Ensuring Solutions to Meet America’s Broadband Needs (U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband)

Hearing	Ensuring Solutions to Meet America’s Broadband Needs
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, Subcommittee on Communications, Media, and Broadband
Date	December 13, 2022

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Recent Influx in Broadband Funding: The hearing largely focused on the recent influx of broadband infrastructure funding stemming from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) and the various COVID-19 relief laws. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed optimism that this new funding would enable the U.S. to meaningfully address broadband access issues and disparities.
  • Concerns Over Waste, Fraud, and Abuse in Broadband Infrastructure Spending: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Spalter expressed concerns that there would occur waste, fraud, and abuse stemming from the recent influx of broadband infrastructure funding. They noted how this funding would be spread out across 15 separate agencies and 133 programs and warned that this decentralized approach could be vulnerable to errors. They asserted that Congress must provide robust oversight to the federal agencies distributing the funds and vet that the internet service providers (ISPs) that received the funds. Mr. Spalter also recommended that Congress require federal agencies to certify that their use of federal broadband infrastructure funds not be deployed in areas where federal funds were already being spent.
  • Onerous Requirements for the Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure Projects: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Spalter raised concerns that government policies were adding unnecessary costs to broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. They warned that rate regulations, workforce regulations, technology-neutral broadband requirements, and middle-class subsidy requirements could hamper broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • Onerous Requirements for Accessing Federal Broadband Infrastructure Funding: Ms. Sekaquaptewa expressed concerns that the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program’s stringent requirements for matching funds, letters of credit, and professional engineering stamps would make program participation difficult for local governments and tribes. She asserted that these requirements would favor better-resourced ISPs who will apply to serve their next best markets. She warned that the BEAD Program’s current requirements could perpetuate exiting inequities and miss the most underserved markets.
• Efforts to Make Broadband Internet Access More Affordable and Support Digital Equity: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in expanding access to affordable broadband internet, which they stated would reduce broadband access inequities. They stated that this effort would entail more broadband infrastructure and consumer subsidies to make broadband service financially viable in certain areas.
  • The U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP): Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján and the hearing’s witnesses expressed support for the ACP, which provides low-income consumers with discounts on broadband internet service. Mr. Spalter called on the U.S. to make the ACP permanent.
  • The NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program: Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ) and Ms. Sekaquaptewa expressed interest in the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program, which supports broadband infrastructure deployment on tribal lands.Ms. Sekaquaptewa asserted that the Program could not address all of tribal broadband needs, even with its recent funding increase.
  • Digital Navigators: Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Siefer stated that digital navigators would play a key role in helping people to connect to broadband service and support enrollment in broadband assistance programs (such as the ACP). Ms. Siefer discussed how digital navigators could work with community organizations that were already trusted (such as food banks, libraries, and schools) to achieve the aforementioned objectives and called for increased funding for digital navigator programs.
  • Broadband Labeling Requirements: Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT) expressed concerns that that the IIJA’s requirements for ISPs to disclose their download and upload speeds to consumers through labels would be ineffective as most consumers could not understand these labels. Ms. Siefer remarked that the U.S. needed to provide education around the information on broadband labels for the labels to be effective.
  • Sustained Funding for Digital Equity Initiatives: Subcommittee Chairman Luján and Ms. Siefer called on Congress to establish funding mechanisms to sustain digital equity initiatives. Subcommittee Chairman Luján mentioned how he had introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act of 2022, which would establish an ongoing and sustained source of funds for digital literacy, equity, and inclusion programs.
• The FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in the FCC’s current work to finalize a Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric, which will provide a map of the U.S.’s broadband availability. This Fabric is meant to inform the NTIA’s funding allocations for the $42.5 billion made available through the BEAD Program. Subcommittee Members and Ms. Sekaquaptewa expressed concerns that the current version of the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric was overstating broadband coverage in many rural and tribal areas.
  • Challenge Process: The FCC currently maintains a process that allows local communities to correct errors in the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses stated that this process would be key to ensuring that federal broadband funding went to underserved areas and expressed interest in promoting this opportunity. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) stated that the FCC’s challenge process must accept challenges based on actual engineering and the facts on the ground. She asserted that the FCC should not base its Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric on an ISP’s theoretical ability to serve a particular community.
  • Current January 13, 2023 Deadline for Challenges: The FCC’s current deadline for communities to submit challenges to the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric is January 13, 2023. Ms. Sekaquaptewa argued that map problems could lead to inefficient broadband infrastructure deployment and called for the current deadline to be extended.
  • Tribal Certification: Ms. Sekaquaptewa also stated that tribal certification of broadband availability was essential until the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric matures. She testified that the Fabric currently provided inaccurate broadband availability data for her rural community.
  • Impact on Digital Inequities: Ms. Sekaquaptewa further remarked that policymakers must consider how the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric would be used to address digital inequities. She expressed interest in how schools and health care institutions would be categorized in the Fabric.
• Barriers to Developing and Deploying Broadband Infrastructure: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed interest in addressing barriers to developing and deploying broadband infrastructure.
  • Project Permitting Challenges: Subcommittee Members, Ms. Sekaquaptewa, Mr. Powell, and Mr. Spalter raised concerns that permitting issues across all levels of government were delaying the buildout of broadband infrastructure. They noted how broadband infrastructure projects involving federal lands often requires approvals from various agencies, which could be burdensome to obtain. Mr. Spalter noted how the BEAD Program requires states to share their plans to streamline their permitting and rights of way processes. He commented that this requirement would help to standardize and harmonize permitting approaches across the U.S. Ms. Sekaquaptewa also mentioned how the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council had created a mechanism to coordinate permitting processes across federal agencies.
  • Permitting Challenges on Tribal Lands: Ms. Sekaquaptewa stated that tribes faced additional challenges deploying broadband infrastructure projects noted how these projects on tribal lands required approval from the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). She also stated that tribes varied significantly in terms of resources and internal capabilities and suggested that better resourced tribes could receive less attention from the BIA.
  • Pole Access Challenges: Mr. Powell remarked that the U.S. should work to provide access to poles at reasonable rates. He noted that while there existed a federal regulatory regime that governed reasonable rates for poles, he highlighted how this regulatory regime contained exemptions. He asserted that many of the exempted entities had conflicts of interests that could impede the efforts of ISPs to expand service to new areas.
• Other Policy Issues: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses used the hearings to raise other broadband policy issues.
  • Combating Discrimination in Broadband Deployment: Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) expressed interest in ensuring that telecommunications companies were not intentionally discriminating in their offerings. Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter both testified that the members of their respective organizations did not engage in intentional discrimination. Subcommittee Chairman Luján raised concerns however that telecommunications companies could use economic and technical feasibility considerations as an excuse to not serve entire communities.
  • Data Caps and Throttling: Subcommittee Chairman Luján expressed concerns that ISPs were limiting broadband for their customers through data caps and data throttling. Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter both testified that the members of their respective organizations sometimes employed data caps as a way of offering cheaper broadband options and preventing overuse on shared broadband networks. Mr. Powell indicated that the data caps on shared broadband networks tended to be very high. Subcommittee Chairman Luján mentioned how he had introduced the Uncap America Act, which would reduce the ability of broadband providers to impose data caps on their customers.
  • Workforce Training: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mr. Spalter expressed concerns that skilled labor shortages were hampering broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. Sen. Klobuchar suggested that immigration reform could help to mitigate these skilled labor availability challenges.
  • Broadband Provider Competition: Subcommittee Chairman Luján and Sen. Klobuchar also expressed interest in bolstering competition amongst ISPs as a means of making broadband more affordable to consumers. Ms. Siefer remarked that while competition would help to reduce consumer broadband internet prices, she asserted that competition would only make broadband internet affordable for middle class consumers. She contended that subsidies would remain necessary to ensure that lower income Americans could access affordable broadband internet.
  • The FCC’s Rip and Replace Program: Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI) noted how the FCC’s Rip and Replace Program sought to ensure that U.S. broadband networks were free from the influence of Chinese state-connected companies (such as Huawei). Sen. Peters and Mr. Spalter raised concerns that shortfalls in this Program’s funding would jeopardize broadband connectivity in many rural areas.
  • Importance of Devices: Sen. Klobuchar, Ms. Sekaquaptewa, and Ms. Siefer highlighted how access to devices was key to enabling people to connect to broadband internet. Ms. Sekaquaptewa stated that the FCC’s Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF) played a critical role in providing devices to students and community members.
  • Potential Invalidation of the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF): Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Mr. Spalter noted how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had recently heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the USF. They raised concerns that an invalidation of the USF could result in many Americans losing broadband connectivity. Mr. Spalter also remarked that policymakers would need to address the long-term sustainability of the USF and stated that this would entail expanding the base of contributors to the program. 
  • Impact of Quantum Computing on the Broadband Sector: Sen. Baldwin and Mr. Powell also expressed concerns over how quantum computing could impact the U.S.’s broadband system. Mr. Powell noted how quantum computing could enable the hacking of encrypted systems and commented that this capability is “potentially dangerous.” He stated however that quantum computing might be able to improve the speeds, capacity, and latency of broadband networks.
  • Senate Consideration of FCC Commissioner-Nominee Gigi Sohn: Subcommittee Chairman Luján and Ms. Siefer expressed hope that the U.S. Senate would hold a vote on Gigi Sohn’s nomination to be an FCC Commissioner before the upcoming holiday recess.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Ms. Kimball Sekaquaptewa, Chair, Connect New Mexico Council; Chief Technology Director, Santa Fe Indian School
2. The Hon. Michael Powell, President and CEO, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association
3. Mr. Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom
4. Ms. Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

• He mentioned how Congress had provided $65 billion for broadband internet as part of the IIJA.
  • He noted how this law will deploy broadband internet, support the adoption of broadband internet, and require new rules for inclusion and equity.
• He stated that Congress must ensure that its federal, tribal, state, and local partners can deploy the IIJA’s resources in an efficient and equitable manner.
• He discussed how “digital redlining” had caused many low-income communities and communities of color to receive worse broadband service and higher internet prices.
  • He mentioned how a recently published investigation from the Markup and the Associated Press had found that many ISPs offered their worst deals to neighborhoods that had been previously redlined.
• He called on the FCC to implement “meaningful” new rules to prevent discrimination around broadband internet access.
  • He also stated that Congress must work with the NTIA to allocate federal funds based on the true state of access to affordable broadband internet services.
• He mentioned how the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act had provided the FCC with direction and funding to develop “cutting edge” broadband maps.
  • He commented that these maps have already improved the understanding of broadband availability in the U.S.
• He applauded the FCC’s implementation of the Broadband DATA Act and noted how the NTIA would use these maps to make funding allocations for the $42.5 billion made available through the BEAD Program.
• He remarked however that the initial version of the U.S.’s broadband availability maps could be improved and mentioned how these maps relied upon self-reported data from broadband providers.
  • He highlighted how this self-reporting of data had caused whole communities to be missing from the maps.
• He noted how the Broadband DATA Act included a “robust” challenge process at the FCC so that local communities could correct errors in broadband availability maps.
  • He expressed interest in promoting awareness about this challenge process and the FCC-developed application that enables people to check their internet speeds.
• He remarked that the NTIA should ensure that the BEAD Program’s funding allocations use the most accurate broadband availability data and expressed his interest in working to improve the accuracy of this data.
• He also mentioned how he had introduced the Digital Equity Foundation Act of 2022, which would establish an ongoing and sustained source of funds for digital literacy, equity, and inclusion programs.
  • He asserted that digital equity concerns must be a component of all broadband connectivity policy discussions.
• He further stated that Congress would need to find permanent funding sources for various federal broadband access programs, including the BEAD Program.
• He then discussed how tens of millions of Americans currently could not choose their ISPs and expressed interest in working to improve ISP choices for consumers.
• He lastly expressed hope that the U.S. Senate would soon hold a vote on Gigi Sohn’s nomination to be an FCC Commissioner.

Subcommittee Ranking Member John Thune (R-SD):

• He expressed interest in working to ensure that Americans have access to affordable broadband internet services.
  • He expressed particular interest in increasing broadband internet access for rural Americans.
• He mentioned how Congress had allocated billions of dollars for broadband services since 2019 through COVID-19 pandemic relief packages and the IIJA.
• He remarked that this recent federal funding for broadband-specific projects (which totaled nearly $84 billion) combined with the FCC’s USF constitutes an “unprecedented” amount of funding for broadband infrastructure.
  • He expressed hope that this funding would help to close the U.S.’s “digital divide.”
• He expressed concerns however that the aforementioned funding would be spread out across 15 separate agencies and 133 programs.
  • He indicated that the “lion’s share” of this funding would be distributed through the NTIA.
• He stated that the NTIA had previously “fumbled” attempts to expand broadband access and discussed the NTIA’s problems in distributing funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
  • He commented that the NTIA had struggled with implementing this law, that there existed significant problems with many of the NTIA’s approved projects, and that many of the projects had resulted in overbuilding.
• He also mentioned how the NTIA had called for volunteers in 2021 to help determine how to allocate $1.5 billion for certain broadband internet infrastructure programs, which he called unacceptable.
  • He expressed concerns that the NTIA could repeat its previous mistakes when managing both the BEAD Program and the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program.
• He mentioned how he had recently commenced an oversight effort to review the federal government’s numerous broadband programs.
• He discussed how he was working to improve the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) ReConnect Loan and Grant Program and mentioned how he had helped to introduce the bipartisan Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2022.
  • He explained that this legislation will streamline the USDA’s broadband authorities and target funding to areas most in need.
• He called it important for the U.S. to maintain a regulatory framework that will promote investment and would empower telecommunications companies to develop strong broadband networks.
• He stated that the U.S.’s “light touch” regulatory approach to broadband had enabled U.S. broadband providers to keep Americans connected to broadband services during the COVID-19 pandemic while demand had spiked.
  • He indicated that other countries had faced broadband access challenges during this period.
• He argued that the U.S.’s “light touch” regulatory approach to broadband had incentivized the private sector to prioritize network reliability, affordability, and resiliency.
• He lastly remarked that the U.S. must address permitting issues that delayed the buildout of broadband infrastructure.
  • He stated that while the Making Opportunities for Broadband Investment and Limiting Excessive and Needless Obstacles to Wireless (MOBILE NOW) Act had helped to address some of these issues, he commented that there remained concerns over unnecessary delays and costs associated with permitting.
  • He indicated that he would be requesting information from several federal agencies on how they were implementing the MOBILE NOW Act’s broadband siting mandates.

Witness Opening Statements:

Ms. Kimball Sekaquaptewa (Connect New Mexico Council; Santa Fe Indian School):

• She noted how her state of New Mexico was one of the least broadband connected states in the U.S., which she attributed to the state’s rugged and rocky terrain and sparse population density.
• She testified that her tribal community had not had any wireline ISP offerings in over 20 years.
  • She mentioned that her tribal community’s entire government and public library network had shared a 3.0 megabits per second (Mbps) connection over a bonded T1 prior to 2018.
• She discussed how she had served as the Chief Technology Director for the Santa Fe Indian School and noted how she had been responsible for providing internet connectivity to the school’s 700 students during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • She highlighted how these students were spread across 23 rural tribal communities and commented that these communities were among the least broadband connected lands within the U.S.
  • She noted how 89 percent of her school’s students did not have internet access that satisfied the FCC’s performance benchmark of 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds.
• She stated that a “silver lining” of the pandemic was that it had enabled her school to build upon previous broadband access improvement efforts.
• She mentioned how she had leveraged the FCC’s E-rate program in 2016 to create a consortium of tribal schools and libraries to bring high speed internet to six pueblos.
  • She indicated that these tribes had made additional investments in additional broadband infrastructure for improved governance and focused efforts (including health care).
  • She commented that these tribes had been able to provide residential broadband access during the pandemic and noted how some of these tribes now participate in the FCC’s ACP as service providers.
• She testified that the Santa Fe Indian School was now using the NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program to construct a 324-mile route to three more pueblos and remote tribal lands.
  • She commented that this Program facilitates tribal efforts to connect unserved homes and anchor institutions and enables tribes to address their broadband access issues on their own.
• She then stated that tribal certification of broadband availability was essential until the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric matures.
  • She testified that this dataset currently provided very inaccurate broadband availability data for her rural community.
• She mentioned how the Santa Fe Indian School will have placed 500 miles of middle mile broadband fiber and highlighted how the NTIA’s open network requirements meant that private industry would not have to bear the expensive costs associated with building these routes.
  • She added that private industry would have access to fiber backhaul to improve and extend their last mile networks.
• She noted how broadband providers had often built their broadband networks around sovereign tribal lands and commented that tribes could support the construction of more efficient broadband networks.
• She then discussed how New Mexico had created a pilot grant program with BEAD Program-like notice of funding opportunity (NOFO) requirements and predicted that the BEAD Program would contain “formidable” barriers to participation.
  • She stated that the BEAD Program’s stringent requirements for matching funds, letters of credit, and professional engineering stamps would make program participation difficult for local governments and tribes.
  • She asserted that these requirements would favor better-resourced ISPs who will apply to serve their next best markets.
• She warned that the BEAD Program’s current requirements could perpetuate the status quo and miss the most underserved markets.
• She contended that the rush to use the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric would compound broadband deployment problems.
  • She estimated that this map did not account for tens of thousands of non-broadband connected homes and anchor institutions (including small schools, health care centers, and houses of worship).
  • She also estimated that these map deficiencies would likely shortchange New Mexico by up to $500 million in funding.
• She called on the NTIA to extend the January 13, 2023 deadline to submit challenges to the FCC’s preliminary broadband map.
• She lastly expressed support for the development of state education networks and commented that these networks have the ancillary benefit of installing middle mile infrastructure.
  • She stated that the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric map currently fails to account for anchor institutions and would minimize the role that these institutions can play to improve access to broadband internet.

The Hon. Michael Powell (NCTA – The Internet & Television Association):

• He mentioned how the members of his trade association, NCTA – The Internet & Television Association, had invested hundreds of billions of dollars over 20 years to bring high speed and high-quality broadband to 90 percent of U.S. households.
  • He commented however that his trade association’s members had more work to do on this effort.
• He stated that many of his trade association’s members still were unable to expand broadband internet access to rural and underserved parts of the U.S. because such broadband infrastructure deployments were cost prohibitive without public support.
• He remarked that the U.S. currently had a “once in a generation” opportunity to expand broadband access for three reasons.
  • He indicated that the first reason was that there had been an “unprecedented” amount of money appropriated for broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • He indicated that the second reason was that Congress had focused on improving the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric to adequately assess the U.S.’s broadband access.
  • He indicated that the third reason was that Congress had focused on providing consumers with direct credits to afford high quality broadband service, which would provide free access to broadband for many lower income consumers.
• He stated however that it would take more than money for the U.S. to adequately deploy broadband services and highlighted how this deployment effort would involve 130 programs across 15 different federal agencies.
  • He commented that this decentralized approach to broadband infrastructure deployment was very vulnerable to errors.
• He remarked that the U.S. should focus on targeting the most underserved areas as part of its broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • He commented that money tended to flow to areas where it was more economical to deploy broadband service and that regulators would need to guard against the overserving of certain areas.
• He also stated that the U.S. should work to remove obstacles to the deployment of broadband infrastructure service and recommended that the U.S. streamline the permitting processes for broadband infrastructure projects and increase access to poles.
  • He called poles the “lifeline” to reach rural America and asserted that it was critical that access to poles be provided at “reasonable rates.”
• He then called on policymakers to be vigilant of “regulatory creep” and stated that broadband programs often attract layered on regulatory requirements that are tangential to the program’s mission.
  • He commented that these additional requirements create more complexity, additional burdens, and increased costs.
• He lastly discussed how waste, fraud, and abuse were often present within federal broadband infrastructure programs and noted how bad actors often seek to exploit these programs.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must ensure accountability and transparency in its announcements and issuances of federal grants to guard against these problems.

Mr. Jonathan Spalter (USTelecom):

• He explained that his organization, USTelecom, was the national trade association representing broadband providers, innovators, suppliers, and manufacturers.
  • He indicated that his organization’s members ranged from large publicly traded companies to local broadband provider cooperatives.
• He stated that the U.S.’s deployment of broadband services had been successful and noted how broadband prices have been trending lower while broadband speeds have been increasing.
  • He discussed how investments from broadband providers and smart policies had enabled the U.S. broadband networks to function at a high level during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite a spike in home demand for broadband services.
• He remarked however that the COVID-19 pandemic had also demonstrated the costs associated with inadequate broadband service access.
  • He contended that universal broadband connectivity was necessary for digital equity and commented that the U.S.’s collective work to deploy broadband internet remained unfinished.
• He stated that the coupling of private sector investments (which totaled tens of billions of dollars annually) and IIJA funds provided the U.S. with an opportunity to fully connect all Americans to broadband internet.
• He called on the U.S. to maximize the opportunities provided by IIJA funds through ensuring that funding recipients have the technical, operational, and financial wherewithal to complete broadband infrastructure projects.
  • He also stated that the U.S. should remove or lower barriers to the speedy deployment of broadband, clarify that broadband grids should not be treated as taxable income, make the ACP permanent, and ensure that all people had necessary digital skills to take full advantage of broadband internet service.
• He remarked that U.S. broadband providers were very committed to help the U.S. achieve the aforementioned objectives.

Ms. Angela Siefer (National Digital Inclusion Alliance):

• She remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic had exposed many of the U.S.’s digital inequities and highlighted how communities have been working to address these inequities.
  • She commented that swift Congressional actions have supported communities in these efforts.
• She stated that while Congress’s investments in addressing digital inequities were very beneficial, she asserted that these investments alone would not eliminate the inequities.
  • She commented that the constantly evolving nature of technology meant that the nature of digital inequities would remain in a constant state of change.
• She asserted that affordable and robust broadband internet, affordable devices, access to ongoing skills training, and technology support in multiple languages would play key roles in addressing digital inequities.
  • She stated that Congress should focus on ensuring that the U.S. possessed the ability to adapt to new technologies.
• She identified four elements for determining the success of digital equity investments.
  • She indicated that the first element of success would be when government agencies integrate broadband adoption programming and device ownership into their programs.
  • She indicated that the second element of success would be when industries that benefit from their customers being online prioritize corporate giving and community partnerships.
  • She indicated that the third element of success would be when philanthropy prioritizes digital equity in their giving.
  • She indicated that the fourth element of success would be when there were robust local digital inclusion ecosystems that could readily provide support and resources to people facing challenges connecting to broadband internet.
• She stated however that federal support remained necessary for ensuring that all Americans could access broadband internet.
• She mentioned how 15 million American households were enrolled in the ACP and highlighted how the FCC would soon have access to outreach funds to promote broadband access.
• He noted however that the ACP would expire within a few years and called on Congress to provide the ACP with sustained funding.
  • She also called for Congress to provide sustained funding for digital navigators, digital skills training, and devices.
• She remarked that Congress should establish a Digital Equity Foundation to provide a long-term support mechanism for digital inclusion programs.
  • She noted how this proposed Foundation would be funded through the FCC’s spectrum auctions.
• She further called on Congress to fill the vacancies on the FCC and asserted that the confirmation of Gigi Sohn to be an FCC Commissioner would be critical for enabling the Agency to carry out its mission.
  • She urged the U.S. Senate to vote on Gigi Sohn’s confirmation before the upcoming holiday recess.
• She lastly remarked that the U.S. must increase the total amount of digital equity funds dedicated to tribes and U.S. territories.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

• Chairman Luján asked the witnesses to indicate whether more broadband adoption would benefit other sectors, including health care, education, employment, and commerce.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively. She noted that while many tribal communities already had access to the internet through cellular phones, she stated that broadband infrastructure deployment would improve internet access for these communities.
  • Mr. Powell answered affirmatively. He mentioned how he served as chairman of the Mayo Clinic’s board of directors and stated that telehealth had played an essential role in the delivery of health care during the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively and thanked Chairman Luján for his work on the IIJA.
  • Ms. Siefer answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked the witnesses to indicate whether federal subsidies (such as the ACP) lowered barriers to broadband internet access.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively. She stated that federal subsidies for broadband internet served as a “critical” stopgap measure as the U.S. installs more high-speed internet networks.
  • Mr. Powell answered affirmatively. He stated that providing broadband services for free reduces barriers to broadband internet adoption.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively. He noted that while overall inflation had increased, he mentioned how consumer broadband internet prices had decreased by 14 percent between 2021 and 2022. He also remarked that the U.S. would need to sustain the ACP and make it permanent.
  • Ms. Siefer answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked the witnesses to indicate whether digital equity initiatives for digital literacy (such as those funded by the Digital Equity Act) lower barriers to broadband internet adoption.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively.
  • Mr. Powell answered affirmatively. He stated that previous experiences had demonstrated that outreach, awareness, digital literacy, and community groups were essential to the successful deployment of broadband internet.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
  • Ms. Siefer answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján then remarked that the ACP had made a “real difference” in helping Americans to afford broadband internet. He noted however that the ACP’s funding would eventually expire. He also mentioned how the Digital Equity Act was not a permanent program. He asked Ms. Siefer to address how Congress could work to provide permanent solutions to barriers to broadband adoption in the U.S.
  • Ms. Siefer stated that many industries benefited from broadband adoption and suggested that Congress work to educate these industries about these benefits. She also recommended that Congress support the ACP and digital equity initiatives.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether all broadband access technologies (including fiber, cable, wireless, and satellite) provide equal access to learning tools.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively. He stated however that wire-based infrastructure would enable the U.S. to achieve its goal of universal broadband connection. He asserted that the U.S. should focus its resources and funding programs accordingly.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether some of USTelecom’s members maintain data caps or data throttling on their consumer broadband offerings.
  • Mr. Spalter noted that some of USTelecom’s members offered various options to their customers, including lower priced broadband internet options with data caps. He stated that many consumers (such a senior citizens) might want to choose lower priced broadband internet options with data caps.
• Chairman Luján acknowledged that his question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Ranking Member John Thune (R-SD):

• Ranking Member Thune raised concerns that the NTIA and other federal agencies were pursuing “extraneous” political goals in their respective broadband programs. He commented that the pursuit of these goals could ultimately lead to increased broadband network deployment costs for broadband providers. He noted how Mr. Powell’s testimony had called on federal agencies to avoid the imposition of unnecessary additional costs on broadband providers. He asked Mr. Powell to elaborate on his testimony’s discussion of this topic. He also asked Mr. Powell to address how direct and indirect forms of net neutrality, open access, and burdensome labor requirements would impact the deployment of broadband networks to unserved areas.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that precarious economic environments have disincentivized broadband providers from serving underserved areas. He stated that policymakers should thus be vigilant as to not make it more expensive to provide broadband service to these areas. He remarked that many federal programs will often impose additional costs on broadband providers that will make it more expensive for them to enter new markets. He commented that the prospect of rate regulation could make broadband providers more hesitant to enter a new market. He also stated that extensive workforce regulations could reduce the pool of skilled workers available to build out new broadband networks. He further stated that technology-neutral broadband requirements could limit the ability of broadband providers to address certain complex problems, which could lead the providers to forgo work in certain areas.
• Ranking Member Thune then asked Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell to identify the barriers that slowed down the deployment of broadband networks. He also asked Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell to address whether Congress should take additional action on federal permitting reforms.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that there did exist several barriers that slowed down broadband deployment, including permitting challenges at the federal, state, and local levels. He contended that there needed to exist more coordinated and accountable efforts on the part of the 13 different federal agencies involved in broadband deployment efforts. He also called for greater coordination between federal agencies with state and local governments to address permitting barriers to broadband deployment. He mentioned how his organization’s members had highlighted how permitting challenges on U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands were adding three years to broadband build out schedules in western Montana.
• Ranking Member Thune then noted how Mr. Spalter had previously testified before the Committee in May 2020 regarding the U.S.’s broadband network’s resiliency during the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated that the U.S.’s “light touch” approach to broadband regulation had enabled it to better weather the pandemic. He asked Mr. Spalter to identify lessons from the pandemic for U.S. policymakers on the topic of broadband regulation. He also asked Mr. Spalter to identify policies that would encourage continued investments in broadband infrastructure.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that the pandemic had highlighted “common sense” and smart policy frameworks that enabled innovation and investments in broadband technology. He stated that greater incentives for investments and innovation had supported $86 billion in broadband network capital investments in 2021. He remarked that the U.S. should not encumber IIJA broadband deployment funds with unnecessary regulatory requirements. He also stated that the NTIA and states should focus on deploying IIJA funds to underserved and unserved areas first.
• Ranking Member Thune highlighted how there were 130 federal programs supporting broadband infrastructure deployment across 15 different federal agencies. He asked the witnesses to address the problems associated with this decentralized approach and how this approach could lead to distributions of broadband funds to already served areas.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that the U.S.’s current broadband funding system led to broadband spending that was uncoordinated and inefficient. He discussed how there were many underserved areas that had received federal funding commitments from various programs, which could lead to information discrepancies and stranded investments. He remarked that regulators must work to harmonize criteria and conditions across various federal broadband infrastructure programs and ensure that these federal programs were aware of the actions of other federal programs.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that USTelecom’s members were frustrated with the U.S.’s decentralized approach to broadband infrastructure funding. He stated that the U.S. government’s overbuilding of broadband networks created challenges for private sector broadband infrastructure deployment. He recommended that Congress require federal agencies to certify that their use of federal funds not be deployed in areas where federal funds were already being spent.
• Ranking Member Thune asked the witnesses to indicate whether Congress needed to consider creating any new federal broadband programs.
  • Mr. Powell stated that Congress should focus on refining the federal government’s existing broadband infrastructure programs.
  • Mr. Spalter stated that Congress should first evaluate the performance of existing broadband infrastructure programs before it considered creating new broadband programs.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that Congress should focus on broadband adoption efforts and make further investments in existing broadband infrastructure programs.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa stated that Congress should focus on implementing existing broadband infrastructure programs and ensuring that these programs had adequate funding.
• Ranking Member Thune expressed concerns that new broadband infrastructure programs would result in the duplication of services and wasteful spending.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI):

• Sen. Peters mentioned how Congress had passed the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019, which ensured that U.S. broadband networks were free from the influence of Chinese state-connected companies (such as Huawei). He noted how this legislation had promised federal support to broadband providers for “rip and replace” initiatives. He indicated however that Congress had thus far failed to deliver on this promise and that the FCC’s Rip and Replace Program had an approximately $3 billion shortfall. He stated that this funding shortfall constituted both a national security issue and a broadband equity issue. He highlighted how Northern Michigan University operates a network that provides broadband connectivity to its student body and over 16,000 rural households. He stated that Congress’s failure to fund the FCC’s Rip and Replace Program would jeopardize Northern Michigan University’s ability to provide broadband connectivity. He asked Mr. Spalter to address how Congress’s failure to fully fund the FCC’s Rip and Replace Program would impact rural broadband providers and rural broadband users.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that the inability of rural and local broadband providers to access Rip and Replace Program funds would render these providers ineligible to participate in the USF. He asserted that this inability to access these funds could have “devastating” consequences for rural communities. He stated that the U.S. must ensure the full deployment of the FCC’s Rip and Replace Program and ensure that rural broadband providers receive adequate support to deploy, maintain, and manage their networks.
• Sen. Peters then discussed the important role digital navigators played in helping people to access broadband internet. He specifically highlighted the important work that Detroit’s Connect 313 program had played in supporting enrollment in the ACP. He asked Ms. Siefer to discuss how digital navigators were currently working to increase enrollment in the ACP. He also asked Ms. Siefer to provide recommendations for how Congress could better support the work of digital navigators.
  • Ms. Siefer discussed how digital navigators worked with community organizations that were already trusted (such as food banks, libraries, and schools) to promote enrollment in the ACP. She remarked that the U.S. needed to increase the number of digital navigators and commented that this would require more investments in digital navigation services. She also stated that the U.S. needed to provide more education to ISP customer service agents so that they were familiar with the ACP’s features and offerings. She further called for streamlining the ACP sign up process through increasing database connections.
• Sen. Peters then noted how NCTA’s members included both Charter Communications and Comcast, which are two major broadband providers in Michigan. He asked Mr. Powell to discuss how broadband providers (including Charter Communications and Comcast) were supporting outreach and implementation efforts for the ACP.
  • Mr. Powell mentioned how many NCTA members (including Charter Communications and Comcast) have been running low-cost private broadband connectivity programs for over a decade. He stated that outreach and education were “essential” elements of these programs. He noted how these members will often partner with digital navigator groups on these outreach and education efforts.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):

• Sen. Blackburn mentioned how Congress has provided significant amounts of funding for broadband infrastructure deployment through COVID-19 relief bills and the IIJA. She also mentioned how her state of Tennessee had provided its own broadband infrastructure funding. She noted however that many low population areas were facing challenges in getting broadband providers to deploy last mile broadband infrastructure. She asked Mr. Powell to identify additional needs for connecting these underserved areas to broadband internet. She commented that there appeared to exist sufficient funding to support these broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that many broadband providers faced permitting challenges in their broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He noted how many broadband infrastructure projects involved the crossing of federal lands, competing claims of permitting authority from multiple federal agencies, and “exorbitant” fees. He stated that the permitting process could add years to broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to note that broadband infrastructure project delays had frustrated her state’s mayors. She then asked Mr. Spalter to identify additional needs for connecting underserved areas to broadband internet. 
  • Mr. Spalter expressed agreement with Mr. Powell’s description of the permitting challenges facing broadband providers. He remarked that the U.S. needed to address these challenges to expand broadband internet access to unserved and underserved communities. He stated that the U.S. broadband industry must work with federal, state, and local governments to address these permitting challenges.
• Sen. Blackburn expressed concerns that the NTIA would require broadband infrastructure projects that took place in right to work states to adhere to certain labor requirements. She asked Mr. Spalter to address her concerns.
  • Mr. Spalter first noted that some of USTelecom’s broadband providers were among the largest U.S. employers. He highlighted how the IIJA recognized that broadband funding programs should not be subject to regulations under the Davis–Bacon Act of 1931 (Davis-Bacon). He stated that the NTIA should scrupulously follow the intent and spirit of the IIJA with regard to both labor issues and middle-class subsidy requirements. He cautioned that the NTIA’s proposed middle class subsidy requirements do not comport with the spirit of the IIJA.
• Sen. Blackburn interjected to provide Mr. Powell with an opportunity to add to Mr. Spalter’s response.
  • Mr. Powell expressed agreement with Mr. Spalter’s response. He noted how the U.S. broadband industry needed approximately 850,000 new skilled workers and stated that the NTIA’s labor policies would make it more difficult to meet this need for workers.
• Sen. Blackburn also raised concerns over how there were more than 100 broadband programs spread across 15 federal agencies. She asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to provide recommendations for streamlining these various programs. She requested that Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter provide their responses to the hearing’s record.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

• Sen. Klobuchar mentioned how the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development had just received nearly $6 million in federal funds for broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. She noted how approximately 144,000 Minnesotans did not have high speed internet and stated that this new funding would help to provide high speed internet to these people. She asserted that federal broadband infrastructure funding would be important for enabling people to continue to reside in rural communities. She then discussed how a lack of available skilled labor was hampering broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. She asked Mr. Spalter to discuss the current challenges regarding skilled labor availability within the broadband infrastructure deployment space. She suggested that immigration reform could help to mitigate these skilled labor availability challenges.
  • Mr. Spalter stated that many broadband providers were having challenges finding the skilled labor needed to deploy broadband infrastructure. He testified that USTelecom and its members were working with community colleges, high schools, and community organizations to develop apprenticeship programs and training programs. He highlighted how Hunter Communications had engaged in a partnership with a Native American reservation to conduct apprenticeship training. 
• Sen. Klobuchar then mentioned how she was the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. She expressed interest in the role that competition could play in making high speed internet more affordable and noted how many parts of the U.S. only had one ISP. She mentioned how the IIJA had directed the FCC to require ISPs to clearly display essential pricing and speed information so that consumers could make more informed decisions. She stated however that these disclosure requirements would not help Americans with no ISP choices. She asked Ms. Siefer to provide recommendations for increasing competition within U.S. broadband markets.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that while competition would help to reduce consumer broadband internet prices, she stated that competition would only make broadband internet affordable for middle class consumers. She contended that subsidies would remain necessary to ensure that lower income Americans could afford broadband internet.
• Sen. Klobuchar then asked Mr. Powell to provide recommendations for improving coordination and administration of federal broadband funding programs across federal agencies.
  • Mr. Powell applauded Congress’s decision to require the FCC and the NTIA to develop a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for greater coordination. He suggested that Congress create a set of external criteria that would allow for policymakers to measure the effectiveness of these coordination and harmonization efforts.
• Sen. Klobuchar then asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to discuss how communities were using federal funds to provide devices to low-income households for accessing broadband internet. She also asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to provide recommendations for ensuring that these funds were being used efficiently.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa remarked that her community’s tribal libraries played a critical role in terms of boosting access to the internet and devices. She stated that policymakers should work to ensure that tribal libraries could participate in digital equity planning efforts. She also stated that the FCC’s ECF played a critical role in providing devices to students and community members.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ):

• Sen. Sinema discussed how the IIJA had made “historic” investments in broadband infrastructure deployment, broadband affordability, tribal access to broadband internet, and digital inclusion. She stated however that Congress must now ensure that the IIJA’s programs were being effectively implemented, that the IIJA’s funding was being quickly distributed, and that approvals were being appropriately processed. She expressed particular interest in improving the federal permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects. She commented that this issue was of particular interest to large western states given how the federal government tended to own large amounts of land within these states. She highlighted how federal agencies, including the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS), could take years to approve permits for broadband projects. She asserted that the federal permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects needs improvement. She asked Mr. Spalter to provide recommendations for streamlining the federal permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Mr. Spalter testified that USTelecom’s members frequently experienced “very severe” permitting challenges and delays in their broadband infrastructure projects. He stated that these challenges and delays impacted USTelecom’s large, regional, and local broadband provider members. He remarked that actions had been taken to address these permitting issues. He noted how the BEAD Program required states to share their plans to streamline their permitting and rights of way processes. He commented that this requirement would help to standardize and harmonize permitting approaches across the U.S. He also expressed hope that this requirement would bring attention to the need to address broadband infrastructure project permitting challenges.
• Sen. Sinema then mentioned how Congress had allocated $2 billion in the IIJA for the NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program. She noted how some of this funding had already been distributed to tribes. She asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to discuss the importance of the Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program for tribes in the southwestern U.S. She also asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to recommend additional actions that Congress should take to help ensure that more tribal communities will have fast and affordable broadband internet access.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa praised the NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program and stated that the Program was enabling tribes to build their own community solutions. She commented that while $2 billion was a large sum of money, she asserted that it would not address all tribal broadband connectivity issues. She then discussed how there were several middle mile and last mile projects that worked together in unison throughout the American southwest. She highlighted how the Santa Fe Indian School was deploying middle mile broadband infrastructure and was working closely with sovereign nation consortium partners on deploying last mile broadband infrastructure. She remarked that this partnership enables the sharing of expertise, joint navigation of permitting processes, and collaboration on cybersecurity issues. She commented that this partnership would support her community’s regional broadband needs.
• Sen. Sinema then discussed how Arizonans would be able to provide feedback on the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric. She stated that this Fabric would eventually inform the NTIA’s distribution of federal broadband infrastructure funds. She asked Mr. Powell to provide recommendations for ensuring that the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric would direct funds to unserved and underserved locations in a manner consistent with the IIJA.
  • Mr. Powell called it important for there to be a “robust” amount of feedback to the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric prior to its approval. He noted the FCC’s feedback deadline was January 13, 2023. He indicated that the FCC had claimed that this deadline was necessary for enabling the distribution of broadband infrastructure funds by June 2023. He also raised concerns that the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric was not universally applicable and noted how there were other large federal programs that were not required to use its Fabric. He called this situation problematic. He further expressed concerns that many states would maintain their own broadband availability maps. He stated that the FCC should consider these state maps when developing their own broadband availability maps.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI):

• Sen. Baldwin highlighted how the ACP was responsible for connecting almost 250,000 Wisconsin households to affordable high speed broadband internet. She mentioned how she had supported the IIJA, which had made these connections possible. She applauded Wisconsin’s efforts to encourage residents to apply for the ACP. She noted however that a recent survey had found that 45 percent of ACP applications were being rejected. She expressed concerns over this rejection rate. She asked Ms. Siefer to provide recommendations for federal, state, and local policymakers to make the ACP application process easier for eligible families and to encourage more seamless eligibility verification processes.
  • Ms. Siefer noted how not all states and state programs had computer matching agreements with the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC). She stated that increasing the adoption of these agreements would expedite the eligibility verification processes for broadband internet benefits. She also recommended that Congress provide more funding for digital navigators. She stated that these digital navigators could help people to properly fill out their ACP applications (which will reduce the likelihood of rejections).
• Sen. Baldwin then discussed how many Wisconsinites depended on services made possible by the USF. She mentioned how the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had recently heard arguments regarding the constitutionality of the USF. She asked Mr. Spalter to project the impact to the U.S. telecommunications space if the USF were ruled unconstitutional.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that a court ruling that the USF was unconstitutional would constitute a “force majeure” event and would undermine the U.S.’s universal broadband connectivity goals. He asserted that the USF was constitutional and predicted that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit would find the USF to be constitutional. He then remarked that policymakers would need to address the long-term sustainability of the USF and stated that this would entail expanding the base of contributors to the program. He expressed interest in working with the Committee on providing the FCC with the authority to expand the USF’s base of contributors.
• Sen. Baldwin then asked Mr. Powell to address how the U.S. telecommunications industry was preparing for the emergence of innovative technologies (such as quantum computing). She also asked Mr. Powell to provide recommendations for how Congress should support the safe implementation of these innovative technologies.
  • Mr. Powell noted how quantum computing could enable the hacking of encrypted systems and commented that this capability is “potentially dangerous.” He discussed how a lot of encryption was built on the premise that a computer would take decades to hack into its systems. He stated that a quantum computer that could perform calculations at exponentially higher rates could render many existing systems vulnerable to hacks. He remarked that NCTA’s members were therefore focused on future encryption standards given the emergence of quantum computing. He also discussed how the management of communications involved mathematical formulas that addressed system congestions and routing patterns. He stated that quantum computing might be able to improve the speeds, capacity, and latency of broadband networks.

Sen. Todd Young (R-IN):

• Sen. Young highlighted how the IIJA alone had made a $65 billion investment in broadband infrastructure deployment and adoption and had established a $42.5 billion broadband grant program at the NTIA. He asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the members of their respective organizations wanted to participate in the BEAD Program and to address how the U.S. broadband industry was prepared to make use of this new funding. He further asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to identify any federal regulations associated with the BEAD Program (or other government broadband programs) that were of focus to the members of their respective organizations.
  • Mr. Spalter remarked that USTelecom members were fully prepared to deploy BEAD Program funds in a responsible, accountable, quick, and effective manner. He stated that USTelecom members possessed the financial, technical, operational, and experiential wherewithal to best deploy these funds. He anticipated that there would occur “broad” participation in the BEAD Program. He cautioned however that the IIJA would have unintended consequences and asserted that Congress must address these issues. He specifically expressed concerns over the prospects that the BEAD Program would be subject to Davis-Bacon regulations and that the BEAD Program would include a middle-class subsidy.
  • Mr. Powell discussed how ISPs had teams dedicated to just making sense of the BEAD Program’s rules, conditions, available markets, and funding dynamics. He further stated that ISPs needed to account for inflation, supply chain constraints, and skilled labor shortages in their navigation of the BEAD Program. He contended that unnecessary regulatory mandates could therefore derail incentives for ISP participation in the BEAD Program.
• Sen. Young expressed interest in identifying BEAD Program regulations and provisions that were inconsistent with Congressional intent. He then asked Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell to address what it would entail to close the “digital divide.” He also asked Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell to indicate whether recently approved federal broadband funds would enable the U.S. to fully close the “digital divide.”
  • Mr. Spalter expressed agreement with the IIJA’s intent to ensure that all Americans would be able to access broadband internet with minimum speeds of 120 Mbps. He remarked that this goal was “tantalizingly close” and would entail an “all hands on deck” effort involving both public and private stakeholders. He stated that various regulatory and permitting challenges often made private sector ISPs less willing to participate in efforts to expand broadband internet access.
• Sen. Young commented that Mr. Spalter’s response did not include a confident assertion that the U.S. would close its “digital divide.”
  • Mr. Powell defined closing the “digital divide” as referring to a state where every American could access high quality broadband internet infrastructure at a reasonable rate. He stated that he was more excited and optimistic regarding the U.S.’s ability to close the digital divide. He remarked however that the U.S. should avoid premature declarations of achieving this goal. He stated that much of the newly available federal broadband infrastructure funding could be misdirected and inefficiently managed. He called on policymakers to be vigilant in overseeing the distribution of these funds.

Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-NV):

• Sen. Rosen remarked that the IIJA could play a key role in bringing high speed broadband internet to rural Nevada communities. She contended that broadband access was not solely a communications issue and asserted that this access constitutes an economic issue, a workforce issue, a public safety issue, and a health care issue. She expressed her disappointment with the FCC’s recently released Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric and commented that this Fabric “vastly” overstated current broadband coverage in rural Nevada. She noted how federal broadband was directly tied to these maps, which underscored the need to improve these maps. She stated that ISPs must be forthcoming about their service areas. She also stated that the FCC’s challenge process must accept challenges based on actual engineering and the facts on the ground. She asserted that the FCC should not base its Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric on an ISP’s theoretical ability to serve a particular community. She then discussed how Americans needed access to affordable high-speed internet, access to connected devices, and digital skill sets. She called it important for digital equity programs to account for the unique needs of local communities. She mentioned how many rural Nevada communities had reported challenges finding partner organizations for their digital equity initiatives. She asked Ms. Siefer to provide recommendations for supporting the digital equity needs of rural communities.
  • Ms. Siefer first thanked Sen. Rosen for her work on the IIJA. She then remarked that rural communities faced greater challenges in pursuing digital equity initiatives and noted how these communities might lack existing digital equity programs. She stated that stakeholder engagement was key to finding parties that could provide digital equity programing. She also noted how many stakeholders might be performing digital inclusion work under different names. She further stated that stakeholder engagement could enable existing stakeholders to become involved in digital equity efforts and integrate digital inclusion into their existing programs. She commented that these stakeholders were valuable providers of digital equity programs because they already had the trust of vulnerable populations. She noted how her organization provided digital equity initiative training and offered her organization’s services to Sen. Rosen’s rural constituents.
• Sen. Rosen then mentioned how rural areas sometimes had the lowest enrollment rates in the ACP. She asked Mr. Siefer to provide recommendations for outreach strategies for increasing ACP enrollment in rural areas.
  • Ms. Siefer emphasized the importance of relying upon community organizations with preexisting relationships with community members. She stated that many ACP eligible people might be distrustful of outreach efforts from ISPs because these people might perceive the ISPs as having a financial interest in having them enroll in the ACP. She remarked that ACP eligible people might therefore find existing community organizations to be more credible sources of information.
• Sen. Rosen called it important for trusted community organizations to play a role in ACP enrollment efforts.

Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT):

• Sen. Tester asked Mr. Powell to identify the greatest barrier to broadband infrastructure deployment for ISPs.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that ISPs required several critical inputs to operate in new areas, including permitting. He recommended that the U.S. create deeper coordination amongst federal agencies for permitting on federal lands and a harmonized set of access fees. He further highlighted the importance of adequately staffing the federal agencies involved in permitting broadband infrastructure projects and noted how staffing shortages often cause project delays. He then remarked that the U.S. should work to provide access to poles at reasonable rates. He noted that while there existed a federal regulatory regime that governed reasonable rates for poles, he highlighted how this regulatory regime contained exemptions. He asserted that many of the exempted entities had conflicts of interests that could make it difficult for ISPs to expand service to new areas.
• Sen. Tester predicted that some bad actors would seek to use newly available federal broadband infrastructure funds to unnecessarily build new broadband infrastructure projects on top of existing projects. He asked Mr. Powell to indicate whether broadband providers requesting federal funds should be responsible for not building unnecessary broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that efforts to make the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric more sophisticated, precise, and granular would “significantly” diminish the likelihood of unnecessary broadband infrastructure spending. He also stated that there would most likely be companies that seek to exploit broadband infrastructure subsidies to profit without benefiting the broader public. He highlighted how Congress had called for the BEAD Program to address the neediest areas first before pursuing additional broadband infrastructure projects. He asserted that the U.S. must be vigilant in its implementation of the BEAD Program to ensure that the Program adhered to Congressional intent.
• Sen. Tester speculated that federal agencies likely maintained onerous permitting processes for broadband infrastructure projects to protect against the misuse of funds. He then mentioned how the IIJA required broadband labels for ISPs that would provide download and upload speeds. He expressed concerns that most people would not be able to understand these labels. He asked Ms. Siefer to indicate whether these broadband label requirements for ISPs would be effective.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that the U.S. needed to provide education around the information on broadband labels for the labels to be effective.

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV):

• Sen. Capito mentioned how she had introduced the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2022 with Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). She stated that this legislation would require a more rigorous vetting and verification process for ISPs seeking to participate in the FCC’s high-cost broadband programs. She remarked that the legislation was meant to ensure that ISPs would be able to deploy broadband infrastructure to underserved areas before they received federal funds. She asked Mr. Spalter to comment on the situation that the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2022 was seeking to address.
  • Mr. Spalter stated that the FCC’s Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) demonstrated the need to vet broadband providers for their financial, technical, and experiential capabilities. He expressed USTelecom’s support for the Rural Broadband Protection Act of 2022. He remarked that the current amount of available broadband infrastructure funding provides a “once in a generation” opportunity for broadband infrastructure deployment and asserted that the U.S. must effectively distribute this money.
• Sen. Capito asked Mr. Powell to opine on efforts to vet and verify ISPs seeking to deploy broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Mr. Powell expressed support for Sen. Capito’s efforts to vet and verify ISPs seeking to deploy broadband infrastructure projects. He stated that broadband was way more complicated to provision than most people realized. He also discussed how broadband infrastructure projects involved extensive maintenance costs and testified that the U.S. broadband industry spent $19 billion annually on upgrades, changes, and innovations. He stated that many broadband infrastructure providers were unable to sustain their infrastructure projects over the long-term.
• Sen. Capito emphasized that broadband infrastructure projects would need to be maintained over time, which required funding. She then applauded the work of the West Virginia Broadband Enhancement Council to pre-map the state’s broadband availability. She raised concerns that the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric had left out 138,000 West Virginian locations. She speculated that these mapping issues were not confined to West Virginia. She asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to indicate when the FCC’s Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric was expected to be finalized. She commented that this Fabric was a precondition for the distribution of IIJA broadband infrastructure project funds.
  • Mr. Powell stated that the FCC was expected to release its Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric in either March or April 2023 and that the NTIA was expected to distribute broadband infrastructure project funds based on this Fabric sometime in June 2023. He noted how the FCC had set their deadline for comments on their Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric for January 13, 2023. He indicated that the FCC was accepting comments to improve the accuracy of this Fabric. He also highlighted how the FCC (rather than ISPs) was determining broadband availability locations.
  • Mr. Spalter stated that the FCC’s review and challenge process played a “critical role” in ensuring that the U.S. had broadband availability maps that were fully functional. He also asserted that NTIA’s use of maps that had not been subject to the FCC’s review and challenge process would undermine the IIJA. He contended that oversight was therefore necessary for ensuring broadband maps that were viable, scalable, universal, and harmonized throughout the U.S.
• Sen. Capito mentioned how her office’s website had highlighted comment opportunities for the FCC’s review and challenge process. She noted how these comment opportunities were especially important for rural residents. She also expressed her appreciation for how state-level data was being delivered to the FCC.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY):

• Sen. Lummis mentioned how western states (including Wyoming) faced unique challenges that can impact the availability of broadband services and increase broadband costs. She elaborated that it could be more expensive to repair equipment located in remote areas. He asked Mr. Powell and Ms. Sekaquaptewa to identify the types of broadband infrastructure deployment costs that disproportionately impact rural and tribal areas.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa noted how the geographies of many tribal areas were very rugged in nature. She mentioned how some areas of New Mexico had lava, which necessitates that nearby broadband infrastructure contain more advanced equipment. She also stated how permitting processes posed challenges to broadband infrastructure projects. She remarked however that the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council had created a mechanism to coordinate permitting processes across federal agencies. She commented that this coordination would save both time and costs for broadband infrastructure projects. She then expressed optimism that her organization would be able to meet its delivery goals for its tribal broadband connectivity project. She indicated however that this project had incurred unexpected administrative costs, which she attributed to delays and supply chain issues.
• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to indicate whether permitting was more difficult in Indian country.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively. She also stated that her tribe needed to work with the BIA and mentioned how the BIA had signed an MoU to work on broadband infrastructure projects. She stated however that many of the rank-and-file agency employees need time to learn about broadband infrastructure project approvals. She commented that this time for education could delay broadband infrastructure project approvals.
• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to indicate whether the BIA needed to be involved in approving broadband infrastructure projects.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa remarked that the BIA did play an important role in approving broadband infrastructure projects. She stated however that tribes varied significantly in terms of resources and internal capabilities. She suggested that better resourced tribes could receive less attention from the BIA.
• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to indicate whether the BIA adapts itself to the differences across tribes and self-governance capabilities of the tribes.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively. She stated however that the BIA could play a role in supporting the least resourced tribes. She suggested that the BIA could help less resourced tribes to acquire underused spectrum in the secondary markets.
• Sen. Lummis asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to contact the Committee if she were to identify any additional areas where the BIA’s regulations were hampering broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. She then asked Mr. Powell to identify the types of broadband infrastructure deployment costs that disproportionately impact rural areas.
  • Mr. Powell remarked that broadband infrastructure deployment efforts in western states could be very challenging considering their complex terrains. He also stated that permitting challenges, pole access, skilled labor shortages, and supply chain backlogs constitute barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment.

Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Powell to indicate whether any of NCTA’s members maintain data caps or data throttling on their consumer broadband offerings.
  • Mr. Powell testified that NCTA’s members did not throttle data on their consumer broadband offerings. He stated however that some of the NCTA’s members did employ data caps on their consumer broadband offerings. He noted that broadband networks were shared and that one user’s overuse of a broadband network could thus diminish the experience of other network users. He stated that some broadband carriers therefore employed caps to prevent this type of situation from occurring.
• Chairman Luján remarked that properly built networks should provide enough data to all users. He asserted that data caps should therefore be unnecessary. He asked Mr. Powell to respond to his assertion.
  • Mr. Powell noted how some broadband connections involved a fixed connection to a home and were unaffected by a neighbor’s data usage. He indicated however that cable networks were largely shared, which meant that one home’s data usage could impact the data availability of other homes in the network. He added that this sharing was common in multi-dwelling units. He stated that broadband caps tend to be “extraordinarily high” and that few people ever reach these cap amounts. He emphasized that data caps were employed for network management reasons. He acknowledged however that many broadband providers did not maintain data caps. He stated that the maintenance of these caps constituted an individual business decision.
• Chairman Luján expressed his appreciation for the fact that these data caps tended to be very high when they exist. He stated however that data caps had constrained many students and teachers during the COVID-19 pandemic. He noted that many of these students and teachers had been unable to afford more data once they had reached their data caps. He stated that these data caps undermined the goals of digital equity. He mentioned how he had introduced the Uncap America Act, which would reduce the ability of broadband providers to impose data caps on their customers. He expressed interest in considering the issue of data caps moving forward as part of broadband infrastructure deployment efforts. He then asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to provide recommendations for how the U.S. could ensure that students have equal access to distance education through broadband services.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa remarked that the pandemic had demonstrated the importance of residential internet access. She recounted how physical barricades had been erected around the entrances to tribal lands during the pandemic to prevent outsiders from bringing COVID-19 onto the lands. She noted how many Native Americans students had relied upon public restaurants to access broadband internet and indicated that these barricades had prevented the students from traveling to these restaurants. She stated that residential internet had thus become the only means for her tribe’s students to access learning. She highlighted however that 89 percent of her school district’s students had not possessed residential internet access. She mentioned that her tribe had deployed mobile broadband hotspots to support remote learning for non-connected households. She remarked that the U.S. needs affordable and permanent residential broadband services to ensure adequate educational participation for K-12 students. She stated that remote learning would remain a fixture of the U.S. education system post-pandemic and that students would now be expected to carry connected devices moving forward. She asserted that broadband internet access would therefore constitute a necessity. She then discussed how schools were changing how they used the internet. She mentioned how New Mexico’s tribal libraries were being connected over gigabit connections to institutions of higher education. She stated that this would enable faster internet and support workforce training.
• Chairman Luján applauded Ms. Sekaquaptewa for her work to connect tribal libraries to institutions of higher education. He then remarked that the FCC’s current Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric contained missing information. He noted how as many as 37,000 New Mexican locations were unaccounted for in this Fabric. He asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to provide recommendations for enabling local communities to engage the FCC on mapping issues and take advantage of the FCC’s challenge process.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa commented that while residential reporting of broadband availability was a positive development, she asserted that additional challenges would still need to be addressed. She noted how many tribal areas did not have street addresses, which complicated efforts to assess broadband availability. She then remarked that the U.S. should not solely focus on engaging tribal leadership as part of its tribal engagement strategy. She suggested that the U.S. engage with geographic information system (GIS) and information technology (IT) specialists on tribal broadband connectivity issues. She also recommended that the U.S. establish a help desk for map issues. She further mentioned how the Connect New Mexico Council would be hosting community workshops to provide education on mapping issues and collect information about locations that lack access to broadband internet.
• Chairman Luján asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to indicate whether the NTIA’s current January 13, 2023 deadline for submitting challenges to the FCC’s preliminary broadband map was sufficient.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered no and called for the deadline to be extended. She acknowledged that while there was a need to swiftly deploy broadband infrastructure projects, she cautioned that hasty decision making on project funding allocations could lead to inefficient spending.
• Chairman Luján then discussed how broadband providers looking to serve rural markets must typically pay more to connect each subsequent customer. He noted how the FCC had interpreted its universal service mandate to include support for this high cost build out. He stated that the BEAD Program and the ACP made it economically feasible for many rural broadband providers to serve underserved areas. He noted how Mr. Spalter’s testimony had expressed support for the Funding Affordable Internet with Reliable (FAIR) Contributions Act, which the Committee had advanced. He asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the future of universal service would include direct support for capital expenditures in rural and high-cost areas.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the future of universal service would include discounts for eligible households to cover the cost of monthly broadband access.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the future of universal service would include direct support for telehealth and telemedicine.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the future of universal service would include direct support for affordable, resilient, and secure broadband for teachers and students.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Spalter to indicate whether the future of universal service would include direct support for digital literacy, digital inclusion, and digital equity initiatives to ensure broadband adoption would be associated with broadband access and affordability.
  • Mr. Spalter answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Luján expressed agreement with Mr. Spalter’s responses. He noted however that the IIJA’s broadband infrastructure funding was not permanent. He stated that the U.S.’s “digital divide” was likely to remain following the exhaustion of IIJA funds. He then expressed agreement with the previous concerns over the burdensome federal permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects. He mentioned how he had recently joined Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) in writing a letter to the U.S. Department of the Interior on this topic. He also noted how these federal permitting issues were not limited to broadband infrastructure deployment. He then discussed how the Santa Fe Indian School had leveraged a model where tribal consortia had worked to build their own fiber networks. He indicated that these consortia had reduced broadband costs by up to 95 percent and had increased broadband speeds “dramatically.” He asked Ms. Sekaquaptewa to indicate whether tribally owned networks have empowered tribes and pueblos to build and sustain self-sufficient and thriving communities.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa answered affirmatively. She stated that it was important for tribal broadband projects to achieve sustainability. She testified that the broadband infrastructure projects that she had been involved with had led to lower costs and increased speeds. She then discussed the importance of developing paths for sustainable funding for broadband infrastructure projects. She commented that the ACP and the FCC’s Lifeline program could serve as sources for this sustainable funding and expressed support for extending the ACP. She also suggested that policymakers consider modifications to the eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation and commented that many tribes did not want to provide voice services. She asserted that broadband-only options were often sufficient for many tribal communities.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY):

• Sen. Lummis first asked Mr. Spalter to identify any additional challenges associated with developing a broadband availability location fabric. She then asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for how the FCC could best ensure that the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric was accurate.
  • Mr. Spalter mentioned how USTelecom had undertaken a pilot program to develop and deploy broadband availability location fabrics in Missouri and Virginia. He noted how USTelecom had used both open-source datasets, proprietary datasets, and sophisticated data analyses. He testified that USTelecom had presented these pilot programs and the underlying location fabric to the FCC and stated that the FCC had adopted USTelecom’s work as the framework for their broadband availability maps. He expressed optimism that geocoding mechanisms would enable the U.S. to have a refined, accurate, and “deeply” granular set of maps. He commented that these geocoding mechanisms would be key to identifying locations that lacked broadband internet access. He lastly stated that the success of these maps would be dependent on a nimble, quick, and effective challenge process.
  • Ms. Sekaquaptewa remarked that policymakers must consider how the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric would be used to address digital inequities. She expressed interest in how schools and health care institutions would be categorized on this Fabric. She stated that this Fabric would serve as a planning tool and asserted that having more dynamic maps would enable better designs for broadband strategies.
  • Ms. Siefer noted that most communities were not making challenges to the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric. She stated that having more challenges would both fix errors in the maps and lead communities to learn more about broadband infrastructure.

Subcommittee Chairman Ben Ray Luján (D-NM):

• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to indicate whether any of the member companies of their respective organizations engage in intentional discrimination when providing broadband service.
  • Mr. Powell answered no.
  • Mr. Spalter answered no.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Powell and Mr. Spalter to indicate whether intentional discrimination from a broadband provider would violate statutes in existence prior to the IIJA’s passage.
  • Mr. Powell stated that there probably existed race, gender, and other types of anti-discrimination statutes that prevent broadband provider discrimination.  He also noted how there existed prohibitions on the redlining of services. He indicated that while he was not familiar with the full suite of anti-discrimination laws, he stated that the IIJA had established a communications deployment architecture that specifically addresses discrimination issues. He commented that the FCC’s implementation of the law would provide further clarity on these anti-discrimination policies.
  • Mr. Spalter mentioned how Sec. 60506 of the IIJA was explicit in prohibiting discrimination. He noted that the FCC had adopted an intentional discrimination standard for assessing the occurrence of discrimination and expressed support for this approach within the broadband space. He mentioned how the intentional discrimination standard was already employed in the housing and employment spaces, as well as in the treatment of persons with disabilities.
• Chairman Luján expressed interest in ensuring that there was no intentional discrimination occurring within the broadband space. He asked Mr. Spalter and Mr. Powell to indicate that existing statutes protect against discrimination within the broadband space.
  • Mr. Spalter stated that he would need to conduct further evaluation to provide a definitive answer to Chairman Luján’s question. He remarked however that none of USTelecom’s member have or have any intention to engage in discrimination. He expressed confidence that the intention of Sec. 60506 of the IIJA was sufficient to serve as the basis for FCC rulemaking to address intentional discrimination.
  • Mr. Powell expressed confidence that NCTA members did not engage in digital discrimination based on the way that the members built their networks. He testified that NCTA members made consistent upgrades to their networks. He stated that there were not significant differences in networks between wealthy areas and low-income areas and between White areas and minority areas. He remarked that NCTA would work with the FCC on developing a workable definition for discrimination under the IIJA. He expressed confidence that the NCTA would be able to satisfy the FCC’s eventual definition for discrimination.
• Chairman Luján asked Mr. Powell to indicate whether Congress had provided the FCC with the authority to define and prevent digital discrimination so that it could promote equal access to broadband with comparable speeds, latency, and other quality of service.
  • Mr. Powell answered affirmatively. He noted however that this authority was subject to economic and technical feasibility considerations.
• Chairman Luján noted how telecommunications companies had previously used economic and technical feasibility considerations as an excuse to not serve entire communities. He expressed concerns that telecommunications companies might continue this practice moving forward. He also noted how many companies will claim that a project is not economically or technically feasible and then later seek to become involved in the project after it is proven economically or technically feasible. He expressed interest in ensuring that telecommunications companies did not use economic and technical feasibility concerns as a way to engage in discrimination.