Summary of April 2nd U.S. House Subcommittee Broadband Oversight Hearing

Last Thursday, the House Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet held a hearing to examine issues related to the broadband programs created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the “Recovery Act”). The hearing examined the intentions of NTIA, RUS and the FCC to carry out the broadband programs established by the Recovery Act.

The witness list included: David Villano, Assistant Administrator, Telecommunications Program, Rural Development, Department of Agriculture; Mark Seifert, Senior Policy Advisor, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce; Scott Deutchman, Acting Senior Legal Advisor, Federal Communications Commission; Rachelle Chong, Commissioner, California Public Utilities Commission; Nicol Turner-Lee, Senior Vice President, External Affairs, One Economy Corporation; and Brian R. Mefford, Chairman and CEO, Connected Nation.

As expected, the general consensus was that members of Congress viewed broadband access as critically important to both our nation’s ability to compete in the global market and our quality of life. Congress also expressed their belief that the broadband programs developed from the Recovery Act could be transformative for our country and could provide a long-term economic boost.

Two main issues emerged from the hearing: (1) the need for the development of well-reasoned definitions of the key undefined terms “unserved” and “underserved”; and (2) the need for broadband mapping in order to allocate program funds wisely. Members of the Subcommittee also indicated that they hoped to see continued coordination between NTIA, RUS and the FCC and trusted the agencies would adequately balance time constraints and costs.

The one marked divergence of views was with regard to program funding priority. Republicans believed program funds should focus on unserved areas before underserved, because assisting underserved areas first could distort the marketplace. Democrats, on the other hand, believed both groups were equally important and should be funded simultaneously because underserved rural communities face challenges that often go overlooked and it is vital to bring this community up to a level playing field.

David Villano, focused much of his testimony on assuring Congress of RUS’ experience with existing telecommunications programs and that its staff had the knowledge and resources to facilitate the broadband programs contemplated by the Recovery Act. Villano also indicated RUS is working closely with NTIA and the FCC in establishing its program. RUS expects to publish a Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) mid- June, with priority being given to immediate, saturated rural service, or competition based projects.

Mark Seifert, provided insight into NTIA’s plans to implement the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (“BTOP”). Seifert detailed five goals for the broadband Recovery Act funding: (1) to create jobs; (2) to close the broadband gap in America; (3) to stimulate investment by requiring program grantees to invest their own funds; (4) to ensure more anchor institutions have high speed access; and (5) to encourage demand for broadband. Seifert stated that NTIA will ensure the program incorporates appropriate safeguards and that its activities will be available to the public by a variety of means, in order to provide maximum visibility. Seifert acknowledged that the greatest challenge will be selecting which programs will receive funding, but that the Recovery Act provides guidance on the process. He also stated that NTIA is consulting with numerous states and the FCC to create useful metrics. Finally, Seifert confirmed NTIA’s NOFA will be published in approximately one month and will contain details about the application process, with the first awards expected to be made this fall.

Scott Deutchman, began his testimony by quoting acting FCC Chairman Copps, stating that broadband deployment is the great infrastructure challenge of our time. He further stated that the development of comprehensive national broadband plan is the Commission’s most important challenge since implementing the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The agency is working closely with, and lending its expertise to, its colleagues at NTIA and RUS to smooth the progress of broadband program management. Deutchman also pointed out that the FCC is currently seeking public comment on a variety of definitions of uncertain broadband related terms. It is specifically looking for multiple viewpoints from stakeholders to ensure that it has the benefit of a wide range of perspectives. Deutchman stated that the Commission plans to begin its efforts to develop a national broadband plan at its upcoming April 8th open meeting and projected that the FCC should complete the task by February 2010.

Rachelle Chong, a former FCC Commissioner, emphasized that the state of California is one of the nation’s broadband leaders and its own broadband mapping program helped spend its program money wisely. She considers a broadband mapping exercise a critical initial step that allows states to know exactly where broadband is and isn’t, resulting in the utilization of broadband funds as intended. Chong further stated that California completed its program in only seven months at a cost of $400,000. Finally, Chong offered California’s definitions of the terms “unserved” and “underserved” for consideration, stating “unserved” was defined in its program as “any area that is not served by any form of facilities-based broadband, or where internet connectivity is available only from dialup or satellite” and “underserved” was defined as areas with broadband speeds of less than 3 Mbps download and 1Mbps upload.

Nicol Turner-Lee focused on two issues regarding the adoption of broadband: the lack of value proposition and the lack of affordable access. To combat these issues, Turner-Lee suggested two goals for broadband programs created by the Recovery Act: (1) to form a “digital ecosystem,” where there is a “culture of use” in the home, school, libraries, community and work centers; and (2) to promote “broadband with a purpose” that educates people on how broadband can improve their quality of life. Turner-Lee further suggested these goals can be accomplished by integrating six key drivers: (1) adoption by public awareness; (2) public-private partnerships to help expand broadband access, (3) intentionality about serving low income groups; (4) affordability of broadband access; (5) sustaining the engagement of broadband use; and (6) innovation in programs.

Brian R. Mefford offered two solutions to make certain broadband program funding is implemented in an efficient manner. First, Mefford suggested that broadband mapping must take place through a collaborative state-based, public-private partnership at a household level to determine broadband gaps. He stated that this level of granularity provides the most accurate information, and that mapping by any other geographic unit would be inaccurate and could potentially overestimate actual broadband deployment. Mefford addressed the lack of transparency concern by describing the search tools available to consumers on the web. Second, Mefford suggested that programs should spend more time focused on broadband awareness and adoption programs. He stressed that the ultimate determination of whether or not a program is successful will be measured by how many people use broadband once it is available. Finally, Mefford indicated that 10 states have already completed mapping projects to date and believed the remaining states could complete the process in six months. He further stated while costs would vary by state, ten million dollars is a reasonable projection for this effort.