.. look at a number of legislative proposals to increase in broadband deployment in rural areas across the country. a house commerce subcommittee held the hearing last week. >> it is important we get the conversation started and we've

got a lot to talk about. with 25 bills introduced in time to be a part of today's hearing. i very much appreciate all of the thoughtful proposals and the great work from the staff, both the republican and the democrat side, and i look for to seeing progress as a move to the next few weeks. these legislative initiatives follow the leadership of president trump's recent efforts on broadband infrastructure. the bills to be examined in this hearing are targeted at promoting the innovation, cutting red tape, and advancing public safety. it's impossible in my a lot of time to highlight each bill butt i do want to call attention to a couple of resolutions expressing the guiding principles on broadband infrastructure that should underpin our efforts. first, as noted by vice chairman lance, any funds for broadband

inan infrastructure package shod go toac unserved areas. second, as noted by congressman lotta, the federal government should not be picking winners and losers in the marketplace. any federal support for broadband infrastructure should be competitively and technologically neutral. if we adhere to these principles i'm confident we can avoid the pitfalls of waste, fraud, inefficiency that marred the previous administrations effort on broadband infrastructure. lastly and perhaps most important, congress should be mindful of the significant amounts of private capital spent to support broadband deployment. since passage of the bipartisan 1996 telecommunications act, the private sector has invested roughly $1.6 trillion in their networks. this investment includes wireline, wireless, and other broadband technologies.

however, this investment experienced a decline that coincided with the fcc's 2015 decision to reclassify the competitive broadband marketplace under title ii of the communications act, an outdated relic of the 1930s monopoly-era. i want to reiterate our support for chairman pai who corrected this ill-conceived policy and returned us to the light-touch regulatory approach that allowed the digital economy to flourish. this light-touch approach has been the bedrock of communications policy since the clinton administration. as i have previously stated: history makes clear that countries with the best communications have the highest economic growth. continuing our nation's leadership is, and must remain, a bipartisan effort.

i'm pleased to note our effort has a broad support from a cross-section of the industry. at this time i like to enter iminto the record several lettes of support from american cable association, ctia, ncta, competitive carriers association, telecommunications industry association, u.s. chamber of commerce, power and communication contraction association, and the wireless infrastructure association. i am pleased to convene this hearing, and i look forward to the testimony of our witnesses. and with that i yield the remainder of my time to the vice chairman of the subcommittee, mr. lance. >> thank you very much. first of all the state of the union, the chair is doing a terrific job of this subcommittee. since 1996 the wireless and wireline industries havee invested over $1.16 in private capital investment. as we consider best to promote

broadband bullet and next-generation network is important we remember the success of private investment in the past and pursue federal policies help and encourage an emphasis on private investment in the future. as our economy becomes more digitized we must injure broadband access to all areas of the country. it is important we recognize any federal funds are broadband deployment will be finite and a focused on unserved or underserved areas of the nation. i please we're considering the access broadband access act which i've introduced on a bipartisan basis. i commend at the chair and the members of the subduing of both sides of the aisle on the impressive package of broadband infrastructure deals where considering today. i look forwardar to hearing the panel. madam chair, i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back. mr. doyle, you are recognized by this. >> thank you, madam chair for holding the steering and thank you to the witnesses for appearing before us today. i want to start off by saying

that i share the chairman enzi and his committees goal of ensuring all americans have access to broadband and that we need to come together on a bipartisan basis to address the challenges that millions face today from a lack of broadband access, ala lack of sufficient speeds and a lack of affordable options. while it's crucial nobody gets left behind, i believe we cannot ignore the lack of competition, particularly among wireline providers and the high cost of service to result in far too many foregoing service. i'm concerned about approach were taken today. we are considering 25 bills at this hearing. i can't remember a time when this committee held a hearing on so many bills with a single panel of witnesses. we we're simply not giving these bills the time and expertise required for theer members of ts committee to fully consider each of these bills and their

ramifications. it would seem to me are more prudent to uphold aud series of hearings so members would have an opportunity to discuss and understand the proposals before us. the rushing this process gets short shrift to many s worthwhie ideas for members on both sides of the aisle and precludes these bills from undergoing a truly deliberative process. it'sit my hope chairman blackbun and committee staff for the majority can work with us to avoid this unnecessary problem for the future. it's my hope that as we move forward on broadband infrastructure legislation we can does on a collaborative and bipartisan c basis. that being said i am concerned many of the majorities proposals do not address the primary issue of getting broadband to rural america, and that there is no business case for that private investment. if we are serious about solving this problem and we believe people living in rural areas should have access to reasonably

comparable service, we needho to appropriate the funds necessary for that buildat up your quick that i'd like to yield a minute to my good friend ms. eshoo from california and then a minute and half to my good friend mr. welch. >> i think the ranking member. here it is, the second decade of the 21st century, and too many americans cannot fully participate in modern life because they do not have a robust broadband connection. it's either unavailable to them or unaffordable. it's our responsibility to remedy this. that's what i've introduced several bills to clear the way for communities to take control. the communityom broadband act ad the other act create their own networks, and streamline pole attachments to improve

efficiency and competition. muni broadband is deployed and with the policies are in place, such as louisville, kentucky, nashville, tennessee, and soon san francisco, california, consumers enjoy more access, better service and lower b pric. at a recent study, communities with municipal broadband up to 50% lower in costs than private alternatives. the broadband community broadband tax open the doors for all community to explore the option. most especially both of these bills will really boost and make a difference in rural america here i think of the gentleman for using them to me and i get back to. >> and i yield the remaining time to mr. welch. >> thank you. we know about 40% of rural america has no broadband, not slow broadband, no broadband. there is no economic future for

any part of our industry if it doesn't have high-speed internet. rural america's being left behind. nethe other issue is that it mas economic sense for private markets to be expanded in the rural areas. there's no payback. bottom line, we need funding to make certain that role broadband is real. and we look upon this committee that wrote to president trump, mr. cramer, mr. kinzinger, mr. lotta. we want infrastructure funding that's real so that there is broadband in rural america. absent funding, there is no broadband. it's as simple as that. this this is a good hearing on several good bills, but there is nothing before us that is going to address u the funding that we need for infrastructure for rural broadband. in my call to the committee is

that we get real and acknowledge that we have to have money for this buildup, much as our predecessors in congress provided funding for the buildout of electricity in rural america. no funding, no broadband. it's as simple as that. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. at this time chairman walden, you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair and special our witness. a big panel because of a lot of really important ideas from our members. we've got 25 bills, eight from democrats, the other 177 from republicans. this committee is used to get with big important issues, sometimes with a bills that are maybe hundreds of pages long. these are important policy statement in t some cases, streamlining processes in other cases. the whole concept isro look at e broad range of ideas that members have brought to this committee for its consideration and that's what at the

subcommittee level we thought it was important to put as many of these bills up for the public to see because it's on our agenda and website but for us to begin getting our heads about as move legislative process. i'm delighted to have the bills before us and delighted you all are before us. i remember the last administration did the stimulus bill, a whopping $7 billion. they pushed out the door before they produce the maps before they told us were uncertain areas in america. we're tryingd to get the other side of that coin identified. what are the unserved and underserved areas? what reporting mechanisms are poorly being conducted today to show us that? we want ntia and others help us figure that out. when the taxpayer or ratepayer money is invested is not invested to overbuild. it's to reach out to the 29 million americans, 23 million, 39% rural areas that don't have access to d high-sped broadband.

the $7 billion you have to remember in the market they are spending close to $80 billion a year on broadbandnd deployment, 1.6 trillion between 1996 i think it is and 2006. but anyway, the big investment is done in the private sector. there is public money that is spent. our job is to make sure public money is spent appropriately and helps close this digital divide. you want to talk about rural. my district which stretched from the atlantic to ohio. 69,341 square miles. i've got places in my district where there's one person for every nine miles, powerline. we live live this gap every day. we are trying to close it. there are multiple ways to close it but one of the best ways is to make sure that we can expedite the closure through reform siding, targeting the financial resources ratepayers and a government specific to those areas that are

underserved, and helping with this country forward to connectivity like we've never seenry before. 2012 we worked a bipartisan manner to free up spectrum. that is being built out there want to move forward with 5g development. we are not venezuela where government doesn't need to own, operate, control the command structure, that kind of a network. that may be security issues and i imagine they are we all ought to be apprised of nfs for breathing either classified or non-two figure what the issues are. we want to be smart about having a secured network for the newest innovation but i don't know having a government run it is necessarily the best way to go. we are looking at those issues. it's an exciting timee for america. we want to be in the lead. we can do a hearing every week for 25 weeks and then move forward or on we can do when hearing with 25 25 bills, figue out our ideas, come together as committee in a bipartisan way, do with making america again

clear in the forefront on developing up connectivity, wired and wireless, and the newest innovation and technology much like we're trying to do with autonomous vehicles come as a look and by friend and colleague in a while with a self drive act. let's get it done. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. is there any other member requesting time? >> madam chair? i have a request. the letter that was signed consent to the president asking for funding to be submitted on the record. >> without objection. >> mr. pallone, i yield you five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. one year ago president trump promised one tradoc ever structure package that would bring democrats and republicans together. for our part in may of last year committee democrats introduced a comprehensive info structure package to cross all areas of this committee is jurisdiction. here we are with a series legislation from the president and instead where proposals from

house republicans that most the conflict with the plant that was just leak out of the white house. in stark contrast committee democrats developed a legislative proposal to build the type of modern l resilient infrastructure americans need and deserve. at a time with our nation's infrastructure is either crumbling or desperate need of modernization it's time to make real and significant investment to thees future. the lift america act authorizes $40 million so that deployment of secure in resilient broadband would also provide over $20 billion for$2 drinking water infrastructure, over 17 billion for modern, efficient and resilient energy infrastructure, over 3 billion for healthcare infrastructure and almost 3 billion for brownfield redeveloped. the lift america act which will dollars where they need creating jobs can vitalizing community and addressingg serious threats to human health and environment. it wouldre address led school, medical schools in the country, improve our resilience to the

impact of climate change and it would do all that without going back environmental safeguards as we hearing is a major component of the president's plan. when it comes to broadband we've also put forward additional proposals building on the stro g foundations of the lift america act, our bills would ensure we're investingg efficiently, basing our decision on the data and reaching urban, rural and tribal lands. over the last couple of weeks we've seen bipartisan and bicameral agreement we dedicated funding to improve access to broadband nationwide. despite this consensus, republicans on this committee have decided to unveil a series of partisan bills that don't address the real problems. these bills are simply window dressings, unnecessary. urban versus rural, industry versus local government and broadband access versus our environment. the republican proposal not improve broadband development and may indeed hurt workers and the economy in parts of the country.

i appreciate republicans scheduling the hearing and including some democratic proposals but i'm concerned the majority simply is trying to jam too much into this when hearing. seven witnesses discussing 25 bills will not t help the amerin public understand these proposals, let alone the members of this committee. we doit not even have the relevt agencies had help us understand how they will interpret the often conflicting directions that are included in the republican bills. we are a little over a year into this administration and all washington republicans have to show the american people are checked the box and design to paper over the republican spending on infrastructure, their emotion of our privacy rights and elimination of net neutrality. when it comes to governing this subcommittee in my opinions was falling short. with that i yield the balance of my time to mr. ms. >> thank you. in today's digital age x high-speed internet is simply a sense of excess why we must do

more to bridge the digital divide. the committee is finally beginning to advance the bipartisan comets and solutions we were sent here to find. a bipartisan rural wireless access act introduced by mr. loebsack would help the fcc provide targeted federal assistance to the point wireless service in rural areas with the worst coverage. my bill, the tribal digital access act would help close the digital divide in indian country by reinforcing the importance of the fcc universal service fund programs that serve tribal communities. tribal lands are the most underserved regions in our nation in terms of broadband access. we have a responsibility to honor our legal and moral obligations in this commonsense helps do just that. i urge the committee to move these bills as quickly as possible, along with other bipartisan solutions before us here today. i yield back my time to

mr. pallone. >> and i yield back, madam chair. >> the gentleman yields back, and this concludes our member opening statements. i would like to remind all the members that pursuant to the committee rules you all have your statements that can be made a part of the record. we want to thank our witnesses for being here today and for taking the time to testify before the subcommittee. today's witnesses will have the opportunity to give opening statements followed by a round of questions from the members. our panel for today's hearing will include mr. jonathan spalter, president and ceo of the u.s. telecom. mr. brad gillen, executive vp at ctia. mr. matt polka, president and ceo of the american cable association. ms. shirley bloomfield, ceo of the ntca, the rural broadband association.

mr. scott slesinger, the legislative director of the natural resources defense council.. ms. joanne hovis, president of ctc technology and energy. and ms. elin swanson katz, the connecticut consumer counsel. we appreciate each of you for being here today and for preparing for this committee, submitting your testimony today. will begin with you, mr. spalter, for five minutes and we will work right through the diester you are recognized. >> microphone. >> thank you for the opportunity to appear before you i'm jonathan spalter, president and ceo of u.s. telecom, represent our nation's broadband providers, large and small urban-rural and everything in between. all of our members are deeply committed to you and on the

front lines of a massive effort underway to connect all americans to the opportunities and possibilities of broadband. we greatly appreciate the subcommittees leadership and the growing momentum we're seeingsh throughout congress on both sides of the aisle to aid this ever get inan a few short hourse know the president will deliver his state off the address and according to the pundits, topics the truck and since this will probably be few and far between. infrastructure is one of those rare issues with a powerful centrifugal force pulling us altogether. from the administration statements and actions to send a few mers blueprint to the 25 bills making their way through this committee, washington has caught up to the connected times and not a moment too soon. acknowledging the pivotal role of information infrastructure, the ones in zeros, a broadband networks, to our nation. since the earliest days of our internet as we sought to rise above the halt in screech of dial-up service, expanding and

upgrading the nation's broadband networks has largely been a private sector endeavor. america's broadband providers have invested as vice-chairman lands and s chairman waldenhe mentioned, or than $1.5 trillion over the last two decades building out use digital infrastructure and that's more than our nation spent in public dollars to put a man on the moon and to build up our interstate highway system combined. so why must we continue to commit public funds to the cause wax because we risk leaving billions of u.s. households and citizens behind if we do not. we know the private investment model works while in recently populous areas but the business case rakes and with the average $27,000 per mile of laying fiber, not to mention network upgrades and maintenance costs associated with it that are constantly required, must be spread across a handful of users. broadband companies can use

telecom members want to connect everyone from our most populated urban areas to the most remote rural communities in our nation but did need a committed partner in these final unserved high-cost areas. that partnership, all of us concludes government. what specifically does that mean? first, new and direct public funding is needed to supplement private investment in connecting the final frontier. second, care must be taken to make sure broadband fun is not nearly an option on a vast spending major but has its own specific allocation. a position be championed by the bipartisan cultures of the rural broadband caucus, and thank you very much for that.h third, public dollars should prioritizeic connecting unserved areas using proven mechanism, chief among them universal service fund. to move quickly and with

accountability while minimizing administrative cost to u.s. taxpayers. fourth, connectivity should be factored into physicale infrastructure projects. adding more of our bridges and roads to broadband connectivity makes them smarter, safer, more cost-effective and extends the useful life. last, a stable streamlined regulatory environment can accelerate and extent of theme impact of both public and private dollars. earlier this month the president signed an executive order to expedite federal permitting, so broadband compass can build infrastructure in ruralil areas faster. continuing his efforts reduces deploymentrti costs, stretching limited resources further. when it comes to broadband, this grand aspiration of a truly connected nation truly is within striking distance. working together we have the means and the opportunity to relegate this challenge to the history books for all that remains is a question of will.

for that reason i really greatly appreciate the subcommittees interest today and your ongoing leadership, the nation's broadband providers stand ready to link arms with anyone who wants to step up to finish the job. thank you very much. >> gentleman yields back. mr. gillen, five minutes. >> a good morning. thank you, chairman blackburn, ranking member doyle and the subcommittee for including wireless as part of this conversation. the should never bills before us underscores the scope of the challenges we face together as well as opportunities we have working together to solve them. we really see the infrastructure as the opportunity to create jobs, drive economic growth and expand opportunities for all americans. the subcommittee has two core challenges before you. the first is the digital divide. from vermont to eastern oregon that are too many americans today despite billions invested in years of work that do not

have access to the wired and wireless broadband solutions that all of us rely on everyday. we look for to working with this committee to shrink and address the gap and try both wired and wireless broadband deeper in america. our second challenge is one of global competitiveness. we lead the world in 4g wireless services. just last month the international standards body set the rules for the fifth generation of wireless, 5g. the race is on. other countries if seen what leadership is meant and want to take that from us. china and others are investing billions and accelerating their deployment schedules with over 100 active trials ongoing today. in the u.s. we would like to win but we are ready to invest as walter weber own t trials ongoi, investing in tech told you we think will need to win and ultimately we are ready to invest approximately $275 billion in private capital over the next ten years to build out those networks. we don't need federal funding to solve the 5g problem. we need help to modernize our

approach. we're going to build them with ease, small sills come hundreds of thousands access to streetlights and inside buildings. the challenge we face today is that you often a device that takes one to two hours to install can take one to two years to get approved. the challenge we face is that because at every level of government, local, state, and federal we treat these aye 275-foot power along the side of a highway. in short, under networks need new rules and that's why we appreciate this focus on this issue, particularly today focusing on the federal impediments we face. focusing on had we modernize our federal regulations expedite the political things like this and other new infrastructure. congresswoman brooks, or how do marshal federal assets to drive broadband deeper into real america by utilizing federal lands? the other thing we would hope

for in future sessions to talk about is this committee leadership with respect to state and local site as well. it iss this committee leadership in 1992, 96 and in 2012 to get guardrails and guidance to local communities as siding can and should work to ensure we have deployment of wireless and broadband. just like federal rules need to be updated so does that federal guidance. if we get those rules right, when we get those rules right, ig will be transformative to all of your community spirit and will unlock remote surgery, self driving cars in the internet of things it will create jobs, create 2010 or jobs in downtown pittsburgh. 3 million across the country. it will build communities. clarksville tennessee will see over to $200 million added to s economy, 500 billion nationwide. we are excited about winning the 5g race. we also need to make sure in doing that we also make sure all-americans at the exit to broadband at the same time. we think with bold bipartisan leadership by this congress and committee we can and need to do

both. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you so much. at this time, mr. polka, five minutes. >> thank you turbaned. as you know, for the last year aca and its members have been discussing with members on both sides of the aisle the administration and fcc about how to effectively and efficiently close the digital divide. .. the administration and fcc about how to effectively and efficiently close the digital divide. aca appreciates and supports the commitment to bring rod bentall americans. over the past decade because of hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment by aca members and others in the sec's reforms to the service programs were closing in on this goal. today, more than 100 million homes have access to broadband speeds and only 5.3 remain

with less thany 10 megabytes. not only have aca members been investing billions to upgrade and expand the networks, but many with their own money have deployed 840,000 homes that would otherwise be eligible for fcc support. we should recognize and build upon those successes. we know however, there is much more to do, but from my travels visiting with aca members across country, i can tell you the members are committed to serving the nations most challenging corners.s. they believe we can close the digital divide. they believe we can keep it shut by following four principles. first, encourage private investment. second, remove barriers to deployment. third, before spending federal funds, take account of successes. fourth, provide broadband subsidies efficiently.

let's encourage five it investment. fix the mobile broadband spending to upgrade and expand broadband networks. this should continue and should be encouraged by avoiding governmental action that would hinder these investments. fory example, it would not be helpful if government funds were used to overbuild unsubsidized providers or measures were adopted that were not competitively and technologically neutral, favoring one class of providers or industry sector over another. second, let's remove barriers to deployment. building high-performance broadband networks is costly. he will get the most bang and note this without spending a dollar by lowering those costs. here are some steps to take.

facilitate access to utility poles by removing impediments such as fixing the makeready process. the law to electric cooperatives. prohibit charging such fees on a. service basis. third, don't neglect successes before determining where to spend federal money and how much is needed. by removing barriers, the cost of network deployment will be reduced such that one point to million homes. [inaudible] we believe the new tax law would enable unserved homes to be served. finally, the program where we reduce the number of homes receiving less than ten

megabits to 2 million by 2020. fourth, let's provide broadband subsidies efficiently. the fcc has given us an effective roadmap for awarding government support more efficiently by targeting support only two unserved areas and awarding support using a reverse auction. with any new money, let's employ these two principles and also limit the federal statet to account for subsidies and less any additional broadband performance is required. the four principles i set forth will maximize welfare, increase economic growth, make communities throughout the country thrive and enable you to bridge the digital divide sooner and with more sustainable results.

they stand ready to assist you in every way. >> thank you. i can't tell you how excited we are that you're actually talking about this incredibly important topic of broadband and how we ensure all americans have access. we represent small businesses providing broadband across the country in 46 states. the smallsi community-based providers have led the charge in protecting americans by deploying networks that respond to the need and the demand for cutting-edge technology.ldld these are areas where the average density is about seven customers. square mile and that is

essentially the entire average population density of the state of montana. to emphasize the work that they have done, recent provider found 87% of members, they can purchase broadband above 25 meg but the job is simply far from done. with the statistics i noted they are good but they also tell the story of a lot of consumers that need access and the story is bleaker for those who are not served by member companies. finally, it is not as if the jobb is not done once it's built. but there's ongoing work to ensure quality services available in rural areas. how do we make sure we can do to playty and sustain real broadband. you need a business case toom consider deploying c it. questions related to regulation are very important, but if you can't afford to build or sustain a network, these countrie questions

never come to play. the economics of broadband are difficult if not impossible in manyny markets. the rate they pay is really sufficient to cover the actual cost of operating in the areas much less the large capital expenditure. i wish i had an easy answer but it's expensive and you have fewer consumers spread across to cover the cost. that is why a the ongoing support, overseen by the fcc is so critical in making a business case. this was signed by 101 members of congress in the house encouraging the fcc to ensure resources are available to enable them to work as they are designed. it reaffirms the fact that the u.s. high-cost program. [inaudible] if the foundation is strong we

can focus onog the next challenge and that is the barriers to deployment. the potential infrastructure package on the horizon is encouraging that members of this committee are considering measures aimed at some of the very unique challenges presented by role broadband. many of your initiatives mirror the work done on the working groups that i had the privilege to serving on. the must be an essential part of coordinated effort to address challenges across the broadband landscape. they have neither the staff and other resources to navigate complex federal agency structures for companies and cooperatives who have an average of 25

employees. system. that time and money that is spent on navigating relates to money and time that is not spent on the point broadband for this committee's desire to have better mapping data is much-needed and greatly appreciated. we need accurate granular data. we need transparency on availability to ensure the government resources are used to support broadband buildout that are deployed as efficiently as possible. we welcome the subcommittee consideration of innovative ideas to support and enablee broadband. providers are using authentication technologies available to them to provide world-class service to their members and customers. just as we transition to broadband focused companies, we need flexibility and access toto additional support to deploy new technologies and address the remaining challenges. small rural broadband providers have made great strides in reducing the digital divide but the job is far from done.

many don't have access to robust, high-speed broadband many more are served only through the help of the universal programs and were must work diligently to make sure no child is left behind without internet access for homework. no area left behind without access to telehealth capabilities or agriculture tools and no main street businesses prevented from participating in a global economy.n your leadership and your commitment to this issue in identifying the challenges and looking for creative solutions is greatly appreciated. i appreciate the invitation to be here and i'm looking forward to engaging with all of you further. >> thank you chairman blackburn and mr. doyle, thank you for the opportunity to testify. my name is scott sessions are. i'm the legislative director of the national resources defense council. i will concentrate my oral remarks on the impact of

federal and environmental reviews and new infrastructures including broadband. the poor state of our infrastructure is not because of reviews or permitting. our problem is cash. numerous studies show it's not federal rules causing delays. the number one problem is i lack of funding followed by state and local laws, citizen opposition to projects and zoning restrictions. mr. chairman, broadband deployment is not delayed by impairment of impact statements. no project was ever required to do one by thed fcc. drinking water projects suffer from ak lack of financing, not environment reviews. scapegoating might be a cheap applause line that we cannot streamline our way to universal broadband access, new tunnels under the hudson or bridges over the ohio river or new sewer systems.

i would like the committee to appreciate why this is so important. in many cases, neither gives your constituents there only opportunity to voice concerns about the impact on their community. it leads to better outcomes for everyone. the process has h saved money, times, lives, historic sites and results in better projects with more public support. most recommendations to cripple the process try to limit public notice and are undemocratic.s the firstno time a rancher learns of a pipeline going through his property shouldn't be when an attorney shows up at his door with an offer to purchase under threat of taking the property by eminent domain. many congressional committees

have tried to assert jurisdiction but there been numerous and contradictory changes made by congress in 2005, 2012 and 2015. provisions, changes to the statute of limitations, limited access to courts and arbitrary deadlines for permit approval. dot can now find other agencies on this deadline, a provision that makes as much sense as debtors prison. the fast act based on large part by the rapid act promoted by mr. shimkus was passed in 2015, made dramatic changes in the process. it created in her agency administrativeve apparatus called the federal infrastructure permitting and steering council which is largely controlled by omb to set deadlines, push the resolution of interagency

disputes and allocate fron funds and personal resources to support the overall decision-making process. president trump's first infrastructure for many executive order, the chief sponsor wrote in the letter to the president, it contradicted authorities and responsibility is alreadydy in place for project sponsors that were already participating in the approving process. even the business roundtable has said we should be looking at existing law, not layer on new laws to the neva process. despite enactment of the laws, congress goes to the house floor to further and amend the process without regard for their impact on process, changes already made. rather than simplify current processes, these bills would create new complex, so confusion and delay project reviews.

the recent infrastructure proposal from the white house should not be taken serious. the lead provisions would repeal clean water, clean air and specieson protection. they give agency heads free reign to exempt any president free from court challenge. to fix our infrastructure, we don't need to give the interior secretary ability to build pipelines through every national park. we do not need, we needed to help build a modern infrastructure system that is resilient, energy-efficient and takes into's account the impact of a change in climate and the needs of a 21st century. we can do the smarter and better by using, not crippling, the environmental review process. thank you for the opportunity to testify and we look forward to working with the committee

on effective solutions to our nation's infrastructure and challenges. thank you. >> the gentleman yields back. >> five minutes.ru >> members of the subcommittee, thank you for your commitment to bridging the digital divide. i'm a communications, engineering and communications. the coalition of public and private entities believe solving our nations broadband challenges requires a full range of options including locally driven effortsng and public private cooperation. as we look forward to super bowl sunday, i suggest that our countries drive tost bridge the political divide is our opportunity to build a level playing field. let me ask a couple questions in this regard. first, do we actually have a winning strategy? much of the current discussion here in washington steams premised on the idea that it

will smash the barriers. as multiple members of the panel had said, the fundamental reason we do not seek comprehensive broadband deployment throughout the united states is that areas with high infrastructure cost. user, particularly rural areas failed to attractpa private capital. to solve this, all levels of government can take steps to improve broad broadband appointment. these include rural communities in underserved urban areas such as small business locations in cities and suburbs and low income areas where adoption is low and incumbency that justifies network upgrades. support must be directed to those areas. without such efforts private dollars will flow primarily to lowest profitable areas. a focus game plan would involve to these plays. for support public-private partnerships and the

challenges of constructing the infrastructure. have local efforts to build infrastructure that private sector users can use. private internet service can use. they can make bonding and other strategies more feasible, potentiallyer through reduced payments, bonds or expansion of the new market tax credit program. empower local governments to pursue broadband solutions including use of public assets to attract in shape private investment patterns so as to leverage taxpayer-funded property and to create competitive dynamics that attract investment. require all entities that benefit from public subsidy including acces to make enforceable commitments to build in areas that are historically underserved and maximize the benefits of competition by requiring that all federal subsidy programs are offered ond the competitive and neutral basis for bid by

any qualified entity. the current strategy doesn't squarely face the challenge. many current efforts at the fcc and this body are focused on reducing the private sectors cost of doing business such as by blanket removal of local process and buy forcing local communities to subsidize access to public property. all of this simply makes more profitable the already profitable areas of theea country rather than changing the economics of broadband deployment in areas where there is no return on investment. if these strategies are promiseden that lead to role deployment, no credible engineer or analysts is claiming that 5g deployment is planned or technically appropriate for rural areas. it is not well-suited to low-density areas. if the goal is to attract

private capital to rural communities, making rule deployment more profitable is exactly the wrong way to do it. rather this approach is like moving the ball a few inches and calling it a touchdown. my second question is do we have the right players on the players on the field. it's counterproductive to vilify localities based on the evidence that local efforts and local processes restrict or deter private investment. the assumption that the federal government is more motivated to enable the point of broadband ignores the immediacy of the digital divide for local officials in the assumption that the federal government is more competent to develop strategies ignores the experience of the past decade which demonstrates across a wide range of public, private collaborations that local governments, given thehe opportunity will apply creativity, local resources, assets and religions to try to solve broadband problems. my testimony includes examples

of a wide range of different public-private collaborations that are in existence or in development in communities ranging from west virginia to wyoming to new york city, to the coastal cities on the west coast. let me say finally, preempting local efforts and authority is not a winning strategy. it simply removes from a playing field one of the most important players. my thank you for your consideration. >> generally yields back. ms. swanson, you're recognized for five minutes. >> the morning. >> morning chairman blackburn. ranking member and distinguish members of the committee. i am the consumer council from the state of connecticut. go patriots. i am head of a small independent nonpartisan state agency that advocates for consumers on issues relating

to electricity, natural gas, water and telogen medications. in that capacity, i serve as the designee to the governmental advisory committee to the fcc and chairman. i serve on the fcc universal service. my time spent on this is deep. i thank you for your interest on this important issue of the digital divide. there are manyre americans that do not have access to high-speed broadband. there are approximately 5 million homes with school-age children which are equal over 17% of those homes

with school-age children who do not have a broadband connection. it's particularly egregious in low income households. in connecticut, we wanted to learn more about the digital divide, particularly as it impacts children and you may be surprised by that since connecticut is generally seen as an excellent state with sound broadband infrastructure, however we have underserved communities. we commissioned a report with the hartford -based group called strategic outreach services to assess the affordability of and assess ability of broadband for students in the north end of hartford. that's a predominantly ethnic, minority community with predominantly low income but nonetheless an area known for its community pride and commitment to at school. we worked in our partnership with the president of the

organization and i mentioned her because she is in the room today. it's a testimony to her commitment and for those of you interested i would talk with her. we met with educators and parents and student spread we met with church leaders and neighborhood watch site organizations we met with city leaders, we talked to literally hundreds of people in the north end of hartford. what we learned is that many students suffer from the home workout. the area wer defined as 6 - 10:00 p.m. where they need access to do their homework. what we heard was that many students take extreme measures because they don't have a broadband access at home either for affordability or because of access. we heard stories that students would go to fast food restaurants to try to do their homework and in fact, one of

the local restaurants changed its policy so you can no longer sit there that long, seemingly in response. we also learned that students venture out at night into all kinds of weather trying to catch wi-fi from other buildings. people were upset that the public school shut down the wi-fi after hours although students couldn't sit nearby but they didnt it because of safety concerns. we heard that parents recognize parent broadband was important but found it unaffordable or unavailable or prevented renewals. we saw long lines of students queued up at the public libraries to use their computers although when they close at 6:00 p.m. they had nowhere to go and in fact since we've done report, some of those branches have closed. there's also frustration expressed that policymakers saw a smart phone as a substitute but it's notot an adequate substitute. it's very expensive to do your homework on a smart phone and it's hard to s type a paper. there's simply not an adequate substitute. what troubled me is that if

it's happening in connecticut, it's happening everywhere. no child should have to sit in dunkin' donuts or mcdonald's to do their homework or sit outside in the dark trying to finish a project. the implication for our education system and the quality of education that we deliver to children in low income urban communities and rural communities is found. we would never say to students whose parents can't afford textbooks i'm sorry you don't get to learn history or math or english or if you don't live near a library, i'm sorry don't have access, but that is what we are saying to these children, two entire generations by failing to address this. my ask for you is that you consider the urban communities as well as the rural communities. we are working with both in connecticut and is not just this question of adoption, it's not just simply that they can't afford it. it's also a question of quality and that makes a difference as well. thank you very much. >> the gentle lady yields back.

would you please recognize your guests. >> ms. janice fleming butler. >> janice, would you please stand. thank you for your good work. w [applause] by way of correcting some statements that were made earlier, and for the informatio information, those with us today, i wanted to reiterate the subcommittee hearing activities relative to infrastructure that have takenea place. you had november 16, a hearing on the race to 5g, october 25 fcc oversight hearing, july 25, we had the fcc reauthorization legislative hearing june 21, the hearing on defining and mapping broadband coverage, and actually we had some on the committee that thought that was redundant because wee had already had a march 21st

hearing, and april 5 field fueling the economy hearing, realizing nationwide, march 21, hearing with the discussion draft, some of those bills were now in bill form and. [inaudible] it has bipartisan support and nebruary 2, reauthorization of the ncaa. it's time for us to stop talking and get building and pass these bills and get to work. i'm going to yield first to chairman walden for question. >> i think the gentle lady for her leadership on these issues but also for yielding as i have another commitment i have to go too. i just ask a couple questions and first of all, thank you all for your testimony and your shared commitment to get broadband out of americans, students, seniors and everybody in between.

in your testimony i was intrigued on page three you said broadband deployment is not delayed by environmental impact statements, in fact no broadband project was ever required to do one by the federal medications commission. you are not really saying no broadband deployment project has ever been required to do an eis, are you? many have had to do environmental assessments and some may have. [inaudible] >> excuse me, of the 50000 federal activities a year, there's only about a couple hundred eis and none of the ones we could find has ever required a statement. >> and require my time because i think it's actually required through other agencies. again 55% my district is federal and some somewhat familiar with the center they set at 69341 square miles, connecticut is about 5544, not that we are counting.

new jersey 8722, but the point is, i run into this all the time. were trying to get broadband out there, were trying to get three-phase power into some of our communities, we waited three years to do for power poles and so i think there is an issue was citing and i just think there's more theren than what you represent in your testimony. i want to go to mr. guillen, thank you for your testimony. as you know, we have seen these situations with various federal laws and state laws that have delayed, i know mr. shimkus will probably speak to this because it was in his district, 2016, a company was looking to expand adding a 14 by 10-foot area of land adjacent to its existing facility in a parking lot. the study tookot five months to complete and cost thousands of

dollars. have you or anyone else on the panel who actually does deployment, have you, tell us about the things you've run into. tell us what you like about these bills, you've reference some of the testimony, but what do you say. is this a problem or is in it. on one end of o the panel we hear it's not a problem and the other and we hear it is a problem. i live in a district like mine firsthand. >> thank you. your example is good. it's something we face every da day. throughout the country carriers are running into challenges that particularly when we start talking about things like this, to install 23 of these in a party lot cost $173,000 and takes many months spread we don't think that makes any sense. there are times where it's appropriate to have those types of things but the streamlining is the type of things that will actually expedite deployment now.

>> was that in a parking lot. >> yes, at the stadium of the super bowl. >> and a cost much. >> $173,000. >> while. dear folks ever run into any albums like that that we could address. >> absolutely. i have visited with members all acrossnt the country. our members literally build into their budgets time and money because of high will long it takes to produce broadband to be approved and permitted and to move forward. thousands and thousands of dollars for application fees that are made an additional engineering studies are made, further request for engineering studies, duplicating the process, the fact that a memberpl company t s to build in at least six months of time, at least before they can move forward on a broadband deployment is actually causing broadband deployment not to be deployed in these most important areas.

>> miss bloomfield. >> i would love to jump in on that society couple examples. i have a company in south dakota that had a year-long delay because of needing to get some u.s. forest service permitting through. you are in south dakota. your build time is very short. you've got. of time where you've missed the opportunity. in wyoming we've had a state office that actually wound up treating the broadband build like a t pipeline so they actually had to get bonding to do the construction when it was just a broadband conduit. absolutely there are instances to my palace point where time and money is need to be built into the process. >> i know my time ispr almost expired. i would argue i'm one of the only chair who has been tower building process and why never climb the tower, i was involved in a lot of that. i share yourev pain. i don't think any of your

companies are going to do environmental damage but i think it's a complete false argument that somehow we will run over the environment. i reject that, that's not the point. the point is we can streamline the discussion process, the siding process that's an analog process in a digital environment. >> thank you madam chair. i will start by recognizing a greatt pittsburgh on the panel and great ceo of the american cable. whamatt, welcome. i think most of us will agree that most of us rarely wrot root for the philadelphia eagles but when they're playing the patriots, we are all eagles fans. i hope they win. >> will make sure i just understood, you are holding that box up and said you don't need any money from the federal government, just make it easier to streamline deployment of that, you're not suggesting that you're going

to, that your member companies would take care of the deployment in underserved areas in all of rural america, are those little white boxes going to solve a problem if we just remind the process. >> we think there are two separate and important problems. this helps us drive 5g and it will be in cities and towns but it won't solve the problem. >> okay, i just wanted to clarify this is not a solution tola roll broadband, and secondly, are some of the impediments to deployment state and local issues or are they all federal issue. >> absolutely. it's a mix of both. >> okay, thank you. i wanted to ask, in areas that are underserved or, we seem in this appellees either through public-private partnerships or even on their own providing broadband to their communities. in some cases, when a municipality offers broadband as an alternative to an incumbent, we've seen the incumbent actually lower

prices, it's been better for consumers, but were also seeing a number of states passing laws to prevent minutes appellees from providing broadband or engaging in the public-private partnership. what effect do you think the state laws are having on broadband deployment? >> i think it's detrimental to deployment because it takes important players off the field but ithe also stops the competitive dynamic from emerging. the cities and towns and communities where we have the most robust broadband and the most robust competition are places where some kind of competition have come into the market and incumbent have reacted to the competition and invest as a result.ct for smaller and rural communities that are unserved and underserved, sometimes the only entity that's willing to step up and invest is a community, either by itself or through private partnership. i hate to think that we in washington would try to

interfere with local collaborations and processes when we are seeing a thousand collaborative processes loom around the country. >> thank you. >> let me ask everyone on the panel. does anyone here on the panel believe that we can successfully deploy on served area or underserved areas without some sort of federal investment? can it just be done through streamlining and regulation and making deployment easy? i think it's important and we should be doing that but is there anyone who thanks we don't need to appropriate any money to solve this problem? yes or no. >> thank you. >> funding would be helpful on a technology neutral basis. >> so you agree we need funding. >> i understand your technology. >> support is needed to make the business case model and rule america. >> yes. >> definitely needed. >> i gray. >> yes id agree.

>> we saw this memo that we tell her white house that focused in detail on our cyber vulnerabilities, especially when itoc comes to foreign actors and thera proposal of the total indications infrastructure, i think many on the committee, it seems uninformed. i'm concerned that the white house and the president have not fully addressed and rejected this very troubling proposal. we heard some of thathe today. with that being said, the security of our nation's broadband issue isop critical and at the beginning of its tenure, fcc chairman pie rollback a number of commission items related to cyber security, including a notice of inquiry specifically questioning how the fcc could best secure 5g networks. i'm concerned that rolling back these majors is part of what has caused so much concern amongst members of the national security council. i just asked, do you think d it's wise for the fcc to

rollback cyber security initiative such as this 5g notice of inquiry? if the relevant agency can not ask questions about how best to secure these networks, how do we hope to address this problem? >> thank you congressman. it's great question. cyber security is critical to everything we do. if you don't have a safe secure network were not serving the american people were not doing our jobs. w we think cyber security is best handled through partnership with the department ofec homeland security and those we work closely with and i think the white house proposal, i think chairman walden in all five fcc commissioners check their taste it very well so i want anything further but in terms of the cyber security, that is something we work on every day and we do need a partnership with the federaler government to make sure we understand the threats and a lot of what this committee is focused on information sharing and is committed to doing that.

>> thank you. >> the german yields back. i will recognize myself for some questions and i want to start with tax reform. you all talked about how that would help with investment and sometimes i think as we talk about the changes and regulatory relief and tax reform, people think about big companies and don't think about the smaller companies paid if you take just a moment and talk a little bit about how tax reform, regulatory relief affects your companies and deployment of broadband. >> thank a you. will affect our companies both large and small across the board. i have the opportunity recently to visit with some of our smaller companies in western new mexico and western wyoming, alaska and montana and to accompany, each of them have been elated by the idea that they will be able to

invest more and deploy more broadband to underserved communities and invest more in research and development to n expand next-generation development and new incentives for the employees even though they have not got many employees. this is a meaningful step forward and offers well for closing the digital divide. >> it means we've seen promises and new jobs and commitments to build outse more networks and add capital expenditures, bring money back home and really, it does underscore the capital-intensive industry like wireless, revelatory relief and it makes a real difference, particularly for smaller carriers. much of what were talking about, they don't have the staff to manage these processes so any type of streamlining or standardization that helps them do their day job and serve consumers. >> thank you. as i said in my testimony let's take account of the successes that exist. our member companies certainly use private funds to the point broadband, buto the benefit of

the recently passed tax act cannot be underestimated when you look at the investment that now our members, the smaller internet service providers have to put back into their systems what they are doing. i have heard from members all of the country who have said to me that the difference in the corporate tax rate will make more money available for the company to reinvest broadband, serving now hundreds, thousands more homes that would otherwise be uneconomic to serve. that hasat helped tremendously are ready to give a boost to small businesses, not to mention the deregulation that's already occurred. for smaller companies, regulations affect them disproportionately. they have fewer customers. mile over which the path of regulation. when the federal government takes into account that there's a difference between small and rural and big in urban and allows for their smaller companies to be able

to deploy sensibly and take into account the burden of regulation, it makes a big difference on getting rule broadband out there faster. >> thank you. and when it come to you. we spoke briefly about some of the good things in tennessee, i know north central tennessee spent like a quarter million dollars on historical reviews and 14 million in investment, just to build this out. mr. welch mentioned 39% of rule america is without broadband. i think people lose sight of that. that there is just not that access they are, and in tennessee, we were talking about the first round of grants, almost 10 million that have gone out and we've got this got county telephone co-op that has 1.9 million. they will use that in hawkins county. other communications, 1.765 million to use in digital got 1.4 million to use

in cleburne and hancock counties. they want to expand that footprint and bring more people online, and that type of investment we want to see. at the federal level, of course we've got 4.5, 3 billion that is here in the u.s. it will be over ten years to expand the service and 2 billion for rule broadband deployment that should come from a competitive reverse auction. i want you to talk just a little bit about specifics of how this serves to get more people onlin online. >> chairman, i think you raise a really important concept in that his coronation. how can we ensure that our what's going on at the federal level coordinates with what can happen on the state level. i think that's where some of the things the committee is looking at like accurate mapping and making sure we know where the underserved areas are so that we can focus those limited resources, whether universal service

dollars and we are pleased that the fcc is currently circulated in order that looks to restore the funding that had been subject to the budget mechanism which will go a long way in terms of giving folks regulatory certainty. how do they know they've got the resources too actually deploy and you combine that with state initiatives, what tennessee has done is really interesting. minnesota did something similar but how do you actually take all these d different pieces so that we can thoughtfully build out to those consumers that actually have not had the opportunity to have access. it will be really important. we look at those areas when that auction comes up as an opportunity for my company to potentially edge out into communities that are unserved and neighboring those areas where they may have an opportunity to bring robust broadband to their own incumbent areas out to those waiting for service. we are hopeful w those rules will be helpful. >> at this time, i yelled to mr. welch for five minutes. >> thank you very much.

when attacked about two things. one is a bipartisan bill to have mr. mckinley and then this question of the rural broadband buildout. by the way, thank you all for your testimony. mr. mckinley and i have a bill that would require the fcc to define on an ongoing basis what is reasonably comparable service and reasonably comparable prices in rule and urband america. we have seen, from my perspective and alarming approach by the currentan fcc chair that is essentially dumbing down what success is in rule america. could you respond to your view about the value of having the fcc onou an ongoing basis give a concrete and scientific answer to the question of reasonably comparable in rural areas.

would that be helpful. >> i think that is,s, they mention in the statistics that we have in terms of an number of carriers and what the capacity is, i w think we do have to figure out how you ensure that consumer demands increase. the demands that people are looking for grows exponentially. how do we make sure you are not creating two different services between rural and urbanrb america. how do you make sure there's comparability there. part of the issue that continues to be the underlying problem, however, is the high cost of deployment network. for example, when you look at the ability ofet a role provider to do standalone broadband for the consumer who simply wants the ability to access broadband, they may not want the telephone service or some of theot other things that come with it. right now, it is going to be very important, but it is going to take resources and support for universal service. >> thank you. >> mr. doyle asked a question that everyone said

affirmatively that we do need federal funding. i want to go back to that. i've heard a lot about regulatory reform and a lot of good ideas. that makes sense to me. i have heard a lot that the local efforts are very important. what we do should enhance them, not diminish them. bottom line, there's got to be money. just like there is with rural electrification. mr. dillon, in your written testimony as i a read it, you didn't believe there was a need for federal funding to deploy 5g. if that's the case, would your folks be able to commit that they will be deploying 5g service. >> 5g. [inaudible] >> when you talk about unserved households, you're going to need money. >> you know where the market

is produced no expectation. there is a fundamental policy question notat only congress can answer. there is a bill based on a study that the fcc did that we really need $40 billion. mr. walden raise questions about spending that wisely and we want to do that and make sure it's done right. of the panel is here, that fcc figure, $40 billion for the buildout for comparable service and rule america sounds like a good number to you. let's start with you. >> congressman, there are numbers of studies that have

indicated that more monies are needed for reaching ubiquitous access for americans, a goal that we all share. not necessarily agree with one or another set of numbers, what we all agree is that we need direct funding where there is a need. using funds is most administratively logical. the number that we are going to have to spend is in the billions of dollars. does anyone disagree with that? >> no. >> i do agree. unfortunately, it's far more costly to build in rural areas on a. user basis pretty gets more costly with lower density, not just for. [inaudible] directing the funding and making sure the funding is well-suited to the needs and

the needs of the same in rule america as an urban and suburban america. we all need high speed. we need scalable networks that are capable of growing over time. we don't need second rate services and rule america. >> my time is up. want to thank the panel. >> the german yelled back. >> thank you very much chairman. in your testimony you mentioned the finite federal resources that should be targeted to ensure that funding toge unserved areas, that that funding is prioritized. i couldn't agree more with that. i have introduced a resolution stating as much. could you please expand on the importance of prioritizing federal funds to unserved areas ofco the country, are we able to learn from past mistakes related to this issue when we are deciding how best to spend federal resources. >> thank you very much for the

question. as stewards of s federal dollars and broadband providers in congress, all of the american republic has to be very cautious about how we use those dollars and we have to make sure they are being used efficiently and for targeted purposes. we are all focused on doing so in ways that will achieve those goals. with respect to reaching unserved areas, where there is no access to broadband, those high cost areas require a partnering government, directed funds using universal service on methodologies. we believe the appropriate way to go and there is no doubt that in order to fulfill the obligation to close the digital divide, thinking very carefully, as we are doing here today and i hope we will continue to do of how we can actually expand that universal budget to meet that great goal

is a great priority. >> do you believe this will require statutory change or can this be done administratively or will be a combination of both. >> i believe it can be accommodation of both. we elect congress toe decide each commitment to fulfill this great goal we have of closing the digital divide. too do so we understand it will cost tens of billions of dollars. universal service funds and the platform and the direct funding model. it's proven to be most efficient doing so and we think both administratively and through statute there will be mechanisms of actually achieving this golden w goal. >> what other members like to comment. >> i would just like to jump look at my when i membership, it's a combination of universal service along with support like the usda has so you build the business case with universal service thatt allows folks to get the capital funding through things

like usda to actually build these networks. the one thing i would say would be really important to think about, to make sure that as we look at that underserved and finite resources that we are using them to build networks that will last into the future. >> thank you. >> congressman, i would agree, i would totally agree that there is certainly is a need as has been demonstrated in very hard to reach underserved areas where federal funds can be very important to closing that aspect of the digital divide, but then, as we look at past programs, whether it's the reform of the connect america fund which is focused on unserved areas, ensuring that we are using reverse auctions to spend money wisely , these are good ideas to employ. the lesson we want to do is discourage private investment. one way you would do that, and you recognize is because of your resolution is by permitting any situation where an unsubsidized internet

service provider would have to pay subsidize competition. that is a disincentive to further investment in deployment of broadband. so otherwise i think you're right on target as it relates to focusing on areas where broadband is unserved, let's make sure were not overbuilding this unsubsidized providers. >> so we have to be careful regarding subsidies. >> anyone else on the panel. >> congressman, my perspective would be that competition in this environment as in any environment gets better results and if there is going to be public funding for broadband r deployment then offering it on a competitive basis so the most motivated, strongest set of partners are able to bid for that kind of thing rather than offering it to a single set of companies

where there is no competitive benefit, i think that is a proven strategy. >> i would agree, yes. >> connecticut, near new jersey, although we have to be careful as to whom we root for in new jersey. >> my views are my own and do not reflect the views of connecticut. [laughter] i would just like to add that i think when you're talking about effective the point of dollars, federal, state and any level, we have to recognize the role, the legitimate, important role of state and local governments in maximizing those dollars. i encourage you to think about including them in this and not excluding them. as an example, in theno northwest corner of connecticut we have 26 minutes penaltieshe all nonpartisan that have banded together looking at models to get networks deployed into their neighborhoods. it's much more efficient to have 26 small towns working together trying to do things

like streamlining, permitting and finding these companies are working with private sectors. keep that in mind. we will be much more effective if we allow municipalities to work on this level. >> thank you. my time has expired. my thanks to the entire panel. >> the gel manuals back. >> thank you madam chair. i think we all agree that better broadband can help provide more opportunities for more people and to make ubiquitous broadband reality, democrats on this committee have been working on ways to make sure everyone, whether they live in rural areas or urban areas have access to better and more affordable broadband services and that's why we introduce the lift america act that would provide 40 billion through a mix of reverse auctions and state programs that would prioritize sending money to areas in funding underserved areas and building our next generation of 911 systems printer wanted towa start with mr. stalter.

in your testimony you discuss the need for federal funding to support a more expensive broadband network, can you just elaborate on why this is necessary. >> there is a need in america today because of the challenging business case delivering broadband to our hardest reach area for a direct funding model. we understand that with best intention, broadband providers are doing everything they can to extend the e opportunities that broadband can bring but they're still areas that will require partnership with government. we know the direct funding model, again using platforms like universal service is the most efficient ando logical way to actually advance that goal. direct funding is and has been and will be the principal and most sound funding model for actually making the reality of closing the digital divide actually happened. >> over the past year, republicans have eliminated our privacy rights online and

destroyed net neutrality and now they want to eviscerate our environmental and preservation laws and they've done all of this in the name of broadband deployment. i wanted to ask, have you seen any evidence that elimination of these protections will bring broadband to the millions of americans whoed are not yet served? >> no congressman, i think that this will make for more profitable companies, whether better p leads to more deployment, particularly in areas that are not going to result in profits themselves, it's just not's clear to me that there is a link between those things. i am concerned frequently that t certain kinds of regulatory relief or other kinds of things are extended to the companies based on the premise that will lead to new deployment in rural areas but there is no commitment or enforceable mechanism for making sure that that actually

happens. given greater profitability, companies may or may not further invest. >> thank you. i understand that the elimination of our environment to laws will not make a meaningful difference in connecting the means of americans who don'tne have access, but i do think we need to better understand what the effect of some of these proposals would actually be so i wanted to ask, in your opinion what would be the effect of carving up long-standing environmental protection as some of the bills before us would do. >> thank you. i think that the impacts can be very big. broadband that were talking about are not large problems to this country. there are ways that the forest service and blm to do a problematic impact statement that would make it very easy to get any required approval.

it's not a major issue. we have trouble maddock impact first solar, we could do it easily for broadband. i don't think that is a big problem. however, i think we are missing the issue here. in many of these cases, it state and local zoning and other things that are the problem. if the issue that i was talking about was mainly in the bill were talking about things well t beyond broadband that can have large environmental impacts, in that case we need to keep the environment to laws strong and enforced so that people are not adversely affected by large federal products. clearly the fcc has never required n any irs. there is not a big burden but it is an excuse not to have

broadband in rural areas. thank you very much. i yield back. >> the gel manuals back. >> thank you for being here. this is an i issue that we seem to continue to talk about and i'm proud of my co-ops in my small telephone companies in these areas that are trying to do just that. there is a need for government involvement to provide some certainty financially because the return on investment is just not there. i was talk about the need on the universal service to get that right and start parlaying that toward a broadband deployment. but, when we hear the testimony, i'm sorry i'm bouncing back between two hearings, will he just beat up large corporations and the profitability, we really want to incentivize the small co-ops in a small family

privately owned companies to do that, to do what they are trying to do right now. and then bring competition. this came from a local newspaper, generally 28, not that i solicit it, i would like to ask consent to summit this for the record. >> without objection. >> it's a community in my district, highland illinois, that because they were, they felt they were held hostage to the local provider, they built their own fiber system. now, the editorial is pretty good because it says there is just a report out, the harvard university study and they were fifth out of 27 public utilities is that you're doing a good job, but at the end it also says but there are hidden costs when you have a government run system, the

government is assuming some of those costs on payroll and insurance and all those other things. i just thought it was timely and i wanted to summit that for the record because it does really segue into this debate. i doo believe regulatory burdens slow the process up. especially for these smaller companies, whether privately or public. that's why we did the speed act which is an attempt to alleviate some of these additional reviews, especially in the environmental and historic reviews. now, the key to the small provision, this package is that it in right away and it's already being used. it's not like new, you're not, it's not the green filled area where your building over new territory, untouched pristine land, it's using current systems with a focus on size.

mr. gilling, can you elaborate on the challenges of the environmental and historic reviews that present for deployment in how this bill might address those. >> absolutely. thank you for your leadership on this issue. i'm good with everything you said. when you're talking about citing devices like this, right now it adds thousands and thousands of costs and months and months of review that we don't get back. it's delaying deployment and increasing the cost of deployment. absolutely this speed act would address the core impediment. >> their actions going on through the state. is this similar to what some of the states are doing in this venue and this way. >> absolutely. i think the notion that we need both state and local budgets to tighten how we do this. it will take both for us to do the. >> how important is it for communications, this whole debate of policy deployed equally regardless of technolog technology.

>> technology neutrality is asked dreamily important as we think about the opportunities of closing the digital divide.iv we support any innovation that will actually be able to deliver broadband through whatever technology that most communities and institutions that support that. what we also realizes that in the current moment that were living in, the most effective mechanism is to pull broadband fiber to as many communities as possible and to do so needs create a partnership that has to exist between private investment which is on the table with a strong partner in government through direct funding. >> ms. bloomfield, are small providers disproportionately impacted by regulations? >> just that they have fewer staff and have fewer resources so obviously the time you

spend dealing with regulations, you're not dealing with building broadband but i also want to commend you for your leadership because i think t the other initiative in your legislation is that you recognize it's also about upgrading the network. it's not just building it but what you are trying to address is the fact that these networks are living, breathing networks that constantly need to be upgraded. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> the german yields back. you are recognized for five minutes. >> i think the chair for holding this hearing and the witnesses, i will start, i'm concerned that the recent action of eliminating net neutrality and lifeline will actually open the digital divide. the current lifeline proposal to cut 70% of the lifeline program counterproductive to closing the digital divide in making broadband widely available to lowhe income americans. >> i think the short answer is yes. the rationale for eliminating

and curtailing the availability of the lifeline is that it would enhance broadband deployment, but i think that's comparing apples and oranges. this is the situation where we are trying to put medication capabilities in the hands of our lowest income people and to take those away from them, absolutely it will aggravate the digital divide and have negative impacts on many different populations. there's a lot of talk of how lifeline phones are being used by the homeless to connect with family and find resources and so it not only broadens the digital divide that has a ripple effect on the way that we can see our most vulnerable citizens impacted. >> thank you. >> i appreciate your direct testimony.

i heard in some places the best place to deploy high-speed internet access that americans deserve is to go to public-private partnerships. use stress that in your testimony. can you provide us with some illustrations from your work regarding the effectiveness of public, private partnerships. >> absolutely. thank you. i am seeing hundreds, possibly thousands of local initiatives with the willing and enthusiastic participation of the private sector inci communities like wyoming where the local community is planning to deploy infrastructure that will be made available to a their private partners and to business districts where there is no adequate broadband at all, just speeds of a megabyte or two at best in order to allow this to thrive in that part of the community. there are efforts like that underway in parts of kentucky and parts of west virginia, all over the country and even more ambitious and farsighted efforts at the city of san francisco is considering a public private partnership

that is focused on ensuring that the hundred 50000 people in seven cisco who don't currently have broadband, mostly because they can't afford it, have access to adequate speeds, not 1 megabyte speeds but the same speeds that you and i consider to be appropriate for our family spread there is enormous creativity on both the public and the private side and the private sector is willingly participating and engaged. >> thank you paradise cosponsored a bill that would-i help public-private partnerships get low interest financing. without the helpful for billing out access. >> yes, i think it's an incredibly helpful approach because what it does is it makes it feasible for a local community to have low-cost financing to build infrastructure and potentially make that infrastructure available for private-sector use. we have all agreed on this panel that the cost of infrastructure deployment in certain markets is prohibitive. if there is a way that state, local and federal efforts can

be targeted toward infrastructure than allowing for private-sector provision, in s some cases it will differ from community to community, but that is a mechanism for ensuring that we get infrastructure to places where it does not exist in an adequate way. >> thank you. i will move to cyber security. we've had security experts testify in front of this committee that many or most of the iot devices are insecure. by 2020 it's projected there will be 20 - 50000000000 devices in use. should we be concerned about the risk that these devices are posing tohe our broadband networks. >> thank you for the question. it is a concern that all broadband provider share that

we have to be much more focused and increasingly focused on the resiliency ofgr security, not only of our wired networks but also of our wireless networks. the internet of things is an opportunity of great promise for economic productivity of ourav country. the focus that we have been giving as a broadband community to this initiative is also being done in partnership with the broader set of colleagues in the internet ecosystem. our cloud companies, our information technology companies, increasing our joining to share the responsibility with us to extend greater security for our broadband networks including for the internet of things but we are doing so in partnership with the department of homeland security and other agencies that we have to work closely with this office. >> are good. i have a lot more question. i will yield back. >> thank you very much madam chair for holding today's hearing. this is very important. as cochair of the broadband caucus, access to high-speed

broadband in rural areas is a top priority of mine. i believe congress should facilitate robust broadband networks by creating a a regulatory environment, competition and innovating. that's why i introduce broadband deployment should be competitive and neutral. i've also introduced the provision act to help close the digital divide face by the agricultural communities in rural america. ms. bloomfield, if i could pose my first question to you, error culture operations are an essential source of revenue and jobs that are wrote communities. today precision farming requires access to high-speed

broadband to support advanced operations in technologies that significantly increase crop yields, reduce costs and improve the environment. my bill requires the fcc to recommend steps to obtain reliable measurements of broadband coverage in order to gain a better understanding of the true lack of access in america. it's my understanding that finding adequate, accurate broadband mapping is nearly impossible. and so, in what ways would be beneficial for the fcc to obtain such data for the purpose of deploying high-speed broadband on agricultural cropland and other rural areas. >> chrisman while i appreciate the question and the leadership that you've shown on a lot of these issues, smart egg is truly the next frontier when we think about economic development and vitality. i think a lot of the initiative is how do you gather more that granular data to look at the track level and

figure out where is the infrastructure and where is the void because we certainly know you need to be able to see it weather at street level or whether it's literally on the cropland in terms of where that infrastructure is. i think when we look at the fcc and some of the work they've been doing and trying to take that data and figure out in a granular, transparent and accurate way, and when you get different entities trying to measure in different ways of measuring where that is. i think you're focused on how we coordinate and aggregate this. it will go a long way in seeing where we need to focus our energy and resources. >> let me ask you. what would you be looking at to make sureki they are looking at the right data and everyone is on the same page and are not looking at two different things. >> i think we saw a little bit during the stimulus wherehi there was actually a broad

band map that was built but it was very consisten inconsistent and wasn't checked. people were putting in their own data. as someone who represents small carriers, i understand there's always thated competitive concern about what data you are releasing but i also worry that if you've got an entity looking at data and you got the fcc and they're using two different measurements, two different land tracts, different speeds, i think the ability to actually house it in one place we've got the a ability to be consistent and the ability to be transparent, i think folks need to see it as it gets developed and you need to have the ability to check it. think those arere things that will be very important check posts as we go forward but it will be the foundation for where we go in terms of future investment. >> thank you. >> there is legislation that's part of ourha hearing today

which i support that incentivizes 5g wireless to point them. i've also introduced a resolution setting a new policy for net neutrality for the government in picking winners and losers out there. >> is the industry doing anything comparable to the 5g rollout with similar coverage. >> comparable answer passing when you look at the amount ofn broadband service being presented for our members and rule america. i have a chance yesterday to hear from a number of members all over the country, telling us what they were doing. i heard from one small company in eastern kentucky, they are delivering gigabytes bead in easternck kentucky. i heard from a company called hickory telephone which is building fiber to the home in underserved areas. we have members all over the country that are providing gigabytes service, 200 megabits, 300 megabit service. we are building a service as our customers in our community want us to do and what we ask

and why we appreciate your resolution that as we go forward as a country and we look at regulations that apply to helping broadband be deployed more effectively that we do so on a competitive, technology neutral basis. we have a lot of area out there that i have visited personally with our members. it is amazing how much rural area there is out there. not one company is going to solve these problems and that is why our policy needs to encourage competitive technology neutral proponents. we are providing the service, building the backbone to help deliver 5g service down the road as it becomes farther out in our area. we are up for the challenge. >> thank you very much but my time has expired. i yield back. >> the german yelled back. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you madam chair. this is really great. normally i would be asking questions earlier but i was in my office andnd had to do some meetings. i got to hear from so many of

my colleagues. i represent about a fourth of the state of iowa. it isn't quite as big as the chairman's district, as he likes to remind me that we have a lot of rural area. it's clear to me we have to have some public funding and private investment. we have toe make sure we deal with regulations. we need to make sure that small internet providers are not unfairly subjected to too many regulations so they can put their resources into building out and making sure rule americaur is served instead of simply filling out paperwork regulations that are unnecessary, that kind of thing. i think we actually have more bipartisan support and i think the chairman agrees that we actually have some bipartisan support on number of these issues. >> oh yes.

i am accustomed to hearing from rob and. >> exactly, and thank you very much but i do appreciate that. and working with the representative, we talked earlier today, i didn't realize he would steal so much of my thunder, but really happy to work with him on the precision agricultural connection. it's very important in my district, but of course, related to what he was talking about with mapping, i actually did introduce the wireless access act and we got it out of subcommittee. the fcc paid close attention to that. that comes down essentially to what i like to call garbage in, garbage out. if we don't have accurate maps than we cannot make accurate decisions and good decisions going forward. and so, a lot of this, people from i will like to say we have a lot of common sense,

but a lot of what's going on is just common sense. if we don't have accurate data, whether it's agriculture or a subset of something larger, then we will not be able to make good decisions. public policy decisions or even investment decisions on the part of the private sector. that, theoint on chairman, i asked him because i heard he had been to northwest iowa and he drove from my hometown of sioux city up to southern minnesota and he found out just how many problems there are in rural area with droppedh calls and all kinds of things. i mentioned actual broadband service as well. i just want to ask that ms. bloomfield, you've much responded to what this is all about so i'll skip you for a moment, if that's okay. i would like to go to mr. guillen and talk about that issue, the mapping issue and making sure we have good data. >> as you said, thanks to your leadership i think we have all listen and heard they think working with those national and regional carriers and

working with the fcc that we have a better map to inform and what that money will do is to hopefully start serving those areas that don't have service today but the condition for is the data that you been looking for and that will start very soon. >> i would agree. i also want to thank you for your leadership in understanding that important management principle that what you can't measure, you can't manage for this is particularly true with respect to delivering broadband. who taken great strides to provide more precise geocoding for customers that actually have service. the next frontier is to try to do so with that kind of geocoding specificity for locations that don't have broadband yet. we believe we have to think creatively and innovatively and slightly out-of-the-box. as long as we have uniform data, one of the ideas is

looking at its own 2020 effort, their resources might be brought to bear to actually bring that longitudinal specificity to help pinpoint areas where broadband is not yet. >> i would even suggest, mostly jokingly thatt the fcc talk to all of us who have rural districts because we can identify where the gaps are if we can get around in our districts like i do all the time. ms. bloomfield, would you like to elaborate. >> the only thing i would add is we talked about initiative on some ofhe the wireless fronts, just a reminder that wireless needs wires so those networks can't even be built if you don't have the backhaul out there. as we have more need for capacity and ability for you, if you're like me, the ability to pull over and pull up a map to see where you are, to view the data you n actually need that infrastructure so they really go hand-in-hand, their complementary services and i think all be very important. >> thank you. >> the gentleman yields y back.

>> i think the chair and welcome to our seven witnesses. a special welcome to mr. guillen. please give a warm regard to your boss. that family is a legend in houston texas. iconic so please give her our regards. i like to brag on chairman walden's comments about square miles. he talked about connecticut and oregon. for the record, texas is 268,597 square miles. my district, texas 22 is a small portion of that, 1032 square miles. it's very small. basically it's halfway between role and suburban. because it's so close to houston, all of the telecom industry, the 5g, aren't really applicable.

we did suffer a disaster with hurricane harvey that hit us in august and we weren't alone. after that puerto rico was hit with maria and the virgin islands was hit by hurricane irma. we have seen catastrophic wildfires in california and floods and loss of coverage. when these disasters hit, as you all know, it's critically important that we get to medications infrastructure up and running. it has to be as quickly as possible to give these communities the help they need to recover as quick as possible. that's why it's probably on top your pile, it's called the connecting communities post disasters act in this bill takes a simple step by allowing local communities to bypass long and unnecessary environmental and to replace damaged or lost towers and

communication infrastructure but not have new ones but replace ones are hit by disaster. my first question is for you, mr. guillen, there is a strong effort after hurricane ike to bury the medications cables. that was very successful. in fact, fcc commissioner came down a couple days after the storm hit and he also noticed we have a lot of cell towers that are exposed to the storm. especially when it came a storm by corpus christi. how important is it to get communications up and ready following disaster. how important is that to fight the disaster. >> it is critical. i think it's critical for particularly for temporary facilities because as we learned in the most recent storm, smart phones is what the americans need to reach their families and let people know they are safe. cell coverage is critical. that bill is very important because when the storm is

over, our job is just getting started and how do we restore services and not only restore them but make them better so that we have the opportunity in your district to startrt giving you the most advanced networks and things to your bill we can start doing that more quickly. >> thank you. we also had all these warnings on thes cell phone about tornado watches, flood warnings and information coming not from the phone line but coming from the cell phone. do you agree it makes sense to suspend, to reconstruct these towers, to help them get rolling quickly as opposed to dragging this out month after month and year after year. >> to bring back your economy and bring back your constituents, absolutely anything at the very targeted relief that you're proposing. >> any comments on this issue about disaster? >> i would just add that we had about four carriers that were in the path of harvey and

i checked in with each one of them. thanks to the ability to build the future proof networks in the plant and the ability to put their switches underground , every one of my companies that was in the path were able to be up and running instantaneously and never lost service. that's very important. >> congressman, your initiative to actually move forward with hr 4845 is meaningful not only to citizens in your community which were served by companies in u.s. telecom that were running toward danger but to support the broadband needs, but also your initiative will be meaningful for communities around the country including places where i used to live your earthquake fault in california. it is an absolute necessity that we as a nation provide any mechanism to provide efficiencies of broadband facilities can be put back into place to serve communities that have been affected by disaster and your initiative, you use one such step and we are grateful for it. >> one question before you'll

back, there was discussion, some sort of concern about the football game, the super bowl between the patriots and the eagles, a yes no question of all the panelist, are y'all okay, give a problem with the houston astros being the world champs for 91 days. >> the germans time has expired. >> five minutes. >> thank you madam chairwoman. i'm not going to get into that since i don't have a dog in that fight. good luck to all. thank you mr. olson for bringing up some of the issues that are related to disasters, i know there was a response here, but i think it's important to note that in the fires in northern california in napa and sonoma counties, the cell phones didn't work.

life is not tidy. fires just don't occur between the time people get up and retire at 10:00 p.m. we are no if it were not for the public safety people actually going door to door and banging on doors in the middle of the night, to get people out of their home, they fled in their nightgowns in their underwear and that was it because the fires were at the back of their houses and the roofs had started burning. thee other alert were their own dogs barking so much that it had awakened them. we can't live in a bubble. : something, i think it's wonderful and american invention and a computer in our pocket, but we should not allow

ourselves to dream on and say we have something in it will alert everyone. we have to think outside the envelope. i think the gentlemen for raising. i have to go downstairs for another hearing of the health >> come back and ask a few questions here. what do you think are the biggest impediments to deployment that you see in communities? it's certainly in rural communities there are many specifics that belong to rural communities, butth you spoke vey clearly about the hartford area. i was born and raised in connecticut, so it's nice to have someone from connecticut here just outside of the hartford area, actually. i think what the committee needs is some pinpointing by you of

specifics that will actually remove impediments to employment. now, i mean it as a softball question because i have legislation on it. and neither bill costs a dime. but anyway, to both of you? whomever wants to go first. want to do it alphabetically? >> thank you. i couldn't agree more about importance of some of those particular issues, and we've talked a lot about rural challenges, but i would say that there are some very acute urban challenges that, unfortunately, get a lot less discussion. i think sometimes they're not even recognized. for example, small business areas in urban and suburban areas are remarkably less served in many cases than residential customers, and that is because the traditional footprint of the cable industry -- to its credit -- was to go to all of the residences in a community. that is great in most

metropolitan areas because there'll be a -- >> but you see all the advertisements on tv for the commercial side, come do business with us and, you know, we're the ones that conserve your small business the -- can serve your small business the best. >> if the infrastructure's not there, it's going to be incredibly costly to get the infrastructure there. a large business will be able to afford whatever it takes, but a small business that can spend $79, $99, $129 a month, there's simply not a business case for the private sector to build best in class infrastructure to them. that's not a slam toward the private sector, that's how private investment works, and the private sector is doing exactly what it should. but i think there is an undiscussed conversation that should be had about the fact that small business areas struggle at remarkable levels as do very low income neighborhoods many many cases because there's simply not business case for upgrade of the networks. >> thank you. i want to go -- >> sure. if i could just add to that, the

reason we focused on hart forth is that we were -- hartford is we were contacted by officials what had done a survey and found they were unable for the reasons we're discussing to be able to connect to the internet because they were being quoted $30,000 for a street crossing. and, again, it's because the high cost of the street crossings and things like that. i don't fault the industry, but that's a reality, and so that's where we need to make some progress. >> well, i think that's very helpful. madam chairwoman, i'm going to ask unanimous consent that i be able to place the harvard study that i referenced in my opening comments today that o deals with communities being able to set up their own municipal broadband. >> so ordered, without objection. >> thank you. thank you to all of the witnesses. a good hearing. importantti one. >> gentlelady yields back, and

now the gentleman leading our broadband expansion effort, mr. johnson. you're recognized. >> thank you, madam chair. i appreciate it. and this is such an important hearing. i can tell you living in rural appalachia, i hear all the time about the urban rural divide. it's very, very real. places that businesses will not come into because they can't get access to their suppliers, to their customers, provide training for their employees, you've got children that have to go to another county or to another local township or to a public library to get access so that they can do their school projects. we've got a lot of intellectual capital and a lot of economic potential in rural america that's being just ignored because of this rural/urban

divide. and that's one of the main reasons that i was pleased to sponsor h.r. 4810, the mapping now act, because an important step to solving the rural broadband issue and expanding deployment is, first, accurately identifying where those unserved areas are. we need an accurate map to do that. and as some of you on the panel and i have discussed, just because one facility or one location in a census block says that there is coverage, that's not true. i can tell you from somebody that lives there, that's simply not true. and soe. we need this legislatin that directs the assistant secretary of commerce for communications and information to create that national broadband mapns and reassert ntia's authority to do so. many rural areas in appalachia,

ohio, find themselves on the wrong side of that urban/rural divide. we all know that high-speed internet is no longer a luxury, it's a necessity. today for education, for business, especially in this technology-driven global marketplace. so i'm going to continue to drive this issue very, very hard and working with i many colleagues to break down -- my colleagues to break down the barriers to broadband particularly in rural areas. mr. gill lam, from ctia's perspective, in your written testimony, you mentioned any new funding should also insure that reaching areas unserved by wireless is reflected in the program's objectives. in making funding decisions, better data is key. and rural broadband is no exception. first of all, do you agree with my assertion that the maps are inaccurate, that we really don't

have a good definition of where the unserved and underserved areas are? >> we certainly agree we can and we need to do better. >> okay, all right. do you have any suggestions on how we can insure better data of unserved areas? >> absolutely. i think there are commercial tools available that we can start informing our process as well, but i think it really to we obviously have a set idea of what we're measuring more, -- measuring fo, just a baseline of what we think we need to do and measure consistently across the board. we i think it's important to have one person in charge. >> i can tell you what satisfactory coverage is. satisfactory coverage is coverage. [laughter] i mean, that's what it is, it's us. but i appreciate that. ms. bloomfield, could you -- >> thank you for your leadership. but the ability to actually get

granular, get clear, get transparent and making sure that you are coordinating. so when you talk about whatever federal entity actually is controlling the mapping, the making sure that, actually, we are coordinating between all of those who are gathering data. so, again, you are comparing, you don't have those inconsistencies which i think have led to some of the confusion in the past. and i think the whole focus on the ability to access spectrum will also be very important in the future. >> okay. you s know, in your written testimony, ms. bloomfield, you mentioned the need for a single authoritative source that can provide accurate data at a granular level and on a consistent basis to help drive better informed decision making. so when updating the broadband map, should ntia use form 477 data? and is that data detailed enough in and if not, how would you recommend obtaining more granular data? >> so i think you make an excellent i point, and i think 7 is the best data so far that is

collected from all broadband providers so you make sure everybody in the pool actually is submitting the data. the problem is it's still self-reporting, so you're still going to have to make sure that there is some way to check to make sure there's verification what people report is actually true other than driving through your district and actually doing it anecdotally. think that is going to be important. but it is going to be, i think having it spread across different entities is just going to lead to confusion and not get the results that you're looking for. >> all right. well, thank you very much. i had a lot more questions, but my time's expired. i yield back. >> gentleman yields back. ms. clark, you're recognized for five minutes. >> i thank you very much, madam chairman, and i thank our panelists for their expert testimony here this morning. this congress i've had the honor of introducing and establishing the congressional smart cities caucus along with my colleague, congressman darrell issa. as cochair ofy this bipartisan smart cities caucus, i know

deploying broadband in our cities is critical. we in congress must do more to makeke sure that, first of all, the can deployment is ubiquitous, but to address the ten million americans in urban areas whoad to not have access o broadband as defined by the if fcc. and that's -- by the fcc. and that's why i've cosponsored the connecting deserts of 2018 withth my colleague, congressman bobby rush. under this legislation the fcc will be tasked with reviewing the state of deployment in urban broadband deserts and will be required to take action to help speed deployment if it is not occurring at a reasonable pace. so, ms. katz, what types of issues, and is we heard a little bit about this when the question was asked, i believe it was by ms. eshoo, what issue do we

currently allow to fester when we assume that every part of a city is already connected, and what couldtl we do to help addrs these issues? >> welk thank you for you -- well, thank you for your leadership, and thank you for the question. it's an excellent one. i talked a little bit about the homework gap. we've seen continuing impacts on small businesses. there's also in my testimony a report we did on that issue. and so we see that you continue the cycle of lack of opportunity for these areas when they don't have access to broadband. this panel, it's delightful that it's almost undisputed that it's a utility at this point that everybody needs access to it. and so i think some of the most effective things we can do is to allow state and local governments to be a part of the dialogue. it does concern me as chair of the intergovernmental advisory committee when there's repeated references to removing barriers at state and local levels. and, in fact, state and local very hards are trying

to move the needle on these things. for example, in connecticut we are working, we've been working for years on a single-pull administrator. one-stop shopping for connecting to you built poles. that's -- utility poles. that'sco one of the things thats most expensive. it's also very important for smart cities, dig once policies. how can we coordinate on the digging of the streets. these are very important but complexx issues, but these are some of the initiatives that state and local governments are work on.th >> very well. ms. hovis, did you have something you wanted to add with respect to this? a y concern? >> i would say just that from the smart cities standpoint and the smart communities, because we're going to have smart counties and smart rural areas as well, the infrastructure is so critically important. and as long as a divide persists in who has access to the best infrastructure, then as services in a smart community environment move on to the infrastructure more and more, there will be less access by some members of the community.

so our risk here is that the digital divide -- rural, urban and that that incomes low income folks and impacts small businesses -- get more and more pronounced over time. we can't double down on the existing divide. >> theun other concern that has sort of been flagged in part of this conversation is one of cybersecurity. so that if we're talking about smart cities and we're talking about gaps in coverage, would any of you speak to having sort of those vulnerabilities could mean from a national perspective? >> i would be happy to jump in. i have the opportunity right now to serve on the fcc working group talking about what is the importance of protecting those networks. and one of theki things that we think is really important is to insure, you know, i have 850 carriers across 46 states. people tend to think of the large carriers, but we immediate to make sure that the -- we need to make sure that the small carriers have the ability to protect their networks.

sometimes the assumption where the networks are vulnerable is where the problems will actually happen. so we're spending, actually, a lot of time and resources this year educating our small network operators on how to protect their assets, how to protect they are consumer asset, and that's really important as we move on to the internet of things. >> and if i could as well, i applaud your efforts to make our cities smarter and the broadband infrastructure for our cities and all of our communities safer, more secure. we at u.s. telecom are taking that very, very seriously. we've recently launched a small and medium business initiative to make sure not just our largest companies, but also our smallest companies who share a vulnerability can actually do incident response, reporting and information sharing much v more effectively. but our enemies in this domain are getting smarter, more wily by the day. we have of to think of this as not just a challenge carried by broadband providers, but by the entire internet ecosystem. >> [inaudible] >> we have to join in common cause in doing so. >> very well. i yield back, madam chair.

thank the gentlelady. mr. guthrie, you're recognized. >> thank you very much. sorry, i've been bouncing between a couple of hearings today, so i apologize. i did hear mr. johnson's testimony, or questioning, and understand that there were some otherr questions about mapping. and i know that's what we're talking about. and the pact that we have to -- the fact that we have to get more granular data and the 477 may not give enough information. so this is really to the providers, ms. bloomfield, the questions. given the need for service providers to protect their proprietary asset information and our need as policymakers to get more granular broadband availability information, is there even a a pathway forward o get to a street-level understanding of broadband service availability that meets both needs? i'll just start with -- >> technologically, i think there is a pathway forward. that technology is not only being deployed by our federal government, particularly by the fcc, but also by those advanced by the private sector. i think that this is an opportunity going forward to

think about how we can actually streamline and make it uniform approach to a mapping exercise so that we are not merely identifying addresses, but actually geo-coding longitudinally and latitudally relevant where we need to deliver broadband. first it's fantastic that you and mr. johnson are working to come up with creative solutions going forward, but also knowing that the fcc is going to be driving this process forward to the extent the ntia's going to be involved, it needs to meaningfully coordinate with the fcc to avoid duplication and, therefore, confusion. and also we collectively have to think about other assets that can be put on to the table including, as i mentioned, the census bureau can use its resources to help map and locate, again, longitudinally and latitudally areas where there is no institutions, residences where there is not yet broadband access.

>> okay, thank you. mr. gillam? >> thank you for the leadership to bring more attention to it, and i think we're seeing progress. i think it's important we martial all resources, and it's going to take a partnership of all these companies and the government to figure out how best to do this. but i think a lot of the ideas that were just said are right on track. >> thank you. >> and if i could just add, we've talked about streamlining. the one thing i would encourage is we don't look at creating multiple burdens so that you're not having small companies like theta ones i represent having to do onerous reporting to three or four different agencies. so, again, that coordination's going to be important. >> are there mechanisms you would put in place that would relieve that burden? >> you know, i think it's helpful to figure out a way to designate who takes the lead, not dissimilar to some of the effort it is committee has been looking at, how you designate where that point is and agree to one form of process, one form of data to be collected. and then certainly a challenge process so that folks can insure

or that the data's accurate. >> okay, thanks. >> completely agree. mapping is essential. we have to know where we need to build. there does need to be a partnership, there's no question about it. whatever technological means that we can determine to help better determine where. broadbad is necessary, but ultimately this is going to come down to information from the provider. in the most hardest to reach areas, you're going to have small companies that do have very, very small staffs, very few people, the people that they employ arere the ones that are literally climbing the poles and servingle the customers at the counters. they don't have deep legal staffs, nor regulatory staffs. so for them to take the time to fill out the information that's required is a burden. so that has to be factored in. certainly, that self-reporting is important and essential as a piece of how we determine where background is and isn't as part of the mapping process. butre this has to be, i think, a

much broader,s deeper discussion on what is the baseline of information that we want to obtain, how can we obtain it and who will be the provideers to help provide that information. >> from some of the previous mapping efforts, the sbi mapping administered from 2009-14, what are some of the deficiencies and maybe lessons learned that can be applied? i only have about 45 seconds, so y'all -- providers -- can go as you want to go. whatpr are the deficiencies, and what should we do different? >> i would say paperwork with. it's as simple sometimes as papererwork. when you have forms to fill out, again, by small companies who do not have the background, the regulatory, the legal background, even then determining more particularly census block, census tracks, obtaining the day, the cost of the data to even populate the maps. it's extremely difficult for small companies to accomplish. it's vital, but here again it's -- it has to be part of a

public/private purpose to deliver that information. >> thank you very much. ando that's -- my time's expir, and i yield back. >> mr. collins, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, madam chair. i would like to thank you also for just holding this hearing on having such a diverse group of witnesses. broadband access, as we all know, is important to our rural communities as our reliance on the internet continues to grow. unfortunately, some states like new york are now working to complicate this issue, but we'll set that aside for a second and say i'm at least glad to see some bipartisan bills here as the subject of this committee hearing. and as we focus on infrastructure, the inclusion of broadband is something that i bring up again and again. it's notas just roads and bridgs and airports. 65% of my district, eight counties very rural, a lot of dairy farmers, are certainly underserved. my bill, h.r. 4798, is the bill that considers inventory of

assets for communication facilities act of 2018. let's know what we've got. let's at least make it easier for some of the smaller carriers, somebody when we introduced this made the comment don't the big guys already know what we've got? maybe they do, maybe they don't. it never hurts to make it easier. but certainly system of the smaller supplies, i -- suppliers, maybe some of those that end up coming into my rural communities if they can see some value. maybe specifically as common sense as some of this is, i'm presuming you wouldom support sh an inventory of assets, and could you speak to how that might help? >> it's not only common sense, but it's music to our ears when the federal government wants to identify and map its assets. great and we encourage that to happen. i'd also say that we know that when and as that mapping takes place and inventories are done, we will be able to deliver with the speed to market that will be much more effective.

when our principal infrastructure and assets -- our federal infrastructure and assets are connected to broadband, they become safer and have longer life spans. this is anme important initiatie that you're undertaking, and we applaud your effort for thinking it through, and we're going to support you. >> good, thank you. >> i think this was something actually both big and small companies don't know where those assets are, so i think it's a critical resource to be able to know when you're trying to deploy as quickly as you want to deploy where we can and can't go. so i think it's critical for us to start building faster. >> yeah. mrs. bloomfield. >> i was also going to commend you for keeping it technology-neutral which i think is very important as we actually assess the assets. >> yeah. >> finally, i would just say access to technology is important. and if -- particularly for a smallerr company where you have fewer customers per mile but the cost of technology that you need to deploy the same mile of broadband is just about the same

whether you're in rural new york or in the middle of manhattan. so having access to additional resources for small businesses is extremely important. and, in fact, i'm not aware of any other idea like that before that's existed where such information would be made available to smaller companies. so we certainly appreciate the idea and is really look forward to working with you on it. >> so, mr. gillan, you brought your 5g device in. we're going to have a lot more of those devices hangingous there than the big towers. >> absolutely. the post office is the federal building in town, and it's critical for us to know exactly where we can start because if we want to win the 5g race against china and others, we need all the information we can get. do any of the i other witnesses cae to make a comment? i was going to say, be not, but go ahead. >> yeah, no, i think it's incredibly important to know where the assets are, where the broadband is, and i also think it's important that be

independently verifiable, because i think it's important for the public to know they can rely on the data and it's transparently available. >> we'll make sure it's accurate. thank you, madam chair. i yield back. >> now to the patient mr. kramer. >> i have patience, i'm not sick. [laughter] but thank you. and, by the way, madam chair, thank you for the hearing, and thank all of you for your testimony and for being here. it really didn't require any patience at all. this is really quite interesting to me and fascinating, so i appreciate everybody being here. i have to admit that sometimes when i hear about these sparsely populated states like vermont and their digital divide, i start feeling a little guilty because when i look at north dakota, it's hard to claim a divide. now, there are some places, but we have overak 90% of our population that has 100 mbps or more and 92 that are over 25,

93 over 25. so while there still have a few spots, our folks do a great job. and, ms. bloomfield, you know well that -- and this is one of the concerns i want to get to here with regard to some of this policy -- that many of your members in north dakota were broadband before broadband was cool. they were efficiently using federal support funds to build out broadband long before it was, you know, mandated by either tradition or policy. andg one of the things i worry a little bit about as we talk about -- and i support, let's get the unserved before underserved, that's really important. we want to have that bridge. i mean, it would be kind of crazy to have an interstate that they decided to gravel for a couple miles in montana or something. but as each generation comes and the demands get greater and in places like north dakota where it's not just education, it's not just health care, huge,

really huge, other business really important, access to market is really important, but even safety, environmental safety, scada, systems that have to work on our oil pipelines and gas pipelines and, of course, big transmission lines as we generate electricity. all of that will require upgrades. and so as we talk about the efficient deployment of federal funds, i want to make sure that we have protections for upgrading as well. does that make sense? maybe i'll start with you, ms. bloomfield, to comment and anybody else who would like to. >> you are absolutely spot on and, again, thank you for your leadership on all of these issues. and i think people are always surprised that north dakota actually is probably one of the most fiber-rich states in the country because when you look at that land mass, it's pretty amazing. in part, when you're really that rural, you actually see what broadband can do to kind of narrow that gap that e geography creates. the ability to do telemedicine, therr ability to bring communits together, to do economic development. and when you had the oil industry coming in, the ability

to make sure that that economic enterprise was absolutely able to be supported. so the fact that you're focused finish. >> because people get so focused on the building, and they forget about the fact that you've got to maintain that network. otherwise, you know, down the road you don't have anything but a capacity that was limited by what it was when it was actually built, so the ability to live and breathe. the other thing i would tout is the ability of the carriers to collaborate with one another. they've created dcn, a state fiber network, the ability for them to realize that all boats rise if they are able to build that infrastructure out further. all of the carriers in the state actually benefit from it, and the state itself benefits from it. >> i'm going to just add a couple of statistics for others to comment. there are only three states that have less population density than north dakota, but there are 20 states and territories that actually have less connectivity than north dakota. so it can be done. but i also wonder, some of these other states have a lot of federallands lands, and we've been talking about that.

we havede some, it's not a barrr for us. i think state policy does matter. and while i agree that communities ought to have some competitiveness and some control over their own regulation, there should be a minimum standard that makes sure that the country is connected as well. but you wanted to comment. >> well, i couldn't agree with you more that the cost of maintaining and upgrading networks for underserved areas only escalating. it's a multiplier of what the build costs actually are. and we know particularly as we're seeing this extraordinary spike in the data that's being put through these networks from an increasingly small number of actually internet companies or that are sending video to customers around the country that this is even becoming more profound. so i completely agree with your -- >> so we're going to leave the last few minutes of this event. if you'd like to watch it anytime, just type broadband in the search bar at c-span.org, and you can see the last ten minutes or the whole event. live now to the senate floor, work today on the nomination of

andre yanku to be director of the u.s. patent and trademark office, a confirmation vote scheduled for 5:30 eastern this afternoon. later this week, a short-term government funding bill to keep federal operations running past thursday is expected to come to the floor. we will have live coverage here on c-span2. o order. the chaplain dr. barry black will lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. o god our rock, we look to you for safety in a chaotic world. we're grateful that you hear our prayers, responding to our requests for help. be a shield for our senators, protecting them from dangers