but some, and not a lot about
nomadic, but, of course, some. All of that has got to work
together to get it there.
But I want to ask you, Ms. Word, as I hone in a little bit
on the tremendous opportunity that I see in telemedicine in
rural America. With 36 hospitals in North Dakota, and still a
lot of space between them, the bill we were able to do a couple
of years ago, it allowed Universal Service funds to be used,
for example, to connect nursing facilities, which I think was a
good step in the right direction.
One of the things, though, we always hear about--and God
bless Mr. Welch for raising the fact that some of this does
cost money, right, particularly in unserved and underserved and
maybe profit centers it requires some money. And we provided
some and more, and probably need to do more.
But, at the same time, we often don't talk about the
savings or the opportunities. For example--and this is what I
want to get to you--in your testimony you talked about that
telemedicine, the benefit of it, the value of it. Has there
ever been a cost-benefit analysis of people being able to stay
at home longer or maybe be in a community-based health center
longer because they have ubiquitous access to the experts
somewhere else? Because we always talk about the cost, not
necessarily about the savings.
Ms. Word. I don't know about an official study. I am sure
they have been done. I know our facility, and also Grande Ronde
Hospital, the one that is 65 miles away, has looked at the
number of miles saved. That translates to gallons of gas, the
hotel rooms, the time off of work that, whether it is the
patient or family member, don't have to take.
Most of the savings I think is for the hospital and
probably our primary care providers. They are able to assist
these specialists. Often, they will do their visits side-by-
side with the primary care provider in the room.
Mr. Cramer. Sure. What I wonder, because you talked about
reimbursement issues, right----
Ms. Word. Yes.
Mr. Cramer [continuing]. And what is not allowable. It
would seem to me that we ought to take a real serious look at
how, whether it is private insurance or Medicare in most cases,
is reimbursing, how they might save by reimbursing something
that they might not think is healthcare, if that makes sense.
Ms. Word. Absolutely. Reimbursement is a huge issue, both
for the originating site and the distant site. I will tell, we
don't really even consider for us, being the originating site,
reimbursement. We often don't even bill. Whoever we are working
with on the other end, they pay us $25 per patient, a max of
$100 a day. We could do six, eight, twelve patients; we will
get $100. We are about the patient and what makes it better for
them. Healthwise, they often feel better if they are at home
and they are with their loved ones, their spouse, their
children, more comfortable with being at home.
Mr. Cramer. Excellent.
And I am just going to wrap up my last 10 seconds here with
the aggies. Thank you, John Deere. We haven't talked about
unmanned aerial vehicles and the opportunity for imagery there,
and the ability to use--the beautiful thing about rural
America, besides the fact that they grow enough food for the
world, is that they do have a lot of available spectrum. It
might be owned by somebody or licensed by somebody else or just
not available, but it is available. If we can find ways to
enhance the imagery, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to
change the world with precision agriculture, and I know that
you all are about doing that.
And I have overstepped my time, Madam Chair. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Long, you are recognized.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
As a point of personal privilege, just for the record, I
would like to state that, as everyone knows, Arthur Bryant's
Barbeque in Kansas City would make Memphis and Texas barbeque
want to run and hide.
[Laughter.]
So, I just want to get that out.
Mr. Aiken and Mr. Forde, in this Congress I have introduced
H.R. 4817, the PEERING Act. The focus is on improving broadband
infrastructure in rural America. The bill would set up a
matching grant program at NTIA to make peering centers more
resilient where ones already exist and create new ones where
they are needed, mainly across the Midwest, where Arthur
Bryant's Barbeque is.
Do you think this bill would help combat the strain on
rural providers having to deliver consistently increasing
amounts of internet traffic, including high bandwidth video
transmissions? Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Sure. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
And I have to say, also, for the record, that I will be
making a road trip through Tennessee, Missouri, and Kentucky
this summer. So, I will have to sample the barbeque.
Mr. Long. We will look for your report.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Aiken. I will submit that for the record.
[Laughter.]
But I appreciate the question. The cost of backhaul is a
very significant cost for a lot of rural providers in terms of
getting to that point where they can peer with other providers.
So, I really appreciate your efforts to try to do things to
reduce that.
Mr. Long. What else can be done in more rural areas? I have
several rural areas in my 10 and a fraction counties. A lot of
it is rural America, and I don't think that the kids trying to
do their homework should be affected differently than the kids
in the city. So, what else can we do in more rural areas to
keep service high quality and the speed fast?
Mr. Aiken. From our perspective, Congressman, the answer is
spectrum, and spectrum done in a way that makes sense for small
companies. We have a ton of small providers out there in rural
America providing broadband now, but the spectrum they are
using is crowded. Like I mentioned previously, we have folks
who have customers within range, potential customers within
range of radios right now, but insufficient spectrum to do it.
Mr. Long. OK. Thank you.
And, Mr. Forde, do you think this bill that I have
introduced would help combat the strain on rural providers
having to deliver consistently increasing amounts of internet
traffic, including high bandwidth video transmissions?
Mr. Forde. Obviously, we are delivering gigabit speeds
across all of our footprint from Bowman to Battineau and
Williston to Wahpeton in North Dakota.
So, I wanted to make sure I said ``Hi'' to my Congressman
Cramer up there as well. Excuse me, Congressman Long.
But, yes, we certainly really believe that increasing those
speeds would be great. One of the ways that we can really do
that is, again, as Mr. Aiken said, more spectrum. Again, we
really like the 2.5 gigahertz band of spectrum to put out that
speed because it allows for interference protections and also
to get through some of those tough, hard-to-reach areas through
trees and woods, and things like that. So, yes, we constantly
have efforts to increase speeds all across our footprint.
Mr. Long. And what else can be done in more rural areas to
keep service high quality and speeds fast?
Mr. Forde. I think that the continued deregulation to allow
us to keep focused on investing in our networks is very
helpful. Allowing us not to have teams in rooms and even a
floor full of people working on some of those regulations
allows us to do what we do, and we do real broadband and
continue to invest for our customers.
Mr. Long. Thank you.
And I didn't realize Senator Cramer had joined us, but
thank you for pointing that out.
I appreciate everything this committee does, and has been
doing, in promoting broadband deployment.
I would like to submit for the record a letter from the
Missouri Electric Cooperatives about what they have been doing
in Missouri.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Long. And last, but not least, I would love to get
bipartisan support for my bill, H.R. 4817, the PEERING Act, and
hope to work with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
on this.
Madam Chairwoman, I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Mr. Costello, you are recognized, 5 minutes.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Forde, as you state in your testimony,
you acknowledge that government assistance is sometimes
necessary to reach areas of the country where there is no
business case for private investment. But, to efficiently
leverage USF funds to the areas that need it most, we need the
federal government to collect and disseminate data that more
accurately reflects the digital divide. This is why
Representative Loebsack and I introduced the Rural Wireless
Access Act, signed into law with the help of this committee in
the spring. This bill directs the FCC to establish consistent
data collection practices for mobile service coverage. Can you
highlight some of the problems that arise from overbuilding
with Federal dollars and how this committee can steer agencies
to more efficiently focus efforts on the truly underserved
areas of the country?
Mr. Forde. Yes. I think Midco, as a company that is already
providing robust service, and some of the communities already
had multiple providers, and, of course, we had been overbuilt
in many of those communities with those Federal dollars. What
we have seen is there are still areas just outside those fairly
large communities--places like Mitchell, South Dakota,
population of approximately 15,000, had multiple providers
there providing a high level of speed. But, yet, there are
still people just not far from town that are unserved or
underserved in that area. So, to the extent that we can focus
on those first, that will be a much better use of those federal
dollars, and let's make sure that we do that in a technology-
neutral manner. Whether it is a fiber connection, whether it is
the high-frequency cable, or the fixed wireless technology to
reach those, let's use the best tool that we have in the
toolbox.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Stroup, I recently introduced the WI-FI
STUDy Act to highlight the economic benefits that result from
unlicensed spectrum use in assisting internet traffic
management, and how that will help us realize the benefits of
an interconnected world with more efficient transmission of
data. Can you talk about some of the roles that unlicensed
spectrum can play in closing the digital divide in rural
America? Second, can you also specifically touch on how
unlicensed spectrum may play in the satellite industry?
Mr. Stroup. Yes. Certainly, at least one of our members is
working to show the value of community Wi-Fi connected by
satellite systems. Wi-Fi, as you know, utilizes unlicensed
spectrum. I think it is a combination of those technologies
that provides an opportunity to be able to provide low-cost
services in many of the areas that do not otherwise have access
to service, and that is a great combination of unlicensed
spectrum and satellite backhaul capability.
Mr. Costello. Mr. Aiken, do you have anything to add on the
issue of unlicensed spectrum and the role it can play in
closing the digital divide in rural America?
Mr. Aiken. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman.
Unlicensed spectrum is absolutely critical in closing the
digital divide. The large majority of our members who are small
businesses who have been, for lack of a better word, locked out
of the license spectrum play for too long, have utilized
unlicensed spectrum in predominantly the 2.4 gigahertz and the
5 gigahertz bands to provide service. So, as I said in my
testimony, additional unlicensed spectrum would be an
incredible boon for rural broadband.
Mr. Costello. Very good. Thank you. I yield back.
Mrs. Blackburn. Mr. Flores, you are recognized.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for hosting this
great panel.
And, Panel, I appreciate your testimony. I echo what Mr.
Cramer said. It has been a fascinating discussion so far.
In terms of what Congress has done in this area to look at
rural broadband, we have helped auction off spectrum for 5G
deployment; we have streamlined the permitting processes; we
are hoping to change the regulations, so we can put more
broadband satellites in the sky; we are encouraging
technological innovation, and we are simply funding government
agencies and programs that drive broadband development. With
that said, it is reassuring to see you all get together, as Mr.
Cramer said, and offer us what we think are the solutions, what
could possibly be the solutions for the future.
My district, 90 percent of the population lives in about 5
percent of the footprint. So, in terms of population, it is
mostly urban and suburban. On the other hand, 10 percent of the
population lives in 95 percent of the land area and it is
rural. And so, broadband rollout is incredibly important to me
in terms of representing that 10 percent of the population that
has more limited access to broadband.
Congress last year was working hard to deal with this when
it took my Radio Broadband Consumer Protection Act, which
ensured that broadcasters were protected in the repack to
follow the first of its kind broadcaster incentive auction. In
2012, the broadcast incentive auction, which raised $19
billion, was part of Congress' effort to grow broadband
development and access, but that legislation had an unforeseen
impact, because at the time nobody realized that the radio
broadcasters had not been protected. So, our legislation took
care of that part of the repack of the spectrum, so that the
wireless rollout for 5G and advanced 4G could continue on time.
And that became part of the RAY BAUM'S Act, and that has become
law now.
Moving on to the next section, which has to do with
regulations, last January I introduced H. Res. 701. That called
for environmental and historic reviews conducted by the FCC or
any entity regulated by the FCC to be limited to the area of
impact. This resolution was part of this committee's effort to
build out broadband. It promotes a more practical and efficient
model for the modern deployment of broadband while respecting
the oversight of historical and environmental impacts.
I would like to start with that last issue first regarding
regulatory reform. So, I would like to go through the entire
panel. And this is the question: how important is it for
broadband buildout that Federal requirements be proportional to
the actual area being disturbed?
Mr. Stroup, we will start with you. It is probably not as
important for you as it is for the other folks on the panel.
Mr. Stroup. Yes, certainly because the satellite industry's
issues are somewhat different than the terrestrial systems.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Stroup. Our infrastructure is in the sky.
Mr. Flores. Right.
Mr. Stroup. So, for us, it is more a matter of ensuring
that there is access to spectrum and that any technology that
is adopted be technology-neutral. In terms of deployment of the
infrastructure, certainly we utilize fiber systems, but that is
not typically an impediment to the deployment of our systems.
Mr. Flores. That is what I thought. How about in terms of
your ground-based stations? Have you had any regulatory impacts
in this regard?
Mr. Stroup. So, we do have issues, but it is not a major
impediment to the industry.
Mr. Flores. OK. That is good to hear.
Mr. Forde?
Mr. Forde. Certainly we have, as I may have mentioned
earlier, we have had some issues with the Army Corps and the
permitting process in those environmental issues in reaching
those tough areas. We also do feel that the fixed wireless tool
can be very helpful in reaching some of those. So, those rules
are also allowing us to do that without too much burden on our
company. But, certainly, those regulations do slow us down in
doing rural broadband.
Mr. Flores. OK. Mr. Aiken?
Mr. Aiken. Yes, I would agree with what Mr. Forde said. It
is tough for a mom-and-pop business to have to pay $5,000 for a
permit in order to hang a small radio on an existing tower. So,
we appreciate the help that Congress and the FCC have been
affording us on permit streamlining.
Mr. Flores. Mr. May?
Mr. May. Yes, we would agree. I think that speeding up the
process would certainly help reach the areas that don't have
service, and I think it is broader than we think. And we do
those, but we are doing it in a sustainable way.
Mr. Flores. OK. I would like to go to the next question. I
will ask you all to answer supplementally.
Ms. Coker Craig, you may have a response to that. Ms. Word,
I don't know if it impacts you or not.
Mr. Stroup, I suspect the satellite industry faces its own
very unique regulatory impediments. Can you address the
hindrances for deployment that the satellite industry faces?
Mr. Stroup. Can you repeat that?
Mr. Flores. Yes. Can you address the hindrances for
deployment that the satellite industry faces?
Mr. Stroup. Issues for deployment that the industry----
Mr. Flores. Yes, hindrances.
Mr. Stroup. Again, going back to the point that I made
before, in terms of deployment, the biggest issue that we have
is access to spectrum. We have a number of companies that have
announced plans for deployment of their next generation
technology, both GEO systems and LEO systems. So, the
processing at the Commission is certainly an issue. We are
going through a process with expediting small satellite
licensing. But I think that the key points for us, again, are
technology neutrality and access to spectrum.
Mr. Flores. OK. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I yield back the
balance of my time.
Mrs. Blackburn. The gentleman yields back.
Seeing that there are no further members wishing to ask
questions, I thank all the witnesses for being here today. We
appreciate your participation so much.
Before we conclude, I ask unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record:
And I will start with you, Mr. Doyle. You have some to
enter?
Mr. Doyle. Yes. Thanks, Madam Chair.
I know that it has been pointed out, the money that
Congress has given to the Department of Agriculture's Rural
Utility Service, and the FCC on the Rural Health Care Program.
I just want to point out that the problem in rural America is
way bigger than those efforts.
I want to submit for the record an FCC study here that
shows it will take $40 billion to build out 98 percent of the
country. So, if we give the Agriculture Department the same
amount we gave them this year, $600 million, it would take 66
years before we got to 98 percent of the country. So, that is
just a drop in the bucket, and we need to do a lot better.
So, I would like to submit this study for the record.
Mrs. Blackburn. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the record.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Unanimous consent to issue this following
list of documents: a letter from ITTA; Wireless Industry
Association; American Hospital Association; USTelecom; NTCA;
the Rural Broadband Association; ACT, the App Association; CCA;
Advanced Communications Law and Policy Institute; CTIA; a blog
post from NCTA; a letter from Rural Broadband Caucus members to
House appropriators; Chairman Walden's slides; a letter from
several associations supporting the AIRWAVES Act, from Mr.
Lance; a letter to Mr. Olson from NTCA, submitted by Mr. Olson;
a letter to Mr. Olson from the Wireless Industry Association,
submitted by Mr. Olson; a letter to Mr. Long from the
Association of Missouri Electric Cooperatives, from Mr. Long;
and a letter to Mr. Loebsack from the Chariton Valley Electric
Cooperative, from Mr. Loebsack.
Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Pursuant to committee rules, I will remind
the members that they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions.
And to you, our panel, if you will respond to those in
writing within 10 business days of receipt?
Mrs. Blackburn. Seeing that there is no further business to
come before the committee this morning, the subcommittee is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]