Closing the Digital Divide: Overseeing Federal Funds for Broadband Deployment (U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations)

Hearing	Closing the Digital Divide: Overseeing Federal Funds for Broadband Deployment
Committee	U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Date	May 10, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• The Current State of Broadband Access: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses highlighted how broadband internet service plays a central role in American life and expressed concerns over how many Americans still lack access to broadband internet service. They noted how these broadband access challenges are especially prevalent in low-income, rural, and tribal communities. They lamented how these broadband access challenges persist, despite significant government investments in broadband infrastructure and broadband support programs. Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Siefer also highlighted how nearly one-third of the Americans that do not have home broadband access cite cost as the reason for not having broadband service.
  • The “Homework Gap:” Subcommittee Members and Ms. Siefer raised concerns over the U.S.’s “homework gap,” which describes the disparity between students that have access to home-based broadband services and devices and students that do not have access to home-based broadband services and devices. They highlighted how students without access to home-based broadband services and devices must often rely upon libraries and public WiFi services to complete their homework assignments, which can impact their ability to participate in extracurricular activities. They also noted how the COVID-19 pandemic had especially harmed these students.
  • Broadband Infrastructure Project Permitting Challenges: Subcommittee Vice Chair Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) and Dr. Ford discussed how broadband infrastructure projects are often subjected to significant permitting delays at the federal and local levels. They suggested that permitting reforms would support the U.S.’s broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • Cellular Service Challenges: Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA), Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY), and Dr. Ford also expressed concerns over how many parts of the U.S. lack adequate cellular coverage and how these coverage challenges can imperil the safety of rural Americans. Dr. Ford largely attributed these cellular service coverage challenges to cellular infrastructure permitting challenges.
• Federal Broadband Programs: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses mainly focused on the U.S.’s efforts to expand broadband availability and affordability through infrastructure investments and affordability programs. They had discussed how the Congress had recently enacted the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), which allocated nearly $65 billion to support broadband infrastructure deployment in unserved and underserved areas. This law had provided funding for the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration’s (NTIA) Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program, the NTIA’s Tribal Broadband Connectivity Program (TBCP), the NTIA’s Enabling Middle Mile Grant Program, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural e-Connectivity (ReConnect) Program, and the U.S. Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP). They also noted how federal agencies had invested at least $44 billion in broadband support activities between fiscal years (FYs) 2015 and 2020. Some Subcommittee Republicans stated that while broadband deployment is a worthy objective, they raised concerns over how this spending will impact the U.S.’s national debt. The also expressed concerns that federal agencies and programs are not employing standardized metrics and cost-benefit analyses for their broadband programs, which can lead to duplicative spending.
  • Fragmentation of Federal Broadband Programs: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Von Ah, and Dr. Ford noted how the federal government now maintains 133 federal programs across 15 federal agencies that can be used to support broadband access in some form or fashion according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). Mr. Von Ah explained that the GAO had found 25 federal programs have broadband internet as their main purpose, 45 federal programs have broadband access as one possible use of funds, and 63 federal programs can only fund broadband projects under certain circumstances and have other purposes. He highlighted how the FCC, the NTIA, the USDA’s Rural Utility Service (RUS), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury are responsible for allocating most of the U.S.’s broadband funding and maintain a memorandum of understanding (MoU). Subcommittee Members, Mr. Von Ah, and Dr. Ford expressed concerns that this large number of federal programs supporting broadband deployment have the potential for overlap, duplication, and conflicting messages. They asserted that this large array of federal programs underscores the need for coordination and potential consolidation of various programs.
  • Uncertainty regarding the Completion of Federally Funded Broadband Programs: Dr. Ford expressed concerns that some federal agencies (such as RUS) do not clearly indicate whether their funded broadband projects are being completed. He also mentioned how the NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP) only provides information about what can be done with federal funding rather than what is actually being done with federal funding. He suggested that the FCC’s National Broadband Map could provide some insight into whether federally-funded broadband projects are being completed.
  • Challenges for Federal Broadband Program Applicants: Subcommittee Members and Mr. Von Ah expressed concerns that federal broadband program applicants face when seeking to participate in federal broadband programs. They noted how these applicants must navigate a “complex web” of eligibility requirements, definitions, and deadlines that vary across programs. They further remarked that potential applicants face challenges using federal broadband programs in a complementary manner, such as for the deployment of infrastructure and devices and for subsidies for the cost of service. Mr. Von Ah commented that this dynamic may necessitate that communities apply for numerous federal programs with no guarantees that they will be successful. Moreover, Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA) and Mr. Von Ah expressed concerns that many tribal communities face challenges applying for federal broadband programs. Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY) and Ms. Siefer stated that federal agencies must work with state and local stakeholders to support access to these federal broadband programs.
  • Alternatives to Fiber Broadband Options: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Von Ah, and Dr. Ford remarked that it may not always be financially sensible to deploy fiber broadband to underserved areas (especially very rural and remote areas). They stated that the U.S. should consider alternatives to fiber broadband in these instances, such as satellite and mobile options. Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA) and Dr. Ford also stated that electric utilities could be leveraged to deploy wireless broadband services in rural areas.
  • “Future Proof” Broadband Infrastructure: Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) and Ms. Siefer argued that the U.S. must focus on building “future proof” broadband infrastructure (such as fiber optics) that can support future broadband needs (rather than focus on current broadband needs). They asserted that a focus on these technologies will ensure that the U.S. will not need to spend additional funds later to upgrade obsolete infrastructure. Dr. Ford cautioned however that while fiber optics technology is often considered “future proof,” he stated that wireless networks could become so advanced that people no longer seek out home connections. He commented that wireless broadband connections would be superior to fixed broadband connections because wireless broadband connections would be portable.
  • Creation of a National Strategy for Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: Subcommittee Republicans, Mr. Von Ah, and Ms. Siefer called on the U.S. to develop a national strategy to coordinate federal broadband deployment efforts. They noted that this call was based on a GAO recommendation and that the Biden administration has not decided whether a national strategy for broadband infrastructure is needed. However, there was less consensus surrounding whether the White House or the NTIA should lead this national strategy. Mr. Von Ah expressed concerns that an NTIA-created national broadband strategy may have no bearing on the actions of other federal departments and agencies. He asserted that a White House-created national broadband strategy would likely experience greater compliance from federal departments and agencies. He stated however that the NTIA should still play a lead role in developing this strategy. Subcommittee Democrats noted however that the NTIA’s Office of Internet Connectivity and Growth (OICG) already coordinates several federal programs focused on broadband access and digital inclusion. 
  • The FCC’s ACP: Subcommittee Democrats and Ms. Siefer expressed support for the FCC’s ACP, which provides subsidies to many low-income Americans to purchase broadband service. They stated that the ACP plays a key role in creating consumer demand for broadband service (which supports private sector broadband infrastructure construction). They called for making the ACP permanent. Ms. Siefer suggested that the ACP could be housed within the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF) if the USF’s contribution mechanism were reformed. Dr. Ford also suggested that the U.S. consider consolidating the ACP and the USF’s Lifeline Program into a single program. Mr. Von Ah expressed concerns however that the ACP’s current performance measures are unclear.
  • Digital Navigators and Digital Inclusion Programs: Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL) and Ms. Siefier expressed interest in supporting digital navigators and digital inclusion programs. Digital navigators are trusted guides that are trained to assist individuals as they seek affordable broadband connectivity, appropriate devices, and digital skills to meet their goals. They asserted that these digital navigators are key to ensuring that the benefits of federal broadband investments are fully and equitably realized.
  • The FCC’s National Broadband Map: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Von Ah, and Dr. Ford expressed interest in the FCC’s efforts to update the accuracy of its National Broadband Map, which inform federal broadband funding decisions. Subcommittee Republicans and Dr. Ford argued that federal agencies should be required to base their broadband funding decisions based on the same maps to avoid wasteful spending and overbuilding. 
  • Delays in the NTIA’s Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: Subcommittee Chairman Griffith raised concerns that the NTIA has not awarded grants for many months after receiving applications. Mr. Von Ah noted how the NTIA has needed to quickly increase its staff so that it could issue notices of funding opportunities (NOFOs) and process applications for many newly authorized federal broadband programs. He also highlighted how these new NTIA broadband programs have greater applicant demand than available funding, which requires the NTIA to diligently review applications.
  • Restrictions on Federal Broadband Funds: Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL) expressed concerns over how some federal broadband programs restrict federal funding to single use deployments, which means that nearby and co-located entities may need to seek out separate funding for their own broadband needs. 
  • Lack of Preference for Unserved Areas: Subcommittee Chairman Griffith and Dr. Ford further expressed concerns that the IIJA does not provide a preference for unserved areas over underserved areas in the disbursement of the law’s funding. They criticized policies that enable areas that are underserved by broadband to compete for the same funding opportunities against areas that are unserved by broadband. Mr. Von Ah highlighted how the IIJA’s framework directs federal agencies to prioritize broadband projects that will achieve the greatest returns on investment.
  • Minimum Broadband Speeds: Subcommittee Republicans and Dr. Ford expressed concerns over the current lack of consistent federal standards for what constitutes a sufficient minimum broadband speed. They also expressed concerns that proposals to lower minimum broadband speed standards could undermine the efforts of truly unserved areas to receive broadband service.
  • Impact of Potential Debt Ceiling Legislation on Federal Broadband Deployment Efforts: Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ) further raised concerns that the recently passed House Republican debt ceiling proposal would rescind unobligated funding for tribal broadband services, internet connectivity for students, and accurate broadband mapping. He criticized this proposal and asserted that the IIJA’s broadband investments are necessary to address long-standing digital disparities.
  • Telecommunications Workforce Issues: Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI) discussed how telecommunications industry workforce shortages serve as another barrier to broadband deployment. He stated that the absence of a robust workforce will render any broadband deployment efforts futile and noted how these workforce shortages are acute in rural areas. Mr. Von Ah also highlighted how much of the current telecommunications workforce is aging. He also noted how these workers often face challenging conditions and must travel far distances. He stated that local efforts to support the development of workforce skills would be useful.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Andrew Von Ah, Director, Physical Infrastructure, U.S. Government Accountability Office
2. Dr. George Ford, PhD, Chief Economist, Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies
3. Ms. Angela Siefer, Executive Director, National Digital Inclusion Alliance

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• He discussed how broadband internet access now plays a critical role in American life and stated that Americans now rely upon fast broadband services to connect with one another, support new economic opportunities, and engage with the world.
  • He commented that the importance of broadband internet access was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic and noted how many activities had moved online during this period.
• He lamented however that large sections of rural America (including much of his Congressional District) lack reliable access to broadband internet services, which puts many Americans at a disadvantage.
• He stated that while broadband access disparities between rural and urban areas have been reduced due to recent federal expenditures, he indicated that millions of Americans still lack access to broadband internet services.
  • He mentioned how the GAO has found that at least 17 percent of rural Americans still lack access to fixed broadband service, which is defined as a minimum download speed of 25 megabits per second (Mbps) and a minimum upload speed of 3 Mbps.
  • He indicated that only 1 percent of Americans living in urban areas cannot access fixed broadband service by contrast.
• He emphasized that broadband access and broadband affordability are distinct issues and commented that the cost of broadband service is irrelevant to Americans without broadband access.
• He remarked that the problem of broadband access disparities is not new and noted how the federal government has long funded efforts to address these disparities.
  • He commented that this problem has not improved as quickly or completely as had been expected.
• He discussed how the IIJA had recently allocated nearly $48 billion to support broadband infrastructure deployment in unserved and underserved areas.
  • He indicated that this law had provided $42.45 billion for the NTIA’s BEAD Program, $2 billion for the NTIA’s TBCP, $1 billion for the NTIA’s Enabling Middle Mile Grant Program, and $2 billion for the USDA’s ReConnect Program.
  • He highlighted how the IIJA does not provide a preference for unserved areas over underserved areas in the distribution of the law’s funding.
• He noted how the U.S. government had previously invested about $44 billion in increasing access to broadband services between 2015 and 2020 and emphasized that millions of Americans still lack access to these services.
• He lamented how a recent GAO report had found that federal broadband infrastructure deployment efforts are fragmented and overlapping.
  • He mentioned how the GAO had found that the federal government’s multiple broadband access programs have the potential for overlap, duplication, and conflicting messages.
• He discussed how current federal efforts to increase broadband internet access include more than 100 programs administered by 15 federal agencies.
  • He reiterated that millions of Americans still lack access to broadband internet service, despite these programs.
• He further noted how the GAO had found that a national strategy with clear roles, goals, objectives, and performance measures do not govern federal broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
  • He added that the Biden administration has not decided whether a national strategy for broadband infrastructure is needed.
• He contended that the U.S. should adopt a national strategy to govern its broadband infrastructure deployment efforts.
• He noted how the GAO had identified the FCC and the NTIA as having significant roles in expanding broadband access.
  • He expressed interest in having the Subcommittee conduct additional oversight of these federal agencies and their spending on broadband matters.
• He expressed hope that the U.S. will soon be able to expand access to broadband services to millions of currently unserved Americans.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• She called reliable broadband internet essential to American life and noted how broadband internet enables Americans to participate in the digital economy, access education and health care services, and apply for jobs.
• She remarked that the U.S. has a “digital divide” between Americans that have access to reliable and affordable internet services and Americans that do not have access to such internet services.
  • She described this “digital divide” as persistent and complex and commented that the U.S.’s broadband internet challenges relate accessibility, affordability, and adoptability.
  • She noted how the Biden administration estimates that 24 million U.S. households currently lack internet access.
• She stated that while broadband access challenges are especially present in rural and tribal communities, she indicated that many urban areas still have challenges accessing broadband service.
• She highlighted how the high cost of broadband service constitutes a “considerable” barrier for millions of Americans.
  • She noted how nearly one-third of Americans that do not have home broadband access cite cost as the reason for not having broadband service.
• She discussed how many of her constituents (including senior citizens on fixed incomes) view internet access as a luxury and mentioned how she had worked with the Tampa Housing Authority to get these senior citizens connected to broadband internet services.
  • She highlighted how her constituents had indicated that reliable broadband internet opens up employment opportunities, supports health care access, enables them to access new cultural activities, and helps in the completion of homework assignments.
• She remarked that the U.S. must work to ensure that all Americans have broadband access given the increasing importance that the internet plays in American life.
  • She expressed interest in ensuring that broadband internet can be deployed across the U.S. in an equitable fashion.
• She then raised concerns over the U.S.’s “homework gap,” which describes the disparity between students that have access to home-based broadband services and students that do not have access to home-based broadband services.
  • She noted how many students that lack access to home-based broadband services must complete homework at their school libraries (which can limit their ability to participate in afterschool activities) or go to areas with free WiFi access to complete and submit their assignments.
• She stated that while the U.S. has made progress in closing its “homework gap” through federal and state investments, she asserted that there remains work to be done on the issue.
  • She mentioned how researchers had found in 2019 that nearly 20 percent of teenagers could not always finish their homework because they lacked broadband internet access.
  • She indicated that while this figure had fallen to about 10 percent in 2022, she called it “unacceptable” that many U.S. teenagers still must rely upon public WiFi services to complete their homework assignments.
• She remarked that federal investments to eliminate digital disparities reflect the importance and complexity of the issue and noted how the GAO had reported that taxpayers have invested $44 billion between 2015 and 2020 in various efforts to address these disparities.
  • She indicated that these investments have been for planning, deployment, affordability, devices, and digital skills development.
• She mentioned how Congressional Democrats had provided $65 billion in federal broadband investments through the IIJA.
• She asserted that the multifaceted nature of the U.S.’s broadband infrastructure problems requires multifaceted solutions that leverage expertise from various government agencies and stakeholders.
  • She mentioned how the FCC’s E-rate Program provides discounts on broadband deployments at libraries and school and the U.S. Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) provides grants to libraries to expand services (such as digital skills classes).
• She stated that while these initiatives are complementary and beneficial, she asserted that the similarity of these initiatives highlights the importance of agency coordination.
  • She commented that agency coordination is needed to ensure that investments reach needy communities and that programmatic differences and deadlines are reconciled.
• She remarked that Congress should work with federal agencies to ensure that federal broadband funding is spent efficiently and effectively.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• She discussed how the internet provides Americans with employment, educational, and health care access opportunities.
• She remarked however that millions of Americans (including many of her rural constituents) lack access to essential internet services.
  • She commented that these broadband access challenges remain, despite significant federal broadband expenditures.
• She asserted that the U.S. can improve broadband availability and mentioned how the IIJA had appropriated nearly $65 billion for broadband deployment and adoption.
  • She commented that these appropriations were in addition to the nearly $8 billion provided annually under the FCC’s USF for similar purposes.
• She mentioned how the U.S. Department of Commerce Inspector General had discussed the Department’s plans to implement the IIJA and the NTIA’s efforts to implement broadband programs during a March 2023 Subcommittee hearing.
• She indicated however that the NTIA is just one of several agencies that administers federal broadband programs.
  • She noted how federal broadband funding spans more than 100 programs across 15 different federal agencies.
• She highlighted how the GAO had found that fragmentation, overlap, and duplication are hindering federal broadband programs in its May 2022 report.
• She expressed interest in exploring how the federal government can better manage and coordinate agency components that are supposed to increase access to broadband services for Americans.
  • She indicated that these agency components include infrastructure planning, affordability, proper devices, and digital skills development.
• She also expressed interest in exploring ways to prevent the federal government from overbuilding broadband infrastructure and from engaging in wasteful and duplicative broadband infrastructure deployment.
  • She commented that this effort would entail ensuring that the new FCC’s National Broadband Map are accurate and used by all federal agencies when making broadband funding decisions.
• She asserted that the U.S. must first examine previously spent broadband funding before it spends more money on broadband infrastructure programs and establishes new federal broadband programs.
• She then expressed interest in identifying the challenges that stakeholders have faced when navigating multiple federal broadband programs and employing these programs in a complementary manner.
  • She commented that inconsistent federal broadband program requirements and complicated permitting processes can make broadband infrastructure deployment burdensome.
• She remarked that harmonizing multiple federal broadband programs will be necessary for maximizing federal broadband investments and ensuring that federal taxpayer funds are being spent in an accountable fashion.
• She highlighted how the GAO has found that the U.S. does not possess a national strategy to coordinate and guide federal broadband deployment efforts.
  • She noted how White House staff had told the GAO that they are currently considering whether such a strategy is needed.
• She mentioned how the GAO had concluded that federal broadband activities will not be fully coordinated and will be at risk for overlap and duplication without a national strategy for federal broadband deployment efforts.
• She highlighted how the Committee has previously acted in a bipartisan fashion to promote coordination across federal agencies through enacting the Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based on Assessed Need and Demand (ACCESS BROADBAND) Act in 2020.
  • She explained that this law tasked the NTIA with tracking and coordinating all federal broadband programs.
• She noted how the NTIA serves as the principal advisor to the President on telecommunications policy and stated that the NTIA is responsible for coordinating the federal government’s efforts to eliminate digital disparities.
  • She commented that this entails the NTIA coordinating various federal broadband programs at the NTIA, the FCC, the USDA, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, the U.S. Department of Defense, and several other federal agencies.
• She further expressed interest in learning more about the GAO’s conversations with the Biden administration regarding the implementation of the IIJA’s broadband programs and ways that the NTIA can coordinate this implementation.

Full Committee Ranking Member Frank Pallone (D-NJ):

• He called access to reliable high-speed internet essential for all Americans to fully participate in the modern society and the economy.
  • He commented that the COVID-19 pandemic had accelerated the U.S.’s reliance on broadband internet for work, education, and interpersonal communications.
• He remarked that the U.S. must work to eliminate digital disparities and lamented how many American households lack access to reliable high-speed internet.
  • He noted how many Americans live in areas without broadband service options, some Americans cannot afford broadband services, and some Americans lack the necessary skills to make use of broadband internet.
• He stated that Congress and the Biden administration had made “major” investments to reduce digital disparities during the previous 117th Congress through the IIJA.
  • He explained that this law had invested $65 billion in programs to provide affordable high-speed internet to Americans and Native communities across the U.S. (including rural and underserved communities).
  • He further noted how this law reduces monthly broadband costs for American families and ensures that people will have the necessary skills to participate in the digital society.
• He remarked that the IIJA’s programs are already increasing internet connectivity for Americans and mentioned how more than 17 million U.S. household are saving $30 per month on their internet bills as a result of the FCC’s ACP.
• He also noted how federal agencies are currently working to develop comprehensive broadband availability maps that will provide for an effective distribution of funds.
  • He commented that these maps will enable equitable access to broadband services throughout the U.S.
• He remarked that broadband deployment constitutes a complex challenge and will require the participation and expertise of government officials across the federal, state, and local levels.
• He stated that Congress and the Biden administration have responded to the need for coordination of government broadband programs and highlighted how Congress had established the OICG at the NTIA.
  • He explained that the OICG is tasked with coordinating several federal programs focused on broadband access and digital inclusion.
• He also noted how the NTIA has “substantially” increased its own capacity through bringing in subject matter experts (SMEs) and staff to assist with grants and to monitor the progress of broadband deployment efforts.
  • He commented that the NTIA is implementing a “thorough and thoughtful” framework to implement federal broadband programs carefully and effectively.
• He stated that the IIJA has been effective in reducing the U.S.’s digital disparities and highlighted how no Committee Republicans had voted in favor of the law.
  • He expressed concerns that Subcommittee Republicans would use the hearing to criticize the IIJA, even though many Subcommittee Republicans have long called for expanding broadband service access within their Congressional Districts.
• He further raised concerns that the U.S.’s potential failure to raise the federal debt ceiling could threaten efforts to address digital disparities.
  • He noted how the recently passed House Republican debt ceiling proposal would rescind unobligated funding for tribal broadband services, internet connectivity for students, and accurate broadband mapping.
• He criticized the recently passed House Republican debt ceiling proposal and asserted that the IIJA’s broadband investments are necessary to address long-standing digital disparities.
  • He called on Congress to work with its federal, state, and local partners on broadband access issues.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Andrew Von Ah (U.S. Government Accountability Office):

• He remarked that eliminating the U.S.’s digital disparities has proven to be a “vexing” task.
  • He commented that this effort involves constructing broadband infrastructure, promoting broadband adoption, ensuring broadband affordability, ensuring available broadband equipment, and developing digital skills.
• He testified that the GAO had found that there are now 133 federal programs across 15 federal agencies that can support broadband access in some form or fashion.
• He noted how the GAO had found 25 federal programs that had broadband internet as their main purpose.
  • He indicated that these programs include the FCC’s High Cost Program, the FCC’s ACP, the USDA’s ReConnect Program, the NTIA’s BEAD Program, the NTIA’s Enabling Middle Mile Grant Program, and the NTIA’s TBCP.
• He also mentioned how the GAO had identified an additional 45 federal programs that have broadband access as one possible use of funds.
  • He indicated that these programs include the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s COVID-19 relief funds and other economic and community development programs.
• He indicated that the remaining 63 federal programs identified by GAO can support broadband access under certain circumstances.
  • He highlighted how the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) program’s funds could be used to install fiber conduit when constructing a highway.
  • He also testified that the GAO could not identify instances where funding had been distributed specifically for broadband access for many of these 63 federal programs.
• He discussed how federal programs had invested at least $44 billion for broadband access between 2015 and 2020 and noted how Congress had authorized more than $80 billion in new broadband spending since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• He remarked that having numerous federal broadband programs can be helpful given the multifaceted nature of broadband access.
  • He commented that new federal broadband funding programs have been able to target previously unfilled funding gaps and cited the NTIA’s Enabling Middle Mile Grant Program and TBCP as examples of such programs.
• He stated however that the fragmentation and overlap in federal broadband funding programs have created challenges for federal agencies and for the potential recipients of the funding.
• He remarked that the abundance of overlapping federal broadband funding programs necessitates that federal agencies effectively collaborate their efforts to avoid wasteful duplication.
  • He commented that this collaboration is not easy.
• He stated that the main federal agencies that control federal broadband funding programs (which include the FCC, the USDA, the NTIA, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury) maintain a MoU and processes that have been “largely effective” at limiting duplicative support.
  • He cautioned however that not all federal agencies and federal programs have awareness regarding the activities of other agencies and programs.
• He remarked that federal agencies have been less successful in aligning broadband programs with similar purposes and leveraging programs to address multiple issues within a community.
  • He largely attributed this lack of success to statutory variations in each program that limit agency flexibility.
• He also stated that federal agencies have struggled to set goals, track program performance, and identify fraud risks in their broadband programs.
• He then remarked that potential recipients of federal broadband program funding face more acute challenges.
  • He highlighted how these potential recipients must navigate a “complex web” of eligibility requirements, definitions, and deadlines that vary across programs.
  • He also stated that these applicants face challenges understanding which programs may be best suited for them or that they might be most competitive for and indicated that it may be too expensive to apply for multiple programs.
• He further discussed how federal broadband programs vary significantly in terms of how they disperse funding and indicated that these programs may use grants, loans, loan-grant combinations, subsidies, apportionments, and reimbursements.
  • He added that some of these programs require matching funds on the part of program recipients.
• He stated that these variations in funding structure contribute to the complexity and administrative burden imposed on agencies and potential applicants.
• He then remarked that potential applicants face challenges using federal broadband programs in a complementary manner, such as for the deployment of infrastructure and devices and for subsidies for the cost of service.
  • He commented that this dynamic may necessitate that communities apply for numerous federal programs with no guarantees that they will be successful.
• He cautioned that the IIJA’s new broadband funding will exacerbate these challenges for potential applicants.
  • He noted how the BEAD Program will provide funding directly to states, which will necessitate further coordination between federal and state government officials and create new sets of rules for potential applicants to receive funding.
• He mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the White House develop a national broadband strategy that could identify overall goals for all federal broadband programs, track program performance and progress, and help align program rules so that programs can work together and identify agency roles and responsibilities.
  • He indicated that the White House has not yet produced such a strategy.
• He also mentioned how the GAO had recommended that federal agencies improve their coordination, set performance goals and metrics for their programs, and identify fraud risks.
  • He indicated that federal agencies are currently working to implement these recommendations.

Dr. George Ford, PhD (Phoenix Center for Advanced Legal & Economic Public Policy Studies):

• He expressed concerns over the speed at which the U.S. is spending money to address digital disparities.
  • He projected that the U.S.’s “aggressive” pace of broadband spending will result in 20 percent of this spending to be lost.
• He remarked however that there exist ways to increase the productivity of the U.S.’s broadband spending and expressed concerns that the U.S. is failing to properly protect these funds.
• He contended that the U.S.’s guiding principle for broadband deployment should be to maximize economically sensible connectivity subject to a subsidy budget constraint.
  • He acknowledged that this approach would lead certain broadband deployment projects to go unpursued.
• He stated that the U.S. should be spending no more than $20,000 of subsidy per connection for broadband projects.
  • He commented that policymakers should defer consideration of broadband projects that require subsidies greater than $20,000 and work to identify alternative methods for providing these areas with broadband connectivity.
• He remarked that his guiding principle for broadband deployment would preclude de facto rate regulation for subsidy recipients, high cost union labor, and unbundling requirements for subsidy recipients.
  • He emphasized that his guiding principle is merely to reduce broadband deployment costs to the greatest extent possible.
• He then contended that the U.S. should work to first expand access to broadband service to currently unserved Americans and to areas requiring the lowest costs to deploy broadband service.
  • He commented that this approach would maximize the number of new broadband service deployments.
• He also stated that the U.S. should not fund competition and municipal broadband networks as part of its broadband deployment strategy.
  • He commented that funding competition would be wasteful and that municipal broadband networks are no longer necessary considering current market entry into the broadband space.
• He then stated that the U.S. will need to look for substitutes to fiber broadband internet options, including satellite and mobile options. 
• He further called for the adoption of better records and metrics as to how federal agencies are working to address waste, fraud, and abuse in their broadband programs so that Congress can better evaluate agency performance.

Ms. Angela Siefer (National Digital Inclusion Alliance):

• She discussed how her organization, the National Digital Inclusion Alliance (NDIA), works with its over 1,250 affiliates.
  • She indicated that these affiliates include community-based organizations, local governments, housing authorities, libraries, and tribal entities on digital inclusion policy efforts.
• She thanked Congress for its swift actions during the COVID-19 pandemic and commented that these actions had provided significant support for digital inclusion program operators.
  • She testified that NDIA has trained 154 digital navigators over the previous six months and indicated that 30 percent of these trained digital navigators will be serving in rural areas.
• She explained that digital navigators are trusted guides that are trained to assist individuals seeking affordable broadband connectivity, appropriate devices, and digital skills to meet their goals.
• She mentioned how the NDIA had recently created the National Digital Navigator Corps, which she explained is a program designed to build capacity in 18 rural and tribal communities.
  • She noted how the number of place-based coalitions focused on addressing digital disparities had grown from approximately 12 coalitions before the COVID-19 pandemic to over 60 coalitions today.
• She highlighted how over 20 states have hired dedicated staff within the previous year to lead their digital equity planning and implementation efforts.
• She remarked that there exists broad geographic and bipartisan support for expanding access to affordable broadband services and the FCC’s ACP.
  • She noted how the ACP addresses the high cost of broadband service and supports over 17 million households in affording broadband service.
• She asserted that the success of federal broadband investments is “inextricably” linked to the FCC’s ACP.
  • She commented that the ACP improves the business case for investing in rural areas, reduces household broadband service cancellations, and increases the likelihood that broadband service providers will achieve a reliable return on investment.
• She then expressed support for the GAO’s recommendation that the federal government create a national broadband strategy and remarked that the federal government should also create a national digital inclusion strategy.
  • She commented that a national digital inclusion strategy should strengthen and support local, state, territory, and tribal digital inclusion ecosystems, designate a coordinating body to facilitate digital inclusion work across all federal agencies, and support the creation of public-private digital inclusion partnerships.
• She concluded that broadband access will be key to providing economic opportunities and ensuring the U.S.’s global competitiveness.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Chairman Griffith discussed how the mountainous nature of his Congressional District can make it very difficult and expensive to connect certain homes and communities to broadband service (even in non-remote areas). He expressed agreement with Dr. Ford’s assertion that the U.S. should prioritize efforts to deploy broadband service to completely unserved areas. He criticized policies that enable areas that are underserved by broadband to compete for the same funding opportunities against areas that are unserved by broadband. He emphasized that many of his constituents completely lack broadband service options. He then remarked that it is not always sensible to deploy fiber broadband services to remote locations due to deployment costs, uncertainty regarding uptake, and affordability challenges. He stated however that satellite broadband service could support broadband deployment in rural areas. He expressed hope that the satellite broadband space will become more competitive. He asked Dr. Ford to provide recommendations for how the U.S. can encourage satellite broadband deployment. He also mentioned how Appalachian Power (which is an electric utility) has used their existing infrastructure to support the deployment of wireless broadband in areas of his Congressional District. He asked Dr. Ford to address how the U.S. can support these wireless broadband deployment efforts.
  • Dr. Ford discussed how broadband deployment is not always straightforward and noted how complicating circumstances (such as geography and transportation easements) can make it more expensive to deploy broadband in certain areas. He remarked that the U.S. must be deliberate in its broadband deployment strategy. He stated that satellite services are an available option for deploying broadband to certain areas. He acknowledged that while the capacities of satellite broadband services can be limited, he commented that these options tend to have sufficient speeds.
• Chairman Griffith interjected to ask Dr. Ford to indicate whether the U.S. should subsidize satellite broadband services in areas where it is very expensive to deploy fiber broadband services.
  • Dr. Ford answered affirmatively.
• Chairman Griffith interjected to comment that the U.S. could also support electric utilities (like Appalachian Power) that are working to deploy broadband services through their existing infrastructure.
  • Dr. Ford expressed agreement with Chairman Griffith’s comment. He also remarked that these alternative broadband deployment strategies can be pursued as interim strategies. He stated that it may eventually become more affordable to deploy fiber broadband service to many remote communities.
• Chairman Griffith then mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the NTIA develop a report for Congress that identifies statutes that are preventing federal broadband program alignment. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the NTIA should identify public-private partnership opportunities and opportunities for broadband coverage subsidies for areas where fiber broadband deployment is currently not economically feasible.
  • Mr. Von Ah noted how some federal programs allow for satellite broadband providers to participate while other federal programs do not allow for these providers to participate. He stated that the U.S. should work to ensure that federal programs are flexible enough to permit different broadband technologies to serve different communities. He commented that fiber broadband options are not always feasible.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Kathy Castor (D-FL):

• Ranking Member Castor remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the importance of broadband service to modern American life. She also stated that the pandemic had highlighted the U.S.’s broadband service access challenges, especially for rural Americans and American children. She recounted how emergency COVID-19 relief legislation had helped communities to expand broadband service during the pandemic. She asked Ms. Siefer to provide examples of how communities have been able to accelerate digital equity and inclusion efforts in schools and how communities are currently working to eliminate the “homework gap.”
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that the COVID-19 pandemic had caused many community stakeholders to come together to address digital equity issues. She stated that a key lesson from the COVID-19 pandemic was that WiFi hotspot devices should not be considered a long-term solution for addressing broadband access challenges. She expressed excitement over how states are developing their own digital equity plans and commented that these plans will provide long-term solutions for addressing broadband access challenges.
• Ranking Member Castor noted how the Digital Equity Act of 2021 requires states to work on partnerships in local communities to address digital disparities. She asked Ms. Siefer to identify innovative aspects of these partnerships and common barriers that these partnerships experience.
  • Ms. Siefer noted that these digital equity plans between states and local communities are under development. She testified that the NDIA is not writing any of these plans and is merely advising certain stakeholders on developing these plans. She mentioned how she had recently attended the launch celebration for Alaska’s digital equity plan and highlighted how Alaska had considered the benefits and drawbacks of increased broadband access. She elaborated that while broadband access provides employment and health care opportunities, she also noted that broadband access can facilitate human trafficking and scams. She stated that this consideration of broadband issues will better prepare states and communities to implement digital inclusion programs in the future.
• Ranking Member Castor then asked Mr. Von Ah to confirm that the IIJA does prioritize unserved areas in its deployment of federal broadband funding.
  • Mr. Von Ah remarked that the prioritization of the IIJA’s broadband funding would depend largely on how federal agencies implement the IIJA’s broadband programs. He stated that the IIJA’s framework directs federal agencies to prioritize broadband projects that will achieve the greatest returns on investment.
• Ranking Member Castor asked Mr. Von Ah to confirm that the IIJA would provide significantly more funding for broadband project deployment and require federal broadband programs to prioritize unserved and underserved in their funding distributions.
  • Mr. Von Ah remarked that federal broadband programs vary significantly. He noted how the FCC’s High Cost Program has identified unserved areas and has worked to encourage broadband providers to service these areas. He commented that this effort has had some success. He noted however that many of these identified unserved areas still contain areas within them that lack broadband service. He stated that federal broadband programs are attempting to address these service gaps.
• Ranking Member Castor asked Mr. Von Ah to provide examples of statutory differences that can make it challenging for underserved communities to participate in federal broadband programs.
  • Mr. Von Ah discussed how participation requirements for federal broadband programs may vary. He noted how some programs require participants to be eligible telecommunications carriers while other programs do not have this requirement. He also stated that different federal broadband programs may have different definitions for certain terms, which can create participation challenges. He highlighted how the USDA’s various broadband programs have different definitions for the term “rural.” He remarked that these definitional variations make it difficult for potential recipients to determine which federal broadband programs are most appropriate for them.

Full Committee Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA):

• Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how the GAO had found that there are at least 133 federal broadband funding programs that are administered across 15 federal agencies. She also noted how the GAO had found that federal agencies had invested at least $44 billion in broadband support activities between FYs 2015 and 2020. She expressed concerns over the ability of federal agencies to coordinate these various broadband funding programs. She asked Mr. Von Ah to discuss how federal agencies communicate with one another to make broadband funding decisions. She also asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether these federal agencies are working together to protect against potential duplication in their broadband funding distributions.
  • Mr. Von Ah remarked that federal agencies claim to have worked together to address potential duplication in their broadband funding distributions. He stated that the FCC, the NTIA, the RUS, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury all maintain regular communications and meetings regarding their funding activities. He noted how these four federal agencies reference the NTIA’s National Broadband Map, which tracks federal broadband funding distributions. He also stated that these four federal agencies work to prevent duplicative service when there exists an overlapping service area. He indicated that these four federal agencies engage in coordination exercises on a regular and ongoing basis.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether federal agencies consider if a broadband program applicant has a history of waste, fraud, and abuse in making award decisions.
  • Mr. Von Ah answered affirmatively. He mentioned how the GAO had made recommendations for how federal broadband programs can better identify an applicant’s fraud risks. He commented that there exists opportunity for improvement in this area.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers mentioned how Congress had recently created the BEAD Program, the FCC’s Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), and the ACP. She also noted how the USF already contains the High Cost Program, the e-Rate Program, and the Lifeline Program. She asked Mr. Von Ah and Dr. Ford to discuss how these programs and their potential duplication might impact the effectiveness of federal broadband funding.
  • Mr. Von Ah mentioned how a recent GAO report had found that the ACP’s performance measures are unclear. He elaborated that it remains uncertain as to whether the ACP is serving either new or existing broadband subscribers. He stated that the GAO is working to get federal agencies to develop performance measures and goals for their broadband programs. He then remarked that the BEAD Program’s implementation remains ongoing and noted how states are still developing their broadband deployment plans under the Program. He stated that the BEAD Program’s potential interaction with other federal broadband investments remains unknown.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that there must exist some form of coordination between federal broadband programs that focus on the demand side. He noted how the FCC maintains the ACP and the Lifeline Program. He indicated that while these Programs have different funding sources, he commented that these Programs have very similar missions (i.e., help low-income Americans to afford broadband service). He expressed uncertainty as to why the U.S. needs two separate federal programs that have very similar missions. He suggested that the U.S. consider consolidating the ACP and the Lifeline Program into a single program. He also recommended that the U.S. not put this new consolidated program within the USF given the USF’s existing challenges. He further asserted that this new consolidated program should be subject to the Congressional budget process and Congressional oversight.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers noted how Dr. Ford’s testimony had highlighted how many federal agencies did not report whether their funded broadband projects had actually been accomplished. She asked Dr. Ford to address whether federally-funded broadband projects are being completed.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that the FCC’s National Broadband Map could provide some insight into whether federally-funded broadband projects are being completed. He stated however that some federal agencies (such as RUS) do not clearly indicate whether their funded broadband projects are being completed. He also mentioned how the NTIA’s BTOP only provides information about what can be done with federal funding rather than what is actually being done with federal funding.
• Chairman McMorris Rodgers interjected to note that her question period time had expired.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL):

• Rep. Schakowsky remarked that digital disparities remain a major problem in the U.S. and noted how nearly one-third of Americans lack access to broadband service. She highlighted how almost half of the low-income families in her state of Illinois lack access to broadband service. She applauded the ACP for helping many Illinois residents to obtain broadband service and reiterated her interest in addressing the U.S.’s digital disparities. She asked Ms. Siefer to discuss the importance of the ACP in addressing digital disparities.
  • Ms. Siefer called the ACP “incredibly important.” She stated that affordability challenges, device issues, and digital skills limitations serve as greater barriers to broadband adoption than broadband availability. She called on policymakers to prioritize the ACP.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Siefer to indicate whether a lack of affordable broadband options constitutes a major impediment to eliminating the U.S.’s digital disparities.
  • Ms. Siefer commented that while broadband affordability is an important issue for eliminating digital disparities, she asserted that addressing broadband affordability alone would not eliminate digital disparities. She stated that policymakers must also address issues related to broadband availability, digital skills, and access to devices.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Siefer to indicate whether Congress should pass legislation to address digital disparities. She also asked Ms. Siefer to provide recommendations for potential legislation on this topic.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that Congress must reform the USF’s contribution mechanism and commented that this reform would take time to develop. She stated that reforming the USF’s contribution mechanism could enable the ACP to be housed within the USF. She further called on Congress to extend funding for the ACP.
• Rep. Schakowsky then discussed how students are increasingly using technology in classroom settings. She noted however that many students lack access to technology in their homes. She asked Ms. Siefer to address how digital disparities have impacted educational opportunities for students.
  • Ms. Siefer noted how many children face broadband access challenges in their homes. She testified that her children have friends that must use their local libraries to complete their homework assignments after school. She commented that this need to access the internet through their local libraries prevents these children from participating in other after school activities.
• Rep. Schakowsky asked Ms. Siefer to discuss the people and organizations that are currently working to educate people on broadband access and support access to broadband services.
  • Ms. Siefer stated that NDIA’s affiliates are engaged in broadband education and access efforts and indicated that the NDIA had been established to support these affiliates. She noted how these affiliates tend to be community-based organizations, libraries, housing authorities, and local governments. She stated that the NDIA encourages entities that are trusted by low-income ACP-eligible households to help people enroll in the ACP. She emphasized the importance of trust in getting people to enroll in the ACP.
• Rep. Schakowsky expressed agreement with Ms. Siefer’s response.

Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY):

• Rep. Guthrie discussed how the FCC is working to update its National Broadband Map and process challenges regarding broadband accessibility data. He noted that while the FCC’s National Broadband Map provides more granularity than previous broadband maps, he indicated that these Maps still contain inaccuracies. He expressed concerns that insufficient feedback has been incorporated into these Maps and highlighted how these Maps will inform the distribution of federal funding to states. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate how often the FCC incorporates feedback to update its National Broadband Map. He also asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether federal funds are leading to an overbuilding of broadband infrastructure. He further asked Mr. Von Ah to provide recommendations for how Congress can improve coordination between the USDA, the NTIA, and the FCC.
  • Mr. Von Ah first noted that the FCC’s challenge process for its National Broadband Map remains ongoing. He indicated that the GAO has not extensively evaluated the FCC’s management of its challenge process. He then stated that there are not many instances where a federal program is building multiple broadband projects within a single location. He commented however that an overbuilding of broadband infrastructure can entail the construction of expensive service in areas where cheaper broadband options would suffice. He stated that the GAO’s recommendations call for the U.S. to consider the best suited broadband service options for communities. He then remarked that Congress could encourage federal agencies to take a more strategic approach. He stated that while federal agencies may find it easy to coordinate their broadband programs, he commented that these agencies can face challenges aligning their programs. He suggested that federal agencies are ill-suited to support program alignment on their own and stated that Congress could direct this alignment. He elaborated that federal agencies can only control themselves while Congress has control over all federal agencies.
• Rep. Guthrie then mentioned how many of his constituents lack access to broadband service. He noted however that there does not exist a federal standard for what constitutes an area that is unserved by broadband. He asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether Congress should establish a standardized definition across federal agencies regarding what constitutes an unserved area. He also noted how there are proposals to change the minimum broadband speed thresholds for unserved and underserved communities from 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. He asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether changing these minimum speed thresholds for unserved and underserved communities would risk diverting limited federal resources from difficult to reach communities.
  • Dr. Ford expressed concerns over having Congress set minimum broadband speed thresholds for unserved and underserved communities. He acknowledged however that having Congress set these speed thresholds would result in standardization of speed thresholds across federal agencies. He stated that minimum broadband speed thresholds could require the adoption of very expensive broadband service when there might already exist much cheaper (albeit slightly slower) broadband service options. He also expressed concerns that the FCC’s assessment of what constitutes a sufficient minimum broadband speed could become politicized and suggested that independent parties ought to determine these minimum speeds.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO):

• Rep. DeGette highlighted how many urban communities had faced broadband access challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. She stated that the Biden administration has worked to eliminate digital disparities through “historic” federal broadband investments and asserted that cities must receive some of these investments. She asked Ms. Siefer to discuss how federal investments in broadband deployment and digital inclusion will enable cities to plan for and provide better services on a long-term basis.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that the U.S. must build broadband infrastructure that can support future broadband needs (rather than focus on current broadband needs). She noted how many lower-income urban communities have been “digitally redlined.” She explained that digital redlining refers to the practice where broadband providers ignore low-income areas and focus their broadband deployment on higher income areas. She commented that digital redlining often results in more expensive and slower broadband service options in low-income communities. She remarked that the U.S. must address inequities in broadband service availability, cost, and robustness.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Siefer to address whether it is important for the U.S. to maintain a continuing program to build out broadband infrastructure over time.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that the U.S. will always have digital disparities because of the constantly evolving nature of technology. She stated that while the U.S. will be able to address certain digital disparities (such as those related to broadband speeds), she asserted that the emergence of new technologies will result in new types of disparities. She commented that artificial intelligence (AI) might drive new types of digital disparities. She contended that the U.S. will need to have a permanent position and permanent agency to respond to these digital divides.
• Rep. DeGette asked Ms. Siefer to project the impact of cutting federal funding for broadband affordability programs.
  • Ms. Siefer stated that funding reductions for broadband affordability programs will result in millions of Americans losing access to the internet. She warned that this loss of internet access will impact the ability of these Americans to access health, education, and work opportunities.
• Rep. DeGette mentioned how all Subcommittee Republicans had recently signed onto a letter to the FCC’s Inspector General that had referred to the ACP as temporary. She noted how this letter had asked whether the FCC had prepared ACP participating providers for potential lapses in ACP funding. She expressed concerns over the lack of permanence in many broadband affordability programs and stated that broadband providers cannot easily respond to potential lapses in program funding. She asked Ms. Siefer to respond to these concerns.
  • Ms. Siefer expressed support for making the ACP permanent. She stated that Congress must provide short-term extensions of the ACP as it develops a plan to make the Program permanent.

Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC):

• Rep. Duncan noted that the U.S.’s national debt is $32 trillion and commented that this debt necessitates that the U.S. pursue spending reductions. He stated however that rural broadband is a critical need. He mentioned how students in his Congressional District had relied upon WiFi buses during the COVID-19 pandemic to complete their schoolwork assignments. He noted however that many private companies (such as West Carolina Tel) had invested in fiber optic options in rural areas of his Congressional District. He indicated that while many urban areas have access to broadband services, he acknowledged that many consumers in these areas might not be able to afford broadband services. He then expressed concerns over how federal funding for broadband services is being spent. He stated that federal broadband programs should be subject to sunset dates, accountability, and oversight. He expressed concerns that U.S. would invest in technologies that could become obsolete, which will force the U.S. to spend more money in the future to upgrade the technologies. He stated that fiber optics deployment would not face these risks and commented that fiber optics lines can support future technologies. He asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether the U.S. should focus on deploying broadband technologies that can adapt to future broadband needs.
  • Dr. Ford noted that while fiber optics are often considered “future proof,” he stated that wireless networks could become so advanced that people will no longer seek out home connections. He commented that wireless broadband connections would be superior to fixed broadband connections because wireless broadband connections would be portable. He also noted how fiber optic lines can be very expensive to deploy in the immediate term.
• Rep. Duncan then asked Mr. Von Ah to address how Congress can ensure that it does not construct duplicative broadband infrastructure in urban locations.
  • Mr. Von Ah stated that the GAO had found that duplicative broadband infrastructure funding is rarer than expected. He noted that while many federal broadband programs serve similar areas, he indicated that these programs may not be serving the exact same locations. He stated that federal agencies are vigilantly avoiding duplicative broadband infrastructure construction and are engaging in coordination on this topic. He then discussed how the private sector remains the main provider of internet infrastructure in the U.S. He noted how many federal broadband programs are working to encourage these companies to extend broadband service to areas where the deployment of broadband service is not economically feasible.

Subcommittee Vice Chair Debbie Lesko (R-AZ):

• Vice Chair Lesko called for the U.S. to pursue its broadband deployment spending in a diligent fashion to guard against waste and fraud. She mentioned how the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 had authorized $10 billion for the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Capital Projects Fund, which provided money to states, territories, and tribal governments to fund critical capital projects in response to the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE). She asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the U.S. Department of the Treasury possess the expertise and capability to effectively administer the Capital Projects Fund given that the Department does not traditionally oversee broadband funding.
  • Mr. Von Ah indicated that the GAO had not specifically reviewed the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Capital Projects Program. He noted however that the U.S. Department of the Treasury is participating with other federal agencies in ongoing broadband deployment coordination meetings. He called it an “encouraging sign” that the U.S. Department of the Treasury is involved in a MoU with the FCC, the NTIA, and the RUS.
• Vice Chair Lesko then noted how the BEAD Program is a $42.45 billion NTIA program established under the IIJA to deploy broadband infrastructure. She asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether the NTIA is properly equipped to direct and oversee this large amount of funding.
  • Dr. Ford answered no.
• Vice Chair Lesko then discussed how broadband providers are often subjected to significant permitting delays at the local and federal levels. She asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether a uniform permitting application would help to address delay issues, especially considering how funding is being distributed across multiple federal broadband programs with differing timelines and regulations.
  • Dr. Ford commented that a uniform permitting application would ease the permitting process for broadband projects.
• Vice Chair Lesko asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether Congress should pursue permitting reform legislation this year.
  • Dr. Ford stated that it would be “reasonable” for Congress to pursue permitting reform legislation. He added that Congress should also consider reforms to pole attachment and right-of-way policies.
• Vice Chair Lesko then asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether it would be reasonable and effective to have a single federal agency administer all federal broadband programs.
  • Mr. Von Ah first noted how many federal broadband programs do not have broadband as their main purpose. He indicated that the FCC, the NTIA, the RUS, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury currently control the majority of federal broadband funding. He explained how many federal broadband programs have other purposes, such as economic and community development. He expressed uncertainty regarding whether it would be appropriate to have one federal agency administer all federal broadband programs. He commented that having one federal agency administer all federal broadband programs could provide for greater focus. He noted however the FCC is not an administrative branch agency and is instead an independent commission. He indicated that the FCC derives revenues from the USF, which is funded through phone bill taxes. He noted that the NTIA by contrast is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce and acts to implement the strategic plans and goals of the Department. He highlighted how communications policy issues are spread across multiple federal agencies.
• Vice Chair Lesko stated that having multiple federal agencies and federal programs working on broadband projects will inevitably lead to overspending. She commented that federal policymakers should be vigilant against overspending.

Rep. Raul Ruiz (D-CA):

• Rep. Ruiz remarked that the U.S. must treat broadband service as a necessity (rather than as a luxury). He discussed how broadband service had played a key role in connecting Americans to jobs, health care services, and education during the COVID-19 pandemic. He asserted that the U.S. must work to ensure access to reliable high-speed broadband service. He mentioned how the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 had included his legislation, the Tribal Broadband Deployment Act of 2018. He indicated that this law had required the FCC to assess broadband availability on tribal lands and expand broadband access to these lands. He noted how the portion of people living on tribal lands without broadband access had declined from 35 percent in 2018 to 21 percent in 2021. He commented that while this 21 percent figure constitutes an improvement, he noted how only 4 percent of Americans overall do not have broadband access. He contended that the U.S. must take further actions to improve broadband availability on tribal lands. He expressed encouragement with the IIJA’s $65 billion in broadband investments. He highlighted how $2 billion of this funding is for tribal broadband programs. He mentioned how the NDIA had previously held a tribal broadband bootcamp. He asked Ms. Siefer to discuss the unique challenges that tribal communities face when participating in broadband programs.
  • Ms. Siefer discussed how NDIA is helping tribes to create their own digital equity programs. She highlighted how some tribes own their own internet service providers (ISPs), which provides them with more control over broadband deployment efforts. She also noted how these tribe-owned ISPs are often providing digital navigation services, which support training for people to connect to and use the internet. She commented that most non-tribal ISPs do not offer these digital navigation services.
• Rep. Ruiz asked Ms. Siefer to address how tribal communities can participate in broadband programs and to identify any barriers that these communities face regarding these programs.
  • Ms. Siefer remarked that tribes need digital skills, devices, and internet connectivity to participate in federal broadband programs.
• Rep. Ruiz asked Ms. Siefer to indicate whether tribes need technical support to participate in broadband programs.
  • Ms. Siefer answered affirmatively. She added that this technical support must come from within tribal communities.
• Rep. Ruiz then noted how recent GAO reports indicate that tribal lands continue to lag the rest of the U.S. in terms of broadband access. He asked Mr. Von Ah to provide policy recommendations for addressing this broadband access disparity.
  • Mr. Von Ah mentioned how GAO’s work has highlighted the challenges that tribal communities face when seeking to access federal programs. He noted that while tribal communities are eligible for many federal programs, he indicated that these communities have not been successful in obtaining federal funding. He also noted how tribal communities often face challenges when trying to partner with broadband carriers. He discussed how the U.S. had established the TBCP as the first federal program focused on disbursing broadband funding to tribal communities. He mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the U.S. establish a national strategy for federal broadband deployment efforts and that this national strategy include a tribal focus. He commented that tribal communities and lands face unique broadband deployment challenges that warrant special consideration. He also stated NTIA’s OICG should have a specific workstream to focus on addressing the barriers that tribes face when seeking to access federal broadband programs.

Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R-ND):

• Rep. Armstrong noted how there are 133 federal programs spanning over 15 federal agencies that provide broadband funding. He also mentioned how the U.S. had spent $44 billion on broadband access efforts between FYs 2015 through 2020. He asked Mr. Von Ah to estimate the potential savings that could be realized through streamlining federal broadband programs, avoiding duplicative broadband grants, standardizing policies, definitions, and eligibility standards, and eliminating other bureaucratic inefficiencies.
  • Mr. Von Ah commented that the GAO has not conducted sufficient analysis to provide an answer to Rep. Armstrong’s question. He noted however that there are overhead costs associated with operating multiple broadband programs across several federal agencies.
• Rep. Armstrong highlighted how four federal departments and agencies operate the majority of federal broadband programs. He indicated that the other federal broadband programs address broadband issues along with multiple other policy issues.
  • Mr. Von Ah noted how 63 of the U.S. government’s broadband programs can only fund broadband projects under certain circumstances and have other purposes. He indicated that four departments and agencies are responsible for the majority of federal broadband funding.
• Rep. Armstrong asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether there exists a way to estimate the total costs associated with federal broadband program inefficiencies. He expressed frustration over the lack of accountability surrounding the U.S.’s previous $44 billion in broadband expenditures.
  • Dr. Ford commented that the U.S. could develop an estimate of federal broadband program inefficiencies if it could obtain federal agency performance information. He acknowledged however that this data can be difficult to obtain. He stated that the collection of this data could indicate which federal agencies are more efficient in their broadband project spending. He commented however that this data would be less effective in terms of identifying broader inefficiencies.
• Rep. Armstrong commented that simplifying the U.S. government’s portfolio of broadband programs (particularly programs where broadband is not a primary focus) would reduce overhead costs and “bureaucratic malaise.”
  • Dr. Ford expressed agreement with Rep. Armstrong that simplifying the U.S. government’s portfolio of broadband programs would reduce overhead costs. He also stated that the U.S.’s use of multiple federal programs to support broadband projects results in duplicative staff. He further remarked that reducing the number of federal broadband programs could result in the collection of more standardized data. He elaborated that federal agencies often maintain different data collection practices, which can make their collected data difficult to compare.
• Rep. Armstrong then yielded the remainder of his question period time to Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA).

Subcommittee Chairman Morgan Griffith (R-VA):

• Chairman Griffith mentioned how there have been some cases where the NTIA has not awarded grants for many months after receiving applications. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether there are any particular statutes that prevent the effective distribution of federal broadband funds.
  • Mr. Von Ah stated that there are no statutes that prevent the effective distribution of federal broadband funds. He noted how the NTIA has needed to quickly increase its staff so that it could issue NOFOs and process applications for many newly authorized federal broadband programs. He also highlighted how these new NTIA broadband programs have greater applicant demand than available funding, which requires the NTIA to diligently review applications.
• Chairman Griffith then noted how the GAO had recommended that the U.S. better align federal broadband programs to eliminate certain redundancies. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate how the NTIA had responded to this recommendation.
  • Mr. Von Ah indicated that the NTIA had agreed with the GAO’s recommendation for better alignment of federal broadband programs. He noted how federal agencies had stated that they are often statutorily limited in their abilities to align their broadband programs with one another. He remarked that Congress will need to change these statutes to enable federal broadband program alignment. He mentioned how the GAO had recommended that federal agencies identify specific statutory provisions that impede federal broadband program alignment.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether these federal agencies have identified specific statutory provisions that impede federal broadband program alignment.
  • Mr. Von Ah answered no.
• Rep. Griffith asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the federal agencies have been hesitant to identify specific statutory provisions that impede federal broadband program alignment.
  • Mr. Von Ah answered no.

Rep. Paul Tonko (D-NY):

• Rep. Tonko recounted how one of his constituents was recently shot and killed after driving up a wrong driveway in a rural town. He noted how this constituent’s friends had needed to drive several miles to find phone service so that they could call 911 emergency services. He commented that this inability to immediately access 911 emergency services had contributed to his constituent’s death. He remarked that this tragedy highlights how many parts of the U.S. still lack adequate phone coverage and broadband access and asserted that the U.S. must address its digital disparities. He discussed how he has long worked to expand broadband service access to unserved and underserved communities. He mentioned how the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 had included his legislation, the ACCESS BROADBAND Act. He explained that this legislation had established the OICG at the NTIA, which is charged with tracking broadband funding across agencies, supporting small businesses and local communities, and improving coordination amongst the government and private sector elements. He noted how the GAO had found in November 2021 that numerous federal broadband programs lack coordination. He indicated that the OICG had been established in August 2021 (which was just a few months before the GAO’s evaluation). He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the GAO had examined interagency coordination on federal broadband programs since the establishment of the OICG.
  • Mr. Von Ah testified that the GAO had looked at interagency coordination within the context of specific federal broadband programs since the OICG’s establishment. He mentioned how the GAO had examined how the USDA is coordinating its activities with the FCC, the NTIA, and other federal agencies on the ReConnect Program to guard against duplicative funding. He noted how the OICG is currently using American Broadband Initiative (ABI), which is a coalition of broadband stakeholders, as a way to help coordinate broadband policies across federal agencies. He mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the OICG expand the role of ABI to include tribal issues. He indicated that the OICG is currently preparing to expand its coordination efforts.
• Rep. Tonko asked Mr. Von Ah to identify concrete actions that Congress can take to further improve interagency coordination regarding federal broadband programs.
  • Mr. Von Ah recommended that Congress support the establishment of a national strategy for federal broadband deployment efforts.
• Rep. Tonko also discussed how the ACCESS BROADBAND Act makes it easier for business and local leaders to bring federal funding to underserved and unserved areas in need of broadband access. He stated that the federal government must know which communities are most in need of support to maximize its broadband deployment efforts. He commented that engagement with community leaders will be critical for ensuring the successful deployment of broadband service. He asked Ms. Siefer to address how collaboration between communities and federal agencies will help to ensure that federal broadband funding is being spent most efficiently.
  • Ms. Siefer stated that policymakers should distinguish between broadband programs focused on deployment and broadband programs focused on access. She also called it important for federal agencies to coordinate with state broadband offices on broadband programs.
• Rep. Tonko further asked Ms. Siefer to address how Congress could help federal agencies to better collaborate with communities on broadband service deployment.
  • Ms. Siefer stated that federal agencies and communities must be committed to a broadband deployment strategy.
• Rep. Tonko remarked that federal broadband programs are very important and cannot be subject to budget cuts. He asserted that the U.S. must work to eliminate digital disparities. He commented that the U.S. appears to be making progress on addressing these disparities.

Rep. Gary Palmer (R-AL):

• Rep. Palmer noted how some federal agencies do not perform cost-benefit analyses on their broadband programs. He asked Dr. Ford to address how federal agencies could not know the returns they would achieve on their broadband investments.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that there are instances where it is not economically sensible to deploy broadband services because the cost of deployment vastly exceeds the potential benefit. He noted that many federal agencies do not perform cost-benefit analyses. He suggested that these federal agencies do not perform these analyses because they lack an obligation to do so. He contended that federal agencies should consider alternative approaches for broadband deployment when conventional approaches are not economically sensible.
• Rep. Palmer stated that the U.S. does not want to deny last mile broadband service and asserted that the U.S. should evaluate alternatives to provide that service. He also remarked that federal agencies need to perform cost-benefit analyses when committing federal funds for a project. He asked Dr. Ford to discuss the factors that should be accounted for when constructing a cost-benefit analysis for a federal broadband program.
  • Dr. Ford suggested that federal agencies perform traditional net present value calculations for their broadband investments. He stated that the U.S. must contemplate the social value of federal broadband investments.
• Rep. Palmer commented that while broadband deployment is important, he emphasized that the U.S.’s national debt is $32 trillion. He asserted that the U.S.’s current spending is unsustainable and that the U.S. needs to perform cost-benefit analyses for its broadband programs. He then noted how some federal broadband programs restrict federal funding to single use deployments, which means that nearby and co-located entities may need to seek out separate funding for their own broadband needs. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether there exist other federal broadband requirements that can unnecessarily drive-up broadband deployment costs.
  • Mr. Von Ah noted how there are numerous federal broadband programs that are focused on certain entities (such as schools and libraries) and purposes (such as education and telehealth). He stated that the areas that surround these entities may need to identify and pursue other sources of federal funding to obtain broadband access.
• Rep. Palmer asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the GAO has reviewed the process for the FCC’s National Broadband Map.
  • Mr. Von Ah indicated that the GAO has not performed a “deep look” into the FCC’s new National Broadband Map. He mentioned how the GAO has previously recommended that the FCC improve its National Broadband Map and has previously commented on the inaccuracy of FCC Form 477 data.
• Rep. Palmer expressed interest in obtaining information from the GAO on ways to improve the FCC’s broadband mapping process.

Rep. Kat Cammack (R-FL):

• Rep. Cammack noted how the RUS has lowered the ReConnect Program’s unserved threshold from 90 to 50 percent of households without internet service in an area without proper justification for that area to be eligible for Program funding. She asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether the ReConnect Porgram’s unserved threshold ought to remain high so that it can target the truly underserved areas.
  • Dr. Ford expressed confusion as to why the ReConnect Program had reduced its unserved threshold. He stated that the ReConnect Program should prioritize funding disbursements to the most unserved areas and commented that this reduction in the unserved threshold suggests that the Program cannot find areas that are truly unserved. He contended that the U.S. must first deploy broadband service to unserved areas before it can deploy broadband service to underserved areas. He acknowledged however that there may be certain instances where it is economically feasible to deploy broadband service to unserved and underserved areas on a combined basis. He stated that the unserved threshold should remain high until the U.S. fully deploys broadband service. He further suggested that many unserved areas might not be applying for funding from the ReConnect Program. He commented that this dynamic could distort the RUS’s understanding of the U.S. broadband access landscape, which could have caused it to prematurely lower its unserved threshold.
• Rep. Cammack asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether the ReConnect Program should update its definition of what constitutes an underserved area.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that the ReConnect Program must set some standard for what constitutes an area that is underserved by broadband. He suggested that 10 Mbps broadband speeds could be a reasonable definition for what constitutes an underserved area.
• Rep. Cammack asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether entities should be barred from receiving funding under the ReConnect Program if those entities have already received funding from other federal, state, or local broadband programs for those same areas.
  • Dr. Ford answered affirmatively.
• Rep. Cammack asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether the ReConnect Program should be subject to the same Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requirements for funding announcements as all other federal programs.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that all projects should be well-documented and made publicly available in an easily accessible format. He commented that many RUS documents are currently incomplete.
• Rep. Cammack asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether all federal broadband funding decisions should be based on the same broadband availability maps to avoid wasteful spending and overbuilding.
  • Dr. Ford remarked that federal broadband funding decisions should be “strongly related” to a broadband availability map. He acknowledged that there are instances where broadband availability maps are inaccurate. He stated that entities that face mapping inaccuracy issues should be required to petition the FCC to address these inaccuracies rather than work to convince federal programs not primarily focused on broadband issues to provide them with funding.

Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI):

• Rep. Walberg mentioned how he serves as co-chair of the Congressional Rural Broadband Caucus and stated that proper oversight of federal broadband funding programs is one of his top policy priorities. He discussed how his Congressional District is very rural and noted how many of his constituents lack available broadband service options. He emphasized that rural broadband access is very important for supporting agriculture producers. He remarked that the U.S.’s lack of a national strategy for broadband deployment is impeding broadband deployment efforts. He mentioned how he had previously introduced the bipartisan Proper Leadership to Align Networks (PLAN) for Broadband Act, which would implement many of the GAO’s recommendations. He noted how this legislation would instruct all federal offices with jurisdiction over broadband programs to come together to create a coordinated strategy for broadband deployment with set goals and markers for each program. He also noted how this legislation would have federal agencies identify barriers to broadband deployment and ways to streamline broadband infrastructure permitting processes. He further noted how this legislation would require federal agencies to consult with states, localities, and broadband providers on the federal government’s broadband strategy. He commented that this legislation would help to ensure that federal broadband funding goes to the most deserving rural areas. He then mentioned how the GAO had recommended that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) develop and implement a national broadband strategy. He noted however that others have argued that the NTIA should develop this national broadband strategy given the NTIA’s expertise and experience with federal coordination efforts. He asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether the NTIA would be better suited to lead in the development of a national broadband strategy.
  • Mr. Von Ah remarked that the NTIA should have a prominent role in developing and leading a national broadband strategy. He stated that the GAO had recommended that the White House lead the development of a national broadband strategy because of the broad array of federal agencies and programs involved in broadband policy. He expressed concerns that an NTIA-created national broadband strategy may have no bearing on the actions of other federal departments and agencies. He asserted that a White House-created national broadband strategy would likely experience greater compliance from federal departments and agencies. He stated however that the NTIA should still play a lead role in developing this strategy and provide significant input regarding this strategy. He also highlighted how the NTIA Administrator serves as the top advisor to the administration on telecommunications issues. 
• Rep. Walberg then discussed how telecommunications industry workforce shortages serve as another barrier to broadband deployment. He stated that the absence of a robust workforce will render any broadband deployment efforts futile. He noted how the GAO had estimated that the U.S. will need 34,000 additional workers during the peak-deployment to support broadband expansion programs. He commented that the need for workers is especially acute in rural areas. He asked Mr. Von Ah to explain these workforce challenges and to address how rural communities and businesses can grow their skilled telecommunications workforces.
  • Mr. Von Ah indicated that the GAO had developed its workforce needs estimates based on how federal broadband funding will be allocated over the next several years. He commented that there will exist significant demand for similar types of workers across various IIJA-funded infrastructure projects. He also highlighted how much of the current telecommunications workforce is aging. He also noted how these workers often face challenging conditions and must travel far distances. He commented that these trends and conditions serve headwinds for ensuring a sufficient telecommunications workforce. He stated that local efforts to support the development of workforce skills would be useful.

Rep. Rick Allen (R-GA):

• Rep. Allen remarked that improving broadband service is one of his top policy priorities and mentioned how many of his constituents are interested in this topic. He discussed how the U.S. maintains 133 federal broadband programs across 15 federal agencies and noted how the U.S. has appropriated more than $100 billion for broadband-related purposes since 2015. He expressed bewilderment as to why the U.S. has not resolved its digital disparities considering these federal broadband programs and recent spending. He stated that the U.S.’s lack of accurate broadband availability maps is likely contributing to broadband deployment challenges. He called the FCC’s National Broadband Map “notoriously inaccurate.” He mentioned how Congress had previously passed the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act to require the FCC to overhaul its National Broadband Map. He noted how the FCC is set to release its new National Broadband Map this month. He asked Mr. Von Ah to evaluate the FCC’s implementation of the Broadband DATA Act.
  • Mr. Von Ah indicated that while the GAO has not closely reviewed the FCC’s implementation of the Broadband DATA Act, he testified that the GAO had looked into the FCC’s ability to develop the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric. He explained that the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric serves as the basis for the National Broadband Map and identifies all of the locations in the U.S. that are serviceable by broadband. He noted that the GAO had identified several challenges for the Broadband Serviceable Location Fabric and indicated that the FCC had recognized these challenges.
• Rep. Allen interjected to ask Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether federal broadband funding will be more effectively disbursed once the Broadband DATA Act is fully implemented.
  • Mr. Von Ah expressed hope that the full implementation of the Broadband DATA Act would lead to a more effective disbursement of federal broadband funding.
• Rep. Allen also noted how other federal broadband programs will not be required to make their funding decisions based on the FCC’s National Broadband Map (even after the Map is fully updated). He asked Dr. Ford to discuss the inefficiencies that may arise from federal broadband programs not using the National Broadband Map to inform their funding decisions.
  • Dr. Ford expressed hope that the new FCC’s National Broadband Map will provide more accurate assessments of broadband service coverage and can support more efficient federal broadband spending. He also stated that the U.S. will need to constantly review actual broadband service coverage to ensure the accuracy of this Map. He remarked that the NTIA and states should focus on ensuring that federal broadband funds are being spent correctly.
• Rep. Allen expressed agreement with Dr. Ford that the federal broadband spending must be done in an accountable manner. He then remarked that most third-world countries have better cellular service than his Congressional District. He asked Dr. Ford to indicate whether universal cellular service is feasible in the U.S.
  • Dr. Ford stated that his answer would depend on the definition of universal and expressed uncertainty that the U.S. could cover every square foot of the country with cellular service. He remarked that the U.S. could achieve a very high rate of cellular service coverage. He attributed many of the U.S.’s cellular service challenges to localities that refuse to permit or expand cellular towers in their jurisdictions.
• Rep. Allen asked Mr. Von Ah to indicate whether there exist federal programs that seek to expand cellular service.
  • Mr. Von Ah mentioned how the FCC’s High Cost Program supports cellular service in rural areas.