U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–776 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1172 

THE STATE OF BROADBAND IN ARKANSAS 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

AUGUST 28, 2007 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGEL, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on August 28, 2007 ........................................................................... 1 

Statement of Senator Pryor .................................................................................... 1 

WITNESSES

Adelstein, Hon. Jonathan S., Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission .................................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Ahlen, John W., President, Arkansas Science and Technology Authority .......... 36 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Allis, Edward K., Executive Director, Governmental Affairs, AT&T Arkansas . 56 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 57 

Ashcraft, Greg, CFO, South Arkansas Telephone Company ................................ 68 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69 

Bailey, Claire, Director, Department of Information Systems, State of 

Arkansas ............................................................................................................... 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Bassett, Daryl E., Commissioner, Arkansas Public Service Commission ........... 16 

Burdick, David, Director, Pine Bluff/Jefferson County Library System; on 

Behalf of Arkansas Public Libraries ................................................................... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Copps, Hon. Michael J., Commissioner, Federal Communications Commission 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 6 

Cunningham, Maryce, Secretary, Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council; Government Relations Manager, MidSouth Region, Suddenlink Communications ....................................................................................................................... 63

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Davis, Jr., Lawrence A., Chancellor, University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff ....... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Dozier, Matt, President and CEO, The EAST Initiative, Inc. .............................. 43 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 44 

Ford, Scott T., President and CEO, Alltel Communications, Inc. ....................... 49 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50 

Gardner, Jeff, President and CEO, Windstream Corporation ............................. 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Gibson, Dean, Vice President, Operations, Pinnacle Communications ............... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Jones, John F., Vice President, Regulatory and Government Relations, 

CenturyTel, Inc. ................................................................................................... 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 67 

Lowery, Jr., M.D., Curtis L., Chairman, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology; Director, Center for Distance Health, University of Arkansas for 

Medical Sciences (UAMS) .................................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Massaglia, Gary, Vice President and General Manager, Comcast Corporation—Arkansas ..................................................................................................... 72 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 73 

Mays, Andrew, Student, Mineral Springs High School ........................................ 46 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 44 

Mjartan, Dominik, Vice President, Southern Financial Partners ....................... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Neal, Michelle, Student, Saragtoga High School .................................................. 45 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 44 

Nelson, Rex, Alternate Federal Co-Chairman, Delta Regional Authority .......... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Page

IV 

Pitcock, Len, Executive Director, Arkansas Cable Telecommunications Association .................................................................................................................... 70 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 71 

Sivley, Lila, Student, Ashdown High School ......................................................... 47 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 44 

Smith, Robert V., Provost, Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs, University 

of Arkansas, Fayetteville ..................................................................................... 31 

Joint prepared statement of Robert V. Smith, Provost, David Merrifield, 

Chief, Technology Officer, Department of Computing Services, and Amy 

Apon, Professor, Computer Science and Computer Engineering, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville ...................................................................... 32 

Tart, Trisha, Graduate, Ashdown High School ..................................................... 47 

Joint prepared statement ................................................................................. 44 

Waits, R. Paul, President, Ritter Communications .............................................. 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 61 

Walls, C. Sam, CEO, Arkansas Capital Corporation ............................................ 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Winningham, James, Organizing Chair, Arkansas Broadband Initiative (ABI) 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Zega, Kelly Hale, State Manager, Public Affairs, Cox Communications, Arkansas .......................................................................................................................... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 76 

APPENDIX

Hultquist, Henry G., Vice President, Federal Regulatory, AT&T, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 85 

Supplemental material provided by David Burdick ............................................. 87 

(1) 

THE STATE OF BROADBAND IN ARKANSAS 

TUESDAY, AUGUST 28, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Little Rock, AR. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in the Main 

Library of the President Clinton Presidential Library, 100 Rock 

Street, Little Rock, Arkansas, Hon. Mark Pryor, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK PRYOR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator PRYOR. Let me go ahead and, since I don’t have a gavel, 

oh, wait—I’ll use my BlackBerry. Let me thank everyone for being 

here. This is an official hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee. And I want to thank Chairman Inouye and Vice Chairman 

Stevens for allowing us to do this in Little Rock today. And let me 

just thank all of the participants. 

You all notice that we have a very large panel of witnesses, and 

that really underscores the importance of broadband. When we 

start talking about this, maybe, you think, hey, we’re going to 

have, you know, a few phone companies or a few of this or a few 

of that, but the truth is that broadband touches so many people in 

so many different ways that once we really got into this, we realized we needed a very broad spectrum of input. One of the goals 

today is just for—to allow the United States Senate through the 

Commerce Committee to hear about some of the challenges and 

some of the successes in trying to get broadband out to a rural 

state, some of the work that has been accomplished, and some of 

the work that is still left to do. 

And also it’s a great honor to have two FCC commissioners here 

with us today. It is unusual for any state or any city to be able to 

host two commissioners at the same time. These gentlemen are 

very, very busy. The FCC has a very, very full plate. The industries 

here that are represented, that have business before the FCC, they 

understand how many things are going on at the Federal Communications Commission. And to have two commissioners here to take 

time out of their schedule, I really appreciate that. And they’ve 

been bragging, just to let you know—they’ve been bragging on Arkansas and on Little Rock for really rolling out the red carpet for 

them. So I want to thank everyone for that and being very, very 

gracious hosts and hostesses for them. 

I want to thank everyone here for helping us examine the state 

of broadband in Arkansas. In some ways, Arkansas is a microcosm 

of the country, because we have some areas that are urban, say 

2 

Little Rock and some of the more densely-populated areas. We have 

lots of small towns, as you all know. And then we have a big percentage of people in this state that actually live outside of city limits and live out in counties. And so we get the full range of challenges when it comes to broadband. But I will say, we’ve come a 

long way in a short time. Last night, we went to the Clinton Library, and one of the alcoves is devoted to technology. And you 

could see the progress that was made in the 1990s when it comes 

to technology, but we have made so much more progress since then. 

This is a very rapidly changing and rapidly moving development 

for our country. In little more than a decade, broadband technology 

has evolved really from just its roots for computer enthusiasts into 

a broadly-used platform that is now the foundation of communications and commerce in the Information Age. Today broadband technology is driving innovation in fields like telemedicine—we’re going 

to hear that today, helping to provide quality health care in remote 

parts of our Nation. It’s transforming education, allowing our children to access ideas and information far beyond what the shelves 

of any school or public library might be able to hold. 

In fact, this morning, I went to a convenience store, and the store 

clerk knew we were having this hearing today. And she told me 

that she lives in rural Pulaski County, which is this county we’re 

in right now, and that all they have is dial-up and that she homeschools. And it is very, very hard for her to access the information 

that they need and they want to home-school their children. And 

so the point of that is, there are just so many applications. It’s really endless the applications that broadband can have in the way it 

impacts people. And it’s transforming our workforce, increasing 

productivity, creating new economic opportunities for consumers 

and businesses. In fact, you all probably heard me tell this story 

before, because I’ve told it several times. But up in north Arkansas, 

there is a little mom and pop fishing resort that was teetering on 

having to go out of business, because it just didn’t have enough volume to keep the doors open. And the local phone company, which 

is a small phone company up there, a few years ago said, ‘‘hey, let 

us design a website, we’ll get you some high-speed Internet access, 

and let’s see what happens.’’ And it has totally transformed their 

business. 

Now, you have to book them a year in advance, but it’s because 

of the interconnectivity of all that. For people who like to trout fish 

and like to small mouth bass fish, they can now come to Arkansas. 

It’s not—not only creating jobs, but showcasing our state. 

But with all this promise that we’re talking about here, and all 

the upside, over the past seven years, the U.S. as a nation has 

dropped from number four to number fifteen in the world 

broadband rankings. Closer to home here in Arkansas, even though 

it’s very, very difficult to know exactly where Arkansas stands because of the way statistics are kept, but under the current method 

of keeping statistics, Arkansas is 47th out of 50 states in 

broadband penetration. So I know that there is a serious commitment with the governor, with the legislature, with all the elected 

officials, and the business community to try to move Arkansas forward. And that’s what we are trying to do. Arkansas like many 

other parts of the Nation—we need to go further, we need to go 

3 

faster, and we need to ensure that all Americans can reap the benefits of a robust and also affordable broadband technology. 

So there are a lot of people in this room who have been working 

on this, some for a short time, some for a long time. Hopefully, today’s hearing will help us clarify issues that are important, and we 

will keep in mind that common goal of making Arkansas the leader 

in broadband deployment, and the spreading of the benefits of this 

technology to all of our citizens. 

So now, let me introduce our two Federal Communications Commissioners, that’s Michael Copps and Jonathan Adelstein. Let me 

start with Commissioner Copps. He’s a leader in seeking deployment of affordable broadband throughout America. He was one of 

the first to call for a national broadband strategy. In addition, most 

of you know him as a champion for consumers, because he’s been 

working on those issues for a long, long time. He has a very impressive public service career. He’s served at the FCC since 2001. 

Under the Clinton Administration, Commissioner Copps served as 

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development at the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

Commerce for Basic Industries. The Commissioner came to Washington in 1970, joining the staff of Senator Ernest ‘‘Fritz’’ Hollings 

of South Carolina, and serving for over a dozen years as his Chief 

of Staff. 

Commissioner Adelstein is an old friend of the Pryor family. He 

worked for my father on the Senate Aging Committee. And he was 

born in South Dakota, and he is very—that makes him very, very 

aware of some of the challenges that rural providers face when trying to deploy broadband out in remote areas. And also there is a 

closely-guarded secret about him that I’ll let you in on. He was a 

roommate at one point of our Lieutenant Governor, Bill Halter. So 

if we need the scoop on Bill Halter, we have the resource right 

here—and it may go both ways, though. But he was sworn in as 

a member of the FCC on December 3, 2002, and he was sworn in 

for a new five-year term on December 6, 2004. Before joining the 

FCC, he was in the Senate in terms of staff, and maybe committee 

staff or personal staff, in the Senate for about 15 years. He used 

to work with Senator Daschle, and my father, Senator Reid, and 

Senator Don Riegle, so he has a long experience in Washington, 

so—Commissioner Copps, if you want to lead off—well, what we’re 

going to do here is we’re going to give them five to ten minutes 

each, and then we’ll introduce the panel. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Commissioner COPPS. Well, thank you, Senator, for that nice introduction, I don’t get to be on this side of the table of the Senate 

hearings very often. It’s not bad. I think I like it. But I am happy 

to be here for many reasons. First, as the Senator said, I worked 

in the Senate for many years, and getting to spend some quality 

time with the leaders of the Senate office, something I jump at 

doing, especially with someone like Senator Pryor who epitomizes 

the best of the Senate in terms of understanding the issues that 

confront Arkansas, the issues that confront the country, and then 

4 

in knowing the Pryor family tradition, how to work with his colleagues and to cross the aisle to get good things done. 

So I’m happy to be here for that reason. We had a wonderful 

evening, and thanks to the hospitality of a lot of folks in this audience last night at the Clinton Library, and having worked in the 

Clinton Administration, and that brought back a lot of memories 

for me, and meant a lot to me, so I am very grateful for that. 

Last night, I was thinking about that ‘‘don’t stop thinking about 

tomorrow’’ that we were all singing about back in 1993. And really, 

that’s what this hearing is all about. It’s about tomorrow. Where 

are we heading in this still new 21st century, and what role are 

telecommunications going to play in charting our future? And my 

answer to that is that they are going to play an absolutely huge 

role, and that the future is going to belong to those who learn best 

how to deploy these new technologies and services, and my answer 

is also that we have to get this right for America. And part of my 

answer unfortunately is that right now, we’re not quite where we 

need to be. And I know we’ve got a lot of new gizmos and gadgets, 

and advanced telecommunications like broadband have already 

brought us some pretty fundamental changes right here in Arkansas, too, thanks to the efforts of a lot of you folks in this room. 

But I also know as the Senator has said that other countries are 

eating our lunch in getting high-speed telecommunications out to 

their citizens and building their communications infrastructure. 

And I believe that our country at the national level—its lack of a 

concerned strategy to get broadband out to all of our people is like 

playing Russian roulette with our future. We’ve got to do better in 

getting telecommunications out to all of our people. And when I say 

that ‘‘all,’’ I always underline that word, because that means everybody. We can’t afford to leave anybody behind in this new age of 

high-speed communications. And that means those who live in 

rural America, those who live in the inner city, those who live on 

tribal lands. It means not just the affluent and the privileged, but 

it means those who are economically disadvantaged and people 

with disabilities. Each and every citizen of this country has to have 

access to the windows of communication. And I’m not talking about 

that from some kind of ‘‘social do-gooder’’ kind of perspective. I’m 

talking about not doing—I’m talking about doing America a favor. 

That’s—that’s what we’ve got to look at this as. I’m talking about 

making sure that our citizens have the wherewithal to compete in 

this highly-competitive global economy that we’re in. I’m talking 

about potential small business success stories right here in Arkansas that aren’t going to happen—that are not going to happen unless we wake up now and get a national strategy. 

I think broadband is really the great infrastructure challenge of 

our time. And if you course back through the annals of America’s 

past, it’s—every generation seems to have some kind of a infrastructure challenge. We go back to when we settled this country. 

And the first job was, well, how do we get the produce and the 

products of the settlers to market. So we found a way as a country, 

government and business working together, to build roads and 

turnpikes and regional railroads and canals and harbors and all 

the rest. Then after the Civil War, we’re all of a sudden a big continental nation. How do you bind that nation together? Again, we 

5 

found a way. Government and business and communities working 

together to build the transcontinental railroads. Even in our own 

time, we had the interstate highway system to bring cities, suburbs, and country together. 

And my point is—first of all, in all of these great infrastructure 

build-outs, there has always been a critical role for having a national strategy and then having government and business and communities work together. We didn’t just throw up our hands and say 

‘‘let somebody else do it’’ or ‘‘the market itself is going to accomplish all of this stuff.’’ We work together. That’s really how we’ve 

built the United States of America. And to me, the broadband networks we’re talking about are the roads and the highways and the 

canals of the 21st century. And we all know what happened in the 

last century. If the railroad didn’t come to your city, bypassed your 

city, your city didn’t thrive, and sometimes it didn’t even survive. 

So it’s a matter of really getting a strategy, bringing America into 

the game. And it’s not just the international context that I’m looking at. 

I’m looking at the gap within our country between rural and 

urban America. We had in the last century a gap even within the 

basic telecommunications until close to the end between rural and 

urban America. If we don’t get this broadband right, we’re going to 

have a bigger gap between rural and urban America in the 21st 

century with all this fantastic new technology and all the promise 

that it holds than we had in the days of plain old telephone service 

in the last century. I don’t think we can afford to wait for that. 

The world’s not going to wait for Arkansas or rural America or 

the United States to catch up. We’ve got to do that ourselves, so 

I’m delighted to be here today to learn from your experience. I don’t 

know that there is any ‘‘one size fits all’’ solution to broadband— 

cities are different than the country, mountainous areas are different than the deltas, and there are a lot of individual problems 

that we need to grapple with. The key, to me, is getting a strategy 

and with everybody working together to make that happen. 

Just some ideas that I will just very quickly throw out, then I’ll 

be quiet, because I think part of strategy would be having a Universal Service Fund that really has broadband as its core mission. 

I think that would be good. I think it would really help get this 

technology out. And I think that the folks on the business end 

would understand what the national strategy is. Business can’t operate with a question mark as Senator Hollings used to tell me 

when I worked for him. So everybody needs to know what the 

strategy is. And it means having a much more active Federal Communications Commission than we have right now. We’re not collecting the data. We’re still calling broadband 200 kilobits up and 

down. We’re still saying if there is one subscriber in a Zip Code, 

ergo everybody must have broadband. That’s like saying if one person drives a Cadillac in town then that must mean everybody’s got 

a Cadillac. That’s the same kind of silly logic. 

And then we have to have an FCC that’s crafting innovative solutions with the authority it has. And then beyond the FCC, it 

means government coming up with solutions that may include tax 

incentives, more loans for rural utilities service, encouraging a municipality in local and regional innovations. Those are just some of 

6 

the thoughts I would have. I want to thank everybody for being 

here today, and sharing your experiences. And I know when I go 

back, I will have this valuable information to put into my calculator as we try to write rules that make sense for the future. So 

thank you, Senator, very much for inviting me here today. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Copps follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL J. COPPS, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Good morning and thank you Senator Pryor for inviting me to be here with you 

and so many good Arkansans this morning. I’m happy to be here for many reasons. 

First, I worked in the U.S. Senate for many years and getting to spend some quality 

time with our Senate leaders is always exciting for me—especially when it’s someone who epitomizes the best of the Senate—mastering the issues, knowing how to 

work across the aisle to get things done, and having an expansive vision for this 

great country of ours. Like your father before you, you add luster to the Senate. I’m 

also glad to be here because of the proximity of the Presidential Library. I had the 

honor of serving President Bill Clinton as Assistant Secretary of Commerce for 

Trade Development and I am so proud of what he accomplished for America both 

at home and around the world and proud of the opportunity he gave me to serve. 

‘‘Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow,’’ Bill Clinton told us. And that’s what this 

hearing is all about—tomorrow. Where are we heading in this still-new twenty-first 

century and what role are telecommunications going to play in shaping our future? 

My answer to that is that the future will belong to those who learn best how to 

deploy all these new technologies, products and services. My answer is we have to 

get this right for America. And part of my answer, unfortunately, is that right now 

we’re not where we need to be. Oh, I know we all have lots of new gizmos and gadgets and that advanced telecommunications like broadband have brought us some 

pretty fundamental changes, including right here in Arkansas. But I also know that 

other countries are eating our lunch in building their communications infrastructures and I believe that America’s lack of a concerted national strategy to get back 

in the lead is tantamount to playing Russian roulette with our future. 

Let me begin by saying that my overriding objective since going to the FCC in 

2001 has been to bring the best, most accessible and cost-effective communications 

system in the world to all of our people—and I mean all of our people. We can’t 

leave anybody behind in this great new age of high-speed communications. That 

means those who live in rural America, those who live in the inner city and those 

who live on tribal lands; it means not just the affluent and privileged, but those who 

are economically disadvantaged and those with disabilities. Each and every citizen 

of this great country should have access to the wonders of communications. I’m not 

talking about doing all these people some kind of feel-good, do-gooder favor by including them; I’m talking about doing America a favor. I’m talking about making 

certain our citizens can compete here at home and around the world with those who 

are already using broadband in all aspects of their lives. 

The way I see it, broadband is really the great infrastructure challenge of our 

time. If you course back through the annals of America’s past, you will find that 

just about every major era confronted a stark infrastructure challenge. In the early 

days, as we settled new lands, the need was to get the produce and products of our 

settlers to market—so we built roads and turnpikes and ports and canals to get the 

job done. Then, as we became a continental, industrial power, we needed railroads 

to bring the Nation together, so we laid a railway grid across the country, climaxed 

by the great saga of the transcontinental railroads. Closer to our own era, in the 

Eisenhower years, came the Interstate Highway System, to bind city and state and 

nation. Even in telecom, we found ways to get telephone service out to most of our 

citizens. And here’s my point: in all of these great infrastructure build-outs, there 

has always been a critical role for business, local community organizations and government to work together toward a great national objective. We didn’t just throw 

up our hands and say ‘‘Leave it to somebody else,’’ or ‘‘the market will automatically 

get it all done.’’ No, these things were the business of the people. That’s how we 

looked at these challenges. That’s how we overcame them. That, my friends, is precisely how we built this great country of ours. We pulled together and worked together. You know, we all rightly value that great Declaration of Independence and 

that glorious fight for freedom, but in reality it was millions of Americans making 

a declaration of interdependence, one upon the other, that won us our freedom and 

allowed us to build the greatest nation in history. 

7 

To me—and I believe this deeply—the broadband networks are the roads and canals and railways and highways of the Information Age. Our future will be decidedly affected by how we master, or fail to master, advanced communications networks and how quickly and how well we build out high-speed communications 

connectivity. If we succeed, we will create millions upon millions of new educational 

and economic opportunities. We will see new local businesses—and local governments, too—providing tremendous value-added services everywhere in the country. 

We will advance medical care through the development and delivery of new health 

services. We will ensure that schools and libraries are huge digital resources for 

their communities. We will give that aspiring small business person in any number 

of rural Arkansas communities a level field on which to compete with folks in the 

city and competitors around the globe. 

Those who get access to high-speed broadband will win. Those who don’t will lose. 

It’s as simple as that. I want to help make sure we all get there, and that America’s 

rural communities get there as soon as everyone else. I’ll tell you this with confidence: if high-speed broadband is permitted to be primarily an urban phenomenon, 

the digital gap in this country that already separates urban and rural America will 

grow still wider and rural America will be relatively worse off in the twenty-first 

century of modern communications than it was in the days of plain old telephone 

service in the last century. We can’t let that happen. This competitive world of ours 

is not going to make time for rural America to catch up. That may sound harsh, 

but it’s also true. 

The important question, of course, is what can we do about all this? Now I don’t 

happen to think there is a one-size-fits-all broadband solution for this country. The 

Ozarks in northern Arkansas will likely require a different tact than the flat expanses of the Delta along the eastern border. And surely whatever plans we have 

for dense urban centers like Austin or Denver are not going to be the ticket for success in our rural communities. There are great differences—in population, culture 

and topography across this vast land of ours. So we need to embrace all kinds of 

solutions if we have any chance of succeeding. 

I think that means we need a Universal Service Fund that has broadband as its 

core mission. It means encouraging communities to develop innovative solutions to 

getting broadband out. It means having a Federal Communications Commission 

that provides the hard data we all need to understand exactly where we are—basic 

things like who actually has broadband, what it is costing, and how fast it is. It 

means having an FCC that is committed to deploying its expertise and assistance 

much more proactively than has been the case in recent years. It means government 

coming up with solutions that might include tax incentives, more Rural Utilities 

Service loans, public-private partnerships, and encouraging some old fashioned competition. And it means having government at all levels implementing a creative, 

comprehensive and well-funded strategy. 

I look forward to getting your thoughts today. I want to understand better where 

you are and where you think we should be heading. So thank you all for coming 

here today—providers, local officials, educators, entrepreneurs, technologists, consumers and citizens who understand the real challenges and promise in your home 

state. I have no doubt that what I hear today will help shape my views as I work 

back in Washington to craft policies that can bring broadband to all Americans. And 

I am optimistic that everyone here, pulling and hauling together, can make sure 

that in the broadband revolution of our time no community—and no Arkansan—is 

left behind. 

Senator PRYOR. Commissioner Adelstein. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, 

COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. Thank you, Senator Pryor and Mr. 

Chairman today for inviting me to discuss this common goal that 

we have of making sure we deploy broadband everywhere in this 

country, including to the rural parts of this state and rural America. I certainly want to thank you all for the warm southern hospitality. Reminded me of back when I visited in the days of when 

your father was a senator. What a wonderful place this is. What 

a beautiful state it is. And what a wonderful bunch of people that 

know how to get together and do things. We certainly have a fine 

8 

set of panelists, and we thank you all for sharing your insights 

with us today. 

I certainly commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on 

this issue. I know that in Washington, you’re seen as one of the 

leaders on technology and telecommunications issues, not only as 

a function of being on the Commerce Committee, but as a CoChairman of the Senate Democratic High-Tech Task Force. You 

really recognize the importance of promoting these innovative technologies and promoting broadband deployment, and how important 

that is as you’ve explained this morning. I mean, your focus as 

you’ve said on broadband is so important, because it really does 

change and revolutionize the way that our economy works, the 

health care opportunities for our people, public safety, which relies 

on broadband technology, educational opportunities, and even the 

very social and democratic opportunities for people to participate in 

our government. 

Broadband is creating whole new opportunities by connecting entrepreneurs to millions of customers as we’ve mentioned is the case 

in northwest Arkansas facilitating telecommuting, allowing communities to attract skilled workers and increasing productivity for 

business and government of all sizes. I think coming from South 

Dakota as you said and having worked for this state for six years, 

I certainly think that broadband is critical for the rural economic 

development of this state and really for all of rural America. We 

have a challenge on our hands, and it’s a real problem if we don’t 

allow the full potential of people to be realized, that they’ll fall 

even further behind. 

So here we have an opportunity for enormous progress, but there 

is actually peril on the other side, because as other countries and 

other parts of the country are expanding and advancing in technology, if rural America falls behind and—or continues to remain 

behind, the gap could get even larger. And that’s tragic, because 

the upside is so amazing. Think about distance learning in telemedicine and how it’s transforming the way we educate and care 

for our citizens, and robust broadband services are critical in times 

of disaster as we saw in the Katrina situation. It conveys enormous 

amounts of information to public safety, it also enables citizens to 

reach each other in a time of need and it helps first responders. 

All these applications that you can go on and on about, and we’re 

only scratching the surface. Now, in this age of global competitiveness where we’re competing with Bangalore, India, I think we’ve 

got to tap the potential of all of our citizens, no matter where they 

live, to reach our full level of economic growth. We need to prevent 

outsourcing of jobs overseas by promoting the insourcing of jobs 

right here in the U.S. by companies within our own borders. 

For a long time, particularly under the leadership of one of Arkansas’ own, whose library we enjoyed the hospitality of last night, 

the U.S. was the world leader in telecommunications. And there 

was a real focus—regular meetings at the White House—real national leadership on this issue. And we need more of that kind of 

leadership in the Federal, state, and local levels. I have been encouraged that with the changes in Congress, the Senate Commerce 

Committee has heightened its attention to this issue over the past 

year as evidenced by this hearing today. 

9 

Now, this is the first Congressional hearing—I’ve been in the 

FCC for five years, and this is the first time I’ve been invited to 

a state to focus on the impact of broadband in that particular state. 

And that’s a real testament of the kind of leadership we have here, 

and that Senator Pryor brings nationwide and certainly Arkansas 

needs that, and so does every state. 

We need to learn more about the challenges in Arkansas, and I’m 

glad we’re going to hear from you today, so we can forge together 

a path forward to make progress here. This is the kind of attention 

and importance that an issue like this deserves. And we’ve made 

some progress, and we’re going to hear some positive lessons from 

each of you here this morning. I remain concerned though as a nation that we are failing to keep pace with our global competitors. 

My colleagues here talked about how we’re slipping down in the 

international rankings of broadband penetration. But the real important statistic to me is that citizens of other countries are getting 

a better broadband deal—more megabits for less money than 

Americans. 

And that’s not just a PR problem which some of my colleagues 

fight back at The Wall Street Journal and other places, say, ‘‘oh, 

don’t—don’t look at the statistics.’’ That’s a real productivity problem for our economy. We’ve got to do better. I am concerned also 

that the lack of a coherent broadband plan is one of the reasons 

that we’re falling behind. Every other country that has a national 

plan is the—are the ones that are beating us. And we need a comprehensive national broadband strategy that targets the needs of 

every part of this country. It should incorporate benchmarks, deployment timetables, and measurable thresholds that gauge 

progress. We need to set ambitious goals, shooting for affordable 

high-speed broadband. We should start by getting better data, so 

we can ascertain where the problems are and develop solutions. 

The FCC should be able to give Congress and consumers a clear 

sense of the price per megabit, just as we look at the price per gallon as an indicator of economic welfare. 

Now, an important tool for mapping broadband availability, 

which would enable the public and private sectors to work together 

to target under-served areas is something that you’re talking about 

doing here in Arkansas, this Connect Arkansas, which the legislature recently approved and the governor signed. That kind of initiative is something I look forward to hearing more about. It 

worked well in Kentucky, and I certainly think it can work well 

here in Arkansas. And as we look at a national broadband strategy, 

I think we’ve got to increase incentives for investment, because the 

private sector is going to be the primary driver of growth. We’ve 

got to promote competition, because ultimately that’s the most effective driver of both innovation and lower prices for consumers. 

Now Federal universal service plays a vital role in maintaining and 

improving rural networks, it’s a big source of—of funding here in 

Arkansas as voice becomes just one application along with data 

and video over broadband pipes, I think we need to ensure that 

universal service evolves as Congress intended to promote ubiquitous broadband. We should make broadband the dial tone of the 

21st century. 

10 

One of the best opportunities for promoting broadband also is 

through spectrum-based or wireless opportunities. We’ve got to assess the latest technological developments and get spectrum into 

the hands of operators that are ready and willing to serve at the 

most local levels. We have this upcoming 700 megahertz auction, 

which is of the old television bands. We have an historic opportunity there to facilitate the emergence of a third broadband platform. That’s the kind of competition we need. So this is the biggest 

and most important auction that we’re going to have for many 

years to come. And while the rules for the upcoming auction reflect 

a compromise, not everything I wanted, but I hope there will be opportunity there for a diverse group of licensees and we can put in 

the most aggressive build-out requirements in the history of the 

FCC. That should benefit consumers everywhere in the state, including the rural areas. Unlicensed broadband services are also an 

important avenue for a lot of underserved communities. Unlicensed 

spectrum is free and lightly used in rural areas, and it can be 

accessed immediately, so the equipment is relatively cheap, because there is a good national market for it. 

So we’re working at the FCC to make more unlicensed spectrum 

available at higher power levels. There’s a lot more Congress can 

do, too, as part of the national broadband strategy outside of the 

scope of the FCC, such as adequate funding for the rural utility 

service, broadband loans and grants, and making sure that those 

loans and grants are properly targeted to areas that really need it 

and not just subsidizing competition. 

There can be tax incentives for companies that invest in 

broadband to underserved areas. We can devise better depreciation 

rules for capital investments and targeted telecommunications 

services. We need to invest in basic science research and development to spur further innovation in telecommunications. We need to 

improve math and science education. And also we need to make 

sure we get computers in the hands of all of our citizens who want 

one but can’t afford one. So if you don’t have a computer, 

broadband doesn’t mean anything to you. 

One other idea I think is ripe for consideration now is perhaps 

it’s time for a national summit on rural broadband initiated at the 

Federal level involving state, local, and tribal governments along 

with the private sector who’s going to drive this to forge a consensus and show the kind of leadership we need around developing 

a national strategy. I certainly look forward to hearing from all the 

impressive panelists here today. I thank you for inviting me to testify and for holding this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Commissioner Adelstein follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN, COMMISSIONER, FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Thank you, Senator Pryor, for inviting me to testify about one of the critical challenges confronting our Commission and the country: ensuring the deployment of affordable, high-speed broadband infrastructure to every corner of this country. I 

would also like to thank Governor Mike Beebe, the Arkansas Chamber of Commerce, the many fine panelists who will share their insight, and the citizens of Arkansas for welcoming us to your state today. 

Senator Pryor, I want to commend you and the Committee for the vital leadership 

role you have taken on broadband and technology issues, which is evidenced 

through convening this hearing and also through your work in Washington, D.C. As 

11 

Co-Chairman of the Senate Democratic High-Tech Task Force, you have recognized 

the importance of promoting technological innovation and advanced telecommunications for providing good jobs and enhancing our standard of living. 

I appreciate your focus on these concerns, which are so critical to the economic 

and social prosperity of our communities. You understand the need to maximize the 

potential of every citizen to contribute to our social, cultural and economic life 

through communications. We must tap the talents of everyone in America, whether 

they live in cities or in rural areas, whether they are Native Americans living on 

tribal lands or residents of economically challenged sections of our inner cities, 

whether they live with disabilities, whether or not they speak English, and regardless of their income level. I would like to talk to you today about why I believe this 

is such an important guiding principle for communications policy and some of the 

ways we at the FCC, you in Congress, and all of the participants here today can 

achieve this ambitious goal. 

We must engage in a concerted and coordinated effort to restore our place as the 

world leader in telecommunications by making available to all our citizens affordable, true broadband, capable of carrying voice, data and video signals. An issue of 

this importance to our future warrants a comprehensive national broadband strategy that targets the needs of all Americans. 

The Role of Broadband for our Nation’s Communities 

We are only scratching the surface of the opportunities that broadband can bring. 

We stand at the threshold of a revolution in the applications that will ride over 

broadband infrastructure. By expanding the reach of advanced communications 

technologies, we can bring new hope to many communities where it is in short supply. 

For a long time, the U.S. was the undisputed world leader in communications 

technology. Yet, in recent years, we have tumbled out of our historic global position. 

I am particularly concerned that we give our communities the tools that they need 

to compete in a more global era. We need greater leadership on this issue at the 

Federal, state, and local levels. I am encouraged that the Senate Commerce Committee has heightened its attention to this issue over the past year. 

Hearings like this play a key role. Since I joined the Commission, I have traveled 

across the country and seen the impact of broadband on the economic, health, public 

safety, education, social and democratic opportunities of our citizens. Yet, this is the 

first time I have ever been invited to a Congressional field hearing that focuses on 

the impact of broadband on a particular state. That is testament to the kind of leadership that can propel Arkansas forward to the front ranks of broadband deployment. Every state, and the Nation as a whole, needs this kind of initiative by its 

leaders. 

I am pleased to share some of my thoughts, and am also looking forward to hearing the testimony of the many Arkansas state and local government officials, your 

regional leadership, representatives of the educational and telemedicine communities, providers, and others who will testify today. Together, we can learn more 

about the opportunities and challenges faced here in Arkansas and forge the path 

toward progress. 

Right now, broadband is creating economic opportunities that were previously unattainable, and the potential is even greater. Broadband can connect entrepreneurs 

to millions of new distant potential customers, facilitate telecommuting, and increase productivity. Much of the economic growth we have experienced in the last 

decade is attributable to productivity increases that have arisen from advances in 

technology, particularly in telecommunications. These new connections increase the 

efficiency of existing business and create new jobs by allowing news businesses to 

emerge and new developments such as remote business locations and call centers. 

The opportunities for rural areas that have seized the initiative are enormous. 

Broadband technologies are being harnessed in ways that folks back inside the 

Beltway might never have imagined. For example, at auction houses across the Midwest, entrepreneurs are using broadband technologies to conduct real time cattle 

auctions over the Internet. Ranchers from across the country can log in, watch real 

time video of the livestock and make purchases without leaving their ranches. By 

putting their livestock up for bid in cyberspace, these auction houses have been able 

to bridge remote locations, expand their potential markets, and cut the costs of 

reaching their customers. 

Broadband can also unlock transformational opportunities through distance learning and specialty classes that might otherwise be confined within the physical walls 

of a traditional school. Similarly, telemedicine applications are giving rural Americans access to diagnostic services, like mobile mammography and emergency services that had been unavailable because of distance, cost, weather, or geography. 

12 

As we saw in events like the devastation of Hurricane Katrina, communications 

services become even more critical in times of disaster or national emergency, 

whether as a means of conveying critical information to the public, enabling citizens 

to communicate with their loved ones, or providing an essential tool for our first responders. Broadband networks are essential to any plan to make emergency networks robust and redundant enough to survive and function in the face of such disasters in the future. 

Broadband technologies have the potential to improve the quality of life in even 

some of our most remote and economically challenged communities. I have seen 

communities leveraging broadband infrastructure to bring jobs: opportunities that 

serve not only as important sources of employment, but also as training grounds for 

the young people of the community. In almost every small community I visit, I hear 

how hard it is to develop a workforce with sufficient training in technology. Yet 

without such workers, it is hard for a small town to develop and oversee cutting 

edge communications systems. 

We want people to be able to stay, work, and thrive in the communities where 

they grew up. The problem I often hear that it is harder to keep young people in 

rural areas these days because they sense a palpable lack of local opportunities. 

Broadband communications can benefit our communities in many ways, perhaps 

most of all by restoring the sense of opportunity that first made Americans venture 

forth and settle the more remote areas of this country. Broadband can help our 

young people who want to live where they grew up, and enjoy that quality of life, 

have new opportunities for work and advancement. 

Efforts to draw attention to the importance of high-speed Internet access are critical. I understand that Arkansas recently adopted a unique public-private partnership—Connect Arkansas—to enhance broadband availability and subscribership. 

Such public-private partnerships can play an important role, educating businesses 

and consumers about the importance of broadband and aggregating demand so that 

there will be incentives for providers to build. It worked well in Kentucky, and it 

can work well in Arkansas. 

Broadband and Global Competitiveness 

Keeping our communities connected and ensuring that the latest technologies 

reach all Americans, including those in remote and underserved areas, are principles that are enshrined in the Communications Act. Meeting these goals will be 

more important than ever as we enter a new age of global competitiveness. 

Even as consumers are increasingly empowered to use broadband in newer, more 

creative ways, the stage on which we all must compete is also evolving into a global 

one. New telecommunications networks are a key driver of this new global landscape. They let people do jobs from anywhere in the world—whether an office in 

downtown Manhattan, a home on the Mississippi Delta, or a call center in Bangalore, India. This trend should be a wake-up call for Americans to demand the 

highest quality communications systems across our nation, so that we can harness 

the full potential, productivity and efficiency of our own country. We must give all 

our towns the tools they need to compete in this new marketplace. If we fail in this, 

be assured, our competitors around the world will take full advantage of us. 

We’ve made progress, many providers are deeply committed, and there are positive lessons to draw on. Yet, I am increasingly concerned that we have failed to keep 

pace with our global competitors over the past few years. Each year, we slip further 

down the regular rankings of broadband penetration. While some have protested the 

international broadband penetration rankings, the fact is the U.S. has dropped yearafter-year. This downward trend and the lack of broadband value illustrate the sobering point that when it comes to giving our citizens affordable access to state-of 

the-art communications, the U.S. has fallen behind its global competitors. 

There is no doubt about the evidence that citizens of other countries are getting 

a much greater broadband value in the form of more megabits for less money. A 

recent OECD report ranked U.S. 12th in broadband value. According to the ITU, 

the digital opportunity afforded to U.S. citizens is 21st in the world. For small businesses, those in rural areas, and low income consumers, the problems can be even 

more acute. This is more than a public relations problem. It is a major productivity 

problem, and our citizens deserve better. Indeed, if we do not do better for everyone 

in America, then we will all suffer economic injury. In this broadband world, more 

than ever, we are truly all in this together and we need to tap all of our resources. 

Some have argued that the reason we have fallen so far in the international 

broadband rankings is that we are a more rural country than many of those ahead 

of us. If that is the case, and since geography is destiny and we cannot change ours, 

we should redouble our efforts and get down to the business of addressing and overcoming this challenge. 

13 

I am concerned that the lack of a comprehensive broadband communications deployment plan is one of the reasons that the U.S. is increasingly falling further behind our global competitors. Virtually every other developed country has implemented a national broadband strategy. This must become a greater national priority 

for America than it is now. We need a strategy to prevent outsourcing of jobs overseas by promoting the ability of U.S. companies to ‘‘in-source’’ within our own borders. Rural America and underserved urban areas have surplus labor forces waiting 

to be tapped. No one will work harder, or work more efficiently, than Americans 

but many are currently without opportunities simply because the current communications infrastructure is inadequate to connect them with a good job. That situation must improve. 

A National Broadband Strategy for All Americans 

A true broadband strategy should incorporate benchmarks, deployment timetables, and measurable thresholds to gauge our progress. We need to set ambitious 

goals and shoot for affordable, truly high-bandwidth broadband. We should start by 

updating our current anemic definition of high-speed of just 200 kbps in one direction to something more akin to what consumers receive in countries with which we 

compete, speeds that are magnitudes higher than our current definitions. 

We must take a hard look at our successes and failures. We need much more reliable, specific data than the FCC currently compiles so that we can better ascertain 

our current problems and develop responsive solutions. The FCC should be able to 

give Congress and consumers a clear sense of the price per megabit, just as we all 

look to the price per gallon of gasoline as a key indicator of consumer welfare. Giving consumers reliable information by requiring public reporting of actual 

broadband speeds by providers would spur better service and enable the free market 

to function more effectively. Another important tool is better mapping of broadband 

availability, which would enable the public and private sectors to work together to 

target underserved areas. Legislation under consideration by leaders in both the 

House and the Senate would enable us and other agencies like the Census Bureau 

to make enormous progress on this front. The Connect Arkansas initiative will help 

in this state, and a similar approach should be adopted nationwide. 

We must redouble our efforts to encourage broadband development by increasing 

incentives for investment, because we will rely on the private sector as the primary 

driver of growth. These efforts must take place across technologies, so that we not 

only build on the traditional telephone and cable platforms, but also create opportunities for deployment of fiber-to-the-home, fixed and mobile wireless, broadbandover-power line, and satellite technologies. We must work to promote meaningful 

competition, as competition is the most effective driver of innovation, as well as 

lower prices. Only rational competition policies can ensure that the U.S. broadband 

market does not devolve into a stagnant duopoly, which is a serious concern given 

that cable and DSL providers now control approximately 96 percent of the residential broadband market. We must also work to preserve the open and neutral character that has been the hallmark of the Internet, in order to maximize its potential 

as a tool for economic opportunity, innovation, and so many forms of public participation. 

There also is more Congress can do, outside of the purview of the FCC, such as 

providing adequate funding for Rural Utilities Service broadband loans and grants, 

and establishing new grant programs supporting public-private partnerships that 

can identify strategies to spur deployment; ensuring RUS properly targets those 

funds; providing tax incentives for companies that invest in broadband to underserved areas; devising better depreciation rules for capital investments in targeted 

telecommunications services; investing in basic science research and development to 

spur further innovation in telecommunications technology; and improving math and 

science education so that we have the human resources to fuel continued growth, 

innovation and usage of advanced telecommunications services. 

What is sorely needed, but fortunately in evidence here today, is real leadership 

at all levels of government, working in partnership with the private sector, to restore our leadership in telecommunications. This type of attention is needed today 

on a national scale. Much as we focus on Arkansas, today, a National Summit on 

Broadband—or a series of such summits—mediated by the Federal Government and 

involving the private sector, could focus the kind of attention that is needed to restore our place as the world leader in telecommunications. 

Two other critical steps toward a national strategy, elaborated upon below, are 

properly channeling universal service toward broadband and promoting spectrumbased services for Rural America. 

14 

Universal Service: Evolving for the Broadband Age 

Congress and the Commission recognized early on that the economic, social, and 

public health benefits of the telecommunications network increase for all subscribers 

with the addition of each new subscriber. Federal universal service continues to play 

a vital role in meeting our commitment to connectivity, helping to maintain high 

levels of telephone penetration and increasing access for our Nation’s schools and 

libraries. With almost a decade behind us since the 1996 Act, the FCC is re-examining almost every aspect of our Federal universal service policies, from the way 

that we conduct contributions and distributions, to our administration and oversight 

of the fund. As this review has gone forward, I have worked hard to preserve and 

advance the universal service programs as Congress intended. 

We need to make broadband the dial-tone of the 21st century. Ensuring the vitality of universal service will be particularly important as technology continues to 

evolve. Increasingly, voice, video, and data will flow to homes and businesses over 

broadband platforms. In this new world, as voice becomes just one application over 

broadband networks, we’ve got to have ubiquitous broadband pipes to carry the 

most valuable Internet Protocol (IP) services everywhere. Without such broadband 

networks, IP services can’t reach their full audience or capability. The economic, 

public health, and social externalities associated with access to broadband networks 

will be far more important than the significant effects associated with the plain-oldtelephone-service network, because broadband services will touch so many different 

aspects of our lives. So, it is important that the Commission conduct its stewardship 

of universal service with the highest of standards and that we ensure that universal 

service evolves to promote advanced services, which is a priority that Congress has 

made explicitly clear. 

Wireless: A Critical Source of Broadband Services 

One of the best opportunities for promoting broadband, particularly in rural 

areas, and providing competition across the country, is in maximizing the potential 

of spectrum-based services. The Commission must do more to stay on top of the latest developments in spectrum technology and policy, working with both licensed and 

unlicensed spectrum. Spectrum is the lifeblood for much of this new communications 

landscape. The past several years have seen an explosion of new opportunities for 

consumers, like Wi-Fi, satellite-based technologies, and more advanced mobile services. We now have to be more creative with what I have described as ‘‘spectrum facilitation.’’ That means looking at all types of approaches—technical, economic or 

regulatory—to get spectrum into the hands of operators ready to serve consumers 

at the most local levels possible. 

Of course, licensed spectrum has and will continue to be the backbone for much 

of our wireless communications network. We are already seeing broadband provided 

over satellite, new wireless broadband systems in the 2.5 GHz band, and the increasing deployment of higher speed mobile wireless connections from existing cellular and PCS providers. 

During our review of the bandplan in advance of the auction last year of 90 MHz 

of new spectrum for the Advanced Wireless Service, I pressed for the inclusion of 

smaller blocks of licenses. I thought that smaller license blocks would improve access to spectrum by those providers who want to offer service to smaller areas, while 

also providing a better opportunity for larger carriers to more strategically expand 

their spectrum footprints. Our decision to adopt smaller license blocks was well received by a number of carriers and manufacturers. 

The Commission now has a historic opportunity in the upcoming 700 MHz auction 

to facilitate the emergence of a ‘‘third’’ broadband platform that will ensure consumers everywhere the benefits of a high-quality wireless broadband network. This 

is the biggest and most important auction we will see for many years to come. While 

the Commission recently adopted auction rules that reflect a compromise among 

many different competing interests, I am hopeful that there will be opportunities 

for a diverse group of licensees in the 700 MHz auction and that our more aggressive build-out requirements will benefit consumers across the country. We also put 

in place a new approach to spectrum management by adopting a meaningful, though 

not perfect, open access environment on a significant portion of the 700 MHz spectrum. This decision represents an honest, good faith effort to establish an open access regime for devices and applications that will hopefully serve consumers well for 

many years to come. 

Unlicensed broadband services are an intriguing avenue for many underserved 

communities because unlicensed spectrum is free and, in most rural areas, lightly 

used. It can be accessed immediately, and the equipment is relatively cheap because 

it is so widely available. I have also worked closely with the Wireless Internet ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
15 

ice Provider (WISP) community, which has been particularly focused on providing 

wireless broadband connectivity in rural and underserved areas. 

But we can always do more for rural WISPs and other unlicensed users. I have 

heard from operators who want access to additional spectrum and at higher power 

levels. And the Commission has been doing just that. We have opened up 255 megahertz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band—more spectrum for the latest Wi-Fi technologies—and are looking at ways to increase unlicensed power levels in rural 

areas. 

I also have pushed for flexible licensing approaches that make it easier for community-based providers to get access to wireless broadband opportunities. We adopted rules to make spectrum in the 3650 MHz band available for wireless broadband 

services. To promote interest in the band, we adopted an innovative, hybrid approach for spectrum access. It makes the spectrum available on a licensed, but nonexclusive, basis. I have spoken with representatives of the Community Wireless Network movement, and they are thrilled with this decision and the positive impact it 

will have on their efforts to deploy broadband networks in underserved communities 

around the country. 

We have also made spectrum available in the 70/80/90 GHz band for enterprise 

use. While you may not be familiar with this spectrum block, it can be used to connect buildings with gigabit-speed wireless point-to-point links for a mile or more. Instead of digging up streets to bring fiber to buildings, licensees can set up a wireless 

link for a fraction of the cost—and the spectrum is available to anyone holding a 

license. While others supported an auction, I successfully argued against them in 

this unique case, because I was concerned that auctions would raise the price of access and shut out smaller licensees. In fact, one company now is installing five links 

for the City of Sioux Falls in my home state of South Dakota. The links will be used 

for a number of city services, including public works, police and fire departments, 

as an alternative to fiber. 

Conclusion 

Congress has charged the Commission with ensuring that the American public 

stays well-connected, directing us in the very first section of the Communications 

Act with making available to ‘‘all the people of the United States’’ rapid, efficient 

nationwide communications services. That starts with a continuing commitment to 

connectivity, for all our citizens. For the sake of ourselves, our children, and this 

great country, we must be bold and successful in this endeavor. So, thank you for 

your leadership on this important issue, for inviting me to Arkansas to hear from 

this impressive line-up of witnesses, and for the opportunity to testify before you 

today. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, thank you. Thank you both for being here. 

I appreciate your words of wisdom there. Let me tell you what 

we’re going to do now. I’m not even going to introduce everybody. 

I’m going to let everybody just introduce themselves very quickly, 

and then—Daryl, from you all the way over here, we’re going to do 

three minutes per statement, then some students are going to have 

a ten, fifteen minute presentation. 

And then on this side of the room, we’re going to do two minutes. 

And if we do the math on that, we’re running well over an hour 

there. So if everybody could keep their comments brief and stay 

within their allotted times, it would be very helpful. And we may 

ask questions if something comes up, something you say triggers 

a question, and I want the two commissioners to feel free to ask 

a question of some of the witnesses. That would be great. But we’re 

going to save most of our discussion for later. Once everybody’s had 

a chance to do their opening statement, then that’s when the real 

discussion will start. And because there are so many—and again, 

this issue touches everybody in many different ways. This is going 

to be much more of a round table-type discussion rather than a traditional Senate hearing. 

You know, in the Senate, we get the witnesses there, and we 

start pounding on them—as the two Commissioners can testify to. 

16 

We’ll get them over there, and we start pounding on them. That’s 

not going to be the nature of this. This is going to be much more 

of a discussion. I love your thoughtful comments, your impressions—just things that you’re seeing out there around the state and 

things we need to do, challenges, good ideas, and whatever it may 

be. And we’ll have that discussion after everyone does their opening statements. But please bear in mind the two Commissioners 

and myself—we may ask questions of the witnesses as we go. So 

Daryl, if you wouldn’t mind just to state your name and what you 

do and give your three minutes, and we’ll go around the room. 

STATEMENT OF DARYL E. BASSETT, COMMISSIONER, 

ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 

Mr. BASSETT. I’m Daryl Bassett. I’m the Commissioner, Arkansas 

Public Service Commission. Senator Pryor, I want to thank you for 

this historic opportunity to discuss broadband. Commissioners 

Copps and Adelstein, welcome to Arkansas. 

First question, with regard to broadband—it readily presents 

itself since there is near universal agreement about the benefits of 

broadband deployment—is why aren’t we there yet? Why are we 

short of full deployment? And I think the question there lies—it’s 

a question of policy. I think as policymakers, we have to move closer or look closer at the metrics that the Federal Government currently uses in determining broadband usage in the country. 

Commissioner Copps touched on the fact that we need to pay 

more attention to the fact of the broadband bar, 200 kilobits per 

second is laughable when you consider the speeds that are available today. I think that any oversight committee should contemplate a review of that policy as well as the policy—the zip code 

policy. That says that if anyone within a zip code is served by 

broadband, then everyone is served by broadband. I think at the 

very least, we need to start looking at perhaps a zip code+four idea. 

That approach would certainly lend quality and credibility to our 

data collection activities. I think the Broadband Data Improvement 

Act that recently unanimously passed the Senate Commerce Committee goes a long way, rather, to closing that loophole. I support 

that initiative primarily, because I think the FCC should be directed to come up with a new metric for the second-generation 

broadband. And I think that second-generation broadband definition should be the minimum speed needed to string full-motion, 

high-definition video. 

The second question regards our regulatory philosophy. I think 

we have to understand that the service providers are spending billions of dollars right now trying to expand the Internet’s carrying 

capacity and its speed. And I think we need to be very careful as 

regulators to not practice any anticipatory regulation that might 

prevent those incentives from coming to bear. Getting dispersed 

areas such as what we have in Arkansas served by broadband is 

tough, it’s risky. Often these companies have no idea of what a 

take rate they’re going to have once they get out there. We need 

to look at incentivizing that kind of broadband deployment. And as 

a regulator, I’m particularly sensitive to any regulation that would 

prevent that kind of investment, particularly in rural areas. I’m 

going to run out of time very quickly, but I just really want to 

17 

stress the importance of continuing the process of increasing the 

radio spectrum that Commissioner Adelstein spoke on. I also would 

encourage you to continue your investigation into possibly subsidizing deployment in the areas that are considered marginal. 

Senator PRYOR. Good. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF REX NELSON, ALTERNATE FEDERAL 

CO-CHAIRMAN, DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY 

Mr. NELSON. Thank you Senator Pryor, Commissioner Copps, 

Commissioner Adelstein. We appreciate this opportunity. I’m Rex 

Nelson. I’m one of President Bush’s two appointees to the Delta Regional Authority, which serves 240 counties and parishes in parts 

of Arkansas, Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

Missouri, and Tennessee. And as you hit on, sometimes when 

you’re a presidential appointee and you get called before a Senate 

committee by a member of the Majority, it’s not always a pleasant 

thing. 

So I appreciate this pleasant opportunity today, Senator. In fact, 

I’m convinced not once will I have to say, ‘‘I have no recollection 

of that, Senator,’’ today. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. NELSON. Senator Pryor and I have basically known each 

other since childhood, so he realizes he could put me under at any 

time, Mr. Commissioner, anyway. But as we look at the rural 

South, the area of the country that we cover, after World War II, 

we saw tremendous gains in this region in closing that huge gap 

in average per capita income between the rural South and the rest 

of the country. And I can point to three, among other reasons, for 

that. That is we started paving our roads. We got electricity in the 

rural areas. And because we got electricity in the rural areas, we 

got air conditioning in the rural areas. So suddenly in those years 

after World War II, we got out of the mud, we got out of the dark, 

and we got out of the heat. Can you imagine having this hearing 

today with no air conditioning in this room? And we did it in large 

parts of the rural South because of something that were a magic 

three letters around the region called the REA, the Rural Electrification Administration. 

Now, if you look at the past ten to fifteen years, you will see that 

we have stopped making progress in the rural South in closing that 

gap. We have not successfully in our region made the transformation into the Information Age. And I would contend a lot of 

it is because we are not delivering broadband to our people. And 

I would also contend that having access to broadband in even the 

most rural areas of our country is just as important as getting that 

electricity to them, and therefore that air conditioning to them was 

back in the 1940s and the 1950s and for some even up into the 

1960s. 

So, Commissioner Copps, when you talk about a broad national 

strategy, I could not agree more. I think we have to work together 

with the private sector, in the public sector, to have a public/private strategy to make sure that the rural areas of our country 

aren’t left behind, because if we don’t, in this Information Age, not 

only will we not keep closing that per capita income gap, we’re 

going to see that gap start to grow and continue to grow. And in 

18 

essence, we’re going to be back where we were in the rural South 

before World War II. Thank you for the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REX NELSON, ALTERNATE FEDERAL CO-CHAIRMAN, DELTA REGIONAL AUTHORITY

Senator Pryor, Commissioner Copps, Commissioner Adelstein: It is an honor to be 

asked testify this morning. We are happy to be a part of this important discussion. 

The Delta Regional Authority is a Federal-state partnership that serves 240 counties and parishes in parts of Arkansas, Alabama, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. We operate a highly successful grant program in 

each of the eight states we serve. This program allows cash-strapped cities and 

counties to leverage money from other sources. The DRA also has expanded its regional initiatives the areas of information technology, transportation and health 

care. Earlier this year, the Delta Regional Authority unveiled an information technology plan for the region. This plan, which has been presented to the President 

and Congress, was developed in conjunction with Southern Growth Policies Board. 

We hope to build information technology access and utilization in Arkansas and the 

other states we serve. The plan is titled ‘‘iDelta: Information Technology in the 

Delta,’’ and its goals are to improve education, enhance entrepreneurship and improve health care through the use of information technology. 

Southern Growth Policies Board is a public policy think thank based in Research 

Triangle Park in North Carolina. Formed by the region’s Governors in 1971, Southern Growth Policies Board researches and develops economic development policies. 

The region is provided with authoritative research, discussion forums and pilot 

projects in the areas of technology and innovation, globalization, workforce development, community development, civic engagement and leadership. 

The plan developed by DRA and Southern Growth Policies Board includes numerous recommendations. An estimated 15 percent of zip codes in the DRA region lack 

high-speed Internet services, compared with 12 percent nationally. In rural areas 

of the Delta, the lack of services grew to almost 18 percent. 

What we’ve tried to accomplish with this plan is to provide a map for expanding 

information technology in the region. Information technology is as critical to the advancement of the Delta as good highways. We would never dream of limiting the 

access of drivers to publicly funded highways. By the same token, we must make 

sure people have access to the information highways. There are, of course, differences between highways and information technology. The nation and the states 

have large agencies dedicated to the planning, funding, construction and maintenance of highway systems. No such unified system exists for telecommunications access. Responsibility is widely scattered. 

We also teach driving skills in this country. But we don’t exhibit the same drive 

to teach technology skills. And roads don’t come in as many radically different forms 

as is the case with telecommunications access. People can choose from a telecommunications menu that consists of cable, home lines, wireless, satellite and 

more. 

Only 15 percent of local governments in the region have a website, compared with 

24 percent of U.S. municipalities. Delta school districts with a website lag the national rate, 54.2 percent to 62.2 percent. Only 13 percent of the 240 counties and 

parishes have schools with community technology centers available after school 

hours. Just 37 percent of communities in the region have public technology centers 

outside of schools and libraries. 

One of our key recommendations is the creation of a DRA iDelta Center that will 

act as an organizing entity for information technology initiatives in the region. This 

recommendation is based on successful models that already exist in the South. 

Other iDelta recommendations include funding telecommunications projects to connect the region with critical assets in health, education, workforce training, e-commerce and entrepreneurship; conducting a public affairs campaign on the value of 

technology; and funding local development districts to use GIS systems to support 

the DRA’s regional initiatives. 

During a planning retreat in February 2005, the DRA board voted to make health 

care, transportation and information technology the agency’s major policy development areas. Last year, the DRA launched the Healthy Delta initiative, http:// 

www.healthydelta.com. In Feburary, we unveiled plans for the Delta Development 

Highway System. The proposed system consists of 3,843 miles of roads throughout 

the region. The estimated cost to complete the planned improvement projects for 

19 

these roads is $18.5 billion. In April, we released a detailed study that identifies 

sites in the region where oil refining facilities can be placed. Such a facility has not 

been built in this country since 1976. Taken together, the highway plan, our health 

care initiative, the oil refinery plan and the information technology plan provide a 

blueprint for the economic revitalization of the region. We take our role as a regional planner, coordinator and advocate seriously. The release of this information 

technology plan is a major step in the life of the authority. 

The DRA would like to be a unifying force in this region when it comes to information technology. This fits into our mandated role as a regional coordinator. No 

one is doing this for information technology in the region. We want to step up and 

help fill that gap. A wave of information technology investment is as necessary for 

the future of the Delta as great highway construction projects. 

For more than a decade, economic development officials have been ringing the 

alarm about the region’s lack of information technology access. To change this conversation and the region’s reality, there must be significant new strategic investments in information infrastructure and resources. Our iDelta plan will provide a 

tool for guiding the development of such efforts. Hopefully, we can craft Federal 

interagency agreements that will allow our proposed DRA iDelta Center to articulate and fund the vision of universal access and usage. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Burdick, before you say a word, 

I will note that on my way in, we stopped in this library. We saw 

computers after computer there. And I know the librarians around 

the state made a serious commitment to technology in providing 

public access to the Internet and to technology generally, so go 

ahead. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID BURDICK, DIRECTOR, PINE BLUFF/ 

JEFFERSON COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM; ON BEHALF OF 

ARKANSAS PUBLIC LIBRARIES 

Mr. BURDICK. Thank you for noting that. Senator Pryor, Commissioners, I’m honored to come before you today and appreciate the 

opportunity to speak on behalf of the public libraries in Arkansas. 

My name is Dave Burdick. I’m the Director of the Pine Bluff/Jefferson County Library System. Pine Bluff is located 45 miles southeast of Little Rock where the pine trees end and the delta farmlands begin. We have five public libraries serving a population of 

82,000 people. Fifty-five percent of the population is black. Twenty 

percent of the population is below the poverty line. 

Although nearly all public libraries in Arkansas are connected to 

the Internet, there are many of the small rural libraries where this 

connection is through dial-up, a dedicated 56k line, a DSL line, or 

a connection through a local cable television network. 

Today, public libraries are a technological center for many of our 

citizens who either cannot afford to own a computer or afford to 

pay for a high-speed connection to the Internet. The Pine Bluff libraries are typical of many of the public libraries in Arkansas. One 

out of three people who walk through our doors use a public computer work station. The important thing is this: The public library 

is their gateway to the world. We offer this gateway to everyone. 

Yet in many cases, we’re letting our citizens down by not offering 

a fast and reliable connection to meet their needs. In our two 

smaller branches, both located in towns of approximately a thousand people, we have a 56k connection for the three public work 

stations and two staff work stations. This is not adequate, and, unfortunately, it’s typical of small, rural libraries throughout Arkansas. 

20 

In Pine Bluff, the infrastructure is such that many citizens cannot get DSL. Numerous times in the past few years, the Internet 

connection at one of our libraries has gone down simply because 

the phone company plugged in another new user into antiquated 

equipment, which was not intended to carry this type of load. 

Pine Bluff is an impoverished community compared to other 

major cities in Arkansas. And the payback to the investment in the 

infrastructure is just not there as it is in other markets. It is like 

this throughout the rural areas of Arkansas, especially in the Delta 

region. It is my belief that the government must step in and offer 

incentives to help improve the infrastructure of these poor and 

rural areas. I envision the day when every public library throughout the state is connected to the Internet at a speed which will provide all of our citizens access to video-conferences, live online educational programs, live classroom instruction, and other resources 

which take a great deal of bandwidth. Internet sessions should be 

dependent on the current speed of the Internet and not the speed 

of the network which connects the citizens to the Internet. When 

we talk broadband as it pertains to public libraries, we should be 

talking about speeds which can reach 100 megabits per second. We 

need to move away from frame relay and move towards a long distance Ethernet or fiber optics network, so that our citizens can 

have quick access to our educational institutions. 

You are here today because we all recognize that Arkansas is far 

behind the rest of the country in broadband services. Let’s just be 

sure that everyone agrees that the public libraries of Arkansas 

must be included in all discussions and that solutions are found to 

bring Arkansas and Arkansas public libraries up to speed. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burdick follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID BURDICK, DIRECTOR, PINE BLUFF/JEFFERSON

COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM; ON BEHALF OF ARKANSAS PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Senator Pryor, Commissioners, I am honored to come before you today and appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Public Libraries in Arkansas. 

My name is Dave Burdick; I am the Director of the Pine Bluff/Jefferson County 

Library System. Pine Bluff is located 45 miles southeast of Little Rock, where the 

Pine Trees end and the Delta Farm Land begins. We have five public libraries serving a population of nearly 82,000 people. Fifty-five percent of our population is 

Black; twenty percent of the population is below the poverty line. 

Although nearly all Public Libraries in Arkansas are connected to the Internet, 

there are many of our small rural libraries where this connection is through dialup, a dedicated 56k line, a DSL line, or a connection through the local cable television company. 

Today, Public Libraries are a technological center for many of our citizens who 

either cannot afford to own a computer, or afford to pay for a high-speed connection 

to the Internet. 

The Pine Bluff Libraries are typical of many of the Public Libraries in Arkansas. 

One in three people who walk through our doors use a Public Computer 

Workstation. The important thing is this . . . the Public Library is their gateway 

to the world. We offer this gateway to everyone. 

Yet in many cases, we are letting our citizens down by not offering a fast and 

reliable connection to meet their needs. In our two smaller branches, both located 

in towns of approximately a thousand people, we have a 56k connection for the 3 

public workstations and 2 staff workstations. This is not adequate, and unfortunately is typical of small, rural libraries throughout Arkansas. 

In Pine Bluff the infrastructure is such that many citizens cannot get DSL. Numerous times in the past few years the Internet connection at one of our Libraries 

21 

has gone down simply because the phone company plugged another new user into 

antiquated equipment which was not intended to carry the load. 

Pine Bluff is an impoverished community compared to other major cities in Arkansas, and the payback to the investment in the infrastructure is just not there 

as it is in other markets. It is like this throughout the rural areas of Arkansas, especially in the Delta Region. It is my belief that the government must step in and 

offer incentives to help improve the infrastructure in these poor and rural areas. 

I envision the day when every Public Library throughout the state is connected 

to the Internet at a speed which will provide all of our citizens access to video conferences, live on-line educational programs, live classroom instruction, and other resources which take a great deal of bandwidth. Internet sessions should be dependent on the current speed of the Internet, and not the speed of the network which 

connects our citizens to the Internet. 

When we talk broadband as it pertains to Public Libraries, we should be talking 

about speeds which can reach 100 Mbps (megabits per second). We need to move 

away from frame relay, and move toward a long-distance Ethernet or fiber optics 

network so that our citizens can have quick access to our educational institutions. 

You are here today because we all recognize that Arkansas is far behind the rest 

of the country in broadband services. Let’s just be sure that everyone agrees that 

the Public Libraries of Arkansas must be included in all discussions, and that solutions are found to bring Arkansas and Arkansas Public Libraries up to speed. 

Thank you. 

Commissioner COPPS. Can I ask a quick question? 

Mr. BURDICK. Yes, please. 

Commissioner COPPS. Do you have any figures or data on what 

percentage of libraries maybe are on dial-up? You know, we have 

the E-Rate program for schools and libraries. We’re all very proud 

of that, and I’m a strong supporter of it. There are those who say, 

well, you’ve got 93 percent of the classrooms in the United States 

connected, but a lot of them are dial-up, aren’t they? 

Mr. BURDICK. The data that I’ve seen lately is a little old because 

the state library does collect that, but because so many are starting 

to move out away from the state-offered services, it’s really hard 

to know exactly where each of those are. I do know by talking to 

other librarians that they have branches in these small areas, 

which are definitely on dial-up. I have no idea how—or what the 

number is. 

Commissioner COPPS. That’s a lot to expect our kids to compete 

on a dial-up connection with folks everywhere else that have highspeed. 

Mr. BURDICK. That is correct. 

Senator PRYOR. Dr. Lowery? 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. LOWERY, JR., M.D., CHAIRMAN, 

DEPARTMENT OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY; 

DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DISTANCE HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF 

ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS) 

Dr. LOWERY. Thank you. And thanks for the opportunity to 

present this very important issue. I’m first a practicing healthcare 

provider, but I’m also Director of the Center for Distance Health 

at UAMS and Chairman of the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. And I’ll start by saying, where you live should not determine whether you live or die. That is the case. And as a healthcare 

provider, it’s my mission to eliminate this disparity. It’s unacceptable, and we should eliminate it. Information is available and 

needs—your information and special care can eliminate many of 

these deaths. So every day that we don’t do this, there are people 

dying unnecessarily. So that’s why I think it’s really important. 

22 

Arkansas is the sixth poorest state in the Nation. We are among 

the worst nationally for stroke mortality, women’s health, obesity, 

health insurance coverage, cardiovascular deaths, and overall 

health. And unfortunately, there is a long list of other problems we 

have. While we have made progress in the last few years in improving this, there is a lot more room for improvement. A few 

months ago, we formed Arkansas Telehealth Network. And this is 

an historical alliance of 16 of Arkansas’ leading health care organization, has been realized as Arkansas formed the Arkansas Telehealth Oversight and Management Board—ATOM. 

ATOM is called to the duty to fully connect, tactically expand, 

and officially manage the statewide telehealth system that builds 

upon the state’s educational and clinical efforts. You may wonder 

why that’s important to do this as a healthcare provider. And I’ll 

tell you that 73 of the 75 counties in Arkansas are considered 

medically under-served. With that, Little Rock is the home to the 

vast majority of the state’s only subspecialists making subspecialists’ care concentrated away from the rural areas where they’re 

most needed. This is true of many states, not just Arkansas, as 

well. It’s hard to get subspecialists to go to rural areas. 

Unique to Arkansas, all hospitals throughout this state are wired 

and ready for the telehealth network due to bio-terrorism grants 

that we got. So I want to make a pitch for the FCC grant—we 

should get that, we need it very much. We could make dramatic 

improvements in a very short time. ATOM identifies and leverages 

existing resources to make the most efficient use of funding and 

technology since we already have the, sort of the infrastructure in 

place. ATOM plans to update, expand, and connect all hospitals 

and other health care organizations to build a unified state virtual 

telehealthcare network that includes all hospitals and all providers. 

By doing this subspecialty support through telehealth enables us to 

oversee every patient transition from point-of-care from rural 

areas, to the cities, and back and forth, so that the patient is not 

a patient in the large hospital, but is a patient of everybody in the 

state. So if you transfer a patient, it’s still your patient, and vice 

versa. 

We can expect more cost savings and a diversity of disciplines as 

a result of this. Reaching telemedicine to rural Arkansas can stimulate workforce development, keeping telehealth dollars in rural 

towns that need them the most. We may be poor and we may not 

have a good health care standing as other states. What we do have 

is a network of telehealthcare providers focused on improving Arkansas through a unified statewide initiative. 

Arkansas is rich in one area: a passion to overcome our shortcomings with the intellectual and technological infrastructure required to implement the Arkansas Telehealth Network. The support of the FCC, and you, Senator Pryor, can make this vision for 

the future come to fruition. Thank you for your desire to make Arkansas a better and eventually the best state in the Union for telehealth. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Lowery follows:] 

23 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. LOWERY, JR., M.D., CHAIRMAN, DEPARTMENT OF

OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY; DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR DISTANCE HEALTH, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS) 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES (UAMS) 

PRESENTATION TO THE LEGISLATURE

Arkansas Telehealth Network 

(FCC WC Docket No. 02–60) 

Overarching Theme 

Where you live should not determine whether you live or die. That sentiment resounds in the mission of Arkansas’ healthcare providers. In a state where 73 of 75 

counties are considered medically underserved, healthcare access is the most overwhelming reason for Arkansas’ poor health standing. Faced with a statewide crisis 

in nearly every measurable healthcare category, an alliance of healthcare providers 

has sought to demonstrate that through collaboration and technology Arkansas is 

a place to live—not die. 

How do we plan to achieve this? 

In response to the FCC Rural Health Care Pilot Program, the State of Arkansas, 

in a historical feat, has allied its major healthcare service organizations and stakeholders, building the framework for a fully-connected, tactically-expanded, and efficiently-managed statewide telehealth system. This partnership of healthcare organizations is realized through the Arkansas Telehealth Oversight and Management 

(ATOM) Board, with a current membership of 16 organizations and an open invitation to all others interested in improving Arkansas’ telehealth resources. With FCC 

assistance, ATOM will create the Arkansas Telehealth Network. 

ATOM is comprised of a diverse group of Arkansas healthcare organizations operating statewide, including the following agencies: 

• University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. 

• Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services. 

• Baptist Health. 

• Arkansas Center for Health Improvement. 

• Arkansas Department of Finance and Administration. 

• Arkansas Department of Information Systems. 

• Arkansas Foundation for Medical Care. 

• Arkansas Hospital Association. 

• Arkansas Office of Information Technology. 

• Arkansas Research & Education Optical Network. 

• Community Health Centers of Arkansas. 

• DaySpring Behavioral Health. 

• Delta Regional Authority. 

• Mental Health Council of Arkansas. 

• St. Vincent Health System. 

• Training, Research in Aging and Children Services (TRACS). 

• And others as they choose to join. 

As selected by the ATOM Board, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences 

(UAMS) serves as the legal and financial applicant seeking FCC funding. Through 

an innovative management plan and statewide collaboration and support, this pilot 

program will revolutionize the composition, interoperability, and management of Arkansas’ telehealth efforts. A total request of $5,054,988 and an accompanying hard 

cash match of $837,300 will achieve goals of consolidation, expansion, and management of the Arkansas Telehealth Network. 

Why Arkansas? 

Arkansas is in the state of need. Results from the United Health Foundation’s 

2006 survey of national health standings reveal Arkansas currently ranks in the 

bottom five states in the Nation. Measuring a gamut of risk factors on personal behaviors, community environment, public and health policies, and health outcomes, 

Arkansas is 46th out of 50 states in overall health status. To complicate matters, 

24 

Arkansas’ status continues to hover in a declining pattern, having dropped from 

45th placement in 1990. Among Arkansas’ measured qualities, the following health 

outcomes contribute to this extremely poor ranking, while dually serving the purpose of highlighting Arkansas’ need for improved medical services and interventions: 

• Arkansas ranks 46th out of 50 states in premature death; years lost per 100,000 

population: 9,587. 

• Arkansas ranks 41st out of 50 states in infant mortality; deaths per 1,000 live 

births: 8.1. 

• Arkansas ranks 44th out of 50 states in cardiovascular death; deaths per 

100,000 population: 376.4. 

• Arkansas ranks 44th out of 50 states in obesity; percent of population: 28 percent. 

• Arkansas ranks 44th and 45th out of 50 states for poor physical health days 

and poor mental health days respectively; days in previous 30 days: 4.1 in poor 

physical health and 3.7 in poor mental health (Unitedhealthfoundation.org, 

2006). 

The University of Arkansas’ Division of Agriculture explains in its 2005 Rural 

Profile of Arkansas 63 of Arkansas’ 75 counties are considered non-metropolitan and 

consequently rural. As the report further highlights, the 2000 Census identified 48 

percent of Arkansans as rural, compared to the nation, where only 21 percent were 

considered rural at the time of the 2000 census. Arkansas is also experiencing a 

boom in the state’s Hispanic population, with the U.S. Census Bureau reporting a 

337 percent increase between the 1990 and 2000 Census. According to the Urban 

Institute, Arkansas’ Hispanic population grew 48 percent between 2000 and 2005, 

the fastest growth of any state in the Nation. As home to significant, growing populations from Mexico, Central America, and the Marshall Islands, there is a need for 

language translation services. Ranked 7th in the Nation for percent of people living 

at or below poverty in 2005, Arkansas is not only rural; it is poor. 

Arkansas must expand and improve its telehealth resources to better serve its 

rural population. Concerns related to building and expanding the existing network 

encompasses problems in affordability of telehealth connectivity. Regarding the current telehealth networks, several issues exist to prompt the need to enhance network interoperability. Presently, Arkansas is home to three statewide telehealth 

networks: DHHS, UAMS, and Baptist Health, among a number of smaller, private 

networks. These three telehealth networks represent all areas of the state, serving 

consumers on a variety of levels including emergency preparedness (earthquake, 

pandemic flu, chemical spill, etc.), high-risk pregnancy consultation, diabetes selfmanagement, health care education, home health, cardiology, psychiatry, and a 

number of other diverse medical applications. The networks also serve to educate 

providers across Arkansas, with health care meetings, continuing education opportunities, and other collaborative uses of teleconferencing. The co-existing networks 

have served many patients throughout Arkansas, yet these networks all function 

separately from one another, serving the same target population with needed services. The current telehealth network’s greatest flaws are their inability to easily 

communicate with one another and lack of a centralized, scheduling and management system. Through this initiative, ATOM will seek to overcome these flaws. 

The proposed statewide telehealth network will be created through three methods: 

(1) Consolidation of sites that currently exist on separate networks, (2) Update and 

Addition of sites in need of increased bandwidth and improved accessibility, and (3) 

Expansion of the network to include access to Internet2 and the Arkansas Interactive Video Network. 

What deliverables are expected? 

The ATOM Board proposes several related efforts and resultant deliverables 

through this pilot program proposal, each aimed at aggregating the needs of the 

state’s health care providers and leveraging existing technology. These efforts are 

explained below. 

• Effort 1: Consolidate Arkansas’ existing public and private non-profit telehealth 

networks into one statewide Arkansas Telehealth Network. 

Deliverable: Cohesive statewide telehealth network. 

• Effort 2: Expand the Arkansas Telehealth Network to strategically enhance access to rural, underserved areas and populations of Arkansas to include a special emphasis on the Delta region. 

Deliverable: A more comprehensive statewide telehealth network. 

25 

• Effort 3: Unite the Arkansas Telehealth Network to Arkansas’ Educational 

Video Network. 

Deliverable: Interoperability between the state’s educational (520 endpoints) and 

telehealth resources (∼270 endpoints). 

• Effort 4: Connect the Arkansas Telehealth Network to Internet2 and Arkansas’ 

fiber backbone. 

Deliverable: A fully connected statewide telehealth network with statewide access 

to the latest technologies and applications. 

• Effort 5: Manage and schedule the 24/7 needs of the Arkansas Telehealth Network. 

Deliverable: A well-communicative network, with ease in scheduling and troubleshooting to encourage continued and frequent telehealth use. 

• Effort 6: Evaluate the success of the proposed initiatives on a scheduled and 

continual basis. 

Deliverable: Evidence of the success of the pilot program for dissemination, publishing, and further replication of a model program. 

How will this effort be managed? 

The management plan of this initiative stems from a collaborative approach between ATOM Board members. The ATOM Board is currently comprised of 16 

partnering health care organizations, and other governmental or private, non-profit 

health or technology organizations are invited to join the Board. 

Membership in the ATOM Board is open to any health or technology-related organization (governmental, private non-profit, or private-for-profit). Membership is intended to promote broad access and advocacy for telehealth services. Members elect 

representation to the ATOM Advisory Committee. UAMS will work under the direction of ATOM members through the ATOM Board. All members will participate in 

decision-making and management. 

What are our past successes? 

ATOM’s day-to-day operations will be led by three organizations: the University 

of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Baptist Health, and the Arkansas Department of 

Health, each with extensive telemedicine histories. As depicted below, each organization has been instrumental in bringing telemedicine to rural Arkansas. 

UAMS (University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences) 

Pioneered Arkansas’ first telehealth system in 1991. 

Created an award-winning, cost-efficient Medicaid-funded obstetrical telehealth 

program. 

Delivers telehealth consultation in genetics, oncology, neonatology, psychology, 

education, etc. 

Baptist Health 

First in Arkansas and region to implement an eICU providing remote monitoring 

of Critical Care patients (2005). 

Constructed a home health telehealth program for patient monitoring. 

Provides remote teleradiology and sleep study patient assessment and consultation to rural hospitals. 

DHHS (Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services) 

Operates Arkansas’ emergency preparedness telehealth system. 

Supplies clinical and educational telehealth to providers and patients. 

Launched a telehealth network serving rural health clinics, critical access hospitals, and the state’s hospitals. 

The University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences will provide the overall management of the ATOM effort, while also acting as the legal applicant for FCC Rural 

Health Care Pilot Program funding. Thus, this organization’s qualifications are explained in greater detail. UAMS has years of experience in developing and managing telemedicine programs. Technical and organizational ability to implement this 

pilot program is evidenced by the fact that the UAMS Statewide Telehealth Network has grown to include more than 50 self-sustaining sites. As an overview of 

UAMS’ programmatic achievements in telemedicine, UAMS’ Rural Hospital and 

Antenatal & Neonatal Guidelines, Education and Learning System (ANGELS) programs are explained. These two programs led the University’s and consequently the 

state’s efforts in telehealth. Further, leaders from both organizations will continue 

to play instrumental roles in this pilot program effort through ATOM. 

26 

The UAMS Rural Hospital Program (RHP) led the state’s efforts in telehealth 

when it was established in 1991 with two sites, having grown to include 50 rural 

hospital, Area Health Education Center (AHEC), and clinic sites across the state. 

The primary aim of the network is to share UAMS resources to increase timely access to specialty services and information in rural settings that would not otherwise 

be available. The program has extended telehealth services into some of the most 

rural and needy regions of Arkansas. With over 15 years of experience creating telemedicine sites, training facilitators, and developing compressed video programs and 

presentations, the RHP has worked with numerous communities and a variety of 

facilities throughout Arkansas to develop the statewide network. In 2006, RHP held 

272 different continuing education programs over telemedicine, serving 5,820 attending healthcare professionals. Further, RHP offered 34 different consumer education programs broadcasted through telemedicine in 2006, with 614 consumers in 

attendance. 

The ANGELS program is an innovative Medicaid-funded, telehealth consultation 

and education service established in 2003 for a wide range of physicians including 

family practitioners, obstetricians, neonatologists, and pediatricians in Arkansas. 

Utilizing interactive compressed video and Level II ultrasonography, telemedicine 

conferences enable physicians to confer with Maternal-Fetal Medicine specialists regarding high-risk pregnant patients. Clinical telemedicine consultations allow patients, local physicians, and UAMS physicians to consult and review 

ultrasonography results in real time, bringing the state’s only certified MaternalFetal Medicine subspecialty support directly to hometowns. In support of its telemedicine services, ANGELS established a call center to direct 24/7 support to patients and providers needing evidence-based triage and guidance. In 2006, ANGELS 

performed 891 consultations through ANGELS telemedicine, a marked increase 

from its pre-implementation rate of 174 consultations in 2002. 

What long-term consequences may result? 

Through implementation of Arkansas Telehealth Network, rural Arkansas can 

overcome the distance barrier that separates its rural residents from the subspecialty care they need. This network provides the very foundation required to 

build a comprehensive plan to tackle the state’s laundry list of health adversities. 

A centrally-managed, comprehensively-collaborative telehealth network will allow 

opportunities to build any number of programs: behavioral health services, telepharmacy programs, emergency-based stroke networks, and a continuing list of possibilities. What may result? Arkansas may transcend its poor health standing. Arkansans 

will have increased access to the care they need to prevent, maintain, and improve 

their health. This project builds upon relationships, technology, and support within 

the healthcare community, with one unifying theme held by all the ATOM membership: Help Arkansas help itself. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Chairman, a quick question. I know about the 

grant. We’re going to give it—we’re going to take a hard look at it. 

We have an ongoing program, as you know, that Congress enacted 

in the rural telehealth program, part of universal service. I’m wondering if ATOM is participating in the FCC’s E-Rate program for 

some help. 

Dr. LOWERY. Yes, we do, but many of the hospitals aren’t really 

eligible for it. We already get a good rate in the state already—the 

telehealth companies, so it ends up not really saving a lot of money 

for us in this state. 

Mr. ADELSTEIN. Is there something we need to do to make it 

more helpful in the ongoing program? 

Dr. LOWERY. Well, yes, I mean, I guess it would be to make it 

so that more hospitals could apply for it and take advantage of it, 

I guess, would be the issue. I mean, you know, $500 doesn’t seem 

like a lot of money, but for small hospitals that are barely making 

it, it’s $500. So the more hospitals we have onboard, the better off 

that we are. We’ve had—in our network at UAMS many of the hospitals dropped off because of the costs of the T–1 lines. I know that 

seems strange, but that’s the reality. 

27 

Senator PRYOR. And just by way of background for the two Commissioners, UAMS is the University of Arkansas for Medical 

Sciences, part of the University of Arkansas system, so it’s our 

medical school. They do a lot of medical research there, and they’re 

very plugged in a lot of different ways. And it’s a great asset to the 

state, because in many specialty areas, you can get state-of-the-art 

care throughout the state. Now, it also has a hospital, so it’s a 

large hospital as well, and it has what we call the AHEC system, 

which is sort of distance clinics. I’m not quite sure—— 

Dr. LOWERY. Yes, that’s right. 

Senator PRYOR.—how you describe it, but clinics around the 

state. And the idea was years ago to try to get some of those specialties and some subspecialties out into rural Arkansas where 

folks can get, again, world-class care, and have access to worldclass physicians. 

Dr. LOWERY. The population density just won’t support a pediatric nephrologist in Mena, Arkansas, but you can have this information available through these technologies to consult with guys in 

the rural areas that need this resource. So it’s sort of like the Internet of health care in a way, right? 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. And also UAMS works very, very closely 

with Arkansas Children’s Hospital and also to a large extent with 

the VA Hospital, which is right on the edge of the parking lot, really. They almost share space. But that’s the way Arkansas has approached health care. It has been a real pillar in our healthcare 

system here for a long time. 

Dr. LOWERY. I want to make one thing clear, though, that this 

proposal, the ATOM group is made up of other hospitals—— 

Senator PRYOR. Right. 

Dr. LOWERY.—Baptist, St. Vincent’s, and all the hospitals around 

the state. And I don’t think that this network should be limited, 

and in no way we’ve ever said that to just UAMS. This is designed 

to be a virtual health care network for all hospitals to participate, 

and that’s the way it should be. 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. I think that’s a great point. But other states 

may do it differently, right? That’s the way Arkansas has done it. 

Here again, one size fits all may not work for us, because we’ve 

taken a certain approach, which has been great for our state. And 

we were very collaborative. Our approach here in Arkansas was to 

always work with each other and try to help any way we can. That 

may not be true in other states, bigger cities, whatever, but that 

has certainly been our approach. Mr. Mjartan? 

STATEMENT OF DOMINIK MJARTAN, VICE PRESIDENT, 

SOUTHERN FINANCIAL PARTNERS 

Mr. MJARTAN. Commissioners, Senator—I want to thank you for 

allowing me this opportunity to briefly testify about the dire need 

for broadband in our rural areas. I serve as Vice President of 

Southern Financial Partners, a very comprehensive community development organization that’s affiliated with Southern Bancorp, the 

largest rural development bank in America. 

And our primary mission and our focus is to help revitalize rural 

communities, which we’ve been doing for about 20 years. So from 

that perspective, I’m going to talk about our experience with trying 

28 

to bring broadband into some of our communities that are really 

very small and distressed. Our flagship project is in Phillips County, Arkansas, which is the poorest county in the state of Arkansas. 

It has about a 30 percent poverty rate. And one of the greatest obstacles we’ve seen in reaching the outlying areas in Phillips County 

has been really a lack of the digital infrastructure and a problem 

that really makes these communities competing in the 21st century, global knowledge-based economy impossible. And one example 

that I gave to the Commissioner last night was when I drive to the 

Delta and want to visit with some of our communities—the best example is the mayor of Lakeview. I can send her a fax, or I can 

drive there on our asphalt infrastructure that’s been developed. 

But to borrow Rex’s analogy, I cannot use the digital infrastructure. So we’ve done a great job building asphalt physical infrastructure, but in the 21st century, we feel that the digital infrastructure 

is just as important as the physical asphalt and concrete infrastructure of the 20th century. 

One of the programs that we have some experience with that has 

been widely successful I would argue in other parts of the country 

has been the USDA’s Community Connect Broadband program. 

And this program has served many communities, but not a single 

community in Arkansas has successfully applied and received this 

grant. And I’d like to use this venue to make two recommendations 

that I think would make it much more likely for Arkansas communities to benefit from this fantastic program. One of them is eligibility criteria, which some of you have referred to it as zip code requirement, but it’s a similar issue that really excludes many communities that have a single household with broadband access disqualified. So what we would like to propose is to change the requirement that at least 50 percent of the households in a community must have access to broadband in order to be disqualified from 

receiving this grant. And number two, you know, we’ve run into 

this challenge most recently where for-profit providers in geographically-dispersed rural areas really cannot make this project 

under the grant sustainable past a two-year cycle. 

So what we would like to propose is to extend the cycle to give 

these for-profit providers a chance to gain enough customer base 

and start recovering the very high fixed costs that they incur in 

bringing broadband to rural areas. 

And then finally I have a third point here. I’ve found out recently 

that the USDA has been very responsive and answered this challenge, which was an income requirement that was based on national income. Now it’s based on state median income, and we’re 

very pleased to see that the USDA is so responsive to our needs. 

So finally I just want to conclude by really summarizing what everyone has said that we really feel that without high quality digital 

infrastructure, our communities will be unable to survive and compete in the global economy of the 21st century. And I really thank 

you for your leadership in coming to Arkansas, discussing this, and 

I applaud you for seeking additional ways that we can provide all 

of our citizens a chance to improve their lives, to learn to prosper 

and compete in the 21st century. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mjartan follows:] 

29 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DOMINIK MJARTAN, VICE PRESIDENT, SOUTHERN FINANCIAL PARTNERS

Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to testify about the dire need for improved digital infrastructure in our rural areas. My name is Dominik Mjartan, and 

I serve as Vice President of Southern Financial Partners, a comprehensive community development organization affiliated with Southern Bancorp (‘‘Southern’’), the 

largest rural development bank in America. We operate in several targeted communities, but our flagship operations are in Phillips County, Arkansas. 

With a poverty rate of 30 percent, Phillips County is the poorest county in Arkansas and exemplifies the problems faced by rural areas throughout the state. It has 

suffered significant economic and population declines over the past several decades, 

as the agricultural economy has undergone fundamental changes. Phillips County 

has experienced a host of other problems ranging from crumbling infrastructure to 

poor educational outcomes that make successfully competing in the 21st century 

knowledge-based economy difficult. Access to high-speed Internet offers a bridge between past challenges and future success. 

However, most rural areas are completely cutoff from the digital world due to lack 

of broadband. The result is a digital divide that further worsens poverty and related 

issues. The most relevant and successful Federal program that addresses the need 

for increased broadband access in rural areas is the USDA’s Community Connect 

Broadband program. The Community Connect program has successfully brought 

broadband service to communities in other parts of the country, but so far not a single Arkansas community has received a grant under Community Connect. While the 

overall structure of the program has the potential to benefit the struggling Arkansas 

communities Southern serves, these communities face several difficulties accessing 

the program: 

• A key eligibility criterion for the grant is that no household in the community 

has access to a broadband service. This requirement excludes many communities that have only minimal broadband coverage, or whose coverage only includes higher-income neighborhoods. This also means that broadband providers 

can install a single switch in a community to pre-empt an attempt by a competitor to bring coverage to an area with help from the USDA program, leaving 

the community without real broadband coverage and unable to access the 

USDA’s program. 

• Community Connect awards points based on the economic need of the targeted 

rural area in a way that does not fully acknowledge the extreme income disparities that exist in many rural communities. The program awards points based 

on per capita income, instead of other measures, such as poverty rate or median 

income, which better reflect the economic hardship of the community. A community like Lake View in Phillips County scores only 15 out of 30 possible points 

in the ‘‘economic need’’ category, despite having a poverty rate of 45 percent, 

an unemployment rate of 30 percent, and a median income of $15,500. It is 

worth noting that the USDA has responded to this challenge and accordingly 

modified the rules for the upcoming 2008 grant cycle. 

• For-profit service providers are required to apply for Community Connect 

grants, but the grants don’t adequately cover the costs of bringing broadband 

to many rural communities—particularly the smallest and most at-risk communities, which are unable to provide a substantial source of revenue to make the 

project sustainable beyond the term of the grant. As a result, service providers 

lack the confidence to make long-term commitments. Extending the grant period beyond 2 years would improve the cash-flow of these projects. 

These proposed changes would go a long way toward leveling the playing field for 

Arkansas communities. Overall, more funding is needed, through this program or 

other Federal programs, to fulfill the urgent need to bring broadband services to 

rural areas. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Dr. Davis is next. And Dr. Davis, 

thank you again for hosting me on your campus earlier this month. 

It was great and for you all in the audience, he gave me a great 

history lesson on UAPB, and there are some phenomenal things 

that have happened there over the years. And some of the highlights of that history and it is one of the premiere historically black 

colleges and universities sites in this country. So we’re certainly 

proud to have him here today. 

30 

STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE A. DAVIS, JR., CHANCELLOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF 

Dr. DAVIS. Thank you very much, Senator. And I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here today. And certainly, I recognize the distinguished Commissioners for being with us today. I’m happy to have 

an opportunity to make comments on what I consider a great challenge and yet a great opportunity. I’m Lawrence A. Davis, Jr., I’m 

the Chancellor at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. We are 

the second oldest state-supported institution of higher education in 

Arkansas. We are one of two land-grant institutions. And we are 

the only state-supported HBCU. And our business is the production 

of human capital, and we’ve been in that business over 134 years. 

We label ourselves as the flagship of the Delta. 

Primarily because of our historic mission, providing opportunities 

and making a difference in the Delta, not only in terms of educational services, but economic development, and I don’t want to go 

into all of that today. But as you’re aware, Arkansas has the dubious distinction of being ranked in the bottom tiers of several quality education indicators: student achievement on national examinations, workforce availability, percentage of college graduates, reduction in the illiteracy rate, and the list goes on. And in my opinion, 

part of the reason that we remain in that position is because we 

have not been able to take advantage of broadband technology. 

Now, Columbus proved that the world was round, but technology 

has made the world flat. You know what we mean by saying that. 

Those of us who are not able to step up to the contemporary levels 

in technology will continue to occupy the lower echelons of educational achievement and the associated retarded economic development. 

Now, although Arkansas ranks low in broadband deployment, it 

is encouraging to note that visionary leadership has developed a 

plan in Arkansas to move us to a more competitive position, at 

least, the four-year public institutions. We have a proposed ARE– 

ON (Arkansas Research and Education Optical Network) that will 

move the four-year public institutions to a position of equity with 

other states in terms of research, the ability to deliver online instruction, and other functions. Especially will this be a significant 

achievement for the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. Not only 

will it locate us on the frontiers of technology, but also it completes 

our multi-million dollar investment of past years in IP technology. 

At UAPB a few years ago, ten years or so ago, we made a major 

investment, so our security cameras, our PCs, and our telephones 

all travel along the same Internet Protocol lines. And, of course, 

this will ensure UAPB continues to be one of the few HBCUs in 

the Nation; Senator, that we can say does not have a technology 

gap. And as you know, that’s an issue in Washington for many of 

our colleagues. 

Also, our university will be able to expand the services and opportunities for citizens, especially in the Delta, which is a region, 

as I pointed out, most challenged in our state in terms of educational achievements and economic growth. Now certainly, technology is not a panacea, but it will accelerate our progress. When 

you think about what it’s going to cost, reflect on where our Nation 

would be if we had not invested in the interstate highway system. 

31 

Where would we be today? We wouldn’t be able to move from here 

to there as rapidly as we currently do. So I think that costs have 

to be associated with how much it will cost us if we don’t do it. I 

believe that a move into broadband technology; Senator, is critical 

to the future of our state. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Davis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAWRENCE A. DAVIS, JR., CHANCELLOR, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS AT PINE BLUFF

Arkansas has the dubious distinction of being ranked in the bottom tiers of quality education indicators: student achievement on national examinations, workforce 

availability, percentage of college graduates and reduction of illiteracy rates. Included in this list, which may be contributing to the previously identified negatives, 

is the state’s ranking of 47 out of 50 states for broadband deployment. 

The world has become flat because of the explosive development of technology and 

those who have not achieved contemporary technology levels will continue to occupy 

the lower echelons of educational achievement and the concomitant retarded economic development. 

Although Arkansas ranks low in Broadband deployment, it is encouraging to note 

that visionary leadership has developed a plan to move Arkansas to a more competitive position. The proposed ARE–ON (Arkansas Research and Education Optical 

Network) will move the four-year public education institutions to a position of equity 

with those in other states. Especially will this be a significant achievement for the 

University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff (UAPB). Not only will it locate us on the frontiers of technology, but also it completes our multi-million dollar investment of past 

years in IP technology. UAPB will be among the few HBCUs not having a technology gap. Also, the University will be able to expand its services and opportunities 

for citizens in the Delta of Arkansas, a region much challenged in the areas of educational achievement and economic growth. An investment in ARE–ON is critical to 

the future prosperity of the state of Arkansas. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Dr. Smith, I know that the University of Arkansas years ago made a big commitment to distance 

learning. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. SMITH, PROVOST, 

VICE CHANCELLOR FOR ACADEMIC AFFAIRS, 

UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE 

Mr. SMITH. Well, thank you, Senator. Good morning to Senator 

Pryor and Commissioners Copps and Adelstein. I’m Bob Smith. I 

serve as the Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at 

the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville. Joining me today is 

David Merrifield, who’s Chief Technology Officer in the Department of Computing Services at the University. I hope David will 

stand up for one moment. Along with David, Amy Apon is here. 

She’s a University of Arkansas Professor of Computer Science and 

Computer Engineering, and is director of High Performance Computing at the university. The great English novelist and playwright, John Galsworthy said, ‘‘If you don’t think about the future, 

you won’t have one.’’ And clearly you won’t have one if we don’t 

plan well. 

And clearly, there has been a leadership team involving the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, the University of Arkansas 

Medical Sciences Center that the Senator has so aptly described, 

and the University of Arkansas at Little Rock have gotten together, 

working with state agencies, most notably the Arkansas Science 

and Technology Authority among others, with private corporations, 

and with our sister institutions in the state of Louisiana, and have 

32 

developed, as Chancellor Davis noted, the Arkansas Research and 

Education Optical Network, or ARE–ON. This serves the advanced 

computing needs in Arkansas, and is appropriate for the 21st century, meeting the educational and economic development needs, 

particularly in rural areas of our state. I have provided copies to 

the Committee of written testimony, but I want to offer just very 

briefly some specific observations and conclusions. And my colleagues are here to help answer any questions that you have. 

In our written testimony, we note that ARE–ON is on schedule 

with completion anticipated in late Summer of 2008. Red Diamond, 

a 256-processor, parallel super computer funded by the National 

Science Foundation has been functional at the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville for two years, but now is at capacity. The UALR 

is in the process of obtaining a similar parallel processing super 

computer funded by NSF and EPSCoR. And NSF has additionally 

funded the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville to more than 

double the size of Red Diamond by an award of $800,000. 

We are now in the process of identifying vendors and possibly 

leveraging that award. The plan is to connect the two sets of parallel processing units when we are all on ARE–ON. And in October, 

a group of high-performance computer experts will visit Arkansas 

to help with a state-wide plan and to help us recapture a position 

among the 500 advanced computing operations in the world. And 

we note as the Commissioners and the Senator have noted, it’s always a moving target, and we tend to move in the reverse sometimes, but we’re going to pick up the pace, and hopefully get back 

into that position. We do appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony on contributions of the state’s major institutional partners in 

advancing computer technology. We look forward to answering 

questions that you may have, and Mr. Merrifield and Dr. Apon are 

here to help us with that. Thank you, Senator, and thank you, 

Commissioners. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Smith, Mr. Merrifield and 

Dr. Apon follows:] 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT V. SMITH, PROVOST, VICE CHANCELLOR FOR

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS; DAVID MERRIFIELD, CHIEF, TECHNOLOGY OFFICER, 

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTING SERVICES; AND AMY APON, PROFESSOR, COMPUTER

SCIENCE AND COMPUTER ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE

Arkansas Partnership for Advanced Computing 

The University of Arkansas (UA), Fayetteville, the University of Arkansas at Little Rock (UALR), and the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) are 

partnering with state industrial affiliates currently including representatives from 

Acxiom and Accelerate Arkansas, and state government representatives currently 

including the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority and the Arkansas Department of Information Systems, to leverage the Arkansas Research and Education Optical Network (ARE–ON) in a vision and plan to execute that vision for the state 

of Arkansas in high-performance computing for research, education, and business 

infrastructure. We believe that the availability of high-performance computing infrastructure will be essential to the economic development of any state in the 21st century. High-performance and advanced computing capabilities and technology for the 

understanding and solution of complex problems in science, engineering, and industry are critical to scientific leadership and economic competitiveness in the state of 

Arkansas. This is in keeping with the findings of the report from the President’s 

Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) (http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/ 

reports/20050609lcomputational/computational.pdf). 

The debut of the Arkansas Research and Education Optical Network (ARE–ON) 

is a clear indicator that the state of Arkansas is taking a fresh and energetic apVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
33 

proach to high performance computing for educational benefit and economic development. ARE–ON came online to the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, in December 2006, and has already been instrumental in UAF participation in a collaborative 

course with Louisiana State University (LSU) this past spring. This is one example 

of one type of educational activity that ARE–ON will support. ARE–ON represents 

a statewide initiative that already puts Arkansas ahead of some other states. 

Just as ARE–ON is a statewide effort for connectivity, the Arkansas Partnership 

for Advanced Computing recognizes that there needs to be a complementary statewide effort to support computational infrastructure. Three additional indicators 

show that the timing and support are right for such an effort: 

1. This growing partnership between UA, Fayetteville, UALR, and UAMS and 

several statewide industrial and government partners provide a solid foundation 

for a state vision for high performance computing. 

2. Legislative support of the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority 

(ASTA) may provide funding potential that is an opportunity to gain seed funding for an initiative. 

3. Funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) provided for the purchase and deployment of the first supercomputer in Arkansas, Red Diamond, 

on the UA, Fayetteville, campus, in February 2005. Additional funding from the 

National Science Foundation and EPSCoR in 2006 to UALR and from the NSF 

in 2007 to UA, Fayetteville, is enabling the significant expansion of high-performance computing infrastructure. With coordination between the researchers 

on both campuses it will be possible to double the size of Red Diamond at UA, 

Fayetteville, and to establish a complementary cluster at UALR. ARE–ON will 

provide the link to connect the supercomputing facilities as a nationally-competitive high-performance computing grid that is accessible to researchers 

across the state. 

Fundamentally, this initiative for high-performance and advanced computing is 

about quality, quantity, and the diversity of an emerging workforce. The workforce 

includes: 

• The current student body. 

• Importing of new workers who are attracted to our state because of technology 

opportunities and jobs, and 

• The reinvention of older workers who can be trained in new technologies. 

There are several statewide goals: 

• Increase the college graduation and retention rate. 

• Increase the high school graduation rate. 

• Attract new industry. 

• Enhance existing industry, and 

• Catalyze startup companies and invention 

To achieve these goals requires a statewide commitment to modernization and 

technology—a move to the 21st century. With these indicators and goals, a plan has 

been made that is economically sound that will move rapidly toward the goals, with 

modest risk. The plan will reach the goals with minimum cost, with the maximum 

likelihood of success, and will mix external expertise with internal experts and leaders in the state. This is a three-pronged attack: 

1. With support from UAF, UALR, ASTA, and the National Science Foundation, 

we have formulated a high performance computing External Advisory Committee (EAC) to look at the requirements and needs of the state. This external 

experience base will make recommendations, and provide guidelines and milestones. Dr. Thomas Sterling, Professor, LSU has provided some initial guidance 

on our current status and has recommended that this is the fastest way to get 

the high-quality insight necessary to leap-frog our current position. Dr. Dan 

Reed, director of the Renaissance Computing Institute in North Carolina, 

Chancellor’s Eminent Professor and member of the PITAC committee, has 

agreed to be the Chair of the EAC. 

The external advisory committee will visit Arkansas over a 3-day period in October. They will conduct a series of brief interviews with stakeholders in the 

state, spending a day each in Little Rock and Fayetteville. The deliverable of 

the EAC is a strategic plan that describes the scope and a roadmap for developing high performance computing infrastructure in the state of Arkansas. 

34 

2. We have implemented a standing Internal Review Committee composed of experts within the state of Arkansas. This committee consists of approximately 

two dozen participants from the state of Arkansas, and an additional one, two, 

or three external participants. The Internal Review committee will refine the 

statement of goals that the External committee has developed. This committee 

will be an interface to the academic community, K–12, and industry. 

3. We will be in partnership with the state legislature, the Governor, and key 

leaders across the state to develop a sustainable funding model. 

Industrial partners from Acxiom and Accelerate Arkansas have been participating 

in this discussion for over a year. One thing that will help to drive this effort is 

the identification of one or more ‘‘Killer Applications’’ (ones that grab the attention 

of funding agencies) that ARE–ON and the computational infrastructure can facilitate, and these may originate from industry, agriculture, or academics. For example, 

in Louisiana, ‘‘Killer Applications’’ include: (1) modeling of storm surge to avoid 

damage and save lives during hurricanes and other storms, (2) modeling of depleted 

oil wells and seismology studies that can help to avoid wild cat digging that wastes 

millions of dollars and harms the environment, (3) modeling of the preservation and 

ecological changes to wetlands, and (4) education as a first-class application, to improve the competitiveness of Louisiana as a state. 

High performance computing must be a synergy of education, industry, and research and is a requirement for ensuring that all Arkansans can fully participate 

in the digital world. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Ms. Bailey? 

STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BAILEY, DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS, STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Ms. BAILEY. Good morning. I am Claire Bailey. I am your Director of the Department of Information Systems for the State of Arkansas. I apologize for my voice this morning. I lost it somewhere 

between my flight home from Minneapolis at a telecommunications 

conference to Little Rock. I got in about midnight, but I am very 

excited to be here today and to have the opportunity to address you 

and my colleagues. I wanted to open by describing our state network in place today, and I’ve provided a couple of graphical representations. 

The State of Arkansas Department of Information Services brokers and manages the public sector network. We have one state 

network for state agency boards and commissions. We also provide 

our public school network, and we partner with our groups in higher education as well. The second map represents our digital radio 

system that we are very happy about and appreciate the support 

of Senator Pryor and the FCC and other state partners. The Arkansas Wireless Information Network is our public safety network. 

I wanted to start back and talk a little bit about what we do at 

the department. We manage a wired network that includes over 

1,900 edge points and we work very closely with our public and private sector partners. The integration of these networks also is how 

we provide our Internet access. And if we step back in time, in 

1994, just a few years ago, we were so excited. Our Internet capacity for the state network was nine megs. There is an industry trend 

on networks that Internet capacity doubles about every 18 months. 

Today, we are slightly behind that average. We have doubled every 

19 months. And we stand at 990 MB capacity today. In just a little 

over a month at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff, we will 

take our network, Internet Point of Presence to over one gig. And 

we are very excited about that. 

35 

Our statewide video network provides and supports distance education, e-learning. We have over 520 systems in our educational 

network. And we average over 19,000 conference hours a month, 

which means that we provide that type of learning and opportunity 

for 92 subjects with over 500 courses. That snapshot of what we 

have today in many ways showcases that the state has become 

what we define as the anchor tenant in our communities. As public 

services that we deliver continue to drive our network capacity 

needs, as an anchor tenant, the funding provides or can provide an 

economic incentive for our private sector partners to be able to continually improve their infrastructure in support of the public sector 

needs. 

There are partnerships with private sector. Our city, our counties, our state and Federal groups, we all share a common goal. Everyone in this room has a united vision to continue to advance the 

technology environment to be able to provide for our most precious 

people, our children, and we thankfully have some to address us 

today, the ability to access the best and newest learning tools and 

the current technology to be able to maximize it. Everyone in this 

room also has the ability to impact societal change in our Arkansas. Whether you live in the northwest region of our state or our 

Delta, your ability to have access to the services, the research, and 

the jobs of tomorrow, we want to ensure that no Arkansan is left 

behind. 

As I close, I wanted to leave you with a quote from our Governor’s State of the State Address from this past January: ‘‘When 

people look to Arkansas, they should see a leader in the Nation, in 

the world, and say: We want to do what they did in Arkansas.’’ And 

through the collaborative efforts of everyone in this room, we are 

champions to help Arkansas in every way we can. Thank you for 

this wonderful opportunity to address you today, and I look forward to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bailey follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CLAIRE BAILEY, DIRECTOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION SYSTEMS, STATE OF ARKANSAS

Thank you so for the opportunity to address you at this U.S. Senate Commerce 

Committee field hearing. It is truly an honor to be a part of this event. 

I would like to open by describing our state network in place today. We have provided a hand-out which showcases our wired and wireless sites for the state of Arkansas Public Sector Network. We at DIS provide management and systems integration of these networks which includes 1,900 ‘edge’ devices of the Arkansas Public 

Sector Network. 

To showcase our history of state access, our state Internet capacity in 1994 was 

nine (9) megabits per second. The industry standard for doubling Internet capacity 

is that it is doubled every eighteen (18) months. In Arkansas on our Public Sector 

Network, we are slightly behind this standard. We double every nineteen (19) 

months, and we stand at 990 megabits per second soon to be just over one (1) gigabit per second of capacity with our latest implementation at our Internet Point of 

Presence (POP) at our shared services location at the University of Arkansas at 

Pine Bluff. 

Our statewide video network supports approximately 520 systems in our education environment and averages over 19,000 conference hours a month with over 

92 subjects and over 500 courses. 

That is a snapshot of what we have today. In many ways the state becomes the 

‘anchor tenant’ in a community. The demand for public services our state delivers 

continues to drive network capacity needs. As an anchor tenant for communities, 

the funding the state provides impacts the economic incentives for our private sector 

36 

partners to be able to continually improve their infrastructure in support of our 

state’s needs. 

Through our partnerships with the private sector, city, county, state and Federal 

groups, we all share a common goal—a united vision—to continue to advance the 

technology environment to be able to provide our most precious people—our children—the ability to access the best and newest learning tools and the technology 

to maximize it. 

Everyone in this room has the ability to impact true societal change in Arkansas. 

Whether you live in the Northwest region of our state or our Delta, your ability to 

have access to public services—the research—the jobs of tomorrow—we want to ensure no Arkansan is left behind. 

As I close, I wanted to leave you with a quote from our Governor’s State of the 

State address from this past January: ‘‘When people look to Arkansas—they should 

see a leader in the nation—in the world and say, ‘We want to do what they did in 

Arkansas.’ ’’ 

Through collaborative efforts of everyone in this room, we are championed to help 

Arkansas in every way we can. 

Thank you for this wonderful opportunity to speak this morning and for being 

here to hear our state’s vision for tomorrow. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Now, John, before I introduce you, 

I need to say that during the last legislative session, the Arkansas 

legislature enacted Act 602 legislation to create and operate a Connect Arkansas, nonprofit organization. The bill was sponsored by 

Senator John Paul Capps of Searcy. The bill created a public/private partnership aimed at increasing the broadband coverage for 

health, industry, education, and general economic development, 

and John Paul Capps is here today. Thank you for doing that, John 

Paul. Mr. Ahlen? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. AHLEN, PRESIDENT, 

ARKANSAS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORITY 

Mr. AHLEN. Thank you, Senator, Commissioners. My name is 

John Ahlen. I’m president of the Arkansas Science and Technology 

Authority, an instrumentality of the State of Arkansas that has the 

mission of bringing the benefits of science and advanced technology 

to the people of the state of Arkansas. We know a lot about what 

the problems are. 

We know that in a world where markets are dynamic, global, and 

networked, locations without affordable broadband are disconnected and at an economic disadvantage. We know this is especially true in an information age, knowledge-based economy. Locations that do not have affordable knowledge-carrying infrastructure 

are both at a disadvantage informationally and again economically 

where talent and innovations are the driving influences. I appreciate your interest and leadership in addressing the issue of affordable broadband deployment in rural places and would suggest the 

following, and you’re very much aware of these things. 

Use a robust definition of broadband to accommodate future applications. Develop a better mapping tool to measure and guide 

broadband deployment decisions. We know what worked in the 

past, and we might consider broadband deployment incentives for 

service providers, such as grants and investment tax credits, universal service fund models that we used for telephone deployment, 

the co-op model that was used for the deployment of electric power, 

and federal/state cost sharing, which is the model used in transportation infrastructure deployment. 

37 

And lastly, I hope you’ll take action now. The future of rural 

communities depends on it. The state can do some things for itself, 

and Connect Arkansas, which my two colleagues who follow will 

talk about, will be very helpful in providing broadband to business 

and industry to entrepreneurial businesses, and in enabling people 

at work, at home, and on the go to access all manner of digital resources wherever and whenever they need. But we need your help 

to make that possible. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ahlen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN W. AHLEN, PRESIDENT, ARKANSAS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AUTHORITY

Good morning Senator Pryor and Commissioners, my name is John W. Ahlen. I 

am president of the Arkansas Science & Technology Authority, an instrumentality 

of the state of Arkansas whose mission is to bring the benefits of science and advanced technology to the people and the state of Arkansas. 

We know that in a world where markets are dynamic, global, and networked, locations without affordable broadband are disconnected and at an economic disadvantage. 

We know this is especially important in an information-age knowledge-based economy; locations that do not have affordable knowledge-carrying infrastructure are at 

both an informational disadvantage and an economic disadvantage where talent and 

innovations from research and development are driving influences. 

I appreciate your interest and leadership in addressing the issue of affordable 

broadband deployment in rural places, and would suggest the following: 

• Use a robust definition of broadband to accommodate future applications and 

• Develop a better mapping tool to measure and guide broadband deployment decisions. 

We know what has worked in the past. Consider broadband deployment incentives 

service providers such as: 

• grants and investment tax credits, 

• the universal service fund model that was used for telephone deployment, 

• the co-op model that was used for electric power deployment, and 

• the Federal-state cost sharing model that is used in transportation infrastructure deployment. 

Lastly, I hope you’ll take action now, the future of rural communities depends on 

it. The state can do some things for itself—like Connect Arkansas—but we also need 

your help. 

* * * * * * * 

Affordable broadband access is an economic development issue, which can be addressed along four dimensions: broadband deployment, technology, the urban-rural 

split, and time. 

Broadband Deployment. What is it? It is information-carrying capacity (measured 

in bits per second), and the demand for capacity by applications keeps going up. 

Definitions of broadband include 256 kilobits per second (OECD) and 384 kilobits 

per second (Connect Arkansas), with experimental capacity in research domains exceeding gigabits per second. Other countries and some states are concluding that 

broadband capacity delivered by fiber to the home should be the minimum. Recommendation: use a robust definition of broadband. 

Where is it? Broadband availability is typically shown by postal zip codes, which 

is not a very informative way to discriminate between locations that do or do not 

have access. The EAST students today will show a much more useful way to map 

broadband availability and inform deployment decisions. Recommendation: develop 

a better mapping tool to measure and guide broadband deployment. 

Technologies. Broadband technologies vary and their deployment is influenced by 

competing business models and regulatory structures. As more content is digitized— 

and digitization is the key technology driver in the new economy—any of the competing technologies can provide content previously considered the proprietary domain of other competitors, leading to a kind of regulatory convolution, if not gridlock. The market success of all of the business models is measured in terms of the 

return on the deployment investment, which is much more favorable in areas where 

38 

the customers are densely packed. If equal broadband access is the American goal, 

then market forces have failed to deliver, just look at broadband deployment in the 

Mississippi River Delta. Recommendations: consider incentives for service providers 

that address areas without affordable broadband; base incentives on independently 

compiled deployment data; and use more refined mapping tools. 

Urban-rural. The least favorable locations for broadband deployment are rural, 

where customers are few and separated by long distances and where deployment 

cannot be justified by the return on investment. With markets dynamic, global, and 

networked, locations without affordable broadband are disconnected and at an economic disadvantage. State government provides broadband for education, health 

care, and other government services—often supported by Federal grants—but 

broadband deployment is about economic growth, so it is about business and industry; entrepreneurship services; and enabling people at work, at home, and on the 

go to access all manner of digital resources wherever and whenever they need. If 

we were talking today about electric power instead of broadband, we would be saying that students can have lights at school, but have to read in the dark at home. 

Recommendation: consider broadband deployment incentives such as grants and investment tax credits, the universal service fund model for telephone deployment, the 

cooperative model for electricity deployment—including Federal subsidy, and the 

Federal-state cost sharing model used in transportation infrastructure deployment. 

Time. The clock is ticking for rural Arkansas and rural America. According to a 

report by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the United 

States has the largest number of total broadband subscribers in the OECD, but on 

the basis of broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants, the U.S. ranks 15th in the 

OECD at 19.6. A report today indicates that China will have ‘‘the world’s largest 

Internet population in just 2 years.’’ Recommendation: Take action now, the future 

of rural communities depends on it. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Senator, if we possibly could, could we let Mr. 

Walls go first? 

Senator PRYOR. Sure. That’d be great. That’d be great. 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. That’d be great. That’d be great. 

STATEMENT OF C. SAM WALLS, CEO, 

ARKANSAS CAPITAL CORPORATION 

Mr. WALLS. Thank you, Senator. I’m Sam Walls, and I’m the 

Chief Executive Officer of the Arkansas Capital Corporation. We’re 

a 50-year-old private, nonprofit business development corporation 

that was named in the Connect Arkansas legislation to be the entity to form the Connect Arkansas nonprofit organization. To my left 

is James Winningham. He is the Chairman of the Arkansas 

Broadband Initiative. And collectively with Dr. Ahlen, we’re here 

representing Connect Arkansas. 

Connect Arkansas is a private and public sector collaborative effort to bring broadband Internet access to all Arkansans. We’re 

going to focus on three key activities. The first activity will be to 

accurately map where connectivity truly exists in Arkansas and at 

what speeds. This will require working with numerous entities, primarily the service providers that operate here in Arkansas. Because Connect Arkansas is designed to encourage collaboration, it 

will work with providers on getting the relevant information to accomplish this task. The second activity of the effort will be to survey communities throughout the state to better determine either 

why they choose to use broadband or conversely, why they have 

chosen not to. And this complements the third activity of the effort—working with leadership in every county of Arkansas to develop a strategy to educate the populace on the value and need for 

broadband in their personal and professional lives. This preparing 

of people and organizations to take advantage of the benefits of 

39 

broadband is perhaps the most important part of our effort. Without preparation, broadband is in danger of being a very powerful 

economic and social tool, but without people and businesses with 

the necessary skills and insight to take advantage of it and ultimately without enough demand to sustain it. Connect Arkansas is 

a delivery platform-neutral entity. 

And by that I mean that it will not seek to advocate for one 

broadband Internet delivery system over another. Its only focus is 

to drive market demand in the belief that once a market can be 

demonstrated, the private sector will step in to meet that demand. 

Connect Arkansas’ success will in large part be driven by the ability of the private and public sector to work together to accomplish 

this vital task. There is no question in my mind, however, that creating statewide broadband connectivity is the single most important activity that we can be involved in. At the Federal level, there 

is a need for our leaders to elevate this issue as a top priority. 

Unfortunate recent events in Minnesota have drawn the Nation’s 

attention once again to the deteriorating infrastructure of the 

United States and for good cause. The inadequacy of our technology 

infrastructure, however, should be of equal concern. Just as the 

Federal Government provided incentives and capital to pave and 

light rural America in the last century, ultimately it will most likely take delivery mechanism-neutral incentives to extend broadband 

Internet access to those same areas. 

To conclude, it is time for everyone to publicly acknowledge that 

high-speed broadband Internet access is not a luxury but a basic 

necessity. As a nation, lack of broadband puts us at an unacceptable competitive disadvantage. The United States relies a great 

deal on the innovation and creativity of its populace to maintain 

our dominant strategic and economic position in the global community. We jeopardize that position by allowing other countries to 

move further and further ahead of us in the availability and usage 

of broadband. At the state level, rural states like Arkansas will 

never be able to effectively develop and improve without access to 

this indispensable utility. For many, the education, health, and social benefits that can be derived from broadband access is their 

only chance to better their lives and the lives of their children. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF C. SAM WALLS, CEO, ARKANSAS CAPITAL CORPORATION

Good Morning. My name is Sam Walls, Chief Executive Officer of Arkansas Capital Corporation. With me is Mr. James Winningham, Chairman of the Arkansas 

Broadband Initiative, and Dr. John Ahlen, President of the Arkansas Science and 

Technology Authority. We are here today representing Connect Arkansas, a private 

and public sector collaborative effort to bring broadband Internet access to all Arkansans. 

Connect Arkansas is based on principals derived from models in other parts of the 

country that faced similar obstacles that we here in Arkansas are dealing with. Connect Arkansas will focus on three key activities. The first activity will be to accurately map where connectivity truly exists in Arkansas and at what speeds. This 

will require working with numerous entities, primarily the service providers that 

operate here in Arkansas. Because Connect Arkansas is designed to encourage collaboration, it will work with the providers on getting the relevant information to accomplish this task. 

The second activity of the effort will be to survey communities throughout the 

state to better determine either why they choose to use broadband or conversely 

40 

why they have chosen not to. This compliments the third activity of the effort, working with leadership in every county of Arkansas to develop a strategy to educate 

the populace on the value and need for broadband in their personal and professional 

lives. This preparing of people and organizations to take advantage of the benefits 

of broadband is perhaps the most important part of our effort. Without preparation, 

broadband is in danger of being a very powerful economic and social tool, but without people and businesses with the necessary skills and insight to take advantage 

of it, and ultimately without enough demand to sustain it. Our goal is not just to 

move Arkansas forward, but to also to move all of its people forward with it. 

Connect Arkansas is a ‘‘delivery platform neutral’’ entity. By that I mean that it 

will not seek to advocate for one broadband Internet delivery system over another. 

Its only focus is to drive market demand in the belief that once a market can be 

demonstrated, the private sector will step in to meet that demand. Connect Arkansas’s success will in large part be driven by the ability of the private and public sector to work together to accomplish this vital task. 

Arkansas Capital Corporation has been involved in economic development in Arkansas for 50 years, the last 18 of which I have been with the organization. Today, 

we are involved in a number of activities related to improving the economic environment of Arkansas including Access to Capital, Business Development, and Education. There is no question in my mind, however, that creating statewide 

broadband connectivity is the single most important activity that I and my organization have been involved with. 

After World War II, Federal and state leaders realized that for rural states like 

Arkansas to prosper, they must have good roads and access to reliable and affordable electricity. Later, phone lines were considered a requirement. For this century, 

broadband Internet access is the absolute necessity without which these people, who 

are already more often than not at a disadvantage, are left further and further behind. It is literally this era’s ‘‘interstate highway system’’. Look at the various obstacles that many rural states face, inadequate healthcare, below standard educational 

opportunities, and lack of business development. As the states try to address these 

issues the solutions invariably involve broadband Internet access. 

At the Federal level, there is a need for our leaders to elevate this issue as a top 

priority. Unfortunate recent events in Minnesota have drawn the Nation’s attention 

once again to the deteriorating ‘‘infrastructure’’ of the United States and for good 

cause. The inadequacy of our technology infrastructure, however, should be of equal 

concern. Just as the Federal Government provided incentives and capital to pave 

and light rural America in the last century, ultimately it will most likely take ‘‘delivery mechanism neutral’’ incentives to ultimately extend broadband Internet access to those same areas. 

To conclude, it is time for everyone to publicly acknowledge that high-speed 

broadband Internet access is not a luxury but a basic necessity. As a nation, lack 

of broadband puts us at an unacceptable competitive disadvantage. The United 

States relies a great deal on the innovation and creativity of its populace to maintain our dominant strategic and economic position in the global community. We 

jeopardize that position by allowing other countries to move further and further 

ahead of us in the availability and usage of broadband. At the state level, rural 

states like Arkansas will never be able to effectively develop and improve without 

access to this indispensable utility. For many, the education, health and social benefits that can be derived from broadband access is their only chance to better their 

lives and the lives of their children. 

Thank you for your time. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Winningham? 

STATEMENT OF JAMES WINNINGHAM, ORGANIZING CHAIR, 

ARKANSAS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (ABI) 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Senator, Commissioners—good morning. Senator, thank you for your flexibility. Thank you for your leadership 

in bringing this subject to Arkansas. My name is James 

Winningham. I am the Organizing Chair of the Arkansas 

Broadband Initiative, a group of educators, government people, and 

industry to promote broadband in Arkansas. ABI is the group 

which worked with Senator John Paul Capps to draft this year’s 

Connect Arkansas Act. Why is Connect Arkansas so important to 

our state? This year in his State of the State Address, Governor 

41 

Beebe said that ‘‘in today’s world, just learning to type on the keyboard won’t suffice. Our kids deserve broadband infrastructure that 

connects them to the Internet and provides technology equity.’’ It 

never has been about the keyboard, of course. That’s just part of 

the computer. And the computer age has never really been about 

the computer. 

The computer age has always been about the data, the information. Data is information. And information is power. And 

broadband is information on steroids. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Broadband is the power for a U.S. Senator in 

Washington to coordinate a meeting in his home state in a fraction 

of the time it would take with dial-up data service. Broadband is 

the power for a student to find a thousand related articles for a 

homework assignment in a fraction of the time it would take to 

find even one article in the school library, unless that school library 

has broadband. A student with broadband at home has several 

hours of broadband to research in any given day, whereas a student that only has library broadband may have one hour if it’s the 

right day of the week and if that student can get one of the computers. 

Broadband is the power for that student’s mom to find that student two pairs of jeans she can afford instead of one pair she can’t 

afford. And she can find those two pairs in a fraction of the time 

it takes to find that one. Broadband is the power for that single 

mom who can’t leave her child to take night classes. Broadband is 

the power for that school to offer night classes, midnight classes to 

a thousand such moms across the country instead of offering 7 p.m. 

to 9 p.m. classes to five or six moms who live within 20 miles. 

Broadband could be the power of that child to stay here in Arkansas with his broader family instead of having to be exported somewhere else where there are jobs that are commensurate with their 

abilities. Broadband is the power for a small business in rural Arkansas to offer its products to people all across the United States 

and across the oceans instead of offering them to only the 1,500 

residents in their town. I suggest to you that Governor Beebe’s 

words are not only true for Arkansas, but they’re also true for 

every child in the United States. 

And that true technology equity is not had, as long as there is 

another nation with better broadband than the United States— 

that’s why Connect Arkansas is so important to Arkansas, because 

we have moms, we have children, we have small businesses. We 

need a Federal economic environment that is broadband-friendly, 

because we need technology equity for our children, for our state, 

and for our Nation. Thank you for your time and attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Winningham follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES WINNINGHAM, ORGANIZING CHAIR, 

ARKANSAS BROADBAND INITIATIVE (ABI) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, good morning. 

My name is James Winningham. I am the Organizing Chair of the Arkansas 

Broadband Initiative (ABI). ABI is the group which worked with Senator John Paul 

Capps to draft this year’s Connect Arkansas Act. 

Why is Connect Arkansas so important to our state? This year in his State of the 

State address, Governor Beebe said that ‘‘in today’s world, just learning to type on 

42 

the keyboard won’t suffice. Our kids deserve broadband infrastructure that connects 

them to the Internet and provides technology equity.’’ 

You see, it has never been about the keyboard. That’s just part of the computer, 

and the computer age has never been about the computer. It has always been about 

the data. 

Data is information, and information is power, and broadband is information on 

steroids. Broadband is the power for a U.S. Senator in Washington to coordinate a 

meeting back in his home state in a fraction of the time it would take with dialup data service. 

Broadband is the power for a student to find a thousand related articles for a 

homework assignment in a fraction of the time it would take to find even one article 

in the school library . . . unless that school library has broadband. 

A student with broadband at home has several hours of broadband research time 

in a day, whereas a student that only has library broadband may have 1 hour, if 

it is the right day of the week. 

Broadband is the power for that student’s mom to find that student two pairs of 

jeans she can afford, instead of one pair she can’t afford, and in a fraction of the 

time it takes to find the one. 

Broadband is the power for that single mom who can’t leave her child to take 

night classes. 

Broadband is the power for that school to offer night classes . . . midnight classes 

. . . to a thousand such moms across the country, instead of offering 7 p.m. to 9 

p.m. classes to five or six moms who live within 20 miles. 

Broadband is the power for a small business in rural Arkansas to offer its products to people all across the United States and across the oceans instead of offering 

them only to the 1,500 residents of their town. 

I suggest to you that Governor Beebe’s words are not only true for Arkansas, but 

also true for every child in the United States, and that true technology equity is 

not had as long as there is another nation with better broadband than the United 

States. 

That’s why Connect Arkansas is so important to Arkansas, because we have 

moms, and children, and small businesses. We need a Federal economic environment that is broadband-friendly, because we need technology equity for our children, for our state, and for our Nation. 

Thank you for your time and attention. 

Commissioner COPPS. Can I ask a quick question? 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Yes, please do. 

Commissioner COPPS. Have you advanced to the point with Connect Arkansas that you have some time frames in mind for getting 

the mapping data and just who has what, at what speed, and all? 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Commissioner, we really have done our planning, essentially based on—well, really on two things. 

ConnectKentucky is one model that we’ve looked at. And another 

model is one that has been used in California and a couple of 

places, but this is a very new effort. We do have a draft plan in 

place, but we really haven’t finalized plans at this point. 

Mr. WALLS. That’s correct. We have, as James said, a preliminary business plan that’s been completed and which the governor’s 

advisory board has been appointed. And we are in the process of 

electing our board of directors for the effort. The mapping would 

be the first step that follows this. 

Commissioner COPPS. I would just like to stress the importance. 

You will be collecting data, I guess, from a lot of providers. Sometimes that’s a challenge to do that, but I get the impression in this 

state that folks are used to working together. And I hope that that 

will happen here, because it really is vital that you get a better 

handle on deployment than we’ve been able to get so far at the 

FCC. 

Mr. WALLS. Commissioner, that’s written into Act 604. That’s one 

of the provisions for Connect Arkansas is to set forth a process for 

43 

broadband providers to report that. We also have another ace in 

the hole that you’ll hear about later from our EAST students. 

Commissioner COPPS. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Next, we have Matt Dozier, and he 

has some students with him, and, if possible, the students can 

come forward and go ahead and get set up while I introduce them. 

This is The EAST Initiative. These students are from Ashdown, 

Mineral Springs, and Saratoga High Schools. EAST is an educational initiative that allows students to tackle real problems facing their communities. These students are involved in the EAST 

Rural Broadband Project in a collaborative effort between The 

EAST Initiative and the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority that is engaging students and communities in the ArkLaTex 

where you—for you all who are uninitiated, that’s Southwest Arkansas and Delta region—that’s east Arkansas—to address issues 

related to entrepreneurial development, broadband, high-speed 

Internet in rural areas of the state. With Tricia Tart and Lila 

Sivley from Ashdown High School, Michelle Neal from Mineral 

Springs, and Andrew Mays from Saratoga. 

Mr. MAYS. I’m from Mineral Springs. She’s from Saratoga. 

Senator PRYOR. I’m sorry. Matt, why don’t I introduce you, and 

you can take over here. 

STATEMENT OF MATT DOZIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

THE EAST INITIATIVE, INC. 

Mr. DOZIER. Thank you so much, Senator, Commissioners. Good 

morning, and we are so excited about the opportunity to speak with 

you today. My name is Matt Dozier, and I head an educational 

nonprofit group that delivers training and support on an educational program that has been named a national model by the 

Federal departments of Education and Labor. This program is 

called EAST, and it was started here in Arkansas in 1996 and has 

since grown to schools across the country. In a nutshell, EAST is 

an educational program that addresses 21st century educational 

needs by combining local service projects and high-end technology 

with a student-centered approach that allows our students to take 

responsibility for their own learning and their projects in a very 

real world fashion. 

Last year, we were approached by the Arkansas Science and 

Technology Authority (ASTA) about using EAST students to develop and deploy a project looking at broadband access in rural Arkansas. With funding from ASTA and the Winthrop Rockefeller 

Foundation, we recruited student teams from ten schools in two of 

the southern regions of our state to participate in this project. And 

I am pleased to have representatives from this regional working 

group here today. They are eager to explain the things that they 

have done, and how they have made a difference in their communities. Andrew—Michelle. 

[The joint prepared statement of Mr. Dozier, Ms. Neal, Mr. Mays, 

Ms. Sivley and Ms. Tart follow:] 

44 

JOINT PREPARED STATEMENT OF MATT DOZIER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE EAST INI- TIATIVE, INC., MICHELLE NEAL, STUDENT, SARAGTOGA HIGH SCHOOL, ANDREW

MAYS, STUDENT, MINERAL SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL, LILA SIVLEY, STUDENT, ASHDOWN HIGH SCHOOL, TRISHA TART, FRESHMAN, THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS

Matt Dozier 

Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Matt 

Dozier and I head an educational non-profit group that delivers training and support on an educational program that has been named a national model by the Federal Departments of Education and Labor. This program is called EAST and it was 

started here in Arkansas in 1996 and has since grown to schools across the country. 

In a nutshell EAST is an educational program that addresses 21st century educational needs by combining local service projects and high-end technology with a 

student-centered approach that allows our students to take responsibility for their 

own learning and their projects in a very real world fashion. 

Last year we were approached by the Arkansas Science and Technology Authority 

about using EAST students to develop and deploy a project looking at Broadband 

access in rural Arkansas. With funding from ASTA and the Winthrop Rockefeller 

Foundation we recruited student teams from 10 schools in two of the southern regions of our state to participate in this project and I am pleased to have representatives from this regional working group here today. They are eager to explain the 

things that they have done and how they have made a difference in their communities. 

Andrew Mays 

Hello! My name is Andrew Mays of Mineral Springs High School, where I am currently a sophomore in my 6th semester of EAST which stands for Environmental 

and Spatial Technology. 

This past year, as one of my EAST projects, I represented the Mineral Springs 

School District, in collaboration with students from 9 other schools in 6 different 

counties, to gather information about the usage of Broadband throughout the state 

of Arkansas. In the beginning phase of the project, we decided to change the phrasing in order make the survey more comprehensible to the general public. Broadband 

was such a new and foreign concept, that many households in our area were unfamiliar with the terminology originally used in the surveys. After we finished rewriting the surveys, we distributed them to students and businesses in our designated 

areas, eventually gathering 2,500 usable surveys from the counties of Howard, Little 

River, Ashley, Bradley, Drew and Lincoln. The survey’s questions ranged from as 

simple as, ‘‘Do you own a computer?’’ to as difficult as, ‘‘Is DSL available in your 

area?’’ Upon receiving the returned information, we began diligently downloading 

the results into our own schools databases. Then students from each of the counties 

met in Monticello and compiled their area’s information, along with ours, into one 

database. While in Monticello, we were assisted by professors of both the University 

of Arkansas at Monticello and the University of Hope. With their help we created 

a map using ESRI mapping software. This map is currently on display before many 

today. In working on this project, we the EAST students of South Arkansas have 

realized the need for the expansion of broadband availability to all of our state’s citizens, not only for educational purposes, but also for economic growth, and the advancement of our state into technology of the 21st century. I thank you for your 

time. 

Michelle Neal 

Hi, my name is Michelle Neal and I am a junior at Saratoga High School. I started working on the Rural Broadband Project with the EAST Initiative organization 

in the 2006 school year. We went and handed out surveys to our local businesses 

and people in our community. Basically we wanted to get a picture of who had 

broadband and who wanted it but couldn’t get it. Broadband is important simply 

because of the fact of education. Future college students could go online and take 

classes if they had access to the Internet. E-mail is also an important source of communication in today’s society. Broadband would be beneficial to parents also because 

most parents don’t realize that you can go online and check their child’s grades, test 

scores, and progress of what they’re doing in school; and most parents don’t know 

this because they can not get Internet in their area. Our research shows that most 

people don’t even have a computer and we believe this could be because of the 

broadband issue. 

Lila Sivley 

Hey everyone! I’m Lila Sivley. I’m with the Ashdown High School EAST lab. 

EAST is Environmental and Spatial Technology. I’ve been a part of EAST since AuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
45 

gust 2006 and have been on the EAST Broadband Project since January 2007. It’s 

a huge priority to us and our class plans to see the finish of this project. When I 

was asked to come here Ms. Glaze said that you were looking for personal testimony. 

Every morning when I get ready I use hairspray! Well how much does one use? 

I would have to start getting ready 2 hours earlier if I wanted to get on the Internet 

and check the weather since I have dial-up. Dial-up Internet is so incredibly slow 

and I would mimic the noise, but it’s extremely embarrassing. 

Right now Arkansas is in a box, we have our limits. It is time for rural Arkansas 

to get out of that box. Broadband is not a convenience, but a source of technology 

that will move us forward with the rest of the world. 

I’m also a senior in high school and I take several classes that are concurrent with 

college. It’s almost impossible to check online grades and rankings at home. Even 

at school, where time is limited, the Internet isn’t much faster. 

Thank you for letting us come and speak to you today. 

Trisha Tart 

I am Trisha Tart a freshman at the University of Arkansas. I graduated from 

Ashdown High School in May of 2007 where I had been working on this project for 

almost 2 years. I am proud to be one of the founding members of Ashdown EAST’s 

Rural Broadband team. It is so hard to describe to outsiders dial-up in the rural 

community. It was really only after I had arrived at college and experienced the 

campus high-speed network that I myself completely understood what I had been 

missing and how hard it was to access information back home. 

In this project, we conducted surveys and had a lot of fun helping to educate people about having broadband. Often, they don’t know what broadband really is or the 

effects it can have on them. What I think is really important for you to know, is 

that everyone here realizes that people in rural Arkansas need this. It is really important. What we need to do is make it available in the rural areas because that 

is the only way we are going to advance. These kids are going to college and all 

the scholarships and applications online are impossible unless you do them at school 

. . . and our school Internet isn’t even that fast and it’s difficult to get on a computer but, it is really important that everyone here understand that this would have 

such a positive effect on everyone’s education. The people of Arkansas, they’re going 

to love it . . . it’s great. If high school students are this excited—we worked so hard 

surveying—everyone is going to see that. Once the adults realize what broadband 

can offer their communities, and how it is going to affect everyone then they will 

absolutely want it. It’s great and we love it. 

Matt Dozier 

As you can see, there is a great deal of capacity in our local communities and 

within our youngest citizens to engage in real work that can address local needs. 

What we believe we have demonstrated through this project is that a ‘‘local engagement’’ strategy is the best way to not only educate people on larger issues, but also 

to allow them to be part of the solution rather than outsiders looking in, waiting 

for someone else to solve their problems. Students like these are typical of EAST 

students, and indeed all students. They are creative, intuitive, adaptable, and ready 

to serve in their communities. We all benefit when we don’t stand in their way, but 

rather stand behind them and provide them with the tools they need to take on 

challenges. 

Just as we brought electricity and telephone service to all of Arkansas in an effort 

to keep pace with the needs of the modern world, we can bring broadband access 

to every community to allow it to become a larger part of the wider world. This issue 

strikes at the core of communities of students like these. This is truly an area 

where, if we fail to act, we will leave a generation behind. The EAST Initiative is 

dedicated to helping our students find within themselves the abilities that will serve 

them and us well through their adult careers. They need your help as well. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE NEAL, STUDENT, 

SARATOGA HIGH SCHOOL 

Ms. NEAL. Hello, everyone. My name is Michelle Neal, and I am 

a junior at Saratoga High School. I started working on the rural 

broadband project with The EAST Initiative organization in the 

2006 school year. What we did was we went out and handed out 

46 

surveys to local businesses and people in our community to see who 

had broadband or who wanted broadband, but couldn’t get 

broadband because they lived in such rural areas. I think this 

would be beneficial to everyone for the simple fact of education, because people who want to go to college—future college students 

could go online and take classes if they had access to the Internet. 

Also, another important aspect is e-mail. E-mail is a really good 

source of communication in today’s society. 

And parents would benefit from this also, because most parents 

don’t know that you can go online and look at your child’s test 

scores and grades and progress in school. Most parents don’t know 

this, because they can’t get Internet in the rural areas. 

Also, our research shows that most people don’t even have a computer, and we think that this could be because of the DSL issue. 

And all of us that are in EAST, most of our projects are—almost 

all of them have to have work on the Internet. And since we live 

in such rural areas, we can’t get Internet. We have to wait until 

we get to school to do homework, and we think that this would be 

beneficial in our work. 

STATEMENT OF ANDREW MAYS, STUDENT, 

MINERAL SPRINGS HIGH SCHOOL 

Mr. MAYS. Like was said earlier, I am Andrew Mays, from Mineral Springs High School, and I am a sophomore working in my 

sixth semester of EAST. And this past year, as one of my EAST 

projects, I actually represented Mineral Springs School District in 

collaboration with students from nine other schools in six different 

counties, around the equivalent of 19 students, in order to gather 

information about the usage of broadband throughout the state of 

Arkansas. In the beginning phase of the project, we actually decided to change the wording in order to make the survey more comprehensible to the people. 

Since broadband was such a new and foreign concept, many 

households in our area were unfamiliar with the terminology originally used in our surveys. So after we finished rewriting the surveys, we distributed them to the students and businesses in our 

designated areas, eventually gathering 2,500 usable surveys from 

the counties of Howard, Little River, Ashley, Bradley, Drew, and 

Lincoln. The survey’s questions ranged from as simple as: Do you 

own a computer? To as difficult as: Is DSL available in your area? 

Upon receiving the returned information, we began diligently 

downloading the results into our own schools’ databases. 

The students from each of the counties then met in Monticello 

and compiled their area’s information along with ours into one 

large database. While in Monticello, we were assisted by professors 

of both the University of Arkansas at Monticello and the University 

of Hope. With their help, we created a map using ESRI mapping 

software. This map is currently on display before many today. In 

working on this project, we, the EAST students of South Arkansas, 

have realized the need for the expansion of broadband availability 

to all of our state’s citizens, not only for educational purposes, but 

also for economic growth and the advancement of our state into the 

technology of the 21st century. Thank you for your time. 

47 

STATEMENT OF LILA SIVLEY, STUDENT, 

ASHDOWN HIGH SCHOOL 

Ms. SIVLEY. Hey everyone, I’m Lila Sivley. I’m from Ashdown. I 

help out in the EAST lab. EAST is Environmental and Spatial 

Technology. We help a lot in our communities, and broadband is 

our main priority, in ours I know it is. I’ve been with this project 

since January this year, and we’ve been working really hard. We’ve 

got the marketing plan and it was after ConnectKentucky, and 

we’re trying to get it to be Connect Arkansas, as everyone must 

know. One of the big deals that Mr. Pryor needs to know is how’s 

it going to help us. Well, me, I wake up every morning. I put hair 

spray in my hair. How much, you may think. Well, you get on the 

Internet, and if I don’t get up two hours early, then I have no 

chance of getting on the computer. Do you realize how long it takes 

for dial-up? I would mimic the noise, but it’s embarrassing. It’s so 

slow. And if I wanted to do homework, absolutely impossible. Unless it’s calculator and pencil, no help. I do essays and I’m a senior—if I didn’t say that. I don’t know if I did. But I am going to 

go to college, and a lot of classes that I take this year as a senior 

are concurrent with college credits. So if I was to want to get online, I’d have to do it at school. It’s simply impossible to do it where 

I live. And I’m only about ten minutes out of town. But I just want 

everybody to realize, it’s a must-have. It’s time for Arkansas to not 

be limited. We’re in a box. We need to step out of that and really 

get out there. Get out in the world. But I’m going to let Trish talk 

now. Thanks. 

STATEMENT OF TRISHA TART, GRADUATE, 

ASHDOWN HIGH SCHOOL 

Ms. TART. Hi, I am Trish Tart. I’m a freshman at the University 

of Arkansas. I graduated from Ashdown last year, and I’ve been 

working on this for almost two years now. I was one of the founding members. And it’s so hard to describe dial-up in a rural area 

until you go somewhere else and you have broadband. I’m in college now and I have it, and I just realized how difficult it was. You 

know, we did do the surveys. We had a lot of fun with that, going 

through and seeing the ignorance that a lot of people have about 

having broadband. They don’t know what it is, and they don’t know 

what, you know, the effects it can have on them. But I think what’s 

really important is that everybody here realizes people in rural Arkansas need this. You know, it’s really important. 

All we need to do is get it out and get it to those people, because 

that’s the only way anybody’s going to advance. Now these kids are 

going to college, and all the scholarships and applications you have 

to do are online. It’s impossible unless you do it at school. And our 

school Internet’s really not even that fast. It’s difficult to get on a 

computer. But it’s really important that everybody here realizes 

that it’s going to have such a positive effect on everybody’s education. And the people in Arkansas, they’re going to love it. It’s 

great. 

So if high school students are this excited—we worked so hard 

surveying everybody, I think people are going to see that. And if 

students are this excited, once the adults realize what it is and how 

48 

it’s going to help everybody, everybody is going to want it. So I 

think it’s great, and we love it. 

Senator PRYOR. We have a question or two. 

Commissioner COPPS. I just wanted to ask, and those were wonderful presentations. Thank you for sharing them. Is there a generation gap, do you think? With some of the folks we’ve talked 

about, a lot of people don’t understand the potential of this. But 

don’t most young people really get it, or do you really see a problem 

even among your peers—they that don’t understand the potential 

of this stuff? 

Mr. MAYS. Actually, whenever we first started doing the surveys, 

we actually ran a test on our school to see how realistic it would 

be to them. And in our actual school itself, we had to go around 

the class and actually explain what every word was to them. So, 

I mean, there is a very small gap between the actual generations. 

But there is still a gap. I would love for everyone to be able to 

know what it is exactly, but there is still a lot of lack of knowledge 

like she said. 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. Those are great buttons. Where’d you 

get those ‘‘Got Broadband’’ buttons? 

Ms. SIVLEY. We made them. We have some—we may have more. 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. That’s marketing. 

Ms. SIVLEY. Do you want one? You can have mine. 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. No, thank you, though. 

Ms. SIVLEY. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Matt—— 

Mr. DOZIER. As you can see, there is a great deal of capacity in 

our local communities and within our youngest citizens to engage 

in real work that can address local needs. What we believe we have 

demonstrated through this project is that a local engagement strategy is the best way to not only educate people on larger issues, but 

also to allow them to be part of the solution rather than outsiders 

looking in, waiting for someone else to solve their problems. Students like these are typical of EAST students. 

Believe me, they are typical of EAST students. But, indeed, they 

are typical of all students. They are creative, intuitive, adaptable, 

and ready to serve in their communities. We all benefit when we 

don’t stand in their way, but rather stand behind them and give 

them the tools to take on challenges. Just as we brought electricity 

and telephone service to all of Arkansas in an effort to keep pace 

with the needs of the modern world, we can bring broadband access 

to every community to allow it to become a larger part of the wider 

world. This issue strikes at the core of communities of students like 

these. This is truly an area where if we fail to act, we will leave 

the generation behind. The EAST Initiative is dedicated to helping 

our students find within themselves the abilities that will serve 

them and us well through their adult careers. They need your help 

as well. Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Well, now we’re getting to the point 

in our panel, you know the old saying: Save the best for last. Well, 

we didn’t do that. I’m just kidding. I’m kidding. No, we really did. 

We’ve talked a lot about the need for broadband, and the application of broadband, and the promise and potential, the great things, 

the reason Arkansas needs to be where it needs to be. 

49 

But the next panel is where the rubber meets the road. And 

these are the companies that provide broadband. And they want to 

talk about some of the challenges that they have in trying to deploy 

broadband, some of the things that they are doing, some of the innovations, the investments that they’re making in our state, and I 

know that because I’ve talked to many of them on previous occasions, and today as well. I know that we’re going to hear a lot of 

good news about broadband, but we’re also going to hear some 

about the challenge, and the reality is that it is a challenge to 

these companies that have investors that expect a great return on 

their investments, it’s a challenge for them to make investments 

sometimes if there is not some sort of public/private partnership. 

Universal Service Fund is something that I’m very interested in, 

something like a rural utility service loan is a concept that we’re 

beating around up in Washington to see if that might work. But 

this next panel really is, in my view, really where the rubber does 

meet the road, because we need to help these companies deploy 

broadband and increase the penetration of broadband around the 

state. One of the things I said in the beginning is I do have a concern about two Americas, a rich America, a more densely-populated 

America that has access to broadband, and then a part of America 

that’s left behind. Rural America that just because they don’t have 

the population density, maybe they don’t have the wealth or the 

capital to cover other needs that employ broadband. 

So the two commissioners who have talked about this—this is 

very similar to maybe what we saw in the 1920s, 1930s, with electricity, maybe what it was like in the 1930s with telephones. We 

need to help in any way we can and make sure that broadband 

gets out to every sector of the state of Arkansas, and, for that matter, every section of the country. So what I’d like to do now is 

again, say, two-minute statements from here on. First, I’d like to 

introduce Scott Ford. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT T. FORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Mr. FORD. Thank you, Senator. I’m going to take one minute and 

just say thank you to the Commissioners and to yourself for coming 

down and hosting this. I don’t know that everybody on the panel 

gets the chance to appear before you as regularly as I do, and so 

I really just want to, for the benefit of the group, make sure that 

they know what an honor it is that you two would come to Arkansas. Your time is under great demand, you have enormous issues 

beyond even telecommunications and broadband that you have to 

deal with. This is not an easy time to be an FCC Commissioner, 

from the best I can tell from looking from the outside in, and it’s 

great that you would take the time to come down here. We greatly 

appreciate it. You have been, particularly the leaders, making sure 

that companies that serve America serve all of America. 

As you know, at Alltel we’re the largest rural provider in the 

wireless business in the country. We compete for capital against 

companies like Verizon and T-Mobile and companies who generally 

only serve metropolitan areas and the freeway. So it’s difficult to 

attract shareholder capital to put in rural America. And the reforms that have been in place, through allowing wireless companies 

50 

to tap in as an ETC through the USF funds, has been an enormous 

help to building cell sites and to providing connectivity. Arkansas 

just this year, early this year, under Governor Beebe’s leadership, 

enacted—and the Public Service Commission—adopted rules that 

allow wireless companies in Arkansas to tap into USF. And we will 

be taking that money and building cell sites into rural America. 

So we are slowly making progress through all that. I must also 

say, Commissioner Copps, that progress was going to be killed by 

the wireline companies until you kind of singularly voted on the 

Federal-State Joint Board to put a halt to that. I don’t think that 

you, particularly, were perfectly pleased with everything that was 

involved in that in terms of how it came out. And I know you want 

overall reform, and I know that everybody wants to see USF reformed on a holistic basis. Not throwing the wireless business 

under the bus was a good step to actually bringing everybody to 

the table to reform that, and we appreciate it. Senator Pryor, I’ll 

throw out three things. As you guys think about take-aways from 

this—first of all, we are grateful that you came. Second of all, think 

about mobility and broadband. Mobility and broadband are what 

the American consumer wants, it’s what they pay for, and it’s what 

they want, even those that can’t afford it. 

The second thing I ask you take away is the thought that as you 

add customers and you incur the expense of adding customers, you 

ought to gain subsidy for that. You shouldn’t gain subsidy for losing customers regardless of what Mr. Gardner’s going to tell you 

next. We used to get along great. Now we’re just arguing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FORD. That’s an attempt at humor. 

The third thing is, if you look at broadband, it’s not a road. You 

don’t build it and then just come back and check on it every now 

and then for maintenance and potholes. Broadband requires 24- 

hour monitoring. It is very expensive to provide, once we build it. 

If you look at the wireline telephone system, a great amount of 

subsidy flows through to the actual retail user. The retail user only 

pays about half of what it costs to provide service to them. Whereas 

in the wireless business, customers pay in the 97 to 98 percentile. 

Just a couple of other things for you to think through as you think 

about the fact that wireless pays in $2.5 billion into the USF and 

only takes $1 billion out. Thank you very much for coming. We do 

appreciate the time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ford follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT T. FORD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ALLTEL COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

Senator Pryor, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, ladies and gentlemen, I 

would like to welcome you to Little Rock, and to thank you for conducting this important field hearing here in our home town. I appreciate your invitation to participate today, and am pleased and honored to discuss ways to sustain and promote 

the deployment of fixed and mobile broadband services, here in Arkansas and across 

the country. 

Alltel provides leading-edge, digital mobile wireless services to nearly 12 million 

wireless customers in 35 states, including several hundred thousand here throughout virtually all of Arkansas. We operate the Nation’s largest wireless network in 

terms of geographic area served, but our customer base is smaller than those of the 

larger carriers. This is because we are one of the few major wireless operators to 

51 

focus on serving the mid-size and smaller cities, as well as rural and more sparsely 

populated areas. 

We offer our customers a range of mobile broadband services that are increasingly 

important parts of our product mix. A majority of our handsets, including nearly all 

of our newly launched devices, support wireless broadband. Alltel is rapidly deploying network facilities that support EV–DO-based AxcessSM Broadband service that 

provides average speeds of 400–700 kilobits per second with bursts up to 2.4 megabits per second. These technologies support web-based e-mail, text and photo-messaging, mobile game and ring-tone downloads, mobile music and video, and Internet 

access services for individual consumers. In addition, we offer enterprise mobile 

data solutions used by government, public safety agencies, and industries as diverse 

as agriculture, education, finance, health care, and manufacturing. 

We provide these high-speed, advanced services in over 100 communities covering 

44 million people across our 35-state footprint. Here in our home state of Arkansas, 

we will provide access to these services to nearly 62 percent of the households by 

the end of this year. We are constantly building out broadband facilities and offering 

advanced services to additional communities. 

As you know, consumers increasingly demand higher-bandwidth services: across 

the country, purchases of broadband lines increased by 52 percent from 2005 to 

2006, according to recent FCC reports, including an increase from fewer than 

400,000 wireless broadband lines in 2005 to over 11 million in 2006. Through innovative service features and plans, wireless carries are bringing additional competition to the broadband marketplace and offering American consumers unique ways 

to stay connected to information. Broadband services—both fixed and mobile—are 

absolutely vital for the 21st century economy. But clearly much more needs to be 

done to bring broadband services out to consumers. According to the latest FCC 

high-speed report, fewer than 13 percent of Arkansas residents had broadband service as of June 30, 2006. 

Consumers also increasingly need and depend on mobile wireless services of all 

kinds, for voice as well as data. Over the past 5 years, the number of mobile wireless subscribers has grown by 86 percent, from 118 million in June 2001 to 219 million in June 2006. According to FCC data, mobile wireless service across the country 

has grown by 50 percent during the 3 years ending in December 2005, and consumers now use more wireless than wireline phone lines. Here in Arkansas, Alltel’s 

mobile wireless customer base has grown by 24 percent over the past 3 years. U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services conducted a survey and found that over 

12 percent of households in the country are using wireless as their only phone service. And among consumers with more than one connection, a substantial proportion 

now use wireless as a primary means of communications. Without question, wireless 

communications is the ‘‘lifeline’’ of today’s consumers. 

Rural consumers have the same interests in obtaining access to high-speed technologies and mobile services, and are demonstrating changes in demand that parallel those of consumers across the country. If anything, mobile wireless services 

may be even more important to rural consumers than to those in urban areas. People in rural areas often spend more time than their urban counterparts on the road. 

For example, an entrepreneur may need to reach contacts when driving from one 

end of a large county to another for business; a parent may need access to telecommunications while driving children to and from relatively distant schools; and 

a farmer may need access to data on agricultural prices while working on a remote 

part of his or her property. Wireless broadband is often the only means of highspeed access in many high-cost areas and is playing a major role in bridging the 

‘‘broadband divide.’’ 

Rural residents and public safety ‘‘first responders’’ particularly value their mobile 

wireless services in emergency situations. Mobile 9-1-1 and E–911 are vital health 

and safety services, especially for people who frequently have to travel long distances—and more than 240,000 wireless E–911 calls are made every day. But they 

cannot be provided unless adequate infrastructure and service is available. But due 

to the relatively high costs of deploying wireline and wireless networks in many 

rural areas, we all need to do more to make sure consumers in rural areas have 

access to these services. In our state, the 86th General Assembly of the Arkansas 

legislature passed a bill last year to create the ‘‘Connect Arkansas’’ program and the 

Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council, which are working to monitor, educate, promote and facilitate the deployment and adoption of broadband Internet services. 

Several members from this initiative are here today and I congratulate them for 

their efforts to bring advanced telecommunications services to our state. 

Senator Pryor, I would like to commend you for your strong commitment to ensuring that citizens of rural parts of Arkansas and across the country have access to 

high-quality fixed and mobile broadband services, as well as other mobile wireless 

52 

services. The important legislation that you co-sponsored with Senators Smith and 

Dorgan—S. 711, the ‘‘Universal Service for the 21st Century Act’’ of 2007—wisely 

recognizes that any technology, including wireless, can be included in the definition 

of ‘‘broadband communications service,’’ as long as it operates at the specified highspeed and enables users to originate and receive high-quality voice, data, graphics, 

and video communications. Your forward-thinking legislation also recognizes the importance of universal service funding to support and extend both broadband services 

and mobility to unserved and underserved rural areas. Until just recently, only a 

negligible amount of universal service funding was going to support the deployment 

of wireless service to high-cost areas—even though consumers in those areas desperately need and want wireless technology and networks. Of the $25 billion spent 

on high-cost universal service since 1996, only about $2 billion has gone to wireless 

carriers and other competitors. Even today, less than 25 percent of universal service 

high-cost funds go to support the deployment of wireless service, even though there 

are now more wireless subscribers. At the same time, wireless contributes more 

than twice the amount into the universal service fund than it receives out of the 

fund. 

The 1996 amendment to the Communications Act making non-wireline carriers eligible for universal service support has made possible a tremendous expansion of 

wireless service into rural areas. With universal service support, Alltel and other 

wireless carriers are building facilities deep into rural areas, not just along major 

highways, and delivering service to consumers where they live and work. According 

to the FCC, wireless penetration rates went up from 41 percent in 2001 to 68 percent in 2005 in the most sparsely populated areas with fewer than 100 residents 

per square mile. 

America is getting a great return on its investment in wireless universal service. 

It’s true that support for wireless has increased over the past few years. But that 

has come with a tremendous expansion of wireless service into rural areas. In the 

past, many wireless companies were building cell sites only along major highways 

and population centers. Now, with universal service support, we are building facilities deep into rural areas and getting service out to consumers who live and work 

there. For example, on the Pine Ridge Reservation in South Dakota, the Tribe estimated that less than 30 percent of the population had telephone service prior to 

Alltel’s entry into the market as a wireless universal service provider. Today more 

than 80 percent of the population on the Pine Ridge reservation has access to wireless telephone service. The vast majority of these consumers are eligible for and receiving a discounted Lifeline service of only $1 per month. This is the true meaning 

of universal service. 

We are concerned with short-sighted views that fail to recognize the importance 

of wireless universal service. Support for rural wireless is not a problem—and an 

anti-competitive proposal to reduce universal service funding for wireless consumers 

is not the answer. Alltel appreciates the letter that you submitted to the FederalState Joint Board on Universal Service, jointly with Senators Rockefeller, Dorgan, 

Klobuchar, and Smith, opposing the plan to restrict universal service funding for 

wireless carriers by imposing a cap exclusively on competitive eligible telecommunications carriers. 

We share your hope that the Joint Board and the FCC abandon counter-productive ‘‘interim measures.’’ Instead, they should follow the lead of the Senate Commerce Committee, and turn their attention to equitable and sensible comprehensive 

reform of the universal service program. Rather than continuing to target funds 

mainly to the traditional voice telephone services of the last century, the Universal 

Service Fund should be realigned to promote the services that consumers most need 

and demand going forward: broadband and mobility. 

Senator Pryor, in your letter to the Joint Board, you said that long term universal 

service reform should result in a competitively neutral system, promote accountability in how the funds are used, and promote the build-out of advanced services 

in rural regions through effective targeting of funds to high cost areas. Alltel firmly 

agrees. But we find it puzzling that some still argue that ‘‘universal service is not 

about competition.’’ Ever since the adoption of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 

our Nation’s policy has been to favor competition for all communications services, 

in all markets. Competition is the best way to assure high quality services, rapid 

advancement and deployment of new technologies, and low prices. Why would anyone want to take away the benefits of competition from consumers in rural areas? 

The FCC’s policies up to now have correctly attempted to promote both universal 

service and competition at the same time, by moving toward a system of funding 

portability. Some argue, however, that portability and competitive neutrality are inappropriate. We disagree. The purpose of universal service is to benefit customers, 

not carriers, so high cost support should be directed to the services that customers 

53 

decide to buy. Providers should have to show that they are using the support for 

its intended purpose in order to receive funding; they shouldn’t retain funds when 

they are losing consumers. Some components of today’s overall Federal universal 

service funding system are fully portable, but others are not. Under the non-portable funding mechanisms, certain carriers continue to receive universal service 

funding even when customers no longer want to buy service from them. This makes 

no sense and is causing unnecessary increases in the size of the fund. Wireless carriers, in contrast, lose support when they lose customers. To protect consumer 

choice, accountability, and an efficient use of funding, this Committee should exercise its oversight over the FCC to ensure that the universal service system moves 

toward greater portability—not less. Portability will ensure the steady deployment 

of basic and advanced services to rural consumers. We fear that the Joint Board’s 

current drive toward moving wireless carriers to a ‘‘cost based’’ system will overlook 

the fundamental flaws with the current incumbent-biased funding system. We look 

forward to helping you, Senator Pryor, to make sure that sensible and equitable 

long-term reforms are implemented instead of ones whose practical effect is to inoculate incumbent carriers from any and all form of the competitive pressures that 

wireless carriers like Alltel and others face daily. 

In sum, Alltel applauds this Committee’s emphasis on promoting universal access 

to both broadband and mobility services in rural America. A reformed, pro-competitive universal service fund could be one of the most effective tools to achieve these 

twin objectives. We look forward to working with this Committee, the Joint Board, 

and the FCC to advance the objective of promoting the deployment of both fixed and 

mobile communications technologies and services on a competitive basis in all parts 

of the country. 

Thank you. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. 

Mr. FORD. Should I give him this? 

Senator PRYOR. Yes. Please do. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. Gardner, your rebuttal? 

[Laughter.] 

STATEMENT OF JEFF GARDNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

WINDSTREAM CORPORATION 

Mr. GARDNER. Good morning, Senator Pryor, Commissioner 

Adelstein, and Commissioner Copps, and other distinguished 

guests. I am Jeff Gardner, President and CEO of Windstream, the 

largest local exchange company in the country focused on serving 

rural America. On behalf of our more than 8,000 employees, I am 

proud to extend a warm welcome to Little Rock, the home of our 

headquarters, and to Arkansas where we provide communications 

and entertainment services to more than 160,000 customers. 

Windstream has more than 3.2 million voice customers and more 

than 750,000 broadband customers across the 16 states we operate 

in. As a result of our aggressive deployment of broadband services, 

83 percent of our voice customers can purchase high-speed Internet 

access services. Remarkably, we have achieved these high levels of 

accessibility and penetration in rural America while receiving less 

than one percent of our annual revenue from Federal Universal 

Service High-Cost support. With an average density of slightly 

more than 20 customers per square mile, we clearly understand the 

many geographic and economic challenges that must be overcome 

to increase our country’s broadband service adoption rates. But 

while many are calling for expansion of the Federal Universal 

Service program, to support broadband build-out, I would urge policymakers to consider other alternatives before making a decision. 

As you know, the existing universal service program is in dire 

need of comprehensive reform. We are encouraged by the policyVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
54 

makers’ recent focus on this reform. While increasing broadband 

adoption rates is an important national goal, it should only be considered in tandem with comprehensive reform. Any Federal program including universal service designed to increase broadband 

adoption rates should address the consumers’ ability to afford 

broadband service. As stated in my pre-filed testimony, policymakers may want to consider funding to offset the cost of 

broadband access for low income consumers and allocating funds to 

increase personal computer ownership. I applaud your efforts to organize this hearing. 

I thank you for taking the time to come to Arkansas, and look 

forward to working productively in partnership with the policymakers to move Americans and Arkansans to their rightful place 

at the forefront of broadband service adoption race. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gardner follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JEFF GARDNER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

WINDSTREAM CORPORATION

Thank you, Senator Pryor and the Senate Commerce Committee, for the invitation to speak at the hearing today. I also would like to extend an Arkansas welcome 

to Commissioners Copps and Adelstein. 

My name is Jeff Gardner. I am the President and CEO of Windstream Corporation, a wireline telecommunications company that provides voice, broadband, and 

entertainment services to primarily rural communities in Arkansas and 15 other 

states. The company, which is headquartered here in Little Rock, has approximately 

3.2 million access lines. 

Windstream has been an active participant in developing Federal broadband policy. For example, Windstream supports the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee’s 

broadband mapping efforts. We worked closely with Senate staff to encourage 

broadband subscription mapping at a census tract level, and we are pleased to see 

that census tract mapping is included in the latest version of the bill. Using census 

tracts as a common denominator, broadband maps will provide greater insight into 

the relationship between broadband adoption rates and other socioeconomic factors 

tracked by the U.S. Census Bureau. 

We at Windstream share Senator Pryor’s desire to ensure all Arkansans—and all 

Americans for that matter—can fully participate in the digital world. Deployment 

of broadband service is a strategic imperative for our company. In 2006 alone, we 

grew the number of our broadband customers by 46 percent to more than 656,000 

customers, and as of second quarter this year, we have approximately 753,000 

broadband customers nationwide. 

We are continuing to upgrade our networks and increase the percentage of our 

customers with broadband access. This year alone we expect to spend between $350 

and $380 million on capital expenditures, of which a significant portion is devoted 

to broadband. Now more than 80 percent of our voice customers can purchase wired 

broadband service from us, and as the Internet becomes more important to our customers, they are using a rapidly increasing amount of bandwidth. Our subscribers’ 

bandwidth usage doubled over the last year. 

Windstream’s broadband investments extend to Arkansas. Windstream is the 

third largest ILEC in the state. We serve predominantly rural areas, from Elaine 

in the Delta to Wilmot in southeast Arkansas, but also some larger exchanges, such 

as Harrison. Harrison actually was our company’s first exchange to offer DSL. 

In Arkansas, we offer broadband at speeds of 1.5 Mbps, 3 Mbps, and 6 Mbps. 

Prices of these services may range from $19.99 to $29.99, when a customer bundles 

broadband service with voice or digital TV. 

Windstream also has CLEC operations in central and northwest Arkansas. As a 

CLEC, we provide critical communications services, including broadband data services, to Arkansas hospitals and the state government. 

Windstream will continue to offer DSL deeper in our markets and at faster 

speeds. In Arkansas and other states, we are upgrading our network to enable us 

to introduce broadband speeds of 10 to 12 Mbps, and we expect to complete this effort late this year or early next year. 

But these build-out efforts are only one piece of ensuring all individuals can fully 

participate in the digital world. Broadband subscribership rates depend not only on 

55 

a consumer’s geographic access to broadband, but also on a consumer’s economic ac- cess to and awareness of the benefits of broadband. Consumer economic factors include both the affordability of broadband service and the ability to purchase a personal computer. Pulling a variety of different levers is necessary to increase 

broadband adoption rates broadly and effectively. 

I believe that many are overly focused on pulling one lever: obtaining Federal 

funds to help offset the cost of constructing their broadband networks. However, 

there are three notable problems with advocating this solution in isolation. 

First, if the goal is 100 percent terrestrial broadband deployment and subscription 

at affordable rates, achievement of this goal will require the Federal Government 

to spend considerable resources to offset the high cost of network build-out. 

Windstream, like other broadband service providers, has found that its costs increase exponentially as we attempt to provide broadband access to our remaining 

unserved customers. 

As we reach into our unserved areas, we face a number of challenges: We may 

need to shorten the, often significant, distance between potential customers and the 

closest DSLAM, the point where a digital subscriber line is connected to the Internet. We also may need to lease transport from other carriers to connect our facilities, which in some cases can be very isolated, to the national Internet backbone. 

The potential number of broadband customers may not sustain these additional investments. 

Here’s a rough sketch of our predicted capital costs for deploying broadband service to the rest of our customers: It will cost Windstream a considerable sum to provide broadband service to an additional 5 percent of our customer base. To provide 

broadband to the next 5 percent slice of our customers, we expect it will cost us approximately two times that amount. For 5 percent more, approximately four times 

that amount. Deploying broadband to the next 5 percent of our unserved customers, 

in other words, will cost us approximately twice as much as what it cost us to deploy to the last 5 percent of our unserved customers. And as these customers demand higher speeds, our expenses increase still further as we upgrade our networks 

to support greater bandwidth. 

Sponsoring universal build-out of terrestrial broadband networks would undoubtedly cost many billions of dollars. Providing exclusive attention to ensuring universal terrestrial broadband deployment—as opposed to increasing subscribership 

where broadband is already available—may drain Federal resources that could be 

focused on other factors that might have a greater impact on our Nation’s adoption 

rates. 

For some consumers, it may make more sense to invest in other technological solutions, which may be more affordable. Diverse technologies—such as satellite 

broadband—are providing new paths around geographic obstacles. 

Second, focusing solely on broadband build-out costs overlooks the significance of 

the accompanying operating costs. Yet any successful broadband deployment strategy must properly account for both capital and operating expenditures. 

Just because a functioning broadband network is built, does not automatically 

mean that it would make economic sense for a provider to operate that network. Indeed, in many areas, including some of our smaller exchanges in Arkansas, we have 

determined that we would not likely obtain enough broadband subscribers at affordable rates under current conditions to cover our incremental operating costs. So in 

order to keep broadband service affordable, providers likely will need additional 

funding to help cover ongoing operating expenses. 

Third, even if sufficient funding could be devoted to creating a fully operational 

broadband network throughout the United States, it still does not mean all Americans would be able to purchase broadband service. A deployment-focused solution, 

without more, assumes ‘‘if you build it, they will come.’’ 

But clearly that is not the case. Overall broadband adoption, in part, is a function 

of geographic access, but as I noted before, it also is a function of economic access 

and consumer awareness of the benefits of advanced technologies. Many recent 

press reports on the fate of municipal wireless networks have observed that multiple 

factors ultimately are responsible for consumers’ broadband adoption rates. 

So where does this assessment leave us? For Windstream, this analysis has made 

us look more carefully at the other levers that may be pulled to increase broadband 

adoption rates. While we aggressively deploy new facilities, we continue to think 

about new and innovative ways in which we can increase broadband adoption where 

we have already deployed the service. 

Public-private partnerships, such as Connect Arkansas, may further promote lowincome consumers’ broadband usage. Windstream was an active participant in the 

Arkansas Broadband Initiative, which led to the development of Connect Arkansas. 

We anticipate that Connect Arkansas will be able to leverage resources of a wide 

56 

1 U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey: Computer and Internet Use 2003, special 

tabulation by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Calculation by The Children’s Partnership. 2 Id. 

3 Id. 

variety of stakeholders to bring more Arkansans online. We have witnessed the importance of cross-sector partnerships as a longtime board member of 

ConnectKentucky. 

In particular, our experience has underscored the importance of a non-geographic 

factor that contributes to broadband adoption rates: affordability. The gap between 

those consumers who are online and offline more and more is defined by their economic, rather than geographic, conditions. 

Focusing on affordability is important and in many cases actually may be the 

basis for more economically efficient policies to increase broadband adoption rates. 

As such, in addition to dedicating funds to aid deployment in unserved areas, policymakers should (a) devote funding to provide support for low-income consumers’ 

broadband access and (b) allocate funds to increase computer ownership. 

With respect to making broadband service more affordable, the Federal Government should strongly consider the use of general revenues, instead of universal service funds, to subsidize broadband service for low-income consumers. But if policymakers conclude it is appropriate to use universal service funds, they should consider extending Lifeline/Link-Up to assist low-income consumers’ purchase of 

broadband services. 

Addressing economic access to broadband will help a significant percentage of Arkansas consumers that remain offline. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, only 

12 percent of Arkansas residents that live in households earning less than $15,000 

per year use the Internet at home.1

In addition, Windstream recommends that the Federal Government consider providing some funding for low-income individuals’ personal computer ownership. If 

consumers cannot afford a computer, they will not be able to use broadband in their 

homes—no matter how reasonably priced that broadband service may be. 

Among the 50 states and the District of Columbia, Arkansas ranks last, 50th, in 

the percentage of households with a personal computer.2 And personal PC ownership, like Internet usage, is highly correlated with household income: 83 percent of 

households in Arkansas earning less than $15,000 per year do not own a computer, 

compared to 38 percent of all households nationally.3

At Windstream, we are experimenting with ways in which we can help more of 

our customers afford household computers. For example, this month we launched 

a pilot program to offer discounted computers to qualified new broadband customers 

who purchase broadband service from our company. 

Although there is much private industry can do, the private sector on its own cannot resolve issues around low-income consumers’ ability to afford computers. Policymakers should give serious consideration to what role the government can play in 

addressing computer affordability. 

Going forward we’re going to need to wade into the details of how these various 

proposals could best be implemented. Windstream is committed to devoting resources to these ideas, and we look forward to partnering with the Federal Government to develop new and innovative ways to boost broadband adoption in Arkansas 

and throughout the United States. 

Thank you for allowing my company and me to participate in this hearing. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Allis? 

STATEMENT OF EDWARD K. ALLIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AT&T ARKANSAS 

Mr. ALLIS. Thank you, Senator. I don’t use hair spray, but I’m 

thinking about starting. I appreciate the EAST labs presentation. 

I think that was a real bright spot for us today. My name is Ed 

Allis, Executive Director of Governmental Affairs for AT&T. A field 

hearing like this is a unique experience I think for most of us, and 

we do appreciate the opportunity to provide a local perspective on 

the issues before the Committee. Perhaps the main thing I’d like 

to do today is to lend AT&T’s endorsement to Connect Arkansas 

and EAST labs. And I will talk about that in just a minute. 

57 

First, just a bit about AT&T. We are the state’s largest and oldest provider. We’ve been around for almost 130 years. And while 

we serve most of the metro areas in the state, we maintain a very 

significant rural presence. Of AT&T’s 102 exchanges across the 

state, fully 40 of them have less than a thousand access lines. Sixteen have fewer than 500 access lines. One of our exchanges, Arkansas City, has only 100 lines. So we are familiar with the challenges of serving rural Arkansas. This fact-finding hearing comes 

not a moment too soon. Arkansas must catch up. 

Senator Pryor, you said Arkansas ranks 47th in the Nation right 

now, and that’s certainly a challenge for all of us. But there are 

areas where progress has been made. I think all the presenters can 

talk about some of their success stories. For AT&T’s part, we can 

also point to progress. We are expanding the availability of our 

wireline DSL in our footprint. And, in fact, we expect to have all 

of our exchanges equipped for DSL by the end of next year, 2008. 

We are also proud of our affiliation with Distance Learning that 

was mentioned by Ms. Bailey. She covered that, and I won’t talk 

about it in any great detail other than from an educational perspective, we have 80 higher ed sites on that system, and over 300 K 

through 12 sites. AT&T provides network facilities and maintains 

network facilities for that system. That is a tremendous asset, I 

think, to rural Arkansas and to rural school districts. 

But as everyone agrees, there is much to be done. And while 

AT&T is committed to proceeding with its broadband initiatives, 

we have become convinced that Connect Arkansas may very well 

hold the key for the most rapid advancement of broadband deployment in the state. With their mapping capabilities in conjunction 

with EAST, their formation of e-committees, educational efforts, 

and demand stimulation programs, they hold promise for some benefits that could be substantial and very tangible. 

Connect Arkansas, I think, would tell you that they can create over 8,000 jobs in the state and that they can add $2.6 billion to 

the state gross domestic product annually. So it’s something that 

we all need to pay attention to. As with all things of that sort, 

funding is the issue. At least initially, Connect Arkansas will have 

to operate with private funding only. 

So I think Federal funding either from the Congressional side or 

the FCC side is desperately needed both for Connect Arkansas and 

for providers. And I know as policymakers, you all have to make 

decisions about how much money to spend and where it’s going to 

go and to set the priorities. And as you’re doing that, please, please 

remember Arkansas, keep us on your radar screen. If you do fund 

us, we’ll make you proud of the investment. Thanks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allis follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EDWARD K. ALLIS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, AT&T ARKANSAS

Introduction 

My name is Ed Allis. I am the Executive Director—Governmental Affairs for 

AT&T in the state of Arkansas. My biographical summary was previously submitted 

for the record. AT&T extends a warm welcome to Commissioners Adelstein and 

Copps. A field hearing such as this is a unique experience for those of us involved 

in the telecommunications industry and all of us are appreciative of this opportunity 

to provide a local perspective on ‘‘The State of Broadband in Arkansas.’’ 

58 

AT&T Arkansas traces its roots back to the state’s first switchboard in 1879, right 

here in Little Rock—almost 130 years ago, just 3 years after Alexander Graham Bell 

invented the telephone. Today, AT&T is the state’s oldest and largest provider; serving 102 local exchanges across the state. In addition to landline service, we offer 

high-speed broadband Internet access, wireless and satellite TV service to communities large and small. AT&T’s commitment to rural Arkansas should be apparent. 

This fact finding hearing comes not a moment too soon. Along with most others 

from whom you will hear today, AT&T considers the timing critical for Arkansas’ 

future. I believe we have come to recognize that we are in a race, not just with other 

states—but with other nations as well. Simply stated, Arkansas must first catch up 

before it can surpass others. By now you are aware of Connect Arkansas and the 

broadband data collection activities in which it has engaged. According to Connect 

Arkansas, Arkansas ranks: 

• 47th in the deployment of broadband. 

• 49th in the percentage of the population online. 

• 41st in the percentage of farmers using computers online. 

• 30th in the use of information technology to deliver state government services. 

Despite those statistics, the Committee should note that Arkansas has made significant progress in bringing technology to rural parts of the state. Some of the presenters today have outlined some of that progress in their areas of knowledge or 

will shortly. 

AT&T 

For its part, AT&T has demonstrated a fundamental commitment to rural America and rural Arkansas in a number of ways. While there may be some that believe 

AT&T is a company that provides telecommunications services only to urban areas 

of the country, that’s simply not the case. In fact, AT&T is the single largest provider of telephone service to rural America—we serve over 7 million rural customers. 

In Arkansas, of AT&T’s 102 exchanges, 57 have fewer than 3,000 access lines; 40 

have fewer than 1,000 access lines and 16 have fewer than 500. One exchange, Arkansas City, has just 100 access lines. Beyond doubt, AT&T is a rural provider in 

Arkansas and across America and has demonstrated a commitment to those areas. 

For example, in the past 2 years AT&T has contributed grants of $4.6M to support the needs of various rural communities throughout the country. It is expanding 

the availability of broadband over satellite (provided by WildBlue) across its 22 state 

wireline footprint. At the same time, AT&T has deployed additional wireline 

broadband in Arkansas this year and plans additional deployment in 2008. AT&T 

anticipates that every Arkansas exchange will have broadband capability by the end 

of 2008. 

In Arkansas, AT&T is particularly proud of its involvement in distance learning. 

AT&T provides and maintains network facilities used by the State of Arkansas for 

VNet, a fully interactive video conferencing network used for education, healthcare 

and state government. There are approximately 520 interactive video sites on VNet, 

including: 

• 78 higher education. 

• 301 Kindergarten through grade 12. 

Usage has grown to over 20,000 conference hours per month. More than 400 

courses are being taught using the technology, giving students access to an enriched 

curriculum and college preparatory courses and providing professional development 

opportunities and instructional resources for teachers and administrators. Both 

AT&T and the state have garnered numerous awards for VNet. 

AT&T was one of the first major providers to commercially launch fixed wireless 

broadband using wireless and other technologies. Fixed wireless offers the potential 

to deliver broadband Internet to areas where wireline high-speed Internet or cable 

modem services are not available today. 

Setting aside the consumer segment for a moment it should be noted that regardless of location, most businesses in Arkansas generally have access to high-speed 

Internet access. Through high capacity facilities, even remotely located businesses 

generally can obtain high-speed Internet access, but it’s at prices that only a business can reasonably be expected to pay. 

Yet, despite the strides that have been made there is still much to be done. If 

the provision of broadband in rural Arkansas was easy, it would be there today. 

However, significant hurdles stand in the way in many areas. That’s why AT&T is 

59 

committed to helping to develop collaborative, innovative solutions at both the state 

and local level. 

While AT&T intends to continue its pursuit of its own broadband initiatives, 

AT&T is convinced that Connect Arkansas holds the key for the most rapid acceleration of broadband deployment by all providers. 

Connect Arkansas 

Connect Arkansas is an entity that is uniquely equipped to coordinate all of the 

various resources in the state for a common purpose. 

It is common knowledge that Connect Arkansas has used ConnectKentucky as a 

model. There are good reasons for this as statistics from Kentucky demonstrate. 

Before ConnectKentucky, approximately 60 percent of that state had access to 

broadband service. Today: 

• Over 93 percent of the state has broadband access. 

• Over $600M of private capital has been invested in broadband related telecommunications. 

• Broadband usage has increased by a nation leading 73 percent. 

• ConnectKentucky anticipates the creation of over 15,000 jobs and the addition 

of over $5B to the Gross State Product annually. 

Connect Arkansas was established by Act 604 (sponsored by Senator Capps) 

passed by the 86th General Assembly earlier this year. Among other things it is designed to map broadband availability in Arkansas and stimulate demand through 

education of users regarding the benefits of broadband. Much of this education will 

be coordinated through county officials and volunteers. Since Connect Arkansas is 

a private non-profit entity, it will be able to enter into non-disclosure agreements 

with all providers so that proprietary competitive data can be collected and analyzed. That will be a key component of the mapping process. 

Connect Arkansas’ efforts will be technology neutral. Recommendations and proposals for individual underserved areas of rural Arkansas may depend on an analysis of which technology appears to be most suitable. While an approach like this 

will require extraordinary cooperation among all participants, it is a cornerstone of 

the Connect Arkansas program and inherent in Act 604. 

If Connect Arkansas is successful, the state as a whole will reap substantial and 

tangible benefits. Connect Arkansas has estimated that 8,200 jobs will be created 

and over $2.6B will be added to the Gross State Product annually. 

Funding 

For the time being Connect Arkansas is without the public funding that could be 

used for educating consumers, establishing e-committees and training county officials, providing grants, etc. The initial source of funding must come from private 

sources and perhaps state government agencies and educational institutions that 

have the available resources. 

Ideally, Connect Arkansas would be funded through a tri-partite partnership of 

Federal funds, state funds and private funding. While the Arkansas General Assembly will likely be asked to make state funding available in the future, it will be helpful if sources of Federal funds could be found. All of the involved parties in Connect 

Arkansas would be willing to work with Senator Pryor’s office and other members 

of the Committee in order to facilitate an investment of this type in Arkansas’ future. 

The FCC as well has the capacity to influence the economic future of this state. 

In July of this year, AT&T submitted an ex parte presentation to the FCC in which 

it suggested a pilot project designed to accelerate the deployment of broadband to 

rural America. It would provide funding on a technology neutral basis while long 

term reform of the Federal Universal Service Fund is being debated. Additional information regarding the pilot project is being submitted to the Committee for inclusion into the record. 

Long Term 

If all of the collaborative efforts planned for the state come to fruition and 

broadband becomes a reality in all parts of rural Arkansas, what we will have is 

a beginning—an important beginning. It will be a first step; but, the reason you 

take a first step is so you can take additional steps. We must not lose sight of the 

long term needs of Arkansans. More bandwidth and more availability is inextricably 

tied to Arkansas’ ability to compete for economic development, jobs, educational opportunities and a quality of life that Arkansans deserve. 

60 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. I know that AT&T’s making a lot of 

efforts nationwide to upgrade your infrastructure to be able to 

carry video to provide some badly-needed competition to cable, I 

wonder how is that going here in Arkansas for AT&T? 

Mr. ALLIS. We are—Commissioner Adelstein, we have made a lot 

of progress in securing agreements with individual cities and municipalities. Deployment of the U-verse technology and the provision of the service, we are still a number of months away from 

that, but I think next year you’ll see it take off. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Waits? 

STATEMENT OF R. PAUL WAITS, PRESIDENT, 

RITTER COMMUNICATIONS 

Mr. WAITS. My name is Paul Waits, the president of Ritter Communications out of Jonesboro, Arkansas. We must be a relatively 

newcomer to the state compared to Ed here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAITS. We’ve only been in the telephone business here 101 

years. The world is flat, and it’s getting flatter. The Internet has 

indeed leveled the field of play, if one is connected to that field. 

And I think that has been the point that has been reiterated across 

the panel so far. If you’re a wireline company like us, broadband 

is your future. It is the business we are in, and we must be totally 

committed to. We totally agree, too, that there is a linkage that’s 

growing stronger between broadband access to the public Internet 

and economic health, as well as vitality across all spectrums of 

human interaction, collaboration, education, medical care, governmental services, creative endeavors, as well as business communications. 

We, too, appreciate the fact that you are here having this hearing, a step toward necessary and lucid assessment of availability 

and need. We agree with the comments to expand the definition of 

dial tone, a basic service, to include broadband access, to create an 

expanded focus for the universal service fund, but one that targets 

high-cost areas, based on the cost to serve those areas. We also 

would encourage the Commission if it does so, to recognize an 

evolving definition of broadband. 

Prognosticators in our industry predict that by 2012, broadband 

would be defined as 100 megabits per second, not 200 kilobits per 

second. The big driver behind that, of course, is video and the 

emerging forms of communication and collaboration that are evolving at a very rapid pace. Our company serves some very, very rural 

areas of the state, some throbbing metropolises like Jasper, Osage, 

Alpena, Western Grove, the mountainous area. We also serve some 

very depressed areas in the state in the East of I–55, as they say. 

Our coverage though is pretty strong. Ninety percent of our very 

rural residents have access to broadband. Ninety-eight percent are 

incumbent telephone company customers that have access to 

broadband. A hundred percent of our cable customers have access 

to broadband. We are as large in cable TV as we are in incumbent 

telephone services. We also have CLEC. 

And we also share in wireless partnerships with Alltel. That 

makes us a bit bipolar when we consider what our position is on 

some issues. 

61 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAITS. Alltel solved their problem. They divested part of it. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WAITS. We don’t have such a luxury. We still have to weigh 

these issues internally. And I guess the parting words we have in 

that regard, to try to keep my comments brief, is that as we weigh 

those issues internally, we discover that if we look beyond the pecuniary interests, and look at the customers and what’s in their 

long-term interests, the different segments of customers, they provide a pretty good guide to us as for what’s in our long-term business interests. So that would be our best advice to policymakers to 

look beyond pecuniary interests and the short-term shrill needs of 

publicly-traded stockholders, and look to the long-term needs, assessed lucidly, of their customers. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waits follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. PAUL WAITS, PRESIDENT, RITTER COMMUNICATIONS

Introduction 

My name is Paul Waits. I am President of Ritter Communications, based in 

Jonesboro, Arkansas, and I manage a company that provides a wide variety of communications services across Northeast and North Central Arkansas. On behalf of 

our company and our communities, we welcome Commissioners Adelstein and 

Copps, and are encouraged by the interest this hearing reflects regarding the future 

of broadband services in Arkansas. 

Ritter Communications 

Last year, Ritter Communications celebrated its 100-year anniversary as a telephone company, having its roots in providing basic telephone service in Poinsett and 

Mississippi Counties. Since that time, the company has grown and diversified, and 

presently owns and operates other incumbent telephone operations in Boone and 

Newton Counties, cable TV franchises across Northeast and North Central Arkansas, competitive communications and business integration services in Jonesboro, as 

well as a number of wireless partnerships with Alltel. All of these varied business 

interests are sufficient in scale to cause us to weigh among and balance competing 

interests internal to our company, e.g., cable versus telephone, wireless versus 

wireline, in formulating and advocating positions on policy issues. We think this 

puts us in a unique position to offer observations and recommendations that balance 

such disparate interests. 

In the context of the current availability and future of broadband services, our 

greatest concern is the needs of the most rural areas we serve, specifically the 

sparsely-populated areas of Newton and Boone Counties, and the rural agricultural 

communities of Northeast Arkansas. Some of these areas present extraordinary economic challenges related directly to the cost of deployment, as well as the general 

level of computer literacy and ownership. We estimate that we have the capability 

to provide high-speed Internet access services to about 90 percent of our telephone 

company customers in the mountainous areas of North Central Arkansas, and about 

98 percent of our telephone company subscribers in Northeast Arkansas. All central 

offices and remote terminals are equipped with DSL technology, but distance limits 

of DSL prevent availability to the most remote customers. In our cable TV areas, 

we can provide high-speed Internet access to virtually 100 percent of the homes 

passed in these hybrid fiber-coax systems. The percentage is greater for cable because such systems typically do not extend to areas with low subscriber density. 

Universal Broadband Service 

As a nation, we have virtually achieved universal telephone service as a direct 

result of the long-standing public policy of promoting universal telephone service 

through implicit and explicit rate averaging across the country. Governmental programs such as the Federal Universal Service Fund (Fund) have been instrumental 

in supporting the investment required for rural telephone services, and such is still 

needed for many areas too sparsely populated to economically justify either wireline 

or wireless coverage. To get a first-hand view of the rural needs and challenges, we 

invite and would welcome members of the Committee to tour our rural service 

areas. 

62 

Today, high-speed Internet access is fast becoming indispensable to basic communications and commerce, just as the telephone has been for many decades. This is 

true across all spectrums of human interaction, including education, medical care, 

governmental services, creative endeavors, as well as business communications and 

collaboration. We believe the FCC and Congress must take the first step to affirm 

a new, expanded policy of universal service, one that defines basic service to include 

broadband access to the public Internet. 

In doing so, we must be careful not to legislate an Internet access speed, i.e., not 

to cast in bureaucratic stone the definition of what we mean as broadband. Instead, 

we should allow the definition of broadband to evolve as technology and its application evolves. Internet video applications that are emerging at a rapid pace will fuel 

consumer demand for faster connections, just as distributed computing and software 

hosting will drive demand for faster, more reliable connections for businesses large 

and small. 

In recent years, Ritter Communications has been deploying fiber-to-the-premise 

services to the medical community in Jonesboro, in direct response to demand for 

very high bandwidth to support video applications used for remote diagnostics. The 

gigabit-per-second level bandwidth required could only be provided today by direct 

fiber connections, since wireless and other wireline technologies lack this ability. We 

believe this trend will continue and extend to other business applications and activities, and there will be a diverging standard that will emerge between mobile and 

fixed technologies in recognition of the limitations of mobile technologies to support 

high-definition video applications. 

Funding 

We believe that current Federal funding for universal service is in jeopardy, and 

warrants reformation to ensure sustainable and predictable support for rural communications services, which is rendered more imperative by the need to expand 

such funding for broadband access services. The amount of funding for rural support 

is eroding as the base for such support is attriting because of the transition, ironically, to Internet-based telephony, which does not collect universal service fund 

fees. Support for rural carriers is also adversely affected by the transition of telephony minutes and access services from wireline to wireless services, which do not 

contribute support in the form of carrier access charges. It is imperative that the 

FCC focus on these issues to ensure that rates and services are, in the words of 

the Telecom Reform Act of 1996, ‘‘reasonably comparable between urban and rural 

areas of the Nation.’’ 

We consider it unfortunate that the Federal universal service program has become 

a political target because of some confusion regarding its purpose, e.g., whether its 

mission is to promote rural competition, and/or to provide for comparable rural services and rates in high cost areas. These twin goals are now at odds. The fund has 

grown in scale and scope to the point that there is a growing concern that it should 

be better targeted to the needs of the rural public. We share this concern. This will 

be particularly true if the fund is transitioned to promote and support the funding 

of rural broadband services. In this context, we believe the identical support rule, 

allowing competitive carriers to receive support based on the incumbent carrier’s 

costs, has created some burdens on the fund, with questionable benefits for the public. Although some of Ritter Communications’ business interests benefit from this 

rule, we are concerned about the long-term sustainability of the Fund, and the continued viability of the most rural areas of the State of Arkansas. We believe a better 

long-term policy is to continue to target high cost areas, with funding solutions 

based on each provider’s actual costs to serve those areas. 

Conclusion 

We are indeed encouraged by the interest this hearing represents, and share a 

concern regarding the need for a proactive policy on the assessment and support of 

broadband services, especially in the most rural areas of the state. As a company 

actively engaged in providing broadband services in a wide variety of locales, using 

a variety of technologies, to a broad mix of customers and customer types, we believe we have some unique perspectives to offer to this conversation. 

We respectfully recommend that Federal policy first be augmented to redefine and 

expand basic service to include broadband access services. In the pursuit of this 

goal, such policy should provide for an evolving definition of broadband access services, and that policy’s primary focus should be to ensure, at a minimum, that the 

most rural, high-cost areas of the state are not left out of the digital age. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Ms. Cunningham? 

63 

STATEMENT OF MARYCE CUNNINGHAM, SECRETARY, 

ARKANSAS BROADBAND ADVISORY COUNCIL; 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER, MIDSOUTH REGION, 

SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS 

Ms. CUNNINGHAM. Thank you, Senator. My name is Maryce 

Cunningham. I am the Secretary of the Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council and the Government Affairs Manager for the 

MidSouth Region of Suddenlink Communications. Our 276 Arkansas employees take great pride in offering broadband and other advanced services to secondary markets in rural communities in Arkansas from the size of Jonesboro to College City with fewer than 

300 residents. 

However, despite our best efforts to take broadband to the state’s 

smallest communities, we know there are still some areas with no 

broadband service, and these typically have only a few dozen residents and very low population densities. To take broadband to 

them, several things need to be done. In our extended testimony for 

the record, Suddenlink suggests four steps for your consideration. 

In our limited time today, I’ll address two of those. 

The first step is to develop a comprehensive map, which has been 

mentioned so many times today, where broadband service is available in Arkansas and where it is not. As Senator Pryor knows, 

Congress is considering a national broadband mapping bill. Meanwhile, in West Virginia the state government is marshaling resources to produce a detailed map of the availability of broadband 

there. We believe such an effort is likewise critical in Arkansas so 

that any future resources devoted to the issue here can be productively focused. 

The second step is to make sure that private enterprises which 

have already worked hard to take broadband to rural Arkansas, 

have a fair and level playing field to continue their efforts. Our 

companies market power is dwarfed by certain entities with which 

we are required to negotiate. 

In that environment, the electrical cooperatives are threatening 

to charge exorbitant pole rental fees, while large media conglomerates are threatening excessive retransmission consent fees. And 

if realized, these threats will divert funds that could otherwise be 

used for additional broadband deployments. Accordingly, we and 

others recommend policies that inject public interest goals like the 

extension of broadband to rural areas into these market processes 

like retransmission consent, and pole attachment negotiations. Especially where these negotiations are controlled by powerful entities with economic interests that may frustrate or hinder the public 

interest. 

Again, I offer more detail on these and other steps in the written 

testimony that we provided for the record. And in the interest of 

time, I’ll conclude my remarks by expressing our gratitude to Senator Pryor and his staff, to Commissioners Copps and Adelstein 

and their staffs. And thank you for being here, and allowing us to 

participate in this hearing today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Cunningham follows:] 

64 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYCE CUNNINGHAM, SECRETARY, ARKANSAS BROADBAND

ADVISORY COUNCIL AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS MANAGER, MIDSOUTH REGION, SUDDENLINK COMMUNICATIONS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Maryce Cunningham. I’m both the Secretary of the Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council and the Government Relations 

Manager for the MidSouth Region of Suddenlink Communications. This region of 

our company includes the state of Arkansas, of which I’m delighted to be a resident, 

along with 275 of my Suddenlink colleagues. 

Suddenlink is a top 10 U.S. operator of cable broadband systems. We support the 

information, communication, and entertainment needs of approximately 1.4 million 

total customers across the country, roughly 9 percent of which are in Arkansas. 

Here, as elsewhere, our employees take great pride in serving secondary markets 

and rural communities. We are equally proud that, in a growing number of those 

communities, we offer advanced services that are comparable to what you would 

find in the largest metropolitan areas, such as digital TV, competitive phone service, 

and of course, high-speed Internet or broadband service. 

In fact, Suddenlink’s story is the story of how private enterprise has already done 

a great deal to close much of the digital divide that separates smaller communities 

from urban centers. 

In early 2003, our management team took over the operation of what was then 

known as Classic Communications. At the time, roughly 30 percent of the company’s 

customers had access to broadband service. By 2005, we had more than doubled that 

percentage. And today, we are at 99 percent, rapidly moving to 100 percent, covering markets all the way from Jonesboro with 60,000 residents to College City in 

Lawrence County, with a population of fewer than 300 people. 

All told, counting our past and current operations in Arkansas, we and our predecessors have invested nearly $225 million in this state since 2003, to help take 

broadband to areas where it previously was not. 

And we’re not finished yet: Even as I speak, we’re rolling out lightning-fast connections to mid-size and smaller markets alike, offering download speeds of up 10 

megabits per second (Mbps). Until now, those speeds were unheard of outside the 

largest metro areas. 

As demonstrated by this list of accomplishments, our collective effort to bring 

broadband to Rural America is indeed a success story of the first degree, for both 

our company and our industry. However, we recognize that—as much as our industry has already done to connect Rural Arkansas—there are areas of the state that 

still do not have broadband access. 

Furthermore, it is our impression, based on our experience in serving secondary 

and rural markets, that the remaining, unconnected areas of the state—by and 

large—do not have populations of several thousand or even several hundred people. 

To the contrary: Today’s unconnected communities typically have only a few dozen 

people living in them, with population densities that are often 10 homes per mile 

or less. 

To reach those areas, we believe several things need to be done. 

The first and most important step is to develop a comprehensive map of precisely 

where broadband service is available in Arkansas and where it is not. We understand the data maintained by the FCC only looks at zip codes and that it designates 

a zip code as ‘‘served,’’ even if only one home in that zip code has broadband available to it. Unfortunately, in geographically large and sparsely populated zip codes, 

such data is not useful. 

Accordingly, as Senator Pryor knows, Congress is considering a national 

broadband mapping bill, which was recently passed out of the Senate Commerce 

Committee. Meanwhile, in West Virginia—home to Senator Pryor’s senior colleague 

on the Commerce Committee, Senator Rockefeller; and also home to more than 600 

Suddenlink employees and more than 200,000 Suddenlink customers—the state government is currently marshalling resources to produce a detailed map of the availability of broadband there. 

In short, mapping efforts have both precedent and momentum, and we believe 

such an effort is critical in Arkansas, so that any future resources devoted to the 

issue here can be most productively targeted. 

We further believe such mapping efforts should help determine home-PC penetration in rural areas, in addition to the availability of broadband services. Current 

data suggest that PC penetration is often quite low in rural and economically depressed areas and thus broader-scale efforts may be needed to help lower-income 

families secure a home computer before broadband service is relevant to them. 

After broadband mapping, we believe the second critical step is to make sure private enterprises like our company—which have already done much to take 

65 

broadband service to Rural Arkansas—have a fair and level playing field on which 

to continue our efforts. 

Despite Suddenlink’s rank among the top 10 U.S. cable operators, we remain a 

relatively small company and our market power is dwarfed by several entities with 

which we are required to negotiate contracts, including electric cooperatives and 

media conglomerates. 

Without government intervention, the electric cooperatives have made it very 

clear they will charge exorbitant pole-rental fees, tripling if not quadrupling our 

costs. The result: Our company and others will have less capital to deploy 

broadband to remote areas. 

On a similar note, without government intervention, large media conglomerates 

have made it clear they will continue to seek excessive retransmission-consent fees, 

likewise diverting funds that could otherwise be used for broadband deployment. 

At our current size, Suddenlink does not have the negotiating leverage to resist 

those threats and the resulting diversion of precious resources. 

In short, we need the careful application of government programs that inject public-interest goals, like extension of broadband to rural areas, into market processes 

like retransmission-consent and pole-attachment negotiations. That is especially 

true when these negotiations are effectively controlled by large, powerful entities 

with clear economic interests that will frustrate or hinder the public interest by significantly driving up the costs of broadband providers as they seek to extend service 

into areas of low-population density. 

The third step in the process is to carefully review technology alternatives. For 

instance, ours is primarily a wireline business, but we recognize that wireline 

broadband will not always be the most economical option for reaching the most remote and rural areas. Instead, wireless broadband (over licensed spectrum) may ultimately represent the best combination of reliability and economics to reach those 

areas. 

Fourth and finally, we believe the process of bridging the last span of the digital 

divide will involve carefully targeted government subsidies—subsidies that rely on 

the aforementioned maps and analysis of alternative technologies. 

In making this recommendation, I want to be very clear: We do not believe subsidies should be granted in the form of low-cost loans. At low-population, low-density levels, it’s all-but-impossible for a broadband company to develop a viable business plan, even with the most favorable loan terms. 

That’s a lesson the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service (or 

RUS) has learned the hard way. Directed by Congress to prioritize low-cost 

broadband loans to companies that propose extending service to un-served areas, 

the RUS has received very few loan applications from those areas. 

Why? Because the loan applicants, even on preferential, cost-of-money terms, cannot develop a viable business model that would allow them to pay back the money. 

Instead, the RUS has received and approved loans to companies that propose to 

serve areas where broadband is already available, often from three or more incumbent providers, defeating the purpose of the original legislation. 

For that reason, we believe the process of closing the final inches of the digital 

divide will require direct government support. That said, knowing government funds 

are scarce, I want to reiterate that a broadband subsidy program should not be designed until the prior steps I’ve discussed (such as the mapping project) are undertaken. Only then can we ensure that subsidies are carefully and appropriately targeted to the few remaining areas with no service option. 

Thank you for your time, today. We look forward to working with our peers on 

the Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council, Senator Pryor and his staff, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein and their respective staff, and others to carefully examine and act upon these and similar recommendations. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Jones? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN F. JONES, VICE PRESIDENT, 

REGULATORY AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, 

CENTURYTEL, INC. 

Mr. JONES. Being at this end of the table, I’m reminded by something Commissioner Adelstein told a group of us when we were debating inter-carrier compensation reform with about 40 of us in the 

room, and he said: Everything about this subject has been said. It’s 

just everyone has not said it yet. 

66 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. JONES. Good morning. My name is John Jones, and I’m Vice 

President of Regulatory and Government Relations for CenturyTel. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I think that hearings like this are both timely and important, as all of us grapple 

with advancing technologies and customer demands. You’ll find 

that despite many commonalities associated with broadband deployment, each state also has challenges, opportunities, and characteristics unique to their population and geography. 

In 2000, CenturyTel purchased more than 200,000 access lines in 

Arkansas from what was then GTE. Since that time, our company 

has invested approximately $1 billion in infrastructure to bring 

broadband services to these markets, where before, they had very 

few options like that. Today, we serve approximately 220,000 customers, and 82 percent of those customers have broadband availability. 

In Arkansas and mostly rural markets in 24 other states, 

CenturyTel is introducing a variety of new broadband services at 

speeds up to ten megabits per second. We’re delivering those services with our core wireline network and alternative broadband access technologies such as mesh Wi-Fi hot spots and point-to-point 

wireless broadband into strategic areas. As part of our testimony 

today, we want to leave you with three key points relating to providing broadband to rural areas. 

Number one, in rural markets, affordability, lack of customer 

density, and PC availability are the biggest obstacles to increased 

broadband’s subscribership. 

Number two, reaching the remaining unserved customers in 

rural markets that do not have broadband today would require significant additional investment. 

And number three, efforts by the Joint Board and FCC to stabilize the Universal Service Fund are critical to a long-term viability of the Fund, and consequently the goal of universal broadband 

access for all. 

In most of our operating states, we are working with our state 

governments to identify broadband challenges, and engaging in 

public/private partnerships, such as Connected Nation and Connect 

Arkansas, to help all providers to deploy in unserved areas. We believe customer broadband expectations revolve around faster 

speeds, lower prices, and competitive service bundles. Also, we’ve 

seen some really great success stories out of this state in areas like 

Forks, Washington, that lost its economy due to the timber business and reinvented itself with broadband connectivity and Bayou 

La Batre, Alabama, which was cleaned off the map by Hurricane 

Katrina, and bringing broadband to that area and how they in two 

short years have basically put themselves back on the map through 

economic development and broadband outreach. 

In closing, CenturyTel believes that rural customers are speaking 

loudly about what their telecom needs are. It is not necessarily 

about wireless or wireline voice service because, they have that in 

most of the cases. It’s about broadband, affordable broadband, and 

faster broadband. We look forward to working with other Arkansas 

stakeholders to strengthen the link between broadband availability 

and broadband subscribership, and continue in meeting their evolvVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
67 

ing telecom needs for Arkansas citizens. And, again, I thank you 

so much for inviting us here today, and appreciate the opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN F. JONES, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY AND

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, CENTURYTEL, INC. 

Senator Pryor and distinguished guests, my name is John Jones, and I am Vice 

President of Regulatory and Government Relations for CenturyTel, Inc. I submit 

this testimony as part of the above referenced proceeding, and thank you for allowing our company to participate. We believe hearings of this type are both timely and 

important as the industry works to keep pace with evolving technologies and an 

ever-changing marketplace. You will find that despite many commonalities associated with broadband deployment, each state also has challenges, opportunities and 

characteristics unique to their population and geographic area. 

In 2000, CenturyTel purchased more than 200,000 access lines in Arkansas from 

what was then GTE. Since that time, our company has invested approximately $1 

billion in this state and located our Southeast Regional Office in Cabot. The changes 

we brought to the former GTE customers from a telecommunications perspective 

were dramatic. In nine short months, we intensified efforts and through a disciplined investment strategy brought broadband and dial-up Internet services to 

rural markets that had few if any such options. Today, CenturyTel serves approximately 220,000 customers in the State of Arkansas, with more than 82 percent having access to DSL services. 

In Arkansas and in various rural markets in 24 states, CenturyTel is introducing 

new services such as broadband TV, personalized broadband content and broadband 

access speeds up to 10 Mbps. In addition, we are deploying alternative broadband 

access technologies such as mesh Wi-Fi ‘‘hot spots’’ or ‘‘hot zones’’ and ‘‘point-topoint’’ wireless broadband in strategic areas. 

As part of our testimony today, we want to leave you with three key points relating to providing broadband in rural areas: 

1. In rural markets, affordability, a lack of customer density and PC availability 

are the biggest obstacles to increased broadband penetration; 

2. Reaching the remaining unserved customers in rural markets that do not 

have broadband today will require significant investment and cost, with few, if 

any, business cases to support that investment; and 

3. Efforts by the Joint Board and FCC to stabilize the universal service fund 

are critical to the long-term vitality of the fund and, consequently, the goal of 

universal broadband access for all Americans. Americans in all parts of the 

country are sending the message that their telecom and economic future depends on robust broadband deployment. In the years ahead, global economic 

competition will require increasingly sophisticated networks that deliver unprecedented levels of speed at much lower costs. Reform of USF must account 

for this central public policy goal. 

In most of our operating states, we are seeing an increasing interest in ‘‘last mile’’ 

broadband solutions. Like other providers, we are working with our state governments to identify broadband challenges and engaging in public-private partnerships, 

such as Connected Nation and Connect Arkansas, to help all providers deploy in 

unserved areas. We believe customer broadband expectations revolve around faster 

speeds, lower prices and competitive service bundles. It is our view that with the 

doubling of Internet traffic every year, capacity and speed will be the key 

differentiators as the high-speed data market continues to evolve and be driven by 

customer demand. 

As you know, broadband connections and the services they deliver will be the core 

strategic product for our future growth. Eventually, all voice, data and entertainment services will ride the broadband pipe. Also, from a consumer acquisition and 

retention perspective, broadband is becoming the consumer linchpin for the bundling, pricing and marketing of other services. To that end, price and speed are becoming the key drivers of customer demand. 

Despite remarkable success in deploying broadband services in some very rural 

areas, subscribership rates in rural markets remain relatively low because of issues 

with affordability and PC availability. The main point I want to make about this 

is that even though a customer in a rural market has broadband available to them, 

other important factors will ultimately impact their decision on whether to become 

a broadband subscriber or not. 

68 

CenturyTel recognizes that deploying broadband to the remaining unserved or underserved areas will be an expensive undertaking. If the Nation’s telecom policy goal 

should become ubiquitous or nearly ubiquitous broadband availability, ultimately 

some form of broadband support will be needed to help offset the cost drivers for 

rural service. There are several categories of costs that CenturyTel believes are not 

addressed today. 

As an example, most of the monthly recurring inter-office transport and backhaul 

costs between rural local exchange areas and the nearest tandem switch or urban 

Internet access point, which may be hundreds of miles away, are not expressly covered by the Federal high-cost programs today. This backhaul infrastructure is also 

relied upon by ISPs, wireless providers, VoIP providers and others sending traffic 

to or receiving traffic from rural customers. 

CenturyTel believes that targeted universal service funding for the highest cost 

areas will be needed in conjunction with other support mechanisms such as grants, 

tax investment incentives and low interest loans. Regardless of the funding source 

established, the key will be to properly define what is meant by ‘‘broadband’’ and 

‘‘support for broadband’’ on the front end of the process. In light of the rapid technological changes taking place, the new definition must be flexible to accommodate 

evolving technology. Therefore, it will be important for policymakers to revisit and 

update the standard periodically in order to keep affordable bandwidth speeds in 

rural areas comparable to those in urban areas. 

This hearing today would not be as worthwhile if the witnesses did not offer potential solutions to help expand the availability of advanced services into underserved and unserved areas. CenturyTel believes that a limited, but clearly defined, 

separate broadband program for unserved high-cost areas would be a good first step. 

Funding for such a program might come from the restructure of some existing USF 

elements. For example, limiting support to only one wireless CETC per market 

should produce significant savings. In addition, we support the recent Federal-State 

Joint Board recommendation to place an interim cap on CETC support at 2006 levels. This recommendation is a logical and rational first step toward meaningful reform. 

I want to leave you with a broadband success story from Mountain Home, Arkansas. Miles and Michelle Riley moved from Mississippi to Arkansas in 1998 to start 

a small family business offering guided hunting, fishing and nature trips on the 

White and Buffalo Rivers to customers from around the Nation. CenturyTel installed high-speed Internet at the Riley’s remote location shortly before Memorial 

Day in 2005. Since that time, the Rileys have basically remained booked solid and 

can offer their customers the ability to book their guided outings via the Internet 

and check their e-mail and stay connected to their business via a wireless router. 

The Rileys maintain they could not maintain their business at the level they do 

without the broadband connection. This is just one example of the tremendous economic impact broadband can bring to rural America. 

In closing, CenturyTel believes that rural consumers are speaking loudly about 

what their telecom needs are. It is not about wireless or wireline voice service because they have that in most cases. It is about broadband, more broadband and faster broadband. In the years ahead, global economic competition will require increasingly sophisticated networks that deliver unprecedented levels of speed at much 

lower costs. 

We look forward to working with other stakeholders to strengthen the link between broadband availability and subscribership and continue meeting the evolving 

telecommunications needs of Arkansas citizens. 

Again, thank you Senator Pryor for giving us the opportunity to provide input on 

such an important public policy. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Ashcraft? 

STATEMENT OF GREG ASHCRAFT, CFO, 

SOUTH ARKANSAS TELEPHONE COMPANY 

Mr. ASHCRAFT. Senator and Commissioners, thank you for bringing the field hearing to Arkansas. I appreciate it. And thank you 

for the opportunity to speak before the Committee. My name is 

Greg Ashcraft. I am CFO for South Arkansas Telephone Company. 

South Arkansas Telephone Company is a rural incumbent local exchange carrier in south Arkansas with 3,900 customers. I’m here 

today representing South Arkansas Telephone Company and 14 

69 

other rural independent telephone companies. These companies understand the importance of broadband to the medical, educational, 

social, and economical needs of Arkansans and Americans. These 

companies have been working very hard on the deployment of 

broadband in their service areas. The following percentages are a 

year old, but it is evidence of their hard work. 

Broadband is available in a hundred percent of the exchanges of 

these rural ILECs. Broadband is available to 82 percent of the customers of the rural ILECs. And 11 percent of the customers had 

subscribed to broadband as of a year ago. This level of deployment 

of broadband has been accomplished due to the dependability, reliability of the revenue stream from the Universal Service Funds 

and NECA pools. We feel it’s important to protect these pools to ensure the availability of broadband to the rural systems in the future. This deployment has also been to some of the most remote 

and most rural areas of the state of Arkansas. 

For instance, South Arkansas Telephone Company has two subscribers per route mile of cable, and the other 14 companies have 

similar statistics. These companies are working hard in deploying 

broadband to the remaining 18 percent of the customers. The problem is this last deployment will be the most difficult to accomplish 

and the most expensive. These companies are dedicated to making 

broadband available to 100 percent of their customers. 

So in closing, the rural telephone companies of Arkansas feel 

we’ve made great steps in the deployment of broadband, but there 

is still work to do. And the last deployment will be the most expensive, most difficult. This is one of the main reasons why we are just 

as committed to help stabilize the USF, to continue to support 

broadband through the USF, and to help protect the long-term viability of the USF. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashcraft follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GREG ASHCRAFT, CFO, 

SOUTH ARKANSAS TELEPHONE COMPANY

Hello, my name is Greg Ashcraft and I am the CFO for South Arkansas Telephone Company and a member of the Arkansas Broadband Advisory Council. South 

Arkansas Telephone Company is a small incumbent local exchange carrier (ILEC) 

in south Arkansas with 3,900 customers. I am here today representing South Arkansas Telephone Company and 14 other small independents that are not represented on this panel. I work closely with these 14 companies on policy development. 

The small rural Arkansas telephone companies understand the importance of 

Broadband to the medical, educational, social and economic needs for rural Arkansans and Americans. 

The small telephone companies in Arkansas have worked very hard in recent 

years to deploy broadband to their customers. Evidence of our work is included in 

this data that is over a year old: 

• Broadband service is available in 100 percent of the exchanges of these companies. 

• Broadband had been made available to 82 percent of the total customers of the 

rural ILECs. 

• Approximately 11 percent of the customers of the rural ILECs had subscribed 

to broadband. 

The cost of service is reasonable and the companies are working hard to finish 

providing broadband to the remaining 18 percent that they had not reached a year 

ago and to encourage more households to subscribe to broadband service. 

The benefit of ILEC broadband service includes: 

70 

• the historical reliability of service. 

• the community based owners and the adherence of these companies of public 

service commission customer service rules that protect customers and allow a 

supervised complaint process in event of dispute. 

The broadband available through these small companies is backed-up by power 

generators and by engineered lines that are programmed to allow alternate facilities 

to be used to maintain service, in the event of any disaster or attack. 

The broadband deployment in these rural companies should be understood as 

service to some of the most rural areas of Arkansas. For instance South Arkansas 

Telephone Company has 2 customers per route mile of cable and many of the other 

14 companies have similar statistics. The 82 percent availability of broadband is not 

because of population density, but in spite of population density. This wire-line service has been provided to these rural customers with the reasonable reliability of revenue streams, such as the Federal Universal Service and NECA pools. These services will continue to be provided on a fair, reasonable, affordable and community 

basis in the coming years. One of the problems is that making broadband available 

to the remaining 18 percent of these companies customer base will be the most expensive deployment; however the rural ILECs are dedicated to providing 100 percent deployment. 

The rural companies are leaders in deploying broadband to rural areas due to the 

reliability and dependability of Federal Universal Service and NECA pools in the 

past. It is important that these pools be protected to ensure continued availability 

of broadband to the rural citizens in the future. 

We would urge this Committee to join the efforts of the rural telephone companies 

in Arkansas, and the efforts of the Joint Board and the FCC, to stabilize the USF, 

continue to support broadband in the USF and protect the long-term viability of the 

USF. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Pitcock? 

STATEMENT OF LEN PITCOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ARKANSAS CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. PITCOCK. Thank you, Senator. And welcome again on behalf 

of all of us. I’m Len Pitcock, the Executive Director of the Arkansas 

Cable Telecommunications Association. We’re headquartered here 

in Little Rock, and we represent about a dozen of the state’s 

broadband and cable providers. Our membership ranges from some 

of the countries largest multi-system operators serving our state to 

some of the smaller family-owned companies with a few hundred 

subscribers. We also have two municipally-owned cable operators 

in our membership. Broadband deployment in Arkansas has played 

a pivotal role in the growth of our industry over the past ten years. 

Our membership has connected Arkansans to the rest of the world 

through private investments we’ve made in our businesses. From 

the fastest growing metropolitan areas of our state in the northwest to central Arkansas to the smallest communities in the Delta, 

many Arkansans are taking full advantage of the technology available to them today. 

Haynes, Arkansas, is a prime example of the Arkansas cable industries commitment to rural broadband deployment. This small 

Delta farming community of 187 residents is miles from the nearest population base. Yet cable’s investment in the area has resulted 

in 18 high-speed Internet customers. That’s ten percent of the community, and I think that’s up for debate whether or not ten percent 

of the community is a good thing or a bad thing. The broadband 

investment in Haynes like almost all across the state was made 

with no government assistance whatsoever. 

As I am sure many of you have heard before, the cable industry, 

it takes great pride to think that we have collectively invested over 

71 

$100 billion in private capital deploying broadband across this 

country in recent years. Here in Arkansas, we’ve easily spent a half 

billion dollars in that same time period. These expenditures result 

in jobs, tax revenues, and many other economic factors contributing 

to our state’s financial well-being. 

This is not to say we’re done, however. One Arkansas community 

without access to broadband is one too many. The cable industry 

is not and never has been opposed to government incentives for the 

deployment of broadband. In many cases, we recognize policy measures are the only avenue available to further deploy broadband to 

portions of the state that might not realize it any other way. Our 

position has been and remains today that government assistance 

should be closely monitored and should only be available to areas 

where no service exists. Government-subsidized competition occurs 

when incentives are available to providers to deploy broadband in 

areas that already have it. This is our fear—the availability of tax 

breaks, low interest loans, and other economic benefits provided by 

the government for others to enter the market where we’ve already 

made private investment, we and others have made private investment. 

Broadband deployment in Arkansas is important. We—the cable 

industry—recognize that we are one of the leading providers of 

broadband in the state and we take our role very seriously. We 

were there on the front end, and we will continue to assist Arkansans in our collective, and when I say collective, all of us in this 

room are collective efforts to be a member of the global community. 

This concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pitcock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEN PITCOCK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS CABLE TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION

I’m Len Pitcock, Executive Director of the Arkansas Cable Telecommunications 

Association. We are an industry organization comprised of a dozen cable and 

broadband operators here in the state. Our membership ranges from several of the 

country’s largest multi-system operators, to smaller family-owned companies with a 

few hundred customers. The Association also has two municipally-owned cable systems included in its membership. 

Broadband deployment in Arkansas has played a pivotal role in the growth of our 

industry over the past 10 years. Our membership has connected Arkansans with the 

rest of the world through the private investments we’ve made in our businesses. 

From the fastest growing metropolitan areas of our state in Northwest and Central 

Arkansas, to the smallest communities in the Delta, many Arkansans are taking 

full advantage of the technology available to them today. 

Haynes, Arkansas is a prime example of the Arkansas cable industry’s commitment to rural broadband deployment. This small Delta farming community of 187 

residents is miles from the nearest population base. Yet cable’s investment in the 

area has resulted in 18 high-speed Internet customers. That’s 10 percent of the entire community. 

The broadband investment in Haynes, Arkansas, like almost all across the state 

was made with no government assistance whatsoever. As I’m sure many of you have 

heard before, the cable industry takes great pride in the fact that we have collectively invested over 100 billion dollars in private capital deploying broadband across 

the country in recent years. Arkansas companies have easily spent over a half billion dollars. These expenditures result in jobs, tax revenues and many other economic factors contributing to our state’s financial well being. 

This is not to say we are done however. One Arkansas community without access 

to broadband services is one too many. 

The cable industry is not, and never has been, opposed to government incentives 

for the deployment of broadband. In many cases, we recognize policy measures may 

be the only avenue available to further deploy broadband to portions of the state 

72 

that might not realize it any other way. Our position has been, and remains today, 

that government assistance should be closely monitored and available only to areas 

without service. Government subsidized competition occurs when incentives are 

available to providers to deploy broadband in areas that already have it. This is our 

fear—the availability of tax breaks, low interest loans, or other economic benefits 

provided by the government for others to enter the market and compete with those 

who’ve already invested there. 

Broadband deployment in Arkansas is important. The cable industry of the state 

takes its role as one of the leading providers very seriously. We were there on the 

front end and will continue to assist Arkansans in our collective effort to be a member of the global community. This concludes my testimony. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Massaglia? 

STATEMENT OF GARY MASSAGLIA, VICE PRESIDENT AND 

GENERAL MANAGER, COMCAST CORPORATION—ARKANSAS 

Mr. MASSAGLIA. Thank you, Senator and Commissioners. My 

name is Gary Massaglia. I’m the Vice President of Operations for 

Comcast Corporation here in Arkansas. We serve basically two geographic areas in the state: around the Little Rock area here and 

in the West Memphis area up into more of the northeast section 

of the state. We have over the past years invested about $60 million as Mr. Pitcock mentioned of privately-raised capital into building our broadband network, so that we can provide all of the products and services that our customers are looking for in those two 

geographic areas. 

As we prepared that network, we have spent that money so that 

we could bring not only all of our video products but also 

broadband Internet and now telephony. We’re doing this because 

there is a customer demand in the communities and neighborhoods 

that we serve. And because of this investment, all of our customers 

have access to the myriad of products and services. Those include 

250 all digital video channels, multiple high definition channels, 

high-speed Internet, On Demand programming, and now with telephony products also available facilities-based. We offer speeds on 

our high-speed Internet up to 12 Mbps today. Those are constantly 

growing, so the investment never stops. We invested that $60 million as I mentioned, that continues to grow because you have to 

keep up with the demand for more bandwidth, not only from our 

residential customers, but also from the business community. 

What’s interesting to think about is just ten years ago, most Americans used dial-up, which we’ve heard mentioned by some of the 

students earlier. 

Most of us as Americans used dial-up Internet, and we paid expensive per minute charges, and quite frankly, I think we all 

thought it was pretty neat. Today, we think it’s very archaic, so it’s 

amazing how fast that technology is changing and moving forward. 

The same network as I’ve mentioned that we’ve built allows us to 

offer an alternative to local exchange telephone service, delivering 

facilities-based broadband choice for telephone. Comcast offers Arkansas customers a digital voice service with a broad array of features and capabilities at very competitive prices. We have invested 

significantly to bring facilities-based telephone competition to Arkansas, and we are pleased to state that our products and services, 

digital video, high-speed Internet, and telephone are available to 

73 

100 percent of the homes that we pass. That concludes my testimony, and I would be glad to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Massaglia follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY MASSAGLIA, VICE PRESIDENT

AND GENERAL MANAGER, COMCAST CORPORATION—ARKANSAS

Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is Gary Massaglia and I’m the Vice President 

and General Manager for Comcast’s cable operations in Arkansas. 

We serve approximately 90,000 customers in the Little Rock and West Memphis 

areas of the state. 

My comments today will focus primarily on our experience in offering Broadband 

to our central Arkansas customers. 

Comcast has invested approximately $60 million dollars in private capital without 

any government incentives to prepare our network to offer our customers the variety 

of products and services made capable by a complete Broadband network. This includes a $6 million dollar state-of-the-art technical center currently being built in 

Little Rock. We’ve done this because there is a customer demand in the communities and the neighborhoods we serve. 

And because of this investment, all of our customers have access to a myriad of 

products including: 

• Over 250 all digital video channels; multiple High Definition channels with 

plans to offer many more as quality HD channels become available; over 8,000 

different On Demand programs available for our customers to choose what they 

want to watch, when they want it and start and stop the programs at their convenience. 

• Also, as a result of our Broadband network, Comcast customers can experience 

the best the Internet has to offer. We offer speeds up to 12 Mbps and a very 

video rich and easy to navigate Comcast portal. 

» What’s interesting to think about is that just over 10 years ago, most Americans used dial-up access to the Internet and paid expensive per minute 

charges for service and received what today would be considered incredibly 

slow speed and very little content. 

• This same network allows Comcast to offer an alternative to local exchange 

phone service, delivering real facilities based choice to consumers. Comcast offers our Arkansas customers a digital voice service with a broad array of features and capabilities at very competitive prices. 

We have invested significantly to bring facilities-based telephone competition to 

Arkansas and we are very pleased to state that our products and services; digital 

video, high-speed Internet and our phone service are available to 100 percent of the 

homes we pass here in central Arkansas. Not one neighborhood is excluded. 

Thank you and I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. Mr. Gibson? 

STATEMENT OF DEAN GIBSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 

OPERATIONS, PINNACLE COMMUNICATIONS 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you once again, gentlemen, for coming today. 

We appreciate your time and your effort in making it to our state. 

I just want to give you a perspective this morning from a familyowned telephone business in Lavaca, Arkansas. In Lavaca, we are 

a wireline company that has been in business since 1960, and 

we’ve been providing quality, we think, telephone services to those 

customers since that time. 

We, today, service over 1,500 customers in rural western Arkansas. And I think two points I’d like to discuss today—one that has 

been covered quite a bit, the other one maybe that has not. I remember years ago my grandmother would work a switchboard in 

a home where she and my grandfather lived. And it was one of 

these things that I just grew up to know. But another thing I grew 

up to know was this term ‘‘carrier of last resort.’’ And I think someVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
74 

where in all of this, we’ve got to remember the fact that during the 

early days of telephone, as an incumbent local telephone company, 

we provided service to everyone in our area. No one was left out. 

Our company, four years ago, decided that with the aging of our 

copper plant and the demand of the services, advanced services 

from the people in our community that we were going to deploy a 

fiber-to-the-home network in our entire exchange. And after three 

long years and more than 165 miles of fiberoptic cable in the 

ground, today, at the end of this year, every customer, all 1,500 

plus, will have access to a fiberoptic network, which will allow 

them to have the state-of-the-art services that come, and 

broadband especially. No longer is dial-up acceptable to people, I 

don’t think, in Arkansas and anywhere else. You might ask the 

question on how can they afford do that. And I answer that question by those three letters we’ve heard over and over today, and 

that’s USF. 

The Universal Service Fund has provided, along with a NECA of 

pooling, have provided us the ability to move forward and make 

this commitment in this investment into Arkansas. And with that, 

we want to say as Pinnacle Communications, maybe other rural 

companies, that we applaud the Joint Board’s recommendation to 

put a cap upon the USF until it can be reworked and it can be updated to be something that services everyone who has the need. 

Like I said, we’ve been servicing customers in Lavaca since 1961. 

We depend upon a lot of things to make our business go. 

One of that is service to the customer. The other thing is the fact 

that we rely upon the USF, and we want to see a long-term stable 

USF. We honestly believe that’s a way to deploy broadband to the 

areas that are high-cost. And we, in closing, think that those customers in the high-cost areas deserve the same products and services that those in the low-cost, urban areas deserve. And that’s our 

mission. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gibson follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEAN GIBSON, VICE PRESIDENT, OPERATIONS, 

PINNACLE COMMUNICATIONS

My name is Dean Gibson and I am Vice President of Operations for Pinnacle 

Communications in Lavaca, Arkansas. Our company provides landline voice and 

Internet access to over 1,500 customers in rural western Arkansas. In the short 

time we have today, I would like to focus my comments on two points which I think 

are important to our discussion today. 

My first point is carrier of last resort. Pinnacle Communications is a carrier of last 

resort; by that I mean as an incumbent local exchange company (ILEC), Pinnacle 

Communications is required to provide service to all customers within its exchange 

boundary. We have applied that policy not only to the telephone services we provide 

but to our deployment of broadband services. I guess it has just become ‘a way of 

doing business’. If the person closest to the office can receive the service, why 

shouldn’t the customer fifteen (15) miles out be able to receive the service? That is 

where the old phrase ‘easier said than done’ comes into play. About 4 years ago, 

we realized that our aging outside plant needed to be upgraded or replaced if we 

were going to continue to provide quality, reliable services. Customers in our most 

rural areas were demanding faster Internet speeds. Dial-up Internet was no longer 

satisfactory to them. Taking that into consideration along with the fact that Congress, the Governor, and the Arkansas Legislature were all looking for ways to get 

broadband services to the rural customers, we decided to replace our copper cable 

system with a state-of-the-art fiber system. It has been a long, tough road but by 

the end of this year (2007), we will have completed a ‘Fiber-to-the-Home’ rebuild of 

our Lavaca, Arkansas exchange. That means that every customer in our service area 

75 

will be able to receive not only exceptional phone service but high-speed Internet 

access. You may ask, ‘‘How can they afford to do that’’? I am glad you ask because 

that leads me to my second point. 

Our decision to make the investment in rural Arkansas, as a carrier of last resort, 

was based entirely on future NECA settlements and USF support, commitments we 

rely upon for our company’s survival. The purpose of USF is to ensure that Americans in high cost rural areas have communications services comparable to those in 

low cost areas. It was never meant to subsidize competition between multiple carriers 

all providing the same service. Pinnacle Communications believes the recommendation by the Joint Board to put a cap on the dollars distributed to competitive eligible 

telecommunications carriers (CETCs) by the USF represents a necessary and responsible step as the FCC and Congress develop a long term solution to stabilize 

the fund. The Joint Board’s recommendation will help bring run-away, excessive 

funding for CETCs under control, which is indispensable to modernizing the USF. 

And by the way, wireline companies like mine have had a cap on the growth on USF 

payments for years so we are not advocating something that we do not already have 

to abide by. 

In closing, our company wants desperately to continue to provide our rural customers with the quality services they have been accustomed to since 1961, the year 

Pinnacle Communications first borrowed money from REA to provide telephone 

service to areas that, up to that time, had no service. We have undertaken considerable risks, investing in plant and equipment to provide broadband to customers no 

one else wants to serve because it doesn’t fit their business plan. Rural customers 

in Arkansas and across America need carriers of last resort to insure that everyone 

has access to affordable broadband services. Those carriers can only survive if we 

protect the long-term viability of the Universal Service Fund. 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. First, I just want to commend you for 

building a fiber network out in rural Arkansas. I think that’s fantastic, and I’m glad to hear that USF helped with that. Of course, 

it doesn’t directly support broadband but we have a ‘‘no barriers’’ 

policy that allows you to invest in network that can carry 

broadband. I’m wondering, would it be helpful to you if Universal 

Service explicitly made broadband a supported service? 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, I don’t know. In our case, we could see an 

aging telephone network, and we still believed—because there are 

places in our service area, believe it or not, that are not serviced 

by a wireless telephone. And so not only were we allowed to use 

or able to upgrade broadband into these rural areas, but also the 

telephony, or the telephone usage, was also upgraded and provided 

to those areas. So I honestly believe that the USF can be a mechanism of which we can use to help deploy that into those areas. 

Senator PRYOR. Ms. Zega? 

STATEMENT OF KELLY HALE ZEGA, STATE MANAGER, 

PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COX COMMUNICATIONS, ARKANSAS 

Ms. ZEGA. Well, I guess I get to wrap this up. One final welcome 

to Arkansas. We’re just so pleased to be able to be part of this dialogue. And so I would like to share a few comments with you. I’m 

here today representing Cox Communications. And from Green 

Forest to Fort Smith, Cox Arkansas provides 99 percent of the communities we serve with state-of-the-art broadband fiber technology. 

Our customers experience a digital world that we believe is second 

to none in 64 rural and urban towns. And we invest over $25 million of private-risk capital every year in Arkansas, expanding our 

bandwidth capacity, and our communications infrastructure, rendering the fastest Internet speeds available to residential and business customers. The philosophy of our 400 Cox Communications 

Arkansas employees is really to make a difference in the towns 

76 

that we serve. Annually, we provide more than 360 free cable connections to K through 12 schools, educational access channels valued at more than $3.6 million, and we donate over $1 million in 

air time every year to nonprofit organizations through PSAs. We 

don’t just limit our consideration to deploying the best in 

broadband, though. We also are concerned with the appropriate use 

of that asset. One of the most significant things we do for our communities, truly relates to the grass roots implementation of our national program called Take Charge!, which is an initiative designed 

to increase customers’ awareness and use of the parental controls 

and content-filtering tools now available for the cable, Internet, and 

telephone services found in the digital home. This program puts 

content management into the hands of the individual consumer, allowing them to set the guidelines that they deem appropriate for 

their own homes. 

Our seriousness about helping families navigate the top technology that we provide extends beyond our Take Charge! website, 

the PSAs that we run, the Internet safety workshops, and partnership that we have with The National Center of Missing and Exploited Children. Cox has also begun forging local, meaningful partnerships with regional law enforcement agencies in support of 

Internet Crimes Against Children investigative units through two 

technology grants recently through Cox Communications to support 

specialized equipment and training. The Fayetteville Police Department has identified, apprehended, and seen multiple Internet child 

predators successfully sentenced. Each time the news of arrests of 

this kind becomes public, we know the financial investment that 

we make to support the ICAC program means that dozens or more 

young people will be safer from exploitation. 

Our employees are proud to know that not only is Cox Communications bringing the world into our customers’ homes through our 

products, but we’re also giving critical support to the people who 

help make that world a little bit safer. Thank you so much for the 

opportunity to make these comments, and I would be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Zega follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELLY HALE ZEGA, STATE MANAGER, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, COX COMMUNICATIONS, ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, Senator Pryor, Commissioners Copps and Adelstein, I appear before you today on behalf of Cox Communications. We welcome this dialogue on the 

The State of Broadband in Arkansas. 

From Green Forest to Fort Smith, Cox Arkansas provides 99 percent of the communities we serve with state-of-the-art broadband fiber technology. In short, our 

customers experience a digital world that is second to none in 64 rural and urban 

towns. We invest more than 25 million dollars of private risk capital each year in 

Arkansas expanding our bandwidth capacity and communications infrastructure, 

rendering the fastest Internet speeds available to residential and business customers. 

The philosophy of our 400 Cox Communications Arkansas employees is to make 

a difference in the towns we serve and in which we live. We provide more than 360 

free cable connections to K–12 schools, educational access channels valued at more 

than $3.6 million every year, and annually donate over $1 million in airtime to nonprofit organizations through the broadcast and production of public service announcements. 

One of the most significant things we do for our communities relates to the grass 

roots implementation of our national program Take Charge!, an initiative designed 

to increase customers’ awareness and use of the parental controls and content filVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
77 

tering tools now available for the cable television, Internet and telephone services 

found in a digital home. This program puts the content management of television 

and Internet into the hands of the individual customer, allowing them to set the 

guidelines they deem appropriate for their own homes. 

Our seriousness about helping families safely navigate the technology we provide 

extends beyond our information-packed Take Charge! website, public service announcements, Internet safety workshops and partnership with the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children. Cox has also begun forging meaningful partnerships with regional law enforcement agencies in support of Internet Crimes Against 

Children investigative units. Through two initial technology grants from Cox to support specialized equipment and training, the Fayetteville Police Department has 

identified, apprehended and seen multiple Internet child predators successfully sentenced. Each time the news of an arrest of this kind becomes public, we know the 

financial investment to support the ICAC program means dozens or more young 

people will be safer from exploitation. Our employees are proud to know that not 

only is Cox Communications bringing the world into our customers’ homes through 

our products—we’re also giving critical support to the people who make that world 

a little safer. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present these brief comments and I would be 

pleased to answer questions you may have. 

Senator PRYOR. Thank you. This wraps up our statements, and 

I appreciate all the witnesses for trying their best to stay within 

the time limits and time constraints that we have. I have a few 

questions, and I think the Commissioners may have a few questions as well. Let me, if I may, start with you, Mr. Gibson. You 

mentioned this idea of carrier of last resort. I guess I have a couple 

of questions there about the idea of carrier of last resort for 

broadband. That idea includes this concept that no matter what 

happens at the end of the day, your company has to provide telephone service for people who live in that area. 

Mr. GIBSON. Correct. 

Senator PRYOR. Do you think that we should adopt a Federal policy that there should be a carrier of last resort status for 

broadband? Are you willing to go that far? And also you talked 

about the USF, and basically—essentially you said that you could 

not have done your investment in the fiber network without USF 

dollars. Sounds like you just didn’t have the revenue locally, to do 

it because you had to draw from USF to do that, and how important that is, so if you could comment on both of those. 

Mr. GIBSON. You know, as we’ve talked today, a lot of people 

have said that we’re moving from the dial-tone age to the 

broadband age. And if that is in fact the case, in 1960 when I was 

only providing telephone service—as a child, my parents were providing at that time service, I guess, to the area, we felt the need 

for a carrier of last resort so that everyone not only had electrical 

service, but that everyone in my service area had telephone service. 

If we’re going to move from the dial-tone age to the broadband age, 

I can see there would be a tie there between those two. And maybe 

there is a need for there to be someone to provide service to those 

that are the farthest out that are the highest cost that some of 

these other wireline people have talked about today that are in the 

rural mountains and the other areas. So I’m not sure that’s not a 

good idea. 

The second part, the USF question that you had is the fact that 

we couldn’t have done it. And we can’t sustain it without the USF. 

If we want these type of services in the rural areas, then there will 

have to be some help, because those people would pay hundreds 

78 

and hundreds of dollars a month to provide the facilities in those 

areas that we’re trying to deploy. And so I think everyone in the 

room would agree that without some sort of help, whether it’s tax 

incentives or USF money or whatever, that it just won’t get done. 

It just won’t, because I can tell you their business plans just won’t 

work it out. There’s not a business plan today without an extreme 

cost to those customers. And that would work. 

Senator PRYOR. It’s like Mr. Ashcraft said, the last group is the 

most expensive one. It’s easy to come up with a business plan to 

provide the service in an urban or densely-populated area. But the 

further you go out, the harder it is to make it work. 

Mr. GIBSON. And you know the case about that is, Senator, is the 

fact that we’ve spent our money up front. We spent our money. We 

made the commitment to the people in our communities, and we 

spent it. And now we rely upon the reliability of that fund to sustain us. And it is, someone mentioned earlier, that it’s not only putting it into the ground, it’s not only getting it to the house, it’s 

maintaining and keeping that updated to make it effective. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Waits, let me ask you if I may. You gave 

some statistics about access that people in your geographical area 

have access, and they were very strong statistics, but one question 

I have is the actual adoption by your customers of those services 

that you offer. And I’m not trying to get into your company’s private information or whatever that may be if it’s aware that they 

did this for proprietary, but I am curious about access versus adoption rate generally, and your thoughts on why some people do not 

access those services. Is it an affordability issue? Is it just a lack 

of interest issue? If you could talk about that. 

Mr. WAITS. My short answer is yes, but would have to say that 

in really rural mountainous areas—like low income areas like 

Boone County and Newton County, as I mentioned before, out of 

the 6,500 access lines that we have and we can make available 

broadband to 90 percent of them. Our take rate there is probably 

on the order of 15 percent. Now—— 

Senator PRYOR. So 15. 

Mr. WAITS. Fifteen percent. Now anecdotally we think that’s because of low computer ownership, computer literacy. That number 

has grown, by the way, considerably in just the last 12 months— 

12 to 18 months, there has been a big spike in DSL demand in 

those rural areas. Part of it is because there is a different demographic moving into these areas. They’re actually growing in the 

sense that there are people moving from California and other 

places that want to get a different quality of life in these beautiful 

mountainous areas around Jasper and the Buffalo River. In east 

Arkansas, anecdotally speaking, we have 98 percent availability in 

some of the poor Delta towns, and once again, 10 to 15 percent 

take rate there. In our cable TV areas, we have 100 percent availability on those we pass and a take rate’s probably closer to 40 percent in those areas I can only guess at why I think, there, too, it 

is dependent upon those areas that have a different socio-economic 

makeup, lower incomes, lower level of education, typically translated into lower penetration levels for broadband access. But also 

a very, very high penetration levels for digital TV ironically, being 

a very cheap form of entertainment. 

79 

What we believe though is that there is going to be dramatic 

change as the delivery of video services evolves over the public 

Internet. And that entertainment and access to broadband are 

going to be more and more synonymous. So whatever it is today, 

we believe it is going to change dramatically or has at least that 

potential. I’m sure cost is a factor, but I suspect that the demographics, age of the people in these areas and little education in 

these areas are a part of the factor. 

Mr. GARDNER. Senator Pryor, if I could, just to add to that. I can 

give you some color about our penetration into Arkansas. We cover 

about 73 percent of our customers in Arkansas. It’s a little bit 

below our national average. It’s a less dense state, about 11 access 

lines per square mile in our property, 28 percent of all of our lines. 

So those penetration rates are pretty good, but our experience is 

it definitely gets to be an affordability issue. As you look at the Nation and the fact that about 50 to 55 percent of our consumers have 

broadband today, the fact is when you get into this second group, 

the second 45 percent, you’re looking at people who have lower income levels, more challenge from a credit perspective. We’ve tried 

repeatedly to make some adjustments to make that more accessible 

to this group of customers that we need to reach. And I think that’s 

going to be a big issue, and we talk about that a great deal in our 

testimony, on the affordability issue. 

Dr. LOWERY. I want to make a pitch for the fact that we’re thinking traditionally about this, and the healthcare stuff hasn’t even 

begun to hit this yet. And as it does, then it changes the demographics dramatically, because now, you’re in a situation to where 

it’s not as much about entertainment, it’s not as much about computer stuff which old people will probably never do. But they do 

need health care and they need to have nursing visits in their 

home, they need to have their medicine adjusted in their home, and 

these sort of things are right on the doorstep. We’re on the doorstep 

of this stuff, and then the demographics and the economics of the 

whole things change by this, I think. 

Senator PRYOR. Mr. Ford, let me ask you. You mentioned something. You told us to think about three different things, and one 

of them was mobility in broadband. Could you elaborate on that a 

little bit? I know we are very limited on time, but could you elaborate on that a little bit, what you mean by mobility in broadband 

and the way you see the industry moving, technology moving? 

Mr. FORD. Yes, sir. I’ll be very brief. I think if you look at the 

questions that we’re dealing with today, which is not only accessibility in terms of how do you get facilities in place to reach the consumer, but also provide a bandwidth speed that is appropriate for 

at least certainly most of the applications that are envisioned for 

usage today. You’re going to see that the cheapest way to deploy 

broadband is actually through mobility. 

Now, the USF is going to have to get resettled. No one’s arguing 

that. When you start to look at what’s it really going to cost to provide the next generation of services to rural America, over the next 

five to ten years, you’re going to see that the wireless business is 

going to be able to provide several hundred ‘‘K’’ data speeds. 

They’re never just physically going to be able to give a hundred 

80 

megabytes, so you have to be careful about getting kind of caught 

up in a definition like that. 

But we will be able to provide several hundred ‘‘K’’ of data 

speeds to the most rural areas in the state. And what we’re trying 

to fight through right now is what is the right way to take care 

of commitments to last provider status. And also so that everybody 

can know that the investments that they’ve made in the wireline 

business, and this group has all run great wireline businesses 

across the state. We are blessed. This is kind of the Mecca of rural 

ILEC companies in the country, and the best-run one in the country is the one Mr. Gardner runs. But the smaller carriers in Arkansas have long histories of a hundred years plus of being able to provide great service here. I think as you look forward, there is a place 

for protection of their money in USF for the investments that 

they’ve made. And I think there is also a place particularly because 

wireless customers now provide almost a third of the Fund. 

Well, they don’t provide it through wireless service because they 

don’t use wireless service, they provide it as a customer of wireless. 

So customers are moving to wireless. And I think they’re going to 

expect that subsidy to flow back into the products that they were 

originally funding the USF from in the first place. And how we 

wrestle through that is frankly going to take someone with your 

kind of demeanor that doesn’t get emotionally caught up in it and 

doesn’t make it partisan to kind of wade through the ‘‘puts’’ and 

‘‘takes’’ of how you come up with legislation around that and regulations in the FCC, they propagate, to make sure that nobody gets 

blown up and that the customers actually get the benefit of what 

we’re all talking about. 

Senator PRYOR. Did you have a question? 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. It’s a follow up to your question. I 

think that this is just the kind of dialogue that’s needed to bring 

this group together to talk about an issue of such urgency for the 

future of the state or all of rural America really. Given this group, 

among the questions you’ve talked about affordability, we have a 

certain two themes going through today: There’s availability and 

how to get it to everybody. And if you do get it out to them, affordability—how do we make sure they can afford it. And what strikes 

me as a major concern is that if it is more expensive in rural areas, 

that is a major hurdle where you already have greater poverty 

issues in the rural part of the state. If the price of broadband is 

more expensive there, then that’s sort of a double hurdle, and I’m 

concerned about that. Dominik and I last night talked a little bit 

about what’s going on in the Delta and some of the problems that 

you’re having even building out let alone getting people to be able 

to afford broadband. I’m just curious. Are the prices higher in rural 

Arkansas than in the urban parts where there is more competition 

and it’s cheaper to serve and what can we do about that? 

Mr. MJARTAN. I can comment a little bit on the pricing. We’ve 

looked at some prices, for example, in Helena/West Helena the 

rural area in Phillips County and the prices are about the same as 

in the more urban areas for the larger providers. But the challenges that we’re seeing is with some of the satellites and that’s 

maybe what Mr. Ford was talking about in some of the more moVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:23 Sep 17, 2012 Jkt 075679 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75776.TXT JACKIE
81 

bile broadband access Internet via satellite, it’s really cost-prohibitive. 

So there are some options like that that would be available to a 

community like Lakeview, Arkansas, but it is cost prohibitive. And 

we have a lot of experience with low income programs and various 

asset-building programs. So we have, an idea of what an average 

family in the Delta can afford to spend a month and when we were 

looking at the options, we realized very few of them would be able 

to afford a $40 a month subscription fee or even $20 a month, 

might be cost-prohibitive. Commissioner Adelstein, any other 

thoughts on pricing and what we can do to make sure prices 

are—— 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. I’m sorry. But if I could say, we’re only talking 

about two dimensions of a problem that’s got at least three dimensions to it. We could put broadband into the home and organization—of every home and organization in the state, and we would 

not get the blessings that we want for our state from that. We need 

to prepare this state to make the most of broadband. We’re in a 

global economic competition with the rest of the world. I have a 

brother-in-law in his late seventies—there is no age limit, by the 

way, on the blessings of broadband—in his late seventies. Five 

years ago I don’t think he had ever touched a computer. Now, he’s 

an avid eBay user. 

And it’s because he had somebody in the family that understood 

that he could get something at a better price. We need to not only 

show the people of Arkansas. And broadband is not like a road or 

it is a little more like electricity. If you want to run electricity to 

my house and I’d never heard of it before, I don’t really care, especially if it’s going to cost me money. But if I can understand that 

it will make the lights stay on after dark, then I can become interested in that. If grandparents can understand that they can communicate with kids in college, if businesses can understand that 

they can market outside of Arkansas, outside of the United 

States—if we can prepare people, then we’ll get the blessings that 

we need for the state. 

And if we look to—we have a lot of intellect, a lot of understanding of this technology in our state in the form of EAST labs 

and high school students that grandparents will come to listen to 

talk about this kind of thing, but preparation is the big part. If we 

can make people understand the value of it, there will be a lot 

more broadband around right now. Preparation is the key, and 

that’s got to be followed by deployment, and affordability is also essential. 

Mr. GARDNER. If I could on that affordability issue, across our 

footprint, which I said earlier was 16 states, there are not huge differences, Commissioner, in prices from a more urban area to a 

more rural area, maybe $19.99 on the low end in our markets to 

$29.99, $34.99 on the high end. So I think it gets much more to 

this affordability issue as you’ll see big differences in average income across those markets. 

Senator PRYOR. Did you have something you wanted to add? 

Mr. WAITS. I did. The vehicle we used for many, many years to 

keep rates and services comparable between urban and rural areas 

as mandated in the Telecom Reform Act of 1996, was some form 

82 

of cost averaging, and we’re averaging across urban and rural 

areas. I think we all have seen the USF or other forms implicitly 

do that. So if you want to maintain that comparability in services 

and rates then some form of averaging continues to be required. 

This idea of a obligation of last resort that we had that we inherited also came with it an exclusive right to serve. And so there may 

be an option there to reinstate some exclusivity in terms of support 

and response for some obligations to serve. And that might be a 

way to more predictably and more reliably enact some form of rate 

averaging. 

Commissioner ADELSTEIN. As long as there is an influential 

member of Congress here, I think it goes outside the FCC but I 

learned recently, talked about, if you get broadband to everybody 

and they’re not ready for it, it’s not going to make a difference. I 

learned recently that somewhere in South Korea they provide a 

computer to anybody for—if they’re low income, they go to their 

local library, and for a dollar or two a month, they can rent a computer. And how much of an issue is it in the lower income areas, 

people that don’t have computers at all, and should the government 

do more to get computers in the hands of people so they can take 

advantage of the broadband that is available. 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. It’s a big issue, again, that the person, the student who has broadband in the home has got several hours a day 

to use that. The student who has to go somewhere else has got an 

hour or two if they can get to one of the computers. But there is 

a difference between computer education and broadband education. 

Computer education is—you have to have it. But broadband education is what you really have to have to see this state and this 

Nation spring forth the way it needs to. 

Senator PRYOR. Did you have a question? 

Commissioner COPPS. Well, this is something you just mentioned 

that is really going to be a priority of the Connect Arkansas, that 

is the broadband education. 

Mr. WINNINGHAM. Yes, sir. What we need is we need broadband, 

not just at the end of the street, we need it at the other end of the 

cotton field if somebody lives there. But we need to help that person understand how to use it. If they don’t do that then the demand won’t be there. These folks won’t be able to provide someone 

to maintain it. The story just gets worse and worse. But if you prepare people ahead of time, once you’ve used broadband, it’s hard 

to get loose from it. 

Commissioner COPPS. I don’t want to open up any other subjects, 

but I just would like to make a general comment. A number of people have mentioned comprehensive reform of the Universal Service 

system, and I think we get in the mind-set where we think, well, 

this is taking so long, it’s never going to happen. But I’m a member 

of the Universal Service Joint Board, and I think these issues are 

being teed up. I think there is tremendous support on the Joint 

Board for including broadband in the Universal Service system. I 

think there is a wide-spread support to look at a rational cost and 

reimbursement system and doing something in the identical support rule that is there. Chairman Martin has expressed an interest 

in reverse auctions. I’m not going to ask about that, because that 

would take us a long time. But all I want to say is I think that 

83 

these things have a possibility of being teed up sooner, actually, 

rather than later. And I would just like to solicit your ongoing 

input and your ongoing comment to our offices at the FCC on all 

of these issues as they become teed up in the months ahead. 

Senator PRYOR. Well, listen, both of our Commissioners have to 

catch planes this afternoon, so I know that a few of you want to 

have just a few moments to mix and mingle with them. And I want 

to thank them for coming to Arkansas. It’s taken two days out of 

their schedules, very, very busy schedules, as Scott Ford mentioned 

a few moments ago. But thank you all for being here. We really enjoyed having you here in the state, enjoyed hosting you, and I hope 

you will always consider this your second home, and always know 

that you’re welcome back and we want to help in any way we can. 

The other thing on housekeeping I just want to say is that for 

all of you all who have prepared written testimony that will be 

made part of the record. We will leave the record open for seven 

days in case someone wants to add something. I noticed some 

maps, etc. We can include those in the record. If you want to do 

that, we’ll leave that open for seven days. And also if anyone wants 

to add some written comments on some of the discussion you’ve 

heard today, it will be open for seven days, so if you want to go 

back and work on some of that. 

I would say that some of the take-aways that I have is that from our statements 

today is that our students and our state know that expansion of broadband in Arkansas is essential, that we need to think big, that we have tremendous opportunities for broadband in this state, in this country, whether it’s health-related matters, 

whether it’s information, education, just general quality of life, economic opportunities. 

We have tremendous opportunities here in this state and in this 

country, in rural America, to utilize broadband in a very, very positive and productive way. We need to look at changes in the USF, 

and look at funding mechanisms to make sure we can get 

broadband out there, if there is access. And as we’ve said, it’s more 

complicated than just an access question. 

The other thing is—I think that Commissioner Copps said in the 

very beginning—is we need a national strategy. We can’t really do 

this just in a vacuum or just think, hey, this idea might be good. 

Let’s try that idea—might be good. We really need to sit down, all 

of us, the people in this room, members of Congress, the FCC, the 

President—all need to sit down and work through a national strategy. We’ve talked about those statistics, how the U.S. is losing its 

position globally. That’s not acceptable. And we have to acknowledge that’s not acceptable and do something about it. You all, I appreciate your comments. I appreciate your preparation, your time, 

for being here. This has been a very informative and productive 

hearing. And, again, I want to thank everyone for participating. So, 

in lieu of the gavel, I once again gavel the closing with my Blackberry. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(85) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HENRY G. HULTQUIST, VICE PRESIDENT, 

FEDERAL REGULATORY, AT&T 

Policymakers have before them an opportunity to bring one of the 20th century’s 

most important telecom policy initiatives—universal service—into the 21st century. 

During the last century, Federal and state universal service programs and policies 

largely succeeded in making narrowband voice telecommunication services available 

in rural areas across the country. Federal and State policymakers now face a new 

challenge: to maintain the commitment to affordable basic service in an increasingly 

competitive and technologically sophisticated marketplace while also encouraging investment in the broadband and wireless networks necessary to provide the services 

that consumers and businesses require today. 

As recent Congressional hearings made clear, there is growing consensus that the 

existing Federal universal service fund (USF) high-cost support mechanisms are 

deeply flawed. There is almost an equally strong consensus that further extending 

broadband and wireless deployment into rural areas is a critical national policy 

goal. However, simply adding broadband and wireless to the USF mix without fundamental reform of the high-cost support regime will only increase the strain on this 

already broken system and doom to failure efforts to promote additional broadband 

and wireless infrastructure investment in rural areas. 

Rather than adapting the current high-cost mechanisms to achieve its broadband 

and wireless deployment objectives, AT&T has urged the FCC to address broadband 

and wireless deployment needs directly and outside of the current mechanisms. 

AT&T has recently proposed broadband and wireless pilot programs designed specifically to promote network investment in rural areas quickly while also, and critically, enhancing our understanding of whether and/or how best to use USF to support this objective over the longer term. The proposed pilots are modeled after the 

FCC’s rural healthcare pilot program and would utilize the expertise of both Federal 

and State regulators to create a streamlined and focused initiative that could be 

operational within a year. While both pilots are important to the future of USF, this 

testimony will focus on the broadband pilot. 

The AT&T Rural Broadband Pilot 

AT&T has proposed that the FCC establish a two-year Rural Broadband Pilot 

Program to support deployment of broadband infrastructure in underserved rural 

areas. Under the Pilot, applications would be submitted to the FCC and State Commissions and funding would be distributed to approved applicants to support new 

capital investment in infrastructure necessary to provide consumers in such areas 

access to advanced telecommunications and information services. Participation in 

the Pilot Program by providers would be purely voluntary, with providers free to 

choose whether to apply for funding based on their own evaluations of the final program requirements. The key features of the AT&T Broadband Pilot fall into the 

three steps outlined below. 

Step 1 

The FCC would determine in advance the fundamental parameters of the Pilot 

such as the available funding, geographic scope, supported service, definition of underserved, and other eligibility criteria. 

a. Funding: The FCC would specify the Pilot funding level, such as $1 billion 

per year for 2 years and the source of funding. (AT&T, which is one of the largest contributors to the Federal USF, recognizes that the size of the fund may 

need to increase to meet all the goals policymakers have outlined.) Providers 

whose applications are chosen for support will receive a one-time grant of funds 

to cover their proposed project. 

b. Providers: The Pilot would be open to all service providers that are capable 

of providing the supported service. Providers would not be required to be ETCs 

86 

to apply for Pilot funding but would be required to meet certain Pilot requirements and thus to become a Broadband Eligible Provider or BEP. 

c. Geographic Area: The general area eligible for Pilot funding should be identified by the FCC and should be based on rural Census Block Groups. The FCC 

should define ‘‘rural’’ as that term is used in the 2000 Census. 

d. Underserved: The FCC should issue a standard definition of ‘‘underserved’’ 

for use by states in evaluating applications. Underserved should be defined as 

areas where the supported service is not substantially available to households 

within the rural service area for which the applicant seeks funding. The FCC 

would also establish a specific criterion or other measures for determining ‘‘substantially available,’’ such as, for example, that 85 percent of the households in 

the service area do not have access to the supported service. 

e. Supported Service: The FCC should define in advance that the supported 

service is broadband Internet access service that meets the definition of ‘‘Advanced Telecommunications Capability’’ as set forth in Section 706 of the 1996 

Act. The FCC should also define other parameters such as minimum downstream and upstream transmission capability, as well as any other applicable 

service parameters. 

f. Eligibility Requirements: The FCC should identify basic eligibility requirements that all applications for funding must meet, such as: financial qualification criteria; deployment schedule that does not exceed 2 years; commitment to 

provide service at an affordable rate; commitment to provide supported service 

throughout the application area for a minimum of 5 years following completion 

of project; information that indicates the project area is ‘‘underserved’’; and type 

of facilities and equipment, and resulting coverage, that will be deployed. 

Step 2 

Interested providers would submit applications to the relevant State Public Service Commissions who would determine eligibility based on FCC-defined parameters. 

a. Application Frequency: To minimize administrative and transaction costs, applications for the Pilot could be accepted and processed in one round prior to 

the start of the first program year. 

(That is, the FCC would identify winning applicants for both funding years 

prior to the first year, but disburse no more than $1 billion in each program 

year.) 

b. Application Process: An interested service provider submits an application to 

the relevant State Public Service Commission in which it identifies a specific 

rural area that it believes is ‘‘underserved’’ by broadband and for which the 

service provider seeks funding to deploy facilities to provide the supported services. The provider presents a project proposal, amount of new capital investment for which funding is requested, and supporting documentation. 

c. State Review: States are responsible for (1) verifying that the area covered 

by the application meets the FCC’s definition of ‘‘underserved,’’ and (2) determining that the application meets all other FCC-defined eligibility requirements. States have the local knowledge to verify whether the applicant-identified service area is underserved and this simple process is a time and resource 

efficient method of targeting funding to rural areas that are in most need of 

support. States could use various methods for such verification including putting applications out for public comment. 

Step 3 

States would submit all qualified applications to the FCC which conducts the final 

review and selects a single provider in each geographic area in which applications 

were submitted. 

a. Application Ranking: If the Pilot is oversubscribed, the FCC should rank applications by number of households to be served and give highest ranking and 

higher priority to projects that result in the greatest number of households receiving the supported service. Deployment timelines may also help guide the 

ranking process with preference given to shorter time to market. 

b. FCC Review Criteria: The FCC should establish general selection criteria in 

advance of the Pilot launch. These criteria will be used by the FCC to guide 

its selection of applications that will receive funding, especially in the event a 

service area has multiple applications or the Pilot is oversubscribed. To enhance 

the learning from the Pilot, the FCC should fund a variety of projects (large and 

87 

small) and in different regions to achieve some geographic balance and maximize experience with broadband deployment in disparate topographies. 

c. Number of Grants: The FCC should limit funding to only one provider in any 

particular area even if more than one provider applies for funding. If only a single application is submitted for an area the Commission should not be compelled to grant funding if the application does not meet the selection criteria. 

In a final step, the FCC should report on the results of the Pilot and launch a 

proceeding to consider whether the program or some modified version should be continued. AT&T believes that the Rural Broadband Pilot Program can have a measurable impact on broadband deployment in underserved rural areas while at the same 

providing both Federal and State policymakers with valuable real-life information 

on how to effectively support broadband deployment in rural areas. Equally important for rural America, establishing both the Broadband and Wireless pilots will 

help clear the way for fundamental reform of the existing high-cost support mechanisms and thus ensure that the Universal Service program can meet the challenges 

of the new 21st century telecommunication landscape. 

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL PROVIDED BY DAVID BURDICK

Commissioner Michael Copps asked me a question about how many libraries in 

Arkansas are still on dial-up Internet access. The State Library provided me the following information: 

As of January, 2007, 10 (ten) libraries were still on dial-up, 137 were on DSL, 

and 38 were on cable. It is unknown how many are on dedicated 56k lines. The rest 

are on T–1 or partial (386) T–1 lines. 

There are 7 libraries which do not have Internet access at all. 

In the discussion there were comments made, particularly from James 

Winningham and Sam Walls, which said something like: ‘‘Kids need access at home 

because libraries close . . .’’, and ‘‘We need to get a computer and Internet access 

into the hands of all Arkansans. . . .’’ 

As a librarian, I agree with both statements, but I also know that the Public Library will need to offer services to those who don’t have access. People have had 

the option to buy books for a few hundred years now. But Public Libraries still circulate millions of books because people either can’t afford, or wish not to spend their 

money on books. 

Public libraries offer all types of services to anyone and everyone who walk 

through the doors. Most libraries allow people to use the computer workstations regardless of whether or not they live within the Library’s jurisdiction. In Pine Bluff, 

we allow anyone to use the computers. 

Two years ago Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans and the Mississippi Gulf Coast 

very hard. In Pine Bluff, as in many public libraries throughout Arkansas, our public computers were used by Katrina victims to communicate with relatives, find lost 

loved ones, file FEMA forms, and in at least one case, a Lawyer who came to Pine 

Bluff, keep a business going. We also set up a wireless network to allow people who 

had their own laptops access to the Internet. 

We serve travelers who are passing through. We serve people who just moved into 

the community. We serve students from the two local colleges. We serve those who 

come to the library from the nearby Salvation Army. A large number of people don’t 

own a computer or don’t have Internet access, but there are those who just want 

to come to the library to use our resources. For instance, there is a elderly man who 

can afford his own computer, who can afford Internet access, who comes in two or 

three times every day. I asked him once why he didn’t just buy his own computer, 

and his reply was, ‘‘Dave, I just enjoy coming in and seeing all the friendly people 

who work at the library, and the people who are using the computers in the lab. 

I just enjoy the company. . . .’’ 

There will always be those who simply don’t own a computer, or even want to own 

a computer. It is my belief that public libraries will be offering computer services 

for a long time to those who simply don’t have access any other way. 

Æ