[House Hearing, 117 Congress] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] SUPPORTING SMALL ENTITIES THROUGH INVESTMENTS IN THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUC- TURE: BROADBAND ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON UNDERSERVED, AGRICULTURAL, AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ HEARING HELD JUNE 16, 2021 __________ [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Small Business Committee Document Number 117-019 Available via the GPO Website: www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 44-823 WASHINGTON : 2021 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HOUSE COMMITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS NYDIA VELAZQUEZ, New York, Chairwoman JARED GOLDEN, Maine JASON CROW, Colorado SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas KWEISI MFUME, Maryland DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota MARIE NEWMAN, Illinois CAROLYN BOURDEAUX, Georgia TROY CARTER, Louisiana JUDY CHU, California DWIGHT EVANS, Pennsylvania ANTONIO DELGADO, New York CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania ANDY KIM, New Jersey ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri, Ranking Member ROGER WILLIAMS, Texas JIM HAGEDORN, Minnesota PETE STAUBER, Minnesota DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania CLAUDIA TENNEY, New York ANDREW GARBARINO, New York YOUNG KIM, California BETH VAN DUYNE, Texas BYRON DONALDS, Florida MARIA SALAZAR, Florida SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin Melissa Jung, Majority Staff Director Ellen Harrington, Majority Deputy Staff Director David Planning, Staff Director C O N T E N T S OPENING STATEMENTS Page Hon. Jared Golden................................................ 1 Hon. Jim Hagedorn................................................ 2 WITNESSES Ms. Peggy Schaffer, Executive Director, ConnectMaine Authority, Augusta, ME.................................................... 5 Mr. Dan Sullivan, President, Downeast Broadband Utility, Calais, ME............................................................. 6 Mr. Matt Dunne, Founder and Executive Director, Center on Rural Innovation, Hartland, VT....................................... 9 Mr. Tim Waibel, President, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Burnsville, MN................................................. 10 APPENDIX Prepared Statements: Ms. Peggy Schaffer, Executive Director, ConnectMaine Authority, Augusta, ME..................................... 30 Mr. Dan Sullivan, President, Downeast Broadband Utility, Calais, ME................................................. 37 Mr. Matt Dunne, Founder and Executive Director, Center on Rural Innovation, Hartland, VT............................. 46 Mr. Tim Waibel, President, Minnesota Corn Growers Association, Burnsville, MN................................ 54 Questions for the Record: None. Answers for the Record: None. Additional Material for the Record: Missouri Farm Bureau Federation.............................. 60 SBE - Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.............. 62 Statement of Ranking Member Jim Hagedorn..................... 65 SUPPORTING SMALL ENTITIES THROUGH INVESTMENTS IN THE NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE: BROADBAND ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 2021 House of Representatives, Committee on Small Business, Subcommittee on Underserved, Agricultural, and Rural Business Development, Washington, DC. The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 2360, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Jared Golden [chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. Present: Representatives Golden, Carter, Delgado, Luetkemeyer, Williams, Hagedorn, Stauber, Tenney, and Salazar. Chairman GOLDEN. Good morning. I call this hearing to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. Let me begin by saying standing House Committee rules and practice continue to apply during hybrid proceedings. All members are reminded that they are expected to adhere to these standing rules, including decorum. House regulations require members to be visible through a video connection throughout the proceedings so please keep your cameras on. Also, please remember to remain muted, unless you are recognized, in order to minimize background noise. And if you have to participate in another proceeding, please exit this one and log back in later. In the event a member encounters technical issues that prevent them from being recognized for their questioning, I will move to the next available member of the same party, and we will recognize that member at the next appropriate time slot, provided they return to the proceeding. For those members and staff physically present in the committee room today, we will continue to follow the most recent OAP guidance. Masks are no longer required in our meeting space for Members and staff who are vaccinated. All Members and staff who have not been are asked to wear masks and socially distance. I sincerely hope we all do our part to protect each other and our staff. In 2020, COVID-19 widened the digital divide and highlighted the importance of reliable and affordable broadband for American small businesses. Many small businesses shifted operations online to stay connected to their customers as people stayed home to slow the spread of virus. This digital adaptation proved to be crucial to small business success. According to a survey by the Connected Commerce Council, 72 percent of small businesses increased their use of digital tools during the COVID-19 crisis. Unfortunately, small businesses without reliable broadband access proved to be at a significant disadvantage when it came to this digital transition. As a Representative of one of most rural districts in the country, I heard firsthand from many entrepreneurs about the struggles, the lack of access to high-speed broadband created during the pandemic. Although I would also note that that was a conversation that I had often with small business owners and many others around the district even prior to the pandemic. In my home State, roughly half of all road miles are considered unserved or underserved by broadband infrastructure. Statistics like these are not unique to Maine's Second Congressional District. Unfortunately, many communities across the country also struggle to access broadband at benchmark speeds. Broadband subscriptions continue to grow. However, rural and Tribal areas lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment. As a result, at least 25 million Americans still lack access to high-speed internet, many of which live in remote and rural parts of our country. This is known as the digital divide. Factors like low population densities, rugged terrain and fewer subscribers to spread deployment costs among have contributed to a lack of investment in broadband networks by private companies. Without access to high-speed broadband, small firms in these areas are at a significant disadvantage. From connecting with consumers to filling orders, a broadband connection is essential to the day-to-day operations of many Main Street businesses. This lack of access to high-speed broadband has proven to be an economic drain on many communities, impacting individual success in education, wealth, and access to opportunity. It is vital to the economic health of communities across the country and the Nation as a whole that we close the digital divide. As Congress considers legislative work to revitalize infrastructure, we have an opportunity to make the investment in broadband access. Meeting this opportunity will require Congress and the administration to work closely with State and local stakeholders and invest the resources necessary to make universally available broadband a reality. I hope that today's hearing marks the beginning of a good conversation between Committee members and stakeholders dedicated to closing the digital divide and empowering small businesses. I will now yield to the Ranking Member, Mr. Hagedorn, for his opening statement. Mr. HAGEDORN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that. And it has been a few weeks, we have been on break. And on behalf of our members, we would just like to congratulate you and your wife on the birth of your new daughter and glad to hear everybody is healthy and doing well. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. It is very important. I am excited to hear from the witnesses, particularly Tim Waibel, who resident of southern Minnesota. And it is going to be a great hearing on an important issue. As a member of both the House Small Business Committee and Agriculture Committee, broadband infrastructure has been a top priority since being elected to Congress. According to USDA's Census of Agriculture, nearly 20 percent of the constituents in my congressional district lack reliable internet service. Unfortunately, without reliable high-speed internet, many constituents and businesses are at a disadvantage. Under the previous administration, significant investments were made, such as the American Broadband Initiative, which stimulated increased private sector involvement in broadband infrastructure, and it was a bridge to the gap in rural America. However, despite significant advances, many rural and Tribal areas still have limited or no access to broadband capabilities. The digital divide has only grown wider as broadband deployment in urban areas continues to outpace deployment in rural areas. Congress must work to find solutions to address this digital divide. While we can all agree that providing small businesses with the tools and resources necessary to thrive, examining policies to help businesses get back on their feet is a priority. One way that we can ensure that we meet this goal is to have better broadband connectivity, which has been found it be a key aspect in increased economic growth for rural businesses. In fact, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service, broadband access in adoption in rural areas is linked to increased job and population growth, higher rates of new business formation, increased home values, and lower unemployment rates. Industries, such as agriculture and healthcare, which are vital to rural America, have increasingly relied upon broadband connectivity as technology capabilities have developed. Telemedicine has provided many benefits to rural communities during the pandemic and also has become a reliable way to ensure rural areas receive timely quality healthcare. The continued expansion and modernization of telemedicine capabilities will be essential to ensuring rural communities that they have the equal access to high quality care. Additionally, many small businesses, farmers and ranchers in southern Minnesota are increasingly relying upon technology as they seek to strategically decrease input, such as fertilizer and fuel, while simultaneously increasing yields. Without the availability of high-speed internet, they would not be able to keep pace with modern technology. Programs such as the ReConnect Pilot Program, which was authorized in the 2018 farm bill, have helped build out broadband infrastructure in rural areas that lack broadband access. This has helped make significant advancements in broadband infrastructure in my district and many others across the Nation. I was proud to support additional legislative efforts in the CARES Act and Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which appropriated more dollars like ReConnect, and it helped to make progress. I am going to submit the rest of my statement for the record. I want to keep us on time. Thank you for holding the hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Hagedorn. Just a quick moment to explain how the hearing will proceed. Each witness has 5 minutes to provide a statement, and each Committee member will have 5 minutes for questions. Please ensure that your microphone is on when you begin speaking and that you return to mute when finished. Now we will introduce our witnesses. Our first witness is Ms. Peggy Schaffer, executive director of the Connect Maine Authority, located in Augusta, Maine. She previously served as the small business advocate for the Secretary of State's Office and served as the Co-Chair of the Maine Broadband Coalition, a statewide group advocating for high-speed broadband. On behalf of my district and the State of Maine, we thank you for your dedication and welcome you to the Committee. Our second witness is Mr. Dan Sullivan, president of the Downeast Broadband Utility located in Calais, Maine. Mr. Sullivan has more than 40 years of experience in information technology, including as a small business owner and IT director from one of the region's largest employers. Downeast Broadband Utility, also known as DBU, is the first and only operating municipal broadband utility in the State of Maine. The network is owned by the city of Calais and the towns of Baileyville and Alexander. Welcome, Mr. Sullivan. Our third witness is Mr. Matt Dunne, founder and executive director of the Center on Rural Innovation located in Hartland, Vermont. Launched in 2017, the center is a social enterprise committed to supporting resilient economic development in rural America. Their sister organization--I am sorry. CORI's sister organization, Rural Innovation Strategies, provides strategic consulting to bring prosperity and investment to rural areas in the digital age. Mr. Dunne served in the Vermont State legislature, AmeriCorps, and Google's Community Affairs Division. He holds is B.A. from Brown University and is a lifelong Vermonter who lives on a 100-acre farm where he was raised. Welcome, Mr. Dunne. And the Ranking Member, Mr. Hagedorn, will introduce his witness. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our fourth and final witness is Tim Waibel, president of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association, one of the largest grassroots farm organizations in the country. Mr. Waibel, who hails from Courtland, Minnesota, in our congressional district in southern Minnesota is also a farmer with his wife and two sons. They grow corn, soybeans, and they raise hogs. Mr. Waibel has been on the State board of directors for the Minnesota Corn Growers Association for 9 years, serving in a variety of leadership capacities, including first vice president, treasurer, secretary, and now president. I think he has cornered the market there on the corn growers. His lifelong experience is not only a producer but advocate for the agriculture industry in general. And he will be extremely beneficial to our hearing today. And thank you, Mr. Waibel, for testifying and sharing your experience with us. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you very much. We will now go to opening remarks from our witnesses. With that, I will recognize Ms. Schaffer for 5 minutes. STATEMENTS OF PEGGY SCHAFFER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CONNECTMAINE AUTHORITY, AUGUSTA, ME; DAN SULLIVAN, PRESIDENT, DOWNEAST BROADBAND UTILITY, CALAIS, ME; MATT DUNNE, FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CENTER ON RURAL INNOVATION, HARTLAND, VT; AND TIM WAIBEL, PRESIDENT, MINNESOTA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION, BURNSVILLE, MN. STATEMENT OF PEGGY SCHAFFER Ms. SCHAFFER. Good morning. I am Peggy Schaffer, executive director of Connect Maine Authority. And I wish to thank you for this invitation to testify in front of the Committee House Small Business Subcommittee on Underserved Agricultural and Rural Development to talk about supporting small industries through investments in broadband infrastructure. Congressional support for bringing high-quality broadband to everyone in this country, rural and urban, is central to solving this problem. Connect Maine is a quasi-independent authority charged with bringing broadband to everyone in the State of Maine and making sure they can use it. Connect Maine was created in 2007 with a budget of about $1.5 million. We have two grant programs. One is for community planning, and one is for infrastructure. Over the past 12 years, we have provided about $12 million in infrastructure grants to ISP, attracting about $15 million in match from companies and communities. Last summer, Maine voters approved a $15 million infrastructure bond, and just this past month, we awarded $8.6 million of those funds to 20 projects that will serve 8,500 households, matching $16 million in company and community funds. In 2016, we started our community planning process. These are small grants that help communities plan how to expand broadband service in their area. Over 160 communities engaged this in process so far. In Maine and nationally, broadband infrastructure is a road-by-road battle. Where you live really matters. A neighbor half mile from you might have good service, but bringing that same service to your end of the road might cost $30,000 or more. Identifying these gaps is an essential part of the community planning process. Because of the well-known problems with the accuracy of the FCC data, many States have undertaken their own efforts to get better data. Georgia, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Washington, Minnesota, Maine have all developed our own mapping and data layers. These are just the few States frustrated with the inability to understand who has service and who does not. Broadband is a very personal service. It is how you connect with your family, healthcare, education, grocery shopping, and work. Maine communities, in fact communities across the country, realize that high-quality broadband connection is central to their future. Broadband is the lifeline for every community in this country, large or small. Our planning grants act like sticky tape. It gives the community something to grab on to and helps the ISP see a viable business case to bring broadband to that area. Once people begin talking with their neighbors about this critical infrastructure, they realize that everyone in their community needs to have access to the service and they understand the importance of affordability. This deep granular drive into what communities want drives State plans and data. It is also why so many small ISPs have aggressively expanded their footprint with fiber. Providers and communities seek solutions that will outlive the costs incurred. No longer are we investing in infrastructure that will need to be rebuilt in 20 years. We have found several programs are ill-suited to meet community needs or interests in Maine. Examples of this are the USDA grants through ReConnect and the recent FCC Rural Development Digital Opportunity Fund. Four projects were awarded ReConnect grants in early 2020. These are small projects that should be a 6- to 8-month build. None of these projects have started because of the bureaucracy one the USDA. If these projects had been funded through a straight grant, they would have been lit and serving people right now, not some time in 2022. Projects all across the country are having similar unneeded delays. There is one small community in Lincoln County that was denied a USDA grant because their area was auctioned off in satellite service in the FCC's RDOF auction. They are now not eligible for any other Federal funding. The town has been working for 3 years to develop a solution to bringing affordable service to everyone. Federal funding should not block that effort. If broadband infrastructure is going to achieve its promise, we need to make sure Federal funds flow to the solutions these communities want. That is why the community-- the Capital Projects Fund and the American Rescue Plan is so exciting. It puts the funds closest to community efforts through a State program. States have proven they are up to the task of efficiently and effectively delivering the use of these funds to build that infrastructure. Sixteen States awarded $644 million in the Coronavirus Relief Fund to build out networks that were lit in under 6 months. The American Jobs Plan also offers great promise to close this connectivity and affordability gap, but it really, really matters how the funds for infrastructure are distributed and who owns the infrastructure. There are hundreds of successful models of public-private partnerships to build this infrastructure. There is no one model because there is no one solution. It requires a flexible strategy, and flexible strategies are just not what the Federal Government does well. State broadband programs have proven their worth. Our understanding of the problems, the locations, and our ability to craft solutions that fit our communities is central to our effectiveness. Funding for the infrastructure through the American Jobs Plan should flow through State and State programs to provide the greatest benefit and the fastest affordable connectivity to Maine people. Thank you for your time and consideration. I would be happy to answer your questions. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, Ms. Schaffer. Mr. Sullivan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF DAN SULLIVAN Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning, Congressman Golden and Ranking Member Hagedorn. Thank you very much for this opportunity to discuss the DBU project. My name is Dan Sullivan. As mentioned, I was former IT director at the Woodland Pulp and St. Croix Tissue pulp mills in Baileyville. I have also been in technology for 40-plus years and now presently am the president of Downeast Broadband Utility. Calais and Baileyville had a problem: terrible expensive broadband options. The towns agreed to ban together by way of the local agreement to explore economic development ideas, and fiber came to the forefront. We had discussions with local leaders and our citizens, rotary clubs, chambers of commerce, town meetings. We hung posters. We did everything we could think of to bring people into the room to discuss what could or could not be done. It was the overall decision by all these groups that we would look, search out a fiber-to-home solution for our two towns. So the two towns agreed to fund a feasibility study to see if this was even possible. The results came back and said, yes, it indeed was. So the towns again funded the cost to build the construction to see how much it would cost to do it. We had unanimous support from both the towns. The network is paid for by subscribers to the network, not taxes raised. That is the beauty of this financial model. The need in these towns is so great and people want it so bad that our subscriber rate is going through the roof. So this will be paid for by the people who buy the service, not by the citizens of these towns. But, uniquely, the citizens of these towns will actually own the infrastructure. We began construction in 2018 and completed in 2020. Then the town of Alexander--which is next to Alexander, asked to join us. We approved them. They are now being constructed. They will probably be completed the end of December. Just last week, I met with Indian Township, our local Indian reservation. They have too voted to join DBU and are now proceeding with that. Construction will begin shortly. On top of that, 2 days ago, Princeton contacted me. I had a meeting with them. They too have voted unanimously to try to join DBU, and the town of Cooper will be doing the same thing in July. So you can obviously see there is an awful lot of demand out. So why did we do this? We did it because our existing ISP options were insufficient, unreliable, expensive, and in many cases not even available. We approached the existing ISPs and offered to help them fund a buildout to bring fiber to our towns, businesses, and homes. They refused. They weren't interested. So local businesses and residents universally complained about how slow and expensive broadband was. And Washington County's largest employer, St. Croix Tissue and Woodland Pulp, where I worked for many years, was very interested in this solution. And I would like to read a brief statement by the mill's manager. He said, quote: Affordable access to symmetrical broadband via fiber is a game changer for our area. It has increased property values, facilitated remote work and learning, while attracting new residents to our communities. From my perspective as an executive at Washington County's largest employer, fiber-based broadband has proven to be a valuable recruiting tool to attract technical talent to our area and business. In addition, it has helped our employees to effectively work remotely through this pandemic. Prior to the founding of the Downeast Broadband Utility, our area's access to this vital service was completely insufficient, unquote. We knew from our research that a fully fiber network was what we needed to do here to build a future-proof solution for our area. And Maine's home rule provision in Maine's Constitution allowed us to proceed with that. So we tapped into our Yankee spirit, and DBU was born. What did we build? This is a mouthful, but we built an open access, dark fiber, home-run network. Each subscriber receives a single dedicated fiber to their home or business. This ensures had a 100-plus year future-proof solution. Science has not yet reached fiber's capacity limits. They don't know how fast they can make it work. And once the fiber is installed on these poles when technology changes, and the technology improves, only the laser equipment in our communication cabinets have to be upgraded. The existing fiber cable will be viable for those 100-plus years. As a contrast, cell towers need to be climbed and satellites relaunched to keep up with changes in technology. These technologies do not provide a future-proof model, are impractical, expensive, contribute to mountains of space junk. And all these costs are passed down to the consumer. Now our network is open to all ISPs, even the ones that turned us down. We basically turned their argument of low- density population not being an affordable way to do this upside down because we paid for the construction, the maintenance, and the operating costs. We have taken three legs off their stool to provide this service, and they are welcome to join us, and I hope they do. DBU is a utility much like roads, water, sewer. And it is owned by citizens of these towns. We determined about a 30 percent tick rate from Calais and Baileyville will make the plan viable. We are presently at 23 percent in the midst of the pandemic and soon expect to pass 30 percent and beyond. We estimate Alexander and Indian Township to a 80 to 90 percent tick rate as their broadband situation is more dire. And here is the real caveat to all of this, the caveat to the ability of benefits, the base fiber internet package for the by 100/100 megabit connection is $59.95 with no set up fees, no router fees, no contract fees. And no data caps. In the poorest county in the State of Maine, we have the fastest internet in the world at the most reliable cost. So, in conclusion, I would like to say, Maine and our Nation have paid for inadequate solutions to our country's dismal broadband for decades, only to be still treading water and, in some instances, drowning. An undeniable fact is that fiber is the most future-proof, cost-effective way to build ubiquitous broadband for our Nation for the next 100-plus years. Municipalities owning that physical network not only ensures competition but lowers cost, provides faster, more reliable speeds, and it solves the problem. The backbone of the internet is fiber. The middle mile is fiber. It has only been this last mile to the business and consumer that has been relegated to copper or, even worse, wireless, and only because it is more profitable for cable and phone companies to keep using their 19th century technologies rather than investing completing this fiber network. These companies are private and deserve to invest their dollars as they see fit. Chairman GOLDEN. Mr. Sullivan. Mr. SULLIVAN. We have no argument with that. It is our position that taxpayer funds need to be--I am almost done--need to be 100 percent directed towards finishing the home solution. We really appreciate your Subcommittee's work on this. We hope that we can contribute with you to help solve this problem for Maine and the Nation. I will take any questions that may be out there. Thank you. Chairman GOLDEN. Perfect. Thank you. Next we will recognize Mr. Dunne. Mr. Dunne, you are muted still. STATEMENT OF MATT DUNNE Mr. DUNNE. Apologies. Chairman Golden, Ranking Member Hagedorn, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Matt Dunne, and I am the founder and executive director of Center on Rural Innovation, known as CORI, a nonprofit action tank started in 2017 to close the rural opportunity gap. Today, we are working with a network of small towns across the country to help them become successful in economic development and entrepreneurship in the 21st century. This ranges from helping communities build world-class broadband, facilitating technology training, supporting accelerator programs, and investing in scalable small businesses. The rural urban divide that has emerged since the Great Recession was driven by automation, globalization, and a decline in rural entrepreneurship. By January of 2020, before the pandemic, less than half of all rural counties had returned to their pre-recession employment levels as rural businesses, large and small, struggled to regain solid footing. The COVID- 19 shutdown only exacerbated the problem for many rural small businesses, particularly those dependent on tourism. Driving this divide was the fact that high-paying, resilient digital economy jobs like computer programmers, cybersecurity analysts, IT specialists, and others are not distributed equally across the country. Rural America represents 15 percent of our nation's workforce but only 5 percent of the digital economy jobs. It doesn't have to be this way. In the age of the internet, there should be no limit to where digital economy jobs and startups can take place. The pandemic has only reinforced what we in rural America already knew: Broadband is critical infrastructure. It is as vital to equity and prosperity as electricity and transportation. For businesses, it was nothing short of a lifeline as Main Street companies tried to quickly shift to online ordering and delivery. While some businesses and workers could pivot to e-commerce or transition to remote work, unequal broadband access left the rest, so many of them in underserved rural areas, struggling to get by. But our awareness of the issue has created a moment in time that resembles one our nation faced nearly a century ago, when leaders realized that unequal access to electricity prevented regions of the country from being able to thrive. The good news is that like the rural electrification effort, there are models for bringing world-class broadband to rural places like the one that Mr. Sullivan has been so deeply involved with. In fact, at least 10 million rural Americans already live in Census tracts with gigabit-speed broadband. These communities built networks well beyond the FCC minimum standards for broadband because they understood that level of service is already on its way to becoming obsolete. As a result, they are ready to participate in the digital economy of today and meet the demands of the future. They invested in the infrastructure that can do both. The question before us now is, are we going to go do what is necessary to generate broadband that supports the businesses of today and tomorrow? Without it, millions of underserved rural Americans and small businesses can't engage with streaming content, cloud-based services, and video conferencing applications that have become part of everyday life. That is why it is critical that future funding should prioritize delivering a minimum of 100 megabits per second upload and download speeds and building networks capable of scaling to a gigabit or more. To do otherwise is only setting ourselves up for a rural-urban divide that reemerges 5 years from now despite a massive infrastructure investment. COVID has opened people's eyes to the possibility of working where they want to live rather than living where they need to work, including an incredible return to small-town America. But this is only possible if rural areas can achieve the same internet speeds as their urban counterparts. Doing so would enable entrepreneurs and small businesses in rural places to access markets anywhere in the world and be resilient to events like the pandemic that forced so much activity online. We at CORI know plenty of small towns that are proving this is possible, places that invested in gigabit-speed internet broadband or are leveraging their current broadband to make successful businesses emerge. In Taos, New Mexico, a program to help local businesses build e-commerce websites during the pandemic helped some see revenue increases by 10 percent. In Wilson, North Carolina, a former auto repair specialist developed a software platform called Shyft Auto to solve the inefficiencies he knows plague the service shops everywhere. They are receiving investment and are growing. In Red Wing, Minnesota, the robotics company Poultry Patrol was able to test its prototype in the field thanks to the upload and, download speeds possible with the region's high-speed broadband network. This is a moment unlike any we have seen before in the internet age. The funding currently being considered to boost broadband deployment expansion is vital to ensure every innovator and small business person can take part in the digital revolution and reach their full potential wherever they live. Thank you for your time and consideration of this important issue. And I am happy to take any questions you may have. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. And, finally, Mr. Waibel, you are recognized for 5 minutes. STATEMENT OF TIM WAIBEL Mr. WAIBEL. Thank you, Chairman Golden, Ranking Member Hagedorn, and the members of this subcommittee. Thank you for holding this hearing and letting me testify. My name is Tim Waibel. I am a farmer from Courtland, Minnesota. It is a town of 611 in Representative Hagedorn's district. My wife and I have raised five children. We have six grandchildren and are looking forward to three more coming in 2021. My wife and I both feel blessed that we have been raised in rural America, and we want them same blessings for future generation. I know that many of you share this feeling. The pandemic has taught us a lot of lessons. One is that people living in the cities grew to appreciate the advantages of living in rural America, and many picked up stakes and moved here. Over the years, I have been saddened to see our communities raise wonderful kids only to see them go off to college and never return to raise their families here, instead moving to the cities and suburbs. A town like Courtland has suffered due this and not just economically; we have lost a lot of talent. And I think that those of us who have lost--excuse me. I think that those who have lost to the cities we have also been deprived of some life-enriching experiences that only a small town can provide. So the thought that at least some silver lining might come with this tragedy of the pandemic may be a rebirth of towns like Courtland, which brings me to my second lesson. We have all heard stories remote learning. While there is more of it, I am speaking here on the issue on the heart of availability of broadband. Kids growing up in rural areas who do not have access to decent internet service are at a disadvantage. Senator Klobuchar mentioned that one student went to a local liquor store parking lot because that was the only place that they could get internet service. This is not an isolated problem. It is a problem for anyone who lives and works in rural American communities because it impacts education, business, healthcare, and even farming. Lack of high-speed internet access is a serious obstacle to the rebirth of rural America I am hoping for. I am gratified at this time when there is so much partisanship, that there is a bipartisan consensus on the need to look into significant new investment in broadband. But as you know, throwing money at a problem doesn't always fix it. Billions of dollars have been spent on expanding broadband internet, but efforts have still come up short. So I hope that you will take into account a few points from my perspective as a lifelong rural resident. First, it matters who is providing the broadband to our rural communities? Do they have a real stake in rural America? Do they have a proven track record in serving rural America? And do think have boots on the ground to get the job done? From my vantage point, the Department of Agriculture and rural electric cooperatives and similar entities with a long history of working with the USDA check these boxes. But that is not where the lion's share of the Federal dollars have gone. Billions have gone to other Federal agencies to stand up programs using other broadband providers that are often protected from competition, even if they provide substandard service. My understanding is that there is an interest by some in standing up another Federal program, but I do not believe we are going to get any different results than we have had going down the same path. There is fierce competition amongst various agencies and providers in regard to who gets to carry the important mission. But addressing the needs of rural America, including broadband, is a mission of the USDA, rural electrics, and the like. And, yet, the dollars that we have spent have paled in comparison to the dollars under other programs where the providers do not check all the boxes that I mentioned earlier. Had FDR taken this approach for rural electrification, God knows how long it would have taken to get power to our farms. I would like to recognize Representative G.T. Thompson, who has brought a very thoughtful bipartisan broadband bill that is worth your consideration because it recognizes the points that I am making here today. The second point is there are gaping holes on the map in terms of people with zero service. But there are also even more holes in the map where people have terrible broadband service and pay an arm and a leg. I feel I fit in that category. Both problems need to be addressed. Setting high goals for service in this process will be important. And if the providers are not meeting the goal, they ought to open it up for competition. And, finally, in my perspective as a farmer, remember that it is not just about location served, but it is areas served. Why is that important? Because my farm not only needs the kind of internet that a business needs in town, we also have mobile offices. My tractor, combines, and so on and so forth talk back and forth where I need to be able to upload data as I work the fields. This is a vital efficiency in providing food, fuel, and fiber, but is also critical in caring for the natural resources promoting soil health, clean air, water, and the reduction of CO2. Agriculture amounts for a very small percentage of CO2 emissions and is already sequestering carbon, but we are glad to help sequester carbon using tools voluntary incentive-based tools. One such tool is high-speed internet. So, as you carry out the important work in this issue, I hope my perspectives are helpful. Thank you for letting me testify. If you have any questions, I can try and answer. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, sir. And I appreciate each of you for being here today to talk about connecting rural America. We will now move to 5-minute questions. And I will begin by recognizing myself. Mr. Waibel, I would just point out, I think you probably have a lot in common with Mr. Sullivan, who also talked about the high cost of some of these programs that have not been nearly as effective as they should be in delivering good access, the kind of access that you have spoken about and that Mr. Sullivan has also talked about. I had to note too, sitting here, Pete, thinking last Congress, we held a field hearing--you held in Minnesota, and Jim joined us. I forget the town. What town were we in? Voice. [Inaudible.] Chairman GOLDEN. Stauber. That is hilarious. The economic case for doing something here speaks for itself. I will just say we were at a machine precision-- precision machining shop there where they were talking about how they couldn't really expand the business and in fact might have to move it into a more suburban or rural area if they didn't have access to broadband. So it is about protecting jobs and creating the opportunity to expand. And then Congressman Stauber came up to Maine. And we had very similar conversations about how important this is in rural Maine. So a lot of similarities between the two. Mr. Sullivan, I thought I would just start with you. Maybe you could take a little time and get more indepth about what are the issues that we came across in your community in looking at some of the Federal programs that are out there, Federal dollars, grants, and other things that just weren't workable in Calais and Baileyville, and as a result, why did you end up going with this very local solution? Mr. SULLIVAN. I think it was alluded to by some of the other speakers. Some of the Federal programs are quite onerous and time-consuming in order to be able to make something happen. And there is a lot of abilities to trip along the way. And the need was so dire in our area that we decided to--we had such unanimous support from the citizens to be able to go and finance this operation; we decided to proceed ahead with it, rather than wait out the infrastructure rules. To Peggy's point, there is a lot of roadblocks in the way there that kind of slow these projects down. And also I will say that the Federal description of broadband, for years, they have been at this 25/3 number, which is completely inaccurate. That is not broadband by any stretch of the imagination. So we decided to try to step over those hurdles, if possible, and we were able to do it. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. I don't know if was you, Ms. Schaffer, who had in your written testimony or maybe it was someone else, the example of Cranberry Isles, where there is such a--first, a Federal agency comes and announces that there is going to be broadband brought to the community through a grant, and then, years later, it is not there. I think Senator Collins from Maine has been working on finally getting a solution. But in the interim, they took it upon themselves to fix it, I am sure working with the State. But could you talk a little bit about that but also just think about what Dan said? What other examples do you have out there of inefficiencies or just bureaucracy of those programs being unworkable, and how have you helped? Ms. SCHAFFER. Well, I think one--the place you went to visit when you did your field visit was Roque Bluffs, and they got a USDA grant in I think it was December of 2019, official announcement in early 2020. They still have not built a thing. It is not that big a town. I think the bill was under a million dollars. They have been hit by roadblock by roadblock. And it is just when you look at--if you compare that, for instance, to Cranberry Isles, who really started out on their own, and then USDA came in late with the funding. Cranberry is built. It was built before the USDA funding came through. And now there is this discussion about who pays for what. But the process of the USDA does not really work for small towns. It really doesn't work for municipal networks. It doesn't work. And part of that is it is a one-size-fits-all solution. So, whether you are building a $20 million grant network or whether you are building a million-dollar network, they don't downsize it in a way that makes it or right size it in a way that makes it work for small towns. And so that for us has been a major barrier. The other barrier for the USDA funds is they have been--you have to have a service of under 10/1 to be qualified. And one of the things I frequently say is you have to go through the willies to get to the wags (ph). So sometimes you have to serve people who have some level of service before you get to people who have gotten little service. And the USDA's standard of 10/ 1, which is lower even than the FCC, which is just unacceptable, it doesn't recognize that. And it also sentences people who have--who are just a little better than 10/1 to nothing, to no support and no help. And that kind of structure doesn't work when you are trying to bring service to rural America. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. So we will dig in a little further on some of these things, but it sounds like you are calling for greater flexibility in these programs at the very least. With that, I will turn it over for 5 minutes to Mr. Hagedorn. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with you. And this is just basic infrastructure issue. It is quality of life for the folks in rural areas. We need to make sure all Americans have the same access and opportunities. And my friend Mr. Waibel from southern Minnesota makes a good point. I mean, if we don't have these types of services, it is going to be hard to retain the folks in our rural communities and certainly to attract them in, even if we have great jobs and that type of thing. Mr. Waibel, really quickly if you could help some of the folks understand exactly what the farmers go through and their needs are in the digital age. I know for instance, hog operators might have an automated system to feed their hogs which would obviously require a lot of work on the internet. But when you do your duties, your planning and things like that, can you kind of fill us in about what is going on out there and why you need a good broadband connection? Mr. WAIBEL. Certainly. Thank you will for the question. So, in the fall, when we harvest, we work with certain vendors, fertilizer people, so on and so forth, that they can follow us in the field, and they know exactly when we are done harvesting a field so they can come and spread fertilizer and so on and so forth. There is no phone calls. They know exactly what needs to be spread because of prior meetings and so on and so forth. So it just saves a lot of time in that aspect. And the same way with information shared by our harvesting machines, it goes directly to people that we work with. They know exactly what we have seen and they can dig deeper into it. So certainly if we need to change something for the coming year on an application we can do so real quick and a lot of things. Everything is connected now on the farms. It is amazing. I never thought I would witness something like that in my lifetime. Mr. HAGEDORN. I agree with you. When you talk about, especially in rural communities, you trust the USDA, you trust the local companies, the REAs and others to deliver the services that has been your experience. Do you want to go further on that, or has enough been said? Mr. WAIBEL. I do believe the reason why I am a big fan of the REAs is because of the fact we have local boards, local people that we know that serve on these boards. And they are going to look out for, number one, the most cost-effective ways to deliver that service and, number two, what is good for the community. Mr. HAGEDORN. Ms. Schaffer, if I understand you, you are criticizing USDA and others because they are trying to focus most of their attention on making sure everybody is at a basic level so they have some level of service. I think if you take the moneys and start spreading them around in order that everybody has 100/100 or whatever before people can get to some decent level of line speeds, that wouldn't seem fair to me. What do you say to that? Ms. SCHAFFER. You know, there is--so you can figure this out through scoring on a grant process. So, instead of defining in the application of who is eligible and who is not, you can give extra points to a project that starts at essentially nothing and brings them up to something. And that kind of process allows for you to actually build out to more of the communities and make sure that all the communities are on an equal footing. And so I think when you define it in your eligibility standards, you limit who is eligible. But if you can do it through a scoring process of giving more points in an application for people who are serving people who have worse service than others, then you can accomplish the same thing, but you also get to serve more of that community. So, instead of bringing a tiny little piece of that community to the modern world, you can bring the entire community up. And I think to me, that is the important piece thinking about, not just in the eligibility but really looking at how you score these projects. And that gets rid of some of this concern about what is traditionally called overbuilding. I will say, in this country, we have much more interested policywise in preventing people from getting two kinds of service than making sure everybody has a service. So that is what when you limit it to 25/3 or 10/1, that is what you end up doing. Mr. HAGEDORN. It just seems to me that people who have no service--I mean, this is why the government is involved in this. This is why we are all together in a bipartisan fashion, we want to make sure people have some level of basic service. And I think that is where we should focus our attention. If we can get people to higher speeds down the road, that is all well and good. And maybe a private sector and others will help us out a little bit more, but I think what Mr. Waibel and others have been saying, and I agree with, that we should focus on those who have no connectivity or have speed so slow, that they really aren't able to compete and participate like the vast majority of the people across the country. So, with that, I yield back. Thanks, sir. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. Next, we will recognize Representative Roger Williams, Vice Ranking Member of the Committee. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Throughout my district in Texas, I constantly hear from constituents about unreliable or complete lack of internet, and that is in Texas. Unfortunately, many of the Federal broadband dollars are invested in the areas with the lowest cost of deployment, rather than the areas most in need. This has led to many rural areas of the country continually being left behind in the digital economy as we have heard this hearing. That is why I have introduced the bipartisan Eliminate the Digital Divide Act, that would give money directly to the States to decide where the greatest need is for their constituents. So, Mr. Waibel, thank you for being here. I too, I don't have an operation as large of yours, but we have calf, cow in Texas and a few pigs so I appreciate what you are doing. In your testimony, you discussed the disparities between urban and rural areas relating to access to high-speed internet. Can you discuss the challenges your community--and you have done that a little bit today--your community faces due to the lack of connectivity and how it puts them as an economic disadvantage compared to your urban counterparts? Mr. WAIBEL. Certainly. So, if I would go 30 miles to the east of here, we have a community of about 60,000 people. And certainly the businesses, when I go down there for whether it be parts or questions at my local FSA office, their internet service is just boom. And it is there whereas when I am at home here with my service, it--a lot of folks know that that there are times it will take me an hour to get an email into my computer at home here. And that is extremely frustrating. And I think, when we look at rural America, we need to be on a level playing field. This to me is the most important thing for the future of my boys farming with us or all my kids and my grandchildren to stay up to speed with whether it be a town of 60,000 people or whether it be a town of 611 people, we need to be on the same playing field. This is going to set the future growth for our areas and the businesses that will hopefully establish and stay here in these small communities. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. I agree with that. When we hear about small businesses adjusting to the digital economy, many of us think about brick-and-mortar retail stores creating an Online presence. However, one of the greatest beneficiaries of connected technology has been the agricultural industry. We have seen new innovations that have the potential to increase harvest yields, make watering schedules more efficient, and can update machinery automatically. All these advancements can help us better secure our food supply chain and properly feed our Nation. Unfortunately, if we continue to leave the rural parts of our country behind as we have heard, our farmers will not be table to experience the benefits of these new technologies. So, Mr. Waibel, again how does access to broadband improve your day-to-day business as a farmer? And what concerns do you have in the future of farming, if the divide is not closed? You touched on that a little bit, but I think that is important. Mr. WAIBEL. Yes, correct. You know, so, when I look at the whole operation, we are moving, we are in this digital age, and I think we are probably more--even though it seems like we are into it a long ways, I think the future is only going to demand more of it. And we use it just for everything. And it is only going to get more and more. For those of you that aren't that familiar with farming, when we go into the field, we push a button, our boundaries are in the field, and the tractor takes over and does what it needs to do. You are just in there for the ride basically and so on and so forth. So these types of situations, the more advanced our implements get and the more advanced our suppliers are, the more we are going to need to continue to have these high-speed updates that it doesn't take us an hour to get something; it takes us a minute, a second to get it. And that is where I think we really lack in rural America is the fact that we really need to get this sped up. Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you. Real quick, access to broadband is no longer a luxury but a necessity. Big corporate providers have shown that the economics of connecting some of the most rural communities simply do not work. If we want to provide internet to these communities, we need to look for ways the Federal Government can better utilize the public-private partnerships. By leveraging public funding through private execution, we can tackle rural broadband infrastructure and close the digital divide. So, Mr. Sullivan, real quick, what barriers typically keep private citizens from entering into these partnerships? And how can we incentivize them to participate in Federal grants such as the USDA ReConnect Program to build out broadband infrastructure in rural communities? Ms. SCHAFFER. What has basically been happening is it is very difficult with some providers to work with them. In that type of arrangement, which is basically what has been happening in Maine and across the Nation now for quite some time is a lot of the existing providers have been receiving Federal and State subsidies to improve broadband. But they are not improving it to the level that it will in my 5 minute speech here about trying to make it future proof so that when we do these investments once, we don't do them multiple times because that is what has been happening. The existing ISPs are only going to put as much of their money in as they can keep their costs as low as possible to keep their stockholders happy. We understand that. That is how America works. But by investing public dollars with these partnerships without having minimums. They ought to have some standards that say we aren't going to give money unless you can provide a 100/100 fiber connection because we know that connection can be upgraded, as others have said, to a gig, to 10 gig, to 100 gig. I mean, that piece of investment will always be there. So it is important that when these ISPs are brought into a room, that they understand that. This is how we need to focus the dollars that are coming from the public because it should be there to serve the public. Mr. WILLIAMS. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time is up. I turn to you. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, sir. We will next recognize Representative Troy Carter from Louisiana too. Mr. CARTER. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for the opportunity. And either of you can take a stab at the question. I hail there Louisiana where we have a fairly substantial amount of our rural areas that are in fact challenged as relates to broadband. And we know that, under the current guise of COVID, COVID taught us that we will be relying much more on distant learning in classrooms, technology for businesses. And that necessity brings the real attention to the fact that many parts of our State and our country, but particularly the Second Congressional District, we have issues with access to broadband from a basic standpoint, but then when we juxtapose that with the reality of poor people throughout our State, throughout our country that will in fact--and I have heard the word several times ``left behind'' mentioned by some of my colleagues. What are the plans for obviously making sure that we have access to broadband in those areas where there is no infrastructure? But, additionally, your thoughts on how we level the playing field for our impoverished areas as well. I am going to pick somebody, if somebody doesn't jump in. Ms. SCHAFFER. I think the piece we that do around on community planning is a central element of this because it allows the community to understand the importance of affordability. I think broadband has four pieces to it: the wire run by your house; can you afford to connect to that wire; do you have a device; and do you know how to use it? And when you began those community conversations, those last three pieces come in as a critical element of it. And then you can design a network and pick a provider and pick a partner that can give you that kind of connectivity. I think Danny talked about how Downeast they have, they are providing a high-quality service for about $60 per month. That is still unaffordable to some families, but it begins to address sort of that issue. And I think that that, to me, the critical piece about the community understanding and working with the provider and helping to underwrite some of the infrastructure costs helps some of those equations. But affordability is a key issue in this puzzle. Mr. CARTER. And what would you determine or think would be the greatest barrier, from an educational standpoint, of informing the public of their duty or their participation? Ms. SCHAFFER. So do you mean participation in a planning process or participation in getting internet? Mr. WILLIAMS. Well, you mentioned that a part of it was them understanding and participating. So what is the greatest barrier to that? Ms. SCHAFFER. Some of that is really--and I think COVID has resolved a little of this, is understanding what the internet can bring to you. I mean, Tim has talked about farming. The USDA estimates that the farms with high-quality internet have about an 18 percent increase in capacity. So they are able to produce a lot more. And that kind of activity can happen, as Matt talked about, on just about every business level for tourism, businesses in those. And so part of these conversations in the community is understanding the needs of all of those businesses and making sure that the business and people can engage in this understanding of what this service can bring to your area. Mr. WILLIAMS. And I will tell you from Louisiana's standpoint, and I don't think it is any different from many other places, but certainly Louisiana we know now that broadband is a way of life. It is not a luxury. It is not something you have as a one off. It is essential. Yet we know that large swaths of our country, large swaths of Louisiana do not have access to broadband, not just for education but also for daily use. We know that broadband in many ways fuels our whole economy. It connects our world. So, as we go on through this discussion, Mr. Chairman, I would Love to have further discussions on how we can advance those discussions, particularly around areas in those rural areas that have really suffered. And COVID has taught us significantly what that means to our economy and what it means it our world. So I thank you all for your testimony and look forward to further discussion. I yield back. Mr. SULLIVAN. I would like to weigh in on that for a second, if possible. Chairman GOLDEN. Who was that? Mr. SULLIVAN. I would like to weigh in on that point for just a moment. Chairman GOLDEN. He is out of time, but we will find a way to work it in, Mr. Sullivan. The second round of questions, I will just make a note. Next, we will recognize Representative Pete Stauber from Minnesota, Eighth District. Mr. STAUBER. I thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ranking Member Hagedorn, for holding this hearing. And, to all the witnesses who gave us their testimony, it is very, very valuable. I just have to reiterate what Mr. Waibel said a couple minutes ago. He said, ``Rural America must be placed on a level playing field.'' Rural Representatives on both sides of the aisle have had it right up to here with the lip service we have been given on expanding broadband to rural communities. It is the time to do it right now. We have the opportunity for investment, and rural America especially, as Congressman Carter just stated, has been extremely devastated because of the lack of connectivity. Our hospitals need to be connected--our schools, our small businesses, and so many others in our rural communities--to get us on that level and fair playing field so we can be connected, so we can bring businesses to rural America. Mr. Waibel, in your testimony, you highlighted something that is critical for people to understand. Our small towns and communities in rural America have sat at a stark disadvantage for way too long. It has left our kids at a disadvantage, and the studies--our seniors at a disadvantage in their healthcare when we talk about telehealth and telemedicine. And, for certain, our farmers are at a disadvantage for optimizing their yield. You also mentioned that not only do rural Americans lack access to broadband; where some are lucky enough to have service, it is inconsistent and expensive, and lack of competition means there is nowhere else to turn. When we here in Congress are considering broadband investments and deployment options, we must be effective. Unfortunately, in President Biden's proposal, he prioritizes municipal broadband networks or government-owned networks. In my home State of Minnesota, however, we have restrictions against municipal broadband networks. In fact, 18 States total have restrictions against such networks. I guess my constituents in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District and Mr. Hagedorn's constituents, like Mr. Waibel in Minnesota's First Congressional District in Minnesota, and many other rural Americans take a back seat under this piece of legislation. We count, and rural America matters. So what is the good news? In the CARES Act and the consolidated appropriations signed into law by President Trump, we were able to get a lot of money out the door to help bridge the gap in rural America. The money was unfettered by burdensome regulation and helped stimulate private investment. This was a step in the right direction. In these packages, a lot of different Federal agencies had been tasked with the broadband deployment mission. This can be tricky for some small businesses to navigate as we all know. That is why I will soon be introducing the Small Business Broadband and Emerging Information Technology Enhancement Act. This legislation will direct the Small Business Administration to create a broadband coordinator position that will serve as the primary liaison to other Federal agencies involved in broadband deployment and would identify and catalog tools, training, and best practices for small businesses as it relates to broadband implementation and usage. It is my hope that legislation like mine and others will help bring broadband investment to our rural communities, to that last mile for economic development. The CARES Act gave us a great start, and I think we need to take advantage of it. I know that Chair Golden and Ranking Member Hagedorn understand that. They both represent rural districts. And, Chair Golden, as you alluded to, we did hear that we had a field hearing on broadband development and deployment a year and a half ago. In northern Minnesota and in upstate Maine, it was the same concerns by our small businesses, our families, our family farmers, and we have the opportunity right now to do it right. And, Mr. Waibel, I want to repeat what you said earlier. Rural America must be put on a level and fair playing field now, and we have the opportunity. And I know we have bipartisan support in the Congress to do that, and I am looking forward to that. Mr. Chair, I yield back. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. Next, we are going to recognize Representative Antonio Delgado from New York 19. I see him on the screen. I am not sure if he has questions. We will give him 2 or 3 seconds here. All right. We will come back to him. Why don't we move to another part of New York, Rep. Claudia Tenney. Ms. TENNEY. Thank you so much, Chairman Golden and Ranking Member Hagedorn, for holding this important meeting today, and thank you to the witnesses for your time and your insight. As we have we have heard today, the internet connection can determine your destiny, and nothing shapes our ability to access education, healthcare, and employment opportunities like access to rural broadband. The COVID-19 pandemic has only driven home this point. Americans have never relied more heavily on reliable, accessible, and affordable internet than they do today. Throughout New York's 22nd Congressional District, there are far too many communities who do not have access to reliable broadband. The digital divide is even more great when you consider our children have less access to education, our seniors have less connectivity with their doctors, and our business meetings are few and far between because we are always spooling on our lack of access to the internet. And, to make matters worse--this, I think, is a critical issue--upstate New York is subject to a broadband monopoly in New York. New York State, under Governor Andrew Cuomo and the State legislature, agreed to a cable consolidation plan under an agreement with Spectrum, which they claimed that expanded improved service. However, the State and New York State's Public Service Commission have absolutely failed to enforce the agreement. This has left too many rural customers in my district with nonexistent broadband service or service that is far too expensive. Just this week alone, Spectrum has raised their rates seven times in just a few years on New Yorkers. The only solution is to increase competition in our internet marketplace. This means enacting policies that steer investment to smaller upstart providers and reducing barriers to entry. We must also encourage networks that can host multiple internet service providers so someone's geography does not limit their choice. I think we can work on closing this internet gap and provide choice once and for all to upstate New Yorkers. One thing I wanted to ask, I know, Ms. Schaffer, I wanted to ask you this because you pointed out a couple important things about getting access to internet. I just first wanted to ask you about how the FCC data can--the data on broadband coverage and how it speeds--affects speeds is inaccurate. These maps are often pivotal to determine if a project is eligible for Federal funding. This was raised to me in a recent broadband hearing I had in my own town of Sherburne, New York, where our business is located. From what your experience is, can Congress work with the FCC to resolve this, and can we give some of this determination on where we are going to allow speeds--can we give that back to our local communities? Ms. SCHAFFER. Yes and yes. So the FCC map is based on advertised speed by Census block, where one home in a Census block is served, then the entire Census block is considered served. So that gives--you know, there are Census blocks in rural America that are many hundreds of miles, and if one location is served or could reasonably be served, then that entire Census block is served, and it is no longer eligible for any Federal funding. That really puts a--you know, it--that shuts off an opportunity for those--that area to get funding. They have to then rely on either local funding or State funding to fill that hole. And really to get these projects done, you need a capital stack. You need some Federal money, you need some State money, you need some local money, you need ISP money. That is really how rural America is going to get served. And, you know, one of the things that I recommended in my testimony is moving this new Federal funds directly to State programs because State programs are much more responsive to what is happening. Our State has a standard--broadband standard of 100 over 100 and an unserved standard of 50 over 10. So we have recognized the importance of connectivity. And, if Federal funding flows to States, then States can really craft projects and with the local people that meets the local solutions and deals with---- Ms. TENNEY. Let me just---- Ms. SCHAFFER.--many of these issues. Ms. TENNEY. Let me just reclaim my time for a minute, because I am running short. I wanted to emphasize I am concerned about the situation in New York State where we continue to put millions of dollars into providing a virtual monopoly to Spectrum Cable, which has been a huge problem. When I served in the State Assembly, there was a former Congressman named Chris Gibson in my other district. We put tons of money into broadband, and it didn't go anywhere but to these large entities, and now we have a problem--continuing to have a problem with rural broadband. My question is, how do we get the local governments to be able to participate in this? And, also, the village of Sherburne has been designated as a test site to allow this municipal concept that is part of the bill that--the infrastructure bill President Biden has proposed, but also give choice and an opportunity for our consumers to choose their internet and to have actually access to broadband with minimal rates of speed as determined by the last farm bill? I have run out of time. I apologize. I have to catch up with you on another question. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. With that, I think we are going to move to a second round. Mr. Hagedorn, do you have further questions? Mr. HAGEDORN. Yeah, sure. Chairman GOLDEN. Okay. Go ahead. I am going to ask some, too, but I will let you go first. Mr. HAGEDORN. All right. Thank you, Chairman. I think I want to associate myself with Congressman Stauber's comments and, to a degree, also Representative Tenney's comments on the Biden proposal. I mean, from my standpoint, if you are going to have 18 States that just can't participate because they already have restrictions on these municipal broadband networks, that is pretty darn serious. I don't know why they would put that forward when basically a third of the country is shut out. I guess they are trying to be a little top-down on that one. I disagree. So I think what Congressman Stauber said there was right on target. And, also, the telemedicine, I mean, really, if we have seen anything here in the last year, it is how that has expanded and the need for it. And the hospitals and providers have really dug in, and I think the people have accepted it. And so, from the standpoint of Congress, we need to make sure that those reimbursements are there. I think this is one of the few good things that came out of the coronavirus situation, is the advent of telemedicine. In the State of Minnesota, every once in a while, we have inclement weather, believe it or not. What about Maine? I think same thing in Maine, right? And so, when that happens, it is easy to still go see your doctor, but also makes it more efficient for them, seniors, disabled, you name it. Mr. Waibel, what do you think about telemedicine? Has it taken off a little bit in your community? Are you seeing more and more of it? Will it help the people in the rural areas? Mr. WAIBEL. Absolutely. So one of my daughters is an RN at a local senior citizens' living place. And, anyway, you know, so that was used quite a lot during the pandemic for her patients and clients where she works. And I think, you know--I even actually used it, too, one time. And it is certainly--it is a great option to have and something that, again, is going to be used more and more in the future, I believe. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you. Mr. Dunne, in your studies and the work that you are doing, do you see job migration going from urban areas to rural areas if we can have them on par as far as digital connectivity? Mr. DUNNE. We absolutely have. There was a lot of movement pretty early in the pandemic, and, as I think another witness mentioned, people realized, boy, you know, going back to small towns might be a lot better than being shoehorned into larger cities. But they need to be able to continue their aspirational jobs. Many times, unfortunately, the narrative has become, if you want to stay in your, you know, the community that you love, you have to give up that aspiration and those goals to be able to do things on a national or global basis. If you have broadband, that is not the choice you have to make. You know, the young people who have been supported by those communities to be able to go off to college can come home and participate and sometimes bring their jobs with them or create new businesses based on the experiences that they have had both in that community and in their experiences outside of it. So we do see this as a moment to reverse the population decline that really we only saw for the first time in a generation in 2011, 2012, and 2013. Even the farm crisis didn't lead to a net population loss. So we are at a moment where we need to move quickly. COVID has created that opportunity, but we need infrastructure like future-proof broadband in order to make that a reality. Mr. HAGEDORN. I appreciate that. Mr. Sullivan, I want to ask you just a little bit more about your experience. It is pretty fascinating. You are serving some rural communities, but what about the outlying areas where you may have farms. Are you also able to run the fiber to those locations? Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. When we started this project, we made the commitment or the towns made the commitment that every single person who had a telephone pole within reach of their home would be served. So, right now, we have got about 99 percent of both those towns are served. We have got two outlying areas similar to what you are talking about that we are working on right now. So, by the end of this year, they will be connected as well. So we have got some stretches where we go 6, 7, 8 miles to get one house. Mr. HAGEDORN. Well, if Congress wanted to help and make what you do a demonstration project or expand it, what could the Federal Government do in order to be helpful, other than maybe get out of the way? Mr. SULLIVAN. I think a better understanding of, you know, what is actually happening out there. And I am going to pick up a couple of points, one from the Representative in New York about the cable monopoly there. That situation is--was allowed to happen. Cable companies don't compete with anybody. They have got their own highways. They just basically do what they want, so that is difficult for other ISPs to come in. So competition doesn't exist. That is another piece that is another important aspect to this, is the--to the ranking committee member's comment there about getting some service to somebody or to everybody, I have been teaching old and young and rich and poor for over 45 years, and I can tell you, once you drag them over the digital divide, you get them working, if you build them a network that doesn't work, they are frustrated, they are angry, and they won't use it. It will cause more issues by giving them just something because the way it works now, without symmetrical connections up and down--there is more and more stuff being done with cloud-based computing; you have got to have those uploads. And those copper-based networks of cable, fixed wireless, satellite don't have the capacity to do that, and you will basically be wasting money after money has already been wasted. Mr. HAGEDORN. Thank you. My time has expired. Appreciate it. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. I think Mr. Sullivan has talked about that a lot. Nothing more frustrating than seeing your tax dollars get put to some kind of internet solution, and then you still get the spinning wheel, whether you are a student or a small business owner. So, Representative Williams, did you want to ask further questions? Mr. WILLIAMS. Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Schaffer, a recent article by the Technology Policy Institute pointed out that, as the bar gets higher, more areas become eligible for subsidies while the costs of serving the truly unserved increases. Do you agree with this statement? Ms. SCHAFFER. Well, no. Actually, I mean, I think that--you know, this is infrastructure that is going to last 50 years, so we should build infrastructure that is going to meet the demands of people for 50 years. And, as I said, when you look-- you know, we run a grant program, and, when you are looking at providing grants, there are many, many ways through scoring that you can really give advantage to areas that have really bad broadband. But it is important when they build it, that they bring it up to a standard that is going to be essentially future-proof, and that is what we try to do with our grant program. So I think you can manage this pretty easily through a grant process to make sure that the people who have the worst service have the best opportunity in a competitive grant to get better service. Mr. WILLIAMS. Let me have a followup to you. How do we ensure that we continue to focus deployment for unconnected areas rather than upgrading systems that are already in place? Ms. SCHAFFER. So, you know, one of the definitions of--when you--even when the FCC defines 25/3 as served, people who have less than 25/3, you know, are still eligible for that Federal funding. So you are going to overbuild that network because we know it doesn't meet today's standards. And so I think it is important when we look at this to understand that, first off, the incumbent provider is the most likely to build--to rebuild their network because they are there already. So they have the customers, they have the structure, and so providing opportunities for the incumbent provider to improve their service, by overbuilding their own network, shall we say, with better service, is really critical. And so that is part of trying to figure out how we get better service to these people. It is not just--every time we are building networks, it is not like we are bringing--we are not often bringing in a new provider. We are usually providing the small local incumbent provider who has been there for a long, long time the ability to upgrade service that they already have to the customers they already have. So overbuilding is really about improving service to customer bases. Sometimes that is the existing provider that does it. And, if the existing provider doesn't want to do it, then sometimes it is bringing in a new provider. But it is making sure, at the end, with Federal dollars and State dollars, taxpayer money, that you are providing a service that can meet the needs of that area for now and into the future. Mr. WILLIAMS. Okay. Thank you for your testimony, and I yield the remaining time back to the Chairman. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you, sir. Representative Carter, I think you want to give Mr. Sullivan a little more time. Mr. CARTER. Yeah. Sorry. I think Mr. Sullivan indicated he wanted to respond to one of my questions, but we were out of time. Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. I was going back to the--to the idea about--I kind of answered some of this previously, but we were speaking about the rural areas and the poor areas where people, you know, can't afford the service even if it is there. It is important that the service we do provide everybody in America is one that works, and that is what I mentioned previously. That is what I was--kind of shoehorned in my answer to your question when you ran out of time. But basically my answer to that is that we need to build networks that work and that will work for the next 50-plus years, as Peggy said. Doing something less than that will just frustrate us 5 years down the road. Mr. CARTER. But would you not agree that, in 2021, the infrastructure for broadband is as essential as water, plumbing, electricity? I think we have to be realistic and talk about those things that are meritorious of funding. And I don't think we have the luxury. This is not Republican or Democrat. If there is anything that has ever been bipartisan, broadband for our country is certainly a bipartisan issue that we can no longer afford to kick the can down the road. I feel the frustration of many of my colleagues who have had it up to their ears with shoddy broadband or no broadband at all. Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, that is what we did with the Downeast Broadband Utility, is we built a utility that is similar to roads, you know, sewer, water. It is a piece of infrastructure that we know is not going away. It is only going to get more and more used. It is going to need more and more robust nature where--fiber will do that. That is why we are such big proponents. And, if you look here in Maine--and this isn't just Maine. I have been contacted across this entire country by people that want to set up competitive municipal networks where multiple ISPs come in and fight for your business. It drives costs down. It improves service. I mean, it is basically the American competitive way. We have allowed forever cable companies to monopolize. We have enabled phone companies to monopolize. You know, we--the cable company that--we have Spectrum in Maine. We don't have Comcast. They don't fight with each other. Comcast says: Listen, you take New Hampshire; and, Spectrum, you can have Maine. That doesn't bring, you know, good service to our citizens. And I--again, I said in my testimony, a private business should be allowed to do what they want with their own money, but we are talking about our money, everybody in this room and everybody across this country. And I think it is incumbent on all of us to be in the room when these dollars are being talked about and not just have the existing ISPs in there pulling the ears on legislators and people who make the decisions. You have got to get the rank and file. Bring those farmers in. Mr. CARTER. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. Mr. Sullivan, I was actually going to ask just a followup on Mr. Hagedorn. You talked about how you are getting service to every door in your community, including, you know, the ones down the long dirt driveways in the most rural of areas. But what about the technology Mr. Waibel was talking about with tractors and such? Can we provide that type of coverage with fiber like what you talk about, or is that a satellite-only solution? Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, wouldn't I--oh, I am so glad somebody asked that question. I have been spouting this forever. If America put fiber on the telephone poles like we did electricity to every single pole in this country, we could probably eliminate 80 percent of your ugly cell towers out there. You can run little mini antennas. Cell towers always have to connect back to a fiber connection. That is how it works. There is a few that use microwave, but, by and large, it is all going back to fiber. You can put the ubiquitous coverage all over your farms. You could put them in your distant forests. You could put it across this entire Nation. We just--we need to have a focus that says, Let's look at this like electricity. I know that is like--everybody is bored to death with hearing that analogy. But it basically is it. We have got to hang these fiber cables across the entire Nation, and we will solve a multitude of problems. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. You know, this is a great--really is, I think, a helpful hearing. There is a lot of proposals out there. I know--you know, there has been some discussion about the Jobs Plan put out there by the White House, but there is also some work being done in the Senate, and I think recently they announced--Mr. Waibel, you talked about Representative Thompson's bill. I haven't seen it, so I will have to look at that. And then I am a member of the Problem Solvers Caucus, and we have got a different infrastructure proposal that includes some broadband as well. So plenty of room for good compromise. Some of the stuff, like today, I mean, through what I have seen in Calais and Baileyville, Maine, I have become a great believer in what Mr. Sullivan has worked on with trying to empower localities to take--empower themselves, owning that, you know, fiber for themselves. And you have done it in a really unique way, like you said, without raising taxes and without Federal dollars. It is locally owned. Ms. Schaffer, I am impressed by the way that your organization works with the State to leverage private and local matches, getting the most out of the Federal dollars that are being sent into Maine. So I think that is something important for us to look at as well. And I just had to quickly comment. When you were talking about advertised speed, man, that is an old problem and one we talked about in the last Congress, and hopefully we can continue to improve upon that. I don't--what is the solution there? Is it--I mean, obviously just one firm, one house is the problem. Is it a percentage of people served in the Census block have to have true access to advertised speed? I mean, how would you unravel that problem? Ms. SCHAFFER. Well, first, I wouldn't use advertised speed. I would use actually delivered speed, because there is a big difference. What people can advertise and what they can deliver are two--often two different numbers. And, really, one of the things that we know about broadband is it is--you really need granular data. You need it down to the street level. And Census block level is just not enough. One of the things that we are doing in Maine and they are doing in Minnesota is we are doing a crowdsource speed testing to help inform our data decisions as well as the other data that we are collecting. The FCC is starting to do that kind of work, but it is really important that you--when you look at that kind of data, you are including a customer's voice, you are including what they are actually getting at their house in the larger picture of what the data--what the service is available. So I would not do--I would not do advertised speeds. I would do it at a--the closest you can get to the street level. And the other piece is that you should really audit what companies are telling you that they are--can provide. So they say they can provide X. Are they actually providing it? And crowdsource speed testing is one way you can do that. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. You know, one thing I have to say about Maine that is unique is, when we talk about small towns, like, we are talking about very small towns. As you know, the largest community in Maine's Second Congressional District is Lewiston. That is, you know, about 30,000 people. That is our biggest population center. But there are, you know, 350 other towns, and some of them are very small. So that is why we need that flexibility, I think. And some of these programs are why, as you said, your organization can be a good approach, or the one like Mr. Sullivan's community has taken upon themselves. But I wanted to ask quickly, last question for me anyway, Mr. Dunne, I see that you--CORI is looking at doing work in Waterville, Maine. How do you find and invest in communities as part of the Rural Innovation Network, and as, I guess, a good example, why Waterville? Mr. DUNNE. Sure. So Waterville is an extraordinary community, as you know, that has gone through a transition from being a manufacturing community to something else. And it was a tough transition when the textile mills closed and the like. But a group of leaders, including the Central Maine Growth Council and some unofficial leaders who just redeveloped some of those old mill buildings, created cowork spaces, and just started making things happen on their own. And there has also been some real leadership from Colby College. And your small, 4-year, you know, liberal arts colleges don't always step up to be engaged in their community. Colby College really is, because they know it is critical to their future, their ability to attract faculty in the future and to be a world-class college. So, when we saw all those things coming together and the beautiful cowork spaces, the redeveloped mill building that is where Bricks is located, we saw an opportunity. We partnered with them to help them put together a real strategy plan and to be able to then apply for federal EDA funding through the Build to Scale program, which they received. And so they got some state funding help. They got some federal funding help. They got local energy that is happening, and they are in the process of building a high-tech accelerator program for new businesses. They are doing training programs. They are engaging students and faculty and folks locally who are looking for new economic opportunities. So they found us, and we have just been delighted. We are also continuing other conversations with communities in Maine as well. Chairman GOLDEN. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any further questions? All right. Well, I want to thank all of our witnesses again for joining us today. Your testimony has highlighted how crucial reliable broadband access is just critical to the small businesses all over the country, particularly in our rural areas. So the internet has revolutionized the way that many small businesses operate. It has allowed them to reach customers in new markets and save money via new technologies. The longer certain small businesses don't have reliable internet access, unfortunately, the further they fall behind. That is why, here in Congress, we need to work together to find solutions that facilitate the expansion of broadband infrastructure. As we consider broadband infrastructure proposals, we have got to look to update our digital infrastructure for the 21st century. I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress on closing the digital divide and evening the playing field for small businesses. With that, I would ask unanimous consent that members have five legislative days to submit statements and supporting materials for the record. Without objection, so ordered. If there is no further business to come before the Committee, we are adjourned. Thank you. [Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] A P P E N D I X [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]