U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

29–879 WASHINGTON : 2018

CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2018 

Serial No. 115–95 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Vice Chairman 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana 

MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma 

RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

TIM WALBERG, Michigan 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

EARL L. ‘‘BUDDY’’ CARTER, Georgia 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

Ranking Member 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

BEN RAY LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL TONKO, New York 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

KURT SCHRADER, Oregon 

JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III, Massachusetts 

TONY CA ́ RDENAS, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

SCOTT H. PETERS, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

Chairman 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

BILLY LONG, Missouri 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

SUSAN W. BROOKS, Tennessee 

CHRIS COLLINS, New York 

KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota 

MIMI WALTERS, California 

RYAN A. COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio) 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

Ranking Member 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey (ex 

officio) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Tennessee, opening statement ............................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Leonard Lance, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey, prepared statement ................................................................................. 4 

Hon. Michael F. Doyle, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Jersey, opening statement .......................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

WITNESSES

Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO, USTelecom ............................................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 186 

Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA ........................................................ 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 190 

Matthew M. Polka, President and CEO, American Cable Association ............... 32 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 34 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 193 

Shirley Bloomfield, CEO, NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association ................ 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 196 

Scott Slesinger, Legislative Director, Natural Resources Defense Council ........ 61 

Prepared statement 1 ........................................................................................ 63 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 200 

Joanne S. Hovis, President, CTC Technology and Energy ................................... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 203 

Elin Swanson Katz, Consumer Counsel, Connecticut Consumer Counsel .......... 85 

Prepared statement 2 ........................................................................................ 87 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 210 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of the American Cable Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn .. 134 

Statement of CTIA, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ............................................... 136 

Statement of NCTA—The Internet & Television Association, submitted by 

Mrs. Blackburn ..................................................................................................... 137 

Statement of the Competitive Carriers Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ....................................................................................................................... 139

Statement of the Telecommunications Industry Association, submitted by 

Mrs. Blackburn ..................................................................................................... 141 

Statement of C-TEC, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ............................................. 143 

Statement of the Power and Communication Contractors Association, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ................................................................................... 145 

Statement of the Wireless Infrastructure Association, submitted by Mrs. 

Blackburn ............................................................................................................. 146 

White paper by CISCO, submitted by Mrs. Blackburn ........................................ 148 

Page

IV 

Letter of January 23, 2018, from Members of Congress to President Donald 

J. Trump, submitted by Mr. Welch .................................................................... 157 

Article entitled, ‘‘When the city is your internet provider, the real cost may 

be hidden,’’ Belleville News-Democrat, January 30, 2018, submitted by Mr. 

Shimkus ................................................................................................................ 158 

Study entitled, ‘‘Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America,’’ Harvard University, January 2018, submitted by Ms. Eshoo .................. 161 

Press release, The Power and Communication Contractors Association, submitted by Mr. Doyle ............................................................................................. 178 

Article entitled, ‘‘Scoop: Trump team considers nationalizing 5G network, 

Axios, January 29, 2018, submitted by Mr. Doyle ............................................ 180 

Statement of Tipmont REMC, submitted by Mr. Doyle ....................................... 183 

1 Mr. Slesinger’s full statement can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/ 

meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-wstate-slesingers20180130-u5050.pdf. 2 Ms. Swanson Katz’s full statement can be found at: https://docs.house.gov/ 

meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16-wstate-swansonkatze20180130-u5060.pdf. 

(1) 

CLOSING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: BROADBAND 

INFRASTRUCTURE SOLUTIONS 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 30, 2018 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:58 a.m., in room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Marsha Blackburn 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Blackburn, Lance, Shimkus, Latta, 

Guthrie, Olson, Kinzinger, Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Flores, Brooks, 

Collins, Cramer, Walters, Costello, Walden (ex officio), Doyle, 

Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Ruiz, Dingell, Rush, Eshoo, Butterfield, 

Matsui, McNerney, and Pallone (ex officio). 

Also Present: Representative Tonko. 

Staff Present: Jon Adame, Policy Coordinator C&T; Ray Baum, 

Staff Director; Karen Christian, General Counsel; Kelly Collins, 

Staff Assistant; Robin Colwell, Chief Counsel, Communications & 

Technology; Adam Fromm, Director of Outreach and Coalitions; 

Elena Hernandez, Press Secretary; Zach Hunter, Director of Communications; Tim Kurth, Deputy Chief Counsel, Communications & 

Technology; Lauren McCarty, Counsel, Communications & Technology, Katie McKeogh, Press Assistant; Evan Viau, Legislative 

Clerk, Communications & Technology; Hamlin Wade, Special Advisor, External Affairs; Everett Winnick, Director of Information 

Technology; Jacqueline Cohen, Minority Chief Environment Counsel; David Goldman, Minority Chief Counsel, Communications & 

Technology; Tiffany Guarascio, Minority Deputy Staff Director and 

Chief Health Advisor; Jerry Leverich, Minority Counsel; Jourdan 

Lewis, Minority Staff Assistant; Dan Miller, Minority Policy Analyst; Tim Robinson, Minority Chief Counsel; C.J. Young, Minority 

Press Secretary; and Catherine Zander, Minority Environment Fellow. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology will now come to order. The chair now recognizes herself for 5 minutes for an opening statement. 

Welcome to the subcommittee’s first hearing of the new year. 

And I must say, we are off to a very promising start. We wanted 

to have a very inclusive hearing today to discuss all of the great 

2 

ideas from subcommittee members on both of sides of aisle to create broadband infrastructure deployment, and a goal of closing the 

digital divide. Whether you agree or disagree with any individual 

idea, it is so important that we get the conversation started, and 

we have got a lot to talk about with 25 bills introduced in time to 

be a part of today’s hearing. I very much appreciate all of the 

thoughtful proposals and the great work from the staff of both the 

Republican and the Democrat side, and I look forward to seeing 

progress as we move through the next few weeks. 

These legislative initiatives follow the leadership of President 

Trump’s recent efforts on broadband infrastructure. The bills to be 

examined in this hearing are targeted at promoting the innovation, 

cutting red tape, and advancing public safety. 

It is impossible in my allotted time to highlight each bill, but I 

do want to call attention to a couple of resolutions expressing the 

guiding principles on broadband infrastructure that should underpin our efforts. 

First, as noted by Vice Chairman Lance, any funds for broadband 

in an infrastructure package should go to unserved areas. 

Second, as noted by Congressman Latta, the Federal Government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. 

Any Federal support for broadband infrastructure should be competitively and technologically neutral. 

If we adhere to these principles, I am confident we can avoid the 

pitfalls of waste, fraud, inefficiency that marred the previous administration’s efforts on broadband infrastructure. 

Lastly, and perhaps most important, Congress should be mindful 

of the significant amounts of private capital spent to support 

broadband deployment. Since passage of the bipartisan 1996 

Telecom Act, the private sector has invested roughly $1.6 trillion 

in their networks. 

This investment includes wireline, wireless and other broadband 

technologies. However, this investment experienced a decline that 

coincided with the FCC’s 2015 decision to reclassify the competitive 

broadband marketplace under Title II of the Communications Act, 

an outdated relic of the 1930’s monopoly era. 

I want to reiterate our support for Chairman Pai, who corrected 

this ill-conceived policy and returned us to the light-touch regulatory approach that allowed the digital economy to flourish. This 

light-touch approach has been the bedrock of communications policy since the Clinton administration. 

As I previously stated, history makes clear that countries with 

the best communications have the highest economic growth. Continuing our Nation’s leadership is, and most important, must remain a bipartisan effort. 

And I am pleased to note that our effort has broad support from 

a cross section of the industry. 

At this time, I would like to enter into the record several letters 

of support from American Cable Association, CTIA, NCTA, Competitive Carriers Association, Telecommunications Industry Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Power and Communication 

Contractors Association, and the Wireless Infrastructure Association. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

3 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I am pleased to convene this hearing. I look 

forward to the testimony of our witnesses. And with that, I yield 

the remainder of my time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Lance. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Blackburn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN

Welcome to the subcommittee’s first hearing of the new year. And I must say we 

are off to a very promising start. We wanted to have a very inclusive hearing today 

to discuss all of the ideas from Subcommittee members on both sides of the aisle 

to promote broadband infrastructure deployment with a goal of closing the digital 

divide. Whether you agree or disagree with any individual idea, it is so important 

that we get the conversation started. And we have plenty to talk about, with 25 bills 

introduced in time to be part of our hearing today. I very much appreciate all of 

the thoughtful proposals and look forward to seeing many of them progress in the 

coming weeks. 

These legislative initiatives follow the leadership of President Trump’s recent efforts on broadband infrastructure. As stated in the President’s recent Executive 

Order: 

‘‘Americans need access to. broadband internet service to succeed in today’s information-driven, global economy. 

‘‘Currently, too many American citizens and businesses. lack access to this basic 

tool. [and] this problem is particularly acute in rural America.’’ 

Collectively, the bills to be examined at this hearing are targeted at promoting 

innovation, cutting red tape, and advancing public safety. 

Together, Congress and the administration can help span the digital divide so all 

Americans may fully realize the innovations made possible by broadband. 

This will require expanding broadband to unserved areas, supporting deployment 

of advanced networks and new technology, as well as helping citizens recover from 

hurricanes, floods, fires, and other disasters. 

It’s impossible in my allotted time to highlight each bill, but I do want to call attention to a couple of resolutions expressing the guiding principles on broadband infrastructure that should underpin our efforts: 

First, as noted by Vice Chairman Lance, any funds for broadband in an infrastructure package should go to unserved areas. 

Second, as noted by Congressman Latta, the Federal Government should not be 

picking winners and losers in the marketplace; any federal support for broadband 

infrastructure should be competitively and technologically neutral. 

If we adhere to these principles, I am confident we can avoid the pitfalls of waste, 

fraud, abuse, and inefficiency that marred the previous administration’s efforts on 

broadband infrastructure. 

Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, Congress should be mindful of the significant amounts of private capital spent to support broadband deployment. Since passage of the bipartisan 1996 Telecommunications Act, the private sector has invested 

roughly $1.6 trillion in their networks. 

This investment includes wireline, wireless, and other broadband technologies. 

However, this investment experienced a decline that coincided with the FCC’s 2015 

decision to reclassify the competitive broadband marketplace under Title II of the 

Communications Act, an outdated relic of the 1930s monopoly-era. 

I want to reiterate our support for Chairman Pai who corrected this ill-conceived 

policy and returned us to the light-touch regulatory approach that allowed the digital economy to flourish. This light-touch approach has been the bedrock of communications policy since the Clinton administration. 

As I have previously stated: history makes clear that countries with the best communications have the highest economic growth. Continuing our nation’s leadership 

is, and must remain, a bipartisan effort. 

I am pleased to convene this hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of our 

witnesses. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much. And first of all, the State of 

the Union is that the chair is doing a terrific job at this subcommittee. 

Since 1996, the wireless and wireline industries have invested 

over $1.6 trillion in private capital investment. As we consider how 

4 

best to promote broadband deployment and Next Generation Networks, it is important that we remember the success of private investment in the past and pursue Federal policies to help and encourage an emphasis on private investment in the future. 

As our economy becomes more digitized, we must ensure 

broadband access to all areas of the country. 

It is important that we recognize that any Federal funds for 

broadband deployment will be finite, and our focus on unserved or 

underserved areas of the Nation. 

I am pleased we are considering the Access Broadband Act, 

which I have introduced with Congressman Tonko on a bipartisan 

basis. I commend the chair and the members of the subcommittee 

on both sides of the aisle on the impressive package of broadband 

infrastructure bills we are considering today. I look forward to 

hearing the testimony from the panel. 

Madam Chair, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lance follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LEONARD LANCE

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and thank you to our distinguished panel members for appearing before us today. Since 1996, the wireless and wireline industries have invested over $1.6 trillion 

in private capital investment. As we consider how best to promote broadband deployment and next generation networks it is important that we remember the successes of private investment in the past and pursue federal policies to help and encourage an emphasis on more private investment in the future. 

As our economy becomes increasingly more digitized, bringing broadband access 

to more areas of the country connects more consumers and small businesses to the 

internet economy for the economic benefit of all. However, in many rural areas of 

the country, the cost to deploy broadband infrastructure is prohibitive and I believe 

that there is a role for federal funding to play in the cases where prohibitive costs 

prevent a market solution. 

However, it is important that we recognize that any federal funds for broadband 

deployment will be finite and are focused on unserved areas of the country. The 

Federal Government should not be in the business of subsidizing competitors in 

local markets where a broadband provider already provides service and I am 

pleased that we are considering my resolution that clearly states this principle. 

I am also pleased we are considering the ACCESS BROADBAND Act, which I introduced with Congressman Tonko. The bill would streamline the federal grant programs related to broadband deployment and better track how federal funds are 

used. I thank Congressman Tonko for his leadership on this important issue. 

I commend Chairman Blackburn and the members of the subcommittee on both 

sides of the aisle on the impressive package of broadband infrastructure bills we are 

considering today. I look forward to hearing the testimonies from the panel. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Doyle, you are 

recognized, 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair for holding this hearing, 

and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. 

I want to start off by saying that I share Chairman Blackburn’s 

and this committee’s goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband, and that we need to come together, on a bipartisan basis, to address the challenges that millions of Americans 

face today from a lack of broadband access, a lack of sufficient 

speeds, and a lack of affordable option. While it is crucial that noVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
5 

body gets left behind, I believe we cannot ignore the lack of competition, particularly among wireline providers, and the high cost 

of service that results in far too many foregoing service. 

That being said, I am concerned about the approach we are taking here today. We are considering 25 bills at this hearing. I can’t 

remember a time when this committee held a hearing on so many 

bills with a single panel of witnesses. We are simply not giving 

these bills the time and expertise required for the members of this 

committee to fully consider each of these bills and the ramifications. It would seem to me far more prudent to have hold a series 

of hearings so that members would have an opportunity to discuss 

and understand the proposals before us. Rushing this process gives 

short shrift to many worthwhile ideas for members on both sides 

of the aisle, and precludes these bills from undergoing a truly deliberative process. 

It is my hope that Chairman Blackburn and the committee staff 

for the majority can work with us to avoid this unnecessary problem for the future. It is my hope, Madam Chair, that as we move 

forward on broadband infrastructure legislation, we can do so on a 

collaborative and bipartisan basis. 

That being said, I am concerned that many of the majority’s proposals do not actually address the primary issue of getting 

broadband to rural America, and that there is no business case for 

that private investment. If we are serious about solving this problem, and we believe that people living in rural areas should have 

access to reasonably comparable service, we need to appropriate 

the funds necessary for that buildout. 

With that Madam Chair, I would like to yield a minute to my 

good friend, Ms. Eshoo from California, and then a minute and a 

half to my good friend, Mr. Welch. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doyle follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL F. DOYLE

Thank you, Chairman Blackburn for holding this hearing, and thank you to the 

witnesses for appearing before us today. 

I want to start off by saying that I share Chairman Blackburn’s and this Committee’s goal of ensuring that all Americans have access to broadband—and that we 

need to come together on a bipartisan basis to address the challenges that millions 

of Americans face today from a lack of broadband access, a lack of sufficient speeds, 

and a lack of affordable options. 

While it is crucial that nobody gets left behind, I believe that we cannot ignore 

the lack of competition, particularly among wireline providers, and the high cost of 

service that results in far too many people forgoing service. 

That being said, I’m concerned about the approach we are taking here today. We 

are considering twenty five bills at this hearing, I don’t remember a time when this 

Committee held a hearing on so many bills with a single panel of witnesses. We 

are simply not giving these bills the time and expertise required for the members 

of this Committee to fully consider each of these bills and their ramifications. 

It would seem far more prudent to hold a series of hearings so that members 

would have an opportunity to discuss and understand each of the proposals before 

us. Rushing this process gives short shrift to many of the worthwhile ideas from 

members on both sides of the aisle, and it precludes these bills from undergoing a 

truly deliberative process. 

It is my hope that Chairman Blackburn and the Committee staff for the majority 

can work with us to avoid this shortsightedness and avoid unnecessary problems for 

the future. It is my hope, Madam Chairman, that as we move forward on broadband 

infrastructure legislation we can do so on a collaborative and bipartisan basis. 

That being said, I am concerned that many of the Majority’s proposals do not actually address the primary issue of getting broadband to rural America—and that 

6 

there is no business case for private investment. If we are serious about solving this 

problem, and we believe that people living in rural areas should have access to reasonably comparable service, we need to appropriate the funds necessary for that 

buildout. 

Ms. ESHOO. I thank the ranking member. 

Here it is, the second decade of the 21st century, and too many 

Americans cannot fully participate in modern life, because they do 

not have a robust broadband connection. It is either unavailable to 

them, or it is unaffordable, and it is our responsibility to remedy 

this. That is why I have introduced several bills to clear the way 

for communities to take control. The Community Broadband Act 

and the Climb Once Act both ensure that communities are empowered to create their own municipal broadband networks, and 

streamline pole attachments to improve efficiency and competition. 

Where muni broadband is deployed, and where Climb Once policies are in place, such as Louisville, Kentucky, Nashville, Tennessee, and soon, San Francisco, California, consumers enjoy more 

access, better service and lower prices. And a recent Harvard study 

showed that communities with municipal broadband were up to 50 

percent lower in cost than private alternatives. And the Community Broadband Act will open the doors for all communities to explore that option. And most especially, both of these bills will really 

boost and make a difference in rural America. 

So I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me, and I yield 

back to him. 

Mr. DOYLE. Yes. And I yield the remaining time to Mr. Welch. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. We know about 40 percent of rural 

America has no broadband. Not slow broadband, no broadband. 

And there is no economic future for any part of our country if it 

doesn’t have high speed internet. And rural America is being left 

behind. And the other issue here is that it makes no economic 

sense for private markets to be expanding in the rural areas. There 

is no payback. Bottom line: We need funding to make certain that 

rural broadband is real. And we have a group on this committee 

that wrote to President Trump, Mr. Cramer, Mr. Kinzinger, Mr. 

Latta. We want infrastructure funding that is real so that there is 

broadband in rural America. 

Now, absent funding, there is no broadband. It is as simple as 

that. This is a good hearing on several good bills, but there is nothing before us that is going to address the funding that we need for 

infrastructure for rural broadband. 

In my call to the committee, is that we get real and acknowledge 

that we have to have money for this buildout, much as our predecessors in Congress provided funding for the buildout of electricity 

in rural America. No funding, no broadband. It is as simple as that. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

At this time, Chairman Walden, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to all our 

members, and especially to our witnesses. We got a big panel of 

7 

witnesses because we have a lot of really important ideas from our 

members. We have got 25 bills, as you have heard; eight of them 

from Democrats, the other 17 from Republicans. Obviously, this 

committee is used to dealing with big, important issues. Sometimes 

we have had bills that are maybe hundreds of pages long. These 

are, I think, important policy statements in some cases, streamlining processes in other cases. 

The whole concept here is to look at the broad range of ideas that 

members have brought to this committee for its consideration. And 

that is why at the subcommittee level, we thought it was important 

to put as many of these bills as possible up for the public to see, 

because it is on our agenda and our website, but also for us to 

begin getting our heads around as we move forward in our legislative process. 

So I am delighted to have the bills before us. I am delighted you 

all are before us. I remember when the last administration did the 

stimulus bill. It was a whopping $7 billion they pushed out the 

door before they produced the maps to tell us where unserved areas 

were in America. They only did that after the fact. 

So as you know, we are trying to get the other side of that coin 

and identify where are the really unserved and underserved areas? 

What kind of reporting mechanisms are poorly being conducted 

today to show us that? We want NTIA and other organizations to 

help us figure that out. So when the taxpayer or ratepayers’ money 

is invested, it is not invested to overbuild, it is invested to reach 

out to the 29 million Americans, 23 million Americans, 39 percent 

rural areas that don’t have access to high speed broadband. Because you know, at $7 billion, you have to remember in the market, they are spending close to $80 billion a year on broadband 

deployment; $1.6 trillion between 1996, I think it is, and 2006. But 

anyway, the big investment here is done on the private sector. 

There is public money that is spent. Our job is to make sure that 

public money is spent appropriately and helps close this digital divide. 

You want to talk about rural? My district would stretch from the 

Atlantic to Ohio. It is 69,341 square miles. I have got places in my 

district where there is one person for every 9 miles of power line. 

We live this gap every day, and we are trying to close it. And there 

are multiple ways to close it, but one of the best ways is to make 

sure that we can expedite the closure of that through reform siting, 

targeting the financial resources of ratepayers and the government, 

specifically to those areas that are underserved, and helping move 

this country forward to connectivity like we have never seen before. 

In 2012, we worked in bipartisan manner in this committee to 

free up spectrum. That is now being built out. We want to move 

forward with 5G development. Oh, by the way, we are not Venezuela where the government doesn’t need to own, operate, control 

through a command structure that kind of a network. 

Now, there may be security issues, and I imagine there are, and 

we all ought to be apprised of, and I have asked for a briefing, either classified or non, to figure out what those issues are. We want 

to be smart about having a secure network for the newest innovation. But I don’t know that having the government run it is necessarily the best way to go. So we are looking at those issues, too. 

8 

This is an exciting time for America. We want to be in the lead. 

We don’t want to wait. We can do a hearing every week for 25 

weeks and then move forward, or we can do one hearing with 25 

bills, figure out our ideas among ourselves, come together as a committee in a bipartisan way, deal with making America, again, clear 

on the forefront on development of connectivity, wired and wireless, 

and the newest innovation and technology, much like we are trying 

to do with autonomous vehicles. I look at my friend and colleague 

from Ohio with the Self-Drive Act. We have a lot before us. Let’s 

get it done. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. Is there any other 

member requesting his time? Not seeing anyone—— 

Mr. WELCH. Madam Chair? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. I will—yes. 

Mr. WELCH. I just have a request to—the letter that was signed, 

sent to the President asking for funds can be submitted into the 

record. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Yes. Mr. Pallone, at this time, I yield you 5 

minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. One year ago, President Trump promised us $1 trillion infrastructure package that would 

bring Democrats and Republicans together. And for our part, in 

May of last year, committee Democrats introduced a comprehensive 

infrastructure package across all areas of this committee’s jurisdiction. Yet here we are, hours from the State of the Union without 

serious legislation from the President, and instead, we have proposals from House Republicans, that mostly conflict with the plan 

that was just leaked out of the White House. 

In stark contrast, committee Democrats developed a legislative 

proposal to build the type of modern resilient infrastructure Americans need and deserve. At a time when our Nation’s infrastructure 

is either crumbling or in desperate need of modernization, it is 

time we make real and significant investments for the future. 

The LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion for the deployment 

of secure and resilient broadband. It would also provide over $22 

billion for drinking water infrastructure; over $17 billion for modern; efficient and resilient energy infrastructure; over $3 billion for 

health care infrastructure; and almost $3 billion for brownfields redevelopment. And the LIFT America Act puts real dollars where 

they are needed: creating jobs, revitalizing communities, and addressing serious threats to human health and environment. It 

would address lead in school drinking water, fund medical facilities 

in Indian country, reduce carbon emissions, and improve our resilience to the impacts of climate change. And it would do all that 

without rolling back environmental safeguards, as we are now 

hearing is a majority component of the President’s plan. And when 

9 

it comes to broadband, we have also put forward additional 

thoughtful proposals building on the strong foundations of the 

LIFT America Act. Our bills would ensure we are investing in our 

infrastructure efficiently, basing our decision on good data and 

reaching urban, rural, and tribal lands. 

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen bipartisan and bicameral agreement that we need dedicated funding to improve access to broadband nationwide. Yet despite this rare consensus, Republicans on this committee have decided to unveil a series of partisan bills that don’t address the real problems. These bills are simply window dressing. They unnecessarily pit urban versus rural, industry versus local government, and broadband access versus our 

environment. And the Republican proposals will not improve 

broadband development, and may, indeed, hurt workers and the 

economy in parts of the country. 

So I appreciate Republicans scheduling a hearing on broadband 

deployment and including some Democratic proposals, but I am 

concerned that the majority is simply trying to jam too much into 

this one hearing. Seven witnesses discussing 25 bills will not help 

the American public understand these proposals, let alone the 

members of this committee. 

What is more, we do not even have the relevant agencies here 

to help us understand how they will interpret the often-conflicting 

directions that are included in the Republican bills. And we are 

now a little over a year into this administration, and all Washington Republicans have to show the American people, in this subcommittee’s purview, are a check-the-box hearing to design to 

paper over this Republicans’ failure on infrastructure, the erosion 

of our privacy rights, and the elimination of net neutrality. And 

when it comes to governing, this subcommittee, in my opinion, is 

falling short. 

And with that, I yield the balance of my time to Mr. Ruiz. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR. 

One year ago, President Trump promised us a trillion dollar infrastructure package that would bring Democrats and Republicans together. And for our part, in May 

of last year Committee Democrats introduced a comprehensive infrastructure package across all areas of this Committee’s jurisdiction. Yet, here we are, hours from 

the State of the Union, without serious legislation from the President. All we have 

are some back of the napkin proposals from House Republicans that completely conflict with the plan just leaked out of the White House. 

In stark contrast, Committee Democrats developed a legislative proposal to build 

the type of modern, resilient infrastructure Americans need and deserve. At a time 

when our nation’s infrastructure is either crumbling or in desperate need of modernization, it’s time we make real and significant investments for the future. 

The LIFT America Act authorizes $40 billion for the deployment of secure and resilient broadband. It would also provide over $22 billion for drinking water infrastructure, over $17 billion for modern, efficient, and resilient energy infrastructure, 

over $3 billion for healthcare infrastructure, and almost $3 billion for brownfields 

redevelopment. 

The LIFT America Act puts real dollars where they are needed, creating jobs, revitalizing communities, and addressing serious threats to human health and the environment. It would address lead in school drinking water, fund medical facilities 

in Indian Country, reduce carbon emissions, and improve our resilience to the impacts of climate change. And it would do all that without rolling back environmental 

safeguards as we are now hearing is a major component of the President’s plan. 

10 

When it comes to broadband, we have also put forward additional, thoughtful proposals, building on the strong foundation of the LIFT America Act. Our bills would 

ensure we’re investing in our infrastructure efficiently, basing our decision on good 

data, and reaching urban, rural, and tribal lands. 

Over the last couple of weeks, we have seen bipartisan and bicameral agreement 

that we need dedicated funding to improve access to broadband nationwide. Yet, despite this rare consensus, Republicans on this Committee have decided to unveil a 

series of partisan bills that don’t address the real problems. But these bills are 

worse than simply window dressing. They turn bipartisan agreements on their head, 

unnecessarily pitting urban versus rural, industry versus local governments, and 

broadband access versus our environment. The Republican proposals will not improve broadband deployment, but will hurt workers and the economy. 

I appreciate Republicans scheduling a hearing on broadband deployment and including some Democratic proposals, but I’m concerned that the Majority is simply 

trying to jam too much into this one hearing. Seven witnesses discussing 25 bills 

will not help the American public understand these proposals, let alone the members of this Committee. What’s more, we do not even have the relevant agencies 

here to help us understand how they will interpret the often conflicting directions 

included in the Republican bills. 

We are now a little over year into this Administration, and all Washington Republicans have to show the American people in this Subcommittee’s purview are a 

check-the-box hearing designed to paper over the Republicans’ failure on infrastructure; their erosion of our privacy rights; and their elimination of net neutrality. 

When it comes to governing, this Subcommittee is falling short. 

Thank you. 

Mr. RUIZ. Thank you. In today’s digital age, access to high speed 

internet is simply essential. That is why we must do more to bridge 

the digital divide. Today, the committee is finally beginning to advance the bipartisan commonsense solutions that we were sent 

here to find. For example, the bipartisan Rural Wireless Access Act 

introduced by Mr. Loebsack, would help the FCC provide targeted 

Federal assistance to deploy wireless service in rural areas with 

the worst coverage. 

In my bill, H.R. 1581, the Tribal Digital Access Act would help 

close the digital divide in Indian country by codifying and reinforcing the importance of the FCC Universal Service Fund programs that serve tribal communities. 

Tribal lands are the most underserved regions in our Nation in 

terms of broadband access. We have a responsibility to honor our 

legal and moral obligations, and this commonsense bill helps do 

just that. I urge the committee to move these bills as quickly as 

possible along with other bipartisan solutions before us here today. 

And I yield back my time to Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. And I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back, and this concludes 

our member opening statements. 

I would like to remind all the members that, pursuant to the 

committee rules, you all have your statements that can be made a 

part of the record. And we want to thank our witnesses for being 

here today and for taking their time to testify before the subcommittee. 

Today’s witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening 

statements, followed by a round of questions from the members. 

Our panel for today’s hearing will include Mr. Jonathan Spalter, 

President and CEO of USTelecom; Mr. Brad Gillen, Executive VP 

of CTIA; Mr. Matt Polka, President and CEO of the American 

Cable Association; Ms. Shirley Bloomfield, CEO of the NTCA—the 

Rural Broadband Association; Mr. Scott Slesinger, the Legislative 

11 

Director of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Ms. Joanne 

Hovis, President of CTC Technology and Energy; and Ms. Elin 

Swanson Katz, the Connecticut Consumer Counsel. 

We appreciate each of you for being here today and for preparing 

for this committee, submitting your testimony. Today, we will begin 

with you, Mr. Spalter, for 5 minutes, and we will work right 

through the dais. You are recognized. 

STATEMENTS OF JONATHAN SPALTER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

USTELECOM; BRAD GILLEN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, 

CTIA; MATTHEW M. POLKA, PRESIDENT AND CEO, AMERICAN 

CABLE ASSOCIATION; SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD, CEO, 

NTCATHE RURAL BROADBAND ASSOCIATION; SCOTT 

SLESINGER, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES 

DEFENSE COUNCIL; JOANNE S. HOVIS, PRESIDENT, CTC 

TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY; AND ELIN SWANSON KATZ, 

CONSUMER COUNSEL, CONNECTICUT CONSUMER COUNSEL 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN SPALTER 

Mr. SPALTER. Thank you. Chairwoman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you. I 

am Jonathan Spalter, President and CEO of USTelecom, representing our Nation’s broadband providers, large and small, urban 

and rural, and everything in between. All of our members are deeply committed to and are on the front lines of the massive effort underway to connect all Americans to the opportunities and possibilities of broadband. So we greatly appreciate this subcommittee’s 

leadership and the growing momentum we are seeing throughout 

Congress on both sides of the aisle to aid this effort. 

In a few short hours, we know the President will deliver his 

State of the Union address, and according to the pundits, topics 

that draw consensus will probably be few and far between. But infrastructure is one of those rare issues with a powerful centrifugal 

force pulling us all together. From the administration’s statements 

and actions to Senator’s Schumer’s blueprint to the 25 bills now 

making their way through this committee, Washington has caught 

up to the connected times, and not a moment too soon, acknowledging the pivotal role of information infrastructure, the 1s and 0s 

of broadband networks to our Nation. 

Since the earliest days of our internet as we sought to rise above 

the honk and screech of dial-up service, expanding and upgrading 

the Nation’s broadband networks has largely been a private sector 

endeavor. America’s broadband providers have invested, as Vice 

Chairman Lance and as Chairman Walden mentioned, more than 

$1.5 trillion over the last two decades, building out U.S. digital infrastructure, and that is more than our Nation spent in public dollars to put a man on the moon, and to build out our interstate 

highway system combined. 

So why must we continue to commit public funds to the cause? 

Because we risk leaving millions of U.S. households and citizens 

behind if we do not. We know the private investment model works 

well in reasonably populous areas, but the business case breaks 

down when the average $27,000 per mile of LAN fiber, not to menVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
12 

tion the network upgrades and maintenance costs associated with 

it that are constantly required, must be spread across a handful of 

users. 

Broadband companies, USTelecom members, want to connect everyone from our most populated urban areas to the most remote 

rural communities in our Nation, but they need a committed partner in these final unserved, high-cost areas. And that partner 

should be all of us, including government. 

So what specifically does that mean? First, new and direct public 

funding is needed to supplement private investment in connecting 

the final frontier. Second, care must be taken to ensure broadband 

funding is not merely an option on a vast spending menu, but has 

its own specific allocation. A position now being championed by the 

bipartisan cochairs of the rural broadband caucus. And thank you 

very much for that. Third, public dollars should prioritize connecting unserved areas using proven mechanisms, chief among 

them, universal service fund, to move quickly and with accountability while minimizing administrative costs to U.S. taxpayers. 

Fourth, connectivity also should be factored into physical infrastructure projects. Adding more of our bridges and roads to 

broadband connectivity makes them smarter, safer, more cost effective, and extends their useful life. Last, a stable streamlined regulatory environment can accelerate and extend the impact of both 

public and private dollars. 

Earlier this month, the President signed an executive order to 

expedite Federal permitting so broadband companies can build infrastructure in rural areas faster. Continuing these efforts reduces 

deployment costs, stretching limited resources further. When it 

comes to broadband, this grand aspiration of a truly connected nation truly is within striking distance. Working together, we have 

the means and the opportunity to relegate this challenge to the history books. All that remains is a question of will. 

For that reason, I really greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s 

interest today and your ongoing leadership. The Nation’s 

broadband provider stands ready to link arms with the Nation’s 

policy leaders and anyone else who wants to help step up to finish 

the job. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spalter follows:] 

13 


29879.001

Introduction 

~::::t::::: ,:ifiHh::. u STELECOM 

•:;\11 ;;;=- t Ill I 0 I 0 A 0 0 Jo II 0 6 I I 0 I 'II f f 0 II 

Testimony of Jonathan Spatter 

President and CEO, USTelecom 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

"Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" 

January 30, 2018 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and other distinguished Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing. My name is Jonathan 

Spa Iter and I am the President and CEO of USTelecom. 

USTelecom is the nation's leading trade association representing the interests of broadband 

service providers and suppliers for the telecom industry. Our diverse membership ranges from large 

publicly traded communications corporations to small companies and cooperatives -all providing 

advanced communications services to markets both urban and rural and everything in between. 

We applaud the subcommittee for conducting today's hearing. Closing the digital divide should 

be one of our nation's top priorities, and addressing certain challenges related to the deployment of 

broadband infrastructure is critical to narrowing the gap between broadband deployment in urban and 

rural areas. As Congress works to develop broadband infrastructure legislation, this hearing presents a 

timely opportunity to discuss the key components that will speed the deployment of broadband 

infrastructure to rural communities. 

The Importance of Closing the Digital Divide 

We all agree that addressing our nation's infrastructure needs, including our digital 

infrastructure, is an important national priority. We also know that the ones and zeros of broadband are 

neither red nor blue. We all need to work together toward legislation that is good for the country and 

for your constituents. This Committee's bipartisan focus on removing barriers to infrastructure buildout, 

1 
14 


29879.002

supporting and encouraging innovation, and strengthening the public safety benefits that result from 

access to broadband is exemplary and should be continually strengthened. 

Earlier this month, the Administration's Rural Prosperity Report from the Department of 

Agriculture signaled that our government is focused on ensuring that our rural areas do not get left 

behind in the nation's accelerating transition to an interconnected, digital economy. I was similarly 

encouraged to see a recent letter from the bipartisan House Rural Broadband Caucus outlining why 

broadband connectivity and closing the digital divide is so important: "Rural communities must have 

adequate broadband infrastructure to attract and retain businesses and human resources, close the 

homework gap for students and teachers, open innovative and convenient pathways to telemedicine for 

seniors and providers, and help farmers increase efficiencies in their barns and on their land." 

We could not agree more and USTelecom's members are working hard to deploy 

networks and invest in and connect communities from coast to coast. But we cannot do this 

alone. 

Broadband service is no longer a luxury; it is an essential component of our national 

infrastructure and economic success. Many Americans in urban areas use broadband for a variety of 

purposes: communicating with loved ones, accessing health care and educational resources, expressing 

their views on social media, shopping for goods and services as well as making their own goods and 

services available to others throughout the country and the world. But for too many Americans living or 

working on our farms or ranches and along our mountain valleys, our forests, tundra and plains, the 

promise and potential that connectivity can bring remains elusive. 

In addition, many Americans in rural areas do not have immediate access to health care and 

educational resources that broadband connectivity could supplement if such connectivity is available. By 

the end oft he decade, there could be 45,000 fewer rural doctors, making the need for connected care 

even more critical. And more than 5 million rural students will be pursuing online degrees. 

2 
15 


29879.003

:.:iiini\:-. STELECOM ::.;;:r.:;:.: u '~\~if!:" t • I I I 0 a I I a • e "'I I 0 C 1 at t 0 • 

While we face some deployment obstacles in rural parts ofthe country, we also must do more 

to accelerate adoption in urban areas. Every citizen, whether living in rural or urban areas benefits from 

connecting to the internet ecosystem. Our member companies are consistently looking for new and 

creative ways to serve their existing customers and attract new ones. The ability to offer innovative new 

pricing and service options to further increase adoption in both urban and rural areas is an important 

factor in today's highly competitive broadband market. USTelecom's member companies are working to 

lower barriers to adoption and to deploy high speed connections as far and wide as possible. 

Key Components of Broadband Infrastructure legislation 

Broadband providers are on the front line in the effort to close the digital divide investing $1.6 

trillion of their own capital to upgrade and expand the nation's digital infrastructure since 1996. As a 

result, over the past decade, broadband in rural homes has risen 117 percent. 

Despite these efforts, there is more work to be done. Many of USTelecom's member-companies, 

family-owned businesses in small towns serving American's rural heartland, can testify to how expensive 

it can be to expand or upgrade networks in rural areas. While the Executive Orders signed by the 

President are a welcome first step in addressing this issue, Congressional action is also critical to address 

this gap. We need bipartisan legislation to (1) ensure sustainable and direct federal funding to support 

rural broadband deployment and (2) reduce regulatory barriers, both of which will also incentivize more 

private investment. 

Direct Federal Funding far Rural Broadband Deployment 

There is a clearly demonstrated need for federal funding for broadband infrastructure in rural 

areas where there is no business case to deploy next-generation networks. And, for the reasons 1 

previously discussed, broadband deployment is too critical to merely be an option for larger spending 

3 
16 


29879.004

......... :dii!it:~ h USTELECOM ·:;\,i!JfF 1 II. I I. A ••••• .... oc ,., ••• 

initiatives; broadband must have its own specific funding allocation, a position with which the co-chairs 

of the Rural Broadband Caucus recently agreed. 

In addition, broadband deployment's significant multiplier effect, which directly contributes to 

job creation, economic growth, advances in health care delivery, improved educational outcomes, 

enhanced access to government services, and other societal benefits, means that monies allocated 

directly to broadband deployment will be leveraged for these other important priorities. Given this, 

Congress should ensure that brick and mortar infrastructure projects funded by federal dollars are 

future proofed by integrating broadband connectivity. We must commit not only to closing the digital 

divide which exists between our communities, but also the broadband gap which exists between many 

of our nation's physical infrastructure assets. When traditional infrastructure is equipped with 

broadband, we know it is not only smarter, but also safer, more resilient, and more cost effective. 

Investing in rural wireline broadband infrastructure is also critical to ensuring that rural 

Americans can avail themselves of the opportunities associated with the wireless SG revolution which 

will depend on enhanced fiber deployments. Small cells rely on fiber to deliver wireless traffic back to 

the network. 

Further, any increase in direct spending should be administered by the Federal Communications 

Commission through an increase in high-cost universal service fund support, or through a direct 

appropriation from Congress. Time is of the essence. We should look to existing programs that are well 

equipped to get additional resources out to the communities as quickly as possible. And to maximize 

finite resources to really bridge the digital divide, any increase in direct spending for broadband 

deployment should be targeted to ensure that funding to unserved areas is prioritized. 

4 
17 


29879.005

d!ffi~E: US TELECOM '·~~\,if1Jf f If I • a 0 AD 0 A"- 0 lo I I 0 C l at I 0 If 

Permitting Reform 

Congress needs to pass legislation that standardizes and streamlines permitting necessary to 

deploy broadband infrastructure which would help speed deployment. When scarce capital is being 

allocated to increase broadband connectivity, state and localities should not impede that deployment by 

delaying the granting of permits or insisting upon non-cost-based fees for access to rights-of-way and 

other conduit. The same principle applies to federal lands, which is why the Administration's recent 

Executive Orders covering deployment on federal lands are so important, as are the bills under 

consideration today. Bills like Representative Mimi Walters' "Communications Facilities Deployment on 

Federal Property Act of 2018," Representative Paul Tonka's "ACCESS BROADBAND Act," and 

Representative John Shimkus' "Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband 

Infrastructure," are vital to tackling this issue with streamlined, responsible solutions. So too are the 

principles put forth by the numerous resolutions that should guide any infrastructure effort moving 

forward in this body. Thank you to Representative Bob latta for emphasizing parity via technical 

neutrality and consistent rules, and Vice Chairman leonard lance for keeping our focus tailored on the 

truly unserved areas in our country. As we continue the sprint toward the next generation of 

communication networks, these principles will expedite the realization of a fully connected future. 

Pole Attachment Refarm 

Just as states and localities can impede broadband deployment by making it more difficult to 

deploy broadband infrastructure in rights-of-way and other conduit, pole owners can also slow 

broadband deployment and make it much more costly. Congress should fix the disparities in Section 224 

of the Communications Act, eliminating not only the exclusions for municipalities and co-ops, but also 

treating the Commission's rate formula as a ceiling, rather than a floor, and providing that all 

attachments should be treated alike for rate purposes. 

s 
18 


29879.006

,:!Um~:,. USTELECOM :.~::!:::;: t•t ••• ,. •• _. •• IIIIOCI.t,ftO• .!\~;:;:· 

Conclusion 

The challenges associated with rural broadband connectivity require an enduring private and 

public sector effort. USTelecom and its member-companies stand ready to work with this 

subcommittee, Congress, and the Administration to enhance broadband connectivity in rural areas. We 

commend the members of this subcommittee who have introduced legislation to address the problems 

associated with broadband deployment, and we look forward to working with all of you to help close 

the digital divide. 

A sustained effort will take time and resources, but is essential if rural Americans are going to 

have the opportunity to benefit from the digital revolution. Thank you again for the opportunity testify 

before you today. 

6 
19 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gillen, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRAD GILLEN 

Mr. GILLEN. Good morning. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, 

Ranking Member Doyle, and the subcommittee for including wireless as part of this conversation. 

The sheer number of bills and proposals before us underscores 

the scope of the challenges we face together, as well as the opportunities we have working together to solve them. For us, we really 

see the infrastructure as the opportunity to create jobs, drive economic growth and expand opportunities for all Americans for better 

broadband to more Americans. 

The subcommittee has really two core challenges before you. The 

first is the digital divide. From Vermont to eastern Oregon, there 

are too many Americans today, despite billions invested and years 

of work that do not have access to the wired and wireless 

broadband solutions that all of us rely on every day. We look forward to working with this subcommittee to shrink and address 

that gap and drive both wired and wireless broadband deeper in 

America. 

Our second challenge is one of global competitiveness. We lead 

the world today in 4G wireless services. Just last month, the International Standards body set the rules for the 5th generation of 

wireless, or 5G, and the race is now on. Other countries have seen 

what leadership has meant here, and they want to take that a 

mantle from us. China and others are investing billions and accelerating their deployment schedules with over 100 active trials ongoing today. 

In the U.S., we like to win, too, and we are ready to invest as 

well. We have our own trials ongoing. We are investing in the technology we think we are going to need to win, and ultimately, we 

are ready to invest approximately $275 billion in private capital 

over the next 10 years to build out those networks. 

So we don’t need Federal funding from this committee to solve 

the 5G problem. We do need help to modernize our approach to 

siting. Because these networks will be different because we are 

going to build them with these, small cells, hundreds of thousands 

of these attached to street lights and to sides of buildings. And the 

challenge we face today is that too often, a device that takes 1 to 

2 hours to install can take 1 to 2 years to get approved. 

The challenge we face is that because at every level of government, local, state and Federal, we treat these like a 275-foot tower 

along the side of a highway. In short, our new networks need new 

rules, and that is why we appreciate this committee’s focus on this 

issue, particularly today, focusing on the Federal impediments we 

face. Representative Shimkus is focusing on how do we modernize 

our Federal regulation to expedite deployment of things like this 

and other new infrastructure. Congresswoman Brooks and Representative Matsui, how do we marshal Federal assets to drive 

broadband deeper into rural America by better utilizing Federal 

lands. 

The other thing for this committee, we would hope for in future 

sessions to talk about, is this committee’s leadership and role with 

20 

respect to state and local siting as well. It is the committee’s leadership in 1992, 1996, and most recently in 2012, to give guardrails 

and guidance to local communities as to how siting can and should 

work to ensure we have deployment of wireless and broadband. 

And just like Federal rules need to be updated, so does that Federal guidance. And when we get those rules right, 5G will be transformative to all of your communities. It will unlock remote surgery, 

self-driving cars, and the Internet of Things. It is going to create 

jobs. It is going to create 2800 jobs in downtown Pittsburgh, 3 million across the country. It is going to build communities. 

Clarksville, Tennessee will see over $200 million added to its 

economy, $500 billion nationwide. That is why we are excited about 

winning the 5G race. That is why we think it is so important. And 

we also need to make sure in doing that, we also make sure that 

all Americans have access to broadband at the same time. So we 

think with bold bipartisan leadership by this Congress, this committee, we can and need to do both. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gillen follows:] 

21 


29879.007

Testimony of 

Brad Gillen 

Executive Vice President 

CTIA 

on 

"Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" 

before the 

U.S. House Energy and Commerce SubcommiHee on Communications and 

Technology 

January 30th, 2018 

ctiaEverything Wireless •• 
22 


29879.008

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the 

Subcommittee, on behalf of CTIA and the wireless industry, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today. 

We support the Committee's agenda to facilitate building and investing in 

broadband, America's 21'' century infrastructure. The Committee's objective-to focus 

on innovation, investment, and eliminating barriers to deployment-will help drive new 

wireless services and new jobs to every state in the nation. Specifically, today's focus 

on federal-level impediments is a good starting point to identify opportunities for 

policymakers to incent greater investment in wireless broadband networks. A broad 

cross-section of this Subcommittee has introduced legislation to address key infirmities in 

federal law and federal procedures that inhibit investment today, and we applaud 

your bipartisan leadership. 

The timing of this hearing is fortuitous as U.S. wireless providers are preparing to 

roll out the next-generation of wireless networks, SG, and bold federal infrastructure 

reform can greatly expedite the millions of jobs and billions of investment that national 

SG deployment will bring. Nations from Asia to Europe are investing heavily in SG, but 

none of those countries can match the dynamism of the U.S. wireless industry. With four 

nationwide providers, and dozens more regional carriers and resellers, massive private 

investment will be unleashed in the U.S. if the government modernizes its approach to 

infrastructure siting. With this Committee's continued leadership, we are confident we 

can win the global race to SG-as we did for 4G. We are equally confident that 

reforms can help the industry expand wireless coverage throughout the country, 

particularly in rural America. 

2 
23 


29879.009

The Wireless Industry Invests In Jobs and the Economy 

Wireless networks and smartphones have become a central part of Americans' 

daily lives. There are now more wireless connections than there are Americans, and 

over the past two years alone, U.S. mobile data usage has more than doubled. This 

rapid growth over the past few years has been made possible by the wireless industry's 

substantial investment in our nation's infrastructure. To meet consumer demand, 

wireless capital expenditures totaled $26.4 billion in 2016, and over $200 billion in the 

past seven years. OveralL the wireless industry supports more than 4.6 million American 

jobs, and contributes roughly $400 billion annually to the economy. 

Modernizing Regulation Promises SG Investment and Jobs 

The wireless industry is poised to play an even more significant role in our 

economy with the arrival of SG. SG networks are expected to be up to 100 times faster 

than 4G networks, connect 100 times the number of devices, and respond five times as 

quickly. This increased speed and lower latency will improve Americans' lives, 

unlocking innovations in healthcare, transportation, and manufacturing. SG will also 

help deliver the benefits of the Internet of Things and enable smart communities. 

The overall impact on the economy from SG will be remarkable. Accenture 

reports SG will create three million new jobs and add approximately $500 billion to the 

economy. To deploy tomorrow's next-generation networks, wireless companies will 

need to complement today's large towers with small cells that can be the size of a 

pizza box and will often be located discreetly on the side of a building or on a street 

light. Based on the need to implement this new small-cell architecture, it is estimated 

that wireless carriers will need to deploy hundreds of thousands of these small antennas 

3 
24 


29879.010

over the next few years. This will require a substantial infrastructure build across the 

country. 

The wireless industry stands ready to invest a projected $275 billion in that new 

network infrastructure. This is the exact type of investment this Subcommittee seeks to 

promote. Importantly, the industry does not require federal funding for SG deployment, 

but simply needs infrastructure rules to be modernized to reflect this new network 

architecture. Building out these denser wireless networks faces roadblocks today as 

siting laws and policies at every level of government have not kept up with changing 

technologies 

Proposed Legislation Will Help Address Federal Siting Challenges 

CTIA is encouraged by the range of bills that address federal challenges to nextgeneration broadband investment. They underscore the myriad federal issues inhibiting 

deployment today and the opportunity this Subcommittee has to facilitate more 

infrastructure deployment. 

federal Regulations Add Costs and Delay Deployment. Today, in order to install 

a new antenna or small cell, federal regulations require a cumbersome and costly 

review process that generally disregards the size or location of the new facility. For 

instance, wireless reviews under the National Historic Preservation Act. or "NHPA" and 

the National Environmental Protection Act or "NEPA" can run into the tens of thousands 

of dollars per installation, meaning a particular project can involve millions of dollars in 

reviews. NHPA mandates alone recently cost a carrier over $170,000 to install just 23 

small cells in a parking lot. And these costs are increasing; one carrier reports that these 

costs have risen by over 1000 percent since 2010. The direct costs only tell part of the 

4 
25 


29879.011

story: these reviews can take months, which add delays and uncertainty to projects, 

keeping customers from enjoying the benefits of better service. 

Today, the FCC reviews nearly all antenna placements under the NHPA and 

NEPA. Notably, this regime is on top of separate historic and environmental protections 

that already attach to land and buildings designated for such protection, as well as 

additional state or local zoning requirements and fees. The suggestion that the 

NHPA/NEPA regime can be scaled back without threatening historically or 

environmentally sensitive sites is reinforced by the fact that NHPA/NEPA currently 

applies only to traditional wireless carriers, not to cable operators or other users of WiFi/unlicensed spectrum. To be clear, the wireless industry supports appropriate 

environmental and historic preservation review for sensitive sites and major projects. 

The current structure, however, fails to reflect the different impact of new small cells or 

installations in previously approved locations. 

The process is creating substantial burdens and delays in the deployment of the 

infrastructure necessary for creating additional capacity for 4G networks and laying the 

groundwork for SG. The FCC has recognized this challenge and acted in bipartisan 

fashion to streamline these processes for some small cells. While the FCC has 

succeeded in reducing the number and types of antennas that are subject to the 

cumbersome review process, the FCC's current exclusions are still too narrow. For 

example, not all types of small cells are covered, nor are all indoor locations. 

Congressional action would provide greater clarity and certainty. 

That clarity and certainty would be achieved by Congressman Shimkus's 

legislation- H.R. 4842- that modernizes the NEPA and NHPA process while preserving 

the critical role those regimes have in protecting our environment and history. 

5 
26 


29879.012

Specifically, H.R. 4842 is a narrowly tailored solution that preserves key protections for 

environmentally or historically significant areas. It recognizes the need to modernize the 

process to allow antennas in public rights-of-way and where new facilities simply 

replace existing ones or do not significantly expand existing ones. It also recognizes 

that an antenna classified as a small cell by the FCC should ~ot face the same 

requirements as a 250-foot tower. These are common sense steps that will reduce the 

time to market and expedite investment. 

Similarly, we support Congressman Olson's efforts to address the critical 

rebuilding efforts going on in storm- and fire-ravaged communities across the country. 

We have the opportunity to collaborate and rebuild those communities with the most 

advanced wireless networks in the nation. H.R. 4845 would take the simple step of 

bypassing unnecessary NEPA review in disaster areas when new facilities replace 

damaged or lost facilities. 

Deploying on Federal Lands can be Challenging. The federal government owns 

over 50 percent of the land in the 10 most western states. The federal government also 

owns and manages key buildings in major cities and towns throughout the country. In 

many parts of the nation, enhanced siting on federal lands will help wireless carriers 

more quickly deploy in unserved or underserved communities. The process to deploy 

wireless networks on federal lands is too often opaque with different applications 

requirements and timelines. Moreover, there is no clear fee structure in place, and 

agencies lack the incentives or guidelines to support timely deployment of new 

communications facilities. Leases to place new sites on lands regulated by the Bureau 

of Land Management or the National Park Service can take two or three years to 

negotiate. Even simple lease renewals can take 12-18 months. 

6 
27 


29879.013

While Congress directed the GSA to create common forms for infrastructure 

easement and right-of-way applications in 2012, federal agencies are not required to 

use those forms. Further, federal agencies have no obligation to act within a particular 

timeframe or to provide any rationale for a decision not to permit siting. 

CTIA applauds legislation that will make siting easier on federal lands. Bipartisan 

legislation introduced by Congresswomen Brooks and Matsui would set new timelines 

around federal siting by requiring action on applications for access to federal lands 

within 270 days, after which the application would be deemed granted. 

Congresswoman Walters' bill- H.R. 4795- would also help streamline that process by 

setting a deadline for GSA to develop common forms, and would require federal 

agencies to use those forms, bringing much-needed predictability to the process. 

Congressman Kinzinger has also correctly identified this investment challenge 

and his bill- H.R. 4082- would bring transparency to the federal process by requiring 

agencies to track siting applications. Congressmen Collins (H.R. 4798) and Lujan (H.R. 

4839) provide yet another key piece of the federal siting puzzle by addressing the 

challenge of making more accessible information about the location of potential 

federal assets where siting can occur. 

All of these proposals to reform federal siting would help drive more investment in 

our nation's broadband infrastructure. 

Congress's Role to Promote National Wireless Policy 

While today's hearing is focused on important steps Congress can take around 

federal siting and federal requirements, Congress has an equal-if not largeropportunity to in cent greater broadband deployment through clarifying its longstanding guidance to state and local governments. 

7 
28 


29879.014

The wireless industry has been pleased to work in collaboration with many state 

and local governments to facilitate the buildout of wireless infrastructure. Many are 

good partners, but too often the wireless industry today is encountering policies-long 

delays, onerous requirements, and excessive fees-that frustrate efforts to deploy new 

broadband and expand wireless coverage. 

Specifically, some communities have adopted moratoria on any new facilities, 

others refuse to allow wireless installation on street lights, and still other communities 

effectively foreclose deployment through excessive application and monthly fees {e.g., 

charging $30,000 per pole per year, or a $15,000 application fee per pole). In too many 

instances, an installation that takes one to two hours requires one to two years of 

processing and application procedures. The U.S. will not win the SG race if those 

timelines are not significantly reduced across the country. 

Thus, in addition to the important focus on federal issues we are discussing today, 

this Subcommittee should also examine state and local barriers to infrastructure 

deployment. 

Just as it did in 1996, retaining key state and locality roles with respect to public 

safety, health and welfare, Congress should make clear that the national policy does 

not allow localities to frustrate wireless deployment. Specifically, Congress established 

the rapid deployment of wireless infrastructure as a national priority and set nationwide 

guidelines for how localities should treat siting requests Under that federal regime and 

protection, the wireless industry constructed 300,000 wireless facilities and rolled out 

service nationwide. 

The transition to small cells necessitates updating Congress's guidance to 

localities. There are many approaches Congress can take to modernize its approach. 

8 
29 


29879.015

Congressman Hudson's recent resolution to ensure that a funding preference is given to 

states that support small cell siting reform provides an incentive for states to modernize 

their siting rules. Similarly, Congress should encourage the FCC's ongoing review of 

wired and wireless infrastructure issues to ensure that FCC regulations properly reflect 

the needs of next-generation networks. 

The most meaningful step Congress can take is to once again provide clear 

direction to-and guardrails around-state and local authorities. There are three 

general reform areas that would make the greatest difference in promoting 

broadband investment: 

1. Ensure Cost-Based Fees. Congress should make clear that localities retain the 

right to charge for access to government property, provided that such fees 

are fair and reasonable, competitively and technologically neutral. based on 

actual costs, and publicly disclosed. 

2. Set Reasonable and Enforceable Tlmelines. Congress should establish a "shot 

clock" on handling siting applications and deeming applications granted if 

there is no action within that shot clock period. This is the same type of 

approach that is being proposed for federal lands by Congresswomen Brooks 

and Matsui. Such legislation could accelerate deployment while still 

preserving state and local authority over zoning decisions. 

3. Clarify Permitted Conduct. Congress should clarify that local roadblocks-like 

moratoria and discriminatory application review guidelines-are forbidden by 

Congress's long-standing directive to eliminate rules that "prohibit or have 

the effect of prohibiting" the provision of communications services. 

It is these types of reforms that will make the biggest difference in the deployment of 

new wireless infrastructure. 

Expanding Broadband's Reach 

We are proud of wireless investment in rural America and look forward to working 

with Congress to continue expanding the number of Americans with access to wireless 

broadband. The wireless industry-both national and smaller regional providers-has 

made substantial strides in the past decade to expand wireless coverage to reach 

9 
30 


29879.016

more Americans. Specifically, today's mobile broadband services (4G/LTE) were 

introduced in the United States in 2010. In less than eight years, 4G wireless services are 

available to over 99 percent of Americans. This is a remarkable pace of deployment 

for a new technology in a very short window. And our nation's wireless footprint 

continues to grow. In 2016 alone, wireless investment increased coverage by more 

than 150,000 rural Americans and nearly 50,000 rural road miles. 

We share the Committee's desire to further expand broadband to more 

Americans, and the important role infrastructure reform can play to do so. Private 

capital has driven the vast majority of the expanded wireless coverage, and there 

should be a renewed focus on the steps policymakers can take-like those detailed 

above-to facilitate wireless providers' investments in rural America by altering the 

investment calculus of some rural deployments from uneconomic to viable. 

The government also has the ability to expedite deployment in unserved areas 

through direct funding. The upcoming FCC Mobility Fund auction will be an important 

step to reach unserved rural America. We also support Vice Chairman Lance for his 

resolution to direct broadband infrastructure funding towards areas that are currently 

unserved, and Ranking Member Pallone's leadership with the LIFT Act to bring more 

focus on how we as a nation will reach unserved Americans. 

Any new federal funding should be competitively and technologically neutral 

and encourage participation by a wide range of providers, including wireless 

companies. Greater participation will lead to more effective use of public resources, 

and deployment of high-speed broadband services to more rural areas. Any new 

funding should also ensure that reaching areas unserved by wireless is reflected in the 

program's objectives. In making funding decisions, better data is key, and rural 

10 
31 


29879.017

broadband is no exception. CTIA continues to work with both national and regional 

wireless providers to enhance the FCC's wireless coverage mapping in response to 

concerns raised by Chairman Blackburn, Congressmen Loebsack and others to ensure 

policymakers have the right data to determine where scarce public resources can be 

best used to reach unserved rural areas. 

The Wireless Industry Supports Bold and Expedited Congressional Action. 

The wireless industry is eager to work with this Subcommittee in a bipartisan 

manner to advance U.S. innovation and investment in mobile broadband. CTIA 

strongly supports this Subcommittee's efforts to help clear the way for SG and expand 

wireless coverage. The time for addressing these infrastructure issues is now. America is 

in a global race to SG as China, Japan, South Korea, and the· EU are hard at work 

accelerating SG deployments. With the right policies, the U.S. can win this race, and 

Americans can continue to benefit from the economic and consumer benefits that 

flow from leading the world in wireless. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

11 
32 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much. At this time, Mr. Polka, 

5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MATTHEW M. POLKA 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you, Chairman. As you know, for the last 

year, ACA and its members have been discussing with members on 

both sides of the aisle, the administration, and the FCC, about how 

to effectively and efficiently close the digital divide. ACA appreciates and supports the subcommittee’s commitment to bring 

broadband to all Americans. 

Over the past decade, because of many hundreds of billions of 

dollars of private investment by ACA members and others, and the 

FCC’s reforms to its universal service programs, we are closing in 

on this goal. Today, more than 100 million homes have access to 

broadband speeds greater than 100 megabits per second. And only 

5.3 million remain with speeds less than 10 megabits. Not only 

have ACA members been investing billions to upgrade and expand 

their networks, but also many with their own money have deployed 

840 thousand homes that would otherwise be eligible for FCC’s 

support. 

We should recognize and build upon those successes. We know, 

however, there was much more to do, but from my travels visiting 

with ACA members across the country, I can tell you that ACA 

members are committed to serving the Nation’s most challenging 

corners. They believe we can close the digital divide, and they believe we can keep it shut by following four principles: First, encourage private investment; second, remove barriers to deployment; 

third, before spending Federal funds, let us take account of successes; fourth, provide broadband subsidies efficiently. 

Let me expand. First, let us encourage private investment. Fixed and mobile broadband providers today are spending $75 billion annually to upgrade and expand broadband networks. This will continue for the foreseeable future, and should be encouraged by 

avoiding governmental action that would hinder these investments. 

For example, it would not be helpful if government funds were 

used to overbuild unsubsidized providers or measures were adopted 

that were not competitively and technologically neutral favoring 

one class of providers or an industry sector over others. Second, let 

us remove barriers to deployment. Building high-performance 

broadband networks is costly, and you will get the most bang without spending a buck by lowering those costs. 

Here are some steps to take: Facilitate access to utility poles by 

removing impediments, such as fixing the make-ready process; 

apply the Federal Pole Attachment Law to electric cooperatives, 

and require cost-based nondiscriminatory rights-of-ways fees, and 

prohibit charging such fees on a per service basis; third, don’t neglect successes before determining where to spend Federal money 

and how much is needed. ACA calculates that by removing barriers, the cost of network deployment will be reduced such that 1.2 

million homes would become served with fiber infrastructure 

through private investment alone. Moreover, we believe that the 

new tax law will enable more than 400,000 unserved homes being 

served. Finally, the Connect America Programs will reduce the 

number of homes receiving less than 10 megabits to 2 million by 

33 

2020. Fourth, let us provide broadband subsidies efficiently. 

Through its Connect America Programs, the FCC has given us an 

effective roadmap for awarding government support more efficiently by targeting support only to unserved areas and awarding 

support using a reverse option. 

With any new money, let us employ these two principles and also 

limit the amount of Federal support to account for state subsidies 

unless any additional broadband performance is required. 

The four principles that I set forth will maximize consumer welfare, increase economic growth, make communities throughout the 

country thrive, and it will enable you to bridge the digital divide 

sooner and with more sustainable results. 

ACA and its members stand ready to assist you in every way. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Polka follows:] 

34 


29879.018

One Page Summary of Testimony of Matthew M. Polka, 

President and CEO of the American Cable Association, 

Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

January 30, 2018 

Over the past decade, because of the many hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment 

by broadband providers and the FCC's universal service reforms, we are much closer to bringing 

broadband service to all Americans. Today, more than 1OOM homes have access to I 00+ Mbps 

broadband service, and only 5.3 million remain with speeds less than I 0 Mbps. We should recognize 

and build upon these successes. ACA believes that we can offer Americans even higher speed 

broadband and close the remaining digital divide by following four principles: 

First, encourage private investment. Fixed and mobile broadband providers are spending, and will 

spend, $75B+ annually to upgrade and expand broadband networks. Above all, you should not 

undermine these investments, such as by permitting government funds to be used to overbuild 

providers or adopting measures that are not competitively and technology neutral. 

Second, remove barriers to deployment. Building high-performance broadband networks is costly, 

and you will get the most bang, without spending a buck, by taking measures that lower those costs. 

Here are just some steps you should take -

Remove impediments for utility pole attachers to overlash, instail customer connections, 

and undertake short-run extensions. 

Ensure pole owners employ a transparent and timely application approval process. 

Provide for joint surveys among pole owners and new and existing attachers. 

• Prohibit pole owners from imposing costs unrelated to new attachments when undertaking 

make-ready, and implement an effective self-help remedy to deal with existing attachers 

who fail to undertake make-ready. 

• Subject electric cooperatives to the federal Pole Attachment law. 

• Improve the process for accessing and sharing of conduit. 

Prohibit government agencies from charging right-of-way fees that are discriminatory or 

non-cost-based, or based on each service provided. 

Third, account for additional deployments in unserved areas resulting from the removal of 

barriers, the new tax law, and existing federal support programs before determining where to 

spend new funds and how much is needed. ACA calculates that- by removing barriers, providers' 

costs to deploy will be reduced such that !.2M homes would become served with fiber infrastructure 

through private investment alone; the new tax law will likewise result in more than 400k unserved 

homes; and the Connect America programs will reduce homes receiving less than I 0 Mbps speeds by 

2M by 2020. We should account for these gains and those that are to be achieved by Congress and 

the FCC when determining where to spend new funds and how much is needed. 

Fourth, provide broadband subsidies efficiently. Through its Connect America programs, the 

FCC has shown us how to award government support more efficiently and effectively. Where we 

need to provide additional support, we should build upon the FCC's work by: providing subsidies for 

broadband only in unserved, high cost areas; limiting the amount of federal support to account for 

subsidies provided by states, unless any additional broadband performance is required; and using 

reverse auctions to distribute support. 
35 


29879.019

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

President and CEO, American Cable Association 

Before the House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

January 30, 2018 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Matthew 

Polka, President and CEO of the American Cable Association (ACA), and I want to thank you for 

inviting me to testify today on Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions. 

ACA's more than 700 broadband and video service provider members, who pass more than 18 

million homes in all areas ofthe country and provide service to approximately 7 million broadband 

subscribers, have great experience in deploying broadband networks. Over the past five years, ACA 

members have invested more than $1 0 billion to upgrade and expand their networks, in both rural 

areas and as overbuilders bringing competition in urban areas, 1 and they plan to continue to spend 

billions each year to meet the ever growing demands of their subscribers for real-time, high-speed 

access to the Internet and other IP services. Many ACA members, including WOW!, Cable One, and 

WAVE Broadband (RCN), have recently deployed Gigabit broadband throughout their service 

territories, and many more intend to do so this year and beyond. 

ACA members are not just upgrading and expanding their networks in "served" areas, but they 

are using their capital to bring service to unserved areas. To date, our members have invested private 

funds to build out to more than 840,000 homes that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) 

would consider as high-cost areas and otherwise be eligible for federal universal service support. 

1 This investment would be greater if not for the regulatory barriers, including those discussed herein and in ACA's 2015 

study on how rapidly rising video programming fees act as a drag on investment. See American Cable Association, High 

and Increasing Video Programming Fees Threatens Broadband Deployment, April2015, available at 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/OBxUDdYFi5gnEa2xJdnhwSThWUUE/view?usp~sharing. 

29879.020

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page2 

ACA: By the Numbers 

ACA members are investing in broadband networks, including in small cities and rural are

MM, 

e 

ig.'iiV( 

.··. 

$iOB+ 

AC/!\s more than 750 members pass 18.2M homes with highspeed broadband services. ACA's members include cable 

operators as well as municipal providers and rural telephone 

companies receiving USF support. 

ACA's members have spent more than $10B on building out the

networks and continue to invest approximately $1 B annually. 

ACA members' networks have more than 300,000 miles of 

transmission lines, including more than 40,000 fiber miles. 

Nearly half of ACA's homes passed are in America's small cities 

and rural areas. 

ACA members offer broadband to 840,000 homes that would 

otherwise be eligible for government broadband subsidiessaving taxpayers tens of millions of dollars a year. 
37 


29879.021

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 3 

These investments not only reduced the areas where federal universal support is needed, but also 

they "freed-up" federal support going into these areas, which could be used to bring broadband to 

unserved areas that were not receiving any support. 

The FCC too has taken significant steps, by reforming its universal service programs, to close the 

digital divide. As I will detail later in my testimony, these programs have already brought broadband 

service to many millions of homes in unserved areas, and they are certain to close the gap even 

further in the near future. 

So, in brief, because of the enormous amount of capital investment by providers and the FCC's 

reforms to its universal service programs, over the past decade, we have made tremendous progress in 

bringing wireline broadband service to all Americans. Notwithstanding the size and rural footprint of 

the country, today 123 million homes have access to speeds greater than 25 Mbps, and within that 

group, 1 03 million have speeds greater than I 00 Mbps, an increase from 118 million and 90 million 

homes, respectively, over the last four years. More importantly, 96% of American households, or 

128 million homes in total, have access to wireline broadband service with speeds of 10 Mbps or 

greater and so would not be deemed unserved by the FCC. That is a 40% reduction in unserved 

households in just the past 4 years. 

By 2020, the FCC's current Connect America programs, which provide about $4 billion of 

support annually, should reduce these 5.3 million unserved households even further, such that about 3 

million homes will be without high-speed wireline broadband service. And, when the FCC launches 

the Remote Areas Fund, we should get much closer to bringing broadband to everyone. 

29879.022

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page4 

The Final Five Million Unserved Households 

Private investment and government subsidies have reduced the number of unserved 

households by nearly half since 2012. 

Unserved U.S. Households 2012 vs. 2016 

Share of 

Unserved 

Households 

as %of US 

Households 

Unserved 

Households 

(Underl0/1 

Mbps) 

7% 

2012 

reduction 

of unserved 

households 

2016 

Near-Elimination of Unserved Loca

• The number of U.S. households with 

Mbps or greater wireline broadban

service has increased from 123M to 

128M. 

• This is largely due to private investm

including from ACA's members. 

• More than 2 million of the 5.3M 

remaining unserved households wil

receive service by 2020 due to the C

{1) The number of U.S. households with speeds greater than 25 Mbps im:reased from 118M to 123M. Within that group, 

the number of U.S. households with speeds greater than 100 Mbps increased from 90M to 103M. 

Source: FCC Form 477, US Census, American Community Survev, EKperian 
39 


29879.023

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 5 

This success should be heralded, but more can, and should, be done. And, we should do so 

based on all that we have learned about what it takes to build in unserved areas and what policies 

have worked. 

Over the past several years, I have traveled around the country meeting with ACA members 

and have heard from them about their substantial investments to upgrade their existing plants to offer 

even higher speed services and to edge out into new areas, many of which are unserved. I also have 

heard how often they are frustrated from undertaking these investments because of barriers imposed 

by governments and pole owners, and by counterproductive government policies. These providers 

want you to know that they are ready to meet your broadband objectives and serve the nation's 

challenging comers, and they ask that you and the FCC take steps through sensible policies that will 

allow them to achieve these goals. 

To that end, I appreciate the chance to speak to the Subcommittee today and share the 

principles for closing the digital divide that ACA and its members have been discussing with 

Members on both sides of the aisle, both sides of the Hill, the Administration, and at the FCC. ACA 

is aligned with the aim of the Subcommittee and its Members to fully close the digital divide, as well 

as to continue to drive investment in higher-performance broadband networks in all areas of the 

country so all consumers have the option to subscribe to comparable services. The question is then 

how to achieve these goals most effectively and efficiently. ACA and its members submit that 

policymakers should follow these fundamental principles: 

Principal #l: Encourage private investment. We estimate that overall broadband 

providers, both fixed and mobile, are spending some $75 billion annually on infrastructure, and there 

is every indication this level of spending will continue ... absent actions by the government that would 

discourage it. We, therefore, urge you to follow the Hippocratic Oath and do no harm, especially by 
40 


29879.024

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 6 

permitting any new government support to be used in areas where private investment has already 

been used to deploy infrastructure.2 Further, Congress should ensure that any legislation is both 

competitively and technology neutral, such that it does not favor any providers and any industrysector. Nothing will undermine our broadband future more than signaling to private investors that 

their returns on investment are uncertain, or even in jeopardy, or singling out one set of providers or 

one sector alone for favorable treatment." 

Principal #2: Removing barriers to deployment. Building high-performance broadband 

networks is costly, and ACA members tell us that there are a series of problems they face and actions 

that you can take, without spending a penny, that will "move the deployment needle." The chart 

below, which breaks down the total cost of deploying and operating fiber-to-the-home networks, 

indicates the most critical costs and should help you target your solutions. For instance, network 

costs related to pole attachments account for approximately 13% of total cost of ownership. That is a 

big number, and providers have told us that pole owners charge excessive application and makeready fees and delay permitting attachments for far too long, and that the FCC's enforcement process 

is ineffective. Conduit and duct installation fees and construction costs are also substantial, 

potentially several times greater than pole access fees, and there are numerous factors that make 

conduit and duct access unreasonable, including lack of information about location and availability, 

and fees for installation and access. 

2 ACA notes that smaller local telephone companies have demonstrated, for the most part, competence in providing 

telecommunications service in high-cost, rural areas. They operate in fewer and much smaller service territories and also 

tend to be less diversified than the major telephone providers. Any action by Congress of the FCC to implement these 

principles should account for their value. 

29879.025

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 7 

Building High-Performance Broadband is Costly 

Policymakers can make a difference by focusing on activities that "move the cost needle.

Breakdown of Total Cost of Ownership of Fiber-to-the-Home Networks 

4.1% 
42 


29879.026

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 8 

Accordingly, ACA urges you to make sure your legislative efforts include bills that remove 

barriers related to accessing poles, ducts/conduits, and rights-of-way by adopting the 

following measures: 

• First, facilitate access to poles by removing impediments for existing attachers to 

overlash, install customer connections, and undertake short-run extensions. 

• Second, reduce potential disputes between attachers and pole owners by creating a 

more transparent and timely application process, where requesting attachers would be 

more certain that they are supplying information pole owners need to begin a survey, 

and that their applications would be deemed complete in a reasonable timeframe. 

• Third, for standard pole attachments, enable closer coordination among pole owners, 

existing attachers, and new attachers earlier in the process, including by providing for 

joint surveys where new and existing attachers would have the right to accompany a 

pole owner's survey of the proposed attachments. 

• Fourth, lower the cost of and increase the transparency surrounding make-ready by: 

prohibiting pole owners from imposing costs unrelated to new attachments when 

undertaking make-ready, including unnecessary pole engineering design and loading 

analyses; requiring pole owners to itemize make-ready costs on a per-pole basis; and 

implementing an effective self-help remedy to deal with existing attachers who fail to 

undertake make-ready. 

Fifth, subject electric cooperatives to the federal Pole Attachment law, which would 

ensure their attachment rates are reasonable and that providers that compete with them 

have a level playing field. 

• Sixth, improve the process for accessing and sharing of conduit. 
43 


29879.027

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 9 

• Seventh, governments should charge right-of-way fees on a non-discriminatory basis, 

such that no provider or technology is favored, and all fees should be related to the 

actual costs governments incur for providing access to that right-of-way. 

Eighth, because any use on rights-of-way is linked to network facilities and not the 

provision of services over those facilities, prohibit governments from charging rightsof-way fees on a per-service basis. 

Principal #3: Account for additional deployments in unserved areas resulting from the 

removal of barriers, the new tax law, and existing federal support programs before determining 

where to spend new funds and how much is needed. 

ACA has calculated that by removing the barriers described above, the cost of network 

deployment will be lowered sufficiently such that 1.2 million unserved homes would become suitable 

for broadband providers to spend private money to deploy cable or fiber-to-the-home broadband 

services3 - all without spending additional government funds. Removal of these barriers also will 

encourage providers using other technologies, including fixed wireless and DSL, to upgrade their 

networks and expand them into additional unserved areas. 

In addition, because network investment will be propelled by the just-enacted tax statute, it is 

a key factor for which you need to account. ACA members have told us that because the new law 

permits them to "expense" their network investments immediately and cuts the corporate tax rate to 

21%, they have substantially greater incentives and ability to increase their capital spending 

significantly in the coming years. We estimate that the new tax law will tum more than 400,000 

homes in unserved areas into economically viable areas ripe for private investors to build high-speed 

3 ACA estimates that such deployments will create almost 20,000 new jobs. 
44 


29879.028

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30,2018 

Page 10 

broadband or fiber-to-the-home services. Additional areas would also become suitable for private 

investors using other technologies. 

We also should recognize that, at the federal level, we are now providing more than $4 billion 

annually to bring broadband to unserved and high-cost areas. States also are implementing their own 

support programs. By our calculations, the current federal Connect America programs alone, by 

2020, should reduce the number of"unserved" homes by 2 million, and even more by later in the 

next decade, and state efforts will reduce them even further. In sum, the government is already well 

on its way to closing the digital divide, and it should take account of the gains that can be achieved by 

removing barriers to deployment, the recent tax cut, and existing support programs before 

determining how much and where to spend additional funds to bridge the digital divide. 

29879.029

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page II 

FCC's CAF Programs Will Deliver High-Speed Broadband to Many Unserved Area

CAF Phase II provides to price cap incumbent carriers to deliver broadband in unserved arCAF Phase II Reverse Auction and the Remote Areas Fund, when implemented, will provide 

in additional unserved price cap carrier areas and in other areas, many of which are very high-cost. 

Source: FCC, cartesian 
46 


29879.030

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 12 

Principal #4: Provide broadband subsidies efficiently. The FCC has essentially provided 

the roadmap for this approach with the Connect America programs it initiated in its major reform in 

2011. The FCC has reshaped these programs- and continues to refine its policies- so that its 

limited support is awarded much more efficiently. It has sought to target support only to unserved 

areas, and it is about to begin awarding support using a reverse auction. ACA believes you should 

adhere to the following guidelines with regard to distributing any new money to close the remaining 

digital divide. 

• Provide subsidies for broadband only in unserved. high-cost areas. ACA supports the 

FCC's current definition providing that an area is unserved if no provider offers 10/J 

Mbps broadband service. While ACA understands the urge to "bid-up" these speeds, 

ACA cautions that we should not divert our attention from bringing service to those areas 

currently deemed unserved. In addition, any change in the definition of unserved must not 

result in any overbuilding of providers that are investing private capital. That would be 

especially counterproductive. Finally, as the National Broadband Plan made clear, 

wire line deployments become much more expensive as the speed of service increases, 

because more copper plant needs to be replaced with fiber. Accordingly, assuming we do 

not have unlimited funds, as you increase the speed threshold for determining whether an 

area is unserved, you lower the number of unserved locations that will receive service. 

Limit the amount of federal support for broadband buildout in an area to account for 

subsidies provided by states. unless any additional broadband performance is required. It 

would be inefficient and a waste of scarce federal support to enable recipients of such 

support to also receive state funding if they are only required to meet the federal 

broadband public interest requirements. This is because the federal program already 
47 


29879.031

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 13 

contemplates these requirements would be met. To receive funding from state program on 

top of federal support, a recipient should do more, such as provide higher speeds or meet 

faster deployment deadlines. For instance, the FCC and New York State developed (and 

ACA supported) an approach where providers in that state could receive support from 

both the FCC's Connect America program and New York State's Empire State 

Development program to deploy broadband networks that are faster than those available 

under the FCC's Connect America program alone.4 Such an approach is a potentially 

valuable model for propelling higher performance networks sooner in unserved areas. 

But, absent such enhanced obligations, a recipient of federal support should not receive 

state support to provide the same service. 

• Use reverse auctions to distribute support to maximize cost-efficiency. Prior to 2011, the 

FCC provided high-cost universal support only to incumbent telephone companies and 

determined the proper level of support by using a complex array of factors as part of a cost 

model that were out of sync with how modem networks were built and operated. In its 

2011 USF/ICC Transformation Order, the FCC recognized that bringing broadband to 

unserved areas would be very expensive and, to maximize use of its limited funding, it 

needed to award support much more efficiently. Conservative estimates suggest that 

using reverse auctions over cost models can lower the amount of subsidy needed to serve 

an area by 20%.5 The FCC therefore decided to begin using reverse auctions that are open 

4 Letter from Ross J. Lieberman, Sr. Vice President of Government Affairs, American Cable Association, to Marlene H. 

Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Jan. 13,2017, available at http://www.americancable.org/fccex-parte-letter-re-caf-ii-competitive-bidding-process-and-ny-state-petition-for-expedited-waiver-of-caf-ii-rules-2/. 

5 See WaHsten, Scott "Reverse Auctions and Universal Telecommunications Service: Lessons from Global Experience, 

Technology Paper," Federal Communications Law Journal: Vol. 61: Iss.2, Article 4, available at 

https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/yiewcontent.cgi?article~J531&context=fclj. Based on experiences in other 
48 


29879.032

Written Statement of Matthew M. Polka 

January 30, 2018 

Page 14 

to all providers, irrespective of technology, to award support. The first such auction is 

scheduled to take place later this year. ACA urges that any new funding be given out 

using a reverse auction approach (as adjusted for the removal of barriers to deployment). 

ACA has established its principles by learning from the experiences and expertise of its 

members and by seeing over the past decades policies that have - and have not- worked. From what 

we have seen of the measures introduced by Members of the Subcommittee, you too understand what 

it takes to bring broadband to all Americans. We support the resolutions introduced by Chairman 

Latta to ensure that all federal policy is technology neutral, Vice Chairman Lance to direct federal 

support to unserved areas, and Representative Bilirakis to ensure that federal, state, and local tax, 

permitting, and other requirements are coordinated. And we applaud Chairman Blackburn for 

seeking to reward private investment, remove barriers to deployments, and bridge the digital divide. 

At the end of the day, the principles in these measures will maximize consumer welfare, increase 

economic growth, and make communities throughout the country thrive. As for additional 

legislation, we urge the Subcommittee to examine the approach we have just set forth. We believe it 

will enable you to bridge the digital divide sooner and with more sustainable results. 

In closing, I want to commend the Chairman, Ranking Members, and other Members of the 

Subcommittee for their intense and well-considered focus on accelerating high-performance 

broadband deployment to all Americans. ACA and its members stand ready to assist you in this 

endeavor. 

countries, the cost-savings may be even greater. The FCC has noted that Rural Broadband Experiment bids produced 

discounts off model-based subsidies of greater than 50%. 
49 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Ms. Bloomfield, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF SHIRLEY BLOOMFIELD 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking 

Member Doyle, members of this committee, I can’t tell you how excited we are that you are actually talking about this incredibly important topic of broadband and how we ensure all Americans actually have access. I am Shirley Bloomfield. I am the CEO of 

NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, and we represent approximately 850 small businesses who are providing broadband 

across this country in 46 states. 

For decades, these small community-based telecommunications 

providers like my membership have really led the charge in terms 

of connecting rural Americans with the rest of the world by deploying advanced networks that respond to the need and the demand 

for cutting edge, innovative technology. These companies serve 

areas where the average density is about seven customers per 

square mile, and we actually have a rough density, as Chairman 

Walden had referenced that, but that is essentially in the entire 

average population density of the State of Montana. 

To emphasize the work that these hometown providers have 

done, a recent survey found that 87 percent of NTCA members’ 

customers can actually purchase broadband at 10 megabits or higher, and 67 percent can access speeds above 25 megs. But the job 

is simply far from done. With the statistics I noted, they are good 

news, but unfortunately, they also still tell the story of a lot of 

rural consumers that need access. And the story is still bleaker for 

those who are not served by NTCA member companies. 

Finally, it is not as if the job is done once the network is actually 

built. There is a lot of ongoing work to ensure that quality service 

is still available in very rural areas. So the question remains, how 

do we overcome these challenges of deploying and sustaining rural 

broadband? In the first instance, you actually need a business case 

to even consider deploying rural broadband. Questions relating to 

permitting and regulation are very important, of course, but if you 

can’t afford to build or sustain a network, these questions never 

even come into play. The economics of broadband are very difficult, 

if not impossible, in many rural markets. The rates that rural consumers actually pay is rarely sufficient to cover the actual cost of 

operating in these rural areas, much less the large capital expenditures required to deploy the broadband. 

I wish I had an easier answer for you but, frankly, the infrastructure is expensive and you simply have fewer consumers 

spread across to actually cover the costs. And that is why the ongoing support of the High Cost Universal Fund Program overseen by 

the FCC is so critical in making a business case for rural 

broadband. 

A bipartisan letter last year, led by many on this subcommittee, 

was signed by 101 Members of Congress in the House encouraging 

the FCC to ensure sufficient resources are available to enable the 

USF mechanisms to work as they are designed. This incredible 

show of support by Congress was greatly appreciated by NTCA and 

50 

our members, and reaffirms the fact that the USF high-cost program is the foundation for rural broadband in America. 

If the foundation is strong, we can then focus on the next most 

significant challenge, and that is the barriers to deployment itself. 

And this is where the questions and the legislation presented in today’s hearing become so very important, especially with the potential infrastructure package hopefully on the horizon, and Chairman 

Blackburn, I had the privilege of being with you in Tennessee when 

the President signed the memorandum and executive order on 

broadband. It is encouraging that the members of this committee 

are considering measures that are aimed at some of the very 

unique challenges presented by rural broadband. 

Many of your initiatives also mirror some of the work that was 

done on some of the FCC BDAC working groups that I had the 

privilege to serving on, addressing permitting reform, disaster relief, broadband mapping, and supporting innovation on a technology-neutral basis must be the central part of a coordinated and 

comprehensive effort to help address challenges across the 

broadband landscape. 

Smaller providers, like those in NTCA’s membership, have neither the staff nor the resources to navigate complex Federal agency 

structures for companies and cooperatives who have an average of 

about 25 employees per system. That time and money that is spent 

on navigating the effort relates to money and time that is not spent 

on deploying broadband. 

This committee’s desire to obtain better mapping data is also 

much needed and greatly appreciated. We need accurate, granular 

data. We need transparency on availability to ensure the government resources are used to support broadband build-outs that are 

deployed as efficiently as possible. And we also welcome the subcommittee’s consideration of innovative ideas to support and enable 

broadband. Today’s small rural broadband providers are using all 

communication technologies available to them to provide world 

class service to their members and to their customers. 

Just as we transition from telephone-focused to broadband-focused companies, we need flexibility and access to additional support and resources to deploy new technologies and address the remaining challenges. 

In closing, small rural broadband providers, like those in my 

membership, have made great strides in reducing the digital divide 

in rural America, but the job is far from done. With millions of 

rural Americans still without access to robust, high speed 

broadband and millions more served only through the help of the 

FCC’s Universal Service Programs, we must continue to work diligently to ensure that no child is left behind without internet access 

for homework, no rural area is left behind without access to telehealth capabilities, no farmer is left without precision agriculture 

tools, and no main street business is prevented from participating 

in a global economy. 

On behalf of NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, your 

leadership and your commitment to this issue in identifying these 

challenges and looking for creative solutions is so greatly appreciated. 

51 

I appreciate the invitation to be here with you, and I am looking 

forward to engaging with all of you further. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bloomfield follows:] 

52 


29879.033

N~:;,..-- THERURAL 

BROADBAND 

ASSOCIATION 

Statement by 

Shirley Bloomfield 

Chief Executive Officer 

NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association 

Arlington, VA 

Before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

Washington, DC 

January 30,2018 
53 


29879.034

NTCA - Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page I of8 

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this 

opportunity to testify today to discuss legislation being considered by your subcommittee. I am 

Shirley Bloomfield, Chief Executive Officer of NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, which 

represents nearly 850 rural community-based carriers in 46 states that offer advanced 

communications services throughout the most sparsely-populated areas ofthe nation. 

Small, hometown-based rural telecom providers like those in NTCA's membership connect rural 

Americans with the world - making every effort to deploy advanced networks that respond to 

consumer and business demands for cutting-edge, innovative services. These cooperatives and small, 

hometown companies serve the most rural parts of the United States, reaching areas that contain less 

than five percent of the U.S. population but which are spread across more than 35 percent of the U.S. 

landmass - where the average density is about seven customers per square mile, or roughly the 

average population density for the entire state of Montana. The distances to cover and the low 

population densities present unique challenges, and underscore the critical importance of these small 

telecom providers that connect rural Americans with the world. 

Even in the face of such challenges, however, these small, hometown businesses are working to. help 

position rural communities for success in a rapidly-changing world. Fixed and mobile broadband, 

video, and voice are among the many services that rural Americans can access thanks to our 

industry's commitment to serving sparsely populated areas. The rural telecom industry has always 

been innovative - leading the way in converting to digital switched systems, deploying creative 

technological solutions to their hardest-to-reach customers, enabling distance learning and tele-health 

applications, and ultimately deploying future-proof fiber-based systems. 

Indeed, NTCA members have led the charge in deploying broadband in rural America and closing 

the digital divide for rural areas fortunate enough to be served by these hometown providers. Despite 

the many challenges, a survey of NTCA members conducted in 2017 found that 41 percent of 

respondents' customers are served via fiber-to-the-home, up 20 percent from 2013. Thirty-six 

percent of customers are served via copper loops, 12 percent cable modem, 9 percent fiber-to-thenode, 1.1 percent fixed wireless, and 0.2 percent satellite. 1 Due in no small part to increased fiber 

deployment, rural customers have access to faster broadband speeds. In fact, the survey concluded 

that 87 percent of NTCA members' customers can purchase broadband at speeds of 10 Mbps or 

higher, and 67 percent can access speeds above 25 Mbps. These statistics confirm what we already 

know, but occasionally overlook- that through the work of small, local tel cos we are making strides 

year-over-year to reduce the digital divide, despite an uncertain regulatory environment. 

1 NTCA 2016 Broadband!Intemet Availability Survey Report (20 17), NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, Arlington, VA. 
54 


29879.035

NTCA- Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30, 20 18 

Page 2 of8 

But there is more to do-the job is far from done. The statistics noted above are good news, but they 

also tell a story of many rural consumers and communities still left behind. Thirteen percent of 

consumers served by NTCA members still cannot get even 10 Mbps broadband, while 33 percent are 

unable to obtain 25 Mbps broadband- a speed considered average for urban Americans today. And 

the story is even worse in areas that are not as fortunate to be served by cooperatives and other small 

hometown-based telecom companies like those in NTCA's membership; in other rural communities, 

we know that many more consumers, businesses, schools, and medical facilities lack access to even 

basic levels of broadband. 

And, finally, even where broadband is available, sustaining it and upgrading it to keep pace with 

today's economy and user demands is a challenge unto itself; the job is not done when networks are 

deployed, because consumers' use of broadband depends upon reliable and affordable services that 

will stay high-quality and keep pace with advances in technology and user needs. Thus, even as we 

have successes to celebrate and roadmaps to look to for proven track records of success, we as a 

nation have much more to do both to reach unserved areas and also to sustain robust and affordable 

rural broadband where it is available today. 

So how do we overcome these significant challenges of both deploying and sustaining rural 

broadband infrastructure? The first step is to clearly identify those challenges and think carefully 

and creatively about measures to address them. 

In the first instance, the economics of rural broadband are difficult, if not impossible, in many rural 

markets. The rates that rural consumers pay are rarely sufficient to cover even the costs of operating 

in rural areas, much less the enormous capital expenditure required in the first instance to deploy 

reliable, high-speed broadband in rural America. While obtaining permits to build new infrastructure 

and navigating complex bureaucratic application processes can be difficult for many of the small 

businesses in NTCA's membership, the single biggest challenge in rural America is simply making 

the business case to build any broadband at all. 

Without a reasonable business plan, providers are hard-pressed to justify borrowing funds or using 

one's own capital to build, and then even harder-pressed to sustain networks in areas where densities 

are low, distances are great, and terrain and topography complicate operations. Put another way, 

permitting barriers are no barrier at all if one cannot justify building the network in the first place. 

Ongoing support from the High-Cost Universal Service Fund (USF) program overseen by the Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) has therefore been essential to making the business case for 

and then sustaining rural broadband. The program allows providers to keep rates affordable for 

consumers and to help justify financing from the few lenders that tend to serve rural Internet service 

providers - the Department of Agriculture's Rural Utilities Service (RUS), CoBank, the Rural 

Telephone Finance Cooperative (RTFC), and some community banks. 
55 


29879.036

NTCA- Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page3of8 

After the initial business case can be made for rural broadband, we come to the next significant 

challenge the barriers to deployment itself. This is where the questions and legislation presented 

in today's hearing then become so important, helping to reduce the costs and time associated with 

deployment and allowing providers to get back to the business of building broadband networks in 

rural America. I will now tum to a discussion of the ideas being reviewed in today's hearing, and 

describe how action in many of these areas would be welcomed to stimulate and accelerate 

deployment. 

CURRENT EFFORTS TO HELP OVERCOME A DIGITAL DIVIDE 

Especially with the potential for an infrastructure package on the horizon, it is encouraging that 

members of this subcommittee are considering different measures aimed at tackling the many unique 

challenges presented by rural broadband - introducing bills to streamline regulations for providers 

and thinking innovatively about how to address the challenges ofbuilding and sustaining both middle 

mile and last mile networks. As an overarching matter, these ideas are welcome, much-needed 

additions to a comprehensive conversation on promoting broadband buildout across rural America. 

From my work on behalf of and interaction with our members, I can tell you that addressing 

permitting reform, disaster relief, broadband mapping, and supporting innovation concepts raised 

by the bills that are the subject of today's hearing - is an essential part of a coordinated and 

comprehensive effort to help address challenges across the broadband landscape. 

Permitting Reform 

Smaller providers like those in NTCA's membership have neither the staff nor the resources to 

navigate complex federal agency structures in search of permissions to build broadband; for 

companies and cooperatives with an average of approximately 25 employees, time and money spent 

on such efforts translates to time and money not spent building broadband. At the same time, in 

serving many of the most remote parts of the United States, our members have deep experience with 

the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, and many other 

land-owning and property-managing agencies across the federal government. Especially when 

crossing federal lands or railroad rights-of-way in rural America, small, rural providers must address 

environmental and historical permitting concerns or contractual obligations that can delay projects 

and increase their already high costs. 

These issues are very real and affect broadband network operators and the consumers they seek to 

serve. To provide just a few examples that we have heard about within the past year, one BLM state 

office adopted a unique bonding policy and application process that appeared to equate deployment 

of telecom facilities with installation of pipelines transporting hazardous substances, dramatically 

increasing the application burdens and potential costs. Meanwhile, in South Dakota, a small, rural 
56 


29879.037

NTCA - Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page 4 of8 

provider's multimillion-dollar fiber deployment requiring U.S. Forest Service approval encountered 

permitting holdups delaying completion more than a year. 

For these reasons, NTCA and its members have consistently urged that differences in agency policies 

and procedures should be the exception rather than the rule, applying only where needed to 

implement a unique statutory directive to the agency in question. A lack of coordination and 

standardization in environmental and historical application and approval processes across federal 

agencies increases the cost and further complicates and delays the deployment of broadband 

infrastructure - especially for small providers. 

Thankfully, we are seeing increasing levels of attention paid to such concerns. Several NTCA 

members joined me in working on the FCC's Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee's 

(BOAC) Streamlining Federal Siting Working Group, and we strongly supported the report and 

recommendations of that group, including suggestions to: 

Standardize and publish fee schedules, and utilize revenue in a way that promotes expediting 

federal siting processes. 

Harmonize permitting processes across agencies to the extent feasible and ensure the process 

is uniformly applied across regional and state offices. 

Recognize and accept existing completed studies in previously disturbed areas. 

• Harmonize environmental assessments across federal landholding or managing agencies, 

further streamline National Environmental Protection Act and National Historic 

Preservation Act exclusions, and eliminate duplicative environmental studies. 

Make current environmental and historic review streamlining mechanisms mandatory for all 

agencies. 

• There should be a single, easily accessible online-tracking mechanism at each federal agency 

for the permitting process. All agencies should regularly report on permit status and the 

number of permitting applications they have processed. 

• A common application form should accommodate changes to existing installations and 

applicable leases and easements. Agencies should accommodate and incorporate new 

broadband infrastructure technologies into their review processes. 

It is encouraging to see many of these same ideas reflected in the bills being considered by this 

subcommittee, indicating that "all roads" seem to be leading to similar destinations in terms of what 

might be done to improve the processes and policies for permitting on federal lands and properties. 

NTCA is eager to see such recommendations become part of a comprehensive and coordinated 

national strategy that tackles both the economics of rural broadband deployment in the first instance 

and then the barriers that hinder such deployment once the business case is made. 
57 


29879.038

NTCA - Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page 5 of8 

Finally, as Congress moves forward on reform, it is important to note that any changes and 

coordination with respect to permitting should be made on a "technology neutral" basis. While some 

current federal permitting processes and forms were developed initially to accommodate wireless 

infrastructure and attachments, in today's converging world where data demands are increasing at 

exponential rates and "densification" of wireless networks is a national priority, all wireless systems 

will need closer and more robust connections to wireline networks. For example, an engineering 

study last year indicated that successful SG wireless deployment will depend upon substantial futureproof backbaul capability for small cells placed within just several hundred feet of each other; this 

conclusion has been independently validated by others interested in promoting SG who have noted 

the need for "densification" (i.e .. increased small cell deployment backed by fiber penetration) of 

wireless networks. 2 It is therefore imperative that any reform of permitting applications and 

processes expressly accommodate both wired and wireless technologies. 

Broadband Mapping 

This committee's attention to mapping and the desire to obtain better data is much-needed and greatly 

appreciated by NTCA and its members. We need accurate, granular data on availability to ensure 

that government efforts to support broadband target resources as efficiently as possible. Such data 

would help ensure both that support and programs are not withdrawn when they are still needed in 

an area, while also avoiding the prospect of duplicative infrastructure deployment to the very same 

locations being promoted by multiple different federal programs. 

Under the FCC's High-Cost USF program, our members are now required to geocode individual 

locations where new broadband is installed (and, in some cases, for prior deployments too). Such 

measures- particularly the geocoding of new installations and upgrades going forward- can bring 

us closer to identifying where broadband exists with much greater precision, which would then allow 

us to target support and other efforts to promote broadband deployment where needed most. In the 

end, however, it will also be important to reconcile and coordinate data-gathering and mapping 

efforts among agencies to avoid facing duplicative reporting requirements and the prospect of 

generating inconsistent data due to.differing measures among multiple reports at different agencies. 

In short, there is great need for a single, authoritative source that can provide accurate data at a 

granular level and on a consistent basis to help drive better informed decision-making. 

Supporting Innovation 

NTCA welcomes the subcommittee's consideration of ideas as well on supporting innovation in 

enabling rural broadband. Today, small, rural broadband providers are using all communications 

2 See Remarks of Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai at the Mobile World Congress, Barcelona, 

Spain, February 28, 2017; The Road to SG is Paved with Fiber. Fiber Broadband Association, December 2017; 

Verizon's CEO: Our strategy to deliver the promise of the digital world, July 29, 2016. 
58 


29879.039

NTCA- Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page 6 of8 

technologies available to them to provide world-class services to their members and customers. Just 

as we transitioned from telephone-focused to broadband-focused companies, we will need flexibility 

and access to additional support and resources such as spectrum and robust middle mile networks to 

develop and deploy new technologies and address the challenges remaining. 

OTHER MUCH-NEEDED NEXT STEPS 

As I mentioned earlier in this testimony, although obtaining permits to build can be difficult for small 

businesses like those in NTCA's membership, the most fundamental challenge to rural broadband is 

simply making the business case to build broadband at all- being able to justify borrowing funds or 

using one's own capital to build and then sustain networks in areas where densities are low, distances 

are great, and terrain and topography complicate operations. With millions of rural Americans still 

lacking access to robust, high-speed broadband, and millions more only receiving affordable access 

now through the help of the FCC's USF programs, we must continue working diligently to ensure 

no child is left without Internet access for homework, no rural area is left without life-saving access 

to telehealth capabilities, and no Main Street business is prevented from utilizing e-commerce to 

compete in a global economy. To realize these goals, it is essential that Congress not only look at 

new ideas for building out rural broadband, but also focus on ways to leverage those programs that 

have already been most successful in doing so. 

Recognizing the foundational nature of the challenging business case for rural broadband, 

policymakers throughout the federal government, including many of the leaders on this 

subcommittee, have expressed tremendous interest in pursuing broadband initiatives as part of a 

broader national infrastructure initiative. In fact, just last week, House Rural Broadband Caucus CoChairs Cramer, Welch, Latta, Loebsack, Kinzinger, and Paean sent a bipartisan letter to President 

Trump requesting that a broadband-specific funding mechanism be included in any such package. 

An infrastructure bill represents a rare opportunity to make great headway on rural broadband 

deployment, and we hope that the promise of broadband is not lost among the many other compelling 

infrastructure priorities also in need of attention (and funding). We greatly appreciate the work of 

this subcommittee and the congressional rural broadband caucuses more generally in keeping 

broadband "top of mind,'' and in leaving no stone unturned in considering all the ways in which 

conditions can be improved to enable broadband deployment that will benefit rural Americans now 

and into the future. 

Beyond such new initiatives, however, few steps could be more important for policymakers to take 

than to ensure sufficient, sustainable funding for the High-Cost USF Program, which has served as 

the foundation for the most successful build outs to date of broadband across rural America. While 

often lost in the shuffle of new initiatives, this program is the primary tool to ensure consumers and 

businesses in rural America can purchase communications services that are reasonably comparable 

to what urban Americans receive at rates reasonably comparable to what urban consumers pay. The 

USF program is therefore critical and foundational to making the business case for rural broadband 
59 


29879.040

NTCA - Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page 7 of8 

investment. Moreover, USF is perhaps the best, most successful, proven example of a public-private 

partnership that exists in the broadband space, having helped to justify private network investments 

that can total tens of billions of dollars per year when measured as gross plant in service. 

But the USF program has encountered difficulties in recent years even as policymakers cast about 

for new ways to overcome rural broadband challenges. Enabling the business case for deployment 

of networks and delivery of broadband across rural America is a big job to say the least, and yet the 

High-Cost USF program has been confined under a flat budget (without even an inflationary 

adjustment) for years. This is true even as small, rural carriers like those in NTCA's membership 

have sought to deliver more robust networks that will scale to meet the anticipated enormous 

consumer demands for bandwidth in the future and far outlast the timeframes of the loans taken out 

to build them. A strict budget control mechanism adopted in 2016 by the FCC- based upon 2010 

support levels and applied only to smaller rural carriers- has only exacerbated this problem. 

While the FCC took steps to provide some additional funding last year within the fixed overall USF 

budget for a subset of small carriers that elected a certain kind of High-Cost USF support, even that 

funding remained insufficient to achieve the goals ofthe very model the FCC designed for it. As a 

result, tens of thousands of rural consumers will see lower speeds or no broadband at all- precisely 

what the reforms were intended to alleviate. And the concerns are just as significant, if not greater, 

for rural areas served by small carrier recipients of High-Cost USF that could not or did not elect this 

model-based support. These small, rural telecom operators have had their support slashed by more 

than 12 percent on average, denying recovery of actual costs for private broadband network 

investments that they have already made. Even worse, this specific USF budget control has been 

growing unpredictably, undermining access to capital and the business case for sizeable long-term 

infrastructure investments in rural America. In short, not only is the insufficient budget undermining 

recovery of past investments and making rural consumer broadband prices higher, but it is also 

deterring future investment by hurting the business case for broadband. 

These concerns have been confirmed both in the individual stories ofNTCA members and in a survey 

we conducted last summer to determine how insufficient funding and unpredictable budget cuts were 

undermining rural broadband availability and affordability. Individual examples of reduced 

investment or other customer impacts we heard about in 2017 included: a cooperative in the 

Southeast that put on hold a new multi-million dollar loan to build 1,000 miles of high-speed 

broadband infrastructure to more than 7,000 rural consumers due to the USF cuts; another small 

locally-owned provider in the Southeast that suspended plans to upgrade two rural communities and 

instead simply maintained older network plant for fear of support reductions; a Midwestern small 

operator with only 12 employees that had recently finished a fiber project but then declined to fill 

open jobs due to the need to conserve funds in the face of USF budget cuts; and another small 

Midwestern carrier that continues to charge high standalone broadband prices because the USF 

budget effectively wipes out support for such connections. 
60 


29879.041

NTCA- Shirley Bloomfield 

January 30,2018 

Page 8 of8 

Such stories are consistent with NTCA' s summer 2017 survey, where 183 small business member 

companies reported facing annual USF support reductions of more than $500,000 on average, with 

a corresponding average decline in planned network investment of nearly $950,000 that translated to 

more than 850 customers on average being denied near-term access to upgraded broadband services. 

This support reduction also led to standalone broadband prices for rural consumers $50 higher per 

month than they would have been for urban consumers. 

Fortunately, Congress and members of this subcommittee recognize the problems this hard cap has 

placed on rural providers. Last year, a bipartisan letter led by Congressman Cramer and co-led by 

Reps. Loebsack, Latta, Welch, Kinzinger, and Pocan, was signed by 101 members of the House of 

Representatives encouraging the FCC to ensure "sufficient resources are available to enable the USF 

mechanisms to work as designed." (A similar Jetter was sent by several dozen Senators.) The FCC 

has taken notice of these concerns, and just this month Chairman Ajit Pai announced the potential 

for more than $500 million to be injected into the High-Cost USF program. The Chairman's proposal 

is currently circulating among the commissioners at the FCC, and also includes a notice that poses 

crucial questions on what the High-Cost USF budget should be going forward and how to ensure the 

program can consistently support and provide certainty for robust network deployment over time. 

NTCA applauds this announcement, and we are grateful for the leadership of members of this 

subcommittee and many others in Congress for helping to elevate this concern. We hope that more 

sufficient support through the USF program - together with the prospect of a comprehensive 

infrastructure strategy that includes ideas like many of those before this subcommittee today and 

additional funding resources - will stimulate investment and eliminate deployment barriers. 

Achieving this goal through such a coordinated, comprehensive approach is the key for success in 

the years to come, and will help us deploy and sustain broadband throughout rural America. 

CONCLUSION 

Due in part to the leadership of this subcommittee, small, rural broadband providers like those in 

NTCA's membership have made great strides in reducing the digital divide in rural America. But 

the job is far from done. Many of the ideas being discussed here today would represent important 

steps forward in promoting broadband deployment and addressing challenges we face for the 

broadband of the future- and together with the High-Cost USF program, and in coordination with a 

comprehensive infrastructure package that recognizes the importance of broadband to rural 

communities- we believe we can make great progress on tackling our nation's broadband challenges. 

On behalf ofNTCA-The Rural Broadband Association, your commitment to identifying and solving 

these challenges is greatly appreciated. Thank you for inviting me to be with you today and I look 

forward to your questions. 
61 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. Mr. Slesinger, you 

are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT SLESINGER 

Mr. SLESINGER. Thank you, Chairman Blackburn, and Mr. Doyle. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott 

Slesinger. I am the legislative director of the Natural Resources 

Defense Council. I will concentrate my oral remarks on the impact 

of Federal environmental reviews on new infrastructures, including 

broadband. 

The poor state of our infrastructure is not because of Federal environmental reviews or permitting. Our problem is cash. The solution is a political will to appropriate the needed dollars. 

Numerous studies from GAO and CRS show that it is not Federal rules that are causing delays. The number one problem is lack 

of funding, followed by state and local laws, citizen opposition to 

projects, and zoning restrictions. Mr. Chairman, broadband deployment is not delayed by environmental impact statements. In fact, 

no broadband project was ever required to do one by the FCC. 

Drinking water projects suffer from a lack of financing, not environmental reviews. Scapegoating NEPA may be a cheap applause 

line, but we cannot streamline our way to universal broadband access, new tunnels under the Hudson, or bridges over the Ohio 

River, or new sewer systems. 

I would like the committee to appreciate why NEPA is so important. In many cases, NEPA gives your constituents their only opportunity to voice concerns about a Federal project’s impact on 

their community. Because informed public engagement often produces ideas, information, and solutions that the government might 

otherwise overlook, NEPA leads to better outcomes for everyone. 

The NEPA processes save money, time, lives, historic sites, endangered species, and public lands, while encouraging compromise and 

resulting in better projects with more public support. Most recommendations to cripple the process try to limit public notice and 

comments and are undemocratic. 

The first time a rancher learns of a pipeline going through his 

property shouldn’t be when an attorney shows up at his door with 

an offer to purchase under threat of taking the property by eminent domain. Because many congressional committees have tried to 

assert jurisdiction over NEPA, there has been numerous and contradictory changes in the NEPA process made by Congress in 2005, 

2012, and 2015. 

Various provisions have shortened public comment periods, 

changed the statute of limitations to four different time periods, 

limited access to courts, and set up arbitrary deadlines for permit 

approvals. 

DOT can now find other agencies that miss deadlines, a provision 

that makes as much sense as debtor’s prison. The FAST Act, based 

in large part by the Rapid Act promoted by Mr. Shimkus, was 

passed in 2015, made dramatic changes in the process. The law 

created a new interagency administrative apparatus called the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Improvement Steering Council, 

which is largely controlled by OMB, to set deadlines, push through 

62 

resolution of interagency disputes, and allocate funds and personal 

resources to support the overall decisionmaking process. 

President Trump’s first infrastructure permitting executive 

order—as the chief sponsor, Senator Portman wrote in a letter to 

the President—contradicted authorities and responsibilities already 

in FAST-41 to the consternation of project sponsors that were already participating in the permitting board’s existing process, and 

this slowed projects. Even the business roundtable has said that we 

should be looking at existing law, not layer on new laws to the 

NEPA process. 

Despite enactment of these laws, the Congress has many bills go 

to the House floor that would further amend the NEPA process 

without regard for their impact on process changes already made. 

Rather than simplifying current processes, these bills would create 

new conflicts, sow confusion and delay project reviews. The recent 

draft infrastructure proposal from the White House should not be 

taken seriously. The leaked provisions would repeal critical clean 

air, clean water, and endangered species protections. It would also 

set up a process guaranteed to neuter public input into Federal actions, such as giving agency heads free rein to virtually exempt any 

project from NEPA free from court challenge. 

To fix our infrastructure, we don’t need to give the Interior Secretary carte blanche to build pipelines through every National 

Park. We do need NEPA to help build a modern infrastructure system that is resilient, energy-efficient, and takes into account the 

impacts of a changing climate in the needs of the 21st century. We 

can do this smarter and better by using, not crippling, the environmental review process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, NRDC looks forward to 

working with the committee on bold and effective solutions to our 

Nation’s infrastructure challenges. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Slesinger follows:] 

63 


29879.042

TESTIMONY BY 

SCOTT SLESINGER 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR 

OF THE 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

January 30, 2018 

1 
64 


29879.043

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Scott Slesinger, and I am the 

Legislative Director for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). NRDC is a 

nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers, and environmental specialists dedicated to 

protecting public health and the environment. Founded in 1970, NRDC has more than 3 

million members and online activists nationwide, served from our offices in New York, 

Washington, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and Beijing. I appreciate the 

opportunity to testify and will concentrate my remarks on the LIFT Act, H.R 2479 and 

the supposed barriers to new infrastructure environmental reviews. 

This Congress has a very important responsibility to address the failing infrastructure 

that has made America less globally competitive and is undermining our quality of life. 

Our airports, our transportation system, our sewer and drinking water systems have 

been systematically underfunded since 1993 when the gas tax was last raised. Inflation 

has eroded the Transportation Trust Fund by over 40 percent. The funding for sewers 

and drinking water systems have suffered similar erosion. Any world traveler, and in 

fact, President Trump himself, has noted that the airports and roads of our country now 

suffer in comparison to other developed and even some developing countries. Lack of 

access to broadband limits economic vitality and limits educational opportunities in 

many underserved communities. 

Every conversation on Capitol Hill about solving our infrastructure crisis begins with 

earnest statements that "all options are on the table" before immediately rescinding the 

solution. 

The poor state of our infrastructure is not because of environmental reviews or 

permitting. Our problem is cash. The solution is the political will to appropriate the 

needed dollars. Environmental reviews and permitting are scapegoats. 

A recent hearing of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Army Corps of 

Engineer projects highlighted this point. The Corps has over $90 billion in approved, 

authorized projects-virtually all with completed environmental reviews. Some members 

2 
65 


29879.044

and witnesses argued for less environmental reviews as a solution. One of the 

witnesses, Nicole Carter of Congressional Research Service, was asked if NEPA is the 

cause of delay. She responded that in a study of 40 projects, 39 projects were slowed 

by a lack of federal funding 1• With an annual budget of $5 billion; the problem is the 

missing $85 billion, not NEPA. 

It's as though our house is burning down and instead of calling the fire department, our 

solution is to lower the thermostat. 

Numerous studies from GAO and CRS show that it is not federal rules that are causing 

the delays. The number one problem is lack of funding, followed by state and local 

laws, citizen opposition to projects, and zoning restrictions. The widely quoted "Two 

Years Not Ten: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals"2 is based on questionable logic 

and outdated statistics debunked by Kevin DeGood of the Center for American 

Progress. For instance, the "Two Not Ten" study claimed the average permit time was 

10 years for completion of an EIS but those statistics covered 1999 to 2011. DeGood's 

analysis3 shows the average length is down to 3.6 years between 2012 through 2016. 

We believe newer data within the administration will show the trend toward faster 

processes is continuing. 

Broadband deployment is not delayed by Environmental Impact Statements; in fact, no 

broadband project was ever required to do one by the Federal Communication 

Commission. Drinking water projects suffer from a lack of financing, not environmental 

review. 

1 January 18,2018 https://transportation.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventiD=4021 08) 

2 Philip K. Howard, "Two Years Not Ten: Redesigning Infrastructure Approvals' (New York: Common 

Good, 2015), available at http://commongood.3cdn.net/c613b4cfda258a5fcb e8m6b5t3x.pdf 

3 https://www .americanprogress.org/iss ues/economy/reoorts/2017/05/03/431651/debunking-false-claimsenvironmental-review-opponents/ 

3 
66 


29879.045

Scapegoating NEPA may be a cheap applause line, but we cannot "streamline" our way 

to universal broadband access, new tunnels under the Hudson, a bridge over the Ohio 

River, or new sewer systems. 

Why NEPA Matters 

I would like the Committee to appreciate why the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the federal permitting requirements to protect our air, water and wildlife are 

so important. With an emphasis on "smart from the start" federal decision making, 

NEPA protects our health, our homes, and our environment. Led by Representative 

John Dingell and Senator Scoop Jackson and signed into law by President Nixon, the 

law was prompted in part by concerns from communities whose members felt their 

views had been ignored in setting routes for the Interstate Highway System. NEPA has 

empowered the public, including citizens, local officials, landowners, industry, and 

taxpayers, and demanded government accountability for more than 40 years. 

NEPA is democratic at its core. In many cases, NEPA gives citizens their only 

opportunity to voice concerns about a federal project's impact on their community. 

When the federal government undertakes a major project such as constructing a dam, a 

highway, or a power plant, or if a private entity needs a federal permit so it can pollute 

the air or water, it must ensure that the project's impacts- environmental, economic and 

otherwise- are considered and disclosed to the public. And because informed public 

engagement often produces ideas, information, and solutions that the government might 

otherwise overlook, NEPA leads to better decisions- and better outcomes- for 

everyone. The NEPA process has saved money, time, lives, historical sites, 

endangered species, and public lands while encouraging compromise and resulting in 

better projects with more public support. Our website 

https:/lwww.nrdc.org/resources/never-eliminate-public-advice-nepa-success-stories 

highlights NEPA success stories that prove this point. 

Most recommendations to cripple the process try to limit public notice and comment are 

undemocratic. The first time a rancher learns of a pipeline going through his property 

4 
67 


29879.046

shouldn't be when an attorney shows up at his door with an offer to purchase under 

threat of taking the property by eminent domain. Thanks to NEPA, tens of thousands of 

Americans have participated in important federal decisions and projects have been 

made better because of it. And yes, some wasteful projects have died. 

Recent Changes to the NEPA and Permitting Process 

"Streamlining" or, more accurately, "steam rolling" has been an easy, no-cost way to 

pretend we are addressing delays in project delivery. Because many congressional 

committees have tried to assert jurisdiction over NEPA, there have been numerous and 

contradictory changes to the NEPA process made by Congress since 2005. Various 

bills have shortened public comment periods, changed the statute of limitations to four 

different time periods depending on the project, limited access to courts, and set up 

arbitrary deadlines for permit approvals. USDOT -led projects can now fine other 

agencies that miss deadlines; a provision that makes as much sense as debtors' prison 

Major changes occurred in October 2015 with the passage of the Fixing America 

Surface Transportation Act (The FAST Act). Title 41 of that bill, mandated a new interagency administrative apparatus called the Federal Infrastructure Permitting 

Improvement Steering Council-largely controlled by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OM B)-to set presumptive deadlines, push the resolution of interagency 

disputes, and allocate funding and personnel resources to support the overall decisionmaking process. 

This infrastructure council was barely operational when the Administration changed. 

President Trump's first Infrastructure Permitting Executive Order- as the chief Senate 

sponsors, Senators Portman and McCaskill wrote in a letter to the President'-

contradicted authorities and responsibilities already in FAST-41, to the consternation of 

project sponsors that were already participating in the permitting board's existing 

process. If the objective is to improve infrastructure project reviews and permitting, 

4 https://www.portman.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File id=8D346523-409C-4893-8DB2-

DF364423CA 11 

5 
68 


29879.047

Congress' most important challenge is to exercise oversight over implementation. While 

we don't applaud everything in the law, its robust provisions were enacted just two 

years ago. The House appropriation for the steering council was a meager $1 million; 

probably not even enough to carry out the council's statutory requirement to track 

project schedules online. Why pass changes to NEPA to "reform", when Congress then 

fails to appropriate money to effectuate those changes but continues to try to layer on 

additional changes? 

The President's revised Infrastructure Executive Order of August 15, 2017, ameliorated 

most of the inconsistences with the earlier order. However, that EO also gave a green 

light to wasteful federal construction in areas susceptible to flooding by revoking an 

executive order (E.O. 13690) that previously updated flood protection standards. These 

standards would make sure that public schools, hospitals, military bases, water 

treatment plants- all public facilities and infrastructure built with federal funding- are 

constructed with a higher margin of safety for floods and future sea level rise. Revoking 

these standards will ensure that billions of dollars are wasted rebuilding vulnerable 

public facilities that could have been built with greater resiliency features or in a safer 

location. 

Despite enactment of this legislation in 2015 and other recent changes to NEPA, this 

Congress has seen many bills introduced in both chambers that would further amend 

the NEPA process without regard for their impact on process changes already made in 

FAST -41. Rather than simplifying current processes, these bills would create new 

conflicts, sow confusion, and delay project reviews. 

Legislation has reached the House floor that would establish new and different and 

inconsistent permitting and NEPA processes for hydroelectric power projects, water 

supply projects, natural gas pipelines, international pipelines, fisheries and timber 

management, and other projects. Besides threatening our environment and natural 

heritage adopting new measures now would exacerbate effective administration of 

existing law. For example, USDOT's Inspector General confirmed the agency has been 

6 
69 


29879.048

hamstrung by repeated policy changes in recent Congresses. Although US DOT had 

completed most of the reforms mandated by MAP-21 in 2012, the Department was 

forced to delay implementation of others because they had to be revised to comply with 

additional requirements of the FAST Act.5 

The recent draft infrastructure proposal from the White House is not a serious proposal 

but follows a pattern of falsely blaming project delays on basic environmental 

protections. The leaked provision would repeal critical clean air, clean water and 

endangered species protections and undermine basic environmental statutes. It would 

also set up a process guaranteed to neuter public input into federal actions and give 

agency heads free reign to virtually exempt any project from NEPA, free from court 

challenge. 

Polling shows that Americans rightfully believe we do not have to sacrifice our 

environment to have a modern infrastructure system. We don't need to give the Interior 

Secretary carte blanche to build pipelines through every national park. We do need 

NEPA to help build a modern infrastructure system that is resilient, energy efficient, and 

takes into account the impact of a changing climate. 

What should a new infrastructure bill do? 

Last spring, NRDC released 21st-century infrastructure principles that we believe would 

produce real benefits to the nation. These principles that are detailed on our website6, 

include: 

• Public dollars must be used for the public good. When taxpayers pick up the tab, 

the public should be the beneficiary of that investment. We must prioritize 

performance-based infrastructure and projects that deliver economic, social and 

5 Office of the Inspector General, Vulnerabilities Exist in Implementing Initiatives Under MAP-21 Subtitle C 

to Accelerate Project Delivery, March 6, 2017, available at: 

https:l/www.oig.dot.gov/sites/default/files/DOT%201mplementation%20of%20MAP-21%5E3-6-17.pdf 

'https:Uwww.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/taking-high-road-more-and-better-infrastructure-lp.pdf 

7 
70 


29879.049

environmental benefits-such as jobs, improved mobility, and climate resiliency. 

Innovative financing and management though public-private partnerships are 

encouraged. However, any project that gives private investors special incentives 

must demonstrate value to the community over the long term, result in fair but not 

excessive profits, and allow for joint management with the public sector to ensure 

the public purpose is maintained. 

• Innovation in clean energy and water should be a priority. Water and energy 

systems should meet 21st century needs. Unfortunately, almost all of these 

critical infrastructure systems were built in the 20th or even 19th century, in many 

cases relying on outdated technologies and practices. Technological innovations 

like smart meters and energy storage as well as upgrades to the nation's power 

infrastructure will enable us to take advantage of the clean, reliable, and costeffective energy resources. We need water systems that rely more on distributed 

green infrastructure, water efficiency, and water reuse to complement our 

existing investments in gray infrastructure systems. 

• Investment in Climate Resilient Infrastructure Projects and Smart Technology is 

critical. Climate and living patterns are changing rapidly. Infrastructure needs to 

be designed to meet the challenges of the next century, including rising sea 

levels, more intense storms, and longer droughts. It also means investment in 

new technologies and increasing demands on infrastructure systems as 

urbanization increases. Deploying information technology like broadband and 

wireless will help us get the data to run our cities and towns more efficiently and 

decrease the wear and tear on infrastructure. These systems can be added at 

minimal costs today. Projects should include high-quality connectivity in 

communities that don't have it, to promote affordable access for all. 

• Accountability for Every Dollar. There must be public input and a public review of 

the project's benefits and potential impacts on wildlife, air and water quality, jobs 

and public health before any work is undertaken. 

8 
71 


29879.050

• Flexible funding should be allocated for local and regional infrastructure planning. 

The stream of federal dollars for infrastructure should go directly to communities 

rather than solely to states. Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the nation's 

large and small urban areas should be able to have direct access to funding so 

that local communities can fulfill their own infrastructure visions. This addresses, 

for example, the historic challenge of implementation funding for innovative local 

plans-some of which were years in the making under the interagency 

Partnership for Sustainable Communities-but were not funded by states. This 

local focus should also include the hiring of local workers for community projects, 

putting economic opportunity in the hands of the very people affected. 

• Good, forward-looking jobs are important. We must prepare Americans for the 

future. Infrastructure projects are an opportunity for good jobs beyond 

construction. It's important that for construction projects, costs aren't reduced on 

the backs of bad deals for workers. New industries that accelerate an entire 

supply, like clean energy jobs are our future. The growth in clean energy and 

sustainable jobs is one of the brightest spots on our economic horizon. 

We believe one of the bills that is subject of this hearing, H.R. 2479 Leading 

Infrastructure for Tomorrow's America Act, is a positive alternative to the scapegoating 

and diversionary tactics of attacking environmental laws and properly addressing our 

infrastructure needs. For jurisdictional purposes, it only covers programs and projects in 

this Committee's purview but is a good template for the other committees with 

jurisdiction over infrastructure to really address the issue rather than pretend we can 

make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. 

I want to specifically mention the LIFT's Act provisions addressing our drinking water 

problems including lead pipes. Toxic lead that impacts children's mental development 

cannot be a partisan issue. Making American children safe from lead poisoning needs 

to be addressed and addressed now. I have attached to my written testimony, the more 

detailed testimony of my colleague Larry Levine. This testimony addresses both 

9 
72 

[Mr. Slesinger’s full statement can be found at: https:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16- 

wstate-slesingers-20180130-u5050.pdf.] 


29879.051

drinking and surface water infrastructure needs and recommendations to address the 

very important affordability issues. 

We ask the Congress to seriously address our infrastructure needs, to take into account 

the threats from climate change and build resilient and energy efficient systems that 

improve the quality of life with an infrastructure plan attuned to the needs of the 21st 

century. We can do this smarter and better --by using --not crippling, the environmental 

review process. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. NRDC looks forward to working with the 

committee on bold and effective solutions to our nation's infrastructure challenges. 

10 
73 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Hovis, 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOANNE S. HOVIS 

Ms. HOVIS. Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, members of the subcommittee, thank you for your commitment to bridging the digital divide. I am Joanne Hovis. I am President of CTC 

Technology and Energy, a communications engineering and planning consultancy. I am also CEO of the Coalition for Local Internet 

Choice, a coalition of public and private entities that believe solving 

our Nation’s broadband challenges requires a full range of options, 

including locally-driven efforts and public-private collaboration. 

As we look forward to Super Bowl Sunday, I suggest today that 

our country’s drive to bridge the digital divide is a critical test of 

our ability to develop a winning strategy on one of the most important playing fields of the 21st century. Let me ask a couple questions in this regard. First, do we actually have a winning strategy? 

Much of the current discussion here in Washington seems premised on the idea that a winning broadband strategy will smash 

so-called barriers such as environmental processes, local process, 

and cost of access to public facilities. In my experience, the premise 

is wrong. As multiple members of this panel have said, the fundamental reason we do not seek comprehensive broadband deployment throughout the United States is that areas with high infrastructure costs per user, particularly rural areas, fail to attract private capital. To solve this, all levels of government can take steps 

to improve the economics of broadband deployment in areas where 

investment has been insufficient. These include not only rural communities, but also underserved urban areas, such as small business 

locations in cities and suburbs, and low-income areas where adoption is low and incumbents see no return that justifies network upgrades. Particular attention and support must be directed to those 

areas. Without such efforts, private dollars will continue to flow 

primarily to the most profitable areas. 

A focused game plan would involve these plays. First, support 

public-private partnerships that ease the economic challenges in 

constructing rural, urban, and tribal infrastructure; second, incent 

local efforts to build communications infrastructure, infrastructure 

that private internet service providers can use by making bonding 

and other financing strategies more feasible, potentially through 

reduced interest payments or expanded use of tax exempt bonds or 

expansion of the new market tax credit programs; empower local 

governments to pursue broadband solutions of all types, including 

use of public assets to attract and shape private investment patterns so as to leverage taxpayer-funded property and to create competitive dynamics that attract incumbent investment; require all 

entities that benefit from public subsidy, including assets to publics 

assets, to make enforceable commitments to build in areas that are 

historically unserved or underserved; and maximize the benefits of 

competition by requiring that all Federal subsidy programs are offered on a competitive and neutral basis for bid by any qualified 

entity. 

The current strategy doesn’t squarely face the challenge. Many 

current efforts at the FCC and in this body are focused on reducing 

74 

the private sector’s cost of doing business, such as by blanket removal of local process and by forcing local communities to subsidize 

carrier access to public property. All of this simply makes more 

profitable the already profitable areas of the country rather than 

changing the economics of broadband deployment in areas where 

there is no return on investment. 

And if these strategies are premised on the idea that removing 

so-called barriers will lead to rural deployment of 5G, it is critical 

to know that no credible engineer, market analyst, or investor, is 

claiming that 5G deployment is planned or technically appropriate 

for rural areas. This is because 5G is a wireless technology for very 

fast communications over very short distances and is, thus, not 

well-suited to low density areas. 

If the goal is to attract private capital to rural communities, 

making wireless deployment more profitable and high-return metropolitan markets is exactly the wrong way to do it. Rather, this 

approach is like moving the ball a few inches and calling it a touchdown. 

My second question is, do we have the right players on the field? 

Let me suggest that local governments have been most valuable 

players in creating and incenting broadband deployment for years, 

and that it is counterproductive to vilify localities based on the evidence-free assertion that local efforts and local processes restrict or 

deter private investment. The assumption that the Federal Government is more motivated to enable deployment of broadband, ignores the immediacy of the digital divide for local officials. And the 

assumption that the Federal Government is more competent to develop strategies ignores the experience of the past decade, which 

demonstrates across a wide range of public-private collaborations 

that local governments, given the opportunity, will apply creativity, 

local resources, physical assets and diligence to try to solve 

broadband problems. 

My testimony includes examples of a wide range of different public-private collaborations that are in existence or in development in 

communities ranging from West Virginia to Wyoming to New York 

City, to the coastal cities on the West Coast. 

Let me say, finally, that preempting local efforts and authority 

is not a winning strategy, as it simply removes from the playing 

field one of the most important players. 

My thanks for your consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hovis follows:] 

75 


29879.052

Testimony of Joanne S. Hovis 

President, CTC Technology & Energy 

before the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

11Ciosing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" 

January 30, 2018 
76 


29879.053

Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, Members oft he Subcommittee-thank you 

for having me here. And thank you for your commitment to bridging the digital divide. My name 

is Joanne Hovis. I am president of CTC Technology & Energy, a communications engineering and 

planning consultancy serving the public sector. 

I am also CEO of the Coalition for Local Internet Choice, a non-profit entity that brings 

together public and private entities that believe solving our nation's broadband challenges 

requires a full range of options. And this includes locally-driven efforts to deploy networks and 

create public-private collaboration. 

As we look forward to Super Bowl Sunday, I suggest today that our country's drive to 

bridge the digital divide is a critical test of our ability to develop a winning strategy on one of the 

most important playing fields of the 21st century. 

My comments focus on two critical questions about this essential effort. My first question 

is, do we actually have a winning strategy? Much of the current discussion here in Washington 

seems premised on the idea that a winning broadband strategy will smash so-called barriers, such 

as environmental permitting, local process, and costs of access to public facilities. 

The premise is wrong. In reality, the fundamental reason we do not see comprehensive 

broadband deployment throughout the United States is that areas with high infrastructure costs 

per user, particularly rural areas, fail to attract private capital. This is not surprising. Nor is it a 

value judgment. It is simply how private investment works. If return on investment is low or 

nonexistent, the investment will not be made. 

1 
77 


29879.054

To solve this, state, local, and federal governments can take steps to improve the 

economics of broadband deployment in areas where investment has been insufficient. These 

areas include not only rural communities, but also underserved urban areas such as small 

business locations in cities and suburbs, as well as low-income areas where adoption is low and 

incumbents see no return that justifies network upgrades. Particular attention and support must 

be directed to those areas; without such efforts, private dollars will continue to flow primarily to 

the most profitable areas. 

A better game-plan would involve these plays: 

• First, support public-private partnerships that ease the economic challenges of 

constructing rural and urban infrastructure 

• Second, incent local efforts to build infrastructure-ones that private service providers 

can use-by making bonding and other financing strategies more feasible, potentially 

through reduced interest payments or expanded use of tax-exempt bonds 

• Third, target meaningful infrastructure capital support to rural and urban broadband 

deserts, not only to attract private capital but also to stimulate private efforts to gain or 

retain competitive advantage 

• Fourth, empower local governments to pursue broadband solutions of all types, including 

use of public assets to attract and shape private investment patterns, so as to leverage 

taxpayer-funded property and create competitive dynamics that attract incumbent 

investment 

2 
78 


29879.055

Fifth, require all entities that benefit from public subsidy, including access to public assets, 

to make enforceable commitments to build in areas that are historically unserved or 

underserved 

• And, maximize the benefits of competition by requiring that all federal subsidy programs 

are offered on a competitive and neutral basis for bid by any qualified entity 

Such strategies directly address the core reason the digital divide persists: lack of return 

on investment in many areas of the country. 

let me be very clear why the current strategy doesn't squarely face the challenge. Current 

efforts are focused on reducing the private sector's costs of doing business, such as by removing 

local processes, waiving environmental protections, and forcing local communities to subsidize 

carrier access to public property. All of this simply makes more profitable the already profitable 

areas of the country. Reducing those requirements does not fundamentally change the 

economics of broadband deployment in areas where return-on-investment is challengingbecause the local processes and environmental and historic protections are such a small part of 

the economics of reaching and serving a rural area. 1 Rather, at best, these efforts tinker at the 

margins of broadband economics; at worst, they distract from the key issues and misdirect 

resources. 

1 Please see the declaration and report written by my colleague, Dr. Andrew Afflerbach, for the Smart 

Communities Siting Coalition. http:ljwww.ctcnet.us/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Streamlining-Deployment-ofSmaii-Cell-lnfrastructure-by-lmproving-Wireless-Facilities-Siting-Policies.pdf. This report, which has been filed in 

multiple FCC proceedings and never countered or disputed by industry participants, discusses how reducing local 

processes and fees will have marginal impact on rural broadband deployment. It suggests, rather, that local 

coordination, public-private planning, and partnership are tested means of enabling deployment. 

3 
79 


29879.056

If we want to solve deployment issues in rural and low-income areas, we must target our 

solutions to those areas, and the solutions we choose must be adequate to the task. One-sizefits-all approaches will not bridge the digital divide because they effectively provide most of their 

benefit to providers in better-served areas that don't need incentives, without requiring the 

providers to invest some of their windfalls in more challenging areas. In other words, legislation 

or regulatory activity that purports to remove so-called barriers like local processes and fees may 

make for more profitable carriers in well-served areas. But they won't be sufficient to incent 

deployment in rural and urban broadband deserts. 

Furthermore, if these strategies are premised on the idea that removing so-called barriers 

will lead to rural deployment of the emerging wireless technologies known as "SG," it's critical to 

know that no credible engineer, market analyst, or carrier is claiming that SG deployment is 

planned or technically appropriate for rural areas. This is because SG, which is still in 

developmental stages, is a wireless technology for very fast communications over very short 

distances. No wireless carrier would use SG to serve low-density rural areas, any more than a 

team would focus on short-yard plays when far from the end zone, behind at the end of the 

fourth-quarter. If the goal is to attract private capital to rural communities, making wireless 

deployment more profitable in high-return metropolitan markets is exactly the wrong way to do 

it. 

In summary: Doubling down on existing broadband investment patterns by making them 

even more profitable will not close this nation's digital divide. Rather, this approach is like moving 

the ball a few inches and calling it a touchdown. 

4 
80 


29879.057

My second question about our digital divide strategy is: Do we have the right players on 

the field? Let me suggest that local governments have proven themselves most valuable players 

in creating and incenting broadband deployment for many years-and that it's counterproductive to vilify localities based on the evidence-free assertion that local efforts and local 

processes restrict or disincent private deployment. 

The assumption that the federal government is more motivated to enable deployment of 

this critical economic development infrastructure ignores the immediacy of the broadband need 

and the digital divide for local officials. And the assumption that the federal government is more 

competent to develop strategies to in cent broadband deployment ignores the experience of the 

past decade, which demonstrates that local governments, given the opportunity, will apply 

creativity, local resources, physical assets, and diligence to try to solve broadband problems. For 

example, when Google Fiber first got started, more than 1,100 communities offered access to 

infrastructure, data, and other help to try and attract the company. 

And they are not alone. Hundreds of localities have reached out to companies like AT&T 

and other incumbents, C-Spire, Ting Internet, Metro net, ALLO Communications, and many others 

to offer what amount to economic development packages and other incentives in return for 

commitments to deploy broadband infrastructure. Local collaborations are in formation between 

public and private sectors in hundreds of communities, to the benefit of both. The federal and 

state governments should not disrupt them. 

Make no mistake: It is in areas where localities have been free to use their creativity, 

public assets, and legal authority to incent opportunity where we have seen some of the most 

robust broadband deployment. Observe the small towns in the Tennessee Valley that are 

5 
81 


29879.058

connected with ubiquitous community-owned fiber optics; the Google Fiber cities where 

incumbents, led by AT&T, have greatly increased their upgrade investments to react to the threat 

of competition; the communities in Mississippi that competed to attract C-Spire investment; the 

Indiana towns that developed economic development packages to attract Metronet; and so 

many others. The data are clear: The areas of the country with the best infrastructure and the 

liveliest competition are areas where localities have been able to engage in addressing their 

broadband needs based on local strategies and local needs. 

Is it wise or appropriate for the federal government to interfere with those and many 

other potential local initiatives? Is the federal government better able to understand how to work 

with companies to meet both private and community needs? And is it really accurate to assume 

that industry giants like AT&T and Verizon cannot ably negotiate with localities-and require the 

intervention of the federal government to protect them? 

Broadband is an existential issue for many local governments. No one recognizes better 

than an elected local official the importance of broadband to the economic vitality of a 

community, and its attractiveness for residents, workers, and businesses. 

In short, it's counter-productive to tie the hands of the public officials-the very people 

who have the greatest incentive to solve these problems effectively and efficiently. 

Let me share a few examples of the local motivation and creativity I see throughout the 

country: 

• In Spring Hill, Kansas and Pikeville, Kentucky, local communities are seeking to deploy 

fiber optic infrastructure to enable private sector service provision and competition as 

part of a broader economic development strategy. In Pikeville, the goal is to replace the 

6 
82 


29879.059

declining coal economy with a coding economy, which is possible only with robust and 

plentiful broadband. 

• Seattle has sought ideas from the private sector and has developed strategies for enabling 

wireless broadband service to low-income communities and users; the City is considering 

strategies to incent companies to serve lower-income parts of the City. 

• In Gallup, New Mexico, the city's utility seeks to deploy infrastructure for public safety 

that will also enable private sector services in an area where private sector infrastructure 

deployment has not emerged. 

• San Francisco is considering establishing an innovative public-private partnership that 

would ensure deployment and provision of ubiquitous best-in-class services with 

particularly attractive and affordable pricing for the 150,000 San Francisco residents who 

are not currently able to purchase existing high bandwidth products. 

• In Michigan, a number of rural townships that are unserved with broadband are seeking 

to build broadband infrastructure in their rights-of-way and partner with private entities 

for service provision. A local non-profit, the Michigan Broadband Cooperative, formed to 

work with and coordinate among the townships so that they can learn from each other 

and build sustainable partnership strategies. 

• In Sublette County, Wyoming, and Huntington, West Virginia, the local governments are 

seeking to deploy infrastructure to business districts to enable private sector services in 

an area where private sector infrastructure deployment has not emerged. Bowling Green, 

Kentucky has done exactly that: the city built fiber infrastructure to businesses and has 

enabled local companies to compete in the global marketplace. 

7 
83 


29879.060

• Boston has developed an innovative partnership with an open access fiber and wireless 

infrastructure provider in which the City incented new, open fiber deployment by 

leveraging the needs of schools and public safety facilities for fiber-based services. 

• Rural Queen Anne's County, Maryland has been working with local incumbents seeking 

partnership opportunities to support broadband deployment. 

• New York City late last year released a request for information seeking industry ideas for 

how the city and private entities can collaborate to bridge the considerable digital divide 

in which low-income New Yorkers have fewer broadband choices and challenges 

affording high bandwidth options where they exist. In a clear indication of the potential 

for city-led public-private collaboration, the city received more than three dozen 

substantive responses. 

• In Wilson, North Carolina, the public utility extended gigabit internet to rural areas in its 

electric footprint. It enabled a large family farm to export its sweet potatoes to the 

European market by meeting Europe's high food monitoring requirements. At the same 

time, the utility was the only carrier to help the GOO-home rural town of Pinetops with 

free connectivity to the local church and shelter during the 2016 flood following Hurricane 

Matthew. 

• In Lafayette, Louisiana, Chattanooga, Tennessee, and dozens of other communities, local 

governments have developed their own advanced communications networks after 

finding the incumbent providers unwilling or unable to upgrade their networks in a timely 

manner to meet local needs. 

8 
84 


29879.061

Blaming localities for the digital infrastructure divide ignores these and thousands of 

other local efforts. At the same time, tying the hands of localities reduces their ability and 

incentive to work creatively with partners of all sorts to solve these problems. And preempting 

local authority over infrastructure assets such as light poles removes from the local toolkit 

incentives that localities can use to attract and shape private broadband deployment. 

In short: Preempting local efforts and authority is not a winning strategy; it simply 

removes from the playing field one of the most important players: local government. Let me 

suggest that the urgency of this task, bridging the infrastructure digital divide, calls for all players 

to take the field. 

My thanks for your consideration of my comments and for your commitment to this 

enormously important issue. 

9 
85 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. Ms. Swanson Katz, 

you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ELIN SWANSON KATZ 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and distinguished members of the committee. 

I am the consumer counsel from the State of Connecticut—go Patriots—you brought it up. I am head of a small, independent, nonpartisan state agency that advocates for consumers on issues relating to electricity, natural gas, water, and telecommunications. 

In that capacity, I serve as Governor Malloy’s designee to the 

Intergovernmental Advisory Committee to the FCC, in which I 

serve as chairman. I am also President of the National Association 

of State Utility Consumer Advocates, an organization of 44 consumer advocates across the country, including the District of Columbia. And in that capacity, I serve on the FCC’s Joint Board for 

Universal Service. So my interest in this and my time spent on this 

is deep. 

So I thank you for your interest and your attention to this important issue of the digital divide. As you know, there are, as we have 

heard, there are many, many Americans who—and particularly 

small businesses—that do not have access to broadband. 

According to Pew Research Center, that is about 25 percent of 

Americans do not have a broadband connection in their home. That 

number rises to an astonishing 39 percent in rural America. And 

there is approximately 5 million homes with school-aged children 

which are equal over 17 percent of those homes with school-aged 

children do not have a broadband connection. And it is particularly 

egregious in low income households. 

In Connecticut, we wanted to learn more about the digital divide, 

particularly as it impacts children. And you may be surprised by 

that, since Connecticut is generally seen as an affluent state with 

generally-sound broadband infrastructure. However, like every 

state, we have unserved and underserved communities. We, therefore, commissioned a report with the Hartford-based group called 

Strategic Outreach Services to assess the affordability of an accessibility of broadband for students in the north end of Hartford. 

That is a predominantly ethnic minority community with predominantly low income but, nonetheless, an area known for its community pride and commitment to its schools. 

And we worked in that partnership with Janice Flemming-Butler, who is the president of that organization, and founder. And I 

mention her, because she is in the room today, which is a testimony to her commitment. And for those of you who are interested, 

I urge you to talk with her. 

So we met in that capacity. We met with educators and parents 

and students. We met with church leaders. We met with neighborhood watch site organizations. We met with city leaders. We talked 

to literally hundreds of people in the North End of Hartford. And 

what we learned is that many students in the North End suffer 

from the Homework Gap, that area that we define as generally between 6:00 to 10:00 p.m. When students need access to connection 

to do their homework. 

86 

And what we heard is that many students take extreme measures because they don’t have a broadband access at home, either 

for affordable or because of access. And we heard stories that students would go to fast food restaurants to try to do their homework. And in fact, one of the local restaurants changed its policy 

so you could no longer sit there that long, seemingly in response. 

We also learned that students venture out at night into all kinds 

of weather trying to catch Wifi from other buildings. People were 

upset that the public schools shut down the Wi-Fi after hours, so 

students can sit nearby, although we learned they did it because 

of safety concerns. 

We heard from parents who recognized that broadband was important to their children, but simply found it unaffordable or unavailable at any price, or the back balances prevented renewals. 

We saw long lines of students queued up at the public libraries to 

use their computers, although when they closed at 6:00, they had 

nowhere to go. And in fact, since we have done the reports, some 

of those branches have closed. 

There is also frustration expressed that policymakers saw a 

smart phone as a substitute, but that is not an adequate substitute. It is very expensive to do your homework on a smart phone, 

and it is very hard to type a paper. So there is simply not an adequate substitute. 

So what troubled me as a consumer advocate, as a former teacher, as a parent, and as a human being is that if it is happening 

in Connecticut, it is happening everywhere. And no child should 

have to sit in Dunkin’ Donuts or McDonald’s to do their homework, 

or sit outside in the dark trying to finish a project. And the implications for our education system and the quality of education that 

we deliver to children in low income urban communities, and rural 

communities, is profound. 

We would never say to students whose parents can’t afford textbooks, I am sorry, you don’t get to learn history, or math, or 

English. Or if you don’t live near a library, I am sorry, you don’t 

have access. But that is, in effect, what we are saying to these children, to the entire generations by failing to address the Homework 

Gap in so many areas. 

So my ask for you today is that you consider the urban communities as well as the rural communities. We are working with both 

in Connecticut. And it is not just this question of adoption. It is not 

just simply that they can’t afford it, it is also a question of quality. 

And that makes a difference as well. 

So thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Swanson Katz follows:] 

87 


29879.062

Testimony of Elin SWanson Katz, Connecticut Consumer Counsel 

before the 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

hearing entitred 

"Closing the o·lgital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" 

Good morning, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Doyle, and distinguished 

members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on the important topic of closing the digital divide. 

Since 2011, I have served as the Consumer Counsel for the State of Connecticut. I 

head the Office of Consumer Counsel (OCC), a small, independent, and nonpartisan 

state agency that serves as the public advocate on matters relating to electricity, 

water, natural gas, and telecommunications. Within the OCC is the Connecticut State 

Broadband Office. I also serve as Connecticut Governor Dannel P. Malloy's designee 

to the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Intergovernmental Advisory 

Committee (lAC), and serve as its Chair. I am also the President of the National 

.Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), an association of44 

consumer advocates in 40 states and the District of Columbia. I also represent 
88 


29879.063

NASUCA on the FCC's Joint Board for Universal Service. Except as noted, my 

remarks here today are in my capacity as Connecticut's Consumer Counsel. 

I am grateful for the Committee's attention to the disparities in access, availability, 

speed, and cost that we see across our nation with respect to broadband internet 

services. As noted in the Committee's background memo, "The importance of 

broadband in modern American life and the economy cannot be overstated." 

Broadband has revolutionized how we communicate, conduct commerce, educate our 

children, engage with health care providers, and participate in government. 

Unfortunately, as you know, there are millions of Americans who do not have 

broadband internet access in their homes, and tens of thousands of businesses (or 

more)- typically small businesses- that also do not have access to broadband 

internet services. According to the Pew Research Center, 25% of Americans still do 

not have broadband internet access service in their homes. 1 Approximately 5 million 

households with school-age children, equating to 17.5% of such households, do not 

have a broadband internet connection at home2, with low-income households 

accounting for a disproportionate share. 3 The problem is also particularly acute in rural 

America, as 39% of rural Americans lack access to broadband internet access 

service.4 

1 Pew Researoh Center, Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet, January 12,2017. 2 Pew Researoh Center, "The numbers behind the broadband homework gap," April 20, 2015. 

'Pew Research Center, "Digital divide persists even as lower-income Americans make gains in tech adoption," 

March 22, 2017. 4 Federal Communications Commission, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, January 29, 2016. 

2 
89 


29879.064

But these statistics are just numbers, and as members of this Committee, I am sure 

you have heard them or similar numbers before. Today, I'd like to tell you a little about 

the people; that is, the stories behind the numbers. Let me start with what we have 

found in Connecticut as part of our effort to study and address the "Homework Gap," 

the households with school-age children that do not have a broadband connection. 

It is perhaps surprising to think about Connecticut as a focus of the Digital Divide, as 

overall, we are generally an affluent state with sound broadband infrastructure. 

Nonetheless, like every state, we have underserved and unserved pockets, 

particularly in urban and rural communities. In particular, we found that many 

legislators and policymakers were not aware of the fact that there are large numbers 

of children in our cities who do not have broadband access at home. We therefore 

commissioned a report with a community-based communications company in Hartford, 

Connecticut, Strategic Outreach Services (SOS), to assess the affordability and 

accessibility of broadband internet service for students in the North End of Hartford, an 

area of the city predominantly low-income, demographically made up entirely of ethnic 

minorities, and also one known for its community pride and commitment to ensuring its 

students reach their full potential. SOS was founded by Janice Flemming-Butler, who 

is also founder and CEO of The Voices of Women of Color, a social justice 

organization that teaches leadership skills to women of color. Ms. Flemming-Butler is 

in the audience today, along with her colleague Andrea Comer. 

In order to collect first-hand accounts and data, over the course of many months in 

2017, we met with community groups in Hartford, attended Neighborhood 

3 
90 


29879.065

Revitalization Zone (NRZ) meetings and other stakeholder meetings, and spoke with 

parents, educators, and students in the North End. 

What we learned is that many students in North Hartford suffer from the "Homework 

Gap," in that after school hours, and particularly from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., they lack the 

home internet access enjoyed by their suburban peers. In fact, the SOS report found 

that students in the North End face a "broadband desert," which forces them to 

continually search for safe, reliable broadband service connections outside of their 

homes. For example: 

• Students used the Wi-Fi access at a local fast food restaurant to do homework 

(however, the restaurant subsequently changed its policies so as to limit the 

time a patron to could stay at a table); 

• Students venture out at night, regardless of the weather, in an attempt to 

access Wi-Fi near buildings; 

• The public schools shut down Wi-Fi access after-hours, so that students cannot 

sit nearby and complete homework; 

• Many parents recognized that broadband internet access was important to their 

children, but found it simply unaffordable or unavailable at any price, or that 

back balances prevented renewals; 

• There are long lines of students (and adults) queued up to use the public 

libraries' computers before their 5 p.m. closure; 

• There were also numerous expressions of frustration that a "smart phone" is 

often viewed by policymakers and the public as a substitute for a home 

4 
91 


29879.066

connection for broadband internet access, when smart phones are typically 

expensive and difficult to use to complete written schoolwork or write papers. 

The report concludes: 

It is clear that broadband internet service plays a significant role in 

educational progress in North Hartford. The limited access to quality 

technology impacts the learning experienced by many students who 

attend Hartford schools. This often results in a lack of equity for North 

Hartford students, which impacts their ability to leave school with the 

requisite tools needed to move on to higher education and to contribute 

to the state's workforce. Families affected by the Homework Gap; the 

majority of whom are minority and low-income, struggle to find access to 

affordable broadband internet services in their home, and also may 

require training and technical support once they obtain access. 

Surprisingly, such services are nqt available to many North Hartford 

residents at any price. 5 

What we learned about and heard from students in North Hartford is deeply trot.~bling 

to me as a consumer advocate, a former teacher, a parent, and as a human being. 

No child should have to do their homework at a McDonald's or Dunkin' Donuts, or sit 

outside, in the dark, trying to finish a school project using someone else's Wi-Fi. The 

implications for our educational system and the quality of education thatwe deliver to 

children in low-income urban communities is profound. We cannot hope to lift children 

out of poverty, to realize their potential, and to prepare them to participate in our 

global economy, if we do not provide them with basic educational resources like 

reliable, affordable access to broadband internet services. 

5 A copy of th~ report, • Assessment of the Broadband 'Homework Gap' In Hartford," July 13, 2017, 1$ appended to 

my testimony as Attachment 1 and also .available online at this link: htto;//www.ct.gov/occl!lb/occ/2017-

onl sos-osb report flnal.pdf. 

5 
92 


29879.067

We have never said to children whose parents cannot afford textbooks, "Sorry, you 

don't get to learn math or history or science.''6 However, by failing to address the fact 

that too many students live in neighborhoods with low-quality broadband internet 

access and families that can't afford even a basic broadband internet connection, we 

are in effect sending the same message. 

This situation is by no means limited to Hartford. I have worked with municipal 

officials, educators, small businesses, and other stakeholders in other cities and towns 

as they work to bring attention to the lack of affordable, reliable access to broadband 

internet services in certain low-income portions of their communities, and to identify 

solutions, both short-term and long-term. 

It is a question not just of afford ability, but of access and the quality of access. We 

heard, as discussed in th'e Homework Gap report, that residents, schools and 

business owners experience challenges with connectivity and access. This situation 

was also documented in a 2016 report from my office, "A Brief Overview of Broadband 

Deficiencies in Connecticut," prepared by CTC Technologies? 

• As one student told me, "It's not that my ·mom doesn't know It's Important, but sometimes after she pays the 

rent and buys food and gets whatever my little brother needs, there just isn't any money left over.• This 

underscored to me one particular difficulty faced by families that live paycheck. to paycheck, and ~om11tlmE1S ~n't 

afford the monthly bill for Internet services: it's not generally a portable commodity; you can't purchase some 

broadband at the store like a loaf of bread when you have the available funds. This makes providing this essential 

educational resource even more challenging for low-Income families. 

1 A copy ofthe report, "A Brief Overview of Broadband Deflderich~s In Connecticut," March 2016, is appended to 

this testimony as Attachment 2 and available online at this link: http:!lwww.ctepet.us/wpcontent/uploads/2016/03/A-Brlef-Overview-of-Broadband-Deficlencles-in-Connectjcut-20160322.pdf. 

6 
93 


29879.068

That work also focused in part in Hartford, Connecticut. Prior to the Strategic 

Outreach Services study and report, my office worked in late 2015 and early 2016, 

with CTC Technology & Energy (CTC), a telecommunications engineering and 

consulting firm. A CTC engineer conducted site visits at business locations suggested 

to us by Hartford officials. We visited urban areas of the state on December 14,2015 

and rural areas on January 6, 2016. We met with a range of users and institutions, 

discussed broadband capabilities and challenges, performed speed tests, and 

surveyed broadband physical plant. 

While Connecticut is lauded by incumbent providers as having access to fiber services 

in excess of 90% across the state, CTC found a range of broadband challenges in 

pockets of Connecticut, including: 

1) Maximum speeds far less than what businesses need for current operations; 

2) Limited or no affordable competitive options for broadband services; 

3) Growing needs for broadband that will further exceed the current broadband 

services; and 

4) Long delays in obtaining services. 

From our urban surveys we found evidence of high-quality fiber and cable broadband 

services in proximity to the poorly served locations. However, the individuals at those 

locations reported that service providers decline to connect users to those services, or 

will do so only at a prohibitively high cost-approximately $10,000 to $30,000 for a 

short street crossing. Also, services are costly-from ~1,000 to $2,000 per month. 

7 
94 


29879.069

Our survey work found businesses operating at the equivalent of dial-up internet 

speeds. For example, Scotts' Jamaican Bakery (801 Windsor St., Hartford) is locally 

famous for its products and operates in a former manufacturing facility. Scotts' has 

multiple locations in Hartford for food preparation and retail sales. In addition to typical 

business Internet communications, Scotts' needs broadband for its telephone system, 

to update its website, and for USDA inspectors to connect. Scott's cannot operate a 

unified telephone system or an interconnected point-of-sale system across its 

locations. The owner, Gordon Scott, reports he has had serious problems with 

broadband since 2008 and needs to do all but the most rudimentary Internet tasks 

from his house. In fact, he told us that to send an email from this facility, he has to 

have everyone hang up any phone calls. When we tested his connection, we found a 

download speed of 1.44 Mbps, the functional equivalent of dial-up speeds. At the 

time, Scotts' was paying $290 per month for service, and had been quoted a 

connection cost of $8,000 to connect to a fiber node that was already located on his 

street. 

In addition, we documented challenges faced in rural parts of Connecticut. As 

discussed in the Deficiencies report, members of the Northwest Hills Council of 

Governments (NHCOG), which is a coordinating body for chief elected officials from 

twenty-one rural Connecticut towns,8 attended a meeting in Caanan, Connecticut. 

They reported that it is difficult for residents in the surrounding areas to get quality 

broadband. In rural housing distant from the town center, only dial-up connections are 

• The Northwest Hills Council of Governments members are Barkhamsted, Burlington, Canaan, Colebrook, 

Cornwall, Goshen, Hartland, Harwinton, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Hartford, Norfolk, North Canaan, Roxbury, 

Salisbury, Sharon, Torrington, Warren, Washington, and Winchester. 

8 
95 


29879.070

available in some areas, lower speed DSL in others. Individuals have received quotes 

from incumbent providers as high as $60,000 for fiber connections to their residences. 

While this report received significant pushback from some industry representatives 

and claims that I was "cherry-picking• data to overstate the problem, at the same time, 

I received a number of inquiries from disgruntled mayors in other Hartford 

municipalities asking why I hadn't also profiled the underserved areas in their 

communities. So these underserved urban pockets are a problem in many, many 

cities. In preparing my testimony, I also went back and checked on the locations 

which we tested, and for all but one of them, the situation remains the same. So 

progress is not coming, or certainly is not coming quickly enough for these small 

businesses. 

There are challenges in identifying a path forward for urban communities like North 

Hartford and certain rural towns such as those in the NHCOG, but there is also much 

reason to be hopeful. The fact that legislators such as yourselves are taking notice 

and looking for options is a very positive sign. Based on the work we have done in 

Connecticut, as well as the work I have done at the national level through the FCC 

committees and NASUCA, I suggest the following: 

• Recognize that the Digital Divide exists in urban as well as rural 

communities. 

There has been widespread recognition that many rural American communities, 

whether small towns, isolated hamlets, or Tribal areas, are at a crisis point. A 

lack of access to, or availability of, affordable, reliable broadband internet 

9 
96 


29879.071

service is crippling the ability of many rural areas to participate in the digital 

economy; access health care, education, and other essential services; and 

attract or retain young people. Access to such service is vital to the economic 

health of our rural communities. 

There has been less attention, however, to the problem faced by many lowincome urban communities. These urban centers, which often include 

significant minority populations, are less readily visible, as they are often 

broadband "deserts" surrounded by or adjacent to wealthier neighborhoods and 

suburbs with greater options. However, lack of affordable, reliable access in 

urban communities is just as impactful on its residences as on their rural 

counterparts. Seemingly intractable problems such as the achievement gap in 

education and the urban cycle of poverty cannot be solved without the provision 

of reliable, affordable broadband access. 

• Acknowledge the role of federal, state, and local governments in ensuring 

affordable, reliable access to broadband internet services. 

I again thank the Committee for implicitly acknowledging that government at all 

levels has a role in ensuring that our citizens have access to broadband internet 

service. It is also now time to explicitly recognize that role. Ensuring affordable 

access to essential services is one of the elemental obligations of government, 

and these are public policy goals that form the center of activities for the two 

state agencies I manage. Broadband internet service, as noted in the 

Committee's background memo, is one such essential service. The existence 

10 
97 


29879.072

of the Digital Divide demonstrates that there is much work to be done to provide 

universal access throughout the country. 

As noted in Resolution 2017-04 of the National Organization of State Utility 

Consumer Advocates (NASUCA), URGING LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL 

OFFICIALS TO ENSURE RELIABLE BROADBAND INTERNET ACCESS 

SERVICES ARE ACCESSIBLE AND AFFORDABLE TO ALL CONSUMERS, 

"universal access to affordable communications service is a bedrock principle of 

the policies of the United States, including the Communications Act of 1934 and 

the Telecommunications Act of 1996."9 

Legacy phone service carries with it a regulatory universal service obligation 

requiring phone companies to provide service to consumers. Internet service 

providers (ISPs) .have no such regulatory service obligation. They can and will 

generally choose to serve only areas which serve their economic interest, i.e., 

where they can make a profit. This does not make ISPs selfish or 

unreasonable- it makes them businesses. However, as federal, state, and 

local officials did with electricity, it is incumbent upon government officials to 

work with ISPs and promote competition to ensure that underserved or 

unserved areas are able to obtain reliable, affordable broadband internet 

service. 

• This NASUCA resolUtion Is available at this link: bttp://nasuca.org/nwp/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/2017·04· 

NASUCA-Broadband-Resolution.pdf. 

11 
98 


29879.073

• Support Ongoing Mapping of the Availability of Broadband Internet 

Services 

In order to effectively deploy resources, it is essential that government officials, 

policymakers, citizens, and industry stakeholders understand the availability of 

broadband internet services, including speed, reliability, and cost of such 

services. Mapping of such services is thus necessary. For such maps to be 

accurate, the data must be independently verifiable and provided to the public 

in a fair and transparent manner. 

• Support self-help efforts by state and local governments 

Many government officials and stakeholders in our cities and towns recognize 

the essential nature of affordable, reliable broadband internet services. They 

are taking steps to help address the Digital Divide in their communities, 

including the Mayor's Office in Hartford, for example. These efforts include 

modeling of public-private partnerships with existing ISPs as well as new 

entrants; developing grant programs to support deployment to underserved and 

unserved areas; and developing regulatory mechanisms such as "Dig Once" 

policies and uniform pole access agreements that help speed the deployment of 

advanced networks. In another example, stakeholders from the rural towns in 

Connecticut's NHCOG (listed above) recognized that market forces alone have 

not brought and will not bring broadband internet access to their rural 

neighborhoods any time in the near future. They thus formed Northwest 

ConneCT, a non-profit organization that is analyzing public-private partnership 

models to build a fiber optic network covering the region, "with unlimited 

12 
99 


29879.074

capacity and an enhancement to our mobile network."10 As their website 

states, "We cannot stand still. We either slide down a long and painful slope or 

we make a change that turns the comer to positive." 

Such efforts by state and local governments to ensure access to essential 

broadband internet services for their communities should be supported and 

applauded. Efforts to prohibit or curtail such actions by state and local 

governments will only harm these underserved and unserved communities, and 

delay or prevent the deployment of next-generation networks. 

• Provide financing, grants, matching funds, and other support for build-out 

of broadband infrastructure 

It is clear that it will take action beyond reliance on traditional market forces to 

build out broadband infrastructure to these underserved and unserved urban 

and rural areas. The proof is that, despite an ever-increasing demand for 

affordable broadband internet service, there has been little improvement in 

these areas, except where there have been government-sponsored efforts to 

support infrastructure development. If market forces do not support build-out of 

infrastructure for this essential service, government has an obligation to step in. 

This is how we ensured every citizen has access to affordable electrical, how 

we ensured they had access to affordable telephone service, and this is how 

we will ensure that they have access to affordable broadband internet service. 

10 The Northwest ConneCT website can be found atthis link: http://northwest-connect.org/. 

13 
100 

[Ms. Swanson Katz’s full statement can be found at: https:// 

docs.house.gov/meetings/if/if16/20180130/106810/hhrg-115-if16- 

wstate-swansonkatze-20180130-u5060.pdf.] 


29879.075

CONCLUSION 

I thank you for your time and attention to this issue. I am heartened by your 

interest, as evidenced by the plethora of legislative proposals before you. If we 

move away from a regulatory scheme that provides a guarantee of universal 

telephone service, it is vital that we look at new roles for government and new 

models for partnerships with industry to ensure we do not lose the promise of 

access to essential communication networks for every citizen and in every 

community. 

14 
101 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. And Ms. Swanson 

Katz, would you please recognize your guest again? 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Yes, Ms. Janice Flemming-Butler. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Janice, would you please stand? 

Thank you for your good work. 

By way of correcting some statements that were made earlier, 

and for the information of those with us today, I wanted to reiterate the subcommittee hearing activities relative to infrastructure 

that have taken place. 

You had November 16th, a hearing on The Race to 5G; October 

25th, FCC Oversight Hearing; July 25th, we had the FCC Reauthorization Legislative hearing; June 21st, the hearing on Defining 

and Mapping Broadband Coverage; and actually, we had some on 

the committee that felt that one was redundant because we had already had a March 21st hearing. An April 5th, Fueling the Wireless Economy hearing; March 29th, Realizing Nationwide NG911; 

March 21st, hearing with the discussion draft, some of those bills 

were now in bill form; and Ms. Eshoo’s Dig Once bill, which has 

bipartisan support was a part of that; and then February 2, Reauthorization of the NTIA. 

So it is time for us to stop talking and get bills in front of us 

and pass them and get to work. And I am going to yield first to 

Chairman Walden for questions. 

Mr. WALDEN. I thank the gentlelady for her leadership on these 

issues but also for yielding, as I have another commitment I have 

to go to. 

I just want to ask a couple of questions and, first of all, thank 

you all for your testimony and your shared commitment with us to 

get broadband out to all Americans: students, seniors, everybody in 

between. 

Mr. Slesinger, in your testimony, I was intrigued, on page 3 you 

said, ‘‘Broadband deployment is not delayed by environmental impact statements. In fact, no broadband project was ever required to 

do one by the Federal Communications Commission.’’ 

You are not really saying no broadband deployment project has 

ever been required to do an EIS, are you? 

Mr. SLESINGER. That is correct. Many have had to do environmental assessments and some may have done—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. So—— 

Mr. SLESINGER. Excuse me. Of the 50,000 Federal activities a 

year, there is only about a couple hundred EISs, and none of the 

ones that we could find in the FCC has never required a full environmental impact statement. 

Mr. WALDEN. Yes. Reclaiming my time, because I think it is actually required through other agencies. Again, 55 percent of my 

district is Federal land, so I am somewhat familiar with this, and 

as I said, it is 69,341 square miles. By the way, Connecticut is 

about 5,544, not that we are counting. New Jersey, 8,722, Mr. Pallone. 

But the point is, I run into this all the time on siting. We are 

trying to get broadband out there. We are trying to get three-phase 

power into—some of our communities have waited 3 years to get 

an EIS to do four power poles on BLM land, and so I think there 

102 

is an issue here with siting. I just think there is more there than 

what you represent in your testimony. 

I want to go to Mr. Gillen. Thank you for your testimony as well. 

As you know, we have seen these situations with various Federal 

laws and State laws that have delayed. I know Mr. Shimkus will 

probably speak to this because it was in his district, I guess. 2016, 

a company was looking to expand by adding a 14-by-10-foot area 

of land adjacent to its existing facility in a parking lot. The study 

they were required to do took 5 months to complete and cost thousands of dollars. 

Have you or Mr. Polka or anybody else on the panel who actually 

does deployment, tell us about the things you have run into. Tell 

us what you like about these bills. You have referenced some in the 

testimony, but your member companies and all, what are you seeing? Is this a problem or isn’t it? Because on one end of the panel 

we hear it is not a problem. On the other end we hear it is a problem. I sort of live in a district like mine firsthand. So, Mr. Gillen, 

do you want to start off? 

Mr. GILLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your example is a good 

one. It is something we face every day throughout the country. Carriers are running into challenges that, particularly when we start 

talking about things like this, that to install 23 of these in a parking lot costs $173,000 in environmental and historic reviews and 

takes many months. We don’t think that makes any sense. There 

are times where it is appropriate to have those types of things—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Mr. GILLEN [continuing]. But streamlining that Representative 

Shimkus and others are pursing is the type of things that will actually expedite deployment now. 

Mr. WALDEN. Could you say that again, that was in a parking 

lot? 

Mr. GILLEN. In a parking lot at NRG Stadium for the Super Bowl 

last year. 

Mr. WALDEN. And it cost how much? 

Mr. GILLEN. $173,000 to site 23 of these. 

Mr. WALDEN. Wow. 

Mr. Polka, do your folks ever run into any siting problems that 

we could address? 

Mr. POLKA. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. I have visited with members all across the country. Our members literally build into their 

budgets time and money because of how long it takes for attachments to poles to produce broadband to be approved and permitted 

and to move forward. Thousands and thousands of dollars where 

application fees are made for makeready, then additional engineering studies are made. Further requests for engineering studies, duplicating the process. The fact that a member company has to build 

in at least 6 months of time, at least, before they can move forward 

on a broadband deployment is actually causing broadband deployment not to be deployed in these most important areas. 

Mr. WALDEN. Ms. Bloomfield? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I would love to jump in on that as well. Just 

to cite a couple of examples, I have a company up in South Dakota 

that had a year-long delay because of needing to get some U.S. Forest Service permitting through. You are in South Dakota. Your 

103 

build time is very short, as Congressman Cramer knows. You have 

got periods of time where you miss that opportunity. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. In Wyoming, we have had a state BLM office 

that actually wound up treating the broadband build like it was a 

pipeline. So they actually had to get bonding to go ahead and do 

the construction when it was really just a broadband conduit. So, 

absolutely, there are instances. And to my fellow panelist’s point, 

time and money is needed to be built into the process. 

Mr. WALDEN. I know my time is about expired. I would argue, 

I am probably one of the few if only chairs of this committee that 

has ever actually been through a tower siting process and antenna 

siting process. I was in the radio business for 20-plus years. And 

while I never climbed a tower, I was involved in a lot of that. So 

I share your pain. 

And I don’t think any of your companies want to do environmental damage. I think it is a complete false argument that somehow we are going to run roughshod over the environment. I reject 

that. That is not the point. The point is that we can streamline the 

discussion process, the siting process in the Federal Government 

that is an analog process in a digital environment. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Doyle, 5 minutes. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to start by recognizing a great Pittsburgher on the panel 

and great CEO of the American Cable Association, Matt Polka. 

Matt, welcome. I think Matt will agree with me, most of us from 

Pittsburgh rarely root for the Philadelphia Eagles, but when they 

are playing the New England Patriots, we are all Eagles fans. I 

hope they win. 

Mr. POLKA. Don’t forget the Steagles too, back in World War II. 

Mr. DOYLE. That is right. Exactly. 

So, Mr. Gillen, I want to make sure I just understood. You were 

holding that box up and said you don’t need any money from the 

Federal Government, just make it easier to streamline, deployment 

of that. And you are not suggesting that you are going to—your 

member companies would take care of the deployment in unserved 

areas in all of rural America or are you talking—are those little 

white boxes going to solve our problem in rural America if we just 

streamline the process? 

Mr. GILLEN. We think there are two separate and important 

problems. This helps us drive 5G. It certainly will be in dense 

areas in cities and towns, but, no, it won’t solve the problem for 

unserved—— 

Mr. DOYLE. OK. I just wanted to clarify that, that this is not a 

solution to rural broadband. 

And, secondly, are some of the impediments to deployment state 

and local issues or are they all Federal issues? 

Mr. GILLEN. Absolutely it is a mix of both. 

Mr. DOYLE. It is a mix of both. OK. Thank you. 

I want to ask Ms. Hovis, in areas that are unserved or underserved we see municipalities, either through public-private partnerships or even on their own, provide broadband to their commuVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00107 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
104 

nities. And in some cases when a municipality offers broadband as 

an alternative to an incumbent that may be there, we have seen 

the incumbent actually lower prices. It has been better for consumers. But we are also seeing a number of states are passing laws 

to prevent municipalities from providing broadband or engaging in 

a public-private partnership. What effect do you think these state 

laws are having on broadband deployment? 

Ms. HOVIS. I think it is detrimental to deployment because, as 

I said earlier, it takes important players off the field, but it also 

stops a competitive dynamic from emerging. The cities and towns 

and communities where we have the most robust broadband and 

the most robust competition are places where some kind of competition has come into that market and incumbents have reacted 

to that competition and invest as a result. 

I will say also that for smaller and rural communities that are 

unserved and underserved, sometimes the only entity that is willing to step up and invest is a community either by itself or through 

a public-private partnership, and I hate to think that we here in 

Washington would try to interfere with local collaborations and 

processes when we are seeing, frankly, a thousand collaborative 

processes bloom around the country. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Let me ask everyone on the panel, and this is just a yes-or-no 

question, does anyone here on the panel believe that we can successfully deploy unserved areas in rural America or underserved 

areas without some sort of Federal investment, that it can just be 

done through streamlining regulation and making deployment 

easy, which I think is important too and we should be doing that. 

But is there anyone here that thinks that we don’t need to appropriate any money to solve this problem? Just yes or no. 

Mr. SPALTER. No. We need direct funding by a universal service 

funding mechanism. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. POLKA. Agreed. 

Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Gillen. 

Mr. GILLEN. Funding would be helpful on a technology-neutral 

basis. 

Mr. DOYLE. So you agree that we need funding, though? I understand your technology. 

Mr. GILLEN. Yes, absolutely. Sure. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. Support is needed to make the business a case 

model in rural America. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mr. SLESINGER. Yes, definitely needed. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Ms. HOVIS. I agree. 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Yes, I agree. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. OK. And lastly, Mr. Gillen, we saw this memo 

that leaked out of the White House, the 5G memo that focused in 

detail on our network cyber vulnerabilities particularly when it 

comes to foreign actors and the proposal of nationalizing our wireless telecommunications infrastructure. I think many of us here on 

the committee on both sides of the aisle seems uninformed. I am 

concerned that the White House and the President have not fully 

105 

addressed and rejected this very troubling proposal. We heard some 

of that today. 

That being said, the security of our Nation’s broadband issue is 

critical. And at the beginning of his tenure, FCC Chairman Pai 

rolled back a number of Commission items related to cybersecurity, 

including a notice of inquiry specifically questioning how the FCC 

could best secure 5G networks. I am concerned that rolling back 

these measures is part of what has caused so much concern 

amongst members of the National Security Council. 

Mr. Gillen, I just want to ask you, do you think it is wise for the 

FCC to roll back cybersecurity initiatives such as this 5G notice of 

inquiry? I mean, if the relevant Federal agency cannot merely ask 

questions about how best to secure 5G networks, how can we hope 

to address this problem? 

Mr. GILLEN. Thank you, Congressman. It is a great question. Cybersecurity is critical to everything we do. If you don’t have a safe 

and secure network, we are not serving the American people and 

we are not doing our jobs. 

With respect to the specific question you asked, we think that cybersecurity is best handled through a partnership with the Department of Homeland Security. They are the experts in those we work 

closely with. And I think the White House proposal, I think Chairman Walden and all five FCC commissioners have characterized it 

very well, so I won’t say anything further about that right now. 

But in terms of the cybersecurity, that is something we work on 

every day and we do need a partnership with the Federal Government to make sure that we understand the threats, and a lot of 

what this community and other committees have focused on information sharing is critical to doing that. 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

I will recognize myself for some questions, and I want to start 

with Mr. Spalter, Gillen, and Polka. You all talked a little bit about 

tax reform and how that would help with investment. And sometimes I think as we talk about the changes in regulatory relief and 

tax reform, people focus on big companies and not on the smaller 

companies. So if you would take just a moment and talk a little bit 

about how tax reform regulatory relief affects your companies in 

the deployment of broadband. 

Mr. SPALTER. Thank you, Chairman. They affect our companies 

both large and small across the board. I had the opportunity recently to visit with some of our smaller companies in western New 

Mexico, western Wyoming, Alaska, and Montana. And to a company, each of them have been elated by the idea that they are 

going to be able to invest more in deploying more broadbands to 

unserved communities, invest more in research and development to 

be able to expand next generation networks, and also provide new 

incentives for their employees, even though they have not met 

many employees. This is a meaningful step forward and augurs 

well for the future of closing the digital divide. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Great. 

Mr. Gillen. 

Mr. GILLEN. I agree with Mr. Spalter. In terms of the wireless 

industry, it means we have seen promises of new jobs, we have 

106 

seen commitments to build out more networks and add capital expenditures, bring money back home. And really it does underscore 

the capital-intensive industries like wireless. This tax reform regulatory relief will make a real difference. Particularly for smaller 

carriers, a lot of the regulatory relief we are talking about—as my 

colleagues have said, they don’t have the staff to manage these 

processes, so any types of streamlining or standardization helps 

them actually do their day jobs and serve consumers. 

Mr. POLKA. Thank you. As I said in my testimony, let’s take a 

count of the successes that exist. Our member companies certainly 

use private funds to deploy broadband, but the benefit of the recently passed tax act cannot be underestimated when you look at 

the investment that now our members as smaller internet service 

providers have to put back into their systems, which they are 

doing. I have heard from members all over the country who have 

said to me that the difference in the corporate tax rate will make 

more money available for the company to reinvest broadband serving now hundreds, thousands more homes that would otherwise be 

uneconomical to serve. So that has helped tremendously already to 

give a boost to smaller businesses, not to mention the deregulation 

that has already occurred. 

For smaller companies, regulations affect them disproportionately. They have fewer customers per mile over which to pass that 

cost of regulation. When the Federal Government takes into account that there was a difference between small and rural and big 

and urban and allows for those smaller companies to be able to deploy sensibly and take into account the burden of regulation, it 

makes a big difference on getting rural broadband out there faster. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you all. 

And, Ms. Bloomfield, I want to come to you now. We spoke briefly about some of the good things in Tennessee. I know north central Tennessee spent like a quarter million dollars on historical reviews and $14 million in investment just to build out this. And Mr. 

Welch mentioned 39 percent of rural America is without 

broadband, and I think people lose sight of that, that there is just 

not that access there. And in Tennessee, we were talking about the 

first round of grants, almost $10 million that has gone out, and we 

have got the Scott County Telephone Co-Op got $1.9 million. They 

are going to use that in Hawkins County. DTC Communications, 

$1.765 million to use in Smith and Wilson Counties, and Sunset 

Digital got $1.4 million to use in Claiborne and Hancock Counties 

to expand that footprint and to bring more people online, and that 

type investment we want to see. 

At the Federal level, of course, we have got $4.53 billion that is 

there in the USF that is going to be over 10 years to expand this 

service, and $2 billion for rural broadband deployment that should 

come from the competitive reverse auction. 

So I want you to talk just a little bit on specifics of how this 

serves to get more people online. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. So, Chairman, I think you raise a really important concept, and that is coordination. How can we ensure that 

what is going on at the Federal level coordinates with what can 

happen on the state level? And I think that is where some of the 

things the committee is looking at, like accurate mapping and makVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00110 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
107 

ing sure we know where the underserved and unserved areas are, 

so that we can focus those limited resources, whether they are universal service dollars. And we are pleased that the FCC is currently circulating an order that looks to restore some of the funding 

that had been subject to the budget mechanism, which will go a 

long way in terms of giving folks regulatory certainty. How do they 

know that they have got the resources to actually deploy? And you 

combine that with some State initiatives. 

What Tennessee has done is really interesting. Minnesota has 

done something similar. Wisconsin has done something similar. 

How do you actually take all of these different pieces so that we 

can thoughtfully, as a country, build out to those consumers that 

actually have not had the opportunity to have access. CAFTA is 

going to be really important. We look at those areas, when that 

auction comes up, as an opportunity for my companies to potentially edge out into communities that are unserved that are neighboring their areas where they may have an opportunity to bring robust broadband like they have to their own incumbent areas out 

to those who are waiting for service. So we are hopeful that those 

rules will be helpful. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you. 

At this time I yield Mr. Welch 5 minutes. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you very much. 

I want to talk about two things. One is a bipartisan bill that I 

have with Mr. McKinley, and then second is this question of the 

rural broadband buildout. And by the way, thank you all for what 

I thought was very, very good testimony. 

Mr. McKinley and I have a bill that would require the FCC to 

define, on an ongoing basis, what is reasonably comparable service 

and reasonably comparable prices in rural and urban America. And 

we have seen, from my perspective, an alarming approach by the 

current FCC chair that is essentially dumbing down, as I see it, 

with successes in rural America. 

Ms. Bloomfield, could you just respond to your view about the 

value of having the FCC, on an ongoing basis, give a concrete and 

scientific answer to the question of reasonably comparable in rural 

versus urban areas? Would that be helpful? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. As I mentioned in the statistics that we have 

in terms of the number of my carriers and what the capacity is, I 

think we do have to figure out how you ensure that particular consumers’ demands increase. The bandwidth demands that people 

are looking for grows exponentially. So how do we make sure that 

you are not creating two different services between rural and urban 

America, and how do you make sure there is comparability there? 

Part of the issue that continues to be the underlying problem, 

however, is the high cost of deploying that network. So, for example, when you look at something like the ability of a rural provider 

to do standalone broadband for the consumer who simply wants the 

ability to access broadband, they may not want the telephone service, they may not want some of the other things that come with it. 

Right now, based on support—sorry. It is going to be very important, but it is going to take resources and it is going to take support from things like universal service. 

Mr. WELCH. Thank you. 

108 

Now, Mr. Doyle asked the question that everyone said affirmatively we do need Federal funding, and I want to go back to that, 

because I have heard a lot about regulatory reform and I have 

heard a lot of good ideas. That makes sense to me. I have heard 

a lot, by the way, that the local efforts are very important, so what 

we do should enhance them, not diminish them. But bottom line, 

there has got to be money just like there was with rural electrification. 

And, Mr. Gillen, in your written testimony, as I read it, you 

didn’t believe there was a need for Federal funding to deploy 5G. 

So if that is the case, would your folks be able to commit that you 

will be deploying 5G services at the same speed and pace in rural 

America as in urban America? 

Mr. GILLEN. 5G will start in dense areas throughout the country. 

A rural town in Burlington, Vermont, will see it. University of 

Vermont will see 5G. It really is to start dense. When you talk 

about reaching the unserved households, you are going to need 

money. 

Mr. WELCH. That is obvious, right? I mean, you go where the 

market is. And there is no expectation, on my part, that anyone 

who has shareholders and has some obligations to the shareholders 

would do anything different. There is a fundamental policy question that only Congress can answer. Are we going to show us the 

money in rural America. 

So there is a bill that Mr. Pallone has that is based on a study 

that the FCC did saying that we really need $40 billion. And Mr. 

Walden raised questions about spending that wisely, and we want 

to do that, make sure it is done right. But of the panelists here, 

does that FCC figure, $40 billion for this buildout for reasonably 

comparable service in rural America, sound like a good number to 

you? I will start with you Jonathan, Mr. Spalter. 

Mr. SPALTER. Congressman Welch, there are numbers of studies 

that have indicated that more monies are needed for reaching ubiquitous access for Americans, a goal that we all share. Not necessarily agreeing with one or another set of numbers, what we all 

agree to is that we do need direct funding where there is no business case to deploy high-speed broadband, especially in unserved 

areas, and using universal service fund as the platform for doing 

so we know is most efficient and most administratively logical. 

Mr. WELCH. And even assuming we do the things that have been 

recommended with regulatory reform and local partnerships, the 

number that we are going to have to spend is in the billions of dollars. Does anyone disagree with that? 

Mr. SPALTER. No. 

Mr. WELCH. Ms. Hovis? 

Ms. HOVIS. I do agree. Unfortunately, it is far more costly to 

build in rural areas on a per-user basis. It gets more and more 

costly with lower density, and not just for capital costs, but also for 

operating costs, and that is the fundamental challenge that we 

face. But directing the funding there and making sure that the 

funding is well suited to the needs there, and the needs are the 

same in rural America as in urban and suburban America. We all 

need high speed. We need scalable networks that are capable of 

109 

growing over time. We don’t need second-rate services in rural 

America. 

Mr. WELCH. My time is up. I want to thank the panel. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Latta. No, Mr. Lance, you are recognized. Five minutes. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

Mr. Spalter, in your testimony, you mentioned that finite Federal 

resources should be targeted to ensure that funding to unserved 

areas, that that funding is prioritized, and I couldn’t agree more 

with that. And I have introduced a resolution stating as much. 

Could you please expand on the importance of prioritizing Federal 

funds to unserved areas of the country, and are we able to learn 

from past mistakes related to this issue when we are deciding how 

best to spend Federal resources? 

Mr. SPALTER. Thank you very much for the question, Vice-Chairman Lance. As stewards of Federal dollars of broadband providers 

in Congress, all of the American republic have to be very, very cautious about how we use those dollars, and we have to make sure 

that they are being used efficiently and to targeted purposes. And 

we are all focused on doing so in ways that will achieve those goals. 

With respect to reaching unserved areas where there is no access 

to broadband. Those high-cost areas require a partner in government-directed funds using universal service fund methodologies is, 

we believe, the appropriate way to go. And there is no doubt that 

in order to fulfill the obligation that we have of closing the digital 

divide, thinking very carefully, as we are doing here today and I 

hope we are going to continue to do, of how we actually can expand 

that universal service budget to—universal service fund budget to 

meet this great goal of closing the digital divide is, I think, a great 

priority for all of this. 

Mr. LANCE. And, Mr. Spalter, do you believe that this will require statutory change or can this be done administratively or will 

it be a combination of both? 

Mr. SPALTER. I believe it can be a combination of both. It will be 

left to Congress to decide its commitment to, in fact, fulfilling this 

great goal we have of closing the digital divide. To do so we understand it is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. Universal service 

funds and the universal service fund platform in the direct funding 

model has been proven to be most efficient in doing so. And we 

think both administratively and through statute there are going to 

be mechanisms of actually achieving this goal, and we are looking 

forward to working with you in doing so. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Would other members of the panel like to comment? 

Yes, Ms. Bloomfield. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I would just like to jump in and say, when I 

look at my membership, it is a combination of universal service 

along with support, like the USDA has with our U.S. So you build 

the business case with universal service that allows folks to get the 

capital funding through things like USDA to actually build these 

networks. And the one thing I would say it is going to be really important for us to be thinking about building future proof networks, 

to make sure that as we look at that underserved and those finite 

110 

resources, that we are using them to build networks that will last 

into the future. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. 

Anyone else like to comment? 

Mr. POLKA. Congressman, I would agree. I would totally agree. 

There certainly is a need, as has been demonstrated in very hard 

to reach unserved areas where Federal funds can be very important to closing that aspect of the digital divide. But then as we look 

at past programs, whether it is at the reform of the Connect America Fund, which is focused on unserved areas ensuring that we are 

using reverse auctions to spend money wisely, these are good ideas 

to employ. 

The last thing we want to do, as I said, is to discourage private 

investment, and one way you would do that, and you recognize this 

because of your resolution, is by permitting any situation where an 

unsubsidized internet service provider would have to face subsidized competition. That is a disincentive to further investment in 

deployment of broadband. 

So, otherwise, I think you are right on target as it relates to focusing on areas where broadband is unserved. Let’s make sure that 

we are not overbuilding the unsubsidized providers. 

Mr. LANCE. So we have to be careful regarding subsidies and 

those nonsubsidized. 

Mr. POLKA. Correct. 

Mr. LANCE. Yes. Anyone else on the panel care to comment? 

Yes, of course. 

Ms. HOVIS. Congressman, my perspective would be that competition in this environment, as in any environment, gets better results. And if there is going to be public funding for broadband deployment, then offering it on a competitive basis so that the best 

situated, most efficient, perhaps most motivated, strongest set of 

partners are able to bid for that kind of thing, rather than offering 

it to a single set of companies where there is no competitive benefit. I think that is a proven strategy. 

Mr. LANCE. I would agree with that. 

Yes. Connecticut near New Jersey, although we have to be careful as to whom we root for in New Jersey. 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. My remarks concerning the New England 

Patriots are my own and do not reflect the nonpartisan views of the 

Connecticut Consumer Counsel. 

I would just like to add that I think when you are talking about 

effective deployment of dollars, Federal, state, at any level, we have 

to recognize the very legitimate important role of state and local 

governments in maximizing those dollars, and I would just encourage you to think about including them in this and not excluding 

them. 

And as an example, in the northwest corner of Connecticut, we 

have 26 municipalities, all nonpartisan, have banded together and 

are looking at models for how they can get a network deployed into 

their neighborhoods. And it is much more efficient to have 26 small 

towns working together in trying to do things like streamlining, 

permitting, and finding siting for these companies then and working with private sector as their model. So, keep that in mind, that 

111 

we will be much more effective if we allow municipalities and local 

leaders to work on this level. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you. My time has expired. My thanks to the 

entire panel. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Pallone, you are recognized. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I think we all agree that better broadband can help provide more 

opportunities for more people. And to make ubiquitous broadband 

a reality, Democrats on this committee have been working on ways 

to make sure everyone, whether they live in rural areas or urban 

areas, has access to better and more affordable broadband services, 

and that is why we introduced the LIFT America Act that would 

provide $40 billion through a mix of reverse auctions and state programs. The bill would prioritize sending money to underserved 

areas and then funding underserved areas, anchor institutions, and 

building our next generation of 911 systems. 

I wanted to start with Mr. Spalter. In your testimony, you discuss the need for Federal funding to support a more expansive 

broadband network. Can you just elaborate on why this is necessary? 

Mr. SPALTER. There is a demonstrable need in America today because of the challenging business case of delivering broadband to 

our unserved areas, our hardest to reach areas for a direct funding 

model. We understand that with best intentions American 

broadband providers are doing everything they can to extend the 

opportunities that broadband can bring, but there still are areas 

that are going to require a partnership with government. We know 

that the direct funding model, again, using platforms like Universal Service Fund, is the most efficient and administratively logical way to actually advance that goal. Direct funding has been and 

will be the principal and most sound funding model for actually 

making the reality of closing the digital divide actually happen. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, thank you. 

Over the past year, Republicans have eliminated our privacy 

rights online and destroyed net neutrality, and now they want to 

eviscerate our environmental and historic preservation laws, and 

they have done all of this in the name of broadband deployment. 

So I wanted to ask Ms. Hovis, have you seen any evidence that 

elimination of these protections will bring broadband to the millions of Americans who are not yet served? 

Ms. HOVIS. No, Congressman. I think that this will make for 

more profitable companies, whether better profitability leads to 

more deployment, particularly in areas that are not going to result 

in profits themselves. It is just not clear to me that there is a link 

between those things. I am concerned frequently that certain kinds 

of regulatory relief, deregulation, or other kinds of things are extended to the companies based on the premise that it will lead to 

new deployment in rural areas, but there is no commitment or enforceable mechanism for making sure that that actually happens. 

And given greater profitability, companies may or may not further 

invest. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you. 

112 

I understand that the elimination of our environmental laws will 

not make a meaningful difference in connecting the millions of 

Americans that don’t have access to broadband, but I do think we 

need to better understand what the effect of some of these proposals would actually be. So I wanted to ask Mr. Slesinger, if I 

could, in your opinion, what would be the effect of carving up longstanding environmental protections as some of the bills before us 

would do? 

Mr. SLESINGER. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. I think that the impacts 

can be very big. Broadband cells that we are talking about are not 

large environmental problems to this country. There are ways that 

the Forest Service and BLM on their lands could do a programatic 

impact statement that would make it very easy to get any required 

Federal approval. It is not a major issue. We have programmatic 

impact statements for solar; we could do it easily for broadband. 

And I don’t think that is a big problem. 

However, I think we are missing the issue here. And in many of 

these cases, it is state and local zoning and other things that are 

the problem. But I think the issue that I was talking about was 

mainly in the LIFT bill where we are talking about things well beyond broadband that can have large environmental impacts, and in 

that case, we need to keep the environmental laws strong and enforced so that people’s communities are not adversely affected by 

large Federal projects. Clearly, the FCC, as I said, has never required an EIS. There is not a big burden in this, but it is an excuse 

not to do unprofitable broadband in rural areas. 

Mr. PALLONE. All right. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Shimkus, you are recognized. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thanks for being 

here on an issue that we seem to continue to talk about. 

I am pretty proud of my co-ops, my small telephone companies 

in these areas that are trying to do just that. So there is a need 

for government involvement to provide some certainty financially 

because the return on investment is just not there. I always talk 

about the need on the Universal Service Fund to get that right and 

start parlaying that toward a broadband deployment. 

But I think when we hear the testimony—I am sorry, I am 

bouncing back like a lot of members between two hearings. When 

we just beat up large corporations and their profitability, we really 

want to incentivize these small co-ops and these small family privately owned companies to do what they are trying to do right now, 

and then bring competition. This came from my local newspaper 

just January 28, not that I solicited it. And I would like to ask 

unanimous consent to submit this for the record. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It just talks about a community in my district, 

Highland, Illinois, that because they felt they were held hostage to 

the local provider, they built their own fiber system. 

Now, the editorial is pretty good because it says there was just 

a report out, the Harvard University study, and they were fifth out 

of 27 public utilities that said you are doing a good job. But at the 

113 

end of it, it also says, but there are hidden costs when you have 

a government run system, right, the government is assuming some 

of those costs just on payroll and insurance and all those other 

things. So I just thought it was timely, and I wanted to submit that 

for the record because this does really segue into this debate. 

And I do believe regulatory burdens slow the process up, and especially for these smaller companies, whether privately or public. 

So that is why we did the SPEED Act, which is an attempt to alleviate some of these additional reviews, especially in the environmental and historic reviews. 

Now, the key to this small provision of this package is that it is 

in right-of-way and it is already being used. So it is not like new. 

It is not like a green field area. It is not like you are building over 

new territory untouched pristine land. It is using current right-ofways and current systems and with a focus on size. 

So, Mr. Gillen, can you elaborate on the challenges of the environmental and historic reviews that present for a deployment and 

how this bill might address those? 

Mr. GILLEN. Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Shimkus. Thank you for 

your leadership on this issue. I agree with everything you said. 

When you are talking about siting rights-of-way or siting devices 

like this, like your bill addresses, right now, that adds thousands 

and thousands of cost and months and months of review that we 

don’t get back that is delaying deployment and increasing the cost 

of deployment. So absolutely the SPEED Act would address a core 

impediment we face. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me follow up. And as you follow actions going 

around through the states, is this similar to what some of the 

states are doing in this venue in this way? 

Mr. GILLEN. Absolutely. I think the notion that we need both 

state and local governments to tighten how they do this, and we 

need the Federal Government. It is going to take both for us to do 

this. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Spalter, how important is it for communications, this whole debate, a policy to apply equally regardless of 

technology? 

Mr. SPALTER. Technology and neutrality is extremely important 

as we think about the opportunities of actually closing the digital 

divide. We support any innovation that actually will be able to deliver broadband through whatever technology that most suits community and the institutions that support that community. What we 

also realize, though, is in the current moment that we are living 

in, that the most effective mechanism is to pull broadband fiber to 

as many communities as possible, and to do so needs creative partnership that has to exist between private investment, which is on 

the table, with a strong partner in government through direct funding. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And let me follow up with Ms. Bloomfield. Are 

small providers disproportionately impacted by regulations? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. Part of that is just that they have fewer staff 

and they have fewer resources so, obviously, time you spend dealing with regulations you are not dealing with building broadband. 

But I also do want to commend you for your leadership, because 

I think the other initiative in your legislation is you recognize that 

114 

it is also about upgrading the network. So it is not just building 

it, but what you are trying to address is the fact that these networks are living and breathing networks, and they need to constantly be ungraded, so that certainly eases the process. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. And, Madam Chair, my time has expired. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. McNerney, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, I thank the chair for holding this hearing, 

and the witnesses. 

I am going to start with Ms. Katz. I am concerned that the FCC’s 

recent action of eliminating net neutrality and Lifeline will actually 

open the digital divide. Is the FCC’s current lifeline proposal to cut 

70 percent of the Lifeline program counterproductive to closing the 

digital divide and making broadband widely available to lower income Americans? 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Well, I think the short answer to that is yes. 

The rationale for eliminating, severely curtailing the availability of 

the lifeline is that it would enhance broadband deployment, but I 

think that is comparing apples and oranges. This is a situation we 

are trying to put communication capabilities in the hands of our 

lowest income people, and to take those away from them, yes, absolutely will aggravate the digital divide, exacerbate it, and have negative impacts on many different populations. There is just a lot of 

talk of how lifeline phones are being used by the homeless to connect with family and find resources. And so it not only broadens 

the digital divide, but it has a ripple effect on the way we can see 

our most vulnerable citizens impacted. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Hovis, I appreciate your direct testimony. I heard in some 

places the best way to deploy high-speed internet access that Americans deserve is to go to public-private partnerships, and you 

stressed that in your testimony. Can you provide us with some illustrations from your work regarding the effectiveness of publicprivate partnerships? 

Ms. HOVIS. Absolutely. Thank you, Congressman. I am seeing 

around the country hundreds, possibly thousands, of local initiatives with the willing and enthusiastic participation of the private 

sector in communities like Sublette County, Wyoming, where the 

local community is planning to deploy infrastructure that will be 

made available to their private partners and to business areas, to 

business districts where there is no adequate broadband at all, just 

speeds of a megabit or two, at best, in order to allow businesses 

to thrive in that part of the community. There are efforts like that 

underway in parts of Kentucky and parts of West Virginia, all over 

the country. And then even more ambitious and farsighted efforts, 

the city of San Francisco is considering a public-private partnership that is focused on ensuring that the 150,000 people in San 

Francisco who don’t currently have broadband, mostly because they 

can’t afford it, have access to adequate speeds, not one megabit 

speeds but the same kinds of speeds that you and I consider to be 

appropriate for our families. There is enormous creativity on both 

the public and the private side, and the private sector is willingly 

participating and engaged. 

115 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. I cosponsored a bill with Congressman Luja ́n that would help public-private partnerships get low-interest financing. Would that be helpful for building out access? 

Ms. HOVIS. Yes. I think it is an incredibly helpful approach, because what it does is it makes it feasible for a local community to 

have low-cost financing to build infrastructure and then potentially 

to make that infrastructure available for private sector use. We 

have all agreed on this panel that the cost of infrastructure deployment in certain markets is prohibitive. If there is a way that 

public’s state, local, and Federal efforts can be targeted toward infrastructure, then allowing for private sector service provision, in 

some cases public service provision, it is going to differ from community to community, but that is a mechanism for ensuring that 

we get infrastructure to places where it does not exist in an adequate way. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Spalter, I am going to move to cybersecurity. We have had 

security experts testify in front of this committee that many or 

maybe most of the IoT devices are unsecure, Internet of Things devices. By 2020, it is projected there will be 20 billion to 50 billion 

IoT devices in use. Should we be concerned about the risks that unsecure IoT devices are posing to our broadband networks? 

Mr. SPALTER. Thank you for the question, Congressman. It is a 

concern that all broadband providers share, that we have to be 

much more focused and increasingly focused on the resiliency, the 

security, not only of our wired networks, but also of our wireless 

networks. The Internet of Things is an opportunity of great promise for the economic productivity of our country. 

The focus that we have been giving as a broadband community 

to this initiative is also being done in partnership with a broader 

set of colleagues in the internet ecosystem. Our cloud companies, 

our internet information technology companies, internet companies 

increasingly are joining to share the responsibilities with us to extend greater security for our broadband networks, including for the 

Internet of Things, and we are doing so in partnership with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies of government 

that we have to work closely with to solve this problem. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Very good. Well, I have a lot more questions, but 

I have run out of time, so I am going to yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Latta, 5 minutes. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair, for holding today’s hearing. This is very, very important. 

As co-chair of the Rural Broadband Caucus and co-chair of the 

Rural Telecommunications Working Group, access to high-speed 

broadband in rural areas is a top priority of mine. I believe Congress should facilitate the development of robust broadband networks by creating a regulatory environment, promotes competition, 

and encourages innovation. That is why I introduced a resolution 

I expressed to be sent to the House that broadband deployment 

should be competitively and technologically neutral. I have also introduced the Precision Agriculture Connectivity Act with Congressman Loebsack to help close the digital divide faced by the agricultural communities in rural America. 

116 

And, Ms. Bloomfield, if I could pose my first question to you. Agriculture operations generate significant value to the national economy and are an essential source of revenue in jobs in our rural 

communities. Today, modern high-precision farming requires access 

to high-speed broadband to support advanced operations and technologies that significantly increase crop yields, reduce costs, and 

improve the environment. My bill, the Precision Agriculture 

Connectivity Act, requires the FCC to recommend steps to obtain 

reliable measurements of broadband coverage in order to gain a 

better understanding of the true lack of access in America. It is my 

understanding that finding adequate, accurate broadband mapping 

and coverage managements is nearly impossible. 

And so, Ms. Bloomfield, in what ways would it be beneficial for 

the FCC to obtain such data for the purpose of deploying highspeed broadband on agricultural croplands in other rural areas? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. So, Congressman Latta, I appreciate the question, and greatly appreciate the leadership that you have shown on 

a lot of these issues. Smart ag is truly the next frontier when we 

think about economic development vitality for rural America, and 

I think a lot of the initiatives you are looking at is how do you 

gather more of that granular data so that we can really look at the 

census track level and figure out where is the infrastructure and 

where is the void. Because we certainly know that you need to be 

able to see it, whether it is street level or whether it is literally on 

the cropland, in terms of where that infrastructure resides. 

So I think that when we look at the FCC and some of the work 

that they have been doing in gathering 477 data and trying to take 

that data and figure out in a granular, transparent, and accurate 

way and measuring apples to apples—and the thing I always worry 

about is when you get different entities trying to measure, they are 

measuring different ways of measuring where that deployment is. 

So I think your focus on how do we coordinate, how do we actually 

aggregate this will go a long way in terms of seeing where we really need to focus some of our future energy and resources. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask you just to follow up when you talk apples to apples and not apples to oranges here. What should we be 

looking at then to make sure that they are looking at the right 

data and, everyone is on the same page here and they are not looking at two different things, the same coming with two different answers. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. So I think we saw a little bit during the stimulus where there was actually national broadband map that was 

built, but it was very inconsistent, and it wasn’t checked, so people 

were kind of putting in their own data. There was really no resource to basically say is this the real data, is there really coverage 

there. And as somebody who represents small carriers, I understand that there is always that competitive concern about what 

data you are releasing. But I also worry that if you have got an 

entity like NTIA looking at data and you have got the FCC and 

they are using two different measurements, two different land 

tracks, different speeds, I think the ability to actually kind of house 

it in one place where you have got the ability to be consistent, you 

have got the ability to be transparent, I think folks need to actually 

see as it gets developed, and you need to be able to have the ability 

117 

to check it. I think those are things that are going to be very important check posts as we go forward on that. But it is going to be 

the foundation for where we go in terms of future investment. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you. 

Mr. Polka, there is legislation as part of our hearing today which 

I support that incentivizes 5G wireless deployment. I have also introduced a resolution setting the policy of competitive tech neutrality so the government isn’t picking winners and losers out 

there. Is the cable industry doing anything comparable to the 5G 

rollout with similar speeds in coverage? 

Mr. POLKA. Comparable and surpassing when you look at the 

amount of broadband service that is being delivered by our members in rural America. I had the chance yesterday to hear from a 

number of members all over the country telling us what they are 

doing. I heard from one small company in eastern Kentucky, Big 

Sandy Broadband. They are delivering gigabit speed in eastern 

Kentucky. I heard from a company called Hickory Telephone, 

which is building fiber to the home in underserved areas, one of 

our members in western Pennsylvania. We have members all over 

the country that are providing gigabit service: 100 megabit, 200 

megabit, 300 megabit service. So we are building that service as 

our customers and our community want us to do. And what we ask, 

and which is why we appreciate your resolution, that as we go forward as a country and we look at regulations that apply to helping 

broadband be deployed more effectively, that we do so on a competitive technology-neutral basis. 

I can tell you we have a lot of area out there that I have visited 

personally with our members. It is amazing how much rural area 

there is out there. Not one company is going to solve these problems, which is why our policy needs to encourage competitive technology-neutral proponents. So, yes, we are providing the service. 

We are building the backbone that actually can help to deliver 5G 

service down the road as it comes farther out into our areas. So we 

are up to the challenge. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you very much. And, Madam Chair, my 

time has expired, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Loebsack, you are recognized. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is really great. 

Normally, I would be asking questions earlier, but I was a little 

bit late. I had some things in my office I had to do, some meetings, 

but I got to hear from so many of my colleagues and all of you 

folks. And the first thing I want to say is I guess when we talk 

about the funding, making sure that we do have broadband in 

these rural areas. I represent about a fourth of Iowa, not quite as 

much. The State of Iowa isn’t quite as big as Chairman Walden’s 

district, he likes to remind me, but we have a lot of rural areas in 

Iowa, as you might imagine. But it is pretty clear to me that we 

have got to have some public funding. We have got to have a lot 

of private investment. There is no doubt. We have got to make sure 

we deal with regulations. Chairman Walden and I have worked together on that to make sure that small internet service providers 

in particular are not unfairly subject to too many regulations so 

they can actually put their resources into building out and making 

118 

sure that rural America is served, instead of simply filling out paperwork regulations that are unnecessary, that kind of thing. 

So I think we actually have more bipartisan support, and I think 

the chairwoman would agree that we actually have some bipartisan 

support on a number of these issues here. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Oh, yes. I am accustomed to hearing from 

broadband Loebsack. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. That is right. Exactly. And thank you very much, 

Madam Chair, I do appreciate that. 

And working with Representative Latta; we talked this morning 

earlier today. I didn’t realize he was going to quite steal so much 

of my thunder, but really happy to work with him on the Precision 

Agriculture Connectivity Act. Very important, obviously, in my district in Iowa. 

But, of course, related to what he was talking about with mapping, I actually did introduce, and with Mr. Costello, last year, the 

Rural Wireless Access Act. And we got it out of subcommittee, but 

the FCC paid close attention to that. That comes down, essentially, 

to I like to call garbage in, garbage out. If we don’t have accurate 

maps, then we are not going to be able to make accurate decisions 

and good decisions going forward. 

And so a lot of people from Iowa like to say we have a lot of common sense, but a lot of what is going on here is just common sense 

that, if we don’t have accurate data, whether it is an agriculture 

or that being a subset of something larger, then we are not going 

to be able to make a decision, public policy decisions, or even investment decisions on the part of the private sector. 

One last point on that. Chairman Pai last year, I did ask him 

because I had heard he had been to northwest Iowa. He drove from 

my home town Sioux City up to southern Minnesota, and he found 

out just how many problems there are in rural Iowa with dropped 

calls and all kinds of things, not to mention, actual broadband service as well. 

So I just want to ask, I guess, that, Ms. Bloomfield, you have already pretty much responded to what this is all about, so I am 

going skip you for a moment, if that is OK. 

I would like to go to Mr. Gillen, talk about that issue, if you 

would, mapping issue and making sure that we have good data. 

Mr. GILLEN. As you said, Congressman, thanks to your leadership, I think we have all listened and heard. And I think working 

with both national and regional carriers, we have worked with the 

FCC, that will hopefully have a better map to inform the mobility 

fund going forward. And, what that $450 million a year the FCC 

is starting to give out will do is hopefully start serving those areas 

in those communities that don’t have service today, but the condition precedent to doing that is the data that you have been looking 

for, and that will start very soon. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Yes, the 477. 

And, Mr. Spalter? 

Mr. SPALTER. I would agree with Mr. Gillen. And I also want to 

thank you for your leadership in understanding that important 

management principle: what you can’t measure, you can’t manage. 

And this is particularly true with respect to delivering broadband. 

119 

Form 477 has taken great strides as it has been streamlined to 

provide more precise geocoding longitudinally and latitudinally for 

customers that actually have service. The next frontier is to try to 

do so with that kind of geocoding specificity for locations that don’t 

have broadband yet. And we believe that we have to think creatively and innovatively and slightly out of the box in thinking how 

to do so, as long as we have uniformity of data. 

One idea is as the Census Bureau itself is looking at its own 

2020 effort. Their resources might be profitably brought to bear to 

actually bring that longitudinal and latitudinal specificity to help 

pinpoint areas where broadband is not yet. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. I would even suggest, mostly jokingly, that the 

FCC talk to all of us who have rural districts, because we can actually identify where the gaps are and where they are not, if we get 

around our districts like I do all the time. 

Ms. Bloomfield, would you like to elaborate a little bit? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. The only thing I would add is we talk about 

your initiative on some of the wireless front is that, just a reminder, that wireless needs wires so that those networks can’t even 

be built if you don’t have the backhaul out there. And as we have 

more and more need for capacity and more and more ability for 

you, if you are like me and I have gotten lost in northwest Iowa, 

the ability to pull over and actually pull up a map and see where 

you are, to do that data you actually need that infrastructure, so 

they really go hand-in-hand. They are complementary services, and 

I think they are going to all be very important for rural Americans. 

Mr. LOEBSACK. Thanks to all of you. And thank you, Madam 

Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Mr. Olson, 5 minutes. 

Mr. OLSON. I thank the chair. And welcome to our seven witnesses. A special welcome, Mr. Gillen. And please give our warm 

regards to your boss, Meredith Attwell Baker. As you know that 

family is a legend in Houston, Texas, iconic. So please give our regards. 

I would like to brag about Texas and give perspective on Chairman Walden’s comments about square miles. He talked about Connecticut and Oregon. For the record, Texas is 268,597 square miles. 

Now, my district, Texas 22, is a small portion of that, 1,032 square 

miles. Very small. Basically, it is split halfway between rural and 

suburban. But because it is so close to Houston, all the challenges 

with the telecom industry, the 5G aren’t really applicable. But we 

did suffer a disaster. Hurricane Harvey hit us in August, and we 

weren’t alone. 

After that, Puerto Rico was hit with Maria and the Virgin Islands as well, and Florida was hit by Hurricane Irma. And we have 

seen catastrophic wildfires in California and subsequent floods and 

just rushes of mud because of the loss of the cover. And when these 

disasters hit, as you all know, it is critically important that we get 

the communications infrastructure up and running as quickly as 

possible to give these communities the help they need to recover as 

quickly as possible. 

And that is why I have this bill that is probably on top of your 

pile. It is H.R. 4845. It is called the Connecting Communities Post 

120 

Disasters Act. And this bill makes a simple step by allowing local 

communities to bypass long and unnecessary environmental and 

historic views and to replace damaged or lost towers and communication infrastructure. Not to have new ones but replace ones that 

are hit by disaster. 

My first question is for you, Mr. Gillen. Houston made a strong 

effort after Hurricane Ike to bury their communications cables, and 

that was very successful. In fact, FCC Commissioner Pai came 

down a couple days after the storm hit and wowed about our buried cables, but he also noted we have a lot of cell towers that are 

exposed to the storm, especially where she came ashore there by 

Corpus Christi. How important is it for you to get communications 

up and ready following a disaster? How important is that to fight 

the disaster? 

Mr. GILLEN. It is critical. And I think it is critical for, particularly, temporary facilities to be marshaled immediately, because as 

we learned in these most recent storms, that smartphones is what 

Americans need to reach public safety, to reach their families, to 

let people know that they are safe, and that cell coverage is critical. 

And that bill is very important because when the storm is over, our 

jobs are really just getting started. And it is how do we restore 

services, and not only restore them, but make them better, and 

that we have the opportunity in your district to start giving you 

the most advanced networks. And thanks to your bill we can start 

doing that more quickly. 

Mr. OLSON. They go off the whole night for three straight nights, 

got all these warnings on a cell phone about tornado watches, flood 

warnings. That was valuable information that was coming, not 

from the phone lines, not from the TV, it was coming from the cell 

phones that my kids had, I had, my wife had, so it was very important. 

Do you agree that it makes sense to suspend parts of the NEPA 

review when reconstructing these telecommunications towers, the 

infrastructure, just to suspend them a certain amount of time to 

get rolling quickly, as opposed to dragging this thing out month 

after month, year after year? 

Mr. GILLEN. To bring back your economy, to bring back your constituents, absolutely, and I think it is a very targeted relief you are 

proposing. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Spalter, Ms. Bloomfield, any comments on this 

issue about disaster? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I would just add that we had about four carriers that were in the path of Harvey, and I checked in with each 

one of them. Thanks to the ability to build these future-proof networks and the bury plant and the ability to put their switches underground, we actually, every one of my companies that were in 

the path actually were able to be up and running instantaneously, 

actually never even lost service, so very important. 

Mr. OLSON. Mr. Spalter. 

Mr. SPALTER. Congressman, your initiative to actually move forward with H.R. 4845 is meaningful, not only, I know, to citizens 

in your community which were served by companies in U.S. 

telecom like Consolidated and Smart City that were running towards danger to support the broadband needs, but also your initiaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
121 

tive is going to be meaningful for communities around the country, 

including places where I used to live near earthquake faults in 

California. 

It is an absolute necessity that we as a Nation provide any mechanism to provide efficiencies so that broadband facilities can be put 

back into place to serve communities that have been affected by 

disaster, and your initiative is one such step, and we are grateful 

for it. 

Mr. OLSON. I am out of time, sir. I have one question before I 

yield back. There was discussion, some sort of concern, a little hostile, about the football game coming up, the Super Bowl, between 

the Patriots and the Eagles. I have a yes-or-no question for all the 

panelists. Are you all OK, do you have a problem with the Houston 

Astros being the world champs for 91 days now? 

Mr. SPALTER. As long as you legislate about it. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman’s time has expired on that one. 

Ms. Eshoo, 5 minutes. 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am not going to 

get into that since I don’t have a dog in that fight, but good luck 

to all. 

Thank you, Mr. Olson, for bringing up some of the issues that 

are related to disasters. And I know there was a response here, but 

I think that it is important to note that in the fires in northern 

California, in Napa and Sonoma Counties, the cell phones didn’t 

work. 

Life is not tidy. Fires just don’t occur between the time people 

get up maybe 7 o’clock in the morning and retire at maybe 10 

o’clock at night. Were it not for the public safety people actually 

going door-to-door and banging on doors in the middle of the night 

to arouse people to get them out of their homes, and they fled in 

their nightgowns, in their underwear, that was it, because the fires 

were even at the back of their houses and their roofs had started 

burning. And the other alert was dogs, their own dogs barking so 

much that it awakened them. 

So we can’t live in a bubble that we have something, this one— 

which I think is wonderful. It is an American invention. It is a 

computer in our pocket. But we shouldn’t allow ourselves to dream 

on and say we have something, and it is going to alert everyone. 

So we have to think outside the edges of the envelope. But I want 

to thank the gentleman for raising that. 

I want to go to Ms. Hovis and Ms. Katz. I have to go downstairs 

for another hearing of the Health Subcommittee and wanted to 

come back and ask a few questions here. 

What do you think are the biggest impediments to deployment 

that you see in communities? It is certainly in rural communities. 

There are many specifics that belong to rural communities, but you 

spoke very clearly about the Hartford area. I was born and raised 

in Connecticut, so it is nice to have someone from Connecticut here, 

just outside of the Hartford area, actually. But I think what the 

committee needs is some pinpointing by you of specifics that will 

actually remove impediments to employment. 

Now, I mean that as a softball question because I have legislation on it, and neither bill costs a dime. But anyway, to both of you, 

whomever wants to go first. You want to do it alphabetically? 

122 

Ms. HOVIS. Thank you, Ms. Eshoo. I couldn’t agree more about 

the importance of some of those particular issues. And we have 

talked a lot about rural challenges, but I would say that there are 

some very acute urban challenges that, unfortunately, get a lot less 

discussion. And I think sometimes they are not even recognized. 

For example, small business areas in urban and suburban areas 

are remarkably less served in many cases than residential customers, and that is because the traditional footprint of the cable industry, to its credit, was to go to all of the residences in the community. That is great in most metropolitan areas because there 

will be a phone company provider and a cable company provider. 

Ms. ESHOO. But you see all the advertisements on TV for the 

commercial site, come do business with us and we are the ones that 

can serve your small business the best. So—— 

Ms. HOVIS. If the infrastructure is not there, it is going to be incredibly costly to get the infrastructure there. A large business will 

be able to afford to pay whatever it takes, but a small business 

that can spend $79 or $99, $129 a month, there is simply not a 

business case for the private sector to build best-in-class infrastructure to them. That is not a slam toward the private sector. That 

is how private investment works, and the private sector is doing 

exactly what it should. But I think there is an undiscussed conversation that should be had about the fact that small business 

areas struggle at remarkable levels, as do very low income neighborhoods, in many cases, because there is simply not business case 

for upgrade of the networks. 

Ms. SHOO. Thank you. I want to go to your—— 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Yes. If I could just—— 

Ms. ESHOO [continuing]. Seat mate there because I have 30 seconds. 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Sure. If I could just add to that, the reason 

we focused on Hartford is that we were contacted by Hartford officials who had done a survey of their small businesses and found 

that they were unable, for the reasons Ms. Hovis was discussing, 

to connect to the internet because they were being quoted prices of 

$8,000, $9,000, $10,000, $30,000 for a street crossing. And, again, 

it is because of the high cost of the street crossings and things like 

that. So I don’t fault the industry, but I do note that that is a reality, and so that is where we need to make some progress. 

Ms. ESHOO. Well, I think that that is very helpful. 

Madam Chairwoman, I am going to ask unanimous consent that 

I be able to place the Harvard study that I referenced in my opening comments today that deals with communities being able to set 

up their own municipal broadband. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. So ordered, without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. ESHOO. Thank you. Thank you to all of the witnesses. A good 

hearing. Important one. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentlelady yields back. 

And now the gentleman leading our broadband expansion effort, 

Mr. Johnson, you are recognized. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it. 

And this is such an important hearing. I can tell you, living in 

rural Appalachia, I hear all the time about the urban rural divide. 

123 

It is very, very real. Places that businesses will not come into because they can’t get access to their suppliers, to their customers, 

provide training for their employees. You have got children that 

have to go to another county or to a local township or to a public 

library to get access so that they can do their school projects. We 

have got a lot of intellectual capital and a lot of economic potential 

in rural America that is being just ignored because of this rural 

urban divide. 

And that is one of the main reasons that I was pleased to sponsor H.R. 4810, the Mapping Now Act. Because an important step 

to solving the rural broadband issue and expanding deployment is, 

first, accurately identifying where those unserved areas are. We 

need an accurate map to do that. And as some of you on the panel 

and I have discussed, just because one facility or one location in a 

census block says that there is coverage, that is not true. I can tell 

you from somebody that lives there, that is simply not true. 

And so we need this legislation that directs the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information to create 

that national broadband map and reassert NTIA’s authority to do 

so. Many rural areas in Appalachia or Ohio find themselves on the 

wrong side of that urban rural divide. 

We all know that high-speed internet is no longer a luxury; it is 

a necessity today for education, for business, especially in this technology-driven global marketplace. So I am going to continue to 

drive this issue very, very hard and working with my colleagues to 

break down the barriers to broadband deployment, particularly in 

rural areas. 

Mr. Gillen, from CTIA’s perspective, in your written testimony, 

you mentioned that any new funding should also ensure that 

reaching areas unserved by wireless is reflected in the program’s 

objectives. In making funding decisions, better data is key, and 

rural broadband is no exception. 

First of all, do you agree with my assertion that the maps are 

inaccurate, that we really don’t have a good definition of where the 

unserved and underserved areas are? 

Mr. GILLEN. We certainly agree. We can and we need to do better. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. All right. Do you have any suggestions on 

how we can ensure better data of unserved areas? 

Mr. GILLEN. Absolutely. I think there are commercial tools available that we can start informing our process as well, but I think 

it really comes down to, we have to have a set idea of what we are 

measuring for? What do we decide broadband is? What is satisfactory coverage? Just a baseline of what we think we need to do and 

then measure it consistently across-the-board. And we think it is 

important to have one person in charge as you direct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I can tell you what satisfactory coverage is. Satisfactory coverage is coverage. That is what it is. It is access. But I 

appreciate your answer. 

Ms. Bloomfield, could you please explain the benefits of having 

an accurate broadband map? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. Absolutely. And I know we have all discussed 

this. And again, thank you for your leadership. But the ability to 

actually get granular, get clear, get transparent, and making sure 

124 

that you are coordinating, so when you talk about whatever Federal entity actually is controlling the mapping, the making sure 

that actually we are coordinating between all of those who are 

gathering data. So again, you are comparing. You don’t have those 

inconsistencies, which I think have led to some of the confusion in 

the past. And I think the whole focus on the ability to access spectrum will also be very important in the future. 

Mr. JOHNSON. OK. In your written testimony, Ms. Bloomfield, 

you mentioned the need for a single authoritative source that can 

provide accurate data at a granular level and on a consistent basis 

to help drive better-informed decision-making. So when updating 

the broadband map, should NTIA use Form 477 data? And is that 

data detailed enough? And if not, how would you recommend obtaining more granular detail? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. So I think you make an excellent point, and I 

think 477 is the best data so far that really is collected from all 

broadband providers, which is going to be important so that you 

make sure that everybody that is in the pool actually is submitting 

the data. 

Now, the problem is it is still self-reporting, so you are still going 

to have to make sure that there is some way to check to make sure 

that there is verification that what people report is actually true, 

other than driving through your district and actually doing it 

anecdotally. So I think that is going to be important. But I think 

having it spread across different entities is going to just lead to 

some confusion and not get the results that you are looking for. 

Mr. JOHNSON. All right. Well, thank you very much. 

I had a lot more questions but, Madam Chair, my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Ms. Clarke, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CLARKE. I thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I thank 

our panelists for their expert testimony here this morning. 

This Congress, I have had the honor of introducing and establishing the Congressional Smart City Caucus along with my colleague, Congressman Darrell Issa. As co-chair of this bipartisan 

Smart City Caucus, I know deploying broadband in our cities is 

critical. 

We in Congress must do more to make sure that, first of all, the 

deployment is ubiquitous, but to address the 10 million Americans 

in urban areas who do not have access to broadband as defined by 

the FCC. And that is why I have cosponsored the Connecting 

Broadband Deserts of 2018, with my colleague, Congressman 

Bobby Rush. Under this legislation, the FCC will be tasked with 

reviewing the state of deployment in urban broadband deserts, and 

will be required to take action to help speed deployment if it is not 

occurring at a reasonable pace. 

So, Ms. Katz, what types of issues—and we heard a little bit 

about this when the question was asked, I believe it was by Ms. 

Eshoo, what issues do we currently allow to fester when we assume 

that every part of a city is already connected? And what could we 

do to help address these issues? 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Well, thank you for your leadership, and 

thank you for the question. It is an excellent one. I talked a little 

125 

bit about the homework gap. We have seen continuing impacts on 

small businesses. There is also in my testimony a report we did on 

that issue. And so we see that you continue the cycle of lack of opportunity for these areas when they don’t have access to 

broadband. This panel, it is delightful that it is almost undisputed 

that it is a utility at this point, that everybody needs access to it. 

And so I think some of the most effective things we can do is to 

allow state and local governments to be part of the dialogue. It 

does concern me, as chair of the Intergovernmental Advisory Committee, when there is repeated references to removing barriers at 

state and local levels. And, in fact, state and local governments are 

trying very hard to move the needle on these things. For example, 

in Connecticut, we have been working for years on a single pole administrator, one-stop shopping for connecting to utility poles. That 

is one of the things that is most expensive. 

We are also working, it is very important for smart cities, digonce policies, how can we coordinate on the digging up of streets. 

These are very important but very complex issues, but these are 

some of the initiatives that state and local governments are working on. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. 

Ms. Hovis, did you have something that you wanted to add with 

respect to this, a concern? 

Ms. HOVIS. I would say just that from the smart city standpoint, 

and the smart communities, because we are going to have smart 

counties and smart rural areas as well, the infrastructure is so 

critically important. And as long as a divide persists and who has 

access to the best infrastructure, then as services in a smart community environment move on to the infrastructure more and more, 

there will be less access by some members of the community. 

So our risk here is that the digital divide, rural/urban, and that 

that impacts low income folks and that impacts small businesses 

will get more and more pronounced over time. We can’t double 

down on the existing divide. 

Ms. CLARKE. The other concern that has been flagged and part 

of this conversation is one of cybersecurity. So that if we are talking about smart cities and we are talking about gaps in coverage, 

would any of you speak to what having those vulnerabilities could 

mean from a national perspective? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I would be happy to jump in. I have the opportunity right now to serve on the FCC CSRIC working group talking 

about, what is the importance of protecting those networks. And 

one of the things that we think is really important is to ensure— 

I have 850 carriers across 46 states. People tend to think of the 

large carriers, but we need to make sure that the small carriers 

have the ability to protect their networks, because sometimes it is 

the assumption that, you know, where the networks are vulnerable 

is where the problems will actually happen. 

So we are spending actually a lot of time in resources this year 

educating our small network operators on how to protect their assets, how to protect their consumer assets. And that is going to be 

really important as we move on to the Internet of Things. 

Mr. SPALTER. And if I could as well, I applaud your efforts to 

make our city smarter, and I also applaud your efforts to make our 

126 

broadband infrastructure for our cities and all of our communities 

safer, more secure. We at USTelecom are taking that mandate 

very, very seriously. We have recently launched a small and medium business initiative to make sure that, not just our largest 

companies, but also our smallest companies, as Ms. Bloomfield 

said, who share a vulnerability, can actually do incident response, 

reporting, and information sharing much more effectively. 

But our enemies in this domain are getting smarter and more 

wily by the day. We have to think of this as not just a challenge 

carried by broadband providers, but by the entire internet ecosystem. 

Ms. CLARKE. The ecosystem. 

Mr. SPALTER. We have to join in common cause in doing so. 

Ms. CLARKE. Very well. I yield back, Madam Chair. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentlelady. 

Mr. Guthrie, you are recognized. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. Sorry, I have been bouncing 

between a couple of hearings today, so I apologize. 

But I did hear Mr. Johnson’s questioning. And I understand 

there were some other questions about mapping. And I know that 

is what we are talking about, and the fact that we have to get more 

granular data and the 477 may not give enough information. 

So this is really to the providers, so for Mr. Spalter and Ms. 

Bloomfield, the questions. Given the need for service providers to 

protect the proprietary asset information and our need as policymakers to get more granular broadband availability information, is 

there even a pathway forward to get to a street-level understanding of broadband service availability that meets both needs? 

I will just start with Mr. Spalter. 

Mr. SPALTER. Technologically, I think there is a pathway forward. The technology is not only being deployed by our Federal 

Government, particularly by the FCC, but also by those that are 

being advanced by the private sector. I think that this is an opportunity going forward to think about how we can actually streamline 

and make a uniform approach to a mapping exercise so that we are 

not merely identifying addresses, but actually geocoding longitude 

and latitudinally relevant locations where we need to deliver 

broadband. Which is why I said earlier, first, that it is fantastic via 

H.R. 4810. You and Mr. Johnson are working to come up with creative solutions going forward, but also knowing that the FCC is 

going to be driving this process forward. To the extent the NTIA 

is going to be involved, it needs to meaningfully coordinate with 

FCC to avoid duplication and, therefore, confusion. And also, we 

collectively have to think about other assets can be put on to the 

table, including, as I mentioned, whether the Census Bureau can 

use its resources to help map and locate, again, longitudinally and 

latitudinally, areas where there are not institutions, residences 

where there is not yet broadband access. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thank you. 

Mr. Gillen. 

Mr. GILLEN. Thank you for the leadership on this issue to bring 

more attention to it. I think we are seeing progress. I would echo 

Mr. Spalter’s comments. I think it is important we marshal all resources, and it is going to take a partnership of all of these compaVerDate Nov 24 2008 10:34 Oct 25, 2018 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00130 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 I:\MY DOCS\HEARINGS 115\HEARINGS\115-95 CHRIS
127 

nies and the government to figure out how best to do this. But I 

think a lot of that, as Mr. Spalter said, are right on track. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. And if I would just add, we talked a lot about 

streamlining. The one thing I would encourage is that we don’t look 

at creating multiple burdens so that you are not having small companies like the ones I represent having to do onerous reporting to 

three or four different agencies. So, again, that coordination is 

going to be important. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Are there mechanisms you would put in place that 

would relieve that burden? 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I think it is actually helpful to figure out a way 

to designate who takes the lead. Not dissimilar to some of the other 

efforts that the committee has been looking at is how do you actually designate where that point is and agree to kind of one form 

of process, one form of data to be collected. And then certainly a 

challenge process so that folks can ensure that the data is accurate. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Polka? 

Mr. POLKA. Completely agree. Mapping is essential. We have to 

know where we need to build. There does need to be a partnership. 

There is no question about it. Whatever technological means that 

we can determine to help better determine where broadband is necessary, but ultimately this is going to come down to information 

from the provider. 

In the hardest-to-reach areas, you are going to have small companies that do have very, very small staffs, very few people. The 

people that they employ are the ones that are literally climbing the 

poles and serving the customers at the counters. They don’t have 

deep legal staffs, nor regulatory staffs. So for them to take the time 

to fill out the information that is required is a burden. So that has 

to be factored in. Certainly, that self-reporting is important and essential as a piece of how we determine where broadband is and 

isn’t as part of the mapping process. But this has to be, I think, 

a much broader, deeper discussion on what is the baseline of information that we want to obtain, how can we obtain it, and who will 

be the providers to help provide that information. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. From some of the previous mapping efforts, the 

SBI mapping that the NTIA administered from 2009 to 2014, what 

are some of the deficiencies and maybe lessons learned that can be 

applied? I only have about 45 seconds. So the providers can go as 

you want to go. But what are the deficiencies in that and what 

should we do different? 

Mr. POLKA. I would say paperwork. It is as simple sometimes as 

paperwork. When you have forms to fill out, again, by small companies who do not have the background, the regulatory, the legal 

background, even then determining more particularly census block, 

census tracks, obtaining the data, the cost of the data to even populate the maps, it is extremely difficult for small companies to accomplish. It is vital, but here, again, it has to be part of a publicprivate purpose to deliver that information. 

Mr. GUTHRIE. Thank you very much. 

My time is expired, and I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Collins, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

128 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to thank 

you also for just holding this hearing and having such a diverse 

group of witnesses. 

Broadband access, as we all know, is important to our rural communities as our reliance on the internet continues to grow. Unfortunately, some states like New York are now working to complicate 

this issue, but we will set that aside for a second, and say I am 

at least glad to see some bipartisan bills here as the subject of this 

committee hearing. 

And as we focus on infrastructure, the inclusion of broadband is 

something that I bring up again and again. It is not just roads and 

bridges and airports. Sixty-five percent of my district, eight counties, very rural, lot of dairy farmers, are certainly underserved. 

My bill, H.R. 4798, is the bill that considers inventory of assets 

for the Communication Facilities Act of 2018. Let’s know what we 

have got. Let’s at least make it easier for some of the smaller carriers. Somebody, when we introduced this, made the comment, 

‘‘Well, don’t the big guys already know what we have got?’’ And 

maybe they do, maybe they don’t. It never hurts to make it easier, 

but certainly some of the smaller suppliers, I think, may be those 

that end up coming into some of my rural communities, if they can 

see some value. 

So, maybe specifically, Mr. Spalter, I will ask you. As common 

sense as some of this is, I am presuming you would support such 

an inventory of assets, and could you speak to how that might 

help? 

Mr. SPALTER. It is not only common sense, but it is music to our 

ears when the Federal Government wants to actually try to identify and map its assets. Great. And we encourage that to happen. 

I would also say that we know that when and as that mapping 

takes place and as inventories are done, we will be able to deliver 

more broadband more efficiently with the speed to market that will 

be much more effective. When our Federal infrastructure and assets are connected to broadband, they became more cost effective, 

safer, and have longer lifespans. So this is an important initiative 

that you are undertaking, and we applaud your effort for thinking 

it through, and we are going to support you. 

Mr. COLLINS. Good. Thank you. 

Mr. Gillen? 

Mr. GILLEN. I think this is something actually both big and small 

companies don’t know where those assets are, so I think it is a critical resource to be able to know when you are trying to deploy, particularly trying to deploy as quickly as you want to deploy, where 

we can and can’t go. So I think it is a critical transparency vehicle 

for us to be able to start building faster. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yes. Ms. Bloomfield. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. I was also just going to commend you for keeping it technology neutral, which I think is really going to be very 

important as we actually assess the assets. 

Mr. POLKA. Finally, I would just say access to technology is important. Particularly for a smaller company where you have fewer 

customers per mile, but the cost of technology that you need to deploy the same mile of broadband is just about the same, whether 

you are in rural New York or in the middle of Manhattan. 

129 

So having access to additional resources for small businesses is 

extremely important. In fact, I am not aware of any other idea like 

that before that has existed where such information would be made 

available to smaller companies. So we certainly appreciate the idea 

and really look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. COLLINS. So, Mr. Gillen, you brought your 5G device in. Is 

this even more critical as we are going to have a lot more 5G devices hanging out there than we are the big towers. 

Mr. GILLEN. Absolutely. And I think when you talk about Federal assets, there is the post office, there is the Federal building 

in town, and it is critical for us to go in town and know exactly 

where we can start. Because if we want to win the 5G race against 

China and others, we need all the information we can get. 

Mr. COLLINS. Do any of the other witnesses care to make a comment? I was going to say if not, but go ahead. 

Ms. SWANSON KATZ. Yes. No, I think it is incredibly important 

to know where the assets are, where the broadband is, what is 

available to consumers. And I think it is also important that it be 

independently verifiable, because I think it is important for the 

public to know that they can rely on the data and it’s transparently 

available. 

Mr. COLLINS. We will make sure it is accurate. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield black. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

Now to the patient Mr. Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. I have patience. I am not sick. But thank you. And 

by the way, Madam Chair, thank you for the hearing. And thank 

all of you for your testimony, for being here. And it really didn’t 

require any patience at all. This is really quite interesting to me 

and fascinating. So I appreciate everybody being here. 

I have to admit that sometimes when I hear about these sparsely 

populated states like Vermont and their digital divide, I start feeling a little guilty, because when I look at North Dakota, it is hard 

to claim a divide. Now, there are some places, but we have over 90 

percent of our population that has 100 Mbps or more, and 93 that 

are over 25. So while there are still a few spots, our folks do a 

great job. 

And, Ms. Bloomfield, you know well that, and this is one of the 

concerns I want to get to here with regards to some of this policy, 

that many of your members in North Dakota were broadband before broadband was cool. They were efficiently using Federal support funds to build out broadband long before it was mandated by 

either tradition or policy. And one of the things I worry a little bit 

about, as we talk about, and I support, let’s get to unserved before 

underserved. That is really important. We want to have that 

bridge. It would be kind of crazy to have an interstate that if they 

decided to gravel for a couple miles in Montana or something. But 

as each generation comes and the demands get greater in places 

like North Dakota, where it is not just education, it is not just 

health care—huge, really huge—other business, really important, 

access to market is really important. But even safety, environmental safety, SCADA systems that have to work on our oil pipelines and our gas pipelines and, of course, our big transmission 

130 

lines as we generate a lot of electricity. All of that will require upgrades. 

And so as we talk about the efficient deployment of Federal 

funds, I want to make sure that we have protections for upgrading 

as well. Does that make sense? Maybe I will start with you, Ms. 

Bloomfield, to comment, and anybody else that would like to. 

Ms. BLOOMFIELD. You are absolutely spot on. And again, thank 

you for your leadership on all of these issues. And I think people 

are always surprised that North Dakota actually has probably one 

of most fiber-rich states in the country, because when you look at 

that land mass, it is pretty amazing. But in part, when you are 

really that rural, you actually see what broadband can do to kind 

of narrow that gap that geography creates. So the ability to do telemedicine, the ability to actually bring communities together, to do 

economic development. And then when you had the oil industry 

coming in, the ability to make sure that that economic enterprise 

was absolutely able to be supported. 

So the fact that people get so focused on building and they forget 

about the fact that you have got to maintain that network, otherwise, down the road, you don’t have anything but a capacity that 

is limited by what it was when it was actually built. So the ability 

to live and breath. 

The other thing that I would tout, particularly in a State like 

North Dakota, is the ability of the carriers to collaborate with one 

another. They have created DCN, a State fiber network, the ability 

for them to realize that all boats rise. If they are able to build that 

infrastructure out further, all of the carriers in the State actually 

benefit from it, and the State itself benefits from it. 

Mr. CRAMER. Well, I might, just to add a couple of statistics for 

others to comment, there are only three states that have less population density than North Dakota, but there are 20 states and territories that actually have less connectivity than North Dakota, so 

it can be difficult. 

But I also wonder, some of these other states have a lot of Federal lands, and we have been talking about that. We do not. We 

have some, but not a lot. It is not a barrier for us. I think state 

policy does matter. And while I agree that communities ought to 

have some competitiveness about how they—and some control over 

their own regulation, there should be a minimum standard that 

makes sure that the country is connected as well. 

But Mr. Spalter, you wanted to comment? 

Mr. SPALTER. Well, I couldn’t agree with you more that the cost 

of maintaining and upgrading networks for underserved areas is 

only escalating. It is a multiplier of what the bill costs actually are. 

And we know that particularly as we are seeing this extraordinary 

spike in the data that is being put through these networks from 

an increasingly small number of internet companies that are sending video to customers around the country, that this is even becoming more profound. 

So I completely agree with your insight but also your initiative 

via 4832 to not only think through opportunities to serve communities that have been impacted by disaster, but also to better serve 

communities that already have broadband. 

131 

Mr. CRAMER. Yes. Well, I think we have certainly learned some 

things in the last year that can be helpful in; that, so why not 

apply it across the board and avoid special circumstances. 

Anybody else? 

Mr. POLKA. I would just offer, sir, when you talk about upgrades, 

it is really, really important to remember how these upgrades are 

accomplished. One of the things that I mentioned in my comments 

were about this sexy issue of pole attachments. It is incredibly important when you have either—whether it is an attachment to a 

pole or a conduit, it seems like our policy is any time something 

new happens to the pole or the conduit, that is a new starting point 

for a long application process, for fees and other things of that nature, rather than saying, how can we simplify this process? One 

Touch Make Ready, simplifying this to make sure that we get attachments on the poles, internet lines, through the conduits to get 

broadband out there faster. So I hope you factor that into your 

thinking as well. 

Mr. CRAMER. Another reason not to nationalize anything. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

This hearing is so popular today we have uc’d Mr. Tonko onto 

the committee for his questions. The gentleman is given 5 minutes. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Chair Blackburn. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Doyle, for hosting this hearing today. 

I hear from constituents across my district all the time on the 

need for broadband expansion. I was excited to see that the ACCESS BROADBAND bill included in today’s discussion, which I 

have sponsored, is part of the focus. But I fear that we don’t have 

the time to have an in-depth discussion on many of these important issues. 

I am proud to have worked on this legislation with Congressman 

Leonard Lance, and thank the bipartisan group of Members who 

have cosponsored the legislation, including eight members of the 

Energy and Commerce Committee who have worked together and 

agreed that this is an issue worth supporting. 

I also want to thank Jonathan Spalter with USTelecom for your 

call to action to move forward on vital bills like ACCESS 

BROADBAND that offer responsible solutions. I have engaged with 

industry and many organizations and believe this is a bill we can 

all work on together and support. 

Chair Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle, I ask that as we 

move forward, we take a closer look at pieces of legislation like ACCESS BROADBAND that have strong bipartisan support. Let’s 

have a discussion on what we can improve and let’s move the bills 

forward. 

H.R. 3994, the Advancing Critical Connectivity Expands Service, 

Small Business Resources, Opportunities, Access, and Data Based 

on Assessed Need and Demand, or ACCESS BROADBAND—that 

acronym took a bit of work—would establish a coordinating office 

for Federal broadband resources. It would use existing resources to 

streamline management of Federal broadband resources across 

multiple agencies and simplify the process for small businesses and 

local economic developers to access them. 

132 

Broadband internet access is often the difference between success 

and failure for students doing homework, job seekers training for 

a new career, doctors reading a medical scan, or entrepreneurs 

starting a small business. However, to date, the Federal Government has done a poor job of tracking broadband deployment. 

Currently, there is no comprehensive system that tracks where 

Federal dollars are going and how the funding is impacting communities. Investments are made with little accountability and oversight on behalf of the taxpayer. 

So, Ms. Hovis, can agencies do a better job of coordinating Federal resources? And what are some of the current problems we see 

with a lack of coordination? 

Ms. HOVIS. Congressman, I think coordination would be exceptionally helpful. It is obviously not a simple matter in any large organization, whether public or private, but it would be helpful, not 

only because we would be collecting better data of all types and 

knowing exactly how public funds are being spent and the impact 

they are having on the broadband environment, Federal Government is a big buyer of services and so its dollars are being spent 

to deploy infrastructure in certain places and to make it more economical in other places. It would be helpful from that standpoint, 

but it would also be helpful with things like—and I think many of 

my colleagues have spoken to this sort of thing—knowing where 

public assets are and knowing how public assets can be used. 

An example of this would be that there is at the state and local 

level, I think, some confusion among private companies, but also 

departments of transportation about whether assets built with Federal funds for transportation purposes can be used, excess capacity 

can be used for broadband purposes, whether public or private. 

Clearing up some of that confusion, having coordination among different levels of government and among different government entities would be enormously helpful and timesaving. 

Mr. TONKO. And, obviously, that coordination could unlock more 

broadband development? 

Ms. HOVIS. Yes, I think it could. That information is always 

going to be better, and lack of information, like a map that is insufficiently granular, or lack of information about what different agencies are doing and spending makes it just that much harder to plan 

in an efficient and pragmatic way. 

Mr. TONKO. I have a question for both you, Ms. Hovis and Mr. 

Spalter. Can we better coordinate to simplify the process for companies, for small businesses, and local economic developers to access Federal resources? 

Mr. SPALTER. Well, I think we can. And I must say, Congressman, that the ACCESS BROADBAND Act is an innovative step towards unlocking that opportunity. Not only do you recognize at its 

core that we have to do better in managing and streamlining and 

making more efficient Federal broadband resources, but the more 

that our smaller enterprises can have a greater understanding of 

how those resources are being directed and how they are being 

managed, there will be opportunities to create even more efficiencies for broadband deployment and for their participation in 

that process. 

133 

And so we are very grateful for your insight, but also your foresight in making sure that we can do better in unlocking the opportunities of managing our Federal resources in a more efficient way. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you. 

And, Ms. Hovis? 

Ms. HOVIS. I totally agree. And I would just add to that that it 

is critically important, obviously, that those assets and resources 

were built for particular purposes having to do with the agencies 

that built them and their critical mission. And so it is critical that 

no asset is ever compromised by a secondary use, as important as 

these secondary uses are. Transportation, public safety, all of these 

kinds of infrastructure assets have that first primary use. But subject to protection of that use and security and so on, there is enormous potential value of this kind of coordinated planned approach. 

Mr. TONKO. So I would assess that the Federal Government, 

knowing where it spends on broadband and understanding the impact of this spending, are going to provide a lot of direction as we 

go forward. 

So were you going to add—— 

Mr. SPALTER. I am just agreeing with you, sir. 

Mr. TONKO. OK. Thank you. Thank you so much to our witnesses 

too, and thank you for allowing me to participate. 

I yield back. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman yields back. 

And seeing that there are no further members—— 

Mr. DOYLE. Madam Chair? 

Mrs. BLACKBURN [continuing]. Asking questions—yes, Mr. Doyle, 

you are recognized. 

Mr. DOYLE. I would like to get unanimous consent to enter a few 

things into the record. A press release from PCCA on today’s hearing, an Axios story on the National Security Council’s plan to nationalize 5G networks, the PowerPoint slides and memo discussing 

that story, and a letter from Tipmont REMC. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Without objection. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. DOYLE. Thank you. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. And pursuant to committee rules, all members 

have 10 days to submit questions, and we would ask that you respond in 10 days to those questions. 

Without any further business coming to the subcommittee today, 

the committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

134 


29879.076

A .. 

AMERICAN CABLE ASSOCIATION 

Matthew M. Palka, President and CEO Direct Dial: 41l~92l-8300, Ext. 14 

E-Mail: mpo!Jm!hmerlqncabfe.org 

The Han. Greg Walden 

Chairman 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Han. Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

January 29, 2018 

The Han. Frank Pallone 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Han. Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Communications and Technology 

Subcommittee 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

UNITED STATES HOUS~ OF REPRESENTATIVES 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

RE: aoslng the Digital Divide- Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

Dear Chairman Walden, Chairman Blackburn, Ranking Member Pallone, and Ranking Member Doyle: 

On behalf of the American Cable Association (ACA) and its nearly 800 members from across the 

country, I would like to thank you for your leadership and focus upon the challenges of providing 21" 

Century broadband to all corners of this nation. over the past year the ACA has been meeting wlth 

policy makers on both sides of the Hill and both sides of the aisle to discuss how to address consumers' 

needs for broadband infrastructure. 

As we review the list of legislative ideas the Committee Is considering, some mirror what our 

members consider priorities, and others reflect concepts we have discussed with the Subcommittee. 

ACA has members who operate ln rural communities, suburban neighborhoods, and some who were 

devastated by the rash of natural disasters this year. Consequently, the array of bills before the 

Subcommittee impact many of our members In varying ways. However, we all share the view that 

taking steps to promote broadband upgrades and deployment in unserved areas is important. 

From reading the list of measures before the Committee It Is clear that you too understand what 

It takes to bring broadband to all Americans. While all have some merit, we particularly support the 

resolution introduced by Chairman Latta that any Infrastructure legislation to promote broadband 

Internet access or communications facilities deployment should treat all broadband and 

communications facilities in a competitively and technology neutral manner. We also support Vice 

connecting Hottuztown Ametlca 

875 GREENTREE ROAD * 7 PARKWAY CENTER. SUITE 755 * PmsBURCH, PA 1522()-3704 

p 412.922.8300 f 412.922.2110 w www.amerk.ancable.ors 
135 


29879.077

Chairman Lanc:e1s resolution expressing the sense of the House that broadband funds may not be used 

where there Is an existing broadband provider. Both of these principles are foundational to our 

organizatlon1 and ones that must underlie any legislation because they will maximize consumer welfare1 

Increase economic growth~ and make communities throughout the country thrive. 

H.R. 4813, Introduced by Rep. Ryan Costello, would direct the GAO to conduct a study on the 

complementary role of unlicensed spectrum In assisting with Internet traffic management and tl1e 

potential for Gigabit Wi-Fi service in spectrum bands below 6 GHz. This is yet another good idea. As for 

additional legislation, we urge the Subcommittee to examine the approaches I will discuss in my 

testimony on January 30th. We believe It will enable you to bridge the digital divide sooner and with 

more sustainable resufts. 

We know there are many other good Ideas being considered by the Subcommittee from 

Members representing all regions of the country and the ACA looks forward to working with you and 

each of your colleagues to develop a broadband network package of Ideas ready to include In whatever 

Infrastructure Initiative the Congress undertakes. 

Thank you for tl1e time and leadership on these issues that are vital to ACA1S members. 

MMP/gb 
136 


29879.078

Everything Wireless 

Meredith Attwell Baker 

January 30, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

United States House of Representatives 

2123 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, 

Thank you for the opportunity for CTIA to testify today before the Communications and 

Technology Subcommittee on "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure 

Solutions." We appreciate and support your focus on facilitating investments in mobile 

broadband, and more specifically for 5G, the next generation of wireless services. 

CTIA strongly believes that changes to infrastructure policies, like siting reform, will clear 

the path for winning the global race to 5G. CTIA supports legislation, like those bills 

being considered before the Committee, that remove regulatory barriers, spurs 

investment, and unleashes innovation. 

We look forward to continuing to work with this Committee to enact legislation that 

achieves these goals. 

Regards, 

~YtJ__.; Meredith Atfwell Baker 

President and CEO 

1400 16th Street. NW · Suite 600 · Washington, DC 20036 • WHW.ctio,org 
137 


29879.079

~ncta The Jnlemet & Te....,..ion AISodation 

tb Massochugjj.\h AvQ.rH.H), NW l !.ptli!' 

W<:~iJtinqton, {K 11)tm! 

{Jil".i'J 

January 29, 2017 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy & Commerce 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

Michael K. Powell 

President & CEO 

I am writing to express appreciation for the Subcommittee's attention to the important 

topic of broadband deployment and its upcoming hearing, "Closing the Digital Divide: 

Broadband Infrastructure Solutions." The cable industry agrees that broadband is a crucial 

driver of a vibrant economy and global competitiveness. In the last two decades, American 

consumers have witnessed enormous advances in the power and reach of Internet networks. 

The key ingredient for this expansion and growth has been the extraordinary level of private 

network investment by private companies, which has produced consistent increases in the 

capacity and speed of fixed and mobile broadband networks. Collectively, all U.S. broadband 

providers have invested $1.5 trillion in capital over the last twenty years to build out 

infrastructure and robust broadband networks. Cable networks now span more than 1, 700,000 

miles in total and include more than 490,000 route miles of fiber-optic cable, enough to circle 

the globe 19 Y, times. In 2008, only about 16% of Americans had access to Internet service of 

10 Mbps downstream. Today, 85% of U.S. homes are passed by providers offering broadband 

connections capable of300 Mbps and faster speeds, and speeds keep growing. 

Despite such success, we recognize that there are still some parts of the country - most 

often in less dense, often geographically remote areas- where market forces alone have been 

insufficient to date to drive the deployment of terrestrial broadband networks. We welcome the 

Committee's examination of this issue, and its consideration of measures that can help advance 

our country's goal of extending the benefits of Internet technology to all. In particular, we 

applaud the Committee's commitment to technological-neutrality in removing regulatory 

burdens that impede the effectiveness of private capital investment, and to its due attention to 

reaching Americans in unserved households. We are confident that such "common sense" 

approaches will assist all broadband providers in extending their networks, will help the 

government promote greater efficiency and accountability in broadband support programs, and 
138 


29879.080

will result in tangible benefits for all citizens and the American economy. 

The cable industry looks forward to working with you on the Subcommittee on pending 

legislation and other creative means of encouraging broadband deployment. 

~ Michael K. Powell 
139 


29879.081

cca 

January 30, 2018 

rural. 

regional. 

nationwide. 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2322A Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)' commends the Subcommittee for its continued focus on 

improving and streamlining mobile broadband infrastructure deployment policies. Today's legislative 

hearing marks an important step towards advancing legislation to accelerate mobile broadband 

deployment and connect all Americans regardless of where they live, work, or play. As I testified 

before this Subcommittee last March, to deploy broadband networks to meet to day's exponentially 

growing demands for mobile data, and to lead the world in 5G, action to address broadband 

infrastructure deployment challenges cannot wait. 

Congress must act swiftly to enact policies that support deployment and close the digital divide that 

plagues rural America. CCA supports many of the legislative initiatives the Subcommittee will discuss 

today, and encourages policymakers to continue to find bipartisan solutions to the challenges of 

deploying critical broadband infrastructure in a timely manner. Specifically, CCA appreciates the 

Subcommittee's focus on creating policies that: 

Foster creation of coverage maps using reliable, standardized data; 

Streamline deployment, including targeting and eliminating historical and environmental 

reviews where redundant or not necessary; 

Provide certainty for the application process, including streamlined and standard applications, 

timing, and appropriate fees; 

1

CCA is the nation's leading association for competitive wireless providers and stakeholders across the United States. CCA's 

membership indudes nearly 100 competitive wireless providers ranging from small, rural carriers serving fewer than 5,000 

customers to regional and national providers serving millions of customers. CCA also represents associate members 

including vendors and suppliers that provide products and services throughout the mobile communications supply chain. 

COMPETITIVE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION 

805 15th St NW, Suite 401 I Washington, DC 20005 I ccamobile.org 
140 


29879.082

Promote mobile broadband in croplands and ranchlands to support precision agriculture; and, 

Provide dedicated funding for mobile broadband in rural areas. 

Barriers to infrastructure deployment and unnecessary complexities reduce certainty, increase costs, 

and delay broadband deployment, especially in rural areas. These policy solutions will reduce burdens 

on carriers and government resources alike. CCA supports efforts to streamline review and facilitate 

mobile broadband deployment to meet Congress's mandate for reasonably comparable services in 

urban and rural areas. As the legislative process moves forward, CCA thanks the Subcommittee for its 

efforts and stands ready to support policies that accelerate mobile broadband deployment. 

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Steven K. Berry 

President & CEO 

Competitive Carriers Association 

2 
141 


29879.083

ADYAMCIM6 6l0Bll COMMUMICATIOMS 

TIAOMUME.OR6 

January 29,2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2266 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Mike Doyle 

U.S. House of Representatives 

239 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), the leading trade association for global 

manufacturers, vendors, and suppliers of information and communications technology (ICT), 

applauds you for holding a hearing this week on broadband infrastructure solutions. TlA has 

reviewed the bills under consideration for this week's hearing and supports those listed on the 

attachment. We continue to evaluate the remaining bills for possible support at a later date. 

More generally, as the Subcommittee's work to advance broadband deployment continues, we 

urge you to address regulatory obstacles to broadband facility siting. Companies face numerous 

obstacles at all levels of government, including complete moratoria, zoning rules and arbitrary 

conditions, differential treatment of new entrants, delays, exorbitant site inspection and 

application fees, and unsustainable annual rents. Several of the proposed bills would help 

address these challenges. 

Moreover, we urge that any infrastructure package include dedicated funding to address each of 

the following challenges: 

• Reaching unserved areas with the FCC minimum level of 25 Mbps down I 3 Mbps up; 

• Increasing service to underserved areas with I 00 Mbps I 10 Mbps; and 

• Maintaining U.S. long-term preparedness with service of 1 Gbps I 50 Mbps. 

TIA thanks you again, and we look forward to working with you on these important issues. For 

more information, please contact Dileep Srihari at 703-907-7715 or by email at 

dsrihari@tiaonline.org. 

Cinnamon Rogers 

Senior Vice President, Government Affairs 

Telecommunications Industry Association 

Att: List of TJA -supported legislation 

Cc: House Communications & Technology Subcommittee members 
142 


29879.084

TIA-Supported Legislation 

TIA supports the legislation listed below. We continue to evaluate additional bills for possible 

support at a later date. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee and the sponsors in 

refining and moving these bills forward. 

Scheduled for consideration on January 30, 2018: 

Other: 

H. Res. 687 (Bilirakis)- federal, state & local policies should be reconciled to maximize 

investment 

H. Res. 689 (Hudson) funding should be prioritized to states that streamline small cell 

siting rules 

H. Res. 691 (Latta)- broadband deployment should be competitively and 

technologically neutral 

H. Res. 701 (Flores) -any FCC review underNEPA, NHPA, etc. should be limited to 

the actual area of impact 

HR 2479 (Pallone et al)- LIFT Act, $40 billion for broadband in total, use of reverse 

auctions, 100 Mbps required except for 25 Mbps in remote areas 

HR 4287 (Lujan et al) -- $5 billion broadband finance program for loans, guarantees, 

and lines of credit 

HR 4795 (Walters)- common application forms and master contracts for federal siting 

HR 4798 (Collins) inventory of federal assets for telecom infrastructure 

HR 4802 (Kinzinger)-tracking of applications to install broadband on federal property 

HR 4810 (Johnson & Guthrie)- broadband mapping by NTIA 

HR 4813 (Costello)- WJFI STUDy Act- GAO study on offioading to unlicensed 

HR 4814 (Eshoo et al)- Community Broadband Act re: no state restrictions on 

municipal broadband 

HR 4817 (Long)- PEERING Act, NTIA grants for Internet Exchange facilities in areas 

without one, allows E-Rate and rural health funds to be used for that purpose 

HR 4832 (Cramer)- allows high-cost USF support to be used in disaster areas 

HR 4842 (Shimkus)- SPEED Act, a House companion to the Wicker/Cortez-Masto 

Senate bill that waives certain requirements for small cell deployment 

HR 4845 (Olson)- waives NEP A and NHPA requirements regarding construction, rebuilding, or hardening systems in re: major disasters 

HR 4847 (Brooks & Matsui)- streamlining reviews by the Department of the Interior 

and the Forest Service; also creates 270-day shot clock and "deemed granted" remedy for 

federal siting applications 

• HR 2425 (Huffman & LaMalfa)- Public Lands Telecommunications Act- separate 

accounts for agency siting fees, requiring that such fees are reinvested into broadband 

• HR 4800 (Eshoo & McKinley) Broadband Conduit Deployment Act re: "dig-once" 
143 


29879.085

Tim Day 

Senior Vice President 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

January 30,2018 

1615 H Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20062 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn and Ranking Member Doyle: 

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce applauds the Subcommittee for taking up the critical 

issue of ensuring access for all Americans to the internet at its hearing entitled "Closing the 

Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions." 

The Chamber created the Technology Engagement Center (C _ TEC) to promote the role 

of technology in the economy and to advocate for rational policies that drive economic growth, 

spur innovation, and create jobs. C _ TEC convenes a High Tech High Impact working group that 

demonstrates how technology addresses and solves everyday problems impacting Americans 

including those in the small business, rural health, and agricultural sectors. 

In order to train America's future workforce, technologies such as autonomous vehicles, 

unmanned aircraft, and smart cities must become a reality. High-speed broadband deployment 

will be critical as we expand the adoption of advanced technology to rural, tribal, and 

underprivileged Americans. 

High-speed broadband powered in part by 5G will be an economic game changer for the 

American economy. As Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr recently 

remarked at the Chamber, "if we get the right policies in place, SG could mean $275 billion in 

network investments, three million new jobs, and a haifa trillion dollars added to the GDP." 1 

Additionally, rural telehealth is expected to generate tremendous savings for Americans 

with regard to lost wages, hospital costs, and travel expenses. 2 

1 Remarks of Commissioner Brendan Carr at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Telecommunications & E-Commerce Committee, 

Washington, D.C. at 2 (January 25, 2018) available at 

https:lltransition.fcc.gov/Daily Releases/Daily Business120181db01251DOC·348866Al.pdf. 2 NTCA·The Rural Broadband Association, "Anticipating Economic Returns of Rural Telehealth," (Mar. 2017) available at 

httns://www.ntca.org!sites/default!files/documents/20 17 -12/SRC whitepaper anticipatingeconomicretums.pdf. 
144 


29879.086

Evidence is also mounting that internet connectivity is becoming increasingly necessary 

for entrepreneurs in today's economy to compete. C _ TEC found that 84% of small businesses 

are using at least one digital platfonn to provide infonnation to customers.3 

Unfortunately, millions of Americans still do not have access to high-speed internet. 

Although a lack of funding in high-cost areas is part of the problem, many archaic siting rules on 

the federal, state, and local levels hinder the ability of internet and other wireless providers to 

expand service. 

For example, localities are still charging providers revenue-based fees designed for larger 

cell towers to site small cells-which are about the size of a pizza box--on public rights of way. 

These types of fee structures exacerbate the high cost of deployment given the large number of 

small cells required to power 5G technologies and can be cost-prohibitive.4 

Such innovation-stifling siting rules do not only affect the wireless industry. Local 

governments have charged cable operators duplicative siting fees, which are not based on costs, 

to install broadband in the same place that cable lines already exist.5 

C _ TEC believes that now is the time for Congress to step in to alleviate the pennitting 

and other siting burdens, which are getting in the way of deploying broadband necessary to rural, 

tribal, and other underserved Americans. 

While some laws like FAST -41 6 enable federal permit streamlining of some broadband 

projects, much more is needed to ensure the economically-vital deployment of internet service to 

all Americans. C_TEC looks forward to working with you on advancing legislation to expand 

broadband service that would power the technology that has a high impact on our economy and 

jobs. 

Sincerely, 

Tim Day 

Senior Vice President 

C_TEC U.S. Chamber of Commerce 

Cc: Members of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

3 4

'Examining the Impact of Technology on Small Business," How Small Businesses Use Social Media and Digital Platforms to 

Grow, Sell, and Hire at 6 (Jan. 18, 2018) available at https://www.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/ctec srne-rot v3 pd£ 4 Petition for Declaratory Ruling, In the Matter of Promoting Broadband for All Americans by Prohibiting Excessive Charges for 

Access to Public Rights of Way (Nov. 15, 2016) available at https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/122306218885/mobilitie.pd£ 

'City of Eugene v. Comcast of Oregon, 359 Ore. 528 (2016). 6 See 47 U.S.C. § 4370rn 
145 


29879.087

January 29, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chair, House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn, 

The Power and Communication Contractors Association (PCCA) represents contractors, manufacturers, and 

distributors who build and repair America's power and communications infrastructure, including electric 

transmission, distribution, and substation facilities and broadband, telephone, and cable television systems. 

PCCA appreciates the bipartisan approach you and members of the subcommittee are taking by offering a 

range of legislative measures aimed at deploying broadband across America more effectively. 

PCCA strongly supports the Communications Facilities Deployment on Federal Property Act of 2018 (HR 4795), 

which would require executive agencies to use common application forms and cost-based application fees for 

easements, rights-of-way, and master contracts for placement of communications facility installations on 

federal property. 

The Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure (SPEED) Act (HR 4842) 

is another bill of interest to PCCA. The legislation would exempt certain broadband facilities in existing rightsof-way from environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and exempt facilities 

from environmental reviews where other facilities on the same property have already been approved. 

Importantly, the SPEED Act would also exempt expansion of broadband facilities from NEPA reviews if the 

expansion of the broadband facility is no more than 30 feet in any direction. 

Although PCCA does not have an official position on policy regarding "one-touch make-ready" (OTMR), we 

support HR 4858, the Clearing local impediments Makes Broadband Open to New Competition and 

Enhancements (CLIMB ONCE) Act, which would confirm state authority to adopt an OTMR policy for pole 

attachments. Allowing states to enact policy that would allow approved broadband and power contractors to 

perform this work would avoid multiple reviews and truck rolls for each of the providers already attached to 

the pole. 

PCCA also appreciates the resolutions offered by Reps. leonard lance (R-N.J.), Bob latta (R-Ohio), Richard 

Hudson (R-N.c.), and Gus Bilirakis (R-Fia.), which promote policy to ensure permitting and regulatory 

requirements are coordinated to maximize the benefits that come with broadband investment and to focus 

broadband deployment on underserved areas. 

PCCA looks forward to helping advance these and many other bills under consideration by the subcommittee 

through the legislative process this year, and we thank you for your leadership on these important issues. 

Best Regards, 

Jim Dillahunty, President 
146 


29879.088

W/AriiiJ 

January 30, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

2266 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Blackburn: 

Wireless 

lnfrastru cture 

Association 

On behalf of the Wireless Infrastructure Association (WIA), 1 would like to express strong 

support for your efforts to lower barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment so that 

communities across the country can enjoy the benefits that wireless broadband can bring. WIA is 

the principal organization representing the companies that build, design, own, and manage wireless 

facilities in the U.S. and throughout the world. Our mission is to expand wireless broadband 

everywhere. 

Today's hearing, entitled, "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions," will 

examine very important legislation to help deliver next generation wireless to all Americans, 

especially communities that lack access to high-speed internet. These measures will begin to 

narrow the digital divide. 

WIA is especially pleased to support H.R. 4842, the Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient 

Deployment of Broadband Infrastructure (SPEED) Act of2018, introduced by Rep. John 

Shimkus. This measure takes a balanced approach to infrastructure siting and would promote 

responsible and sustainable broadband deployment by encouraging collocation and respecting 

the rights of local communities. H.R. 4842 would exempt expansion of broadband facilities from 

environmental and historic preservation reviews if the expansion of the broadband facility is no 

more than 30 feet in any direction. Ctmently, any site expansion to accommodate additional 

equipment associated with the collocation of a new antenna or transmission equipment still 

requires a full environmental and historic review, even if the expansion is as little as one foot. 

This unnecessary requirement is expensive and time consuming. For example, one of our 

members has reported that an estimated 95 percent of all their historic reviews are triggered by 

el(pansions. And the fees associated with these reviews can quickly accumulate. By exempting 

expansions of 30 feet in any direction and streamlining the process of siting small wireless 

facilities in a responsible manner, H.R. 4842 will have a significant and positive impact in 

reducing delays and expenses. 

500 Mont9omerySt., STE 500,Alexandrla, VA 22314 

T 800.759.0300 • F 703.836.1608 • WIA.ORG 
147 


29879.089

WIA is also pleased that several measures designed to speed up infrastructure siting on federal 

lands have been introduced. Bills introduced by Rep. Mimi Walters, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, and 

Rep. Susan Brooks would address several problems infrastructure builders face with trying to 

site wireless facilities on federal property. The federal govemment owns or administers nearly 

thirty percent of all land in the U.S., as well as thousands of buildings, many of which are in 

desirable locations. Broadband providers currently face significant challenges when working to 

secure access to federal lands and buildings. These bills will help reduce those challenges and could 

help bring broadband access to rural areas. 

Thank you again for your efforts and the efforts of your Subcommittee in lowering or eliminating 

many of the obstacles faced in deploying broadband infrastructure. WIA remains committed to 

delivering next generation wireless broadband to all communities and looks forward to working 

with this Subcommittee on how to close the digital divide. 

Sincerely, 

Jonathan Adelstein 

President and CEO 

Wireless Infrastrucntre Association 
148 


29879.090

White paper 

Cisco public 

Encrypted Traffi Analytics 
149 


29879.091

White paper 

Cisco public 

Visibility across the network is getting increasingly difficult and our traditional 

means of detection cannot assume that data is available for inspection. We 

need to be able to simultaneously assess how much of our digital business is 

protected and unprotected by encryption while also assessing what traffic is 

malicious and what is benign. 

Gartner believes that half of malware campaigns in 2019 will use some type 

of encryption to conceal malware delivery, command and control activity, or 

data exfiftration. 

Figure 1. Economic impact of malicious attacks 

Table 1 describes the new threat vectors that are based on the nature of 

encrypted traffic. 

Table 1. New threat vectors based on nature of encrypted traffic 
150 


29879.092

White paper 

Cisco public 

Challenges of encrypted 

traffic security 

The majority of organizations today do not have a 

solution to detect malicious content in encrypted traffic. 

They lack the security tools and resources to implement 

a solution that can be deployed throughout their network 

infrastructure without slowing down the network. 

Traditional threat inspection with bulk decryption, 

analysis and reencryption is not always practical or 

feasible, for performance and resource reasons. In many 

cases, however, advanced analytic techniques can be 

used to identify malicious flows for further inspection 

using decryption techniques. 

On any given day, no one knows how much of their 

digital business is in the clear versus encrypted. If traffic 

is encrypted, the encryption is typically done to 

meet compliance requirements that mandate specific 

security policies. 

Figure 2. Encrypted Traffic Analytics - technical solution overview 

02G18Ciscoand/O't\sa'filiates.AIIrglltsreservecJ_ 

Overview of Encrypted 

Traffic Analytics 

Traditional flow monitoring provides a high-level view of 

network communications by reporting the addresses, 

ports and byte and packet counts of a flow. In addition, 

intraflow metadata, or information about events that 

occur inside of a flow, can be collected, stored and 

analyzed within a flow monitoring framework. This data 

is especially valuable when traffic is encrypted, because 

deep-packet inspection is no longer viable. This intraflow 

metadata, called Encrypted Traffic Analytics, is derived 

by using new types of data elements or telemetry that 

are independent of protocol details, such as the lengths 

and arrival times of messages within a flow. These data 

elements have the attractive property of applying equally 

well to both encrypted and unencrypted flows. 

Using these data elements or intraf!ow telemetry to 

identify ma!ware communication in encrypted traffic 

means Encrypted Traffic Analytics can maintain the 

integrity of the encrypted flow without the need for bulk 

decryption (Figure 2). Table 2 lists the benefits of using 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics. 
151 


29879.093

White paper 

Cisco public 

Table 2. Benefits of using Encrypted Traffic Analytics 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics 

- New data elements for 

encrypted traffic 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics focuses on identifying 

malware communications in encrypted traffic through 

passive monitoring, the extraction of relevant data 

elements and supervised machine !earning with cloudbased global visibility. 

Transport Layer Security (TLS) is a cryptographic 

protocol that provides privacy for applications. TLS is 

usually implemented on top of common protocols such 

as HTTP for web browsing or Simple Mail Transfer 

Protocol (SMTP) for email. HTTPS is the use of TLS 

over HTTP. This is the most popular way of securing 

communication between a web server and client and is 

supported by most major web servers. 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics extracts four main data 

elements: the sequence of packet lengths and times, 

the byte distribution, TLS-speclfic features and the 

initial data packet. Cisco's unique Application-Specific 

Integrated Circuit (ASIC) architecture provides the ability 

to extract these data elements without slowing down the 

data network. 

• Sequence of Packet Lengths and Times (SPLT): SPLT 

conveys the length (number of bytes) of each packet's 

application payload for the first several packets of a 

flow, along with the interarrival times of those packets. 

©2018Ciscoand/DtJts.a/f>IL;.tiOs.AIIrigntsreservcd 

SPLT can be represented as an array of packet sizes (in 

bytes) along with an array of times (in ms) representing 

the time since the previous packet was observed. 

• Byte distribution: The byte distribution represents 

the probability that a specific byte value appears 

in the payload of a packet within a flow. The byte 

distribution of a flow can be calculated using an 

array of counters. The major data types associated 

with byte distribution are full byte distribution, byte 

entropy and the mean/standard deviation of the bytes. 

For example, using one counter per byte value, an 

HTTP GET request, "HTTP/1.1.", can be calculated 

by incrementing the corresponding counter once for 

the "H," then incrementing another counter twice for 

the two consecutive "T" s and so on. Although the 

byte distribution is maintained as an array of counters, 

it can easily be turned into a proper distribution by 

normalizing by the total number of bytes. 

• Initial Data Packet (IDP): IDP is used to obtain packet 

data from the first packet of a flow. It allows extraction 

of interesting data such as an HTTP URL, DNS 

hostname/address and other data elements. The 

TLS handshake is composed of several messages 

that contain interesting, unencrypted metadata used 

to extract data elements such as cipher suites, TLS 

versions and the client's public key length. 

Appendix A shows a detailed table of new data elements. 
152 


29879.094

White paper 

Cisco public 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics - Components 

Enhanced NetFiow 

In the NetFiow architecture, data is transmitted from 

exporter to collector in sets of records. Each record 

in a data set has the same format, which is specified 

by its template. The data record consists of a series 

of NetFiow information elements or "fields," and a 

specific 10 value is assigned to each field. The 10 values 

for information elements may be globally defined and 

archived by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority 

(lANA), or they may be enterprise specific and defined 

by individual organizations. 

NetFiow templates use several globally defined elements 

administered by lANA. Some of the global elements, 

such as IP addresses and Layer 4 port numbers, form 

a familiar 5-tuple that is used as a unique flow identifier 

(flow key). Additional elements are used to report basic 

packet/octet statistics and timestamps. 

These globally defined elements are enhanced with 

vendor-specific (Cisco vendor ID) data elements 

described earlier and in Appendix A. The vendorspecific data elements provide insights into threats 

and vulnerabilities in encrypted traffic using Cisco 

Stea!thwatch Enterprise®. 

Figure 3. Stea!twatch Enterprise Multi-layer Machine Learning 

iD?OlBCiscoand/or>\Silf!o!t<:<tcs.AIIrightsresE''Ved. 

Stealthwatch Enterprise 

Cisco Stealthwatch Enterprise uses NetF!ow, proxy 

servers, endpoint telemetry, policy and access engines, 

traffic segmentation and more to establish baseline 

"normal" behavior for hosts and users across the 

enterprise. Stealthwatch can correlate traffic with 

global threat behaviors to automatically identify infected 

hosts, command and control communication and 

suspicious traffic. 

Stea!thwatch maintains a global risk map - a very 

broad behavioral profile about servers on the Internet, 

identifying servers that are related to attacks, may be 

exploited, or may be used as a part of an attack in the 

future (Figure 3). This is not a blacklist, but a holistic 

picture from a security perspective. Stea!thwatch 

analyzes the new encrypted traffic data elements in 

enhanced NetFiow by applying machine learning and 

statistical modeling. The global risk map and Encrypted 

Traffic Analytlcs data elements reinforce using advance 

security ana!ytics. Rather than decrypting the traffic, 

Stealthwatch uses machine learning algorithms to 

pinpoint malicious patterns in encrypted traffic to help 

identify threats and improve incident response. 
153 


29879.095

White paper 

Cisco public 

The Security Insight dashboard on the Stealthwatch Management Console (SMC) provides a view of affected users 

Identified by risk type. An expanded dashboard provides detailed information regarding the top risk escalations and 

relative threat exposure. Table 3 lists some high-risk threats that use encrypted command and control communications. 

Figure 4. Stealthwatch security insight dashboard 

--- ----~~ ~ --~~~~rici~~~~\n~-~~-~~-

Table 3. Examples of high-risk threats using encrypted command and control 

Upon discovery, a malicious encrypted flow can be blocked or quarantined by Stealthwatch. Policy-driven remediation 

actions via pxGrid using Cisco Identity Services Engine (ISE) with Cisco TrustSec® and Software~Defined Access (SOAccess) simplify and accelerate network security operations. 

0 JQ18 Cisco ~ndlor!ts alflliatus. Al!!;g!Jts reserved 
154 


29879.096

White paper 

Cisco public 

Cryptographic assessment 

Encrypted Traffic Ana!ytics also identifies encryption quality instantly from every network conversation providing the 

visibility to ensure enterprise compliance with cryptographic protocols. It delivers the knowledge of what is being 

encrypted and what is not being encrypted on your network so you can confidently claim that your digital business is 

protected. This cryptographic assessment is displayed in Stealthwatch and can be exported via APis to third-party 

tools for monitoring and auditing of encryption compliance (Figure 5). 

Figure 5. Cryptographic assessment 

Feature support 

Cisco's newest networking equipment, starting with Cisco !OS® XE 16.6, will support an enhanced NetFiow with 

Encrypted Traffic Analytics capability. 

1. Compatible Cisco equipment supporting enhanced NetFiow with Encrypted Traffic Analytics; 

• Switches: Cisco Catalyst0 9300 Series (starting with the Cisco lOS XE 16.6.1 release) and the 9400 Series (starting 

with the Cisco lOS XE 16.6.2 release) 

• Routers: ASR 1001-X, ASR 1002-X, ASR 1001-HX, ASR 1002-HX, ASR1000 RP2, ASR1000 RP3, ASR1000 ESP-40, 

4221 ISR,4321 ISR, 4331 ISR, 4351 ISR, 4431 ISR, 4451-X ISR, Integrated Services Virtual Router (ISRv) including 

the 5000 Enterprise Network Compute System, Cloud Services Router (CSR) 1000V (starting with the Cisco lOS XE 

16.6.2 release) 

2. Stealthwatch gains additional machine learning and statistical modeling capabilities (in release 6.9.2) to analyze 

enhanced NetFiow with Encrypted Traffic Analytics. 

©2018C:scoand/or:tsaffJ!iates,AIIr;ghtsrescrved, 
155 


29879.097

White paper 

Cisco public 

Efficacy and Cisco research findings 

In experiments based on real-world data, we were able to achieve over 99% accuracy with 0.01% false positives 

(only 1 false positive for every 10,000 TLS connections) seen. This was based on a large sample of real-world HTIPS 

sessions as described In Cisco research findings. 

Conclusion 

In summary, the network is now an even more advanced security sensor, capable of detecting threats in encrypted 

traffic. A Cisco Digital Network Architecture-ready infrastructure turns the network into an end-to-end sensor and 

enforcer that detects, contains and prevents emerging, sophisticated security threats. 

Appendix A Data Elements Extracted by Encrypted Traffic Analytics. 

©201BC:scoandforilsaffrliilles.AIIr'ghtsreserved. 
156 


29879.098

White paper 

Cisco public 

References 

1. Gartner· SeciJrjty! oadors MtJst Address Tbreats_ir__om..llislng_SSL_Traffic 

2. Ponemon Institute: Uncovering Hidden Threats Within Encrypted Traffic, 2016 

3. NSS Labs: TLS/SSL: Where Are We Today? The Encrypted Web Part 1 - An Upward Trajectory 

4. Identifying Erlcrjpted._Malwam..Ir:.allic with ContPxtua! Flow Data.__fi!akB Anderson and David McGrew AISEC '16 
157 


29879.099

«nugrus of tlfl! Bnit.ei'a ~tabs 

mus~ingtau, l\Qt 20515 

Pre~idont Donald J. trump 

The White House 

1600 Pcnn:iY,lvaniaAv<:m.lc NW 

Wllshili~on,.UC20~00 

Ueat Mr; Pl-e.'liden~ 

Janu~ty 23,2018 

A yeango, a liipar!j$11n coalitioo of71 Mlllnll¢1.'!1 of Ccin!!J'~~s$ wrote to you advocatin~ fQr,he incluslor(of 

rural btuadbaild, tbnn~tiv:ity inveatmeitm ltt Jl'nU' ihfrMti'Ucttircproposal. Wo.sln)llg!yool!(!v~ll!iltl:ilgb.­

.ip¢o'illntbtll(;t fl(!CCSS is. O$S!mtial i:o (;insuring rlt)itl reaidcitlti!'Bf~ not Jeff h11hi11d in this if!Cfea!)ingJy 

inte~onnected world. 

We ate«JI!Cerned abqut J'ecent repot'lll lltat.your fofil'j,ooming propoSiti mny not ineludtdn~tmentl! i11 

fllrtllliro;~db~nd l:Qnniletivi!Y. We write. today to reiterate our l'Upjmlt fol'the f!i'opotllll t<:~. !neludo 1\uiding 

iipeefficallyf~r rural broadb;md i,ioplo)'menl in tmsj,nted imd underl;1!fvei:l !lt'en$. 

[n the lnfOI'matioo Age; the Intcrnol offers o:mlllll>'S possibilities. Unfot1unntely1 tbese. possil:iilities·ru1l not 

• afforded to ma11y l'l\l'lil Anterieans. i'hls digital divldc between url:isn and tur-d! Am!;lfi~a illt.ignifli.:lllltruld 

demands a focUSed and ~gg!'I)Slilve !Wp~. · · · 

Rurnloollllflunities ntu:>l h:ave.:ule<Juate l:iroadbaoo infutstntcture to attraof and tetain huslnoollefl. and 

human resllU!'Cel!; clo.~e.tlle homework gap. fo1' studoots·and tcachl.ll::l; open lnnovative·ttnd t..'Onvenient 

pathwllyll w hllumedicine for Sellicrs and provil:lers, and help furmel'i\ incroa,sc cfticicncills in tholl: barns. 

· anl:l on their land. The. futu~ Wllllbi.ling of our commutlitit~s. il:i dep~dt~nt upon this teclu1glogy. · 

Weappr¢cillt¢ !he Mm.inlstration's effort lo promote poliGies.that will Streamline and incentMze rural 

bruadliand deployment; however, \\'<1.nlso encou~ the inclusion ol'conncotivityinvcstmt.m!s in your 

lnfrMtructurc propu!illl. We rlll!U!in connuitted. to working with you tu deliver the !lmmise of robust 

br9Jldband infrnlrtm~ tn I'UI'al America.. · 

Tl:lARKROCA 

Member of'CoJigfesS 

11-t~ DAVID T.OE:SSACK. 

Member of tongre.qs 
158 


29879.100

1/3012018 Olllnlon: Cost of Highland L clty 1111smo1 c:al>looompany IBolhMio New&-Oemoend 

When the city is your internet provider, the real cost may be hidden 

January 28,2018 04:30 PM 

In 2010 Highland leaders ond r .. idcnll dodded !hoy were not getting tho brood bond seM:e they &,,.m:d, so they buih their own fiber opti< 

network. 

H'tghland Communication SeMces competes with Charter1 Frontierj Wisper, DitecTV and Dish ~' but most nsldent.s are: drooling the 

local utility. Jt provides mvke to 53 percent of its potential customerst and it is getting ready to expand to another 763 potential customer&. 

The dty'a fiber opti-c company was jbat cited in a HatVard University stUdy as fifth ror value O\Jt ot 2"! public. utilitio. compared to private 

c:ompetilon. A resident will pay Highland $383 o year c:omporod to $679 a year for Charter, the stud.y said • 

.. The numben .showed HCS was provi:din.g its customen: better value for bailie broadband service, u well u clearer pricing. .. said study coauthor David Talbot. 

·~:=~-] htlp~lamp.bnd.<:Oinloplnlon/edllollalartide198943634.h1ml 114 
159 


29879.101

1130/2018 Opinion: Cost of Highland tL city !ntemet cable company 1 Belleville News-Democrat 

Naver millS a local story. 

Sign up today for unlimited digital access to our website, apps, the digital newspaper and more. 

That means Highland is telling its 2,062 customers what they will pay without offering introductory discounts that vanish in a few years. 

All of that is to the good, but there is another aspect to this public utility. 

It is publicly funded 1 and is still paying about $1 miUion a year toward debt for the system's $12.2 million construction tab. It will continue 

paying until 203 2. 

Out of the $4 million current year's budget, Highland's fiber optic will run $1.63 million in the red. That cost is hidden on every resident's 

dtyutllitybill. 

Getting to those additional 763 cmtomers will cost $S31000 in engineering. The construction cost~ have yet to be tabulated. 

Plus, the market is changing. 

Landlines are going away and television service is eroding as streaming services become prominent. Highland's triple play is too of\en down to 

a single -broadband internet. 

http;//amp.llnd.oomlopln!on/edttortal&/art!cle19694J634.html 

CUck to see what we're 

up to in the MetrowEasl ... 

214 
160 


29879.102

1/30/2018 Opinion: Cost of Highland IL dly Internet cable company 1 8-N~ 

So while Highb.nd ahQUid celebrute th~ Huva.td honor, their fiber optic cam:pgny represents a caudon.uy tnle for other cities pondllring going 

into buainess. No matter hc:lw capabll! or efficient you might be, a changins market that shutters a private business: jwt turns into a never• 

ending ratepayer or taxpayer burden when it is a public utilit)'. 
161 


29879.103

DIGITAL ACCESS TO 

SCHOLARSHIP AT HARVARD 

Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America 

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. 

Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. 

Talbot, David, Kira Hessekiel, and Danielle Kehl. 2017. 

Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America. 

Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Publication. 

January 29, 2018 7:06:05 PM EST 

http:/ /nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3: HUL.InstRepos :34623 85 9 

This article was downloaded from Harvard University's DASH 

repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions 

applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at 

http:/ /nrs .harvard. edu/urn-3 :HUL. I nstRe pos: dash. current. terms-ofuse 

(Article begins on next page) 
162 


29879.104
163 


29879.105

ABSTRACT 

We collected advertised prices for residential data plans offered by 40 community-owned 

(typically municipally owned) Internet service providers liSPs) that offer fiber-to-the-home 

(FTIH) service. We then identified the least-expensive service that meets the federal 

definition of broadband-at least 25 Mbps download and 3 Mbps upload-and compared advertised prices to those of private competitors in the same markets. We found 

that most community-owned FTIH networks charged less and offered prices that were 

clear and unchanging, whereas private ISPs typically charged initial low promotional or 

"teaser" rates that later sharply rose, usually after 12 months. We were able to make 

comparisons in 27 communities. We found that in 23 cases, the community-owned FTIH 

providers' pricing was lower when averaged over four years. {Using a three year-average 

changed this fraction to 22 out of 27.) In the other 13 communities, comparisons were 

not possible, either because the private providers' website terms of service deterred or 

prohibited data collection or because no competitor offered service that qualified as 

broadband. We also made the incidental finding that Com cast offered different prices 

and terms for the same service in different regions. 
164 


29879.106

KEY FINDINGS 

• When considering entry-level broadband service-the least-expensive plan that provides at 

least 25/3 Mbps service-23 out of 27 community-owned FTTH providers we studied charged 

the lowest prices in their community when considering the annual average cost of service over a 

four-year period, taking into account installation and equipment costs and averaging any initial 

teaser rates with later, higher, rates. This is based on data collected in late 2015 and 2016. 

• In these 23 communities, prices for the lowest-cost program that met the current definition of 

broadband were between 2.9 percent and 50 percent less than the lowest-cost such service 

offered by a private provider (or providers) in that market. !n the other four cases, a private provider's service cost between 6.9 percent and 30.5 percent less. 

• While community-owned FTTH providers' pricing is generally clear and unchanging, private 

providers almost always offer initial "teaser" prices and then raise the monthly price sharply. 

This price hike in the communities we studied ranged between $10 (20 percent) and $30 (42.8 

percent) after 12 months, both imposed by Comcast, but in different communities. Only one 

community-owned FTTH provider employed this marketing practice for a data-only plan. This 

exception was a student discount offered by the M!NET network in Oregon. 

• Language in the website "terms of service" {TOS) of some private ISPs strongly inhibits research 

on pricing. The TOS for AT&T, Verizon, and Time Warner Cable (now owned by Charter), were 

particul~r!y strong in deterring such efforts; as a result, we did not record data from these three 

compan1es. 

• While the United States has 40 community networks offering broadband FITH service (many of 

them serving more than one municipality), we did not make comparisons with private competitors in 13 cases, either because the TOS prohibited data collection or because no competing 

broadband service existed in the community network's home community. 

• We noted that Com cast varied its teaser rates and other pricing details from region to region. 

Our sample size was small; just seven of the communities we studied were served by Comcast. 

Understanding Com cast's pricing practices and their consumer impacts across the United States 

would require much deeper study. 

• In general we found that making comprehensive pricing comparisons among U.S. Internet service plans is extraordinarily difficult. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does 

not disseminate pricing data or track broadband availability by address. Additionally, service 

offerings follow no standard speed tiers or definitions (such as the specifics of video or phone 

service burdles). We focused on comparing entry-level broadband plans in part because of 

these complexities. 
165 


29879.107

INTRODUCTION limited scope and the unavailability of some 

data makes this study inherently incomplete. But 

By one recent estimate, about 8.9 percent of our findings in communities served by 27 comAmericans, or about 29 million people, lack ac- munity-owned fiber networks are compelling 

cess to wired home broadband service, which enough to suggest the need for more data and 

the FCC defines as an Internet access connection research about broadband pricing, competition, 

providing speeds of at least 25 Mbps download and adoption in the United States. As we explain 

and 3 Mbps upload-' Even where broadband is below, the FCC is the most appropriate body to 

aval!able, high prices inhibit adoption; in one na- undertake comprehensive data collection and 

tiona! survey, 33 percent of non-subscribers cited dissemination; at the same time, nothing precost of service as the primary barrier.2 Communi- vents state regulatory bodies from requesting 

ty-owned networks have been proposed as one greater disclosure by ISPs operating within state 

driver of competition, resulting in better service boundaries. 

and lower prices. 3 

But a lack of accurate and comprehensive data 

about the true state of Internet access speeds 

and pricing in communities across the country 

hampers research into the relative value of community networks, among other public-interest 

questions. Against this difficult backdrop, we 

attempted to manually examine the pricing on 

Internet access service plans of FTfH networks 

owned by cities, towns, counties, and cooperatives. (We refer to these as "community-owned 

FTTH networks.") 

We also examined pricing offered by the following private competitors that offer services 

competing with the community-owned FTIH 

networks: Comcast, Charter, Mediacom, Cox 

Communications, KTC Pace, Interstate Telecommunications Cooperative, Zito Media, Bernard 

Telephone & Communications, Emily Cooperative Telephone Company, Centurylink, Wave, 

and TDS Telecommunications. Due to restrictive 

website terms of service (described more fully 

below) we did not collect data from AT&T, Verizan, or Time Warner Cable. 

We believe this study is the first to compare 

prices for Internet access services that minimally meet the FCC's definition of broadband. Our 

SCOPE AND SUMMARY OF METHODS 

In order to identify which community networks 

to include in this study, we relied on a list of networks provided by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), a nonprofit research group that 

has identified approximately 400 U.S. community-owned networks.4 The Obama White House 

relied on ILSR's list when it published a 2015 report on the value of community-owned broadband networks. 5 We focused specifically on 40 

community networks on the ILSR's list that offer 

fiber-to-the-home (FTTH) service-as opposed 

to service from DSL, coaxial cable, or hybrid 

technology. (These 40 networks serve at least 80 

municipalities, but we made the comparisons in 

the community in which the network originated.) 

We focused on community FTTH networks because fiber will likely be the technology of choice 

for any new public or private networks {given its 

exceptionally high capacity, versatility, and durability) and because fiber requires the highest 

up-front investment and installation costs (DSL 

and cable networks have often been repurposed 

from legacy phone and TV services). If anything, 

our focus on fiber may put community networks 

at a comparative disadvantage when making 

price comparisons. First, these communities are 
166 


29879.108

more likely to be still paying off debts, because 

fiber will have been more recently built. Second, 

the cost of installing fiber is significantly higher 

than the cost of upgrading existing cable networks. 

To coHect data, we visited the websltes of the 

community-owned FTIH providers and recorded pricing information for Internet access only 

services, and employed a similar methodology 

to collect information from private competitors. 

{A full discussion of our methods is found at the 

end of this report.) However, for the private providers, we typically had to take the extra step of 

entering individual residential addresses to obtain prices. 

We also did not collect or compare pricing of 

"bundled" packages because the complexity of 

these offerings makes direct comparisons difficult, if not impossible, given the lack of standard 

definitions of service offerings. In any case, and 

as noted later in this report, survey data suggests that consumers are increasingly "cord cutting" or taking Internet-only services. The extent 

to which this is occurring is unknown to us. What 

does seem clear from our research is that consumers seeking the cheapest plan that qualifies 

as broadband will end up with a data-only plan. 

But data plans also follow no standard tiers. And 

some private providers' websites made it challenging to find certain information, For example, 

Comcast often does not advertise its upload 

speeds on pages where it promotes its services 

to customers. in such cases, we found it necessary to turn to other sources, such as conversations with customer service agents or third-party 

reports. 

Comparisons were not possible for all 40 community networks. ln five cases, the community 

provider had no broadband-speed competition6 

in the community network's home community 

(we checked prices in one community per network), which likely explains why they entered the 

business in the first place. In eight other cases, 

we did not conduct any comparison with private 

broadband service pricing because of restrictive 

TOS. 

We analyzed only data from providers that offer Internet access speeds of at least 25 Mbps 

download and 3 Mbps upload, described by 

former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler as "table 

stakes for twenty-first century communications. "7 

Put simply, our goal here was to determine what 

broadband actually costs and whether community-owned FTTH networks provide better deals 

than private competitors for this essential service. We conclude that they do. 
167 


29879.109

MAIN FINDING 

COMMUNITY FIBER NETWORKS OFFER 

BETTER ENTRY-LEVEL BROADBAND 

VALUES AND CLEARER, TEASER-FREE 

PRICING 

Our major finding is that in 23 out of27 communities where comparisons were possible, entry-level broadband service from a community-owned 

FTTH network-meaning the lowest-cost service 

that met the FCC's definition of broadband (at 

least 25 Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload)-was 

!ess expensive, when considering the average 

annual cost of service over fouryears, 8 than such 

service offered by a private competitor. 

The benefits ranged from a savings of 2.9 percent, or $19, annually in Tullahoma, Tennessee, to 

more than 50 percent, or $600, annually in Lafayette, Louisiana. Twelve of the community-owned 

FTTH providers beat their private competitors' 

prices by 20 percent or more for .~ntry-lev~l 

broadband service. In four commun1t1es, a pn~ 

vate provider beat the community-owned FTTH 

network. In in such cases, the benefits ranged 

from a 6.9 percent, or $50, saving for users of 

Charter Spectrum in Jackson, Tennessee, to 

about a 30.5 percent, or $298, saving, also for 

users of Charter Spectrum, in Churchill, Nevada. 

The lowest-speed tier that met the broadband minimum varied from provider to provider. In 13 cases, the private provider's 

lowest-cost plan that met the broadband threshold offered higher speeds than did the lowest-cost broadband service of community-owned 

FTTH networks. In six cases, the reverse was true; 

in five cases, the speeds were the same. 

Our secondary finding was that community 

-owned providers furnish consumers with dramatically dearer pricing. Of the 35 _private Internet access plans we encountered m our data 

collection, 25 offered low-cost initial promotiona I (or ''teaser") rates and then increased the 

rate substantially at the conclusion of the initial 

period (typically 12 months). By contrast, we encountered only three examples of promotional 

pricing among the community-owned !SPs we 

studied. And MINET, in the towns of Monmouth 

and Independence, Oregon, was the only one to 

offer such a deal on a plan offering Internet access only, in the form of a special promotion for 

students.9 The private providers' price increases at the expiration of the promotional period 

ranged from 20 percent, or $10 monthly (Comcast Xfinity in Longmont, Colorado), to 42.8 percent, or $30.04 monthly (Com cast Xfinity in Concord, Massachusetts). 

We do not know what fraction of broadband 

subscribers take data-only plans as opposed to 

bundles. However, surveys of U.S. consumers by 

the Pew Research Center indicate a trend toward "cord cutting" (the practice of canceling a 

cable TV subscription and merely taking a data 

plan). In late 2015 Pew reported that about 15 

percent of Americans were cord cutters and that 

another nine percent had never taken a TV subscription, 10 Younger people appear more likely 

to do without bundles. Pew's most recent survey, 

in September of 2017, found that 60 percent of 

people aged 18-29 said they mainly watched TV 

by using services such as Netflix. 11 

Our study, though limited in scope, contains a 

dear finding: community-owned FTIH networks 

tend to provide lower prices for their entry-level broadband service than do private telecommunications companies, and are dearer about 

and more consistent in what they charge. They 

may help close the "digital divide" by providing 

broadband at prices more Americans can afford. 
168 


29879.110
169 


29879.111

Cheapest Tiers Meeting Broadband Definition 

Community Fiber Networks Tend to Beat Private Competitors 

This table reviews advertised broadband prices in 27 communities served by community-owned FTTH 

networks and one or two private providers. The do!!ar figures present average cost per year over four 

years and takes into account all fees and recurring costs. 
170 


29879.112

KEY 

1: community may also be served by AT&T We did not collect data from AT&T because of prohibitions conin the terms of service posted on AT& T's website. 

community may also be served by Verizon DSL service. We did not cotlect data from Verizon because of 

mc>h<t)>n<ons contained in the terms of service posted on Verizon's website. 

3: Because this community !SP offered only bundled phone/data, we used the phone/data price in place of a 

data-only price and did not attempt to subtract the value of the phone service. 

4: This community provider also offered a higher speed that was closer to the entry-level speed of the private 

provider. However, we only compared the cheapest possible plans that met broadband definitions. We also did 

not attempt to verify actual delivered speeds for any ISE 

5: Longmont, CO, has a DSL provider whose website does not prohibit data collection and that offers broadband speeds. In this one case, we collected the pricing information in March of2017_ 

6: Seven of the 27 communities were served by two private ISPs providing at least 25/3 Mbps service, resulting 

in the split row containing two sets of prices 

7: In August of 2016, Crosslake Communications was bought by Tri-Co Technologies, a partnership of three private companies. We collected our data before this occurred. 

8: The Highland Fiber Network serves a community called Issaquah Highlands, a neighborhood within Issaquah, 

WA. It does not serve the larger municipality of Issaquah. 
171 


29879.113

INCIDENTAL FINDINGS 

COM CAST SUBSTANTIALLY VARIES 

PRICING AND TERMS BY REGION 

We made an incidental finding: Comcastwhich offers service in seven communities we 

studied-varies its teaser rates and other pricing 

strategies substantially from region to region. 

We don't know if Comcast's practice of varying pricing is common in the industry. (Charter 

Spectrum, present in 13 communities, appears 

to offer uniform pricing.) Many significant questions-such as impacts by region or demographic group-could be answered with better data. 

Here's how Comcast Xfinity's pricing differs by 

region: 

• Discounting a middle-tier speed option- !n 

four communities we studied, Comcast offered a middle tier of service at a promotional 

rate that was less expensive for the first year 

than was a slower plan. After the promotion 

expired, the price would rise sharply. 

• Presenting prices as a range- Comcastsometimes defined a monthly price as a range (between $2 and nearly $15 monthly), leaving it 

unclear what consumers would be paying. 

• Varying teaser rates- Comcast employed different teaser rate progressions, including a 

price increase after 12 months and two price 

increases over a period of three years. 

• Discounts for paperless billing and automatic payments- In four communities, the promotional price Comcast advertised in bold 

was only available to customers who allowed 

Comcast to automatically charge monthly 

payments to their credit card or bank. Prices 

were $10 higher for customers who did not 

agree, a practice that penalizes consumers 

without credit cards or bank accounts or who 

are reluctant to provide permission. 

• Service with or without a contract - In Issaquah, WA, and Longmont, CO, Comcast 

offered consumers a choice of taking service 

through a 12-month contract or doing so 

without a contract (and its potential cancellation fees) for $10 more a month. As a result, 

anyone who chose the plan without a contract but didn't end up canceling within the 

first year would spend an additional $120. 
172 


29879.114
173 


29879.115
174 


29879.116

CONCLUSION 

Studying the pricing practices of U.S. Internet 

service providers is challenging. Many ISPs deter data collection, service plans and pricing 

strategies aren't standardized, and regulators 

don't collect and release enough relevant data. 

Against this backdrop, we did our best over more 

than 18 months to manually gather and harmonize data to explore whether community-owned 

FTTH networks or private providers offered the 

best values in providing a service that minimally 

met the FCC's definition of broadband. 

We found that in 23 out of 27 communities 

where comparisons were possible, entty-level 

broadband service from a community-owned 

FTIH network was indeed less expensive than 

comparable service offered by a private competitor when considering the annual cost of service averaged over four years. What's more, the 

community providers were generally far dearer 

in how they presented pricing-steering clear of 

initial teaser rates that later rise sharply. 

But the unavailability of comprehensive data 

leaves many fundamental questions unanswered, 

These include: What does broadband service 

actually cost consumers in the United States? To 

what extent do carriers actually charge the rates 

set forth in price lists? How many consumers attempt to renegotiate after teaser rates expire, 

and how many pay higher prices for many more 

years? Exactly how sensitive are consumers to 

price when choosing to adopt broadband service? Are publicly owned FTTH networks a better value overall than private ones? Do companies frequently vary pricing of the same service 

in different regions, and does this have a disparate impact on different demographic groups? 

Do municipally or other community-owned systems put downward price pressure on private 

company offerings? 

Existing efforts at regulatory data collection fall 

far short of what would be needed to answer 

such questions. While the FCC collects data 

about advertised speed tiers and other service 

offerings through a telecom industty reporting 

document called Form 477, it does not comprehensively collect data on pricing. (It does collect 

some pricing data in specific circumstances, such 

as from schools and libraries that participate In 

the E-rate program, which subsidizes Intern-et 

access to those institutions.22) 

The FCC also only collects data by census block, 

not address. The FCC recently sought comment 

on proposals to expand the scope of data collection under Form 477 and specifically asked 

whether collecting data at the street-address 

level would be beneficial. 23 Having gone through 

this data-collection exercise, we can report that 

the answer is yes. Street-address-level data, if 

available for study, would speak most clearly 

about the state of broadband service, price, and 

competition in the United States. 

Some existing resources aren't useful in practice. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) in 2009 created 

a National Broadband Map, but among other 

problems with this resource, it provides no information about pricing, and data collection for the 

map ceased in June of2014. The Commerce Department collects and publishes aggregate data 

about the state of broadband competition In the 

United States, but it does so only at the level of 

census blocks. In general, data is not collected in 

a coordinated manner, is often incomplete, and 

omits critical information like price. 24· 25 Other independent organizations have attempted to fill 
175 


29879.117

the gap but have faced the same challenges we ABOUT THE PROJECT 

did.26 

Community-owned networks are facing pressure. State governments in at least 20 states 

have enacted restrictions on these providers, often with language drafted by cable and telecom 

lobbyists. 27 Dunng Tom Wheeler's tenure as FCC 

chairman, the commission pushed back: the FCC 

in 2015 moved to preempt state laws in North 

Carolina and Tennessee that restrict municipal 

broadband providers from offering service beyond current service boundaries/8 but a federal 

appeals court reversGd the FCC's decision. 29 

Our findings, though limited in scope, point to 

the benefits of community fiber networks in providing broadband to Americans at prices that 

are more affordable. The national interest would 

be served by deeper data collection and study. 

AUTHORS 

David Talbot is a fellow at the Berkman Klein Center for 

internet & Sonety, at Harvard University. K1ra Hessekie! is 

a proJect coordinator of Harvard Law School's Cyber!aw 

Clinic, based at the Berkman Klem Center. Danielle Kehl 

her th1rd year at Harvard Law School and is a fellow at 

Amenca's Open Technology Institute and the Internet Law & Policy f-oundry. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 

Rob F-aris, research director at the Berkman Klein Center; 

Susan Crawford, dimca! professor at Harvard law School; 

Waide Warner, lecturer in law at tlarvard law School; Jim 

Bailer, president of BaUer Stokes & Ude in Washington, 

DC; Ashley Shelfox, associate at Baller Stokes & lide; 

Scott Bradner, secretary to the l!!ternet Society who has 

held many leadership roles within the Internet Engineering Task Force; and Chris Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative at the Institute for 

Local Self-Reliance all provided expertise about municipal 

networks and guidance about basic research methodologms. Christopher Savitz, managing director of the Cyberlaw C!in1c at Harvard Law School; Andy Sellars, former Cybedaw Ciinic instructional fellow; and former clinic student 

Andr·ea E::ls provided advice about terms of service (TOS). 

Harvard Law students Kelley McG1!! and ldippo Rasa, and 

undergraduates Alyss<J Sm1th and Pau!om1 Rao, provided 

research n.ssistance in collecting data 

29 lennessee 11 Federal CommurHcat•ons Comm•ss1on, 832 F.3d 597 (6th Clr. 2016) 
176 


29879.118

APPENDIX 

METHODS 

Communities Included in the Study We limited the community-owned JSPs in our survey to 

those that provide fiber-to-the-home (FTTH} residential 

!n this study, the term "community-owned FTTH 

refers to FTTH prov!ders owned by a city, town, 

county, cooperative, or other public body. 
177 


29879.119

Contracts 

One-Time Costs In addition to recurring monthly charges, we also recorded 

any fees or costs that customers had to pay once in the 

course of acquiring, setting up, or canceling service 

ternet access service, and are 

addition to or in lieu of an 

When we encounterod costs that did not fit these definitions, we noted th1s as "other" and explained in notes. 

Recurring Costs 

Many ISPs also had additional recurring costs, 

defined as fees or costs that customers 

in addition to the monthly Internet 

recorded the cost of the optional equipment in 

notes. 

ISPs charge customers 

to cal! a customer supof whether the cusA recurring cost that did not match the above descriptions 

was recorded as "other" and explained in notes. 

Network Details We recorded the network infrastructure types: fiber 

cable, coaxial cable, or DSL. For hybrid networks, we 

our best to note that the ISP used rnuhiple types of network mfrastructure 

Calculating and Comparing Pricing We calculated how much a customer would pay each ye.ar 

for four years, on average, after accounting for promotiona! rates, subsequent post-promotional rates, and one-time 

costs. We reasoned that four years was a reasonable term 

to consider. A 2010 FCC working paper found that 62 perof surveyed Americans hadn't switched providers in 

past three years.3'' We also ran calculations for three 

years (a period of t1me that would likely benefit private 

providers, given that they tend initial lower teaser rates) and found that the additional 

community-owned FTIH Iowa) became slightly more expensive on average 
178 


29879.120

For Immediate Release Contact: 

Eben Wyman: (703) 750-1326 

House Subcommittee Considers Several Measures to Facilitate Broadband Deployment 

Legislation Addresses Permit Delays, Regulatory Hurdles 

January 29, 2018 

Washington, D.C.- The Power and Communication Contractors Association {PCCA) strongly supports 

several legislative measures introduced by the House Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology that would establish priorities for broadband buildouts, including permit reform, 

streamlining environmental hurdles, and standardizing application forms for broadband infrastructure 

improvements. 

"PCCA appreciates the bipartisan approach by Chairman Blackburn and the members of the 

subcommittee who are offering a range of legislative measures aimed at deploying broadband across 

America more effectively," said PCCA President Jim Dillahunty, of Henkels and McCoy, Blue Bell, Pa. 

"Many of these bills would take needed steps to provide unserved and underserved areas the highspeed internet service that is needed now more than ever." 

PCCA strongly supports the Communications Facilities Deployment on Federal Property Act of 2018 (HR 

4795), offered by Rep. Mimi Walters (R·Calif.). The legislation would require executive agencies to use 

common application forms and cost-based application fees for easements, rights-of-way, and master 

contracts for placement of communications facility installations on federal property. 

PCCA also supports the Streamlining Permitting to Enable Efficient Deployment of Broadband 

Infrastructure (SPEED) Act (HR 4842), which would exempt certain broadband facilities in existing rightsof-way from environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The bill would 

also exempt facilities from environmental reviews where other facilities on the same property have 

already been approved. Importantly, the SPEED Act would exempt expansion of broadband facilities 

from environmental and historic preservation reviews if the expansion of the broadband facility is no 

more than 30 feet in any direction. 
179 


29879.121

Although PCCA does not have an official position on policy regarding "one-touch make-ready" (OTMR), 

we support HR 4858, the Clearing Local Impediments Makes Broadband Open to New Competition and 

Enhancements (CLIMB ONCE) Act, introduced by Rep. Anna Eshoo (0-Calif.) The legislation would 

confirm state authority to adopt an OTMR policy for pole attachments, which allows attachers and pole 

owners to use a contractor or set of contractors, approved by pole owners, to coordinate and perform 

all work related to a new attachment. Under OTMR policy, new attachers could use a single or set of 

approved contractors to complete all ofthe work in a coordinated timeframe in lieu of several crews to 

perform sequential make-ready work on a given pole. Allowing states to enact policy that would allow 

for approved broadband and power contractors to perform this work would avoid multiple reviews and 

truck rolls for each of the providers already attached to the pole. 

PCCA also appreciates the resolutions offered by Reps. Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Bob Latta (R-Ohio), 

Richard Hudson (R-N.c.), and Gus Bilirakis (R-Fia.), which promote policy to ensure permitting and 

regulatory requirements are coordinated to maximize the benefits that come with broadband 

investment and to focus broadband deployment on underserved areas. 

PCCA members work every day on projects that provide and enhance broadband services to localities 

across the country, both urban and rural, and we look forward to helping advance many ofthese bills 

through the legislative process this year. 

The Power ond Communication Contractors Association represents contractors, manufacturers, ond distributors 

who build ond repair America's power ond communications infrastructure, including electric transmission, 

distribution, ond substation facilities ond broadband, telephone, ond cable television systems. 

### 
180 


29879.122

1129/2018 Scoop: Trump team considers nationallzing 5G network ~ Axios 

Scoop: Trump team considers nationalizing SG network 

Photo: Chip Somoclevilla 1 Getty Images 

Trump national security officials are considering an unprecedented federal takeover of a portion of the 

nation's mobile network to guard against China, according to sensitive documents obtained by Axios. 

Why it matters: We've got our hands on a Power Point deck and a memo- both produced by a senior 

National Security Council official - which were presented recently to senior officials at other agencies in 

the Trump administration. 

The main points: The documents say America needs a centralized nationwide sG network within three 

years. There'll be a fierce debate inside the Trump administration- and an outcry from the industryover the next 6-8 months over how such a network is built and paid for. 

Two options laid out by the documents: 

L The U.S. government pays for and builds the single network- which would be an 

unprecedented nationalization of a historically private infrastructure. 

2. An alternative plan where wireless providers build their own sG networks that compete 

with one another - though the document says the downside is it could take longer and cost more. It 

htlps:/fwww.axlos.com/trump-team-debates~natlonalizing-5g-network-f1 e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d91 Off .html 113 
181 


29879.123

1129/2018 Scoop: Trump team conslden~ nationalizing 5G networi< ~Axles 

argues that one of the "pros" of that plan is that it would cause "less commercial disruption" to the 

wireless industry than the government building a network. 

Between the lines: A source familiar with the documents' drafting says Option 2 is really no option at 

all: a single centralized network is what's required to protect America against China and other bad actors. 

• The source said the internal White House debate will be over whether the U.S. government owns and 

builds the network or whether the carriers bind together in a consortium to build the network, an 

idea that would require them to put aside their business models to serve the country's greater good. 

Why it matters: Option 1 would lead to federal control of a part of the economy that today is largely 

controlled by private wireless providers. In the memo, the Trump administration likens it to "the 21st 

century equivalent of the Eisenhower National Highway System" and says it would create a "new 

paradigm" for the wireless industry by the end of Trump's current term. 

• But, but, but: The proposal to nationalize a 5G network also ouly covers one part of the airwaves; 

there'd be other spaces where private companies could build. 

The Power Point presentation says that the U.S. has to build superfast sG wireless technology quickly 

because "China has achieved a dominant position in the manufacture and operation of network 

infrastructure," and "China is the dominant malicious actor in the Information Domain." To illustrate the 

current state of U.S. wireless networks, the Power Point uses a picture of a medieval walled city, compared 

to a future represented by a photo oflower Manhattan. 

The best way to do this, the memo argues, is for the government to build a network itself. It would then 

rent access to carriers like AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile. (A source familiar with the document's drafting 

told Axios this is an "old" draft and a newer version is neutral about whether the U.S. government should 

build and own it.) 

• It's a marked shift from the current system where those companies each build their own systems 

with their own equipment, and with airwaves leased from the federal government. 

• Nationwide standard: the federal government would also, according to the memo, be able to use the 

banner of national security to create a federal process for installing the wireless equipment, 

preventing states and cities from having their own rules for where the equipment could go. 

The bigger picture: The memo argues that a strong sG network is needed in order to create a secure 

pathway for emerging technologies like self-driving cars and virtual reality- and to combat Chinese 

threats to America's economic and cyber security. A PowerPoint slide says the play is the digital counter to 

China's One Belt One Road Iuitiative meant to spread its influence beyond its borders. The documents 

https:/lwww.axios.com/trump~teem-debates·natioM!lzlng--5g·networ1<·f1e92a49-60T2--4e3e--acc14-f3eb03d910ff.html 213 
182 


29879.124

11291201a Scoop: Trump team COI"'slde!'ll nationalizing SG network~ Axles 

also fret about China's dominance of Artificial Intelligence, and use that as part ofthe rationale for this 

unprecedented proposal. 

• There's even a suggestion that America's work on a secure sG network could be exported to 

emerging markets to protect democratic allies against China. 

• "Eventoally," the memo says, "this effort could help inoculate developing countries against Chinese 

neo-colonial behavior." 

AI arms race: The memo says China is slowly winning the AI "algorithm battles," and that "not building 

the network puts us at a permanent disadvantage to China in the information domain." There is a real 

debate to be had over China and AI, but it's unclear what at all that has to do with a mobile network. 

Reality check: The U.S. wireless industry is already working on deploying sG networks, with AT&T, 

Verizon and T-Mobile, for example, investing heavily in this area. The process for setting sG standards is 

well underway. Korea has been at the forefront of testing, as have Japan and others. It's not clear a 

national strategy would yield a SG network faster or by the memo's 3-year goal. 

Get more stories like this by signing up for our weekly politicallookahead newsletter, Axios Sneak Peek. 

Go deeper: 

L How sG works 

2. The concerns raised about nationalizing sG 

3. Read the full memo below 

http&:l/www.axlos.comftrump-team-debates-nationaliz!ng-5g-network.~f1 e92a49.f30f2-4e3e-acd4·f3eb03d91 Off.html 313 
183 


29879.125

January 2S, 2018 

The Honorable Michael Doyle 

Ranking Member 

Communications and Technology Subcommittee 

of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

239 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20S1S 

Dear Congressman Doyle, 

403SMAIN ST POBOX20 LINDEN IN 

800.726.3953 I Fax 765.339.32431 

Thank you for your efforts to influence policies and legislation to expand broadband access throughout 

our nation. npmont has been leading the effort for its own members and believes that cooperatives 

are uniquely positioned to help expand broadband into rural America. Though we've found FCC 

programs to be ineffective, we can demonstrate that benefits from public funding for broadband 

expansion far exceed the costs of that support. 

FCC Programs are Ineffective 

npmont REMC participated in CAF-1 and is currently evaluating participation in CAF-11. Unfortunately, 

these programs are proving to be an ineffective solution for truly expanding broadband access. The 

FCC relies on census-block data self-reported by voice and broadband service providers on FCC Form 

477, however it's an inaccurate representation of service availability. Reporting service availability in a 

census block simply does not provide the granularity required to determine availability. If a service 

provider could demonstrate that they provided service to even one customer within that census block, 

they would get credit for serving the census block (Lennett, 2011). Although the FCC is investigating 

ways to improve data reporting accuracy, this dataset is the basis on which funding is distributed 

currently and in the near future. 

Tip mont REMC performed extensive survey work in its own electric service territory demonstrating 

that the need for broadband in rural America is much greater than what service providers have been 

reporting to the FCC. According to the FCC data, 93% of our nearly 23,000 members should have highspeed, reliable wireline access over fiber, cable and DSL technologies as depicted below in Figure 1: 

FCC Reported Internet Availability. The chart uses FCC data to demonstrate the best technology 

available to each of our members. As you can see in Figure 2: Member Reported Internet Availability, 

the FCC data stands in stark contrast to what Tipmont members reported directly in 2017 when asked 

how they received internet access. Tipmont's representative survey indicated that only 54% of our 

membership had access to high-speed, reliable wire line internet service. While there is considerable 

discussion about the FCC's shifting definition of broadband, from 3 Mbps I 768 Kbps 
184 


29879.126

:download/upload), to 25 Mbps 5 Mbps then jumping backwards to 10 Mbps /1 Mpbs, let's set 

aside the question of speed for a moment. Based on the survey data from our membership, wire line 

service availability in Tipmont's electric service territory is nearly 40% less than what is represented in 

lhe FCC's dataset. 

Based on Tipmont's research to pursue funding through CAF·Il, the FCC's data indicates that fewer 

than 300 locations in Tipmont's electric service territory lack access to infrastructure capable of 

providing l0/1 Mbps fixed broadband. Once again, according to the information we've gathered in 

Tipmont's service territory, we believe that the number closer to 10,000 to 15,000 locations. This 

discrepancy alone signals the need for a better approach using more granular and reliable data to 

understand the problem. 

As stated by the FCC, "Broadband has gone from being a luxury to a necessity for full participation in 

our economy and society- for all Americans," but the problem cannot be resolved if the information 

on which decision makers rely understates the true extent of the problem {FCC, 2018). The FCC's 

programs are the only ones available to fund broadband expansion into rural America. It causes us to 

question whether data at the census block level self-reported by service providers is really the best 

approach. 

Cooperatives Will lead the Solution 

Electric cooperatives are in a unique position to solve the broadband needs in rural America. They 

already own the infrastructure connecting homes in these rural areas and their business model is 

designed to solve these problems. Cooperatives are mission-based, not--for-profit organizations 
185 


29879.127

autonomously governed by the members they were created to serve. For decades, they've constructed 

capital-intensive infrastructure to serve their members' shared needs in areas where municipals and 

the private sector have chosen not to serve. Furthermore, cooperatives actively partner with 

governmental agencies, pursue regional economic development efforts, collaborate with community 

anchors and are trusted by their membership (Autry & Hall, 2009). Since their creation in the 1930s, 

cooperatives have proven to be a sound financial investment for the expansion of rural infrastructure 

to provide electric service. We believe that the same is true today, that cooperatives are a sound 

financial investment to expand broadband infrastructure to rural America. 

Economic Benefits Justify Support 

Cooperatives can lead the solution, but they will disproportionately bear the burden for the significant 

benefits returned to communities surrounding them. Tipmont and Indiana Electric Cooperatives (IEC) 

have commissioned a study with Purdue University to quantify the economic benefit the community 

derives from each dollar invested in broadband infrastructure. Preliminary results from the study 

already indicate that financial support for broadband infrastructure delivers significant economic gains 

for the community. 

We look forward to sharing results with you from this study in the near future and any additional 

information that will assist your efforts to expand broadband access in rural America. 

Sincerely, 

Ron Holcomb 

Tipmont REMC 

403 S Main St, Linden, IN 47955 

References 

Autry, C. T., & Hall, F. F. (2009, July). The advantages of the cooperative model for Broadband services. 

Cooperative Business Journal, 10. Retrieved from http://ahclaw.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/11/CBJ_Article_Rurai_Broadband.pdf 

FCC. (2018). Connect America Fund (CAF) [Federal Communications Commission]. Retrieved January 

25,2018, from https://www.fcc.gov/general/connect-america-fund-caf 

Len nett, B. (2011, May). Broadband data from the FCC is notoriously inaccurate. Measurement Lab can 

fix that. Retrieved January 25, 2018, from 

http://www .slate.com/ articles/technology /technology /2011/05/ map_ to _nowhere. htm I 
186 


29879.128

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Jonathan Spatter 

President and CEO 

USTelecom 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

C!ongrt1111 of tbt Wnittb ~tatt11 

;t,ouue of 1\eprtlltntatibell 

COMMITIEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-S115 Majority 1202)225-2927 

Mlnority(202)225-3641 

February 16, 20 18 

601 New Jersey Avenue, N.W.; Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20001 

Dear Mr. Spatter: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I} the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

lackbum 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
187 


29879.129

.. ::; :. ~ .. ... .. . ... ... ............ ............ 

........... ............ USTELECOM ····• ....... . !\;;;:r JONATHAN SPALTER 

President and Chief Executive Officer 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

March 5, 2018 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Chairman Blackburn, 

Please see the attached responses to Members' questions for the record from the 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology's hearing entitled "Closing the Digital 

Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" on January 30, 2018. 

It was an honor appearing before the Subcommittee on such an important topic, and I stand 

ready to work with you and any Member of the Energy & Commerce Committee on efforts to 

close the digital divide going forward. 

Jonathan Spa Iter 

601 New Jersey Avenue NW, Suite 600 • Washington, DC 20001 • 202.326.7244 T 

Jspalter@ustelecom.org • WHW,u:..lsli:co'1\ nrq 
188 


29879.130

The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

1. I have learned by representing the 9'h Congressional District of New York and the Smart 

Cities Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and 5G technology to 

their constituents. I am concerned, however, by the recent adversarial tone between 

industry and cities. I think it is wrong to characterize cities and industry as adversaries and 

not partners. 

a. Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring highspeed broadband and 5G technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for 

their constituents? What are your plans for this commitment and engagement? 

Our member companies have long been committed to aggressively deploying broadband 

in cities and other populous urban areas and remain dedicated to connecting Americans 

from coast to coast and everywhere in between. The imminent move to 50 technology 

only increases the incentive for our providers of high speed broadband connections to be 

the core delivery mechanism for smart technology, small cells, and the broader Internet 

of Things. Going forward, we will continue participating in the FCC's Broadband 

Deployment Advisory Council (BOAC) which fosters collaboration with parties from all 

communications sectors, as well as states and municipalities, to reach consensus for 

codes and regulations to incentivize optimal deployment strategies. BOAC allows both 

provider and government viewpoints to be heard and assessed, so all parties can 

collaborate and move forward to deliver next generation technologies as safely and 

efficiently as possible. We also look forward to working with Congress and the 

Administration to ensure the benefits and opportunities 5G network evolution will bring 

to our cities also can be equally enjoyed by all American families, communities and 

companies, including those in rural areas. 

h. Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and 

find a path forward that works for all consumer, cities, and the industry? 

Absolutely. 

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

1. It's been almost a year since Congress repealed the FCC's privacy rule with a CRA, 

partially based on the notion that the FTC would take care of privacy for consumers. FCC 

Chairman Pai also just repealed net neutrality, again kicking oversight over to the FTC. In 

the months since the repeal of the privacy rule, there have been no enforcement 

proceedings, working groups, or other types of actions has the FTC taken to address or give 

guidance a bout consumer privacy in the communications sector. 

a. Why should we believe that the FTC in the future will be diligent in providing the 

type of robust protections consumers need in a rapidly evolving communications 

environment, net neutrality, privacy, or otherwise, when it has so far failed to do so? 

The FTC has a long, successful history of assertively and aggressively protecting 

American consumers from unfair and anticompetitive practices in the communications 

sector, as well as related innovative technology industries. As an enforcement agency, the 

FTC evaluates the conduct of companies to ensure they are abiding by the promises they 

make to their customers and assesses company and individual actions to determine if any 
189 


29879.131

acts or practices cause hann to consumers and competition. Enforcement action happens 

after someone brings a complaint, based on facts, that someone or something has hanned 

them or violated a promise made to consumers. Our member companies have publically 

committed to the open internet principals that underpin the current net neutrality and 

privacy debates in our country, therefore it is no surprise that the FTC's record is not full 

of enforcement actions in this regard. The same cannot be said about other parts of the 

internet ecosystem. Delivering on consumer demand for a secure, reliable and fast 

connection to the internet is a priority for our members, one that drives busines~ decisions 

in this highly competitive industry. 

The FTC is anned with the expertise, tools, and statutory ground to police the internet 

ecosystem without chilling innovative ideas, a balance that should be applauded from 

both sides of the aisle. If a practice is novel or complex in its utilization of new 

technology, the FTC can supplement its own internal technological expertise with outside 

experts, and coordinate with other government agencies familiar with specific industry 

practices. Additionally, the FTC recently hosted PrivacyCon 2018, an event free and 

open to the public and streamed over the internet, which marks the third annual gathering 

of scholars and practitioners focused on emerging privacy and data security issues. 

Going forward, the resolution and certainty that the 9th Circuit's February 26th en bane 

ruling provides for FTC enforcement over internet service providers sets a clear path 

forward for consumers in light of the 2015 Open Internet Order's stripping of FTC 

authority. When asked about the possibility of this ruling in his Senate continuation 

hearing on February 14,2018, Chainnan Designate Joseph Simons said he expects the 

FTC to be a "vigorous enforcer" in the internet ecosystem. The parity that the FTC 

provides in its enforcement capability offers the level playing field consumers demand, 

eliminating the confusion over who can do what (and for how much) with personal 

information. To the extent that any fact-based complaints arrive at the FTC concerning 

internet service provider actions, we fully expect the complete enforcement capabilities 

of the FTC will be utilized to protect consumers. 
190 


29879.132

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

QCongre.u.u of tbe Wntteb ~tate.u 

l!)ou~e of latprt~tntattbt~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House OFFicE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6115 Majority (202)225-2927 

Minority {202)225-3641 

February 16, 2018 

Mr. Brad Gillen 

Executive Vice President 

CTIA 

1400 16th Street, N.W.; Suite 600 

Washington, DC 20036 

Dear Mr. Gillen: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: Tbe Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
191 


29879.133

Responses of Brad Gillen. Executive Vice President. CTIA 

To Questions for the Record 

Before the 

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 5, 2018 

Questions for the record from Congresswoman Clarke 

For Mr. Gillen 

I. Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring highspeed broadband and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for 

their constituents? What are your plans for this commitment and engagement? 

A. Yes. CTIA commends the Congresswoman for her attention to this critical issue, and 

agree that a close working relationship between operators and cities is key to unlocking 

the value of 5G for all Americans. 

As you have observed, 5G will have a transformative impact on the way Americans live 

and work in communities throughout this country. The high speed and low latency 

promised by 5G will improve the responsiveness of wireless networks and devices, 

creating new use cases that will produce widespread benefits not just in the 

telecommunications sector, but also for public safety, health care, transportation, 

accessibility, and more. Moreover, with an anticipated $275 billion in investment from 

the wireless industry, 5G technology is expected to bring three million new American jobs 

and will help unlock hundreds of billions in new investments across the country. A report 

by Accenture shows Smart Cities solutions built on 5G infrastructure could produce $160 

billion in benefits and savings for municipalities when applied to their electric grid and 

traffic management. This is just a small snapshot of what 5G services can bring when 

municipalities and industry work collaboratively. 

A key piece of realizing the benefits of Smart Cities is education and outreach to local 

officials about the promises of 5G and the proactive steps mayors and local leaders can 

take to ensure their communities are 5G ready. Across the country, CTIA and our 

members have been reaching out to policymakers at all levels of government to 

encourage modernization of wireless siting policies, including efforts to ensure the rapid 

and efficient buildout of the infrastructure necessary for capacity-building. 

The good news is because of this outreach we are already seeing investments flow to 

communities that are moving forward to capitalize on the 5G opportunity. Verizon, for 

instance, has announced it will be commercially deploying a 5G network in Sacramento 

in the second half of 2018. This deal sprung out of the close cooperation between Verizon 

and the Sacramento city government. AT&T also recently announced its plans to offer 

mobile 5G to its customers in a dozen cities by the end of 2018. Minneapolis is one of the 

cities in AT&T's 5G Evolution Test Market. thanks in part to the city's small cell ordinance 

designed to bring more investment to the city. The state of Minnesota also recently 
192 


29879.134

Responses of Brad Gillen, Executive Vice President, CTIA 

To Questions for the Record 

Before the 

U.S. House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

March 5, 2018 

passed a small cell law that establishes a clear timeline for cities to issue or deny small 

cell permits and sets a statewide annual fee for SG small cell deployments. These are just 

two examples--and we are seeing similar investments from all the national carriers as well 

as regional providers-that offer a clear roadmap for how city leaders can attract the 

investment their communities need. 

We applaud those states and localities that have modernized their policies to reflect the 

size and scale of next-generation network architecture, and we look forward to working 

with other communities to continue these efforts and to ensure robust connectivity across 

the nation, to the benefit of consumers, local governments, and the American economy. 

2. Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and find 

a path forward that works for all consumers, cities and the industry? 

A. Yes. CTIA is committed to working with you to resolve any disputes and to find a path 

forward that will work for local governments, consumers, and the wireless industry alike. 

We cannot maintain our global leadership as the wireless ecosystem evolves from 4G LTE 

to SG without the close collaboration and support of state and local governments. We 

recognize the integral role states and localities play in modernizing our infrastructure and 

we will continue to work closely with local leaders to ensure the tremendous potentials of 

SG is unleashed. 

2 
193 


29879.135

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

QCongrt1)1) of tf)t Wnittb .i>tatt1) 

f$ou!)e of l\epre!)entntibe!) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 Majority {202)225-2927 

Minor!tv (202)225-3641 

February 16,2018 

Mr. Matthew Polka 

President and CEO 

American Cable Association 

7 Parkway Center Drive South; Suite 755 

Pittsburgh, PA 15220 

Dear Mr. Polka: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions.'' 

Pnrsuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
194 


29879.136

The Honorable Steve Scalise 

1. I have long fought to eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations that hinder innovation, stifle 

job creation in our economy, and limit access and/or choices for consumers. One area where I 

have a particular interest is in the video marketplace, where the '92 Cable Act was based on a 

dramatically different set of industry competition than exists today. The result of these 

outdated rules and regulations is less competition, less innovation, and less freedom for 

consumers and job creators alike. As a result, small and rural multichannel video 

programming distributors (MVPDs) are increasingly forced to choose between offering video 

service at a loss or dropping the serve offer altogether. The and eliminate outdated laws for 

the sake of consumers and other stakeholders so that there is finally a more level playing 

field. 

Answer: 

a. Please explain what, if any tradeoffs you have seen your member companies make as 

it relates to investment and the buildout of broadband as business operation costs 

increase, and the freedom to innovate and meet consumer demand remain stuck in 

the 20th century. 

Small and medium-sized multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs} are at the forefront of 

deploying new high-performance broadband networks, especially in rural areas. Over the past five 

years, ACA members have invested more than $10 billion to upgrade and expand their networks, both in 

rural areas and as overbuilders bringing competition in urban areas, and they plan to continue to spend 

billions each year to meet their ever-growing subscribers' demands for real-time, high-speed access to 

the Internet and other IP services. ACA members are also using their capital to bring service to unserved 

areas. To date, ACA members have invested private funds to build out to more than 840,000 homes 

that the Federal Communications Commission would consider as located in high-cost areas and 

otherwise be eligible for federal universal service support. 

ACA members' networks support the provision of the triple-play of multichannel video, broadband and 

phone services. Despite online video's growth in recent years, most households continue to subscribe 

to traditional multichannel video service- and continue to take this service as part of a bundle with 

broadband internet access. As a result, few MVPDs see a viable business model in offering only 

broadband today. The viability of multichannel video service is therefore fundamental to MVPDs' 

decisions to invest in new broadband deployments. 

In recent years, the economics of multichannel video service for MVPDs have been worsening, 

particularly for smaller MVPDs. As ACA has noted, the cost of content for small cable operator members 

continues to increase at 10 percent annually while they limit retail rate increases to 4 percent annually. 

As a result, video margins have declined from 2012 to 2015 from 22 percent to 13 percent, and they 

have fallen further since then. In addition, cord-cutting has reduced the number of multichannel video 

subscribers for smaller MVPDs by about 6 percent annually. 

In 2015, ACA contracted with the business consulting firm, Cartesian, to develop research and 

supporting analysis regarding the effect of video programming cost increases on broadband deployment 

Matthew Polka's Response to Questions for the Record 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

March 5, 2018 
195 


29879.137

in different market scenarios. This study, which ACA published as a paper, "High and Increasing Video 

Programming Fees Threaten Broadband Deployment," found that iftrends continue, traditional MVPD 

margins will be reduced substantially each year, and multichannel video service will become a losing 

proposition for most small to medium-sized providers. As a result of the revenue loss from video, 

MVPDs will have less free cash available for new investment which in turn will act as a drag on 

broadband deployment. In fact, because margins are shrinking today, this deleterious effect is already 

occurring. 

ACA applauds your efforts to eliminate outdated rules and regulations that artificially keep broadcast 

and non-broadcast programming costs higher than would be expected in a free market. By fixing the 

broken pay television marketplace, the Congress would also be promoting investing in broadband 

networks. 

The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

1. I have learned by representing the 9th Congressional District of New York and the Smart Cities 

Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and SG technology to their 

constituents. I am concerned, however, by the recent adversarial tone between the industry 

and cities. I think it is wrong to characterize cities and industry as adversaries and not 

partners. 

Answer: 

a. Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring highspeed broadband and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for 

their constituents? What are your plans for this commitment and engagement? 

b. Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and find 

a path forward that works for all consumers, cities, and the industry? 

ACA's broadband providers share the objective of local governments to bring high-speed broadband to 

consumers. We are particularly aware of this common aim because many ACA members are 

municipally-owned providers. We thus have a close connection to local governments, and we recognize 

the significant contributions they make to their communities. We also know that most other ACA 

members have excellent working relationships with local governments, and some have even forged 

partnerships to develop broadband capabilities. ACA continues to work to promote such partnerships 

and closer relationships between providers and local governments. Given the advantages of working 

together, ACA stands ready to join efforts aimed at finding consensus between cities and providers on 

ways to expedite the deployment high-speed broadband networks. Further, ACA commits to working 

with your office to help resolve any disputes that exist now or may arise later, and on ways to minimize 

or eliminate these disputes altogether. 

Matthew Polka's Response to Questions for the Record 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions 

March 5, 2018 
196 


29879.138

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

qrongre~~ of tbt Wnittb ~tate~ 

~oulie of ~eprelientatibeli 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 Maforlty 1202)225-2927 

Minority (202)22s-3641 

February 16,2018 

Ms. Shirley Bloomfield 

CEO 

NTCA-The Rural Broadband Association 

4121 Wilson Boulevard; Suite I 000 

Arlington, VA 22203 

Dear Ms. Bloomfield: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ 

Sincerely, 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
197 


29879.139

N-.9:;,..--. THERURAL 

BROADBAND 

ASSOCIATION 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Communications and Technology Hearing On 

"Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions" 

January 30. 2018 

Responses of Shirley Bloomfield to Questions Submitted for the Record 

The Honorable Steve Scalise: I have long fought to eliminate unnecessary rules and regulations that 

hinder innovation, stifle job creating in our economy, and limit access and/or choices for consumers. 

One area where I have a particular interest is in the video marketplace, where the '92 Cable Act was 

based on a dramatically different set of industry competition than exists today. The result of these 

outdated rules and regulations is less competition, less innovation, and less freedom for consumers 

and job creators alike. As a result, small and rural MVPDs are increasingly forced to choose between 

offering video services at a loss or dropping the service offer altogether. We should eliminate 

outdated laws for the sake of consumers and other stakeholders so that there is finally a more level 

playing field. 

Please explain what, if any, tradeoffs you have seen your member companies make as it relates to 

investment and the buildout of broadband as business operation costs increase, and the freedom to 

innovate and meet consumer demand remain stuck in the 20"' century. 

Small, hometown-based rural telecom providers like those in NTCA's membership connect rural 

Americans with the world- making every effort to deploy advanced networks that provide first-class 

broadband and video services to consumers and businesses across rural America. 

Even with our member companies averaging 2S employees or less, these small businesses offer 

advanced communications services that have helped rural communities thrive in the 21" century. 

However, providing innovative communications services such as video, mobile and fixed broadband, and 

voice in rural America does not come without extreme challenges. These cooperatives and small, 

hometown companies serve the most rural parts of the United States, reaching areas that contain less 

than five percent of the U.S. population but which are spread across more than 35 percent of the U.S. 

landmass- where the average density is about seven customers per square mile, or roughly the average 

population density for the entire state of Montana. 

For many rural providers, offering video services in addition to voice and broadband services is an 

essential part of making the business case to invest in the first instance and then stay in operation. 

Bundled packages that include video make our members' services more convenient and attractive to the 

customers they serve, and surveys reveal that offering video helps to drive broadband adoption as well. 

Moreover, as the sole provider of video in many rural areas, these rural communities rely on the video 

services provided by our small, rural broadband and video providers. Nearly one-fourth of NTCA's 

members report that 90 percent or more of the customers in their service areas cannot receive any 

over-the-air broadcast signals, and therefore rely upon multichannel video programming distributor 

{MVPD) services to receive local news, weather reports, and similar benefits of local broadcasts. 
198 


29879.140

N 19::;..--- THE RURAL 

BROADBAND 

ASSOCIATION 

Because many rural areas do not receive broadcast television signals, simply removing video from the 

services provided by our member companies could result in consumers having no access to that content. 

The economics of providing rural broadband and video are difficult enough on their own in rural 

markets, even before one gets to the effects of escalating content costs. The rates that rural consumers 

pay are rarely sufficient to cover even the costs of operating in rural areas, much less justify the 

enormous capital expenditures required to deploy reliable, advanced networks in rural America. 

Unfortunately, the ever-increasing retransmission consent costs associated with providing video services 

only make matters worse by forcing operators to look to consumers for recovery of such increased 

costs, undermining the business case for further network investment, or even prompting operators to 

consider exiting the video service business altogether. 

As you rightly noted, the 1992 Cable Act was created in an entirely different video marketplace than 

what exists today, and it is particularly punitive to rural video providers and the consumers they serve. 

For example, MVPDs in rural areas are paying more for the odd and striking "privilege" of ensuring 

broadcast content reaches those many rural consumers who, as noted above, cannot receive over-theair broadcasts at all due to distance from the broadcaster's transmission site. In fact, from 2013 to 2015, 

the compound average annual increase in retransmission consent fees paid by MVPDs was 

42.8%.11! Moreover, MVPDs have no choice when negotiating for broadcast signals, as they can only 

obtain content from one seller due to the Cable Act. Forcing buyers by law toward a single seller is not a 

"market." 

Therefore, for small and rural MVPDs to continue providing high-quality video for their customers, 

Congress must consider injecting market forces into an outdated retransmission consent regulatory 

regime. 

And while NTCA believes the 19921aw would benefit from a comprehensive rewrite and retransmission 

consent reform is much-needed, targeted market-based reforms could help address four key flaws in 

the interim: 

Transparency: Mandatory non-disclosure requirements keep the market value of programming 

under wraps and in the shadows. MVPDs and consumers should be permitted to see and compare 

pricing from broadcasters. 

Buyer Choice: Rules today artificially restrict the ability to buy similar content from different 

network affiliates. If content from one affiliate in a Designated Market Area (DMA) is too expensive, 

allow MVPDs to leverage market forces by purchasing comparable content from the same network's 

affiliate in another DMA. Make broadcasters compete for buyers. 

• Consumer Choice: Consumers should have access to a breakdown of each channel's actual costs, 

and the option to lower their bill by opting out of buying any given broadcast channel. 

• Consumer Protection: Consumers should be permitted to retain access to signals at existing rates 

pending dispute resolution between broadcasters and MVPDs. 

1

1

1 In the Matter of Implementation of Section 3 of the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act 

of 1992 Statistical Report on Average Rates for Basic Service, Cable Programming Service, and Equipment, Report 

on Cable Industry Prices, MM Docket No. 92-266, 41 (Rei. Feb. 8, 2018). 
199 


29879.141

N :;;,..-- THE RURAL 

BROADBAND 

ASSOCIATION 

In addition, any reforms made by Congress or the FCC should ensure the transition to a new ATSC 3.0 

broadcast standard is truly voluntary for MVPDs. Broadcasters should not be able to force MVPDs to 

accommodate new signal standards through the retransmission consent process, nor should consumers 

be subject to signal degradation or loss as a result of a broadcaster adopting the new standard. 

In the end, the antiquated 1992 Cable Act provides broadcasters with a government-backed 

stranglehold on programming. It is the antithesis of a well-functioning "market," even if the process is 

couched in claimed "negotiations." If the law will not be fundamentally rewritten to reflect today's video 

world, technical updates and corrections are needed at least to allow today's market forces to operate 

more effectively. 

The Honorable Yvette Clarke: I have learned by representing the gth Congressional District of New York 

and the Smart Cities Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and SG technology to 

their constituents. I am converned, however, by the recent adversarial tone between industry and 

cities. I think it is wrong to characterize cities and industry as adversaries and not partners. 

Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring high-speed broadband 

and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for their constituents? What are you 

plans for this commitment and engagement? Will you commit to working with my office to resolve 

some of these disputes, and find a path forward that works for all consumers, cities, and the industry? 

NTCA is committed to working with your office as well as all other Congressional offices to ensure that 

we can find solutions to decreasing the digital divide and building out the next generation of broadband 

in America. While most of our members serve largely rural populations, we understand it takes a jointeffort on behalf ofthe entire communications industry to implement world-class internet services across 

America. To the extent that NTCA can be helpful in assisting with broadband build out in areas both 

urban and rural, we're more than happy to do so. 
200 


29879.142

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Mr. Scott Slesinger 

Legislative Director 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

((ongrtss of tbt Wnittb gs,tatts l!}ou~e of i\tpre~tntattbe~ 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN House 0FF1CE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 

Major!tv {2<l2)225-2927 

Minority (202)225-3641 

February 16, 2018 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

I 152 15th Street, N.W.; Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Dear Mr. Slesinger: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30,2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
201 


29879.143

Responses to Additional Questions for the Record 

Hearing Entitled, "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions." 

Submitted by Scott Slesinger 

The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

I. I have learned by representing the 9111 Congressional District of New York and the Smart Cities 

Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and SG technology to their 

constituents. I am concerned, however, by the recent adversarial tone between industry and cities. 

I think it is wrong to characterize cities and industry as adversaries and not partners. 

a. Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring high-speed 

broadband and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for their 

constituents? What are your plans for this commitment and engagement? 

RESPONSE: NRDC is not directly involved in deployment of broadband. Our issue is that for all 

major federal actions the public's right Ia comment and participate on the economic and 

environmental impacts should not be emasculated because some groups see only benefits to the 

proposed project. For instance, if a community has a plan for deployment that allows 

communications companies to avoid low income communities, it is possible that the National 

Environmental Policy Act is the only opportunity for adversely affected communities and 

individuals to comment on such decisions. This becomes a bigger problem as bills are introduced 

to preempt local governments from regulating deployment. 

b. Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and find a 

path forward that works for all consumers, cities, and the industry? 

RESPONSE: Yes 

The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

I. Many of the majority bills slash environmental regulations, preempt state and local governments, 

and limit federal oversight, all under the theory that at some point, there will be enough incentive 

provided for providers to build to areas where so far they have not. But the legislation provide no 

guarantees or requirements that providers will actually do so. 

a. Is there any actual data out there to back up the false choice that relinquishing 

environmental protections or local autonomy is necessary or helpful to spur broadband 

deployment? 

RESPONSE: We are not aware of such data. We find that many industries claim that 

their projects are being unnecessarily slowed by the environmental review and permitting 

process. However, in the vast majority of cases, NEPA is a scapegoat when the real 

problem is money. The Army Corps of Engineers has $97 billion in projects that have 
202 


29879.144

cleared all environmental reviews but remain stuck because of a lack of funding. 1 

Currently, the Corps' budget is $5 billion a year. The problem clearly is money, not 

environmental reviews. A recent Treasury study looked at 40 projects to determine why 

they were delayed. In 39 of 40 projects, the main cause was lack of funding. The other 

cause of some delay was local opposition and local zoning. 

Testimony seems to indicate the major problem of broadband deployment, particularly in 

rural and poor areas, is the lack of high return for the broadband companies not the 

requirement to hear from the affected communities and citizens. 

b. What are some real guarantees these companies have to offer the American people, and 

would you support in legislative language, to ensure that consumers get something in 

return for everything these bills give away? What meaningful requirements should 

providers agtee to in exchange for these favors? 

RESPONSE: NRDC has no views on this. 

1 "However, according to the Corps, there is a current backlog of projects valued at $96 billion ($75 billion in 

project construction and $21 billion for dam safety and operations and maintenance). In comparison, Corps funding 

between FY2004-FY20l8 has only averaged just over $5 billion (in nominal terms) annually" Republican staff 

memo for hearing on Infrastructure Delays: https://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2018-01-18 -

water ssm final.pdf 
203 


29879.145

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

Ms. Joanne S. Hovis 

President 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

QCongrt5'5' of tbt llnittb ~tatt5' 

Jlilou~t of l\epressentatibes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBuRN HousE OFFiCE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 2051~115 

Majority (202)225-2927 

Minority (202) 225-3641 

February 16, 20 18 

CTC Technology and Energy 

I 0613 Concord Street 

Kensington, MD 20895 

Dear Ms. Hovis: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30, 2018, to testify at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules ofthe Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (I) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

Ma Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology 

Attachment 
204 


29879.146

etc technology & energy 

engineering & business consulting 

March 5, 2018 

The Honorable Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Response to follow-up questions 

Dear Ms. Blackburn, 

It was my privilege to testify before your subcommittee as' part of your January 30, 2018, hearing 

entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions." 

Public-private partnerships-especially ones in which public entities build fiber-optic networks 

that may be used by private service providers-can be a crucial part of the broadband solution 

for rural and unserved urban areas throughout the United States. 

Attached please find my answers to your Subcommittee members' additional questions. Please 

do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any further information. 

Sincerely, 

Joanne Hovis 

President, CTC Technology & Energy 

Attachment 

By email: Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov 

COiumllla Talecommunleatlons Corporation 

10613 Concord Street • Kensington, MD 20895 • Tel: 301·933-1488 • Fax: 301-933-3340 • www.ctcnet.us 
205 


29879.147

Page 2 

RESPONSES FROM JOANNE HOVIS 

President, CTC Technology & Energy 

CEO, Coalition for Local Internet Choice 

March 5, 2018 

Question from the Honorable Yvette Clarke 

1. 1 have learned by representing the 911' Congressional District of New York and 

the Smart Cities Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and 

SG technology to their constituents. I am concerned, however, by the recent 

adversarial tone between industry and cities. I think it is wrong to characterize 

cities and industry as adversaries and not partners. 

a. Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to 

bring high-speed broadband and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy 

smart technology for their constituents? What are your plans for this 

commitment and engagement? 

I agree with the sentiments in your preamble. Public and private entities can and should work 

together to solve our nation's broadband challenges. This requires pursuing a full range of 

options, including locally driven efforts to utilize public assets to attract private investment and 

to deploy public networks over which private providers can offer service. Such partnerships can 

work especially well in areas where there exists insufficient return on investment for private 

companies to shoulder all infrastructure costs. 

To answer your question, yes, I can make a commitment. My company, CTCTechnology & Energy, 

has been a leader in forging or proposing public-private partnerships in areas as diverse as 

Westminster, Maryland; Huntsville, Alabama; and big cities like San Francisco and Seattle. These 

public-private collaborations serve the national interest. We will continue to help localities 

throughout the United States pursue them. 

Many localities are forging ties with private entities on their own. Hundreds of localities have 

reached out to companies including Google Fiber, AT&T, C-Spire, Ting Internet, Metro Net, ALLO 

Communications, and many others to offer what amount to economic development packages 

and other incentives. These local collaborations benefit both private and public entities. 

b. Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and find 

a path forward that works for all consumers, cities, and the industry? 
206 


29879.148

Page 3 

I am hopeful that I can assist with this process. In my experience, local governments work very 

hard to collaborate with private industry on deployment issues and are very motivated to attract 

private investment in all forms of broadband, including advanced wireless technologies, often 

called "4G densification" and "SG." In my experience, industry assertions that localities 

deliberately get in the way of deployments are simply inaccurate. To the contrary, localities seek 

to find common ground for industry and community interests, which include the need for better 

service and, often, more extensive deployments. 

Questions from the Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

1. As Congress explores how to remove barriers to broadband deployment, do you 

believe that targeted federal legislative solutions like CLIMB ONCE and the Community 

Broadband Act, which simply open the doors for local autonomy, can be helpful in 

expediting connectivity and economic development? 

Yes, Climb Once can be enormously helpful. Cumbersome procedures associated with attaching 

new wires to poles can be a large source of uncertainty, excess cost, and delays in improving the 

nation's broadband infrastructure. Under Climb Once, states and localities would become free to 

implement common-sense policies to streamline such procedures (often called "one-touchmake-ready"). 

The opposition to Climb Once seems to me to have little merit. It makes no more sense to require 

fiber deployers to duplicate efforts in this area than it would to require them to dig separate 

trenches for each new underground utility. (Indeed, much like "Climb Once, "Dig Once" policies 

are important tools for municipalities to save tax dollars through coordinated planningsomething my firm documented in our 2017 Technical Guide to Dig Once Policies.) The FCC could 

play a constructive role-and could resolve incumbent concerns-by establishing best practices 

for such local efforts. 

Regarding the Community Broadband Act: Localities should be free to build infrastructure that 

meets their needs, including broadband infrastructure. At least 21 states restrict this activity. As 

you know, in 2015 the FCC attempted to block restrictive state laws to protect the rights of 

municipalities in this area. A later court ruling found that the FCC had no legal power to preempt 

state laws in this regard-but the court did not disagree with the substantive analysis the FCC 

presented (based on an extensive record) about the value of community-based broadband 

efforts or the destructive outcomes of the efforts to curtail local efforts. 

2. A recent Harvard study found that contrary to claims that municipal broadband, or 

even the threat of municipal broadband will reduce network investment, it is actually the 
207 


29879.149

Page 4 

state bans on municipal broadband that result in less overall investment in deployment, 

and that community-owned fiber to-the-home (FTIH) networks in the United States 

generally charge less for entry-level broadband service than do competing private 

providers, and don't use initial low "teaser" rates that sharply rise months later. 

a. Doesn't that demonstrate that consumers need more competition? Do you agree with 

the FCC's determination last April that a sole broadband provider counts as a sufficient 

level of competition? 

Taking your second question first, I find it troubling, and almost laughable, that the FCC suggests 

that one wired broadband provider represents a form of competition when the only other 

provider is a telephone company offering slow DSL service that does not meet the definition of 

broadband. 

On your first question, which cites the Harvard study, let me take a step back to explain what the 

study found and to address recent spurious attacks on it. (I would not be surprised ifthese attacks 

are circulating within other responses to these questions.) I will then discuss the important role 

of competition. 

In January 2018 a research project within Harvard's Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society 

reported that municipally owned fiber networks in the United States generally provided lower 

and clearer prices for their least-expensive plans that minimally met the FCC's broadband 

threshold-2S Mbps download, 3 Mbps upload-than did local private competitors. 1 (The study 

compared broadband-minimum plans regardless of the precise advertised speed over the 

broadband threshold. Those advertised speeds varied from provider to provider.) Additionally, 

the study found that unlike private incumbent providers, these municipal fiber networks did not 

use gimmicks like "teaser" rates. 

Subsequent criticisms of the study-generally from industry-funded sources-used misleading 

lines of argument. One line of attack used "price per megabit" calculations for download speeds 

only to claim that private providers' and municipal providers' basic broadband service were far 

closer in price, contrary to study findings. Yet this attack was false and misleading because it 

completely ignored upload speeds, which were much faster with the municipal networks. 

Perhaps more importantly, "price per megabit" arguments have limited meaning because 

consumers cannot purchase broadband service by these units. They can only select among speed 

tiers that are offered by their providers-and that is what the study compared. Additionally, the 

1 https:U cyber. ha rvard.ed u/p ublications/20 18/01/ comm u nityfiber 
208 


29879.150

Page 5 

marginal value of additional megabits declines as speeds increase (e.g., the difference between 

having 1 Mbps or 20 Mbps is far more significant than the difference between having 40 Mbps 

or 60 Mbps). 

Critics also pointed to financial difficulties at a relative handful of municipal networks as a basis 

for attempting to discredit the entire study and devalue all municipal networks. 

Interestingly, none of the critics called for the collection and release of more and better data that 

would allow for deeper research in the public interest-a topic to which I will return at the end 

of this letter. 

Now that I've discussed the study, let me address your question about whether the study shows 

that competition has value. This study did not attempt to measure the effects of competition, 

which would have required looking at pricing in a control group of municipalities lacking 

competition. But we already know that competition produces dramatic positive effects. A 2015 

White House report on community broadband pointed to the example of the municipal network 

in Chattanooga, Tennessee (built by EPB, the city utility): 

"EPB's efforts have encouraged other telecom firms to improve their own service. 

In 2008, for example, Com cast responded to the threat of EPB's entrance into the 

market by investing$15 million in the area to launch the Xfinity service- offering 

the service in Chattanooga before it was available in Atlanta, GA. More recently, 

Comcast has started offering low-cost introductory offers and gift cards to 

consumers to incentivize service switching. Despite these improvements, on an 

equivalent service basis, EPB's costs remain significantly lower." 2 

Similar effects have been seen in other areas. For example, after Kansas City assisted with the 

pioneering rollout of Google Fiber in 2012 and 2013, both Comcast and Time Warner Cable (now 

Charter) in 2014 announced they would significantly increase speeds in the area. And in 2015, 

AT&T, which had previously offered only slow DSL, announced it would launch "U-verse" (its 

name for enhanced broadband speeds over copper telephone lines) in parts of Kansas City, 

Missouri, and the metro area. In my own observations, even the prospect of potential 

competition has led incumbents in communities such as Santa Cruz, CA to increase speeds for 

existing service tiers with no increase in prices and to greatly improve marketing and sales efforts 

in the community. There are many other examples of this kind. 

This topic cries out for more data. Yet the research community lacks access to a great deal of 

important primary data about broadband markets. Incredibly, the FCC does not comprehensively 

2 https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/docs/communitvbased broadband report by executive office of the president.pdf 
209 


29879.151

Page 6 

collect data on broadband speeds available by address or adoption by address. And the 

Commission collects very little data on broadband prices. This makes it impossible to fully 

understand not only the precise effects of competition, but also the interplay between 

broadband price, speed, adoption, and various measures of national productivity, public health, 

education, and labor market participation. Without complete data available, it will remain 

extremely difficult for economists and social scientists to conduct research on broadband in the 

national interest. 

Thank you for the opportunity to answer these additional questions. 
210 


29879.152

GREG WALDEN, OREGON 

CHAIRMAN 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., NEW JERSEY 

RANKING MEMBER 

otongre.s.s of tbe 'mlniteb .i>tate.s ~ouse of l\epresentatibes 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

2125 RAYBURN HousE OFFICE BuiLDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515--6115 

Ms. Elin Swanson Katz 

Consumer Counsel 

Connecticut Consumer Counsel 

10 Franklin Square 

New Britain, CT 06051 

Dear Ms. Swanson Katz: 

Majoritv {202)225-2927 

Minority (202}225-3841 

February 16,2018 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology on 

Tuesday, January 30,2018, to testifY at the hearing entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband 

Infrastructure Solutions." 

Pursuant to the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the hearing record remains 

open for ten business days to permit Members to submit additional questions for the record, which are 

attached. The format of your responses to these questions should be as follows: (1) the name of the 

Member whose question you are addressing, (2) the complete text of the question you are addressing in 

bold, and (3) your answer to that question in plain text. 

To facilitate the printing of the hearing record, please respond to these questions with a 

transmittal letter by the close of business on Monday, March 5, 2018. Your responses should be mailed 

to Evan Viau, Legislative Clerk, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn House Office 

Building, Washington, DC 20515 and e-mailed to Evan.Viau@mail.house.gov. 

Thank you again for your time and effort preparing and delivering testimony before the 

Subcommittee. 

~ Marsha Blackburn 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Communications and Technology 

cc: The Honorable Michael F. Doyle, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Communications and 

Technology · 

Attachment 
211 


29879.153

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on communications and Technology 

Hearing Entitled "Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure 

Solutions." 

January 30, 2018 

Responses ofElin Swanson Katz to Additional Questions for the Record 

Subcommittee Member- The Honorable Yvette Clarke 

I have learned by representing the 9th Congressional District of New York and the Smart Cities 

Caucus that cities are eager to bring high-speed broadband and SG technology to their 

constituents. I am concerned, however, by the recent adversarial tone between industry and cities. I 

think it is wrong to characterize cities and industry as adversaries and not partners. 

As a state consumer advocate for public service utilities and internet service provider ratepayers 

and broadband users, and as the head of the statutory State Broadband Office (which is within 

the Office of Consumer Counsel), I have learned that my primary constituency is communities of 

all sizes, including their residents, businesses (small and large), and community anchor 

institutions. By developing champions and allies within each of the state's 169 municipalities, I 

not only fully understand the needs and problems of the state's ratepayers and broadband users, 

but I am able to mobilize them to support administrative, judicial, and legislative initiatives that 

must be mounted in order to push back against monopoly/duopoly utilities in order to acquire a 

fair and equitable deal for communities. 

The answer to your question in part depends on how your definition of "industry." Assuming 

that you mean the incumbent internet service providers (ISPs), I too have seen the tension 

between the ISPs and the municipalities. As cable and telephone companies recognize the 

disruption to their business plans in all markets of the United States from edge providers and 

rapidly emerging changes in technology, they are essentially committed to maintaining the 

business model they've created, and thus must fight back against advancing technologies. 

Everyone recognizes that fiber optic network irifrastructure is certainly the transmission 

technology of the future, but the incumbents are often saddled with multi-billion dollar sunk cost 

investments in copper and coaxial cable technologies, which continue to provide great revenues, 

but which are quickly becoming obsolete. 

We have tried to work with our incumbents with and on behalf of our municipalities, but we have 

found the incumbents become extremely defensive when we identifY unserved or underserved 

areas, especially within our urban communities. Nonetheless, it is my hope that as we head 

towards the inevitable "fiber future" where we see fiber everywhere, that we can collaborate 

with our incumbents and munis to develop and share fiber infrastructure. I also see much hope 

with small ISPs who are looking to enter new markets. They are very willing to work with our 

municipalities. In fact, the first community-wide fiber network in Connecticut is being developed 

in East Hartford through a public-private partnership between SiFi Networks and the town, SiFi 

being a new entrant to Connecticut. 
212 


29879.154

If, on the other hand, your focus is on "industry" meaning non-telecom businesses, we see much 

collaboration. Residents and businesses are actually allies in the market for internet access since 

the reality is that the incumbent providers focus, rightly and pursuant to law, on their 

shareholders more than on their customers. 

Thus, it is essential that cities and industry must band together as partners and not adversaries if 

they are to achieve the goals of better, cheaper, faster internet access, equitably provided to all 

communities and demographic groups. That is the goal of my office and my staff and !fight a 

daily battle to enlist the cooperation and collaboration of cities and industry. 

I think engaging with the incumbent internet service providers is an essential element of my role 

as a state utility services consumer advocate, and while there is often fearsome resistance to 

change and the market disruption that is central to internet access these days, it is part of my job 

to support a transition by the incumbents to a new business plan. Continuing to protect their 

monopoly market shares in the inter access market does not make sense when the future is so 

profoundly disrupting old models. These businesses are like "melting ice cubes"- they look solid 

and real, but they are melting away . It would be like trying to protect the market share of 

typewriter companies in the face of personal computers and laser printers. 

Can you all commit to helping reach a good faith consensus on how to bring high-speed broadband 

and SG technology to cities aiming to deploy smart technology for their constituents? What are 

your plans for this commitment and engagement? 

Consumer Counsel Katz, response: My short answer is yes, absolutely, I make that commitment. 

The Office of Consumer Counsel and State Broadband Office have engaged in developing 

RFIIRFP documents on behalf of dozens of Connecticut municipalities, ranging from New Haven 

and Hartford, to collaborations of rural towns, and the suburban towns in between for many 

years now. By preparing for such engagements, the cities learn what they must do in preparation 

for requesting funding and construction help from private industry in order to bring digital 

inclusion and fiber network broadband internet access each and every one of their citizens, 

residents and businesses. Helping the communities in Connecticut locate and achieve funding 

from the state and federal governments, as well as from private equity and other financing 

institutions, is a fundamental goal of my staff and I in our daily work in helping communities 

recognize the benefits of affordable broadband internet access, equitable distributed to all 

demographic groups. 

As the President of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates (NASUCA}, I 

can also speak to the effort across the electric sector to define smart grid technology (there are 

myriad definitions of a "smart city," for example) and identify how it can be effectively deployed 

to municipalities. In my position as President, I continually push for more collaboration and 

dialogue between the electric sector and the telecommunications sector on cost-effective 

infrastructure deployment. If our electric utilities are creating private fiber networks to support 

smart grid initiatives at ratepayer expense, then !feel strongly that that infrastructure should 

maximize its benefits to those ratepayers. Why can't fiber deployed by an electric utility to create 

a smart city also be used to provide affordable high-speed broadband to those same consumers? 

It can be, but there's little incentive for most electric utilities to plan for such dual use. I will 

admit that this is at present a tough row to hoe- the incumbents don't want to engage in this 

dialogue, and the electric utilities are busy focusing on their own needs. But this is an area in 

2 
213 


29879.155

which we need to keep pushing and expecting synergies and maximum usage of ratepayer-funded 

infrastructure. 

Will you commit to working with my office to resolve some of these disputes, and find a path 

forward that works for all consumers, cities, and the industry? 

I would be delighted to partner with your office, Representative Clarke, since I'm sure that 

Brooklyn's Ninth Congressional District, the center and heart of Brooklyn, does not differ greatly 

in the problems and potential solutions that we find in our state's major cities, many of which my 

office already works with on a regular basis. Bridgeport, Hartford, and New Haven all have 

gotten the "broadband bug," and recognize the digital inequities that the incumbent providers 

have imposed on cities like these. 

For instance, I am incensed and my testimony before your Subcommittee on January 31, 2018 

reflected my passion about this issue, that the current Administration and the ISP industry are 

propagating the myth that only "rural America" needs help or is unserved by qffordable 

broadband internet access. This is patently untrue as the experience of my staff in the ''fields" of 

Connecticut's major cities demonstrates: the incumbent market companies have turned their back 

on low income inner city citizens and businesses, charging exorbitant rates for extremely slow 

service. The virtually complete deregulation of these services causes there to be little or no 

recourse for these citizens and businesses. Intentional or not, this is de facto "redlining" of poor 

ethnic-minority urban communities. 

Rural areas are in fact needy, of course, and Connecticut specifically does not have rights to 

USDA funding or other "rural" supports from the federal government due to population rules, 

thus cutting off potential funding. However, urban areas also suffer from a lack of subsidies for 

urban poor, and there is an alarming number of Connecticut residents and businesses that are 

left behind as the digital age progresses, but passes them by. As I said in my testimony, if it's 

happening in Connecticut, the wealthiest state in the nation, it's happening everywhere. 

I commend this report by my Office for your attention: 

http://www.ct.govloccllib/occ/2016-0301 broadband deficiencies in connecticut.pd( 

The OCC conducted site visits at business locations in urban and rural areas to investigate a 

small sample of broadband customer experiences. 

Although Connecticut is a prosperous state with large areas of urban and suburban densities, 

Connecticut businesses, institutions, and residents have significant challenges obtaining 

broadband services. 

Our expert, CTC Technologies, which is headed by the amazing Joanne Hovis who also testified 

with me,found a range of serious broadband challenges in the State, including: 

1) Maximum speeds are often far less than what businesses need for their current 

operations 

2) There are limited or no affordable competitive options for broadband services for 

businesses in urban areas 

3 
214 


29879.156

3) Businesses' growing needs for broadband wi/lforther exceed the available broadband 

services 

4) Businesses face long delays in obtaining services, or are unable to obtain service even 

when infrastructure is relatively nearby. 

Further holdings included: 

Small and medium-sized businesses are being constrained by lack of broadband 

infrastructure and, where infrastructure is available, lack of competitive options (leading 

to higher prices and limited service). 

All of the businesses we visited in Hartford reported that they are hampered by the low speed and 

quality of their existing services from the telephone and cable incumbent internet service 

providers. The business owners also identified the cost of those services as an area of concern. 

Subcommittee Member- The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo 

As Congress explores bow to remove barriers to broadband deployment, do you believe that 

targeted federal legislative solutions like CLIMB ONCE and the Community Broadband Act, 

which simply open the doors for local autonomy, can be helpful in expediting connectivity and 

economic development? 

Climb Once: The Connecticut Office of Consumer Counsel, which includes the Broadband Office, 

has been a national leader in initiating novel and successful ideas for streamlining and 

increasing equity in the public rights of way (PROW) in our state. I have said more than once 

that "utility poles are sexy, " because they are the ugly, unsung heroes of broadband deployment. 

We have convinced the state regulator to order a "Single Pole Administrator" (SPA) in order to 

produce a far more efficient pole management system instead of the nearly universal 

dysfunctional lack of management usually found in PROW processes across the US. An element 

of that is a centralized database detailing the irifrastructure on the nearly 900,000 poles in 

Connecticut, and which provides a process for notification of work to be performed, a timetable 

for each attacher to follow to accomplish their work, and a system by which the SPA has the 

authority (as an agent of the state regulatory agency) to perform work that has not been 

accomplished by an attacher in a timely fashion. 

We hope this process will soon (or eventually) incorporate a Climb Once (or One Touch) 

process, which is an element we continue to battle for in spite of opposition from the local 

telephone companies. My staff recognized long ago that to construct high-speed networks, 

broadband providers need access to utility infrastructure, such as utility poles and conduits, on a 

consistent, cost-effective, and timely basis. The expense and complexity of obtaining access to 

public rights-of-way in some jurisdictions increases the cost and slows the pace of broadband 

network investment and deployment. 

In particular, access to utility poles is an essential and generally time-consuming part of the 

process. Building out a new network within a metro area requires running fiber along tens of 

thousands of poles. The process of getting poles ready for attachments-known as "make-ready" 

work-typically requires asking other companies to move their existing communications 

4 
215 


29879.157

equipment to make room for a new entrant's equipment on the same poles. Oftentimes, there are 

multiple attachments on the pole already (e.g., telecommunications, cable, etc.). 

Currently, operators move their lines sequentially-creating delays and causing multiple 

disruptions in a neighborhood. Imagine being a new attacher and having to reach out to as three 

(or more) separate companies for every single pole, and to get approval from each of them to 

move their lines or to wait for them to sequentially schedule their own workers to effectuate the 

move. This approach adds months (if not years) to the construction schedule, and may make it 

prohibitively difficult for competition and faster speeds to come to many markets. What's more, 

the cost of make-ready can be both high and unpredictable, varying widely among providers and 

poles. 

We are hopeful of actua/iy achieving a ClimbOnce process to incorporate the electric companies 

in our state which serve as our Single Pole Administrators. 

Similarly, with regard to the Community Broadband Act, I and my Office have always supported 

this fabulous idea, one that may be said by some to be ahead of its time, but which I say is the 

most direct path to the inevitable future of provide affordable broadband internet access to all 

citizens, everywhere. My office has been fully engaged in the promotion of affordable 

broadband<https://en.wikipedia.ore/wiki/Broadband> access for a decade now and our focus 

has always been on supporting municipal governments with the rights and means to provide 

telecommunications capability and services. We recognized long ago that neither the federal 

government nor the states are likely to presently engage in supporting municipal fiber networks, 

but rather that communities themselves are the most likely to make this happen. 

While Connecticut does not now suffer from a state statutory ban on public broadband 

deployments, there is extreme resistance to municipal broadband from the incumbent telephone 

and cable providers, and their allies in the executive and legislative branches of state and 

municipal governments. In fact, in every legislative session since its creation, we have had to 

fight fiercely to preserve the State Broadband Office, which was created in 2015. We have 

survived, quite frankly, because of a small but dedicated (and growing) band of legislators who 

understand that a state that hopes to implement progressive broadband policy needs an office to 

do so. My office therefore expends great energy and time on the goal of eliminating existing 

barriers to broadband development, and thus we completely support the provisions of The 

Community Broadband Act. 

As noted in my comments and elsewhere in these responses, my Office has long been a central 

player in supporting municipal efforts to develop public-private partnerships with finance and 

fiber construction companies to provide public telecommunications services to overcome the 

market resistance and digital inequities that presently exist across Connecticut and the US. 

I would be delighted to help you in any efforts to promoteS. 742 in the hopes of achieving federal 

statutory support for the work that my Office is now performing in Connecticut. 

A recent Harvard study found that contrary to claims that municipal broadband, or even the threat 

of municipal broadband will reduce network investment, it is actually the state bans on municipal 

broadband that result in less overall investment in deployment, and that community-owned fiber 

to-the-home (FTTH) networks in the United States generally charge less for entry-level broadband 

service than do competing private providers, and don't use initial low "teaser" rates that sharply 

rise months later. 

5 
216 


29879.158

My office has worked with the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research for many 

years and we greatly admire their work, including the January 2018 article you've cited, 

Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in 

America<https:/ldash.harvard.edu/handle/1/34623859> which detailed from comparisons in 27 

communities that most community-owned FTTH networks charged less and offered prices that 

were clear and unchanging, whereas private ISPs typically charged initial/ow promotional or 

"teaser" rates that later sharply rose, usually after 12 months. The authors found that in 23 

cases, the community-owned FTTH providers' pricing was lower when averaged over four years. 

As noted above, we regard our constituency to be the 169 towns of Connecticut since we believe 

that it is the communities of this country and our state that have the gumption and determination 

to overcome the resistance of the incumbent ISPs to implementing affordable broadband internet 

access, including by construction of fiber networks. Our own research has demonstrated that the 

incumbents operating in Connecticut overcharge ruthlessly and have little or no business plans to 

invest capital expenditures in advanced technology, except in the most profitable areas, which 

are usually densely populated and/or most affluent. I have personally asked the management of 

Comcast in our state when they intend to bring DOCSIS 3.1 to the residents, businesses, and 

community anchor institutions, and the response has always been a hedge or hollow promise. 

The telephone company, Frontier, is teetering on bankruptcy and is very unlikely to make any 

investments in Connecticut that would make a difference in digital equity or access. 

Thus, we firmly believe that it is the role of the municipalities to step up and make the effort to 

develop public-private partnerships with investors and construction companies that have the 

foresight to agree that fiber networks are the key to creating affordable broadband internet 

access for all addresses across Connecticut. 

Doesn't that demonstrate that consumers need more competition? 

Absolutely: we have demonstrated over the last decade that my Office has been actively engaged 

in promoting r.iffordable broadband internet access for all addresses across Connecticut, that 1) 

there is active and desperately needed demand for broadband internet access, 2) the supply 

provided by the incumbent internet providers is inadequate and too expensive for a high-tech 

state like Connecticut, thus depriving its residents and businesses of the access they need at the 

prices they can r.ifford, thus leading to the conclusion 3) that competition is needed in the market 

to drive the incumbents to make the necessary investments to bring Connecticut into the Digital 

Age, or to drive the incumbents out of the market by reducing their market share through the 

provision of better, faster, and cheaper internet access. 

As I serve as the advocate for electricity, natural gas, water AND telecommunications, I know 

from my work in the utility space that to protect consumers from monopoly power, you either 

regulate them or introduce competition. Since there is at present not much hope of regulation of 

our powerful incumbents, the ONLY solution to protect consumers from "monopoly rents" is 

competition. Unfortunately, I have found that everyone loves competition except for when it 

comes to their business. 

Do you agree with the FCC's determination last April that a sole broadband provider counts as a 

sufficient level of competition? 

6 
217 

Æ 


29879.159

Absolutely not. The April 2018 proposal from FCC Chairman Ajit Pai will undoubtedly hurt 

small business customers of ISPs. Our Office represents not only residents and community 

anchor institutions across Connecticut, but a large part of our time and effort is poured into 

advocacy on behalf of small businesses. It is small businesses that have the desperate need for 

affordable broadband internet access, but which lack the resources to pay the astronomical and 

quite ridiculous prices demanded by the ISPs operating in our state. These charges can actually 

be $10,000 a month for less than one gigabit of access speed, and that following many thousands 

of dollars charged for the initial construction of a fiber line, even simply from a state road into a 

building 50 feet away! 

The FCC plan to eliminate price caps in much of the business broadband market uses an unfair 

test for determining whether customers benefit from competition. Even if a business that needs 

broadband has only one choice today, the FCC plans to consider the local market competitive if 

there's merely another broadband provider within a half mile. As we have seen time and again, 

half of a mile away can seem like the distance to the moon for a small business if it costs 

$100,000 or more to connect. 

Small businesses want better broadband service at lower prices-they shouldn't have to accept a 

lower level of service to reduce costs, or pay more for the same services. In Connecticut, we are 

already seeing the ILEC (Frontier) attempting to charge higher rates for wholesale broadband 

service than they do for retail service, much like the legacy telephone market did. If the CLEC 

industry fails to ramp up, which seems likely in light of the new Administration and Pai FCC 

conduct to date, then the market will not provide the level of competitive pressure for this 

business segment that would create price relief while increasing provision of adequate service 

quality and capacity. 

7