Rural Broadband: Connecting our Communities to the Digital Economy (U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy)

Hearing	Rural Broadband: Connecting our Communities to the Digital Economy
Committee	U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Subcommittee on Rural Development and Energy
Date	May 17, 2023

 

Hearing Takeaways:

• Current State of Rural Broadband Deployment and Service: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed concerns over how many rural parts of the U.S. face challenges accessing broadband internet service. They discussed how broadband internet service access has become necessary to engage in work, connect to education, and access health care services. They asserted that bolstering rural broadband internet service access will be key to reducing geographic disparities and reversing population declines in rural America. They expressed interest in using the upcoming Farm Bill as a legislative vehicle for expanding rural broadband internet service.
  • Importance of Rural Broadband Deployment and Service for Agriculture Technologies: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Shekleton, and Mr. Forde emphasized how broadband internet service is critical for supporting agriculture technologies. They discussed how modern farming uses precision agriculture technologies, tractors and combine harvesters with global positioning systems (GPSs), and irrigation equipment that can be managed remotely via smartphones and tablets. They noted how these broadband-enabled technologies support greater crop yields, which enable farmers to remain economically viable.
• The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural eConnectivity Loan and Grant Program (ReConnect Program): The hearing largely focused on the USDA’s ReConnect Program, which provides loans, grants, and loan-grant combinations to support broadband deployment efforts in rural areas. Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses called this Program critical for deploying broadband service to rural areas where the private sector cannot economically justify such deployments. They expressed interest in ensuring that the ReConnect Program’s funding is being disbursed efficiently. Subcommittee Chairman Peter Welch (D-VT) highlighted his legislation, the ReConnecting Rural America Act of 2023, which would make several reforms to the ReConnect Program. He expressed hope that this legislation’s provisions would be incorporated into the upcoming Farm Bill.
  • Minimum Broadband Speed Requirements: A key area of debate during the hearing involved the ReConnect Program’s minimum broadband speed requirements for funded broadband projects. The USDA’s most recent funding proposal had increased the requirements for sufficient broadband access from 25 megabits per second (Mbps) download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. Subcommittee Chairman Welch, Mr. Nishi, Mr. Shekleton, and Mr. Johnson argued that the USDA should require that ReConnect Program-funded broadband projects provide symmetrical 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. They stated that this symmetrical speed standard would ensure that rural areas have access to high-quality broadband service that can support the needs of rural Americans. They also stated that consumer broadband needs are likely to increase moving forward and that this standard would ensure “future proof” broadband infrastructure that would not need to be revisited later. Subcommittee Ranking Member Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and Mr. Forde argued however that the USDA should require that ReConnect Program-funded broadband projects provide 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. Mr. Forde stated that consumers are not demanding higher upload speeds and that greater upload speed requirements will result in inefficient spending. He also warned that increasing minimum speed standards will lead broadband providers to focus on getting underserved areas up to the new minimum speed requirements at the expense of already unserved areas. He commented that that it is more economical for broadband providers to focus their deployment efforts on upgrading these currently underserved areas.
  • Fiber Optic Broadband Infrastructure: Subcommittee Chairman Welch, Mr. Nishi, Ms. Shute, Mr. Shekleton, and Mr. Johnson also argued that the ReConnect Program should promote the deployment of fiber optic broadband infrastructure. They stated that fiber optic broadband technology provides reliable internet and has the capacity to be upgraded in response to growing consumer demands for higher internet speeds. They asserted that fiber optic broadband would therefore constitute the most effective and economic technology for providing robust broadband service to rural communities. Subcommittee Ranking Member Tuberville, Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE), and Mr. Forde argued however that the ReConnect Program should not exclusively mandate that projects use fiber optic broadband technology and stated that other technologies may be necessary to account for an area’s unique terrains and local needs. They highlighted how it can be very expensive to deploy fiber optic cable to remote locations and that other broadband technologies (such as fixed wireless broadband service) can enable faster and cheaper broadband deployment to these locations.
  • Prioritization of Federal Broadband Funds to Unserved Areas over Underserved Areas: Subcommittee Ranking Member Tuberville and Mr. Johnson further argued that the ReConnect Program could not solely focus on providing access to fast broadband internet service to underserved areas when there remain areas with no access to broadband internet service. Mr. Johnson also stated that Congress should not seek to provide duplicative investments in broadband service or foster artificial competition in areas that cannot currently support a single unsubsidized broadband competitor.
  • Definition of Unserved Area: Subcommittee Ranking Member Tuberville, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Forde expressed concerns over proposals to change the USDA’s definition of an unserved area from 90 percent of households lacking sufficient broadband speeds to 50 percent of households lacking sufficient broadband speeds. They warned that this amended definition for unserved areas will result in the deployment of duplicative broadband infrastructure and delay broadband deployment to truly unserved Americans. Ms. Shute raised concerns however that many areas may be ineligible for ReConnect Program funding if they have access to fixed wireless service (even if this service is inconsistent and inferior to fiber optic broadband). She also criticized how the ReConnect Program’s eligibility criteria favors certain regions of the U.S., including areas that are located 100 miles away from a city or town with a population of 50,000 and areas with less than six people per square mile. She noted how most of the Eastern Seaboard does not satisfy the first condition. She contended that rurality should not be based on straight line determinations and noted how many regions face travel challenges due to topography, terrain, and weather. She recommended that the ReConnect Program provide rurality points based on population per town and suggested that the U.S. could apply this standard for towns with less than 5,000 people.
  • ReConnect Program Application and Funding Award Challenges: Full Committee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR), Mr. Nishi, Ms. Shute, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Forde expressed various concerns over the ReConnect Program’s application and funding award processes. Full Committee Ranking Member Boozman, Ms. Shute, and Mr. Forde called on Congress to simplify the ReConnect Program’s application process and highlighted how the current process can be very time consuming and resource intensive for applicants. Ms. Shute recommended that the U.S. establish two-step application processes for its broadband programs where a shorter first round application could be used to filter out applicants with low likelihoods of success. She commented that this approach would reduce the likelihood that applicants will need to spend significant time and resources on applications with low likelihoods of success. Mr. Nishi, Ms. Shute, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Forde also stated that the USDA should not penalize private companies seeking to participate in the ReConnect Program. Mr. Forde specifically highlighted how the ReConnect Program provides the U.S. government with a first lien on grant-funded assets, which can discourage private capital investments in broadband infrastructure. Mr. Johnson further recommended that Congress provide the USDA with the flexibility to allow concurrent expenditures of grant funds and matching dollars. He commented that this ability and flexibility will eliminate potential financial hardships while preserving the requirement that grant recipients be sufficiently invested.
  • Coordination Between the ReConnect Program and Other Federal Broadband Programs: Subcommittee Members, Mr. Nishi, Mr. Shekleton, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Forde expressed interest in improving the USDA’s coordination with other federal departments and agencies on broadband infrastructure deployment efforts to protect against duplicative projects. Full Committee Ranking Member Boozman mentioned how a 2022 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report had found that there are currently over 100 programs administered by 15 federal agencies that could be used to expand broadband access. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Mr. Nishi highlighted how the USDA, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC), the U.S. U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and the U.S. Department of the Treasury had developed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to share data and metrics related to federal broadband deployment efforts. Mr. Nishi called this MoU beneficial and asserted that Congress must provide oversight of these departments and agencies to ensure that these departments and agencies are adhering to the MoU.
• Additional Policy Topics Related to Rural Broadband Service and Deployment: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses also expressed interest in additional policy topics impacting the U.S.’s rural broadband service and deployment efforts.
  • FCC Broadband Programs: Mr. Nishi and Mr. Forde discussed how the FCC’s Universal Service Fund (USF), Alternative Connect America Model (A-CAM), Connect America Fund-Broadband Loop Support (CAF BLS) program, and Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) can support the U.S.’s rural broadband deployment efforts.
  • Federal Taxation of Broadband Grants: Subcommittee Chairman Peter Welch (D-VT), Mr. Nishi, and Mr. Johnson called on Congress to exempt broadband grants from federal taxation and commented that this taxation limits the impact of government broadband grants. Mr. Nishi and Mr. Johnson called on Congress to pass the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act, which would provide such an exemption.
  • Permitting Challenges for Broadband Infrastructure Projects: Subcommittee Members and the hearing’s witnesses expressed support for having Congress make improvements to the permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects to streamline their deployment. Full Committee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR) and Mr. Johnson specifically expressed interest in reforming the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) permitting process as part of the upcoming Farm Bill. Mr. Nishi recommended that Congress impose time limits on permitting approvals and provide adequate staffing to federal agencies to conduct permitting reviews. Mr. Nishi and Mr. Forde also stated that Congress should expedite the permitting process for previously disturbed areas, existing roads, rights of ways, and easements. 
  • Pole Access: Mr. Forde specifically identified pole access as a barrier to broadband deployment. However, Mr. Shekleton disputed this claim. He stated that broadband cooperatives use an at cost model and do not make any profit from pole attachment fees. 
  • Standardized Broadband Availability Maps and Information Types: Mr. Nishi, Ms. Shute, and Mr. Forde called on the U.S. to ensure the accuracy of its broadband availability maps and to ensure that all federal departments and agencies are using the same maps to make their broadband deployment decisions. They asserted that this will help to avoid duplicative spending. Ms. Shute discussed how different agencies and entities use different types of information in their work and stated that these differences in information types make it difficult for ReConnect Program applicants to calculate the number of potential beneficiaries and reconcile this number with their existing financial information.
  • The FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP): Mr. Nishi and Ms. Shute called on Congress to extend authorization and appropriations for the FCC’s ACP, which provides monthly subsidies to low-income Americans to purchase broadband internet service. Mr. Nishi also recommended that Congress consider increasing the ACP’s current $30 per month subsidy.
  • Cost Sharing Proposals for Broadband Infrastructure: Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN) proposed a cost sharing model for broadband infrastructure where the federal government would provide matching funds to states and localities that pursue broadband infrastructure projects. Mr. Johnson expressed support for this proposed matching program. He commented that this approach would discourage “fly-by-night” providers from taking federal broadband funding without being invested in the long-term viability of their broadband projects.
  • Broadband Workforce Challenges: Sen. Amy Klobuchar (R-MN) and Mr. Shekleton discussed how the U.S. has a shortage of workers that can build broadband infrastructure projects and expressed interest in pursuing policies to address this shortage. Sen. Klobuchar expressed support for immigration reform proposals that would increase workforce permits. Mr. Shekleton mentioned how his broadband cooperative is working with local educators, community colleges, workforce training programs, and career and technical education (CTE) programs to create “classroom to career” pathways.

Hearing Witnesses:

1. Mr. Roger Nishi, Vice President – Industry Relations, Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom
2. Ms. Christa Shute, Executive Director, NEK (Northeast Kingdom) Broadband
3. Mr. Jesse L. Shekleton, Director, Broadband Operations, Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc.
4. Mr. James Frederick Johnson, CEO, Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.
5. Mr. Justin Forde, Vice President of Government Relations, Midco

Member Opening Statements:

Subcommittee Chairman Peter Welch (D-VT):

• He remarked that the Subcommittee’s main objective is to revitalize rural America and lamented how rural America is currently facing significant challenges.
• He stated that one of rural America’s major challenges is access to high quality and high-speed broadband internet service.
  • He commented that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that high speed broadband service is necessary for participating in modern life.
• He noted how one-third of rural Americans are unable to access broadband internet with 100 Mbps speeds.
• He remarked that the inability of rural communities to access broadband internet services prevents these communities from participating in the global economy and accessing critical services.
  • He elaborated that this lack of broadband internet service reduces job opportunities for workers, prevents farmers and small businesses from reaching new markets, and limits educational opportunities for children.
• He stated that the U.S. must provide rural broadband service with symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds.
  • He also asserted that rural broadband service must be “future proofed” to ensure that digital disparities do not persist.
• He then remarked that Congress must make federal broadband efforts more effective and efficient.
• He lastly stated that the USDA requires tools and flexibilities to address the long-term scalable broadband needs of underserved rural communities.
  • He highlighted how these communities can be very heterogeneous in terms of geography.
• He mentioned how he had introduced the ReConnecting Rural America Act of 2023 with Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS).
  • He explained that this legislation would establish symmetrical 100 Mbps download and upload speeds for broadband projects, set definitions of unserved areas for the ReConnect Program, expand the USDA’s authority to coordinate with other federal agencies, and provide sufficient authorization levels to address the ReConnect Program’s current demand.
• He then discussed how the Northeast Kingdom is a small region within his state of Vermont and highlighted how NEK Broadband had just received $17.5 million from the ReConnect Program to address the region’s broadband needs.
  • He commented that this funding will play a key role in supporting broadband internet connectivity within the Northeast Kingdom region.
• He expressed confidence in NEK Broadband’s ability to deploy broadband internet service and attributed this confidence to the fact that NEK Broadband is a community-based organization.
• He recounted how the U.S. had successfully deployed electricity to rural America over a 15-year period and commented that Congress had been a driving force behind these rural electrification efforts.
  • He asserted that the U.S. must replicate these efforts in deploying broadband internet service to rural areas.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Tommy Tuberville (R-AL):

• He remarked that access to reliable broadband internet service is a necessity for modern life and stated that rural areas cannot compete with urban areas without access to broadband internet service.
  • He commented that the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the importance of broadband internet service access for work, education, communicate, and telemedicine.
• He also discussed how U.S. farmers rely upon rural broadband internet service to operate their equipment and stated that farming technology is constantly changing.
  • He asserted that U.S. agriculture producers require broadband internet resources to remain competitive.
• He noted how modern farming uses precision agriculture technologies, tractors and combine harvesters with GPSs, and irrigation equipment that can be managed remotely via smartphones and tablets.
  • He warned that the absence of rural broadband internet access will inhibit farming and will render rural communities uncompetitive.
• He mentioned how 55 of his state of Alabama’s 67 counties are considered rural and indicated that 43.6 percent of the state’s population lives in rural areas.
• He discussed how the U.S. maintains rural development programs to prioritize investments in the country’s most rural and unserved areas.
  • He commented that these areas are often economically depressed.
• He mentioned how Alabama’s Black Belt region consists of 19 counties in the western part of the state and noted how this region includes nine out of the state’s ten most economically challenged counties.
  • He asserted that these counties are in “critical need” of support and development.
• He remarked that ensuring access to reliable broadband service will be “vital” for developing the U.S.’s rural communities.
  • He commented that the upcoming Farm Bill will serve as a key vehicle for addressing the U.S.’s rural broadband needs.
• He contended that Congress must prioritize broadband deployment to unserved areas and consider feasible broadband internet buildout speeds when developing its upcoming Farm Bill.
• He mentioned how the USDA’s most recent funding proposal had increased the requirements for sufficient broadband access from 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds.
  • He highlighted however that 10 percent of Alabama residents currently lack access to 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds.
  • He added that just 34 percent of Alabama has access to fiber optic broadband internet service (which can supply 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds).
• He questioned the U.S.’s ability to address its digital disparities if its rural communities cannot access sufficient broadband internet service.
• He then remarked that the Subcommittee could not solely focus on providing access to fast broadband internet service when there remain areas with no access to broadband internet service.
  • He commented that federal policymakers should consider these service gaps when making resource allocation decisions.
• He stated that the Subcommittee should consider all technology options for delivering broadband internet service to rural communities.
  • He indicated that while Alabama has had success with fiber optic broadband internet service deployment, he commented that other states may experience deployment success with other broadband internet technologies given their unique terrains and local needs.
• He contended that the Subcommittee should advocate for 100 Mbps minimum download speeds and 20 Mbps minimum upload speeds across the country.
• He further asserted that the U.S. must prioritize broadband internet service deployment in underserved and unserved communities.
  • He commented that this approach would ensure the efficient use of federal taxpayer resources and that rural communities are not overlooked.

Witness Opening Statements:

Mr. Roger Nishi (Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom):

• He mentioned how his company, Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom, is a family-owned and community-based rural broadband internet service provider in Vermont.
• He expressed his company’s support for USDA programs and noted how the company has a longstanding relationship with the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service (RUS).
  • He recounted how the USDA had provided his company with the necessary financing to launch and with funding to expand their offered services.
• He discussed how his company’s network has evolved throughout its history and indicated that his company’s main focus is now fiber optic internet.
  • He commented that this evolution in offerings has provided his company’s customers with better broadband internet service and greater speeds.
• He remarked that the USDA can take several actions to improve rural broadband internet service.
• He recommended that the USDA “future proof” broadband internet networks through constructing fiber optic broadband infrastructure.
  • He asserted that this objective can be accomplished through requiring USDA-administered eligible broadband internet projects to offer 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds.
  • He commented that this symmetrical broadband internet speed standard would necessitate the deployment of fiber optic broadband infrastructure.
• He stated that other broadband internet technologies have limitations, lack the same capacity as fiber optic broadband internet, and cannot keep pace with ever expanding customer demands.
  • He contended that investments in fiber optic broadband internet would constitute the most effective use of federal funds.
• He also recommended that the USDA should prioritize funding for organizations with proven track records of success in serving rural areas and in working with the USDA.
  • He also asserted that any grant application scoring methodology should not penalize commercial companies.
• He remarked that the USDA must coordinate with other federal agencies and stakeholders to prevent the disbursement of funding for duplicative broadband infrastructure projects.
  • He commented that accurate broadband availability maps will be key to preventing duplicate broadband funding and ensuring that unserved Americans receive broadband internet service.
• He also stated that the U.S. must work to address permitting challenges that delay broadband infrastructure projects.
  • He called for the imposition of time limits on the permitting approval process and the provision of adequate staffing to conduct permitting reviews.
• He then discussed how federal programs outside of the USDA can complement the USDA’s grant and loan programs.
  • He highlighted how the FCC’s USF helps to ensure the sustainability of U.S. broadband networks.
• He also mentioned how the FCC’s A-CAM and CAF BLS programs support broadband infrastructure project construction, help to maintain, sustain, and upgrade networks, and keep broadband internet service rates “reasonably affordable” for customers.
  • He called on the Subcommittee to urge that FCC extend A-CAM and CAF BLS funding mechanisms.
• He then called on Congress to pass the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act, which would exempt broadband grants from federal taxation.
  • He commented that the taxation of these broadband grants impedes efforts to deploy broadband internet to rural areas.
• He lastly expressed support for the FCC’s ACP and called on Congress to sustain and properly fund this Program.
  • He also recommended that Congress increase the ACP’s subsidy for customers and commented that the current $30 per month subsidy is often not sufficient.

Ms. Christa Shute (NEK Broadband):

• She discussed how her organization, NEK Broadband, is a Communications Union District (CUD) that serves a rugged and rural area of Vermont.
• She mentioned how NEK Broadband had just received a ReConnect Program award of $17.5 million.
  • She indicated that this award will support a $23.5 million project that aims to provide 321 miles of infrastructure across 22 of NEK Broadband’s most rural and underserved towns.
  • She thanked the USDA’s staff for being helpful and responsive during NEK Broadband’s application process.
• She discussed how broadband internet service is very critical to rural communities in terms of supporting education and telemedicine.
  • She highlighted how Blue Cross Blue Shield had just stopped reimbursing audio-only telehealth visits and commented that this development further underscores the need to improve broadband internet service access.
• She expressed support for the continued authorization of the FCC’s ACP and stated that the need for broadband internet service extends beyond the COVID-19 pandemic.
• She then remarked that the USDA’s ReConnect Program is necessary and asserted that the NTIA’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program alone will not achieve universal broadband service.
  • She commented that the BEAD Program’s focus on extending broadband internet service to the lowest cost addresses will result in the Program’s funding flowing to more populated rural areas.
  • She warned that this dynamic will further exacerbate the U.S.’s digital disparities for rural areas.
• She stated however that competition for ReConnect Program funds is based on characteristics that support the most rural communities and that address the true costs of providing broadband service to these sparsely populated areas.
• She then indicated that while she is appreciative of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 for providing $365 million for Round 5 of the ReConnect Program, she asserted that this law would undermine two key characteristics of the Program.
  • He warned that this law would render the Program “virtually unusable” for areas with inconsistent wireless coverage (such as Vermont).
• She mentioned how Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Program had based their eligibility on an area’s access to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds.
• She noted however that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 requires that 90 percent of an area have 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to be eligible for Round 5 of the ReConnect Program.
  • She commented that this provision would disqualify Vermont and other areas with fixed wireless service for Round 5 of the ReConnect Program.
• She also mentioned how Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Program had focused on long-term infrastructure investments.
  • She commented that the USDA had taken this approach to ensure that future infrastructure spending would not be necessary and that this approach entails building fiber optic broadband infrastructure that supports 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds.
• She remarked that her top recommendations for addressing the ReConnect Program involve establishing a new definition for rurality, supporting public broadband infrastructure, and reforming the Program’s application process.
• She stated that the ReConnect Program currently favors certain regions of the U.S., including areas that are located 100 miles away from a city or town with a population of 50,000 and areas with less than six people per square mile.
  • She noted how most of the Eastern Seaboard does not satisfy the first condition.
• She contended that rurality should not be based on straight line determinations and noted how many regions face travel challenges due to topography, terrain, and weather.
  • She commented that these challenges exist in New England, the Appalachian Mountain Range, and the Rocky Mountains.
• She recommended that the ReConnect Program provide rurality points based on population per town and suggested that the U.S. could provide such rurality points for towns with less than 5,000 people.
• She then discussed how the ReConnect Program uses a point structure for public broadband infrastructure and stated that public-private infrastructure partnerships can be beneficial.
  • She mentioned how NEK Broadband is engaged in a public-private partnership with Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom in which NEK Broadband owns the underlying infrastructure and leverages Waitsfield and Champlain Valley Telecom’s expertise.
• She also mentioned how she has recommendations regarding the ReConnect Program’s application process and expressed her willingness to discuss these recommendations during the Congressional question period.
• She concluded that broadband internet access is an equity issue and asserted that rural and low-income areas require broadband internet service to access education and telehealth.
  • She expressed support for the ReConnecting Rural America Act of 2023 with the modifications noted in her testimony.

Mr. Jesse L. Shekleton (Jo-Carroll Energy, Inc.):

• He discussed how his company, Jo-Carrol Energy, Inc., is a rural energy and broadband cooperative and noted how the cooperative had been founded with the assistance of a USDA loan to support rural electrification efforts.
• He testified that his cooperative provides “vital” broadband service to nearly 4,000 members and commented that this figure is growing fast.
  • He stated that the USDA’s ReConnect and Community Connect Programs have been “key contributors” to his cooperative’s broadband service buildout.
• He mentioned how his cooperative had begun offering fixed wireless broadband services to its members.
  • He noted however that issues related to reliability, capacity, and intermittency had led the cooperative to pivot to building a fiber optic-only broadband network.
• He remarked that fiber optic broadband is the most effective and economic technology for providing robust broadband service to rural communities.
  • He asserted that fiber optic broadband enables his cooperative to ensure that its broadband network investments can meet existing and future utility needs and improve the economic outlook and quality of life in its served rural communities.
• He testified that the USDA’s ReConnect and Community Connect Programs have enabled his cooperative to expand its fiber optic broadband coverage to eight public school districts, three fire stations, and “numerous” farms, families, and businesses.
  • He also stated that fiber optic broadband enables his cooperative to better manage consumer demands for electric and natural gas service during peak times and to expand other smart grid offerings to its members.
• He specifically highlighted how his cooperative’s improved broadband connectivity provides a “massive benefit” to Illinois’s agriculture sector.
• He discussed the recent growth of precision agriculture and noted how farmers and ranchers are leveraging a “wide range” of connected devices to reduce their input costs and improve their yields.
  • He commented that demand for internet bandwidth on farms will continue to grow as precession and smart agriculture technologies expand to include autonomous tractors, soil sampling, and field mapping.
• He remarked that Congress should prioritize scalable and “future proof” networks in any future rounds of federal funding for broadband internet infrastructure.
  • He commented that consumer and technology demands for increased internet speeds are growing and are trending toward a need for multi-gigabit service by 2030.
• He stated that the prioritization of broadband networks with symmetrical upload and download speeds and scalable network technologies will ensure that rural and remote areas can satisfy both current and future consumer needs.
• He also remarked that federal programs (including USDA-managed programs) move slow and experience lags in deployment.
  • He commented that permitting issues, supply chain delays, workforce challenges, and inflation can often undermine the feasibility of broadband projects.
• He asserted that streamlining the permitting processes for broadband infrastructure projects will better align project timelines with consumer needs.
• He concluded that reliable and scalable internet access is critical to the growth and economic development of rural communities in his region of northwest Illinois and across the U.S.

Mr. James Frederick Johnson (Farmers Telecommunications Cooperative, Inc.):

• He expressed optimism regarding Congress’s “unprecedented commitment” to expanding broadband internet service and stated that this task will be “substantial.”
  • He commented that the upcoming Farm Bill will provide Congress with an opportunity to support this effort.
• He remarked that Congress should demand that broadband resources provided under the Farm Bill be used for getting broadband service to those that lack the service.
  • He commented that Congress should not seek to provide duplicative investments in broadband service or foster artificial competition in areas that cannot currently support a single unsubsidized broadband competitor.
• He contended that Congress should prioritize the disbursement of its limited federal broadband funds to areas that are most in need of broadband internet service.
  • He noted how the USDA has traditionally required that at least 90 percent of a proposed service area be incapable of receiving broadband service equal to or greater than 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds to receive funding.
• He stated that reducing the USDA’s service thresholds will increase the likelihood that federal taxpayer dollars will be used for duplicative broadband networks (rather than serving the unserved).
  • He also warned that reducing these thresholds will imperil the ability of existing broadband service providers to economically leverage their existing networks in areas where other broadband service providers will not offer service.
• He discussed how his state of Alabama focuses granularly on proposed broadband funding areas and stated that this focus ensures that truly unserved broadband areas receive broadband service.
• He highlighted how two Alabama broadband service providers had recently used a mix of USDA funding and private equity to support broadband infrastructure investments in some of the most economically challenged areas of the state.
  • He largely attributed these investments to the fact that the providers are not fearful of government-funded competition.
  • He also emphasized that the providers are family-owned and community-based providers and asserted that USDA rules should not discourage similar companies from participating in their programs.
• He remarked that the USDA’s minimum standard of services for funding and new development should remain 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds.
• He also contended that the USDA investments should support technologies that can be readily upgraded to deliver the fastest speeds over the long-term.
  • He noted that while some technologies may appear cheaper to deploy within the immediate term, he warned that these technologies may be unable to keep pace with consumer demands.
• He then remarked that federal broadband grants must be entirely spent for designated purposes and should not thereafter be subject to federal taxation.
  • He expressed appreciation for the Broadband Grant Tax Treatment Act.
• He also stated that “meaningful” permitting improvements at all levels of government are essential for efficient broadband deployment.
• He recommended that Congress provide the RUS with the flexibility to allow concurrent expenditures of grant funds and matching dollars.
  • He commented that this ability and flexibility will eliminate potential financial hardships while preserving the requirement that grant recipients be sufficiently invested.
• He urged that the U.S. coordinate all of its resources across all aid platforms and programs.
  • He commented that basic voice telephone connectivity (including access to 911 services) remains essential for many areas that lack reliable cellular service.
  • He further expressed support for Congressional efforts to modernize the USF.
• He remarked that the successful deployment of rural broadband internet service will require policymakers to acknowledge the diverse nature of the U.S.’s broadband landscape.
  • He asserted that policymakers should focus on supporting Americans with either no or inadequate broadband service.

Mr. Justin Forde (Midco):

• He discussed how his company, Midcontinent Communications (Midco), serves nearly 500,000 residential and business customers across South Dakota, North Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, and Wisconsin.
  • He noted that most of Midco’s approximately 450 served communities are very rural and that these communities are more likely to have populations of 500 people than 5,000 people. 
• He testified how Midco has invested over $765 million over the previous six years to extend and upgrade its broadband network.
  • He added that Midco had launched an initiative to invest another $500 million to “future proof” its existing network and to expand service to new communities.
• He noted how all of Midco’s wireline customers are receiving broadband internet speeds that exceed 1 gigabit and added that many of Midco’s wireline customers are receiving 5 gigabit speeds.
• He also stated that Midco has worked to expand broadband service to previously unserved areas through its partnerships with the FCC through its Connect America Fund Phase II (CAF II) and RDOF auctions and its partnerships with states.
  • He highlighted how Midco has received grants from the Minnesota Office of Broadband Development and from South Dakota.
• He remarked that many government broadband programs are overlooking the broadband needs of rural communities and asserted that the primary reason that rural communities remain unserved is cost.
  • He stated that the ReConnect Program should encourage the deployment of broadband infrastructure in rural areas and lamented how recent changes to the Program have “significantly” shifted the Program’s focus away from truly unserved areas in rural America.
• He noted that while rural areas originally had to have 90 percent of their households unserved by broadband to be eligible for ReConnect Program funding, he indicated that the Program’s most recent funding round had reduced this threshold to just 50 percent of a rural area’s households.
• He stated that this recent ReConnect Program threshold change encourages the overbuilding of broadband infrastructure and results in inefficient government expenditures.
  • He recounted how Midco had recently been involved in an overbuilding situation in which Midco had received FCC CAF II awards and another provider had received USDA ReConnect Program awards to deploy broadband infrastructure to the same South Dakota area.
• He also discussed how the level of broadband service needed for an area to be considered served has increased from 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds.
  • He noted that this increased threshold has caused more areas to be deemed unserved by broadband.
• He stated that ReConnect Program applications have focused on these newly eligible areas that are easier to serve and that are located near population centers.
  • He commented that this dynamic causes many rural and unserved areas to remain unserved by broadband service.
• He then remarked that broadband funding programs must be technology neutral and encourage broad participation.
  • He noted how certain communities present topographical or other challenges that make building wireline broadband service a poor solution.
• He stated that while broadband providers (such as Midco) can reach rural communities through offering fixed wireless broadband service, he noted that many broadband funding programs maintain “build to” speed requirements that will exclude applicants offering fixed wireless broadband service as part of their networks.
  • He asserted that broadband funding programs need flexibility to accommodate different technological solutions for their customers.
• He then remarked that the U.S. must maintain low barriers to participation for federal broadband programs.
  • He asserted that the amount of data required for ReConnect Program applications is “vastly excessive.”
  • He also argued that ReConnect Program’s rules that provide the U.S. government with a first lien on grant-funded assets render the Program “unworkable” for private capital.
• He further remarked that federal and state agencies must coordinate to ensure a common understanding of what constitutes an unserved area.
  • He asserted that maps used for broadband grant funding should be consistent and show all areas where funding has been awarded (and by which levels of government).
  • He added that these maps should provide information on facilities that have not yet been constructed.
• He stated that entities should not be permitted to “forum shop” for the least restrictive broadband funding programs.
  • He mentioned how Midco had successfully challenged a grant from a broadband service provider that had already lost RDOF and CAF II auctions to build under the ReConnect Program.
• He expressed support for the Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2023 and commented that this legislation would make improvements to the ReConnect Program, focus funding on unserved areas, reduce Program participation burdens, and require enhanced agency coordination.

Congressional Question Period:

Subcommittee Chairman Peter Welch (D-VT):

• Chairman Welch expressed interest in deploying broadband infrastructure that can benefit from future improvements in technology to ensure that rural America does not experience continuing digital disparities. He acknowledged however that there remain areas that are unserved by broadband. He noted how some people argue that the U.S. should prioritize deploying any form of broadband service to these unserved areas. He asked Mr. Nishi to discuss the need for the U.S. to deploy symmetrical broadband service with 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He noted how his bipartisan legislation, the ReConnecting Rural America Act of 2023, would establish such symmetrical broadband service speeds.
  • Mr. Nishi expressed support for the deployment of fiber optic broadband infrastructure with 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds in rural areas. He stated that the electronics on this fiber optic broadband infrastructure can be updated over time to support multiple gigabit speeds to customers in future years. He commented that no other broadband technology can support the same level of future capabilities as fiber optic broadband technology. He called on the U.S. to focus on deploying fiber optic broadband infrastructure. He asserted that fiber optic broadband infrastructure deployment would constitute the most efficient use of federal expenditures.
• Chairman Welch then asked Ms. Shute to explain Vermont’s CUD system and to indicate whether CUDs (and similar entities) should be eligible for grants under the ReConnect Program.
  • Ms. Shute explained that a CUD is an entity formed by multiple municipalities to provide communications services to their areas. She noted how her CUD focuses on unserved areas (primarily areas with wired broadband service of less than 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds). She also noted how CUDs provide an opportunity for a public infrastructure point. She stated that CUDs play an important role in serving communities that private companies cannot feasibly serve.
• Chairman Welch then asked Mr. Shekleton to discuss how the ReConnect Program would benefit from the USDA having more flexibility to coordinate with other federal agencies. He also asked Mr. Shekleton to indicate whether the upcoming Farm Bill should include the provisions of the ReConnecting Rural America Act of 2023. He indicated that these provisions would adopt a 100 Mbps symmetrical upload and download speed requirement for the ReConnect Program, increase the funding authorization levels for the ReConnect Program, and improve coordination between the USDA and other federal stakeholders.
  • Mr. Shekleton expressed support for improving the USDA’s coordination with other federal agencies and highlighted how the USDA has strong experience in working to support rural America. He noted how the USDA has provided the telecommunications industry with loans and grants for decades. He stated that the USDA could lead a more effective and efficient process for supporting the deployment of rural broadband infrastructure.
• Chairman Welch stated that the witnesses all appear supportive of efforts to streamline the permitting process for broadband infrastructure projects. He also commented that the witnesses all appear concerned over the current federal taxation of broadband grants. He then acknowledged that his question period time had expired.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Tommy Tuberville (R-AL):

• Ranking Member Tuberville mentioned how his state of Alabama has about 190,000 people that are considered underserved by broadband. He noted how the USDA defines an unserved area as an area that lacks available broadband service with 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. He indicated that this threshold for defining an unserved area was previously 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds. He asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Forde to address how the U.S. could ensure that areas with 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds (or even slower speeds) will have broadband service given this change in the USDA’s threshold.
  • Mr. Johnson noted how many Americans lack access to broadband internet service with 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds. He discussed how current data indicates that families of four are demanding broadband bandwidth in excess of 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He asserted that a broadband internet service standard of 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds is therefore no longer acceptable. He then discussed how the USDA has set the threshold for ReConnect Program eligibility at 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds. He noted however that the Program shows “great preference” for proposed broadband projects that will deliver 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He remarked that fiber optic broadband technology will likely be the only service that can support future broadband bandwidth demands. He stated that while the DOCSIS 4.0 standard will be sufficient in the interim, he warned that this standard will not be sufficient within eight to ten years. He reiterated his support for extending fiber optic broadband technology and commented that existing funds should support this buildout.
  • Mr. Forde testified that Midco is observing that nearly all ReConnect Program applications are for areas that currently have 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds. He commented that this situation is causing rural areas with broadband service below 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds to remain unserved. He then remarked that all of Midco’s deployed technologies (including fiber optic technology, hybrid fiber-coaxial (HFC) technology, and fixed wireless technology) are “future proof” and can support higher broadband speeds. He stated that consumers do not care how they receive their broadband internet service so long as the service is fast and reliable. He further remarked that no consumers are currently using broadband service with 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He stated that consumers are mainly focused on download capabilities and asserted that broadband service providers should not be required to offer 100 Mbps upload speeds to consumers. He mentioned how there had occurred a limited increase in demand for higher upload speeds during the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated that broadband providers should not be required to build networks with greater upload speed capabilities because consumers will not use these capabilities.
• Ranking Member Tuberville then noted how Mr. Forde had discussed how fiber optic broadband may not be optimal for all terrains. He asked Mr. Forde and Mr. Johnson to identify the best available broadband technologies for connecting difficult-to-service terrains to broadband internet service.
  • Mr. Forde discussed how many of Midco’s service areas (including the Black Hills in South Dakota and the Iron Range in Minnesota) have difficult geographies that can be very expensive to serve. He elaborated that companies may need to engage in expensive rock drilling and long driveway installation projects to provide fiber optic broadband service to these areas. He called it “simply irresponsible” to deploy fiber optic broadband service to some of these locations when there exist capable and available fixed wireless broadband options. He also mentioned how the northern U.S. had just experienced eight months of frozen ground. He noted how Midco had deployed fixed wireless broadband technology to serve customers experiencing blizzards. He asserted that the deployment of fiber optic broadband to many of these colder regions would take years to deploy and that this deployment would be uneconomical.
  • Mr. Johnson expressed disagreement with some of Mr. Forde’s comments. He testified that approximately 20 percent of his cooperative’s consumer base now takes gigabit service. He also mentioned how his cooperative is routinely required to certify to several Chattanooga, Tennessee area employers that their remote employees can receive 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He commented that the broadband demands of his cooperative’s customers are thus different from the broadband demands of Midco’s customers. He further remarked that consumers will become very concerned with their broadband download and upload speeds when their broadband demands exceed their broadband speeds.
  • Mr. Forde testified that Midco would stand ready to provide greater download and upload speeds whenever their customers demand greater speeds.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN):

• Sen. Klobuchar mentioned how she is a co-chair of the Senate Broadband Caucus. She asked Mr. Nishi to address how providing high-speed broadband internet service to all Americans is a key priority for the U.S.’s rural development efforts. She also asked Mr. Johnson to discuss the needed tools to streamline and bolster the USDA’s broadband programs.
  • Mr. Nishi expressed support for universal broadband service and asserted that rural areas should have broadband service at “reasonable and comparable” rates to urban areas. He highlighted how architects, designers, and other professionals require fast broadband upload speeds to perform their jobs. He commented that these professionals should not experience worse broadband upload speeds based on where they live.
  • Mr. Johnson called for “meaningful” permitting reforms at all levels of government to support broadband projects. He also stated that the U.S. should permit the concurrent spending of federal matching funds with grant funds. He noted how broadband grant recipients currently must spend their matching funds before they spend their grant funds. He commented that this policy change would support the provision of capital for broadband projects. He lastly called for increased coordination between the USDA and the FCC. He highlighted how federal grants merely support the construction of broadband networks and do not help to sustain or operate the networks.
• Sen. Klobuchar then noted how Mr. Forde’s testimony had highlighted Midco’s cooperation with Minnesota farmers. She asked Mr. Forde to address how the U.S. can best ensure that its farmers, ranchers, and other agriculture industry stakeholders are receiving high speed broadband service.
  • Mr. Forde mentioned how Midco is currently working on several broadband projects throughout Minnesota. He specifically highlighted how Midco has partnered with Land O’Lakes to provide fixed wireless broadband service from elevators. He explained that this effort is providing an 8-mile circle of broadband service with 100 Mbps download speeds and 20 Mbps upload speeds to about 2,700 farms and ranches. He stated that this effort supports nearby farms, ranches, and other related agriculture services. He remarked that expanded broadband service to farms and ranches is key to supporting precision agriculture technologies. He expressed Midco’s interest in further expanding broadband service to Minnesota’s agriculture communities.
• Sen. Klobuchar then asked Mr. Nishi to discuss the MoU between the FCC, the NTIA, the USDA, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury to share data and metrics related to federal broadband deployment efforts. She also asked Mr. Nishi to provide recommendations for how federal departments and agencies can better work together to provide accurate information on federal broadband deployment efforts.
  • Mr. Nishi described the MoU between the FCC, the NTIA, the USDA, and the U.S. Department of the Treasury as beneficial. He commented that this MoU demonstrates that these departments and agencies are in communication with each other and acknowledge the need for coordination. He asserted that Congress must provide oversight of these departments and agencies to ensure that these departments and agencies are adhering to the MoU.
• Sen. Klobuchar then asked Mr. Shekleton to discuss some of the challenges that broadband providers face when they want to pursue new broadband projects and experience workforce issues. She expressed support for immigration reform proposals that would increase workforce permits. She commented that many parts of rural America lack sufficient supplies of workers.
  • Mr. Shekleton remarked that workforce development is a growing challenge for the U.S. He mentioned how his cooperative is making concerted efforts to mitigate these anticipated workforce challenges. He noted how BEAD Program funding allocations will soon occur and indicated that his state of Illinois is expected to receive between $900 million and $1 billion in BEAD Program funding. He stated that there is significant demand for broadband internet service from rural communities. He remarked that the U.S. must ensure that there are available and trained workers before BEAD Program funding allocations are released so that it can immediately deploy broadband infrastructure projects. He mentioned how his cooperative maintains a local MoU and stated that local outreach and collaboration activities are key to supporting broadband deployment. He elaborated that his cooperative is working with local educators, community colleges, workforce training programs, and CTE programs to create “classroom to career” pathways.

Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE):

• Sen. Fischer remarked that broadband connectivity is becoming essential to support modern agriculture. She noted how farmers and ranchers are integrating undersoil censors, variable rate irrigation, air tags for livestock, and other technologies into their operations. She remarked that the U.S. must fully expand broadband internet service to make full use of precision agriculture innovation. She stated that agriculture producers require broadband service coverage that extends past main residences. She commented that this coverage across acreage is not possible without both wired and wireless broadband connections. She asked Mr. Forde to indicate whether USDA Rural Development broadband programs are not sufficiently focusing on last acre broadband connectivity. She also asked Mr. Forde to indicate whether the Subcommittee should work to ensure that the USDA has the right balance of last mile and last acre resources.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that the USDA should take a technology neutral approach to broadband deployment. He stated that wireless broadband service will be key to connecting farm and agriculture communities. He also predicted that U.S. agriculture producers will eventually demand more wireless broadband service options. He remarked that an increased focus on wireless broadband technology will ensure that current broadband deployment efforts will be “future proof.”
• Sen. Fischer also mentioned how parts of her state of Nebraska (such as the Sandhills region) are very sparsely populated. She commented that last acre broadband deployment is important for these very rural regions.
  • Mr. Forde expressed support for Sen. Fischer’s Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2023 and commented that this legislation will support broadband deployment efforts to sparsely populated areas. He noted how this legislation would prioritize broadband deployment to these sparsely populated areas over communities that are already served by broadband. He also stated that the U.S. must work to quickly deploy broadband service to sparsely populated areas. He noted how these sparsely populated areas often contain homes with very long driveways and commented that it can be expensive and time consuming to deploy wireline broadband service to these homes. He stated that wireless broadband service can provide a cheaper and quicker means of delivering fast and reliable broadband service.
• Sen. Fischer called broadband essential infrastructure and compared the current rural broadband deployment efforts to historical rural electrification efforts. She asserted that broadband access should be considered a right for all U.S. citizens. She then noted how there had been discussions regarding the need to use federal broadband programs to “future proof” broadband networks. She commented however that the phrase “future proof” is not contained in any statute. She asked Mr. Forde to provide a definition for the phrase “future proof” and to indicate whether Midco’s broadband networks can be considered “future proof.”
  • Mr. Forde testified that Midco is making investments to ensure that its rural customers have access to the most up-to-date and effective broadband technologies. He stated that Midco would not build a broadband system (whether it be fiber optic, HFC, or fixed wireless) that is not “future proof.” He commented that all these technologies are scalable.
• Sen. Fischer interjected to ask Mr. Forde to indicate how Midco would “future proof” broadband connectivity across acres of farmland and ranchland.
  • Mr. Forde discussed how Midco offers multiple broadband technology options to these agriculture customers so that these customers can choose the option that best suits their needs. He noted how farmers often require immediate broadband service. He commented that it would not be feasible to immediately deploy wireline broadband service to these farmers when the farmers might not fully know their future broadband service needs.
• Sen. Fischer remarked that federal rural development efforts must focus on supporting the agriculture sector. She stated that agriculture development not only supports nearby rural communities, but also their states.
  • Mr. Forde expressed excitement regarding the recent developments within the agriculture technology space and expressed Midco’s appreciation for its ability to support this space.
• Sen. Fischer expressed interest in using the upcoming Farm Bill to support precision agriculture innovation and to ensure that the requisite broadband connectivity exists to enable this innovation.

Full Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI):

• Chairman Stabenow remarked that high speed internet service should not be considered a luxury and commented that the COVID-19 pandemic had demonstrated the importance of this service. She noted how many children must access broadband internet through either businesses or public libraries to complete their homework. She applauded the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) for providing additional federal funding for broadband deployment efforts. She also commended the USDA’s work to deploy high speed internet in rural settings. She mentioned how the Upper Peninsula Telephone Company in Michigan is using a $34 million ReConnect Program grant to deploy a fiber to the premises (FTTP) network to connect over 1,600 rural residents to high-speed internet. She expressed interest in using the upcoming Farm Bill to further expand broadband access for farmers and rural communities. She then asked Mr. Shekleton to indicate what should constitute the minimum acceptable broadband speed for determining whether a household is served by broadband. She also asked Mr. Shekleton to indicate what the minimum required broadband buildout speed should be for ReConnect Program applicants.
  • Mr. Shekleton remarked that a premise should be considered served by broadband if it receives 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He also stated that this 100 Mbps symmetrical speed standard should be the minimum required broadband build out speed for the ReConnect Program. He called on the U.S. to standardize its definitions for acceptable broadband speeds and work to deploy “scalable” and “future proof” broadband technologies. He commented however that there do not appear to exist agreed upon definitions of the terms “scalable” and “future proof.” He recounted how the definitions for acceptable broadband service had consistently increased over the previous 20 years. He asserted that the U.S. could not set these definitions based on current broadband demands and must acknowledge the likelihood that these demands will significantly increase in the future. He called it very possible that Americans will need multi-gigabit broadband speeds by 2030. He stated that the U.S. should therefore adopt ambitious broadband speed targets given the one-time nature of the IIJA’s broadband funding.
• Chairman Stabenow then noted how some argue that broadband internet connections with symmetrical upload and download speeds are unnecessary for rural customers. She asked Mr. Nishi to address why the USDA should prioritize the construction of broadband networks with symmetrical speed capabilities. She also asked Mr. Nishi to discuss the long-term benefits of these symmetrical speed broadband networks.
  • Mr. Nishi remarked that there should exist reasonable and comparable services at reasonable and comparable rates in urban and rural areas. He stated that a professional living in a rural area (such as a designer or architect) may require 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds so that they can upload their work. He asserted that broadband networks with symmetrical speed capabilities are necessary for ensuring equity across urban and rural areas.
• Chairman Stabenow remarked that the U.S. should work to ensure that rural communities have access to high quality broadband service.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR):

• Ranking Member Boozman remarked that broadband-dependent technologies will be key to supporting environmentally friendly agriculture techniques. He also stated that broadband deployment will be key to addressing the population losses in rural communities. He then mentioned how a 2022 GAO report had found that there are currently over 100 programs administered by 15 federal agencies that could be used to expand broadband access. He noted however that millions of Americans still lack broadband service access, despite these federal programs and $44 billion in federal investments between 2015 and 2020. He asked Mr. Forde to indicate whether he had observed a “noticeable” reduction in the number of locations unserved by broadband in rural and difficult-to-reach areas within Midco’s service areas.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that Midco had not seen any meaningful reduction in the number of locations unserved by broadband in rural and difficult-to-reach areas within the company’s service areas. He asserted that current federal broadband funding sources fail to target people that lack broadband service access.
• Ranking Member Boozman asked Mr. Forde to discuss how the U.S. could address its digital disparities.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that the U.S. must prioritize the deployment of broadband to unserved areas over supporting upgrades to previously existing broadband systems.
• Ranking Member Boozman then discussed how many of his constituents have made complaints regarding the ReConnect Program’s application process. He noted how these constituents have indicated that this application process can be very time consuming. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether they have had experienced similar challenges with the ReConnect Program’s application process. He also asked the witnesses to provide recommendations for streamlining the ReConnect Program’s application process.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that the ReConnect Program’s application process is not very conducive to private capital. He specifically expressed concerns over how the Program provides the U.S. government with a first lien on grant-funded assets, requires extensive disclosures from participants, and entails a very lengthy application process. He expressed hope that the Rural Internet Improvement Act of 2023 would enable Midco to better participate in the ReConnect Program so that it can expand broadband access to rural areas.
  • Mr. Shute mentioned how her CUD had recently applied for Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Program and highlighted how the Program’s application is very lengthy. She recommended that the U.S. establish two-step application processes for the ReConnect Program, the Community Connect Program, and the Broadband Technical Assistance (BTA) Program. She noted how these application processes are points-based and stated that a simple form could filter out most applicants who would ultimately be unsuccessful in obtaining grants from these programs. She added that this first step would ensure that applicants who complete the full applications are well-positioned to succeed in obtaining the grants. She also discussed how the ReConnect Program requires applicants to provide “extremely detailed” budgets and financial information. She stated that these requirements necessitate that applicants develop a design for their proposed projects. She commented that these requirements are prohibitively expensive for smaller broadband providers. She testified that her CUD had hired consultants to develop their design for their proposed project and stated that her CUD could not have pursued its application without the help of these consultants. She then discussed how different agencies and entities use different types of information in their work. She explained that the USDA focuses on households, her CUD focuses on premises, and the FCC’s National Broadband Map focuses on a different information type. She stated that these differences in information types make it difficult for ReConnect Program applicants to calculate a project’s number of potential beneficiaries and reconcile this number with their existing financial information. She called on the U.S. to streamline the data being used for the ReConnect Program’s application process.

Sen. Mike Braun (R-IN):

• Sen. Braun recounted how his state of Indiana had established a funding program where the state provides matching funds for municipality and county investments in road infrastructure. He commented that this program has proven popular and noted that the state’s municipalities and countries are now advocating for higher matching fund limits. He asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Forde to comment on the merits of adopting a similar federal matching program to encourage state and local broadband project investments.
  • Mr. Johnson expressed support for Sen. Braun’s proposed federal matching program for state and local broadband project investments. He stated that this approach would discourage “fly-by-night” providers from taking federal broadband funding without investing in the long-term viability of their broadband networks. He remarked that prospective broadband providers should be required to cover a minimum percentage of a broadband project’s costs. He also asserted that broadband providers seeking federal funds should need to either prove a “demonstrated history” of delivering broadband service or provide evidence that they can deliver on their promises. He stated that broadband providers (regardless of whether they are public or private) are more likely to be successful in deploying broadband projects if they are financially responsible for the projects.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that Midco will use as little public funds as possible to complete its broadband projects. He mentioned how Midco had participated in some state-level public grant programs and had minimized its use of public funds.
• Sen. Braun also noted how the federal government is currently running “unprecedented” budget deficits. He stated that cost-sharing programs for broadband deployment can allow for more efficient federal expenditures. He then discussed how there exists debate surrounding what constitutes a suitable broadband service level. He noted how large broadband providers often refuse to serve areas just outside of population centers. He asked the witnesses to comment on this dynamic.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that Midco likes to serve the overlooked areas described by Sen. Braun using just private capital. He testified that Midco can economically serve these areas.
• Sen. Braun asked Mr. Forde to indicate whether regulations or formulas have prevented Midco from expanding its broadband service areas.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that Midco has not experienced significant financial barriers in its efforts to expand broadband service to overlooked areas. He stated however that Midco often faces permitting challenges when seeking to expand broadband service to these areas. He noted that these permitting issues relate to pole access, the ability to cross railroad tracks and rivers, and environmental rules.
  • Mr. Johnson remarked that there have historically not existed sufficient economic incentives to attract private capital for rural broadband projects. He asserted that universal broadband service in rural America will not occur without government subsidies. He also stated that the U.S. should consider the physical properties and physical capabilities of broadband deployment tools. He commented that such consideration will help the U.S. to determine what constitutes “future proof” broadband technology.
  • Ms. Shute expressed confidence in the BEAD Program’s ability to expand broadband service to areas just outside of population centers. She remarked that the ReConnect Program will need to support broadband service expansion in more rural areas. She stated that this newly deployed broadband infrastructure can serve as a foundation for future broadband deployment efforts.
  • Mr. Nishi called it important for the U.S. to maintain minimum broadband standards of 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He mentioned how a Fiber Broadband Association study finds that households in 2023 are already using 100 Mbps download speeds and 100 Mbps upload speeds. He also highlighted how Rounds 3 and 4 of the ReConnect Program were oversubscribed, which underscores the demand for 100 Mbps symmetrical broadband speeds.
  • Ms. Shute noted how the availability of wireless broadband technology with 25 Mbps download speeds and 3 Mbps upload speeds can disqualify an area from federal grant programs. She indicated that her state of Vermont will be disqualified from Round 5 of the ReConnect Program because it has such wireless broadband technology availability. She commented however that many areas of Vermont still possess poor broadband service. She also stated that rural areas might have poor or nonexistent access to their wireless broadband service due to terrain and weather challenges. She asserted that the U.S. must therefore set high minimum broadband speed service standards to ensure that all Americans can access wired broadband connections.
  • Mr. Shekleton remarked that pole attachments are not a barrier to broadband infrastructure deployment. He noted how cooperatives use an at cost model and do not make any profit from pole attachment fees. He mentioned how there have been instances where cooperatives have offered broadband providers to use their poles for free so long as they promise to bring robust and reliable high-speed internet to all of the cooperative’s members. He indicated that these offers have been met with no responses.

Subcommittee Ranking Member Tommy Tuberville (R-AL):

• Ranking Member Tuberville asked Mr. Forde and Mr. Johnson to discuss the importance of keeping the ReConnect Program’s required percentage of unserved locations within an awarded area as high as possible to promote rural broadband deployment. He expressed concerns over how the ReConnect Program’s most recent funding round requires that just 50 percent of households in a given area be unserved by broadband to be eligible for Program funding.
  • Mr. Johnson emphasized that the U.S. has a limited set of funds for deploying broadband infrastructure. He stated that adopting a lower threshold for what constitutes an unserved area under the ReConnect Program will increase the likelihood that federal funds will be used to improve existing broadband networks. He warned that this would be at the expense of Americans with poor or no broadband service.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that the U.S.  must focus on expanding broadband service to truly unserved areas. He asserted that the U.S. must require that federal broadband funding go towards areas where 90 percent or more of households are unserved by broadband. He commented that this approach would ensure that people without any broadband service are helped first.
  • Ms. Shute called it critical that service percentages be part of the point systems for federal broadband funding programs. She noted how states vary significantly in terms of their broadband deployment needs and commented that point systems help the USDA to more efficiently allocate their limited resources.
• Ranking Member Tuberville then asked the witnesses to identify the most burdensome rural broadband deployment permitting issues that are facing the U.S.
  • Ms. Shute remarked that “make-ready” licensing constitutes the most significant permitting burden that impedes rural broadband deployment efforts. She recommended that a two-step permitting application process can make it easier for broadband providers to complete federal permitting applications. She commented that this two-step process would enable broadband providers to deploy their projects more quickly.
  • Mr. Nishi recommended that federal agencies should be subject to “shot clocks” for their permitting reviews. He explained that these “shot clocks” would have permitting applications be automatically approved if a decision on the application is not made within a set amount of time. He also discussed how many broadband providers often must undergo permitting processes for previously disturbed areas. He called these reviews redundant and asserted that the review processes of projects involving previously disturbed areas can be expedited. He lastly noted how there has occurred an increase in broadband project applications, which he attributed to the recent increase in available broadband funding. He stated that the U.S. must ensure that its federal agencies are adequately staffed and approving these project applications.
  • Mr. Johnson noted how many cooperatives experience “considerable” difficulty with rights of way related to railroads.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that streamlining federal broadband program application processes would be “very helpful” for rural America. He commented that an application that works for the FCC should also work for the USDA. He also mentioned how Midco faces challenges with environmental regulations when it seeks to cross rivers. He indicated that Midco must deal with a “myriad” of federal agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), on this challenge.

Full Committee Ranking Member John Boozman (R-AR):

• Ranking Member Boozman remarked that the RUS maintains “stringent” timeframes for forest land permitting. He asked the witnesses to indicate whether Congress should require that the USFS expedite the permitting approval process for projects supported by federal broadband programs as part of the upcoming Farm Bill. He stated that the Committee must address permitting challenges for projects involving federal forest lands.
  • Mr. Johnson remarked that Congress should address permitting challenges related to the USFS as part of the upcoming Farm Bill. He also stated that permitting challenges are a government-wide issue and commented that these challenges impede the deployment of broadband service.
  • Mr. Forde remarked that broadband providers should be provided with an expedited permitting process to access existing roads, rights of way, and easements.

Subcommittee Chairman Peter Welch (D-VT):

• Chairman Welch noted how there appears to exist a consensus regarding the need for a simplified broadband program application process. He also stated that there are strong political and social justifications for rural broadband deployment efforts, even if such efforts may not be economical. He further expressed support for exempting broadband grants from federal taxation. He also acknowledged that there exist widespread permitting challenges for broadband projects at both the federal and state levels. He then discussed the issue of “future proofing” broadband infrastructure and stated that the U.S. cannot provide rural residents with “second class” broadband service. He remarked that the U.S. must deploy broadband infrastructure that meets future broadband needs. He commented that rural broadband infrastructure will be key to attracting people and jobs to rural communities. He concluded that there exists a strong bipartisan commitment from the U.S. Senate regarding the need to deploy broadband service to rural America.