[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATING TO CONNECT AMERICA: IMPROVING
THE NATION'S BROADBAND MAPS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-60
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce
govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy
energycommerce.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-987 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
Chair 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 TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
------
Professional Staff
JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania
Chairman
JERRY McNERNEY, California ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York Ranking Member
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia PETE OLSON, Texas
DARREN SOTO, Florida ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
ANNA G. ESHOO, California BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado BILLY LONG, Missouri
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina BILL FLORES, Texas
DORIS O. MATSUI, California, Vice SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
Chair TIM WALBERG, Michigan
PETER WELCH, Vermont GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
TONY CARDENAS, California
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Mike Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, opening statement................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Ohio, opening statement..................................... 4
Prepared statement........................................... 5
Hon. Billy Long, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Missouri, prepared statement................................... 7
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
State of New Jersey, opening statement......................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 8
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Oregon, opening statement...................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Witnesses
Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA-The Rural
Broadband Association.......................................... 12
Prepared statement........................................... 15
James W. Assey, Executive Vice President, NCTA-The Internet and
Television Association......................................... 23
Prepared statement........................................... 25
Grant B. Spellmeyer, Vice President, Federal Affairs and Public
Policy, United States Cellular Corporation..................... 35
Prepared statement........................................... 37
Dana J. Floberg, Policy Manager, Free Press and Free Press Action
Fund........................................................... 44
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Jonathan Spalter, President and Chief Executive Officer,
USTelecom...................................................... 62
Prepared statement........................................... 64
James W. Stegeman, President, CostQuest Associates............... 68
Prepared statement \1\
Answers to submitted questions............................... 176
Submitted Material
H.R. 4229, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological
Availability Act............................................... 109
H.R. 4128, the Map Improvement Act of 2019....................... 134
H.R. 4227, the Mapping Accuracy Promotes Services (MAPS) Act..... 141
H.R. 2643, the Broadband Mapping After Public Scrutiny Act of
2019........................................................... 144
H.R. 3162, the Broadband Data Improvement Act of 2019............ 146
Letter of September 10, 2019 from James D. Ogsbury, Executive
Director, Western Governors Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr.
Latta, submitted by Mr. Doyle.................................. 161
Letter of September 9, 2019, from Jim Matheson, Chief Executive
Officer, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and
Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer, NTCA-The Rural
Broadband Association, to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Latta, submitted by
Mr. Doyle...................................................... 174
----------
\1\ Mr. Stegeman's prepared statement and additional material submitted
for the record have been retained in committee files and also are
available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109914.
LEGISLATING TO CONNECT AMERICA: IMPROVING THE NATION'S BROADBAND MAPS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 11, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:29 a.m., in
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Mike Doyle
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Members present: Representatives Doyle, McNerney, Clarke,
Loebsack, Veasey, Soto, O'Halleran, Eshoo, Butterfield, Matsui,
Welch, Lujan, Schrader, Cardenas, Dingell, Pallone (ex
officio), Latta (subcommittee ranking member), Olson,
Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, Walberg,
Gianforte, and Walden (ex officio).
Also present: Representatives Rodgers and Griffith.
Staff present: AJ Brown, Counsel; Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff
Director; Evan Gilbert, Deputy Press Secretary; Waverly Gordon,
Deputy Chief Counsel; Alex Hoehn-Saric, Chief Counsel,
Communications and Consumer Protection; Jerry Leverich, Senior
Counsel; Dan Miller, Policy Analyst; Phil Murphy, Policy
Coordinator; Joe Orlando, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts,
Press Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Adam Buckalew,
Minority Director of Coalitions and Deputy Chief Counsel,
Health; Michael Engel, Minority Detailee, Communications and
Technology; Margaret Tucker Fogarty, Minority Staff Assistant;
Theresa Gambo, Minority Financial and Office Administrator;
Peter Kielty, Minority General Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie,
Minority Counsel, Consumer Protection and Commerce; Tim Kurth,
Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications and Technology;
Brannon Rains, Minority Legislative Clerk; Evan Viau, Minority
Professional Staff Member, Communications and Technology; and
Nate Wilkins, Minority Fellow, Communications and Technology.
Mr. Doyle. The Subcommittee on Communications and
Technology will now come to order. The Chair now recognizes
himself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
Before we get started, I just want to take a moment to
remember the lives lost 18 years ago on September 11th. Many of
us on the committee were there when this happened. I remember
having breakfast in the Capitol when the first plane hit the
tower, which I didn't know at the time. And when I got back to
my office and saw my staff all watching the television sets is
when the second plane hit, and we just knew something terrible
had happened.
And it seems like it couldn't have been 18 years ago, but
it was, and I just think we want to remember all the sacrifices
that got made by our police and firemen, all our first
responders that ran towards that building. Many of them aren't
with us today from illnesses that they contracted being down
there at that site.
And also remember that evening that we all stood on the
steps of the Capitol, Democrats and Republicans locking arms
and singing ``God Bless America,'' I remember that very vividly
too. We probably could use a little bit more of that these days
in this country, of coming together as Americans. But I just
ask that may we just take a brief couple seconds for a moment
of silence just to reflect on 9/11, 18 years ago, and all the
people that passed.
[Moment of silence.]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. Well, I want to welcome everyone to
our first hearing since our August recess. Today, our hearing
is focusing on Legislating to Connect America: Improving our
Nation's Broadband Maps. This subcommittee will consider five
pieces of legislation that I believe can help address serious
problems with the way the FCC currently collects broadband
deployment data.
This is an often-discussed topic here in Congress, and the
lack of clear data has often been a sore spot for many of here
on the committee. However, the FCC in coordination with
industry stakeholders has been making significant strides to
improve the quality of some of these maps, and the bills before
the committee today build on those efforts.
Accurate maps of who does and who doesn't have access to
broadband are a critical first step in closing the digital
divide. We can't hope to solve this problem if we don't know
the scope of the problem and where to put our resources.
First, we have H.R. 4229, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy
and Technological Availability Act, introduced by
Representative Loebsack and Ranking Member Latta. This bill
would dramatically improve the FCC broadband maps by requiring
the FCC to collect and disseminate far more granular broadband
data for both fixed and mobile services. The bill would also
allow the FCC to use crowdsource data to help verify and
supplement carrier-provided data.
Second, we have H.R. 4128, the Map Improvement Act of 2019,
introduced by Representatives Lujan, Bilirakis, and myself. It
would standardize the methodology used for collecting and
verifying coverage data provided by providers. It would also
establish a new office within the FCC to serve as a central
coordinator for the Commission's mapping efforts.
Third, we have H.R. 4227, the Mapping Accuracy Promotion
Services Act, introduced by Representatives McEachin, Long,
Loebsack, and Latta. This bill would make it unlawful for a
person to submit inaccurate broadband coverage data to the FCC.
Fourth, we have H.R. 2643, the Broadband Mapping After
Public Scrutiny Act of 2019, which has been introduced by
Ranking Member Latta and my good friend Mr. Welch. This bill
would create a challenge process at the FCC for fixed and
mobile broadband coverage data and allow private entities as
well as State, local, and Tribal government entities to verify
coverage data submitted to the FCC.
And, finally, we will consider H.R. 3162, the Broadband
Data Improvement Act of 2019, introduced by Representative
McMorris Rodgers and Representative O'Halleran. This bill would
update the FCC's mapping process, establish a public challenge
process and require Federal agencies to use the newly created
broadband maps to determine the extent and the availability of
broadband in the United States.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the
discussion about this important legislation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mike Doyle
Good morning.
Before we get started, I'd like to take a moment to
remember the lives lost 18 years ago on September 11th, and the
extraordinary sacrifices made by the police, firefighters, and
EMS techs who responded to those horrific attacks as well as
those who have fought to keep us safe and keep fighting for our
country every day. We owe all of them a tremendous debt.
With that, I'd like to welcome everyone to our first
hearing since the August recess. Today's legislative hearing is
titled ``Legislating to Connect America: Improving the Nation's
Broadband Maps.''
The subcommittee will consider 5 pieces of legislation that
I believe can help address serious problems with the way the
Federal Communications Commission currently collects broadband
deployment data.
This is an often-discussed topic here in Congress, and the
lack of clear data has often been a sore spot for many of us on
the committee. However, the FCC in coordination with industry
stakeholders has been making significant strides to improve the
quality of some of these maps, and the bills before the
committee today build on those efforts.
Accurate maps of who does and doesn't have access to
broadband are a critical first step in closing the digital
divide. We can't hope to solve this problem if we don't know
the scope of it--and where to put our resources.
First, we have H.R. 4229, the ``Broadband Deployment
Accuracy and Technological Availability Act,'' introduced by
Representative Loebsack and Ranking Member Latta. This bill
would dramatically improve the FCC broadband maps by requiring
the FCC to collect and disseminate far more granular broadband
data for both fixed and mobile services. The bill would also
allow the FCC to use crowdsourced data to help verify and
supplement carrier-provided data.
Second, we have H.R. 4128, the ``Map Improvement Act of
2019,'' introduced by Representatives Lujan, Bilirakis, and
myself. It would standardize the methodology used for
collecting and verifying coverage data provided by providers.
It would also establish a new office within the FCC to severe
as a central coordinator for the Commission's mapping efforts.
Third up, we have H.R. 4227, the ``Mapping Accuracy
Promotes Services Act,'' introduced by Representatives
McEachin, Long, Loebsack, and Latta. This bill would make it
unlawful for a person to submit inaccurate broadband coverage
data to the FCC.
Fourth, we will consider H.R. 2643, the ``Broadband Mapping
After Public Scrutiny Act of 2019,'' introduced by Ranking
Member Lata and my good friend Congressman Welch. This bill
would create a challenge process at the FCC for fixed and
mobile broadband coverage data--and allow private entities as
well as State, local, and Tribal government entities to verify
coverage data submitted to the FCC.
Finally, we will consider H.R. 3162, the ``Broadband Data
Improvement Act of 2019,'' introduced by Representatives
McMorris Rodgers and O'Halleran. This bill would update the
FCC's mapping process, establish a public challenge process,
and require Federal agencies to use the newly created broadband
maps to determine the extent and availability of broadband in
the United States.
I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses and the
discussion about these important bills.
I yield the balance of my time to Congressman Loebsack.
Mr. Doyle. And at this time, I would like to yield the
balance of my time to Congressman Loebsack.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Chairman
Pallone, Ranking Members Walden and Latta, for holding this
legislative hearing today. And thank you, Chairman Doyle, for
giving me some of your time.
There is a lot of great stuff in the Broadband Development
Accuracy and Technological Availability Act or Broadband DATA
Act and we will be discussing that shortly. But I would first
like to extend an extra special thanks to Ranking Member Latta
for working with me to introduce the Broadband DATA Act. I have
long been an advocate for better maps and the needs of rural
America, and I don't know that I could have had a better ally,
quite honestly, than my friend from Ohio. Further, I thank
Ranking Member Latta for agreeing to continue working with me
on this bill as we look forward to an eventual subcommittee
markup. Hopefully that will happen sooner rather than later.
We have had some great conversations with stakeholders,
many of whom are represented on the panel today or in the
audience, and I believe there is still some potential for some
improvements between now and the markup. And just quickly, some
of the things that we might continue to work on: creating
additional clarity that this bill will keep data publicly
available; looking at the addition of an authorization of
funding; studying the use of USF funds for administrative
costs; exploring a GAO study or ongoing review process for what
source of information are informing the fabric; and considering
how we ensure we are not burdening small businesses.
I am very proud of the bill that Representative Latta and I
introduced and we will be talking about today and I think we
have a bill that is ready for markup and passage on the House
floor, but there might be some room for improvement and I am
willing to work with Congressman Latta going forward. And with
that I yield back my time.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes my friend Mr. Latta, the ranking member of the
subcommittee, for 5 minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could offer
before my time begins, I would like to thank you for your very
sincere words on remembering 9/11. I think everyone in this
room can remember where they were that day and the very impact
it has had on this Nation. And I totally agree with you that,
you know, the country came together that day. I was in the Ohio
legislature at the time, but I appreciate your words, and we
have to always remember what happened on that day. So thank
you.
I would like to welcome you to today's committee
legislative hearing on potential solutions to accurately map
broadband availability in rural America. I thank our witnesses
for joining us and providing their thoughts on this issue.
Extending the reach of broadband in rural Ohio and across
America is critical to ensure everyone can participate in the
digital economy.
Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
private sector has invested roughly $1.7 trillion in their
broadband networks. We should acknowledge this investment in
rural deployment; ensure that government-supported solutions
complement private capital instead of competing with it. This
is becoming increasingly important with some proposals calling
for as much as 150 billion in government funding to publicly
own and operate networks nationwide.
Today's legislative hearing features several bills
introduced by committee members who deeply understand the lack
of connectivity across their districts. Our constituents tell
us when they don't have service and it is through their voices
that I have heard and work with my colleagues on two of the
bipartisan bills that will be discussed today.
The Broadband MAPS Act, which I introduced with my very
good friend, the gentleman from Vermont, would help to verify
reported data through a public challenge process. And the
Broadband DATA Act, which I have developed with my good friend,
very good friend, the gentleman from Iowa, would take a
comprehensive approach to fixing our Nation's maps. I believe
that these bills will help build on the success of our previous
partnership to deploy broadband to rural farmlands through the
Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act.
As we look to the FCC's next round of Universal Service
Funding, it is vital that we work in a bipartisan manner to
ensure that there is a verified, accurate, and granular
foundation upon which we make these funding decisions. Congress
has an important oversight role to play in ensuring that we do
not repeat the mistakes of the past. With limited Federal
dollars to go around, we simply cannot afford to misidentify
areas as served which are truly unserved. Only with accurate
and granular data will we begin to close the last frontier of
the digital divide.
It is also critical that a robust, user-friendly challenge
process is in place to appropriately dispute potential
inaccuracies within the coverage maps. We must and have to get
the maps right, and in creating a pathway for the FCC to
consider additional broadband data will help achieve that goal.
As we move toward committee markups, I anticipate
continuing discussions with my friends across the aisle on
several outstanding issues such as striking the right balance
between protecting competitive, sensitive information while
providing transparency to consumers; ensuring that we can
leverage data the best we can across the Federal Government and
addressing the cost of the fabric and ongoing review of the
fabric's reach and effectiveness; and, finally, examining
unintended impacts of certain requirements on small businesses.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing and I am
committed to working with my colleagues on these issues through
regular order.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Latta follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert E. Latta
Welcome to today's subcommittee legislative hearing on
potential solutions to accurately map broadband availability in
rural America. I thank our witnesses for joining us and
providing their thoughts on this issue. Extending the reach of
broadband in rural Ohio, and across America, is critical to
ensure everyone can participate in the digital economy.
Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, the
private sector has invested roughly $1.7 trillion in their
broadband networks. We should acknowledge this investment in
rural deployment and ensure that government-supported solutions
complement private capital instead of competing with it. This
has become increasingly important with some proposals calling
for as much as $150 billion in government funding to publicly
own and operate networks nationwide.
Today's legislative hearing features several bills
introduced by committee members who deeply understand the lack
of connectivity across their districts. Our constituents tell
us when they don't have service and it's through their voices
that I've worked with my colleagues on two bipartisan bills
that will be discussed today. The Broadband MAPS Act, which I
introduced with Representative Welch, would help to verify
reported data through a public challenge process. And, the
Broadband DATA Act, which I've developed with Representative
Loebsack, would take a comprehensive approach to fixing our
Nation's maps. I'm hopeful that this bill will build on the
success our of previous partnership to deploy broadband to
rural farm lands through the Precision Agriculture Connectivity
Act.
As we look to the FCC's next round of Universal Service
Funding, it is vital that we work in a bipartisan way to make
sure there is a verified, accurate, and granular foundation
upon which we make these funding decisions. Congress has an
important oversight role to play in ensuring that we do not
repeat the mistakes of the past. With limited Federal dollars
to go around, we simply cannot afford to misidentify areas as
served which are truly unserved. Only with accurate and
granular data will we begin to close the last frontier of the
digital divide.
It is also critical that a robust, user-friendly challenge
process is in place to appropriately dispute potential
inaccuracies within the coverage maps. We must get the maps
right and creating a pathway for the Commission to consider
additional broadband data will help achieve that goal. As we
move toward committee markups, I anticipate continuing
discussions with my friends across the aisle on several
outstanding issues, such as:
striking the right balance between protecting
competitively sensitive information while providing
transparency to consumers;
ensuring we can leverage data the best we can
across the Federal Government;
addressing the cost of the fabric and the ongoing
review of the fabric's reach and effectiveness; and,
examining unintended impacts of certain
requirements on small businesses.
I thank the chairman for holding this hearing, and I'm
committed to working with my colleagues on these issues through
regular order. I yield the remainder of my time to Mr. Long.
Mr. Latta. And at this time, I would like to yield the rest
of my time to my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri.
Mr. Long. Thank you for yielding. And I would like to thank
the witnesses for being here, and I am happy to see that the
subcommittee is prioritizing the need to develop accurate
broadband maps.
For rural communities such as Missouri's 7th congressional
district, access to broadband is as scarce as hen's teeth. I
think we can all agree that mapping and graphically displaying
where broadband is and is not available at certain speeds is a
critical tool in closing the digital divide. As we move
forward, I believe it is important that the broadband mapping
update be paired with appropriate enforcement measures to
ensure that providers' submissions are complete and accurate,
which is why I am working with my colleagues on H.R. 4227 and
the MAPS Act.
In closing, I would like to thank Representative Dave
Loebsack of Iowa; the telecom ranking member, Bob Latta; and
Donald McEachin, Virginia, for their work on both the Broadband
DATA Act and MAPS Act, and I am committed to working together
toward the subcommittee markup and sticking the landing on this
important topic. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Long follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Billy Long
I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here, and I'm
happy to see the subcommittee is prioritizing the need to
develop accurate broadband maps.
For rural communities, such as those in Missouri's 7th
Congressional District, access to broadband is scarce. I think
we can all agree that mapping--graphically displaying where
broadband is and is not available at certain speeds--is a
critical tool in closing the digital divide.
As we move forward, I believe it is important that any
broadband mapping update be paired with appropriate enforcement
measures to ensure that providers' submissions are complete and
accurate--which is why I'm working with my colleagues on H.R.
4227, the MAPS Act.
In closing, I'd like to thank Representatives Dave Loebsack
(D-IA), Bob Latta (R-OH), and Donald McEachin (D-VA) for their
work on both theBroadband DATA Act and the MAPS Act and I am
committed to working together towards a subcommittee markup.
Mr. Latta. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Pallone, chairman of the full committee, for 5
minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
This year our committee is focused on improving
telecommunications services for consumers. In July, the House
overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Stopping Bad Robocalls
Act, and earlier this year the House passed legislation that
restores a free and open internet by reinstating net
neutrality. And now this subcommittee continues its work on a
range of pro-consumer issues including broadband deployment,
spectrum policy, supply chain security, and more.
Broadband mapping is a central component in each of these
discussions. Without good maps we can't correctly determine how
we should target funding for broadband access and adoption in
rural and urban areas. Without good maps we don't have enough
detail to assess competition or review mergers. And without
good maps we don't have a proper view of whether the FCC is
appropriately using its authority to benefit consumers.
It is not an exaggeration, in my opinion, to say this FCC's
terrible broadband data is its Achilles Heel. And the
statistics show just how bad this problem is. Free Press
recently discovered that one carrier alone was overstating its
deployment by 2.2 million consumers, throwing off the FCC's
entire estimate of unserved Americans. And CostQuest discovered
as part of its State pilot program that as many as 38 percent
of households in the study area might be unserved, but the FCC
may count them as served.
I think it is a huge problem. Fortunately, there is
bipartisan agreement on this subcommittee that the FCC's bad
maps need to be fixed. Last year, Representative Loebsack's
Rural Wireless Access Act was signed into law which aimed at
fixing the FCC's wireless data. Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't
yet taken the action required by law due to the ongoing
investigation into carriers intentionally submitting bad data
as part of the Mobility Fund II proceeding.
So it is clear that despite our past action more work needs
to be done, and I thank the many Members who have worked hard
to solve this problem.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.
This year, our committee has focused on improving
telecommunications services for consumers. In July, the House
overwhelmingly passed the bipartisan Stopping Bad Robocalls
Act, and earlier this year the House passed legislation that
restores a free and open internet by reinstating net
neutrality. And now this subcommittee continues its work on a
range of pro-consumer issues including broadband deployment,
spectrum policy, supply chain security, and more.
Broadband mapping is a central component in each of those
discussions. Without good maps, we cannot correctly determine
how we should target funding for broadband access and adoption
in rural and urban areas. Without good maps, we don't have
enough detail to assess competition or review mergers. And
without good maps, we don't have a proper view of whether the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appropriately using
its authority to benefit consumers.
It is not an exaggeration to say this FCC's terrible
broadband data is its Achilles heel.
And the statistics show just how bad this problem is. Free
Press recently discovered that one carrier alone was
overstating its deployment by 2.2 million consumers, throwing
off the FCC's entire estimate of unserved Americans.
CostQuest discovered as part of its State pilot program
that as many as 38 percent of households in the study area
might be unserved, but the FCC may count them as served.
This is a huge problem. Fortunately, there is bipartisan
agreement on this subcommittee that the FCC's bad maps need to
be fixed. Last year, Representative Loebsack's Rural Wireless
Access Act was signed into law, which aimed at fixing the FCC's
wireless data. Unfortunately, the FCC hasn't yet taken the
actions required by law due to the ongoing investigation into
carriers intentionally submitting bad data as part of the
Mobility Fund II proceeding.
It's clear that despite our past action more work needs to
be done. I thank the many Members who have worked hard to solve
this problem.
Mr. Pallone. I have 3 minutes. I would like to yield,
basically split it if I could, between Representative Lujan and
Representative O'Halleran. And I yield the minute and a half
now to Representative Lujan, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you to the chairman and to the ranking
members. When it comes to broadband access, according to the
FCC more than 21 million Americans lack access to high-speed,
fixed broadband. We know that is because of no connectivity or
unaffordability. And as the chairman pointed out, wireless maps
are also not accurate. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, they
are misleading. Because of the problems with how broadband data
is collected and mapped, no one really knows what the number
is. The problem most likely is significantly worse.
This is also a life and death issue. Ashlynne Mike was an
11-year-old Navajo girl who was kidnapped, raped, and murdered
in 2016. When Ashlynne went missing, the AMBER Alert systems
didn't work and there was no connectivity.
Mr. Chairman, we have to act. And I thank Chairman Doyle
and Congressman Bilirakis for partnering with me on the Map
Improvement Act, and I thank my colleagues for their related
efforts, and I yield back.
Mr. Pallone. I yield the rest of my time to Mr. O'Halleran.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today this
committee takes an important step towards helping rural America
connect to the internet. According to the FCC, only 40 percent
of rural Arizona is currently connected in the home at FCC
standard speeds. And even this data point likely overstates
broadband coverage due to the census block reporting regime.
Working together, I know this committee can right this
wrong. The legislation before us today including my and
Representative Rodgers bipartisan bill, the Broadband Data
Improvement Act, takes important steps to improve how the FCC
and Federal agencies identify where broadband coverage exists
and where it does not. Just last month, the FCC adopted
concepts from this bill to move away from census block
reporting and instead ask the internet providers to report
shapefiles of their current coverage offerings.
There is still more work to be done, and I am pleased to
see the bills before us today continue to move us towards
making the National Broadband Map as accurate as possible. Mr.
Chairman, I am excited to work in a bipartisan manner on this
important issue and, collectively, I know we can achieve our
mutual goal. And I yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Walden, ranking member of the full committee,
for 5 minutes for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON
Mr. Walden. Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
and thanks to all our witnesses for being here. Some familiar
faces back at the table. We appreciate your guidance and
counsel on these matters. I want to thank my colleague from
California, Ms. Eshoo. We worked a lot on these issues going
back over a number of years and thank you for your leadership.
And we are still not there, but we are working at it.
It is obviously an issue that I have cared about a lot over
the last couple of decades. And some of my friends will
remember when the stimulus bill was being voted through this
committee, I pled, begged, and even had an amendment to do the
mapping before the money went out, and unfortunately we came up
a few votes short on that. But maybe today we will begin this
process because the money needs to go where it is needed and
not overbilled and serve these markets that claim on the maps
that are already served, but yet they aren't.
And so, while the incentives have expanded broadband access
and made communicating and participating in a 21st century
economy easier than ever before, much work remains to connect
all Americans to high-speed internet broadband. I want to use
an example, Weston, Oregon, which is in Eastern Oregon in my
district. The mayor, Jennifer Spurgeon, describes their
internet service as being dial-up, just without the modem
noise, all right. And she told Chairman Pai that when he was
out a year or so ago, and I thought it was a pretty good line.
They frequently experience, obviously, sub-megabit speeds.
Sub-megabit. So you can imagine how surprised they were when
the FCC's map said they had 100-megabit service. And so they
were a little surprised because, yes, it is dial-up without the
modem noise.
As chairman of this committee, we worked in a bipartisan
fashion last Congress, many of you will recall, to enact
legislation to promote rural broadband and I am hopeful we can
build on that same spirit of bipartisanship. We included
provisions in the RAY BAUM'S Act to improve the methodology for
the collection of mobile service coverage to streamline access
to easements and rights-of-way and lease requests for deploying
communications equipment on Federal property--just for the
record, my district is over 50 percent Federal land, so trying
to do anything out there can be very time-consuming, costly,
and burdensome--and we wanted to improve efficiency of spectrum
allocation.
So as we continue our oversight of RAY BAUM'S Act as well
as our efforts to spur broadband deployment in rural America,
we must also ensure the Universal Service Program is
efficiently and effectively reaching truly unserved parts of
America. So I applaud Chairman Pai for his leadership on this
front, proposing a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund using cost-
efficient reverse auctions to better allocate limited financial
support from the Feds.
At the same time, we must ensure that the FCC is relying on
accurate and sufficiently granular information when making
these decisions. There are areas that we all know are unserved.
That is pretty obvious, and then of course we know of the
underserved areas.
But what we really need are really good maps that show us
for sure. The Senate has already moved a consensus bill through
their committee to address this issue, which I believe
represents an interesting path. The legislation before us today
rightly underscores the importance of this issue and the
attention it has earned among members of the committee.
There are a number of issues with which Republicans are
committed to working on with our counterparts, such as how we
are going to provide funding, how to balance publicly available
information, and how to improve data sources, and how we can
best leverage the data to the greatest extent possible across
the Federal Government. Other Members have also put forward
bills to address rural broadband challenges, and these
proposals deserve consideration as well and I expect we will
hear about some of those other bills today.
So again, Mr. Chairman, thanks for your leadership on this.
Thanks for holding this hearing today and we look forward to
working in a good bipartisan spirit to connect America and to
have maps that show the truth. We are all about facts and truth
here, so let's get 'er done. Thank you. I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome our witnesses to
this hearing on the importance of accurately mapping broadband
availability in America.
This is an issue I've been working on for two decades. Many
of you will remember that I advocated ``mapping before money''
for the Obama administration's stimulus act. Unfortunately, I
was voted down along party lines, but my warnings and those of
my Republican colleagues were borne out, and documented by news
outlets, such as Politico in an article entitled ``Wired to
Fail.''
While market incentives have expanded broadband access and
made communicating and participating in the 21st century
economy easier than ever before, much work remains to connect
all Americans to high speed broadband. It's past time to get
accurate mapping data.
Take the community of Weston in eastern Oregon as an
example. Mayor Jennifer Spurgeon describes their internet
service as being dialup, just without the modem noise. They
frequently experience sub-megabit speeds. You can imagine they
are surprised to learn they have 100-megabit service according
to the FCC's map.
Under my chairmanship, this committee worked in a
bipartisan fashion last Congress to enact legislation to
promote rural broadband, and I'm hopeful we can continue to
build on our past success.
We included provisions in RAY BAUM'S Act to improve the
methodology for the collection of mobile service coverage;
streamline access to easements, rights-of-way, and lease
requests for deploying communications equipment on Federal
property; and improve the efficiency of spectrum allocation.
As we continue our oversight of RAY BAUM'S Act as well as
our efforts to spur broadband deployment in rural America, we
must also ensure that the Universal Service program is
efficiently and effectively reaching truly unserved areas. I
applaud Chairman Pai for his leadership on this front,
proposing a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund using cost-efficient
reverse auctions to better allocate limited Federal support.
At the same time, we must ensure that the FCC is relying on
accurate and sufficiently granular information when making
these decisions. There are areas that we all know are unserved,
and sufficiently precise data will help better reach these
areas. Too often, the areas most in need of Federal broadband
support get lost in the rush to dole out government funds,
especially when program rules distort eligibility for some
areas that are already adequately served. Without the best
available data identifying parts of the country that need funds
most the vicious cycle of leaving rural Americans behind will
continue.
The Senate has already moved a consensus bill through their
committee to address this issue, which I believe represents an
interesting path. The legislation before us today rightly
underscores the importance of this issue and the attention it
has earned among members of the committee. There are a number
of issues which Republicans are committed to working on with
our counterparts--such as how we're going to provide funding,
how to balance publicly available information, how to improve
data sources, and how we can best leverage the data to the
greatest extent possible across the Federal Government.
Other Members have also 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.
Thank you again for holding this hearing today, I hope we
can continue working on a bipartisan basis through regular
order to get the job done.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman and he yields back.
The Chair would like remind Members that, pursuant to
committee rules, all Members' written opening statements will
be made part of the record.
I would now like to introduce our witnesses for today's
hearing: Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, chief executive officer, NTCA-
The Rural Broadband Association; Mr. James Assey, executive
vice president, NCTA-The Internet and Television Association;
Mr. Grant Spellmeyer, vice president, Federal Affairs and
Public Policy, U.S. Cellular; Ms. Dana Floberg, policy manager,
Free Press and Free Press Action; Mr. Jonathan Spalter,
president and CEO of the USTelecom Association; and Mr. James
Stegeman, president and CEO of CostQuest Associates.
We want to thank all of our witnesses for joining us today.
We look forward to your testimony. At this time, the Chair will
now recognize each witness for 5 minutes to provide their
opening statement.
But before we begin, I would like to explain our lighting
system. The light in front of you will initially be green at
the start of your opening statement. It will turn yellow when
you have 1 minute remaining, and please begin to wrap your
testimony at that point. The light will turn red when your time
expires.
And with that, Ms. Bloomfield, you are now recognized for 5
minutes.
STATEMENTS OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NTCA
09THE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION; JAMES M. ASSEY, EXECUTIVE
VICE PRESIDENT, NCTA 09THE INTERNET AND TELEVISION ASSOCIATION;
GRANT B. SPELLMEYER, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC
POLICY, UNITED STATES CELLULAR CORPORATION; DANA J. FLOBERG,
POLICY MANAGER, FREE PRESS AND FREE PRESS ACTION FUND; JONATHAN
SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, USTELECOM; AND
JAMES W. STEGEMAN, PRESIDENT, COSTQUEST ASSOCIATES
STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD
Ms. Bloomfield. Thank you very much, Chairman Doyle,
Ranking Member Latta, Mr. Walden, and members of the
subcommittee. It is so terrific that you all are gathered here
today coming back from recess to talk about something so
important like broadband mapping and the legislation you have
that is being considered by the subcommittee. I am Shirley
Bloomfield, CEO of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association. I have
850 community-based providers across the country in 46 States
that really serve the most sparsely populated parts of our
Nation.
A major challenge associated with making informed policy
and investment decisions regarding the deployment of broadband
in these rural sparse areas is whether there is or is not
service already, which is why the hearing is so important
today. But as it stands today as you have noted, the FCC
maintains the most accurate maps available for most areas, but
these mapping efforts are still frustratingly inconsistent and
unreliable.
We find it is not unusual the conditions that are actually
on the ground look very different from what appears on a
national map. And we know that the current FCC maps miss the
mark because they show an entire census area served when even
if it is just one location in the block that is served, meaning
that the entire census block becomes ineligible for support
funding.
This false positive can mean a single customer can result
in unserved customers miles away looking served on a map. In
other words, perhaps the most important significant problem we
have is granularity. Just last month the FCC did adopt an order
that will move away from the overly broad use of census blocks
for reporting broadband coverage and instead is now going to
require providers to submit shapefiles. And that will actually
be a good step forward.
At the same time, the FCC agrees with NTCA that we should
not stop at shapefiles alone, but we should continue to move
forward towards a uniform national dataset on top of which
carriers can report broadband availability to ensure that this
data can ultimately translate to which locations in our country
are served or are not. This movement offers great promise in
getting more granular maps, but it is really essential to
remember that granularity and accuracy are not the same thing.
In fact, there are a few key steps that must be taken to
promote accuracy separate and apart from granularity. First, we
have got to standardize reporting. We have got to make sure
that everybody reports on an apples-to-apples basis. That is
really critical. Specific technical standards should be
established and we must ensure that providers are not making
unreasonable or unrealistic assumptions about the capacities
that they actually have. We simply cannot rely on people
reporting advertised speeds across a wide swath of rural
America to be considered sufficient.
In addition to tracking speeds, NTCA submits that the FCC
should require reports specifically on the latency and the
usage limits applicable to broadband services. Latency and
usage limits can play a really critical role in the consumer
experience, particularly when you are doing something really
important like telemedicine or distance learning. And it would
be useful and not an incrementally difficult database to
gather.
But even if you do standardization up front to improve the
mapping inputs, all of that data in question still becomes
self-reported. It is self-reported data, so therefore you are
going to have to have a back-end validation process as well to
ensure that the process actually has integrity. So one of these
validation processes could be crowdsourcing, which allows users
to actually report what they are experiencing on the ground.
The crowdsource data must be implemented thoughtfully so that
it provides value and detects noteworthy trends rather than
creating confusion or burdens. Think of a heat map and what
that data tells you.
Another and perhaps more critical validation that the
Commission could utilize would be a robust challenge process
anytime that it is preparing to make significant funding or
other policy decisions. A challenge process would enable
providers and policymakers to do one last sanity check on the
accuracy of the map before decisions are actually reached.
A lot of broadband deployment since the most current map
which is out there, which is in 2017, and we want to make sure
that we are not doing overbuilding using Federal support
because that is not the best use of limited resources. Improve
the maps on the front end, validate on the back end. American
consumers deserve the integrity of that process.
Turning specifically to the role that Congress and this
committee can play, the legislation that you have under
consideration, we applaud the careful attention that
Representative Loebsack and Latta have placed in looking at a
couple of things. First, making immediate granularity
improvements in the form of shapefiles, very critical. Second,
moving towards a more granular location fabric in the future,
so we can really get a clearer picture. And third, calling
explicitly for standard development and challenge processes to
improve the data collection on both the front end and the back
end.
So due in large part to the leadership of this committee
and the subcommittee, small broadband providers like those in
NTCA's membership have really made great strides in reducing
the digital divide. But the job is far from done and you know
that. We have got to make sure that we can use these maps to
really figure out where broadband is lacking and sustain
broadband where it actually exists today.
So on behalf of NTCA and all the members that we represent,
we thank you sincerely for this hearing.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Assey for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES M. ASSEY
Mr. Assey. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Doyle, Ranking
Member Latta, members of the subcommittee. My name is James
Assey and I am the executive vice president of NCTA-The
Internet and Television Association. NCTA's members include the
Nation's largest providers of high-speed internet access as
well as small ISPs serving some of the most rural parts of the
country. We welcome today's hearing focused on several bills to
improve broadband mapping and look forward to working with you
on these issues.
Over the last 2 decades, our broadband maps have helped
chart the rapid growth and expansion of internet technology.
Indeed, following hundreds of billions of dollars invested by
the cable industry and other ISPs, high-speed internet service
has rapidly expanded to reach over 90 percent of American
households. Yet, despite such success there are still many
places today where broadband service is not available and
likely may not be without some form of government support.
Ideally, data from our broadband maps would help us
identify these coverage gaps. But, regrettably, while the tools
currently used offer some assistance in highlighting unserved
areas, our system at present is too crude to fully perform this
role with desired precision. This is because the FCC's map
today relies on information submitted on Form 477 that requires
providers to report deployment data at a census block level.
While such an approach helps us identify census blocks that
are wholly unserved, it also leads to some admitted mistakes as
the methodology counts an entire census block as served even if
just a single household in the block has access. Thankfully, we
can improve this process.
Indeed, the FCC has recently taken significant steps in
this direction adopting a proposal suggested by NCTA that will
require providers to submit polygon shapefiles or coverage maps
that more precisely reflect the areas where service can be
offered in the normal course of business. Importantly, these
rules will also permit further refinement through public,
crowdsourced feedback that will promote a more accurate picture
of broadband availability.
As the committee considers mapping legislation, we
encourage it to build on what the FCC has done and refrain from
actions that might delay the swift implementation of these
improvements. Consistent with this belief, we commend
Congressman Loebsack, Ranking Member Latta, as well as
Congresswoman McMorris Rodgers and O'Halleran for their
respective efforts on the Broadband DATA Act and the Broadband
Data Improvement Act. Each of these bills would ratify the
FCC's reliance on more granular shapefile submissions, secure a
more robust validation and challenge process, and improve
coordination among Federal agencies to track broadband funding
awards.
Beyond the clear benefits of shapefile reporting, we note
that some providers have suggested that the FCC create other
tools to complement an improved map of served and unserved
areas. Unlike shapefiles, the location fabric tool suggested by
USTelecom focuses not on the more granular identification of
unserved areas, but rather determining the precise location of
serviceable buildings within unserved areas.
Admittedly, such data could be helpful to bidding parties
in sizing the potential cost of serving unserved areas. But it
also raises a number of thorny implementation questions that
deserve to be fully explored on the public record. Indeed, the
FCC's pending further rulemaking tees up many of these issues
for consideration and offers a perfect venue for parties to
test private claims and consider the marginal costs and
benefits of creating a new location tool.
Finally, as we work to improve the accuracy of maps
identifying unserved areas, a process that has already taken 2
years at the FCC, we should avoid getting sidetracked by
attempts to insert extraneous data points into the
consideration of whether broadband service is or is not
available in a particular area.
The FCC already collects a wealth of data from broadband
providers and each type of data has value, but attempts to
graft new data requests onto mechanisms designed to address
broadband availability would only muddy the waters, increase
costs, and could delay funding to unserved areas. Instead, we
encourage you to appreciate the relevance of specific data to
its specific context so as to help identify the signal from the
noise and keep improvements moving forward as cleanly and
efficiently as possible.
At the end of the day we know that no map will be perfect
and that every map is only a snapshot of a world where
conditions constantly change. But with common purpose and
humility we can work together to meaningfully improve the
accuracy of our current maps in ways that are practical and
advance our national interest in bringing the benefits of
broadband to all.
Thank you for this opportunity and look forward to your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Assey follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Spellmeyer, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GRANT B. SPELLMEYER
Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Member
Latta, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on broadband mapping. Just for the
benefit of the Members assembled here today, I am the wireless
witness. I am going to talk about the wireless side of the
mapping. Most of my colleagues here at the table are going to
be speaking, you know, exclusively to the wireline side and I
want to try to avoid a little bit of confusion over some of the
nomenclature that you will hear.
With that said, U.S. Cellular fully supports legislative
efforts to improve broadband mapping including all of the bills
before this committee today. As you well know, this is not the
first congressional hearing on the topic of broadband mapping.
Thanks to this committee's continuing oversight efforts, it is
now universally accepted that the FCC's maps overstated
coverage in rural areas, sometimes significantly.
U.S. Cellular operates in 21 States across America
including many of those represented on this committee. Much of
our business involves finding ways to provide service in small
towns and on rural roads, areas where population density,
economic investment, and income levels are often well below
urban areas. We are constantly thinking about ways to address
the economics of providing vital broadband services to those
areas.
Accurately mapping mobile broadband coverage is difficult
because there are many factors such as terrain, foliage,
spectrum, and equipment deployed that affect how far a radio
signal travels and the signal quality a consumer actually
experiences on the ground. We believe the primary issue with
the FCC's one-time data collection for wireless is that some of
the key standards adopted were inconsistent with how carriers
actually design and operate their networks.
For U.S. Cellular, the Mobility Fund II challenge process
was an all but impossible task. Our challenges are documented
in a YouTube video that is referenced in my written testimony.
I have also attached to my written testimony example maps
demonstrating the abysmal results we found during drive testing
across this country.
My company invested over $2 million to bring those
challenges. We exhausted that budget. We ran out of time. We
succeeded in testing only a small fraction of the areas that we
believed to be inaccurate. To its credit, the FCC heard the
widespread complaints and late last year they thankfully
suspended that challenge process to review carrier submissions
and to consider next steps.
We are at a critical moment in time. Everyone agrees that
the maps are not good enough to conduct an auction. The
Broadband DATA Act will significantly improve broadband mapping
for mobile services by mandating standards that reflect how
wireless carriers actually engineer their networks today in
rural America. For example, the FCC's one-time data collection
used a cell edge probability of 80 percent and a cell loading
factor of 30 percent. Consistent with how we actually engineer
our networks today, this legislation would properly direct the
use of stronger factors. Ninety percent at the cell edge
probability and a 50 percent cell loading factor, reflective of
how busy the network actually is in a rural area.
By passing this legislation, Congress will also
significantly improve the challenge process. For a challenge
process to be effective, the areas of controversy should be
small so that the task of bringing challenges is actually
manageable for carriers and for the American public and so that
people believe that actually taking the time to participate is
worthwhile.
In closing, we must get this right because 10 years' worth
of Federal Universal Service funding is riding on this map. In
the fixed broadband world that is over $20 billion. In the
mobile broadband world, it is another $4\1/2\ billion. Every
study indicates that it is going to take significantly more
than $25 billion to achieve high-quality fixed and mobile
broadband throughout our Nation and that doesn't even begin to
account for the costs of rolling out 5G. We can't afford to
waste even a single dollar.
This committee should adopt the Broadband DATA Act and the
related legislation before it today so that we can get on with
the task at hand. Step one is fixing the maps and we begin that
process here today. Step two is even more significant; that is
actually filling in those maps. That is a broader challenge and
we look forward to working with the committee on that next.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spellmeyer follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Ms. Floberg, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DANA J. FLOBERG
Ms. Floberg. Chairman Doyle, Ranking Members Latta and
Walden, and subcommittee members, thank you for inviting me to
testify. I am here today representing Free Press Action, a
nonpartisan nonprofit with 1.4 million members.
Every community deserves the benefits of a robust,
affordable broadband connection and better broadband maps are
part of getting there, yet they aren't all we need to close the
digital divide. We support H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act,
and H.R. 4227, the MAPS Act, which improve the FCC's National
Broadband Map and the underlying Form 477 data by making it
more granular.
There are indeed opportunities to improve that data, though
the existing errors on wired broadband may be significantly
smaller than some stakeholders fear. In Virginia and Missouri,
CostQuest pilot found that a few hundred thousand additional
households might be unserved at what the FCC defines as
broadband speed. If we extrapolate that nationwide that could
mean potentially eight to nineteen million additional unserved
people. That is certainly an issue worth fixing, but the number
is far lower than some have speculated. Still there are some
key areas where wired deployment data could be improved.
Mobile maps on the other hand seem to deserve all the
criticism they get. Accurately assessing how a signal will
propagate presents unique challenges that can lead to widely
overstated wireless maps. We are optimistic about this
legislation's proposals to improve the granularity and accuracy
of both mobile and wired deployment data.
As we improve our broadband maps, however, we must not
sacrifice transparency. Both Congress and the Commission have
long recognized the value of ensuring public availability of
not just our broadband maps but also the underlying data. Free
Press and others have made extensive use of this data recently
shining a light on massive overreporting by a single small ISP.
This illustrates the value of keeping deployment information
publicly available.
And for a new challenge process to have any true corrective
power, outside parties must have access to this data. The
Broadband DATA Act goes a long way towards this goal, though we
would welcome amendments to clarify that deployment data should
not be considered confidential.
But improving the accuracy of broadband deployment maps
should not be the sole preoccupation of this subcommittee. At
their best, maps are useful because they help us get where we
are going. The National Broadband Map is meant to chart a
course for policymakers to close the digital divide. Federal
policy here has centered around people who can't subscribe to
broadband because it is not available where they live. But the
divide actually extends far beyond these completely unserved
communities.
Millions more people live in an area where broadband at the
FCC speed threshold is already deployed, yet they can't afford
to subscribe. In fact, only 42 percent of households making
less than $20,000 a year subscribe to wired home internet
compared to 82 percent of households with incomes above
$100,000. So even if these bills resulted in completely error-
free maps and even if those maps enabled complete national
broadband deployment, the digital divide would persist.
When it comes to broadband dreams, if you build it, they
will come, just isn't true. It is more like if you build it,
they will come, but only if they can afford to pay the price.
When families are forced to forego necessities like diapers and
food so they can afford to keep paying their internet bill,
when students are forced to research and write essays on mobile
phones because their parents can't afford a fixed connection,
when the unemployed are forced to hunt for jobs without the aid
of broadband because the price is just too high, we have an
affordability problem.
Discrimination also plays a key role. At every income
level, people of color are less likely to adopt broadband than
their white counterparts. Taken together, there is strong
evidence that lack of affordability, lack of competition, and
racial discrimination are keeping people offline. Better maps
will help target public investments to improve broadband
deployment and that is good. But your unserved constituents
can't use on-ramps to a digital superhighway they can't afford
to ride.
That is why while we support the bills in today's hearing,
we urge this subcommittee to see them as a stepping stone.
Improving the National Broadband Map is valuable so long as
policymakers stay true to the principle of ensuring publicly
available deployment data and remember that the digital divide
is much broader than maps or deployment alone.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Floberg follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Spalter, you have 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER
Mr. Spalter. Well, thank you, Chairman Doyle and Ranking
Member Latta and other distinguished members of this committee.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on behalf of
the members of USTelecom, large and small, who collectively
invest--who have invested far more and for far longer than any
other sector to connect rural America.
Today's hearing is appropriately focused on one of the most
critical questions before our country: Will every person in
this Nation have access to the foundation of the 21st century
American dream? Bridging the digital divide is not a partisan
issue, this is an American opportunity. And we are at a pivotal
moment where we have the tools ready and the bipartisan will to
ensure that we can identify and connect the unconnected
quickly, efficiently, and accurately.
We convene today to focus on one of the biggest barriers to
achieving our goal, the fact that our Nation still lacks a
single map that can accurately identify every home and business
that is currently unserved. If we can't see it, we can't fix
it. And that is why USTelecom launched the Broadband Mapping
Initiative and its proof of concept pilot program to show its
costs and benefits. We all understand the severe limitations of
the ``one served, all served'' census block approach that still
guides Federal investments in achieving universal broadband
service. In the past it did serve an important purpose helping
public-private efforts increase rural connectivity by more than
70 percent in the last decade.
But we have reached a plateau. The good news is that with
the advent of new data sources and processing capabilities and
the bipartisan support here in Congress and at the FCC, we can
now quickly and affordably account for every single served and
unserved location in the Nation and deliver near 20/20 vision
on the challenge before us.
Our mapping initiative brought together a diverse group of
partners who stepped up to the plate to forge a lasting
solution. We launched the pilot program in April. Our goal was
focused to identify the precise number and location of every
broadband serviceable location in the pilot States and
demonstrate the ability to scale the approach nationally using
modern data sources and with that foundation demonstrate how
providers can report broadband availability on top of that
foundational dataset, shapefile or otherwise.
It is now complete and the findings are crystal clear. Yes,
we can quickly and affordably map the gap and with a degree of
accuracy that makes the census block or shapefile only
approaches look like Pin the Tail on the Donkey. Equally
important, we can take this step concurrent with any new
broadband support programs such as the FCC's potentially game-
changing $20 billion Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, in a
manner that need not delay; indeed, would likely accelerate our
ability to finally and truly connect every part of our Nation.
This is a once-in-a-generation leap forward in identifying
the availability of broadband. We conducted the pilot in
Virginia and Missouri. We are now happy to be working with the
FCC and you to scale our approach nationwide, producing a
visibility into our country that no regulator or provider has
ever seen before. And our findings underscore the urgency of
this work, identifying a margin of error as high as 38 percent
under today's approaches. That is up to 445,000 homes marked
served that could in fact be unserved in our two pilot States
alone.
To argue that we need to choose between speed and
allocating scarce Federal dollars based only on existing
reporting approaches and accuracy in the form of better maps
later is a false choice. Our pilot proves we can do both, be
quick and be accurate. That is one of the reasons why USTelecom
strongly supports the bipartisan Broadband DATA Act and the
MAPS Act that mandates the proper ready-aim-fire sequencing of
mapping the gap and then targeting finite Federal resources
with a precision that has not been possible to date.
Critically, the legislation wisely pairs more granular
reporting on the one hand with more precise location
identification to close the digital divide once and for all.
Today should be a galvanizing moment. A unifying and
bipartisan sense of determination combined with innovative new
data capabilities put victory at long last within reach. But as
we approach the finish line, we cannot back down a single step
on how we define the win. Creating a complete database of all
broadband serviceable locations will provide policymakers a
necessary picture of where scarce taxpayer dollars should be
targeted and allow providers the best opportunity to invest
those resources officially and with greatest impact increasing
speed and minimizing waste. Most importantly, this new mapping
approach directed in the legislation before us today will
render visible and thus reachable the unseen and the unserved.
So thank you again for calling on us to raise our sights
and raise the bar when it comes to connecting all Americans. I
am really happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stegeman, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JAMES W. STEGEMAN
Mr. Stegeman. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Doyle,
Ranking Member Latta, and members of the subcommittee. My name
is James Stegeman. I am president of CostQuest Associates, and
it is an honor to be here again to discuss the status of
broadband in this country.
For the last 20 years, CostQuest has taken pride in
empowering the public and private sector with the ability to
make data-driven decisions with their most critical resources
and we seek to do the same for broadband mapping. While
CostQuest is known for its cost expertise, the integration of
geospatial design and data forms the underpinning of all our
studies, analysis, and models. As for my own experience, I am a
statistician by trade. And as Hal Varian, chief economist at
Google said in 2009, the sexy job in 10 years will be
statisticians. As you listen to my testimony today, 2019, I
will let you decide if Hal was right. Now let me jump to the
heart of my testimony.
A coalition of leading broadband innovators launched the
Broadband Mapping Initiative in April of 2019 to demonstrate
the feasibility of identifying the precise number and locations
of structures that require broadband access in Missouri and
Virginia. The resulting dataset known as the Broadband
Serviceable Location Fabric makes it possible to precisely map
and understand where broadband is available and more
importantly where it isn't.
Let me first walk through what the fabric represents. The
fabric is based upon parcel data, tax assessor data, building
polygons, addresses, and roads. Combined through our unique
geospatial process, we were able to identify the broadband
serviceable location on the vast majority of parcels. Where the
data were inconclusive, we sent records, 140,000 in total, out
to our partner firm at CrowdReason who managed a visual review
using a crowd labor pool.
Now, let me share some of our key findings. First, the
pilot was a success. Developing the fabric for two States
showed it can be done for the entire country.
Second, we can identify the unserved. For rural census
blocks in Missouri and Virginia that are considered served by
the current 477 guidelines, we found that 38 percent of those
locations were not reported as served by the carriers in the
study. This amounts to 445,000 homes and businesses.
Third, we found that location counts differ. The fabric
revealed that 48 percent of the location counts in rural census
blocks are different from current estimates used by the FCC.
This is meaningful when assessing the scope of the unserved
problem, determining build-out requirements, and ultimately how
much budget is needed to remedy.
Fourth, we found that the current datasets conflict with
the fabric. In our pilot, census blocks identified for an
address were different 28 percent of the time when comparing
the provider submitted location versus the fabric location.
Under today's 477, this could impact which census blocks are
reported. And, finally, reporting is enhanced. Regardless of
how the new FCC coverage reporting format is set up, the
quality and validity of the reporting will be improved using
location-specific data.
Now let me show you some slides of what the fabric reveals.
[Slides shown.]
In image 1, shown on the screen, I highlight what are
current 477-based understanding of broadband coverage would
look like in ten populated census blocks in rural Missouri.
Using the pilot's providers data, all the census blocks shaded
in blue would be reported as served. This is the extent of our
knowledge today. Nothing more, nothing less. We do not know if
all customers in the census blocks are served or if it is only
one.
In image 2, I demonstrate what polygons might look like
under the FCC's proposed coverage efforts where carriers will
file polygons that represent where they provide service. In
this image, my team created hypothetical polygons, the light-
blue bounded areas, based on carrier-provided latitude and
longitude coordinates. This is one approach to polygon
creation. There are others, some of which can be found in
Appendix D of my testimony.
In image 3, using the fabric I am now able to reveal within
these ten census blocks the extent of served locations, the
green dots and, more importantly, the unserved locations, the
red dots. Of all the benefits of the fabric, to me this most
clearly demonstrates why the fabric is needed. Specifically,
polygon reported, as I showed in the previous image, will only
improve our knowledge of what the served areas look like. The
fabric is needed to then provide knowledge of the unserved
locations.
In regard to next steps, can this fabric be generated
nationally? Unequivocally, yes. How much time will it take? We
estimate that, starting from where the pilot left off, it
should take no more than 5 to 8 months to stand up an initial
national fabric for testing, and 12 to 15 months to fully
complete. And what will it cost? I estimate the initial cost to
be between 8\1/2\ and 11 million dollars for a restricted-use
dataset.
That concludes my testimony. Thank you for your time. And I
would encourage you to see more in my written testimony for
additional details.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Mr. Stegeman's prepared statement and additional material
submitted for the record have been retained in committee files and also
are available at https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/
ByEvent.aspx?EventID=109914.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. That concluded our
openings. We are now going to move to Member questions. Each
Member will have 5 minutes to ask questions of our witnesses,
and I will start by recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
So, Ms. Floberg, tell me why is it so important that
broadband coverage data be accessible to the public and be
challengeable by third parties such as your organization?
Ms. Floberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think that we have seen and we have heard today a lot
about the importance of ensuring that there is a check on
whatever mapping system we implement, some ability for the
public, for researchers to be able to look at the underlying
data and say this reflects reality or this does not reflect
reality. This is something that Free Press has done even very
recently.
We found an error in the FCC's Form 477 data where small
ISP called BarrierFree had mistakenly reported serving 20
percent of the U.S. population with fiber to the home speeds in
less than 6 months' time. In reality, they served a much, much
smaller percentage of the population and that error actually
threw off the FCC's entire analysis of how much broadband had
been deployed, how much fiber had been deployed in that past 6
months.
So making sure that that data is available for
organizations such as Free Press, but also for members of the
public to say the map says I am served by this many providers;
that I am served by these speed tiers and I am not, is really,
really important.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
Mr. Stegeman, it is very interesting testimony. We know
the FCC currently has about $20 billion for Universal Service
programs that has not been awarded and then it is going to be
used to fund a broadband buildout over the next 10 years. So
let me--I don't know if it is possible, but you were able to do
pilots on two States, Virginia and Missouri. And it may be a
reach, but if you extrapolated your findings in those two
States to the rest of the country, who across the country would
be left behind if the FCC didn't look before it leaped over the
next 10 years of broadband deployment?
Mr. Stegeman. Thank you for that question. In our study in
Missouri and Virginia, we were able to unveil or reveal that
there are unserved locations in what people considered served
census blocks before. We were also able to identify that if
carriers use address tools to identify which census blocks the
report has served, those census blocks may be incorrect that
they identify.
So what we found in the study is that there is an
underreporting of the unserved issue in the country, and there
are many studies out there. I think Dr. George Ford put out a
study that I think he estimated the unserved at potentially
four million. We have seen estimates as high as in the ten
millions. It is hard for me to project forward for the Nation,
but I know it is in the millions. I just don't know the exact
count at this time.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you very much. You know, there has been a
lot of discussion about how overstated and unreliable coverage
maps hurt rural areas, but I don't have to drive very far
outside of Pittsburgh before I experience dead zones and
despite the map saying that I am covered.
Mr. Spellmeyer, how does this issue affect consumers in
urban and suburban areas as well as rural areas?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, Mr. Chairman, it is certainly an
issue, I think, for all Americans. You know, you can get in
your car right here and drive 5 miles to the Potomac River, and
there are some areas along there that you don't want to end up
in trouble because there is no cell phone coverage and you
can't stop to figure out, oh gee, which carrier's phone do I
need to take along on my trip to Rock Creek Park.
So we have got to fix it. I traveled down Highway 1 in
California this year. I was shocked to see the expansive
stretches where there is no coverage. The same thing is true--I
have been to Weston, Oregon, that Chairman Walden mentioned
earlier. We have got to fix it both for the people in the rural
areas and the people that get in their car and drive 10 miles.
Mr. Doyle. Yes, thank you very much. Boy, I will tell you
we have been talking about this issue for as long as I can
remember. Ms. Eshoo told me we have been talking about this
since they made the very first maps when the Earth was flat.
And it seems to me that we have got to get moving on this. I
want to thank you all for your questions, your testimony.
So the Chair is now going to recognize Mr. Latta, the
subcommittee ranking member for 5 minutes to ask questions.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you
very much to our witnesses. And that is a long time for those
maps, but that is why we are here today and, really, we thank
you all for your testimony.
Mr. Spalter, if I could start with you. USTelecom's fabric
building pilot appears to have been a productive start to
identify which locations in rural areas need broadband and show
gaps in the current data collection process. Building on that
experience, I want to focus on where the rubber meets the road.
Would you walk us through the expected timeline under your
proposal from updating the collection of data for the broadband
map to actually using the data to more accurately guide the
Universal Service funding?
Mr. Spalter. Thanks for that great question. As Mr.
Stegeman pointed out, it is possible to have a fully nationally
realized, scalable, universal, harmonized, deduplicated map in
12 to 15 months. His estimates, and I think they are accurate
in his project management capacity, that we can actually even
deploy maps sooner than that, that will be scalable and usable.
The important point, Congressman, is that once we actually
can put pen down on this map and we can do it quickly, that can
become the basis for guiding any new dollars going out the door
for any broadband support program, including the Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund, to ensure that every taxpayer dollar is being
used to its best and highest purpose as accurately as possible
to reach the truly unserved in this country. This is attainable
and we can do it.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
If I could follow up, Mr. Assey, if I could ask you, when
it comes to the actual data used to create the map, how helpful
are the quality of service metrics in shaping our picture of
broadband availability driving the funding decisions these maps
are designed to determine?
Mr. Assey. Congressman, thank you for the question. The
broadband map is a map that reflects coverage, so it is really
aimed at focusing where networks are and where they are not.
The quality of service, really, I think only relates to the
speed tiers and the data requests that the FCC makes, so it is
really kind of a separate issue. And one of the reasons we are
so focused on the shapefile portion of improving the map is
because we believe that will offer the quickest improvement on
a national scale in the quickest amount of time.
Mr. Latta. Thank you.
Mr. Spellmeyer, how can Congress ensure that there is a
meaningful challenge process to validate data while also
protecting the proprietary data that providers and third-party
vendors and consumers may supply through a commission-developed
process to inform on the map?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Congressman, your legislation and much of
the legislation in front of us today outlines some stronger
parameters for how the FCC would run a challenge process at
least on the wireless side. We think that is needed.
In terms of confidentiality of data, there are certain
inputs to a wireless map that may be confidential, but beyond
that I believe it is actually important that the public see the
map and understand what the maps look like. One of the biggest
mistakes the FCC made last time was not to allow the American
public to participate in the challenge process. This
legislation gets that right, but it is really hard for a
consumer to go out and participate in the challenge process if
they don't understand who is claiming coverage where.
So I think it is essential that we make sure that that
information gets out to the public while protecting--there are
certain proprietary inputs like the, you know, the height on a
tower where someone has got a particular antenna that you might
want to keep confidential, but beyond that the rest of it
should come forward.
Mr. Latta. OK, thank you.
Mr. Assey, how do shapefiles from different providers
factor into this endeavor and what is the benefit?
Mr. Assey. Well, the benefit is, you know, we are currently
living with a system that is not based upon how providers
actually build their networks. We are essentially retrofitting
data into a census block map. Shapefiles will allow providers
to actually draw the shape and the contours of where they offer
service.
And whether or not you are a cable provider or a fixed
wireless provider or a telco, you will be able to provide that
data and essentially layer it on top of the national map so
that we can actually identify in a more granular way those
places that are being served with broadband today and we can,
more importantly, identify those places that are yet to get
service.
Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for today's hearing, thanks
to our witnesses, and I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. McNerney for 5 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman and I thank the
witnesses. Very informative, kind of exciting testimony this
morning, so I am looking forward to seeing progress on this
issue. In my district I know there are wide areas that are--we
just don't have enough data to know if people are being served
and in fact I know people that aren't served, so this is an
important issue.
Ms. Bloomfield, in your testimony you discussed the
importance of the challenge process and crowdsourcing, I am
kind of following up on Mr. Latta. Could you tell us more about
how these methods will help obtain reliable results? Just
explain the process a little bit.
Ms. Bloomfield. Sure, absolutely, and I appreciate the
question. So, you know, with the better mapping, you know, if
you start with the shapefiles that the FCC has talked about,
you will start to get more granular data so we will be able to
start to see a better picture. But remembering it is still
self-reported, you know, so how do you make sure that you are
validating what people are reporting?
So if a carrier is reporting something, what we want to
know is on the ground that is what is really happening. So that
is the advantage of things like crowdsourcing where you can
basically allow consumers on the ground to get some feedback
and say yes, we are seeing this or we are not seeing this. The
one thing I could caution again is, you know, if you asked me
today what speed I am getting at my house, I am not sure I
could give you the answer.
So I think it is the ability to whoever is handling that
information to see what trends, where are you seeing spaces
really bright up that there clearly are problems, there clearly
are issues. So again, it is that ability to take that accuracy
and make sure that we can also be granular at the same time.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Ms. Floberg, in your testimony you raise the issue of
compatibility with historical 477 data. Can you elaborate on
that and its importance? Do you have any recommendations that
would follow?
Ms. Floberg. Sure. Thank you so much for that question. We
do believe that it is really important to make sure that even
as we make the maps more granular and more accurate that we
preserve the ability to compare new deployment data to the old
deployment data so that we can see trends where they are
happening. This also gives us the opportunity to compare
deployment data with granular data from the Census Bureau about
demographics to figure out who is being served and who isn't
being served.
So maintaining some ability to not just have this granular
data about who is unserved, but to still be able to aggregate
that to the census block level will preserve an abundance of
rich analysis that we can move forward with. I think the
Broadband DATA Act does have some great language about that
about ensuring backwards compatibility, so really it just comes
down to making sure that that data is available to the public
and available in a way that it is easy to make those
comparisons and do that analysis.
Mr. McNerney. Is there also a thing about how trends, what
the trends are, or is that like too far in the future for now
what the trends in terms of coverage is?
Ms. Floberg. I think that definitely maintaining that
compatibility is how we would be able to see trends. It would
also be a way to see how these new more granular sets of data
have potentially improved, how we keep track of who is unserved
and who isn't. It would give us, I think, the ability to see
much better trends in deployment as we move forward with better
maps.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Stegeman, we have heard about the importance of making
broadband mapping data publicly available. I want to make sure
that the data being collected will also be accessible and
usable by households, small businesses, and local governments
across my district in particular. Do you foresee any challenges
in making that possible?
Mr. Stegeman. There are challenges in creating the fabric
dataset. If we go a proprietary route we can get to the answer,
but quicker with less money because the data quality is better.
The proprietary route doesn't mean it is not viewable by the
public. What the proprietary data means is it is restricted in
use that someone cannot download the entire country of all the
data. They can't download full States, but it is usable by
companies, by the public to do that.
The alternative route is to use kind of an open dataset,
open source datasets that are out there that we can initiate
the process. We actually did that in Missouri to see how well
it would work. It will work, but it will require additional
visual verification because the records will not match in sync
as well as the proprietary data. That public, open dataset can
be released and used by the public the same as the proprietary
but it would have less restrictions on use.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I just--I am going to have to close
here or I am going to be gaveled out.
But, Mr. Stegeman and Mr. Spalter, you made it sound like
creating these maps as accurate, granular, and with low latency
is something that we can actually achieve in a fairly short
time, so I hope you are right.
Mr. Spalter. I am confident that we are.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes my friend, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Olson. I thank the chair and welcome our six witnesses.
I would like to start out with a point of personal privilege.
Everybody here that September 11th is not just a day to
remember what happened 18 years ago in New York, in DC, and
Pennsylvania; 7 years ago in Benghazi, four Americans were
killed, Ambassador Smith and three others, they were overrun by
terrorists. So, please, later today, pray for their lives as
well as lives that were lost here, in New York, and
Pennsylvania on 9/11.
Now I got to open by saying Texas 22 is a big suburb. We
have a lot of broadband access; that is not our problem. But my
State is huge, and Texas has some real issues that you guys
have brought up. For example, Mr. Hurd is not here, Will Hurd,
but he has one county called Loving County, has one small town,
population of 134 people. I guarantee you if one person on that
map has access or reports access, the whole city has access and
that is just not true.
So my questions come from my role as the cochair of the
House Artificial Intelligence Caucus, the AI Caucus. I am a
cochair with Dr. McNerney over there. And Form 477, the primary
source the FCC uses to assess access for broadband, et cetera,
et cetera, has some real problems that you all brought up
today. I mean there are false positives, coverage when there is
not coverage, the maps, et cetera, et cetera.
I would like to ask you all to put on your thinking caps
and put on that AI cap. How can AI help resolve these problems
you have going forward?
Ms. Bloomfield, you are up first, ma'am. Any ideas?
Ms. Bloomfield. I knew that was going to be the downside of
sitting here, right?
So I think, you know, when you think about AI and you think
about applications, for example, I have a company down on the
border of Mexico that is in Texas that actually uses a lot of
AI and drone technology to do border security. So thinking
about, you know, first of all, you have to have the access and
then you have got to think about what are the applications that
you can enable particularly in an area where you have got a
wide swath of land.
So I think there is--I think we are just starting to
explore. Thankfully, this isn't a privacy hearing, but I think
there are a lot of different applications. But first, you have
to have the connectivity to be enable the cool things that you
want to be able to do.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Mr. Assey?
Mr. Assey. Yes, Congressman. I think technology, whether it
is AI or other technology, certainly plays a large role in
helping us fill the gaps and provide service to unserved
America whether that is through the technology that cable
companies offer or the technology that other broadband
providers offer. But first thing we have to do is really get
that accurate picture of what we are up against and what the
challenges of geography and low density are providing.
Mr. Olson. I think AI can help with that.
And, Mr. Spellmeyer, for the mobile phones, how about AI?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, Congressman, I am no artificial
intelligence expert, but--and I don't know that we need to get
to artificial intelligence. But as I sit here reflecting on the
wireless side, I think there are already several players out
there in the ecosystem that have an awful lot of data,
actually, about coverage and those companies that come to mind
are Apple and Google. They track a significant amount that goes
on up and down on every handset, every day. They know that I am
sitting here on the third floor of the Rayburn Building right
now. And we should try to find ways to leverage that down the
road to improve coverage data.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Ms. Floberg?
Ms. Floberg. I don't think we can suggest any particular AI
applications, but I do think that making sure that the
underlying deployment data is publicly available will make sure
that others can think of what those innovative ideas might be.
Mr. Olson. Perfect. Thank you.
Mr. Spalter?
Mr. Spalter. One of the critical issues about the
deployment of AI in the future is that it will be enabled and
enhanced and turbocharged when we actually can deploy
nationally 5G technologies. And for too long, 5G technologies
have been considered to be the province only of our urban and
suburban residents and enterprises.
If we can map broadband accurately, granularly, with the
process and methodology we are suggesting, pinpointing where
there is, in fact, unserved locations and couple that with
other reporting technologies and provide that to programs like
the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund, that will mean we will be
able to pull fiber to places like your communities in Mr.
Hurd's district and your district that then can use fiber-
enabled resources to empower rural communities from benefiting
from 5G, and with 5G use the cloud scale algorithms, machine
learning, and other data processes that are enabled and will
enable artificial intelligence applications for health care,
for education, from advanced manufacturing, for all kinds of
things.
But we have to start with accurate mapping and that is why
we have stood up our pilot program and wanted to be integrated
into the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund.
Mr. Olson. Thank you.
Mr. Stegeman?
Mr. Stegeman. Yes, I am excited to say that we actually use
machine learning and artificial intelligence on the fabric. If
you think about it, we will have over a terabyte worth of data,
170 million building locations, 150 million parcels and trying
to weed through that information intelligently it will be a
struggle. And we have incorporated machine learning and other
efforts to actually be able to do that successfully.
Mr. Olson. And that is why I saved you for last.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Pallone, for
5 minutes.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
Since Superstorm Sandy ravaged my district, I have been
very focused on network resiliency. And I know there are so
many uses for granular broadband data, but building a national
location fabric could be quite helpful in disaster response.
Mr. Floberg, what do you think about that if I could ask
you? Ms. Floberg, I am sorry.
Ms. Floberg. That is quite all right. I think that there is
definitely potential here. The kind of fabric that we have
heard CostQuest and others describe could potentially be very
useful for making sure that we have the best and most accurate
data about when there are these outages in response to natural
disasters; where people are experiencing those outages; where
folks are who might need help; who might need resources
directed by our disaster response.
How we do that and how we ensure that we get the
appropriate data from carriers about where those outages are
and where there are problems with network resiliency that need
to be resolved, I think, is an open question, but we can
certainly see the potential in having that kind of granular
data about where folks are who are going to need assistance.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
And, Mr. Spellmeyer, do you think better wireless maps will
be useful for public safety in the wake of disasters?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I do, Mr. Chairman. Without that
information you are flying blind. The wireless industry works
pretty hard in advance of and during disasters to try to stay
on top of outages and to communicate with public safety. And we
have made that as an industry an even greater priority since
Hurricane Sandy, thanks to your leadership.
You know, we know instantly because of remote monitoring
when a cell tower goes down. And if we are in a hurricane
situation, we have an obligation to report that to the FCC that
same day. And we do that and we try to regularly communicate
with public safety to leverage that information, but certainly
continuing to improve these maps and to make sure that
everybody understands who claims to have coverage where will
help.
Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks.
I think the committee should be very proud of the bills
before us today. And in particular I believe that including
metrics for quality of service is a valuable addition. And once
this legislation passes, I hope we can build on the progress we
have made to give consumers more insight into the quality of
the service that broadband providers offer.
But if I could just ask the entire panel, just a yes or no,
would each of you commit to working with the committee to build
on the concept of quality of service with the aim of helping to
better inform consumers? And again, a simple yes or no, if I
could start with Ms. Bloomfield.
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely.
Mr. Pallone. Mr. Assey?
Mr. Assey. Yes.
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes.
Ms. Floberg. Absolutely.
Mr. Spalter. One hundred percent.
Mr. Stegeman. We would love to.
Mr. Pallone. All right, thank you.
Now let me go back to Ms. Floberg. Significantly, in your
written testimony you note that the data that goes into the
FCC's broadband maps needs to be publicly available and I
agree. In my opinion, this data must be available for
researchers who can double check the FCC's analysis, local
governments who can check the accuracy of the data, and for
consumers who can use it to understand better what is
available.
So, Ms. Floberg, from your perspective, considering all
Free Press' analysis of broadband deployment data, what would
happen if the FCC kept this information to itself?
Ms. Floberg. Well, I think, first and foremost, it would
absolutely throw a wrench in the works for having any sort of
functional challenge process to get a sense of whether or not
the data that is being reported from carriers is accurate, but
I think it would also have tremendous other impacts. Free Press
has used the deployment data to assess where there are racial
disparities in broadband deployment. That would be much more
difficult without that kind of deployment information. We have
also used it to assess the accuracy of claims about investments
stalling out in the wake of the 2015 Open Internet Order.
So there are all sorts of different kinds of analysis
related to broadband deployment that would become much, much
more difficult for researchers as well as for members of the
public simply to gauge whether or not the maps are correct that
they have service or that they don't have service.
Mr. Pallone. Thank you.
And then my last question is, Mr. Spalter, I also know
quickly fixing the FCC's maps is important. Do you think H.R.
4229 strikes the right balance in that regard?
Mr. Spalter. We do. And we commend this body and this
legislation in particular for advancing three principles. One
is that we actually need to prioritize mapping as part of any
effort to move forward in accurately determining where unserved
American residences and enterprises are. Second, that there is
a need for speed in doing so. And third, that it provides
bidders, providers, ultimately, who will be seeking these
resources to deliver these services the ability to do so with
pinpoint accuracy, limiting the risk that we are wasting
taxpayer dollars, and speeding up our efforts to actually
deploy broadband to unserved Americans so that we can close the
digital divide once and for all.
Mr. Pallone. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Kinzinger for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to you all
for being here.
Accurate broadband mapping is incredibly important so that
industry and government can work to provide internet service to
un- and underserved areas. It has been one of the bigger goals
of this committee and it is the only goal of the Rural
Broadband Caucus in which I am proud to serve as a cochair.
Billions of dollars have been invested by the government and
industry alike and substantial improvements have been made, but
there are too many Americans without adequate broadband
service, and the fact that there are Americans here in 2019
with no service at all is just beyond me.
There is near-universal agreement that the current mapping
methodology is outdated, to put it nicely. We have heard
arguments today about not only the maps and the data, but the
need for government to quickly disburse funds to continue the
buildout. I just want to state that the speed at which funding
goes out should be a goal, but it can't be the only goal. For
what seems like forever now, government, industry, and Main
Street have been complaining about the inaccuracy of broadband
maps. Should we move quickly here? Yes, absolutely.
But given the complexities of the issue and the
difficulties striking the right balance, we may not have a
similar opportunity to do this again for some time. So I would
like to move quickly, but it is vital that we get it right so
we aren't spending billions of dollars with no effective
metrics or meaningful oversight. The most important goal must
be to get service to those Americans that have never had it at
their homes, their business, or their schools. There is a
balance to be struck here and I am optimistic that we can find
it.
So, first question, for Mr. Spalter. It is encouraging the
USTelecom received input from several wireline providers during
its pilot program. It is clear, however, that more partnerships
are needed from all fixed and wireless providers. How does
USTelecom propose that industry could partner and coordinate in
developing this data and would regularly help private industry
working groups in coordination with policymakers factor into
building that database?
Mr. Spalter. We were very privileged and lucky that a
number of innovative wireline providers stood up and stood tall
to work with us in advancing this idea that we can deliver more
accurate data not only of served broadband locations but
unserved locations so that we could present to you and to the
FCC and to any government agency the clarity that is required
to guide our future broadband support programs.
I am disappointed that not all wireline providers decided
to join with us in our effort, particularly the cable industry;
however, we know that there are some very utilizable datasets
that we have available that are immediately available once we
complete the map to deploy not only, finally, a National
Broadband Map, but broadband support programs like the Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund that will be effective.
In terms of continued partnership, we want to work not only
with all parts of government in a harmonized way, but we
commend the legislation that is before this body to ensure that
there is actually coordination amongst and between government
agencies in utilizing maps, and we as an industry are very
eager and ready to work with all parts of government from the
FCC to the Commerce Department, the Agriculture Department, and
beyond to advance these maps, including at the State and local
level as well. This is all achievable.
And we need to understand that if we are going to design
and deploy effective broadband support programs, they need to
have an undergirding, foundational dataset upon which all kinds
of different reporting mechanisms, including shapefiles, can be
added in order for us to get the job done of closing the
digital divide.
Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you.
Mr. Assey, how do cable providers propose to combine
efforts with the wireline and wireless industries to build on
the recent pilot program?
Mr. Assey. Well, I think, first and foremost, as I
mentioned in my testimony, we are focused on delivering the
shapefiles that are going to accurately show the places that
are already served. The important thing when we are talking
about serving unserved America relative to the fabric and the
buildings that may exist in unserved America, that to me goes
to how much it is going to cost to the would-be bidders to
extend service there.
So we believe that actually making progress and getting the
shapefiles done, out there, and located on the map will give us
a better sense of the area as we need to focus on and allow us
to come up with new strategies to actually devote the scarce
resources that we do have where they are most needed.
Mr. Kinzinger. So from your perspective, does the fabric
tell us which locations have access to broadband?
Mr. Assey. The fabric doesn't. The shapefiles will tell us
and the process that we are going to create to have providers
actually demonstrate this is where we believe we can serve. And
we have a verification process and a public crowdsourcing
process to make sure that we get that right and then we can
focus our energies on making sure we spend the dollars to hook
up more people to broadband in unserved America.
Mr. Kinzinger. Well, I have more questions. But time flies
when you are having fun, so I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you all.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Loebsack for 5 minutes.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I do want to say
again, thank you to Mr. Latta for helping on the bill that we
are offering today. We have worked together really well. And I
want to thank the Members who have been here longer than I have
been. Some of the folks' names were mentioned already, too many
for me to repeat. But I have only been on this committee now
for 5 years. I am in my fifth year; I am still kind of a
newbie.
And I won't be here after this term any longer in the
Congress, so there is a little urgency on my part to get this
done before I get out of here so that the people in my
district, people of Iowa, the people of the country can benefit
from better maps. I have often said garbage in is garbage out
and that is the way it has been in the past, unfortunately, the
way these maps have been constructed and then the potential
uses of those maps too.
A couple of other quick points, Ms. Floberg, I want to
thank you for talking about the affordability issue. That is
really, really critical and I really appreciate that. And, you
know, affordability is, we talk about a rural-urban divide and
most of us are talking about rural access today. But
affordability is not just a rural or urban issue, it is a
national issue, and so thank you.
And, Mr. Spalter, I hope you don't ever come to my State to
run against any of my friends because you are awfully damn
inspirational and thank you very much for your remarks today.
Not to take away from anybody else, but this has really been a
great panel, I have to say.
I do want to just ask, first of all, Mr. Assey, a quick
question about crowdsourcing, but before I do that, I have to
repeat the experience that we have had in my district with
Chariton Valley Electric Cooperative. They have missed out on
getting funding for building out. They are an electric
cooperative, but they wanted to build out broadband and the
data indicated that there really wasn't any need for it and it
was based on census data and what have you. Absolutely
horrendous decision on the part of the FCC to deny them
funding.
If you would, Mr. Assey, I know that you have an interest
in crowdsource data.
Mr. Assey. Sure.
Mr. Loebsack. Could you speak to that issue?
Mr. Assey. Yes. I think crowdsourcing is a very interesting
and innovative idea for us to improve the accuracy of the data
that we are going to get it. Under the current mechanism for
reporting it is basically a very binary choice, you are either
providing service somewhere in the census block or you are not.
But we are now going to move to a regime in which providers
themselves are going to have to draw shapes that are going to
outline where they can provide service and every point along
that line, along the edge of that shape is potentially a
contestable question.
So we are going to do our dead level best and work in good
faith to provide data that is accurate and complete, but
obviously people who live there who have boots on the ground,
they often know some things that we don't know here. So we
really are going to have to work collaboratively to get this
right.
Mr. Loebsack. All right. Thank you so much. I appreciate
that.
Ms. Floberg, can you explain why knowing quality of service
of available broadband is important for consumers? Can you talk
about that a little bit?
Ms. Floberg. Absolutely. I mean some of the quality of
service metrics are necessary simply for making the maps in
determining whether or not service in a particular area counts
as broadband according to the FCC's speed threshold, which
currently defines that as 25 megabits per second downstream and
3 megabits per second upstream.
Mr. Loebsack. Right.
Ms. Floberg. We are encouraged to see that that is
preserved in the Broadband DATA Act as well as the inclusion of
latency which is useful especially for particular applications
that consumers may want to use. And we think that there is a
lot of benefit to additional quality of service metrics, usage
limits, additionally possible pricing data, and we definitely
appreciate that the language of this bill does not in any way
prohibit the FCC from expanding on the definition and
collecting data that it decides that it needs in the future.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much.
Ms. Bloomfield, I have a related follow-up question for
you. When mapping broadband why is it important to consider
latency and not only speed?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So you think about the consumer
experience, when we go online and the things we anticipate
doing and the uses that we have. So when you think about
latency, again, you know, you are in a rural community, you are
using telehealth, you certainly don't want latency if somebody
is actually doing any kind of procedure on you.
So you think about or distance learning, you know, children
actually using the technology in the classroom and what that
jitter and that buffering does to that experience for those
kids in the classroom. So again, they are all part of the
consumer experience and they are not that difficult to gather
that data as well, so it should absolutely be included.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you so much. And I do have a follow-up
question I will submit for the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
to Mr. Spellmeyer. Thank you.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The gentleman's time is expired. The
Chair now recognizes Mr. Johnson for 5 minutes.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Assey, the bills before us today all focus on solving
the mapping challenge at the FCC, but for the last several
appropriation cycles Congress has given NTIA money to fund a
modernization of the National Broadband Map. So do you see an
ongoing role for NTIA in the mapping context?
Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think all
government agencies have a piece of this pie, whether it is
NTIA, the FCC, or even the Department of Agriculture. And one
of the things that is considered in this legislation that I
think is extremely helpful is Congress' imprimatur and
direction to the Federal agencies to really coordinate and work
together. And the creation of a better map through the use of
shapefiles will give us the background that we need to ensure
that all of the agencies, no matter which corner of the Federal
Government they are operating in, are operating off the same
playbook.
Mr. Johnson. Well, I am sure many of my colleagues are
experiencing the same thing, especially those that live in
rural areas when we go back home. You know, when I was first
elected in 2010, one of the first things we started talking
about in early 2011 was the need for an accurate broadband map.
Here we are in 2019 and we are still talking about the need for
an accurate broadband map. The American people are getting
frustrated with the lack of progress on this. We have spent a
lot of money to try and solve this problem.
I agree with you that it is going to take all of us working
together, but at the end of the day I am a mule farming
plowboy, you know, and I think we need to go back to the basics
and be simple. It ain't that tough to figure out who has got
broadband and who doesn't have broadband. I can't believe it is
this dadburn complicated, but we need to figure it out.
Ms. Floberg, just as coverage data may overstate the
availability of service in some areas, consumers can experience
a difference between the speed of the service they are
advertised and the speed of the service they actually receive.
Would it be helpful for consumers if the FCC collected data on
actual speeds instead of or in addition to advertised speeds?
Ms. Floberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. I
think that, absolutely, actual speeds are very valuable
information for consumers to know, for policymakers to know,
and could certainly be a part of this data collection. There
currently is a project measuring broadband for America that
does collect some of this data and this is part of why one of
our main concerns is making sure that the data collected
through Form 477 is publicly available and is compatible with
other datasets.
As long as we can take the data that we get from Form 477
about deployment and compare it and use it in conjunction with
the data that the FCC does already collect about actual speeds
that also we think would serve to bring that important data
point to the conversation.
Mr. Johnson. OK.
Mr. Spellmeyer, do you have any thoughts on how we can
identify and correct this problem so that rural users on the
wrong side of the digital divide can have the same experience
as urban users do?
Mr. Spellmeyer. And is your question in relation to the
mapping or actually getting the service out to them?
Mr. Johnson. No, it is the advertised versus the----
Mr. Spellmeyer. Versus the actual.
Mr. Johnson. What you actually get.
Mr. Spellmeyer. All right. Well, I wasn't going to wade
into this, but, you know, on the wireless maps advertising
plays no role. The one-time data collection that the FCC did
was not based on advertised speeds, it was supposed to be an
exercise to map areas where actual speed was above 5 megabits
per second. That is what would happen under the legislation
that is before the committee today on the wireless side. That
is what is in the bill that has already passed the Senate
Commerce Committee and we hope to get signed into law.
Mr. Johnson. OK, all right.
Ms. Bloomfield, when a network is built with support from
either the Universal Service Fund or the Rural Utility Service,
what sort of validation processes should be used to ensure that
the network is actually delivering consistent, high-speed
service as intended?
Ms. Bloomfield. That is a really excellent point, because
when you are a steward of Federal support whether it is USF or
the ReConnect, you really want to make sure that the consumer
is getting what you say they are going to get from that
support. One of the things that the FCC did that I think is
really interesting when they designed Universal Service
support, they basically required providers to actually provide
some of the information like latency and speed and things like
that.
So there are some requirements. It is part of the truce
that you have when you work with the government. And I think
ReConnect, one of the things that I think has been very
interesting watching RUS is they are actually doing trials out
in the field as they are looking at this new grant and grant/
loan program to actually see what is there, what is not there,
what are the speeds that are there, so it is that extra step of
doing that, you know, whether it is a challenge process or
whether it is verification.
Mr. Johnson. Thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Chairman. I
yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Soto for 5 minutes.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Chairman.
When you look at the different sizes of the census block
and the current rules as far as what counts and what doesn't,
the gamesmanship that is happening right now becomes really
obvious. The largest census tract is 8,500 square miles in
Alaska, and they are as small as half a block that could be, or
one-tenth of a square mile in an urban area. So when the rule
is ``if the providers determine they could offer service to at
least one household,'' you could see how terrible a map we
could get. Providing one household to the Alaska tract that is
8,500 square miles, you would get the whole thing on the map.
We can do obviously a lot better than that. In my district in
South Osceola County and Polk County, we have large census
tracts, very rural areas.
So my first question, Ms. Bloomfield, does this series of
bills take care of all the loopholes that are preventing us
from having an accurate broadband map in rural areas or is
there other things we are not addressing here?
Ms. Bloomfield. What your legislation does is a really
important start. It really starts to get more granular and that
is what we absolutely need to have. You know, my carriers
provide service to folks on every seven people per mile of
wire. Here in DC we have 10,000. So you are right, you have
those huge swaths.
But one of the things that we need to be thinking about,
one of the things that is interesting and hasn't really come up
is RDOF, the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund that the FCC is
going to be rolling out is really going to start with the
unserved areas. So the beauty is we have the opportunity to
move to the shapefile, start getting more granular, get better
maps, and then as time goes on move to some of the things like
the work that USTelecom has done I really commend, but I think
we don't want to hold back.
I think it is that balance between you have unserved people
there. You know it every time you go back to a town hall
meeting, I am sure it is the first thing you hear. So how do we
keep the process moving, and I think your legislation actually
very nicely tees up that sequence.
Mr. Soto. So there is a synergy between this new funding
and getting more, a more accurate map.
Mr. Stegeman, are we covering all the loopholes that we
need to for right now to get a more accurate, rural map?
Mr. Stegeman. I think it hits most of the key topics which
are how shapefiles should be formed or that shapefiles should
be provided. But the fabric is needed. I think the fabric is a
key part of this. There could be efforts to help explain what a
shapefile represents. I am sure if I asked anybody here, you
are not quite sure what a shapefile is and I am sure many
providers don't know what a shapefile is and they are going to
have to come up with it. So there may be some clarification of
what those things represent and what can be in and what can be
out.
Mr. Soto. That is helpful. I am also concerned about how
our broadband efforts are working nationally vis-a-vis some of
our competitors in the world stage, whether what they are doing
in China, Japan, or Europe.
Mr. Spalter, how are our broadband efforts stacking up to
places like China and Europe?
Mr. Spalter. I think the record is very clear in a hotly
competitive national market that the size and the scale that
the United States is, our broadband service is unparalleled. We
are investing as an industry close to $80 billion of CapEx in
our national broadband infrastructure. On a per capita basis
that is an extraordinary step.
One of the wonderful challenges that this body, Congress,
the FCC, and others have posed is can we extend broadband
service not just to our urban and suburban and even exurban
areas, but also to our rural areas that are some of the hardest
to reach places on the planet, and which is why we believe that
if we can actually accelerate our efforts to have a granular
and accurate National Broadband Map guiding some of our future
investment coupled with shapefiles and other types of reporting
methodologies, we will actually not only get the unserved
served, but improve national broadband performance overall.
Mr. Soto. And, Ms. Floberg, how are we stacking up to China
and Europe and others right now as far as our efforts to
provide a better broadband coverage throughout the United
States?
Ms. Floberg. I can't speak as much to the international
comparisons, but I think we can hear already from folks in this
country where we are falling short. I think that a huge part of
this conversation that needs to be talked about more, really,
is the affordability portion. We have even in the areas where
we have made efforts and successful efforts to deploy broadband
at the fastest available speeds, we are often leaving behind
people who can't afford a $70-a-month bill to get on to
Charter's entry-level tier of 200 megabits per second.
So I think we can see some of those issues and those
problems even when we just focus on looking inside the United
States.
Mr. Soto. Thanks. And I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Long for 5 minutes.
Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And, Mr. Assey, as I said in my opening remarks this
morning, I believe it is important for any broadband mapping to
be paired with appropriate enforcement measures that ensure
providers' submissions are complete and accurate. While
enforcement is important, it is important to be mindful that
unintentional mistakes can happen from time to time.
My question is this. Do you think it makes sense to clarify
that the standard set forth in the MAPS Act including the word
``recklessly'' is not intended to apply to providers who submit
information or data under this act that contains minor
mistakes, small omissions, or overstatements or other
unintentional errors?
Mr. Assey. Yes, I do. I think, you know, as you point out,
it is one thing to intentionally ignore or violate a rule, but
we are really embarking upon a new regime here with the drawing
of shapefiles. And we have some familiarity with them because
they are used whether it is at the RUS, there have been pilots
in Kansas, but this is going to involve a lot of different data
points and innocent mistakes can be made. I think the issue is
going to be are they material and intentional that would be of
concern.
Mr. Long. Yes. Well, that is different if they are
intentional, you know, but I am talking about just the minor
mistakes, as we said.
Mr. Stegeman, I was very excited to see that my home State
of Missouri was included in one of the two States used in the
Broadband Mapping Initiative program. How much will it cost to
produce a nationwide map based on the pilot program that you
just completed and are there some existing data points that
could be used that would reduce those costs?
Mr. Stegeman. Thank you for that question, and we were
happy to do Missouri. It was a good State to look at. It
presented a lot of unique characteristics that we could test
out. As we looked at that map we expect a national fabric to
cost around $10 million if we are able to use some proprietary
data. We think we can turn that up within a year so that it is
usable. That it can help inform----
Mr. Long. Cost how much again? What did you say?
Mr. Stegeman. Ten million.
Mr. Long. OK.
Mr. Stegeman. Ten million just for the fabric. We think
that fabric will then be useful for the creation of the
polygons or the shapefiles to help inform them. It will be
useful for the consumer to actually be able to look at their
point on their surface; understand what those shapefiles mean.
What would help improve the program is for States to step
forward with databases. In Missouri, Missouri does not have a
statewide 9-1-1 database. That would have been informative to
the effort had that occurred and that we could pull that in,
but counties do have that. So going nationally, I think we
would expect or ask that States contribute information to us of
known locations. Many States have good address datasets, good
locational datasets that would just help improve the process
and potentially bring down the cost.
A big portion of the cost is actually the visual
verification that CrowdReason did for us. Each record is
actually reviewed by a person who is looking at satellite
imagery, clicking on the map of where the location is. If we
can reduce that it will reduce total cost.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you. And I had one more question for
you. One of your primary conclusions was that up to 38 percent
of unserved households in the two States, that being Missouri
and Virginia, you collected data for would have been missed or
deemed served by previous FCC Form 477 efforts. Could you break
down that percentage a bit by explaining, if possible, how that
figure could be different based upon additional data from cable
and wireless broadband providers?
Mr. Stegeman. Yes, we did. So when we put together the
study for Missouri and Virginia we only have a limited number
of providers in the study. We did not have the cable providers
participating and providing us data of what they served. So
when we published the 38 percent we did note that that is at
the high end of our estimate of what the total unserved is and
that it could potentially come down as we get more providers
reporting information.
We attempted to estimate that by removing blocks that the
cable providers serve in the current 477 effort and when we did
it, it cut it in about half. So it is still the significant
issue even if we brought in all the cable companies and assumed
the cable companies served every household in the blocks that
they serve today.
Mr. Long. OK, thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. O'Halleran for 5 minutes.
Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Chairman Doyle.
With scarce Federal resources being spent every year for
broadband development, we can all agree that the need to
produce accurate broadband coverage maps has never been
greater. I believe mapping legislation passed out of this
committee should be quickly scalable, produce detailed coverage
data swiftly, and not place extra reporting burdens on small
internet providers.
We know too well that the census block reporting structure
is outdated and hurting rural and Tribal communities. Simply
ask small town businesses across America, economic development
groups, our teachers educating children, our public safety
officials and first responders, our citizens nationwide in
rural areas whose quality of life is being impacted daily
without affordable connectivity. They will all say that our
coverage maps are failing them and we must act quickly to fix
them, if they knew what a coverage map was.
This is going to require partnerships for coordination and
investment. America needs these families where they are at.
They need to have a good quality of life. Urban America really
needs these families where they are at. Whether it is for food
or water or transportation or energy, you name it, urban
society, urban America doesn't exist without them where they
are at. And so, we need to find an answer to this.
Mr. Assey, you stated that the goal of broadband mapping
should be to focus on where broadband is and isn't and that
trying to layer other types of data into this particular
effort, while laudable, could cause unintended delays. What
exactly is the type of data that the FCC should focus on
collecting for broadband mapping and how quickly could this
type of data be replicated nationwide?
Mr. Assey. Thank you for the question. I think, first and
foremost, we should follow the direction that the FCC set down
in the order it recently adopted in August and push forward
with the adoption of shapefiles. I think that gives us a
granular picture of where broadband is and where broadband
isn't. I think the idea of the location tool and really getting
atomistically into the longitude and latitude of individual
buildings in unserved America could certainly be of interest.
And there is a proceeding teed up at the FCC to answer a
number of the questions that the pilot project turned up. So I
think it is certainly of something that we should continue to
look at and pursue, but I would not want that to slow the
progress that we are about to make in moving to a shapefile-
based reporting.
Mr. O'Halleran. And what about timing? How quickly could
that data be replicated nationwide?
Mr. Assey. Well, that really is up to, I think right now we
are waiting on some direction from USAC. The order has been
adopted by the Commission, but we have folks who are, you know,
making the plans now to be able to comply as quickly as
possible.
Mr. O'Halleran. Oh, God help us.
Ms. Bloomfield, NTCA's membership knows all too well the
struggles that small internet service providers often face in
providing broadband in difficult to reach rural communities. I
was just out in my district and I traveled about 4,500 miles
and I had cell reception at least half the time, so I can just
imagine what the rest of it is like. As Congress and the FCC
work towards reforming the reporting requirements that produce
our maps, could you outline the importance of mapping
legislation offering technical and financial assistance to
small providers under a new reporting structure?
Ms. Bloomfield. I appreciate your thinking that way,
because again as you look at carriers particularly small ones
taking on additional burdens, the question is, you know, if you
have a staff of 15 what can you actually accomplish. I think
from a shapefile perspective, I think that folks already file
so much data now because most of my companies are Universal
Service recipients so they are very used to collecting data,
sharing data; that is part of their kind of process.
Going to a more complex system, greatly appreciate the
thought process that you may be leading down, which is that it
may take more resources as we get even more granular to help
some of these smaller providers actually track where exactly
those locations that are served or are not exist.
Mr. O'Halleran. I am not leading down it, that is where I
am going. And thank you for your comments. I just want to say
we need to invest more as a government in this process. It is
about our citizens and their safety also.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Flores for 5 minutes.
Mr. Flores. Thank you, Chairman Doyle and Republican Leader
Latta, for holding this important hearing, and I want to thank
the panel for joining us today.
Each time the subject of rural broadband and rural mobile
service comes up, people invariably complain about the maps, so
it is important that we get this right. Also, no one in this
committee wants to have a repeat of the BTOP program, earlier
in this decade, where $4 billion was pushed out the door and we
got virtually no effect on expanding coverage. As a matter of
fact, there are only two projects that have received funding
since 2010 and the rest of it was essentially wasted.
Mr. Assey, my question for you is this. In your testimony
you highlighted a need for any mapping track data to show areas
where providers have been awarded Federal funds to deploy
broadband. In doing so we could properly designate the National
Broadband Map to reflect, first of all, which areas are using,
or second, which areas will require Federal assistance to
provide service.
I couldn't agree more that we need to make sure that finite
resources go to the truly unserved and that private
stakeholders involved in building out the next generation of
technology know that they are not going to be competing with
the Federal Government when they make their investment.
So my first question is this. To what extent would it be
helpful for the National Broadband Map to require additional
reporting information for the areas that are covered using
Federal funds?
Mr. Assey. I think it would be very helpful. You know, we,
I totally agree with the points you made about duplication and
really sending funds to places that broadband already exists.
That to me is not the best stewardship of public funds. But I
also think it is important not only to make sure that our money
is spent wisely, but also to ensure that there is
accountability when we do actually fund projects to make sure
that we know exactly where broadband was delivered and that the
map is updated appropriately.
Mr. Flores. OK. And continuing along the question of
duplication, to your knowledge how much interagency
coordination occurs to avoid cross-subsidizing in the same area
with different Federal programs such as the High Cost Program
and the Rural Utility Service program?
Mr. Assey. I don't know that I would hazard a guess on how
much coordination there is. I know that they obviously do talk
from time to time, but I think they are all dealing with
imperfect tools presently, and our hope is by getting a better
broadband map that will assist their coordination and certainly
your pushing the right direction will help as well.
Mr. Flores. That is certainly something we in Congress need
to work on is making sure we are not having duplication of
efforts and when it comes to the subsidization programs.
Mr. Spellmeyer, I agree with your testimony in which you
voice your support for H.R. 4229, the Broadband DATA Act, and
specifically for the inclusion and standardization of
definitions for radio frequency engineering terms used to
measure signal strength and propagation. Further, you note that
this bill would require the FCC to continue revising the rules
in the future to reflect changes in mapping related
technologies.
Can you expand on why common standards are so important for
mapping needs and to what extent standardization will be
helpful as the next generation of mapping technologies is
developed?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Well, certainly getting a common set of
standards is important when you are trying to take the claimed
coverage by, you know, a number of providers, two, three, four,
five in a given area and overlay them on top of each other.
That is where the FCC kind of veered off course a number of
years ago. Chairman Pai made some efforts to try to standardize
it with the last one-time data collection.
Unfortunately, we are going to be headed back, I think,
after this legislation passes to do another one-time data
collection. It is really important that we fix some of the
things like the cell edge probability, because if that number
is too low you are building in an error factor that once you
lay one map on top of the other it begins to multiply itself.
Now, it is also important to the second half of your
question to focus on evolving technologies over time. We are on
the precipice of 5G. My company wants to bring 5G to lots of
places in rural America and the legislation gives the FCC the
tools to update that over time as that continues to deploy.
Mr. Flores. OK, thank you. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Ms. Eshoo for 5 minutes.
Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My number one wish is
that under your leadership and that of Mr. Latta that we get
this done. It has been a long time. It is too long.
To all the witnesses, you have given terrific testimony and
we are always better for it. We really do pay attention to what
you say. This is about mapping our future, the future of
America, and sometimes I think we get bogged down in--well, in
many ways, by necessity, in a lot of the details. But I think
the overarching call to action needs to be based on what I just
said, that this a map for America's future.
And my first question is, and if each one of you can say
yes or no, I--well, let's see what you will say. Based on the
legislation that is at hand and I think will succeed--it is
bipartisan, it is sensible, it has strength in it, all of those
factors--if technologies change and they always do, given all
the collective expertise at the table, does this legislation,
can it stretch itself so that it meets future challenges?
In other words, if it is just for now and what we have now,
then you know what, you are going to be back here testifying
and I don't know how much longer I am going to be able to show
up for meetings on mapping. But do you think that this
legislation speaks to the future, future technologies? And, you
know, for example, moving to satellites. There are so many
areas that I don't want to have to keep revisiting new types of
fixed or mobile broadband technologies, small cell sites,
satellites, I could go on and on. You know what I am talking
about. So yes, no?
Ms. Bloomfield. So I would say the framework of the bill
will live on. I think the standards could change, but that is
up to the FCC to work on that. So absolutely, yes. This is a
framework for the future.
Mr. Assey. Yes, I agree. And as you said, we are creating a
map, but it is also a living map so it will be flexible to
accommodate new technology.
Ms. Eshoo. Good. Encouraging.
Mr. Spellmeyer. My answer would be absolutely. And the good
news is the Senate is tired of dealing with this issue. They
have moved a bill out of committee and I think they are going
to send it over here soon and hopefully you guys can adopt it.
Ms. Eshoo. Wonderful.
Ms. Floberg. We are also optimistic that this bill would be
applicable and useful for future technologies.
Ms. Eshoo. Great. Good.
Mr. Spalter. It is a strong, durable, and sustainable
framework. It is based on, and this is the genius that it
insists that we at a granular level can map both served
locations but also unserved locations and then be able to
update it as a living document with crowdsourcing and other
types of----
Ms. Eshoo. Good.
Mr. Spalter [continuing]. More effective, challenging
mechanisms.
Mr. Stegeman. I would agree it does. It is a flexible bill
and it does provide flexibility into the future for new
technologies as they come out.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes. I think that Mr. Stegeman is the only
statistician on the panel today. Thank you very much.
And I think the most often used word, because I have been
here for a long time this morning, is granular. So whomever, I
don't know, maybe there is a prize for that.
Let me--I think each one of you have talked about the
challenge process so that consumers and government officials
can speak up when the FCC data doesn't reflect reality. My
question is this data is available today in CVS files, which is
easily accessed in Microsoft Excel or Google Docs and also
easily accessed by researchers using R and Stata and other
statistical software.
Do you think that shapefiles can be turned into a format
that is easily accessible for people to understand--this is
real operative phrase in my question--easily accessible for
people to understand so they know whether or not to challenge
the FCC data?
Mr. Stegeman. If I can take a first shot at that.
Ms. Eshoo. Yes, sure.
Mr. Stegeman. So shapefiles will be a challenge only from
the aspect of, one, normalization of what the shapefiles mean;
two, is they are potentially----
Ms. Eshoo. I don't know what that means.
Mr. Stegeman. It is what are the shapefiles based on. Are
they based on points, are they based on roads, what does it
represent?
Ms. Eshoo. I see.
Mr. Stegeman. And if my address falls in it, does that mean
I am served, and those types of issues. But there will be 4,000
of these potential shapefiles filed by all the providers. If
you look at all of them out there each one will have to provide
shapefiles by speed, so it may overwhelm researchers.
The point level data, the fabric, actually may be easier to
analyze just because it is point-specific data and I don't have
to analyze all these shapefile layers that will be stacked upon
each other, which makes it difficult for research. It can be
done, but point level data just makes it a bit easier to work
with the data.
Ms. Eshoo. Easier.
Mr. Stegeman. Easier.
Ms. Eshoo. I think my time is expired. I don't know if I
get all of that or if my next-door neighbor will know how to
access this, but I am going to trust what you said.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mrs. Brooks for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Brooks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for all of your testimony. I love what my colleague
from California just said. Not only has she and others been
working on this for a long time, but she is thinking about the
future as she always does and is thinking about let's not pass
something that is going to be stuck in time, and that is always
the challenge with all of our legislation around technology. So
thank you on the flexibility and the forward-leaning.
I have to admit, like Congresswoman Eshoo there were terms
that, you know, are just foreign to all of us. Shapefiles,
fabric issues, I mean these are just not commonly understood
terms, and I applaud you, Ms. Bloomfield, acknowledging that
you might not know the speed of your internet. Most of us
don't, really. And so to the extent that you all can just
continue to educate the American people, because this is really
the issue for the future and for everyone in our country.
Indiana, I am really proud, has made a commitment to
broadband buildout on a State program called Next Level
Broadband and we are going to be investing a hundred million
dollars for broadband in our nonserved and underserved areas.
Officials involved with those buildouts though have told me
that we have ongoing problems. We heard this from Scott Rudd,
the director of our broadband opportunities for Lieutenant
Governor Crouch, that we are having ongoing problems with
households paying for internet service but then having such
restricted access due to network outages. And we haven't really
talked about that with the fault, you know, resting on the
ISPs, so essentially, they don't have internet access.
Has there been any discussion in all of this about whether
or not to include network outages as part of any criteria for
whether a location is served or not in the new proposed mapping
regime being pursued? We hear about latency, but what about
outages? Has that been discussed at all and why or why not?
Anyone have any answers for that?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Congresswoman, I have not heard any
discussion on that in relation to the wireless side of the
equation. We certainly have outage reporting obligations to the
FCC that we engage in on a regular basis when they are
triggered, but I haven't heard. You know, I think as an
industry we try to deliver a service that is relatively
reliable, you know, 99.9 percent of the time, and I don't see
that as a big issue on the wireless side.
Mrs. Brooks. Anyone else?
Ms. Bloomfield. Again, I would also say that wireline
carriers also have obligations and reporting requirements. As
we talk about different things that could be plugged in, you
know, adding that as a factor might make sense. Honestly, they
have such strict obligations, I am actually surprised to hear
that that is such a big issue in Indiana.
Mrs. Brooks. Well, I would be really interested.
Mr. Spalter, did you----
Mr. Spalter. I am sorry. If you needed to complete----
Mrs. Brooks. No, no, no. Did you have anything?
Mr. Spalter. Well, thank you, Congresswoman. Well, the
really important aspect of the legislation before this
committee is that it insists that we move forward, before we
actually spend Federal resources to achieve greater broadband
support for unserved communities, that we have a map that is
sufficiently granular that shows where served and unserved
locations are. That is the location fabric. Once we have that
you can then layer on all kinds of other reporting
methodologies. Shapefiles, highly complementary to it,
potentially even reporting of network blockage or network
outage moments, as Mr. Stegeman just advised me.
But what we need to start with precedentially, if we are
going to be good stewards of Federal dollars and really close
the digital divide, is first do our fundamental work of
developing and scaling that location fabric which shows where
the locations that are currently served and takes that next
important, Holy Grail step of identifying by the rooftop level
where there are unserved locations still in America.
Mrs. Brooks. OK. Well, thank you. And if anyone wants to
call Scott Rudd, feel free to find out what he is concerned
with. I want to thank Mr. Stegeman in my remaining time,
because in case you are contemplating doing more pilots Indiana
would welcome the opportunity for you to conduct more pilots.
But given the issues you said were present in address data, do
you have any thoughts on whether addresses should be considered
served if ISPs don't actually know whether or not they serve a
specific household or not?
Mr. Stegeman. It is a good question. The address level data
that we have seen there are difficulties in tying that address
to a point on the Earth surface and actually identifying your
house, sometimes, in rural areas. It just doesn't link up. When
you get it in Google or elsewhere it doesn't line up. So the
fabric provides that additional knowledge of where the location
is, so that you understand if you will have access to service
or not when you have the maps available.
Mrs. Brooks. OK, thank you and thank you for your work. I
yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Butterfield for 5 minutes.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And to
the ranking member, thank you for your continued efforts to
improve the accuracy of our National Broadband Maps. I wish Ms.
Eshoo was still here. I would publicly associate myself with
her remarks. And then Mrs. Brooks came along from Indiana and
she aligned herself with Ms. Eshoo. And I just want to say that
what both of these Members have said is critically important.
I came on this committee January 3rd of 2007. I guess that
has been 12 years now, and every year that I have been on this
committee we have been talking about mapping. And so, as Ms.
Eshoo said, let's just get it done. The data is crucial to
understanding which parts of our country still lack adequate
broadband infrastructure and sufficient speeds to use the
internet effectively.
There are still parts of my district as my other colleagues
have mentioned in their districts, there are still parts of my
district in eastern North Carolina that do not have consistent
access to reliable broadband, a resource critical to competing
in today's economy. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that
our maps purporting to identify underserved and unserved areas
remain absolutely inaccurate.
That is why I was delighted to join Mr. O'Halleran and Mrs.
Rodgers as original cosponsor of H.R. 3162. Our bill will
ensure, Mr. Chairman, that national service data is accurate
and will hold providers accountable for the mapping data,
shapefiles if you will, that they submit. It is my hope and
belief that this bill and others that we will consider will aid
us in bringing the promise of the internet age to all
Americans.
Let me go to my far left, since I am most comfortable with
that.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Butterfield. I have friends on the right too.
But, Ms. Bloomfield, I agree with you that it is important
to engage in a challenge process before an agency gives out
broadband funding, but how do we strike the right balance, if
you will, so that providers and the FCC aren't so overwhelmed
by challenges that vital funding gets delayed?
Ms. Bloomfield. That is an excellent question. It is a
balance and you are always seeking that balance. And I think in
part as you move to more granular maps you are going to have
better maps so the gap is going to narrow, so you are going to
have better information so you are going to start from that;
that if this bill is enacted, FCC moves forward, the maps will
become more granular by definition, so the areas that you are
looking to actually do these challenges process in will be more
limited.
I think, you know, you don't want people to do this on a
whim, but I think that again the story of what is on the ground
is really the sanity check because you are dealing with self-
reporting data so you need to have that reality check of what
is actually taking place. I think there is a way to strike that
balance and I think it is going to be an important one. I don't
think we are going to see what we saw with the Mobility Fund, I
think, again because better mapping will lead to better data.
Mr. Butterfield. All right.
Mr. Assey, if I can go to you next, please, I think it is
important for the public to be able to provide input on the
broadband maps so that we get a better sense of really what is
happening on the ground. I understand you support both
crowdsourcing and a challenge process as a means of getting
this done. Could you please talk about how those public input
opportunities will create a more accurate broadband map?
Mr. Assey. Sure. And I would agree with Ms. Bloomfield, we
do have to have standards and make sure that we come up with a
mechanism that is administratively workable and provides public
input that can lead to more accurate maps. But the fact of the
matter is that sometimes the people with the best information
are the people with boots on the ground.
And certainly there is a capability to challenge
representations that are made and this is a process that we can
create to hopefully improve the accuracy of the maps we have.
We have some experience at least with respect to grants that
have been made for broadband previously in developing a
challenge process and hopefully we can learn from that in
developing a process that the general public can participate in
as well.
Mr. Butterfield. If I may continue with you very briefly, I
think it is important for the public--excuse me. I am an
original cosponsor of the mapping bill introduced by Mr.
O'Halleran and I would like to go back to your testimony where
you talked about the benefits of using shapefiles to map
broadband service. As you know, much of my district in North
Carolina is rural so getting the best broadband data in the
quickest way possible is important to me and to my
constituents. Could you explain how shapefiles can achieve more
granular data?
Mr. Assey. Sure. I think shapefiles will allow network
providers to draw boundaries around their service areas based
on what they know, based on the places they are, the places
their lines run, the places they offer service or can offer
service. Right now, we have a reporting mechanism that
essentially requires us to report on the basis of presence or
absence in a census block.
So I think being able to rely on the provider at least as a
matter of first instance to draw the boundaries of where it can
serve will lead to more accurate results and we will be able to
refine that over time.
Mr. Butterfield. Thank you. Is this similar to tax mapping?
All of our tax departments have this GIS system. Is it in the
same, yes?
Mr. Assey. I am sorry, I couldn't tell you.
Mr. Butterfield. All right, thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Walberg for 5 minutes.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the
committee for having this hearing and for the witnesses to be
here. All I know is that for too long my constituents in
southern rural Michigan have been missing out on the 21st
century digital economy due to flawed broadband availability
maps. But, more importantly, I don't care whether I look at it
through a shapefile in the fabric or how granular I get, I
can't find broadband at my property and so I am left out as
well.
So it is personal to me and so I commend the members of the
committee here today for offering this legislation and for us
debating it. I am just hoping it works as we move forward with
what ought to be. When I first heard about shapefiles, I
remember my singing quartet experience of shape notes. I know
all about that, but shapefiles I am going to learn more about
through practical experience.
Mr. Spalter, in your testimony you spoke of how the
Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric could be the underpinning
of a, as you said, a contemporary, tailored and updatable
broadband map to serve as the foundation for all future
spending decisions. I believe we must ensure efforts to improve
our maps are not just for the short term, so I think I agree
with you on that.
How important is it for the fabric to reflect changes in
mapping capabilities in the future and do you have
recommendations on how we can improve mapping sources so the
fabric can be constantly improving?
Mr. Spalter. The foundational element of any improvement
for future broadband mapping methodologies has to be again that
location fabric that will be a national dataset that shows
where locations are served, but also importantly where they are
unserved.
And once we are able to establish that location dataset,
and we know that we can do it timely and affordably within a
year, then you can dynamically add on all kinds of reporting
and complementary reporting methodologies like shapefiles,
other types of datasets that will be coming online that will be
made available openly, in an open source way through State,
local, and even municipal data sources in new, innovative,
proprietary data sources, additional company-led efforts to
initiate open source methodologies, for example, like
Microsoft's rooftop imagery datasets which already are
incorporated into our location fabric.
But it all starts with the need to have a baseline
understanding of where our broadband-served locations currently
are and where they are not. And upon that then we can couple
all kinds of other reporting methodologies. And we must do so
particularly as we are looking about the opportunity of
spending $20 billion in a Rural Digital Opportunity Fund,
three-quarters of which according to the current design will be
out the door without the benefit of this foundational dataset.
We need to have a proper sequencing, which is why we
support your efforts in this committee echoing what has gone in
the Senate with similar legislation to move forward to
establish this foundational dataset.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Assey, it is vital that we obtain more detailed
information about where service is and where service is not so
that we can better identify the truly unserved populations. Do
you believe incorporating shapefiles will help achieve this
goal and if so, how?
Mr. Assey. Shapefiles will definitely help us achieve the
goal of more accurately identifying households that are
unserved. And to the extent we can do that we can better
marshal our resources to fill those gaps.
Mr. Walberg. Well, we hope that is the case, very much so.
Ms. Bloomfield, can you talk about how important an ongoing
and periodic challenge process is to improving our Nation's
mapping capabilities?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So as everybody was talking
about whether you go shapefiles, fabric, you know, what
sequence you are looking at, again it is still self-reported
data. So at the end of the day the challenge process is going
to be really important because it is your sanity check. It is
the one chance to be able to say what is really happening.
Mr. Walberg. That is good nomenclature.
Ms. Bloomfield. So I think it is really critical. And, you
know, we have seen it work in programs. RUS has a challenge
process with some of their awards that they are doing under the
ReConnect. It is an important part to make sure that if you
have Federal resources that are pretty limited, how do we
direct them particularly to the unserved, then start working to
the underserved, and then continuing to build and sustain that
work.
So if we are really going to tackle this as a country and
we are really going to be serious about it we have got to use
the resources wisely and the challenge process will help us do
that.
Mr. Walberg. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Welch for 5 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am glad the
committee is finally acting to fix this widely inaccurate
broadband map situation. We have been at it for a number of
years, and finally we have a chairman who has got the gavel
that is going to make something happen. Thank you, Mr. Doyle.
You know, one of the things that actually is very troubling
is in the zeal of the FCC to get out feel-good information
there was no critical assessment of what the reality was for
people in rural Vermont or in rural South Dakota or in rural
Iowa, and it is pretty outrageous. I just want to say that
because there was all this happy talk for years that we have
coverage in all these areas when we didn't, and that was our
government really neglecting rural America. And I just want to
register my outrage at that because so much of the people we
represent need that coverage and don't want to be second-class
citizens. So when this Congress says the rural America is going
to get that equal service, more or less, but then the FCC
doesn't stand up to make that happen, it really is not
acceptable.
Now having said that, I am very happy with this panel and
with the progress we now are making, but we have got to follow
through on this because it has to be at the end of the day that
rural America has the tools it needs in order to survive and
compete. And that is real common thread amongst all of us who
represent rural America.
But let me ask a few questions. I will start with you, Mr.
Spellmeyer. We have been talking about the mapping challenges
for years now, so it is nice to have a concrete discussion
about progress in the committee. Can you share with the
committee what your company found when it went around the
country and challenged the maps during the Mobility Fund II
process and where do we go from here?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Congressman. The short answer is we
found a mess. As I said in my testimony, we spent $2 million.
That was a significant investment on our part to hire drive
test companies to drive around. I think we covered 16 States.
We found more places to challenge than we didn't find and we
submitted a huge number of challenges to the FCC.
I think you are right. I have been talking about this issue
for a decade and I actually think it is a good-news story of
Congress actually working. For a long time I couldn't get
bureaucrats in Washington to pay any attention to this issue
and eventually it was conversations with members of the Senate
and Members of the House who all looked at me and said, ``Yes,
you are right, I don't have coverage in my district,'' that
allowed us to raise the profile of this issue and get to where
we are at today. And I am actually really excited that we can
pass this bill.
Mr. Welch. Well, let's keep going.
Ms. Bloomfield, do we have to have a challenge process in
place?
Ms. Bloomfield. I would not go down this road without a
challenge process. I think it is very important you need a
verification. If you are going to really take this seriously--
--
Mr. Welch. Right.
Ms. Bloomfield [continuing]. There is only so much--first
of all, I think it is impressive that you have a panel that
includes a lot of provider representatives who are all saying
we want to report, we will report, but you have got to be able
to verify.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Mr. Spalter, when you are mapping broadband do you feel it
is important to consider latency and usage limits or is
tracking speed enough?
Mr. Spalter. I think that latency is an important, critical
insight that will inform not only, you know, the quality of
service that ultimately consumers need, but also will help
direct our Federal broadband support programs to the kinds of
technologies that actually can toe the line when it comes to
maintaining those standards.
We know, particularly, if we want to have a 5G world, we
are going to have to have a wireline infrastructure to provide
the backhaul especially in rural America to make that promise
available to those citizens that live in our rural communities.
Mr. Welch. Thanks.
Mr. Spalter. And the latency requirements need to be
eventually part of any assessment of where our broadband
dollars are going to be most effectively used.
Mr. Welch. Thank you.
Ms. Floberg, do you want to comment on that as well?
Ms. Floberg. Yes. I think that when we are looking at,
first of all, the broader digital divide, not just questions of
deployment but questions of competition, questions of
affordability, the more information we can get about what this
market actually looks like for consumers is going to be
immensely valuable for policymakers. Usage limits, for example,
can have a huge impact on how a customer uses services, whether
or not they have to pay more for that service than they
initially signed up for; whether or not they can use that
service consistently.
So I think especially as we try to use this legislation as
a stepping stone and move into talking about the broader
digital divide and these competitive issues and affordability
issues, these kinds of quality of service metrics should be
part of the conversation.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes Mr.
Gianforte for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gianforte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to
the panel for this important discussion today.
During our hearing with the FCC commissioners, many Members
on this committee raised concerns about the accuracy of Form
477 and the FCC coverage maps. The inaccuracy of these maps
show cell phone and broadband coverage in areas of Montana
where we have no coverage. This failure reduces USF investment
in our most hard-to-reach places and it could lead to
overbuilding in some areas while underbuilding in others.
The lack of high-speed broadband coverage and investment
has real impacts on hardworking Montana families. I have heard
from small business owners who because they don't have access
to reliable cell coverage just can't conduct business while
they travel around the State. Recent FCC reports on broadband
deployment claim that 86 percent of Montanans had access to
high-speed internet service. This is simply not true. Many of
the providers I have met with believe that the number is
greatly inflated and that access is probably closer to 50
percent. The FCC even acknowledged its figures aren't correct
and has issued fines to companies that have overstated
coverage.
Recently we had Commissioner Brendan Carr to Montana. I
commend him. He has now traveled to over 30 States to observe
locally to get on the ground. He stated when he was in Montana,
Montana has the worst cell phone coverage of any State he has
been to so far. I know I can also attest that every Montanan
can tell you exactly where on the interstate you are going to
lose coverage and how long it is going to take to get it back
so you can continue a conversation.
That is why I signed on to the Broadband Data Improvement
Act. Rather than using large and inaccurate census blocks,
Representative Rodgers' bill encourages the FCC to use
shapefiles in order to give a better idea of where broadband
coverage is and, more importantly, where it isn't so we can
invest. I think we should also focus on the challenge process--
we have had a lot of discussion on that here today--to help
smaller co-ops and rural broadband providers challenge coverage
maps before funding is disbursed.
There is a conversation about using crowdsource data which
could be informative, but not a deciding factor in this
accuracy of the maps. It is time to get these maps right so we
can invest in those areas that need it most to close this
digital divide so that Montanans can have better access and
more reliable access to broadband and cell coverage.
So, Ms. Bloomfield, it is good to see you again. Thank you
for traveling to Montana. It was good to have you there at the
Montana Telecom Association event in Big Sky just a couple of
weeks ago. We spent a lot of time there talking about mapping
and the other challenges Montanans face.
I want to drill into this challenge process a little bit.
You have talked about it today, the importance, so that our
small guys who have actually been, in my mind, better stewards
of the USF dollars than some of the larger legacy out-of-state
providers who have not invested the way the local people have.
Could you just reiterate briefly the importance of the
challenge process?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. So particularly as we are
looking at the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund coming out,
Congressman, and again, you know, I knew exactly where, even in
Big Sky, and we joke because it is a resort, you just go a mile
down the road and you lose service. You lose actually internet
access everywhere.
So it is, these programs like Universal Service are going
to be really important. And choosing to put those dollars in
the areas, and we look at RDOF, it is the opportunity for
carriers who are not going to be providing service in those
territories to basically say so and allow other providers to
come in. To best direct those fundings we really need to know
where those resources can be directed so you can start filling
in the gaps in a State like Montana which has gaps.
Mr. Gianforte. Now we just had some discussion from the
prior questioner. Mr. Spalter spoke about the need to consider
latency and usage limits in addition to just tracking speed.
Could you comment on that further, Ms. Bloomfield?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. You know, I think when we start
looking at standards and we start looking at what service
really entails and obviously people think about speed and they
think about their experience, but part of the experience really
is truly the latency and it is the ability to be able to do
some of the things like Ms. Floberg had talked about where, you
know, when if your access might be tied to usage and you have a
kid doing homework and you have, you know, data limits, at some
point you are really kind of tying the hands of some of your
consumers.
So making sure that folks actually submit and report that
information, it is not onerous to do so and if we are really
going to take this seriously and gather data we should gather
all the data we can.
Mr. Gianforte. Great. Well, I just want to re-emphasize the
need for accurate maps. We do not have accurate maps in
Montana. And as a result, the USF dollars, taxpayer money, is
just not being invested properly. So thank you for testimony.
With that I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The Chair now recognizes Ms. Clarke for 5
minutes.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
our ranking member, Mr. Latta, for convening this subcommittee
hearing today on improving our Nation's broadband maps.
Broadband has proved to be an equitable instrument to level
the playing field for millions of Americans and a necessary
step to ensuring the success of our national infrastructure.
The use of this technology has the potential to decrease the
digital divide so consumers can have access to educational and
employment opportunities, and this is no longer a luxury for my
constituents.
However, fraudulent broadband mapping reporting on
broadband access is a barrier to consumers whether they are
from rural America or urban America. These harmful reporting
practices skew the data that determines where and how Federal
dollars is spent. Thus, in a GAO report it was found that the
FCC data overstated broadband deployment by allowing providers
to report availability in blocks where they do not have any
infrastructure connecting homes to their networks if the
providers determined that they could offer service to at least
one household. We have heard that.
It is incumbent on each Member here to ensure that these
gaps and broadband coverage are addressed in a manner that will
protect the American people and help to close the digital
divide across our country. Like our highway system, if you
don't make sure that every road is connected at some point, we
are going to have catastrophic circumstances and parts of our
Nation will be left behind.
So my first question is actually to Ms. Floberg. Ms.
Floberg, can you describe the effect that high prices have on
closing the digital divide and is that a good reason for the
FCC to collect pricing data?
Ms. Floberg. I would say it is an excellent reason for the
FCC to collect pricing data. What we have seen is that right
now according to the current FCC Form 477 collection, 141
million people in this country don't subscribe to broadband at
the FCC's 25/3 speed threshold.
Now there is, this conversation is a lot about trying to
figure out how big of a proportion that don't have access,
can't subscribe to that service because it is not available and
that is an important problem. But we still have,
conservatively, a hundred million people who do have access to
25/3 and they can't subscribe, or they subscribe to a slower
tier because that is the only option they have. They can't
afford to get the fast kind of internet that they need or
again, millions and millions more people who do subscribe but
are constantly having to make sacrifices and to choose what
they pay for this month.
Can they afford the internet this month or can they afford
food this month? And those kinds of choices are not choices we
should be asking people to make. They are not choices that
indicate a closed digital divide.
Ms. Clarke. Absolutely, thank you.
The FCC's mapping data is utilized for various policy
matters including Federal subsidies. Additionally, the data is
used to better understand telecom marketing competition,
specifically to review mergers. Mr. Spalter, how is mapping
data utilized to justify potential telecom mergers and how will
update flawed collection methods like Form 477 and broadband
maps help improve this process?
Mr. Spalter. I can't speak specifically to how broadband
mapping, per se, can actually improve or accelerate the ability
to effectively and incisively evaluate mergers. I am not an
antitrust expert. However, what I do know is that the ability
to deliver to policymakers at the FCC, at other agencies of
government across the country, a mechanism to more accurately
and with specificity pinpoint where our current locations are
served and unserved is a start of an extraordinary range of
diverse and innovative reporting and/or analytic opportunities
that we could layer on to that foundational dataset such as
merger reviews that will actually be able to accelerate good
public policy and allow us to maintain really good stewardship
of the kinds of dollars that we are committing through public
programs.
Ms. Clarke. Very well. I have like 22 seconds left. Would
you like--OK. Let me ask a final question in that quickly.
Ms. Bloomfield, it is important to improve broadband
mapping so that we can identify more precisely where broadband
is available, but also to examine the quality. Do you agree
that information on quality of service is valuable too? If so,
can you expand on this statement?
Ms. Bloomfield. Absolutely. I think it is a good idea to
actually capture performance. But I think, again, when I hear
this committee talk about how long it is taking to get mapping
done, I would say right now the discussion on the table is also
about like how do we get the location, how do we get the
accuracy in that? I think teeing up for another day,
absolutely, discussions about, you know, we welcome better
visibility into the performance process, so those are also key
discussions.
Ms. Clarke. Thank you very much. I yield back, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentlelady. The Chair now recognizes
Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate it and I appreciate the testimony of the panel.
Representative Lujan and the chairman and myself have
introduced legislation that would provide some accountability
to the mapping process. The Map Improvement Act directs the FCC
to engage in standardized information collection and
incorporate it into a single map. This seems like common sense
to me. The bill also allows for consumers to provide feedback
on map accuracy. That makes sense too, since the individual
themselves is the ultimate decider of whether coverage exists
at their property or not.
Mr. Spalter, do you think that including the intended end
user in the coverage map is an important check on map accuracy,
and then also and how would you envision the review process
taking shape from the company perspective?
Mr. Spalter. It is not only important, but it is entirely
appropriate, Congressman Bilirakis, to facilitate that not only
for Federal Government's, but for all levels of governments,
Tribal entities, to be able to actually have that kind of
accountability and verifiability that comes with both challenge
and verifiability processes.
One of the benefits, actually, of advancing in the proper
sequence at the front end, a location fabric, is that it will
actually allow us, as Ms. Bloomfield pointed out, to minimize
the number of challenges we ultimately are going to have
because we all have a reference point, a national reference
point of where locations are and where they are not, against
which it will be a lot harder and there will be more
disincentives to report inaccurately.
So we think that crowdsourcing, keeping this as a living
document that can be iterated with the best kinds of products
that are out there in the marketplace, every year, is an
important step and we support it.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good, thank you.
Mr. Assey, the FCC is questioning whether it should require
more granular data. One complaint from providers for very
granular address level service data is that such information
could be used as a target for their competitors. Is this a
reasonable fear, in your opinion and, if so, what can be done
to ensure that the FCC has accurate and reliable data but also
protect sensitive information for their industry regardless of
how granular it is? If you could answer that I would appreciate
it.
Mr. Assey. Sure. Thank you for the question. I mean,
obviously there is competitively sensitive data that all
companies have about their plans to serve their customers. I do
think one of the things that we have achieved through the
shapefile process is a real balance. You know, we have talked a
lot about a granularity, but there is another side, which is
you can get so granular that you can create systems that are so
complex that they are difficult to execute and update on a
regular basis.
So one of the reasons we focused on moving from census
blocks to shapefiles is because we believe that protects
competitively sensitive data, that it is achievable, and that
it is extendable across the United States in a very rapid
fashion and that we will get the most bang for our buck if we
focus on that.
Mr. Bilirakis. Very good. I appreciate that.
Anybody want my time? All right, I will yield back.
Oh, yes, please.
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. Very quickly, if I
may. As you know, Mr. Spellmeyer, our bill, the Latta-Loebsack
bill, Loebsack-Latta, however we want to say it, has some
specific parameters to change how mobile broadband internet
access is documented. And can you explain how and why these
prescribed parameters will improve the maps that we have now?
Mr. Spellmeyer. Yes, Congressman. I do believe they will
significantly improve the map. There are a number of additions
specified by the legislation. The two most important ones
relate to when we model these networks and how the signal
propagates you have to make a choice about something called
cell edge probability. What is the probability that that signal
is actually going to get out to the cell edge? The FCC used 80
percent. We don't think that is a commercially reasonable
number. Taking it up to 90 is consistent with how we engineer
our networks.
The other big one was cell loading. The FCC said model
network loaded at 30 percent. We don't think that is accurate
and this one bumps it up to 50, much more balanced picture.
Mr. Loebsack. All right, thank you.
And thank you again, Mr. Bilirakis, for yielding. Thank
you. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes Mr. Veasey for 5 minutes.
Mr. Veasey. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, in urban
America, which I represent, we have sort of two, you know,
different issues. You know, you have like myself for instance,
right, where I have one MVPD provider and then I have a
different ISP because I don't necessarily get the highest speed
in my area. So I have to have two different services so I can
have the highest speed. And then, but there are still some
services in urban America where there is no coverage.
And so I want to maybe ask Ms. Floberg, you know, when they
were, you know, looking into this issue, do you think that the
shapefiles that have been proposed would also be able to
accurately show where there are underserved areas in urban
America that may still need coverage especially when you take
into consideration that the $20.4 billion that was used for
existing universal payout to ISPs to be able to provide
coverage to rural areas were really, I think, specified just
for rural America? And so do you have any thoughts on that at
all?
Ms. Floberg. Thank you for the question, Congressman. Yes,
I think that the promise of greater granularity here is most
relevant when we are talking about these larger rural census
blocks, but is absolutely valuable and I think has the
potential to help highlight where there might be particular
neighborhoods in urban areas that are being overlooked when it
comes to deploying faster and faster speeds. I think that that
definitely can, the level of granularity promised could
hopefully highlight some of those areas and help us figure out
if there are cases where we have examples of digital redlining
occurring.
Mr. Veasey. Yes. And with the FCC's different proposals--
and I will be happy for anybody to answer this. With some of
the other proposals that have been out there like, you know,
digital opportunity data collection, crowdsourcing, sunsetting
Form 477, is there something that should have also been
included that wasn't a part of that initial FCC proposal that
could really help people in underserved areas?
Ms. Floberg. I can jump in on that again. I mean, I think
that part of this again that we think is really important and
this may not be for this bill and this day, but expanding our
understanding of the digital divide and trying to expand that
to understanding prices, trying to understand what kinds of
prices consumers are actually being charged.
Right now, this is something where the FCC currently
collects virtually zero useful data in trying to gauge what
those prices are nationwide, which makes it very hard to say
where broadband might be affordable, where it is not, or even
for policymakers to assess what kinds of interventions might be
necessary.
Mr. Veasey. Yes.
Ms. Bloomfield. I would just add that I do think that we
are in a really interesting sweet spot where with what you all
are doing in the legislation that you have bipartisanly written
through this committee and have discussed, aligned with what
the FCC's current action is, is really all moving on the right
track at the same time.
So I think there is some really interesting momentum that
we don't always see here in Washington, DC, to actually take
care of the mapping issue, so I just applaud all of you for
that and again the coordination with the FCC.
Mr. Spalter. Congressman, we are literally on the precipice
of being able to stick the landing on national bipartisan
legislation coupled with the important work that our colleagues
at the FCC are doing to advance the idea that we can have a
National Broadband Map. And once we accomplish that goal, there
will be innumerable ways to catalyze additional insight,
analytics, reporting, and other elements that will speak to
exactly the issue that you are driving, which is how can we
better support all Americans in rural communities, exurban,
suburban, and urban communities as well to realize the power
and potential of broadband and make it more affordable.
Mr. Veasey. And if I could just ask with the remainder of
my time just one very, if very hypothetical question, so if a
company were able to deploy low Earth orbit satellite to
provide coverage in these gaps that we have talked about today,
would current providers, would there still be the need on the
ground from people represented here today and others to still
sort of fill in these gaps?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I would offer on behalf of the wireless
industry that I am not certain that those lower orbit
satellites are going to deliver a mobile product that will be
sustainable, you know, inside an automobile at 70 miles an
hour.
Mr. Veasey. Interesting. OK.
Mr. Spalter. Many of our companies at USTelecom are
advancing creative ways of partnering with certain satellite
communities to reach last-mile geographies to ensure that there
could be potential service. But we actually have to be very,
very careful that we are prioritizing spending Federal
resources for broadband deployment that can actually be
sustainable and can help rural communities achieve benefits of
things like 5G and other next generation technologies through
wireline technology access that is just not going to be
available through platforms like satellite.
Mr. Veasey. OK, thank you.
Mr. Doyle. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes Mr. Cardenas for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cardenas. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity to have this discussion before the public on
this very important issue. And it is something that,
unfortunately, the American public doesn't understand how
important it is and how directly affected they are because
everybody is somehow, someway, connected to one of these.
And so I have a question. Ms. Bloomfield, why do you think
a challenge process is necessary even if the maps are more
granular?
Ms. Bloomfield. So I think the granular maps is a really
good start and I think the challenge process really allows us
to make sure we have integrity in the program, again
particularly when you are talking about either Federal support
of someway, whether it is Universal Service or it is ReConnect
through USDA or community connect programs, any of these
programs, or when you are thinking about a policy change.
So I think again it is that opportunity, and I don't want
to repeat myself, but to do the sanity check, to be the
validation process at the back end. So you have the process in
the front end with the mapping and the standards and all of
those pieces; it is the ability to do the validation on the
back end to make sure that the information you have is what you
were told you had.
Mr. Cardenas. OK. Also, Ms. Bloomfield, when mapping
broadband why is it important to consider latency and usage
limits? Isn't tracking speed enough?
Ms. Bloomfield. So I think again we go back to what is the
consumer, you know, what are they going through. We know, you
know, I represent small community-based telecommunication
providers. You know, the number of folks that have actually
have poor service a lot of times is because they bought the
router on eBay.
So there are a lot of different things that we need to be
looking at, but, really, when you are thinking about
particularly as we move forward and particularly as the
Internet of Things becomes a more, a bigger part of our life
and our economy, we need to make sure that folks are getting
service that is in real time and that they are not stymied by
usage caps that might impact the affordability of the product
that they are receiving.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, thank you.
And then also to Mr. Assey, we agree we want to create
these maps as soon as possible. How do you imagine the agencies
will coordinate to get this done?
Mr. Assey. Well, we have taken a giant step in August with
the adoption of the order directing providers to move to
shapefile reporting. I think we are working with USAC and
waiting on guidance for some of the standards that are going to
be required for that. But I think we are well on our way.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, and the coordination, is that healthy?
Mr. Assey. It is absolutely essential and it is one of the
things that we are very gratified that the committee is
considering putting its mark in and encouraging that type of
coordination. I do think that the best thing that will
encourage that coordination is actually the success of getting
a better map, because then agencies will be incented to want to
use that map and for everyone to be singing off the same sheet
of music.
Mr. Cardenas. OK, better map. Who wins if we don't have
better mapping?
Mr. Spalter. Certainly not rural America, certainly not the
many, many hundreds of thousands enterprises and individuals
and families and communities that still are in unserved
communities that are considered to be served. Certainly not the
public treasury, our fiduciary duty to use funds that are
available through our taxpayers to their best and highest
purpose.
If we are not doing the right work on getting our maps
right at the front end, I will assure you, through the Rural
Digital Opportunity Fund or any other future broadband support
program, if we do not have this granular location fabric to
start we will be misapplying public funds and that would be a
shame.
Mr. Cardenas. Does this have a positive effect when it
comes to public safety, health care, things of that nature,
because now this is being integrated in every walk of life. It
is not just out of convenience, you know, for convenience
tools, you know, talking on the phone with your friend or what
have you. We are talking about this is, you know, directly
affecting people's ability to respond in emergency situations,
et cetera, correct?
Mr. Spalter. The growth of one of the most epidemic medical
chronic conditions in America is diabetes and, unfortunately,
many of those who are suffering from that condition live in
remote, rural communities. If we are denying the ability to
make sure we are pinpointing accurately, the resources that we
need to get to those communities through, inspired by the
legislation that is before us, we will be not serving not only
broadband but not serving the health of Americans.
Mr. Cardenas. Mr. Chairman, if I can just have a few
seconds to take a point of personal privilege to thank my
colleagues who are continuing to focus on these issues and
introducing these bills. And for us to have this dialogue and
debate about what the proper paths going forward, even though
that on many occasions many of our talented staff are stolen to
the private industry, we are still capable and we are still
getting the job done. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Doyle. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
Ms. Rodgers for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate you
allowing me to waive on to the committee today and join you all
in this important discussion.
As technology becomes increasingly integrated into every
aspect of our lives, our economy, our society, it is more
important than ever to ensure that all Americans, especially
those in the rural areas, have access to high-speed and an
internet connection. Coming from Eastern Washington, living in
Eastern Washington, now representing Eastern Washington in
Congress, in too many of the areas that I drive when getting
around the district and visiting the various communities,
coverages remain static. I was reminded of it earlier this
year. I was in a couple of communities just south of Spokane.
Spokane is the second-largest city in Washington State and I
was just 15, 20 miles south of Spokane in Rockford and
Fairfield and they had nothing.
So there is a growing and growing drumbeat that, you know,
we--this needs to be a priority and I join in that. Because
whether it is economic development, whether it is health care,
telehealth, so much of the future of health care is around
telehealth, education, our kids are doing more and more
homework online and personalized education, you know, or health
care, it is our future.
So I, in August I hosted a couple of roundtable discussions
in Eastern Washington, one in Colville, which is more north of
Spokane, 70 miles north, and then one in Pomeroy that is even
further south, and it was good. It was good to bring the
community together, the elected officials, the ISPs, others,
business owners, healthcare providers that are involved in
trying to solve this issue in Eastern Washington. One of the
main barriers that seems to be common right now is ensuring
that we have the accurate maps and that this is so important as
we have this discussion about how are we going to ensure that
every area is covered.
Earlier this year, I joined with Mr. O'Halleran in
introducing the Broadband Data Improvement Act and it is one of
several bipartisan bills that we are considering here today.
And this bill tackles the inaccurate mapping on several fronts.
One, by increasing the granularity of provider-reported data
using shapefiles; two, by utilizing a three-pronged validation
process including the use of third-party data and an on-the-
ground accuracy verification; and third, ensuring a robust
challenge process. Those are the three main areas. It also
provides assistance to smaller providers to minimize the burden
of the reporting requirements.
And I just want to thank all of the witnesses today for
being here today and for your work to improve broadband access
for all Americans. I am encouraged by the variety and the
priority that this committee is making to move forward in a
bipartisan way so that we can ensure that the limited Federal
funds that we do have, but that we have been prioritizing for
this effort, reach the areas where the need is the most.
I wanted to ask if you could talk just a little bit more
about the importance of having a robust validation and
challenge process to ensure the accuracy of our broadband maps
in addition to increasing granularity. And, specifically, what
role should third-party data play in this process?
And, Ms. Bloomfield, I wanted to ask you that and then open
it up.
Ms. Bloomfield. So, first of all, thank you so much for
your leadership. It has been very key. And as you listed the
key points in your legislation, they are all things that we
absolutely endorse and support and think are important.
So when you talk about validation, you know, there are a
lot of different ways to do it. You know, one of the things we
have all talked about as a panel is how do you incorporate
things like crowdsourcing, how do you actually gather that
information from people served on the ground. I think that is a
really interesting and intriguing idea. I would just say though
that again, what you don't want to do is create a process that
becomes really a burden where somebody has to chase down every
complaint and respond.
And, you know, how do we actually capture trends so that we
don't get bogged down in that process and we can continue to
move forward to make sure that the maps are accurate and people
can continue to spend more of their time and energy actually
building the broadband then reporting back through that
process. So I think it is important, but I think it has to be
done very thoughtfully.
But again, I think that along with the challenge process so
at the back end you can actually really do that verification
and it is going to be very significant.
Mrs. Rodgers. Anyone else?
Mr. Spellmeyer. I would add, so I think a challenge process
is vital. You know, the FCC did a one-time data collection and
if we hadn't had a challenge process there, those maps that
show all of Eastern Washington as covered would have been
locked into place and used by the FCC. You know, on the
wireless side we used shapefiles to build that last map, but
without a challenge process to go out and test it we would have
been stuck in a real mess.
So the good news is that, you know, all of the legislation
in front of us puts us in the right direction to fix it once
and for all.
Mrs. Rodgers. Great. Thank you all. I yield back.
Mr. Doyle. OK, our time has expired. I thank the
gentlelady. The Chair requests unanimous consent to enter the
following documents into the record: a letter from the Western
Governors Association, a letter from the National Rural
Electric Cooperative Association and NTCA-The Rural Broadband
Association. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
Mr. Doyle. Let me thank all the witnesses for their
participation in today's hearing. You have been a most
excellent panel and we have enjoyed hearing from you.
I want to remind all Members that, pursuant to the
committee rules, they have 10 business days to submit
additional questions for the record to be answered by the
witnesses who have appeared, and I ask each witness to respond
promptly to any such questions that you may receive.
At this time, the subcommittee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]