.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital
Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Angele A. Gilroy
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
October 30, 2014
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL30719
c11173008
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
Summary
The “digital divide” is a term that has been used to characterize a gap between “information haves
and have-nots,” or in other words, between those Americans who use or have access to
telecommunications and information technologies and those who do not. One important subset of
the digital divide debate concerns high-speed Internet access and advanced telecommunications
services, also known as broadband. Broadband is provided by a series of technologies (e.g., cable,
telephone wire, fiber, satellite, wireless) that give users the ability to send and receive data at
volumes and speeds far greater than traditional “dial-up” Internet access over telephone lines.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout
the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and
data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high income areas is
outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas. Some policymakers, believing that
disparities in broadband access across American society could have adverse economic and social
consequences on those left behind, assert that the federal government should play a more active
role to avoid a “digital divide” in broadband access.
With the conclusion of the grant and loan awards established by the American Recovery and
Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
February 25, 2016
(RL30719)
Jump to Main Text of Report
Summary
The "digital divide" is a term that has been used to characterize a gap between "information haves and have-nots," or in other words, between those Americans who use or have access to telecommunications and information technologies and those who do not. One important subset of the digital divide debate concerns high-speed Internet access and advanced telecommunications services, also known as broadband. Broadband is provided by a series of technologies (e.g., cable, telephone wire, fiber, satellite, mobile and fixed wireless) that give users the ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds necessary to support a number of applications including entertainment, telemedicine, distance education, telework, ecommerce, public safety, and energy conservation.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high-income areas is outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas. Some policymakers, believing that disparities in broadband access across American society could have adverse economic and social consequences on those left behind, assert that the federal government should play a more active role to avoid a "digital divide" in broadband access.
With the conclusion of the grant and loan awards established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), there remain two ongoing federal vehicles which direct
federal money to fund broadband infrastructure: the broadband and telecommunications programs
at the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Universal
Service Fund (USF) programs under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although
the USF
’'s High Cost Program does not explicitly fund broadband infrastructure, subsidies are
used, in many cases, to upgrade existing telephone networks so that they are capable of delivering
high-speed services. Additionally, subsidies provided by USF
’'s Schools and Libraries Program
and Rural Health Care Program are used for a variety of telecommunications services, including
broadband access. Currently the USF is undergoing a major transition to the Connect America
Fund, which is targeted to the deployment, adoption, and utilization of both fixed and mobile
broadband.
To the extent that Congress may consider various options for further encouraging broadband
deployment and adoption, a key issue is how to strike a balance between providing federal
assistance for unserved and underserved areas where the private sector may not be providing
acceptable levels of broadband service, while at the same time minimizing any deleterious effects
that government intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector
investment.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Status of Broadband Deployment in the United States .................................................................... 1
Broadband in Rural Areas ................................................................................................................ 7
Broadband and the Federal Role ...................................................................................................... 8
The National Broadband Plan ................................................................................................... 9
Current Federal Broadband Programs ........................................................................................... 11
Rural Utilities Service Programs ............................................................................................. 11
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC .......................................................................... 12
Universal Service and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 ............................................ 12
Universal Service and Broadband ..................................................................................... 14
Legislation in the 110th Congress ................................................................................................... 15
Legislation in the 111th Congress ................................................................................................... 16
P.L. 111-5: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...................................... 16
Other Enacted Broadband Legislation in the 111th Congress .................................................. 17
Legislation in the 112th Congress ................................................................................................... 17
Legislation in the 113th Congress ................................................................................................... 19
Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 20
Tables
Table 1. Percentage of Broadband Technologies by Types of Connection ...................................... 2
Table 2. Percentage of Households With Broadband Connections by State .................................... 2
Table 3. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband by State .................................................. 4
Table 4. Selected Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Related to Broadband and
Telecommunications Development............................................................................................. 21
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 26
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
that government intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector investment.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
Introduction
The “
Introduction
The "digital divide
”" is a term used to describe a perceived gap between
“"information haves and
have-nots,
”" or in other words, between those Americans who use or have access to
telecommunications and information technologies and those who do not.
11 Whether or not
individuals or communities fall into the
“"information haves
”" category depends on a number of
factors, ranging from the presence of computers in the home, to training and education, to the
availability of affordable Internet access.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout
the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and
data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban/suburban and high
-income areas is
outpacing deployment in rural and low-income areas.
Status of Broadband
Deployment in the
United States
in the United States
Prior to the late 1990s, American homes accessed the Internet at maximum speeds of 56 kilobits
per second by dialing up an Internet Service Provider (such as AOL) over the same copper
telephone line used for traditional voice service. A relatively small number of businesses and
institutions used broadband or high
-speed connections through the installation of special
“ "dedicated lines
”" typically provided by their local telephone company. Starting in the late 1990s,
cable television companies began offering cable modem broadband service to homes and
businesses. This was accompanied by telephone companies beginning to offer DSL service
(broadband over existing copper telephone wireline). Growth
in broadband service has been steep, rising from 2.8
million high
-speed lines reported as of December 1999, to 293 million connections as of
December 31, 2013.
22 Of the 293 million high
-speed connections reported by the FCC, 247 million
serve residential users.
3
3
Table 1 depicts the relative deployment of different types of broadband technologies. A
distinction is often made between
“"current generation
”" and
“"next generation
”" broadband
(commonly referred to as next generation networks or NGN).
“"Current generation
”" typically
refers to
currentlyinitially deployed cable, DSL, and many wireless systems, while
“"next generation
”
" refers to dramatically faster download and upload speeds offered by fiber technologies and also
by successive generations of cable, DSL, and wireless technologies.
4 In general, the greater the
1
The term “digital divide” can also refer to international disparities in access to communications and information
technology. This report focuses on domestic issues only.
2
FCC, Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013, released October 2014, p. 17. Available at
http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1016/DOC-329973A1.pdf.
3
Ibid.
4
Initially, and for many years following, the FCC defined broadband (or more specifically “high-speed lines”) as over
200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction, which was roughly four times the speed of conventional dialup
Internet access. In recent years, the 200 kbps threshold was considered too low, and on March 19, 2008, the FCC
adopted a report and order (FCC 08-89) establishing new categories of broadband speed tiers for data collection
purposes. Specifically, 200 kbps to 768 kbps is considered “first generation,” 768 kbps to 1.5 Mbps is “basic broadband
tier 1,” and increasingly higher speed tiers are broadband tiers 2 through 7 (tier seven is greater than or equal to 100
(continued...)
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
1
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
4 In general, the greater the download and upload speeds offered by a broadband connection, the more sophisticated (and
potentially valuable) the application that is enabled.
Table 1. Percentage of Broadband Technologies by Types of Connection
Connections over
200 kbps in at
least one
direction
Residential
connections over
200 kbps in at
least one
direction
Connections at
least 3 Mbps
downstream and
768 kbps
upstream
Residential
connections at
least 3 Mbps
downstream and
768 kbps
upstream
cable modem
18.4%
20.5%
23.8%
26.3%
DSL
10.5%
11.0%
8.8%
9.3%
Mobile wireless
67.3%
64.5%
63.0%
59.7%
Fiber
2.6%
2.9%
3.5%
3.9%
All other
1.2%
1.0%
0.9%
0.9%
Source: FCC, Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013, pp. 23-26.
Based on the latest FCC broadband connection data, Table 2 shows the percentages of
households with broadband connections by state, both for download connections over 200 kbps
and for connections of at least 3 Mbps (which approximates the FCC’s National Broadband
Availability target). According to the FCC, high speed connections over 200 kbps are reported in
72% of households nationwide, while connections of at least 3 Mbps (download) and 768 kbps
(upload) are reported in 60% of households nationwide.
Table 2. Percentage of Households With Broadband Connections by State
(as of December 31, 2013)
Connections over
200 kbps
Connections at least 3
mbps downstream and
768 kbps upstream
Alabama
60%
40%
Alaska
72%
47%
Arizona
73%
63%
Arkansas
55%
36%
California
78%
65%
Colorado
79%
69%
Connecticut
79%
68%
Delaware
80%
73%
District of Columbia
74%
69%
Florida
78%
63%
(...continued)
Mbps in any one direction). Tiers can change as technology advances.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
2
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
c11173008
Connections over
200 kbps
Connections at least 3
mbps downstream and
768 kbps upstream
Georgia
67%
52%
Hawaii
84%
81%
Idaho
68%
48%
Illinois
71%
57%
Indiana
67%
52%
Iowa
68%
32%
Kansas
71%
52%
Kentucky
65%
49%
Louisiana
63%
42%
Maine
77%
67%
Maryland
77%
73%
Massachusetts
83%
79%
Michigan
69%
58%
Minnesota
72%
57%
Mississippi
51%
31%
Missouri
65%
47%
Montana
68%
46%
Nebraska
71%
59%
Nevada
70%
58%
New Hampshire
84%
77%
New Jersey
84%
80%
New Mexico
61%
46%
New York
81%
77%
North Carolina
72%
58%
North Dakota
75%
58%
Ohio
73%
61%
Oklahoma
62%
44%
Oregon
73%
63%
Pennsylvania
74%
65%
Rhode Island
78%
74%
South Carolina
69%
55%
South Dakota
70%
58%
Tennessee
61%
50%
Texas
69%
56%
Utah
76%
66%
Vermont
81%
71%
Congressional Research Service
3
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
Connections over
200 kbps
Connections at least 3
mbps downstream and
768 kbps upstream
Virginia
72%
66%
Washington
76%
68%
West Virginia
64%
57%
Wisconsin
70%
56%
Wyoming
68%
49%
National subscribership ratio
72%
60%
Source: FCC, Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013, pp. 34-35.
Notes: Subscribership ratio is the number of reported residential high speed lines (broadband connections)
divided by the number of households in each state.
Meanwhile, the National Broadband Map, which is composed of state broadband data and
compiled by NTIA, provides data on where broadband is and is not available. The latest update of
these data indicate that 99.3% of the U.S. population have available advertised speeds of at least 3
Mbps (download) and 768 kbps (upload), 99.0% have download speeds 6 Mbps or greater, and
98.7% have download speeds 10 Mbps or greater.5 The FCC’s Eighth Broadband Progress
Report, released on August 21, 2012, used National Broadband Map data to estimate that 19
million Americans living in 7 million households lack access to fixed broadband at speeds of 4
Mbps (download)/1 Mbps (upload) or greater.6 Table 3 shows a state-by-state breakdown of the
percentage of population without access to fixed broadband at the FCC’s benchmark speed of 4
Mbps/1Mbps.
Table 3. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband by State
(access to speeds of at least 4 Mbps download/1 Mbps upload)
% of population
without access
United States
% of population
without access,
nonrural areas
% of population
without access, rural
areas
6.0%
1.8%
23.7%
Alabama
11.4%
1.6%
25.5%
Alaska
19.6%
4.4%
48.9%
Arizona
4.7%
1.2%
35.8%
Arkansas
13.6%
1.8%
28.8%
California
3.3%
1.6%
35.2%
Colorado
4.3%
1.0%
25.3%
Connecticut
0.7%
0.5%
2.6%
Delaware
3.1%
1.1%
13.0%
5
NTIA, Broadband Statistics Report, data as of December 2013, released July 2014, pp. 3-4, available at
http://www.broadbandmap.gov/download/Technology%20by%20Speed.pdf.
6
Federal Communications Commission, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, FCC 12-90, released August 21, 2012, p.
29, available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2012/db0827/FCC-12-90A1.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
4
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
% of population
without access
% of population
without access, rural
areas
District of Columbia
0.0%
0.0%
Florida
3.1%
2.0%
14.3%
Georgia
3.4%
1.3%
9.9%
Hawaii
1.5%
0.1%
17.7%
Idaho
13.1%
1.3%
41.4%
Illinois
3.3%
0.4%
25.6%
Indiana
4.3%
1.3%
12.4%
Iowa
7.1%
0.7%
18.7%
Kansas
7.7%
1.0%
27.0%
Kentucky
10.5%
1.5%
23.0%
Louisiana
8.8%
1.3%
29.6%
Maine
4.7%
1.2%
7.0%
Maryland
3.2%
0.9%
19.2%
Massachusetts
1.0%
0.5%
6.4%
Michigan
6.3%
0.8%
22.4%
Minnesota
8.0%
0.8%
27.7%
Mississippi
12.1%
1.2%
22.8%
Missouri
7.5%
0.6%
24.2%
Montana
26.7%
4.0%
55.4%
Nebraska
10.1%
1.9%
33.0%
Nevada
2.3%
0.6%
30.2%
New Hampshire
7.5%
2.5%
15.2%
New Jersey
0.7%
0.4%
5.6%
New Mexico
14.2%
4.8%
46.7%
New York
1.3%
0.0%
10.4%
North Carolina
6.4%
2.1%
15.0%
North Dakota
15.9%
2.5%
36.2%
3.4%
0.5%
14.0%
16.2%
2.9%
42.5%
Oregon
3.4%
0.2%
17.3%
Pennsylvania
1.7%
0.3%
6.8%
Rhode Island
0.2%
0.0%
2.3%
South Carolina
11.7%
4.9%
25.1%
South Dakota
21.1%
3.2%
44.6%
Tennessee
6.8%
0.9%
18.6%
Texas
5.9%
2.0%
27.6%
Ohio
Oklahoma
c11173008
% of population
without access,
nonrural areas
Congressional Research Service
N/A
5
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
% of population
without access
% of population
without access,
nonrural areas
% of population
without access, rural
areas
Utah
1.8%
0.3%
16.7%
Vermont
9.4%
0.2%
15.2%
10.9%
2.2%
37.6%
3.2%
0.5%
17.4%
45.9%
31.4%
59.8%
Wisconsin
6.9%
0.1%
23.0%
Wyoming
13.2%
1.1%
35.4%
U.S. Territories
54.0%
41.5%
85.2%
American Samoa
78.6%
30.9%
92.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Guam
54.3%
0.1%
76.1%
Puerto Rico
51.6%
40.3%
84.8%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Northern Marianas
U.S. Virgin Islands
Source: FCC, Eighth Broadband Progress Report, Appendix C.
In contrast to broadband availability, which refers to whether or not broadband service is offered,
broadband adoption refers to the extent to which American households actually subscribe to and
use broadband. The U.S. Department of Commerce, based on October 2012 survey data, found
that 72.4% of U.S. households have adopted broadband.7 Similarly, the FCC’s Eighth Broadband
Progress Report found that 64% of American households with broadband available to them adopt
broadband service offering speeds faster than 768 kbps/200 kbps, while 40% adopt speeds faster
than the FCC benchmark of 4 Mbps/1Mbps. The FCC found that the “broadband adoption rates
for American households are lower, on average, in the counties with the lowest median household
income, in areas outside of urban areas, on Tribal lands, and in U.S. Territories.”8
According to the Department of Commerce report Exploring the Digital Nation: America’s
Emerging Online Experience (based on July 2011 U.S. Census Bureau survey data), the three
main reasons cited for not having broadband at home are that it is perceived as not needed, too
expensive, and lack of a home computer.9 The Department of Commerce report, the FCC’s
National Broadband Plan, and a survey conducted by the Pew Internet and American Life
Project10 also found disparities in broadband adoption among demographic groups. Populations
7
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Blog, “Household
Broadband Adoption Climbs to 72.4 Percent,” June 6, 2013, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2013/householdbroadband-adoption-climbs-724-percent.
8
Eighth Broadband Progress Report, p. 54.
9
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Exploring the Digital
Nation: America’s Emerging Online Experience, June 2013, p. 26, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/
publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf.
10
Smith, Aaron, Pew Internet & American Life Project, Home Broadband 2010, August 11, 2010, available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2010/Home%20broadband%202010.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
6
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
continuing to lag behind in broadband adoption include people with low incomes, seniors,
minorities, the less-educated, non-family households, and the non-employed.
Broadband in Rural Areas11
While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, the rate of broadband
deployment in urban areas appears to be outpacing deployment in rural areas. While there are
many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities,12 recent
surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and
Connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction
|
Residential connections over 200 kbps in at least one direction
|
Connections at least 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream
|
Residential connections at least 3 Mbps downstream and 768 kbps upstream
|
Cable modem
|
DSL
|
Mobile wireless
|
Fiber
|
All other
|
Source: FCC, Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013, pp. 23-26.
Broadband Availability
The FCC is required by Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) to assess whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. Measurements of broadband availability depend on how broadband service is defined in terms of what download and upload speeds it offers. As broadband technology—and the applications that depend on that technology—become more mature and sophisticated, the FCC has raised its broadband speed benchmark. In 2014, the FCC raised its definition of broadband from 4 Mbps (download speed)/1 Mbps (upload speed) to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps.
The FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report, adopted on January 28, 2016, contains broadband availability data for fixed broadband (e.g., wireline technologies such as cable modem or fiber optic). According to the 2016 Broadband Progress Report, as of December 31, 2014, approximately 10% of Americans (34 million) lack access to fixed 25 Mbps/3 Mbps broadband. Additionally, 6% of Americans lack access at 10 Mbps/1 Mbps, and 5% lack access at 4 Mbps/1 Mbps.5 Table 2 shows the percentage of Americans lacking access at 25 Mbps/3Mbps over the past three years. The FCC has not yet set a mobile speed benchmark, so deployment of mobile broadband is not reflected in these data.
Table 2. Percentage of Americans Lacking Access to Fixed Broadband
(at 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload)
2014
|
2013
|
2012
|
|
United States
|
10%
|
17%
|
20%
|
|
Rural Areas
|
39%
|
53%
|
55%
|
|
Urban Areas
|
4%
|
8%
|
11%
|
|
Tribal Lands
|
41%
|
63%
|
68%
|
|
Rural Areas
|
68%
|
85%
|
89%
|
|
Urban Areas
|
14%
|
41%
|
47%
|
|
U.S. Territories
|
66%
|
63%
|
100%
|
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, p. 39.
Table 3 shows the percentage of Americans without access to fixed broadband by state and U.S. territory.
Table 3. Americans Without Access to Fixed Broadband by State and U.S. Territory
(access to speeds of at least 25 Mbps download/3 Mbps upload)
% of population without access, all areas
|
% of population without access, urban areas
|
% of population without access, rural areas
|
United States
|
Alabama
|
Alaska
|
Arizona
|
Arkansas
|
California
|
Colorado
|
Connecticut
|
Delaware
|
District of Columbia
|
Florida
|
Georgia
|
Hawaii
|
Idaho
|
Illinois
|
Indiana
|
Iowa
|
Kansas
|
Kentucky
|
Louisiana
|
Maine
|
Maryland
|
Massachusetts
|
Michigan
|
Minnesota
|
Mississippi
|
Missouri
|
Montana
|
Nebraska
|
Nevada
|
New Hampshire
|
New Jersey
|
New Mexico
|
New York
|
North Carolina
|
North Dakota
|
Ohio
|
Oklahoma
|
Oregon
|
Pennsylvania
|
Rhode Island
|
South Carolina
|
South Dakota
|
Tennessee
|
Texas
|
Utah
|
Vermont
|
Virginia
|
Washington
|
West Virginia
|
Wisconsin
|
Wyoming
|
U.S. Territories
|
American Samoa
|
Guam
|
Northern Marianas
|
Puerto Rico
|
U.S. Virgin Islands
|
Source: FCC, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, Appendix D. pp. 66-67.
Another important broadband availability issue is the number of providers available. Typically, more available providers lead to greater competition and more consumer choice. Table 4 indicates the percentage of Americans with fixed broadband available from more than one provider.
Table 4. Estimated Percentage of Americans with Multiple Options for Fixed Broadband
No Provider
|
One Provider
|
More than One Provider
|
|
United States
|
10%
|
51%
|
38%
|
|
Rural Areas
|
39%
|
48%
|
13%
|
|
Urban Areas
|
4%
|
52%
|
44%
|
Source: FCC, 2015 Broadband Progress Report, p. 48.
Broadband Adoption
In contrast to broadband availability, which refers to whether or not broadband service is offered, broadband adoption refers to the extent to which American households actually subscribe to and use broadband. According to the latest Census data released by the Department of Commerce, Computer and Internet Use in the United States: 2013, 73.4% of American households have a paid broadband subscription.6 The Census data show that Americans increasingly are connecting to the Internet through other devices in addition to desktop computers: 52% of Americans used two or more devices to connect, including tablets, laptops, mobile phones, and TV connected boxes (gaming consoles and streaming video players).7
The FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report found that 73% of households have a subscription to fixed broadband service of at least 200 kbps in at least one direction. For the benchmark speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps, the FCC reported an overall adoption rate of 37%.8 Adoption rates are lower in counties with the lowest median household income, in areas outside of urban areas, on tribal lands, and in U.S. territories.9
The Pew Research Center's Home Broadband 2015 found that 67% of Americans had broadband at home in 2015, down from 70% in 2013.10 According to Pew, the modest decline in broadband adoption is accompanied by an increase in smartphone adoption, including 13% of adults who rely on their smartphone for online access at home.11 Pew also found that cost (monthly subscription costs and/or cost of a computer) is the major reason why people do not subscribe to broadband,12 and that disparities in broadband adoption persist among demographic groups such as people with low incomes, seniors, minorities, the less-educated, non-family households, and the non-employed (see Table 5).
Table 5. Broadband Adoption
(percentage of adults who have home broadband service)
2013
|
2015
|
|
All
|
70%
|
67%
|
|
Male
|
70
|
66
|
|
Female
|
70
|
67
|
|
Parents
|
77
|
73
|
|
Non-parents
|
67
|
64
|
|
White
|
74
|
72
|
|
African American
|
62
|
54
|
|
Hispanic
|
56
|
50
|
|
18-29
|
81
|
75
|
|
30-49
|
77
|
74
|
|
50-64
|
68
|
65
|
|
65+
|
47
|
45
|
|
Less than $20K
|
46
|
41
|
|
$20K-$50K
|
67
|
63
|
|
$50K-$75K
|
85
|
80
|
|
$75K-$100K
|
88
|
88
|
|
$100K+
|
93
|
90
|
|
High school grad or less
|
50
|
47
|
|
Some college/Assoc. deg.
|
80
|
75
|
|
College +
|
90
|
87
|
|
Rural
|
60
|
55
|
|
Urban
|
70
|
67
|
|
Suburban
|
74
|
70
|
Source: Pew Research Center Surveys, Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015, p. 8.
Finally, GAO released a report in June 2015 (Intended Outcomes and Effectiveness of Efforts to Address Adoption Barriers Are Unclear) which found that affordability, lack of perceived relevance, and lack of computer skills are the principal barriers to broadband adoption.13 GAO examined adoption efforts by NTIA and the FCC, and identified three key approaches used to address broadband adoption barriers: discounts on computer equipment and broadband subscriptions; outreach efforts to promote broadband availability and benefits; and training to help people develop skills in using computers and broadband.14
Broadband in Rural Areas15
While the number of new broadband subscribers continues to grow, the rate of broadband deployment in urban areas appears to be outpacing deployment in rural areas. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities,16 recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.
The National Broadband Map, which is composed of state broadband data and compiled by NTIA and the FCC, provides data on where broadband is and is not available. According to the latest National Broadband Map data, higher download speeds are less available to Americans in rural areas than in urban areas (see Table 6).
Table 6. Broadband Availability, Rural vs. Urban Areas
% of population
|
Download speed
|
Nationwide
|
Urban
|
Rural
|
|
3 Mbps
|
99.8%
|
100%
|
98.7%
|
|
25 Mbps
|
86.7%
|
94.0%
|
54.6%
|
|
100 Mbps
|
65.1%
|
72.5%
|
32.3%
|
Source: NTIA and FCC, National Broadband Map, Broadband Statistics Report: Broadband Availability in Urban vs. Rural Areas, data as of June 2014, published March 2015,
Other data also indicate the disparity between urban and rural broadband. For example:
According to 2015suburban areas in broadband deployment. For example:
•
According to 2013 survey data from the Pew Research Center,
7067% of adults in
urban areas said they have a high-speed broadband connection at home, as
opposed to
6255% of adults in rural areas.
13
•
17
According to the FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report, there is a "significant disparity between rural and urban areas, with more than 39 percent of Americans living in rural areas lacking access to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps advanced telecommunications capability, as compared to 4 percent of Americans living in urban areas."18
A study commissioned by the National Agricultural & Rural Development Policy
Center noted a persistent 13 percentage point gap in broadband adoption between
metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas between 2003 and 2010.
14
•
19
The Department of Commerce report, Exploring the Digital Nation
: Embracing the Mobile Internet: America’s
Emerging Online Experience, found that while the digital divide between urban
and rural areas has lessened since 2007, it still persists with
7275% of urban
households adopting broadband service in
20112012, compared to
5863% of rural
households.15
•
According to December 2013 data from the National Broadband Map, 94% of
the population in urban areas have access to available broadband download
speeds of at least 25 Mbps, as opposed to 51% of the population in rural areas.16
households.20 The comparatively lower population density of rural areas is likely the major reason why
broadband is less deployed than in more highly populated suburban and urban areas. Particularly
for wireline broadband technologies—such as cable modem and DSL—the greater the
geographical distances among customers, the larger the cost to serve those customers. Thus, there
is often less incentive for companies to invest in broadband in rural areas than, for example, in an
11
For more information on rural broadband and broadband programs at the Rural Utilities Service, see CRS Report
RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, by Lennard G. Kruger.
12
See for example: National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), Trends 2006: Making Progress With Broadband,
2006, 26 p. Available at http://www.neca.org/media/trends_brochure_website.pdf.
13
Home Broadband 2013, p. 3.
14
Brian Whiteacre, Roberto Gallardo, and Sharon Strover, National Agricultural & Rural Development Policy Center,
Rural Broadband Availability and Adoption: Evidence, Policy Challenges, and Options, March 2013, p. 13, available
at http://www.nardep.info/Broadband_2.html.
15
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Exploring the
Digital Nation: America’s Emerging Online Experience, June 2013, p. 26, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/
ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_-_americas_emerging_online_experience.pdf.
16
NTIA, National Broadband Map, Broadband Statistics Report: Broadband Availability in Urban vs. Rural Areas,
July 2014, p. 7, available at http://www.broadbandmap.gov/download/
Broadband%20Availability%20in%20Rural%20vs%20Urban%20Areas.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
7
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
is often less incentive for companies to invest in broadband in rural areas than, for example, in an urban area where there is more demand (more customers with perhaps higher incomes) and less
cost to wire the market area.
17
21
Some policymakers believe that disparities in broadband access across American society could
have adverse consequences on those left behind, and that advanced telecommunications
applications critical for businesses and consumers to engage in e-commerce are increasingly
dependent on high
-speed broadband connections to the Internet. Thus, some say, communities and
individuals without access to broadband could be at risk to the extent that connectivity becomes a
critical factor in determining future economic development and prosperity. A February 2006 study
done by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Economic Development
Administration of the Department of Commerce marked the first attempt to quantitatively
measure the impact of broadband on economic growth. The study found that
“"between 1998 and
2002, communities in which mass-market broadband was available by December 1999
experienced more rapid growth in employment, the number of businesses overall, and businesses
in IT-intensive sectors, relative to comparable communities without broadband at that time.
”18
"22
A June 2007 report from the Brookings Institution found that for every one percentage point
increase in broadband penetration in a state, employment is projected to increase by 0.2% to 0.3%
per year. For the entire U.S. private non-farm economy, the study projected an increase of about
300,000 jobs.
19
23
Subsequently, a July 2009 study commissioned by the Internet Innovation Alliance found net
consumer benefits of home broadband on the order of $32 billion per year, up from an estimated
$20 billion in consumer benefits from home broadband in 2005.
20
24
Broadband and the Federal Role
Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) addressed the issue of whether the federal
government should intervene to prevent a
“"digital divide
”" in broadband access. Section 706
requires the FCC to determine whether
“"advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband
or high-speed access] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.
”
"
Since 1999, the FCC has adopted and released
eight10 reports pursuant to Section 706. The first five
reports formally concluded that the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all
Americans is reasonable and timely. Unlike the first five 706 reports, the sixth, seventh, and
17
The terrain of rural areas can also be a hindrance to broadband deployment because it is more expensive to deploy
broadband technologies in a mountainous or heavily forested area. An additional added cost factor for remote areas can
be the expense of “backhaul” (e.g., the “middle mile”) which refers to the installation of a dedicated line which
transmits a signal to and from an Internet backbone which is typically located in or near an urban area.
18
Gillett, Sharon E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Measuring Broadband’s Economic Impact, report
prepared for the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 28, 2006, p. 4.
19
Crandall, Robert, William Lehr, and Robert Litan, The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and
Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data, June 2007, 20 pp. Available at http://www3.brookings.edu/
views/papers/crandall/200706litan.pdf.
20
Mark Dutz, Jonathan Orszag, and Robert Willig, The Substantial Consumer Benefits of Broadband Connectivity for
U.S. Households, Internet Innovation Alliance, July 2009, p. 4, http://internetinnovation.org/files/special-reports/
CONSUMER_BENEFITS_OF_BROADBAND.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
8
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
eighth reports concluded that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable
and timely fashion. According to the Eighth Broadband Progress Report:
Our analysis shows that the nation’s broadband deployment gap remains significant and is
particularly pronounced for Americans living in rural areas and on Tribal lands. We find that
as of June 30, 2011, approximately 19 million Americans did not have access to fixed
broadband. Significantly, approximately 76 percent of these Americans reside in rural areas.
Our analysis further shows that Americans residing on Tribal lands disproportionately lack
access to fixed broadband. And the available international broadband data, though not
perfectly comparable to U.S. data, suggest that the availability and deployment of broadband
in the United States may lag behind a number of other developed countries in certain
respects, although we also compare favorably to some developed countries in other respects.
Moreover, as many as 80 percent of E-rate recipients say that their broadband connections do
not fully meet their needs, and 78 percent of recipients say that they need additional
bandwidth. These data combined with our findings concerning availability above provide
further indication that broadband is not yet being reasonably and timely deployed to all
Americans.21
FCC Commissioners Robert McDowell and Ajit Pai issued dissenting statements, maintaining
that there is insufficient justification for the 706 report conclusion that broadband is not being
deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. For example, the dissents argued that the report did
not sufficiently account for the dramatic growth in the availability and deployment of mobile
broadband, and that gaps in broadband adoption should not be used to determine whether or not
broadband is being sufficiently deployed.22
The National Broadband Plan
As mandated by the ARRA, on March 16, 2010, the FCC publically released its report,
Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan.23 The National Broadband Plan (NBP) seeks
to “create a high-performance America,” which the FCC defines as “a more productive, creative,
efficient America in which affordable broadband is available everywhere and everyone has the
means and skills to use valuable broadband applications.”24 In order to achieve this mission, the
NBP recommends that the country set six goals for 2020:
•
Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to
actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload
speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.
•
Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with
the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.
•
Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband
service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.
21
Eighth Broadband Progress Report, p. 59-60.
Ibid., p.171, 177.
23
Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. For more information on the National Broadband Plan, see CRS
Report R41324, The National Broadband Plan, by Lennard G. Kruger et al.
24
Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, March 17, 2010, p. 9.
22
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
9
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
•
Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least
1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools,
hospitals, and government buildings.
•
Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, every first responder
should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public
safety network.
•
Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every
American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time
energy consumption.
The National Broadband Plan is categorized into three parts:
•
Americans is reasonable and timely. Unlike the first five 706 reports, the sixth, seventh, eighth, tenth, and eleventh reports concluded that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.25
A key factor in determining whether broadband is being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion is how broadband service is defined with respect to download and upload speeds. In 2015 the FCC, in its tenth 706 report, raised the broadband threshold speed from 4 Mbps/1 Mbps to 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. This benchmark speed upgrade was controversial. The FCC argued that 25 Mbps/3 Mbps is reflective of advanced telecommunications capability, while many providers asserted that the new benchmark is too high, excessive, or aspirational.26
The FCC's 2016 Broadband Progress Report was adopted on January 28, 2016. According to the report:
We find that advanced telecommunications capability is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.... [W]hile our efforts have helped increase deployment, many Americans still lack access to advanced telecommunications capability, especially in rural areas and on Tribal lands. The disparity between advanced telecommunications capabilities available to rural and urban Americans persists. We also find that many schools, particularly those in rural areas, continue to lack access to advanced telecommunications capabilities, necessary to meet the shorter and long term goals we established for the E-rate program (more formally known as the Schools and Libraries universal service support program).... We find today that the availability of advanced telecommunications capability requires access to both fixed and mobile services.27
FCC Commissioner Michael O'Reilly issued a dissenting statement, maintaining that there is insufficient justification for the conclusion that broadband is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. According to the dissent, the data show "steady progress in connecting unserved Americans," with "the number of unserved Americans [dropping] from approximately 55 million (17 percent of the population) to approximately 34 million Americans (10 percent of the population) in just one year."28 Commissioner Ajit Pai concurred with the FCC's report, but argued the finding that broadband is not being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion is an indication that "this Administration's policies to encourage and accelerate broadband deployment over the last seven years just haven't worked."29
The National Broadband Plan
As mandated by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), on March 16, 2010, the FCC released its report, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan.30 The National Broadband Plan (NBP) sought to "create a high-performance America," which the FCC defined as "a more productive, creative, efficient America in which affordable broadband is available everywhere and everyone has the means and skills to use valuable broadband applications."31 In order to achieve this mission, the NBP recommended that the country set six goals for 2020:
- Goal No. 1: At least 100 million U.S. homes should have affordable access to actual download speeds of at least 100 megabits per second and actual upload speeds of at least 50 megabits per second.
- Goal No. 2: The United States should lead the world in mobile innovation, with the fastest and most extensive wireless networks of any nation.
- Goal No. 3: Every American should have affordable access to robust broadband service, and the means and skills to subscribe if they so choose.
- Goal No. 4: Every American community should have affordable access to at least 1 gigabit per second broadband service to anchor institutions such as schools, hospitals, and government buildings.
- Goal No. 5: To ensure the safety of the American people, every first responder should have access to a nationwide, wireless, interoperable broadband public safety network.
- Goal No. 6: To ensure that America leads in the clean energy economy, every American should be able to use broadband to track and manage their real-time energy consumption.
The National Broadband Plan was categorized into three parts:
Part I (Innovation and Investment), which
“"discusses recommendations to
maximize innovation, investment and consumer welfare, primarily through
competition. It then recommends more efficient allocation and management of
assets government controls or influences.
”25"32 The recommendations address a
number of issues, including spectrum policy, improved broadband data
collection, broadband performance standards and disclosure, special access rates,
interconnection, privacy and cybersecurity, child online safety, poles and
rightsofrights-of-way, research and experimentation (R&E) tax credits, and R&D funding.
•
Part II (Inclusion), which
“"makes recommendations to promote inclusion—to
ensure that all Americans have access to the opportunities broadband can
provide.
”26"33 Issues include reforming the Universal Service Fund, intercarrier
compensation, federal assistance for broadband in
Tribaltribal lands, expanding
existing broadband grant and loan programs at the Rural Utilities Service,
enabling greater broadband connectivity in anchor institutions, and improved
broadband adoption and utilization especially among disadvantaged and
vulnerable populations.
•
Part III (National Purposes), which
“"makes recommendations to maximize the
use of broadband to address national priorities. This includes reforming laws,
policies and incentives to maximize the benefits of broadband in areas where
government plays a significant role.
”27"34 National purposes include health care,
education, energy and the environment, government performance, civic
engagement, and public safety. Issues include telehealth and health IT, online
learning and modernizing educational broadband infrastructure, digital literacy
and job training, smart grid and smart buildings, federal support for broadband in
small businesses, telework within the federal government, cybersecurity and
protection of critical broadband infrastructure, copyright of public digital media,
interoperable public safety communications, next generation 911 networks, and
emergency alert systems.
The release of the National Broadband Plan
iswas seen by many as a precursor
towards the
toward the development of a national broadband policy—whether comprehensive or piecemeal—that will
25
Ibid., p. 11.
Ibid.
27
Ibid.
26
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
10
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
likely be shaped and developed by Congress, the FCC, and the Administration.
2835 Congress will
likely play a major role in implementing the National Broadband Plan, both by considering
legislation to implement NBP recommendations, and by overseeing broadband activities
conducted by the FCC and executive branch agencies.
Current
Federal Broadband Programs
With the conclusion of grant and loan awards established by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5
),36),29 there remain two ongoing
major federal vehicles which direct
federal money to fund broadband
infrastructure: the broadband and telecommunications programs
at the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Universal
Service Fund (USF) programs under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Although
the USF’s High Cost Program does not explicitly fund broadband infrastructure, subsidies are
used, in many cases, to upgrade existing telephone networks so that they are capable of delivering
high-speed services. Additionally, subsidies provided by USF’s Schools and Libraries Program
and Rural Health Care Program are used for a variety of telecommunications services, including
broadband access. Currently the USF is undergoing a major transition to the Connect America
Fund, which is targeted to the deployment, adoption, and use of both fixed and mobile broadband.
Table 4 (at the end of this report) shows selected federal domestic assistance programs
throughout the federal government that currently can be associated with broadband and
telecommunications development. The table categorizes the programs in three ways: programs
exclusively devoted to the deployment of broadband infrastructure; programs which have
traditionally focused on deployment of telecommunications infrastructure generally (which
typically can and does include broadband); and applications-specific programs which fund some
aspect of broadband access or adoption as a means towards supporting a particular application,
such as distance learning or telemedicine.
Rural Utilities Service Programs
RUS implements two programs specifically targeted at providing assistance for broadband
infrastructure deployment in rural areas: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee
Program and Community Connect Broadband Grants.30 The 110th Congress reauthorized and
reformed the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program as part of the 2008
farm bill (P.L. 110-234). The 112th Congress considered reauthorization of the program as part of
the 2012 farm bill.31
RUS also has a rural telephone loan program (dating back to 1949, now called
Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans) that has historically supported infrastructure for
28
See for example, Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic Council, The White House, Four
Years of Broadband Growth, June 2013, 26 pages,: the Universal Service Fund (USF) programs under the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the broadband and telecommunications programs at the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
In September 2015, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration released a comprehensive Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects.37 The guide provides a summary and contact information for a variety of federal programs that may fund projects involving broadband infrastructure, adoption, access, planning, or research. The guide is available at
http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/files/broadband_fed_funding_guide.pdf.
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC38
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/
broadband_report_final.pdf.
29
See CRS Report R40436, Broadband Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by
Lennard G. Kruger.
30
For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the
USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, by Lennard G. Kruger.
31
Ibid.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
11
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
telephone voice service, but has now evolved into support for broadband-capable service
provided by traditional telephone borrowers. Additionally, the Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Grant Program supports broadband-based applications.32
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC33
Since its creation in 1934 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been tasked with
“ "mak[ing] available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States ... a rapid, efficient,
Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service with adequate facilities at
reasonable charges.
”34"39 This mandate led to the development of what has come to be known as the
universal service concept.
The universal service concept, as originally designed, called for the establishment of policies to
ensure that telecommunications services are available to all Americans, including those in rural,
insular insular, and high cost areas, by ensuring that rates remain affordable. Over the years this concept
fostered has evolved and expanded, fostering the development of various FCC policies and programs
to meet this goal. The FCC offers
universal service support through a number of direct mechanisms that target both providers of and
subscribers to telecommunications and, more recently, broadband services.
35
Universal Service and the Telecommunications Act of 1996
Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) codified the long-standing
commitment by U.S. policymakers to ensure universal service in the provision of
telecommunications services.
The Schools and Libraries, and Rural Health Care Programs
Congress, through the 1996 act, not only codified, but also expanded the concept of universal
service to include, among other principles, that elementary and secondary schools and
classrooms, libraries, and rural health care providers have access to telecommunications services
for specific purposes at discounted rates. (See §§254(b)(6) and 254(h) of the 1996
Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 254.)
1. The Schools and Libraries Program. Under universal service provisions contained in the 1996
act, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms and libraries are designated as
beneficiaries of universal service discounts. Universal service principles detailed in Section
254(b)(6) state that “Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms ... and libraries should
have access to advanced telecommunications services.” The act further requires in Section
254(h)(1)(B) that services within the definition of universal service be provided to elementary
32
See CRS Report R42524, Rural Broadband: The Roles of the Rural Utilities Service and the Universal Service Fund,
by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
33
The section on universal service was prepared by Angele Gilroy, Specialist in Telecommunications, Resources,
Science and Industry Division. For more information on universal service, see CRS Report RL33979, Universal
Service Fund: Background and Options for Reform, by Angele A. Gilroy.
34
Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, Title I §1 [47 U.S.C. 151].
35
Many states participate in or have programs that mirror FCC universal service mechanisms to help promote universal
service goals within their states.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
12
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
and secondary schools and libraries for education purposes at discounts, that is at “rates less than
the amounts charged for similar services to other parties.”
The FCC established the Schools and Libraries Division within the Universal Service
Administrative Company (USAC) to administer the schools and libraries or “E (education)-rate”
program to comply with these provisions. Under this program, eligible schools and libraries
receive discounts ranging from 20% to 90% for telecommunications services depending on the
poverty level of the school’s (or school district’s) population and its location in a high cost
telecommunications area. The FCC established a funding ceiling, or cap, of $2.25 billion,
adjusted for inflation prospectively beginning with funding year 2010. Three categories of
services are eligible for discounts: internal connections (e.g., wiring, routers and servers); Internet
access; and telecommunications and dedicated services, with the third category receiving funding
priority. According to data released by program administrators, approximately $37.4 billion in
funding has been committed over the first 16 years (funding years 1998-2013) of the program
with funding released to all states, the District of Columbia and all territories. Funding
commitments for funding Year 2014 (July 1, 2014-June 30, 2015) totaled $2.6 billion as of
September 17, 2014.36
2. The Rural Health Care Programs. Section 254(h) of the 1996 act requires that public and
nonprofit rural health care providers have access to telecommunications services necessary for the
provision of health care services at rates comparable to those paid for similar services in urban
areas. Subsection 254(h)(1) further specifies that “to the extent technically feasible and
economically reasonable” health care providers should have access to advanced
telecommunications and information services. The FCC established the Rural Health Care
Division (RHCD) within the USAC to administer the universal support program to comply with
these provisions. Under FCC established rules only public or nonprofit health care providers are
eligible to receive funding. Eligible health care providers, with the exception of those requesting
only access to the Internet, must also be located in a rural area. The funding ceiling, or cap, for
this support was established at $400 million annually. The funding level for Year One of the
program (January 1998-June 30, 1999) was set at $100 million. Due to less than anticipated
demand, the FCC established a $12 million funding level for the second year (July 1, 1999 to
June 30, 2000) of the program but has since returned to a $400 million yearly cap. As of March
31, 2012, a total of $514.3 million has been committed since the program’s inception in 1998.
The primary use of the funding is to provide reduced rates for telecommunications and
information services necessary for the provision of health care.37 In addition, the FCC established,
in 2007, the “Rural Health Care Pilot Program” to help public and nonprofit health care providers
build state and region-wide broadband networks dedicated to the provision of health care
services. There are 50 projects in the program with $387.9 million in authorized funds. As of
February 29, 2010, $232.6 million of the funds have been committed to the 50 FCC designated
projects. The FCC in a December 12, 2012, order, created a new program, the Healthcare Connect
Fund, which will expand health care provider access to broadband, particularly in rural areas, and
replace the Rural Health Care Pilot Program with a permanent program. Non-rural participation is
limited to consortia of which at least 50% must be located in a rural area. The upfront funding cap
for the Healthcare Connect Fund is $150 million annually and participants will be required to
36
For additional information on this program, including funding commitments, see the E-rate website:
http://www.universalservice.org/sl/.
37
For additional information on this program, including funding commitments, see the RHCD website:
http://www.universalservice.org/rhc/.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
13
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
contribute 35% of the costs. The FCC also established, as part of the Healthcare Connect Fund, a
new pilot program, to expand broadband connections to skilled nursing facilities. Funding for this
pilot program, which will begin in 2014, will be up to $50 million total over three years. The total
funding cap for all of the above mentioned USF rural health care programs will remain at $400
million annually.38
Universal Service and Broadband
One of the policy debates surrounding universal service in the last decade was whether access to
advanced telecommunications services (i.e., broadband) should be incorporated into universal
service objectives. The term universal service, when applied to telecommunications, refers to the
ability to make available a basket of telecommunications services to the public, across the nation,
at a reasonable price. As directed in the 1996 Telecommunications Act (§254[c]) a federal-state
Joint Board was tasked with defining the services which should be included in the basket of
services to be eligible for federal universal service support; in effect using and defining the term
“universal service” for the first time. The Joint Board’s recommendation, which was subsequently
adopted by the FCC in May 1997, included the following in its universal service package: voice
grade access to and some usage of the public switched network; single line service; dual tone
signaling; access to directory assistance; emergency service such as 911; operator services; and
access and interexchange (long distance) service.
Some policy makers expressed concern that the FCC-adopted definition is too limited and does
not take into consideration the importance and growing acceptance of advanced services such as
broadband and Internet access. They point to a number of provisions contained in the Universal
Service section of the 1996 act to support their claim. Universal service principles contained in
Section 254(b)(2) state that “Access to advanced telecommunications services should be provided
to all regions of the Nation.” The subsequent principle (b)(3) calls for consumers in all regions of
the nation including “low-income” and those in “rural, insular, and high cost areas” to have
access to telecommunications and information services including “advanced services” at a
comparable level and a comparable rate charged for similar services in urban areas. Such
provisions, they state, dictate that the FCC expand its universal service definition.
The 1996 act does take into consideration the changing nature of the telecommunications sector
and allows for the universal service definition to be modified if future conditions warrant. Section
254(c)of the act states that “universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications
services” and the FCC is tasked with “periodically” reevaluating this definition “taking into
account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services.”
Furthermore, the Joint Board is given specific authority to recommend “from time to time” to the
FCC modification in the definition of the services to be included for federal universal service
support. The Joint Board, on November 19, 2007, concluded such an inquiry and recommended
that the FCC change the mix of services eligible for universal service support. The Joint Board
recommended, among other things, that “the universal availability of broadband Internet
38
For more details on the USF rural health care support mechanism and the newly established Healthcare Connect
Fund see In the Matter of Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Federal Communications
Commission, adopted December 12, 2012. Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12150A1.pdf.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
14
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
services” be included in the nation’s communications goals and hence be supported by federal
universal service funds.39
This debate was put to rest when provisions contained in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) called for the FCC to develop, and submit to Congress, a
national broadband plan to ensure that every American has “access to broadband capability.”40
The FCC in its national broadband plan, Connecting America: the National Broadband Plan,
recommended that access to and adoption of broadband be a national goal. Furthermore the
national broadband plan proposed that the Universal Service Fund be restructured to become a
vehicle to help reach this goal. The FCC, in an October 2011 decision, adopted an Order that calls
for the USF to be transformed, in stages, over a multi-year period, from a mechanism to support
voice telephone service to one that supports the deployment, adoption, and utilization of both
fixed and mobile broadband. This transformation includes the phase out of the USF’s legacy High
Cost Program and the creation of a new fund, the Connect America Fund, to replace it.41
Legislation in the 110th Congress
In the 110th Congress, legislation was enacted to provide financial assistance for broadband
deployment. Of particular note is the reauthorization of the Rural Utilities Service (RUS)
broadband loan program, which was enacted as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234). In
addition to reauthorizing and reforming the RUS broadband loan program, P.L. 110-234 contains
provisions establishing a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment and
requiring the FCC and RUS to formulate a comprehensive rural broadband strategy.
The Broadband Data Improvement Act (P.L. 110-385) was enacted by the 110th Congress and
required the FCC to collect demographic information on unserved areas, data comparing
broadband service with 75 communities in at least 25 nations abroad, and data on consumer use
of broadband. The act also directed the Census Bureau to collect broadband data, the Government
Accountability Office to study broadband data metrics and standards, and the Department of
Commerce to provide grants supporting state broadband initiatives.
Meanwhile, the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272) was enacted (P.L. 110-69) and contained a
provision authorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide grants for basic research
in advanced information and communications technologies. Areas of research included affordable
broadband access, including wireless technologies. P.L. 110-69 also directs NSF to develop a plan
that describes the current status of broadband access for scientific research purposes.
39
The Joint Board recommended that the definition of those services that qualify for universal service support be
expanded and that the nation’s communications goals include the universal availability of: mobility services (i.e.,
wireless voice); broadband Internet services; and voice services at affordable and comparable rates for all rural and
non-rural areas. For a copy of this recommendation see http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07J4A1.pdf.
40
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, Section 6001 (k)(2)(D).
41
For a detailed discussion of this Order and USF transition see CRS Report R42524, Rural Broadband: The Roles of
the Rural Utilities Service and the Universal Service Fund, by Angele A. Gilroy and Lennard G. Kruger.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
15
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
Legislation in the 111th Congress
In the 111th Congress, legislation was enacted that sought to provide financial assistance for
broadband deployment. Of particular note, provisions in the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5) provided grants and loans to support broadband access and
adoption in unserved and underserved areas.
P.L. 111-5: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
telecommunications services, and the FCC established, in 1997, a federal Universal Service Fund (USF) to meet the expanded objectives and principles contained in the act. The USF is administered by the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC), an independent not-for-profit organization, under the direction of the FCC. The USF is being transformed in stages, over a multi-year period, from a mechanism to support voice telecommunications services to one that supports the deployment, adoption, and utilization of both fixed and mobile broadband. The USF currently administers four programs: the High Cost/Connect America Fund Program; the Schools and Libraries Program, the Rural Health Care Program, and the Low Income Program. The USF disbursed $7.8 billion in 2014 with all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all territories receiving some benefit.40
Universal Service and Broadband
One of the major policy debates surrounding universal service in the last decade was whether access to advanced telecommunications services (i.e., broadband) should be incorporated into universal service objectives. The 1996 Telecommunications Act tasked the federal-state Joint Board with defining the services which should be included in the definition of services to be eligible for universal service support. The Joint Board's recommendation, which was adopted by the FCC in May 1997, largely limited the definition to voice telecommunications services. Some policymakers expressed concern that the FCC-adopted definition was too limited and did not take into account the importance and growing acceptance of advanced services such as broadband and Internet access. They pointed to a number of provisions contained in the universal service principles of the 1996 act to support their claim. Universal service principles contained in Section 254(b)(2) state that "Access to advanced telecommunications services should be provided to all regions of the Nation." The subsequent principle (b)(3) calls for consumers in all regions of the nation, including "low-income" and those in "rural, insular, and high cost areas," to have access to telecommunications and information services including "advanced services" at a comparable level and a comparable rate charged for similar services in urban areas. Such provisions, they state, dictate that the FCC expand its universal service definition.
The 1996 act does take into consideration the changing nature of the telecommunications sector and allows, if future conditions warrant, for the modification of the universal service definition. Section 254(c) of the act states that "universal service is an evolving level of telecommunications services" and that the FCC is tasked with "periodically" reevaluating this definition "taking into account advances in telecommunications and information technologies and services." Furthermore, the Joint Board is given specific authority to recommend "from time to time" to the FCC modification in the definition of the services to be included for federal universal service support. The Joint Board, on November 19, 2007, concluded such an inquiry and recommended that the FCC change the mix of services eligible for universal support. The Joint Board recommended, among other things, that "the universal availability of broadband Internet services" be included in the nation's communications goals and hence be supported by federal universal service funds.41
This debate was put to rest when provisions contained in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) called for the FCC to develop, and submit to Congress, a national broadband plan to ensure that every American has "access to broadband capability."42 The FCC in its national broadband plan, Connecting America: the National Broadband Plan, recommended that access to and adoption of broadband be a national goal. Furthermore the national broadband plan proposed that the Universal Service Fund be restructured to become a vehicle to help reach this goal. The FCC, in an October 2011 decision, adopted an Order that calls for the USF to be transformed, in stages, over a multi-year period, from a mechanism to support voice telephone service to one that supports the deployment, adoption, and utilization of both fixed and mobile broadband. This transformation includes the phaseout of the USF's legacy High Cost Program and the creation of a new fund, the Connect America Fund, to replace it as well as an expansion and modification of the Schools and Libraries, Rural Health Care programs, and the Low Income program.43
The High Cost/Connect America Fund Program
The High Cost Program provides support for eligible telecommunications carriers to help offset the higher-than-average costs of providing voice telephone service in rural, insular, or other high cost areas. This mechanism has been the largest USF program based on disbursements and has been particularly important to rural areas due to the lack of subscriber density often combined with higher costs. The High Cost Program is undergoing a transition from one that primarily supports voice communications to one that supports a broadband platform that enables multiple applications, including voice. The High Cost program is being phased out in stages and is being replaced by the Connect America Fund (CAF), which will support the provision of affordable voice and broadband services, both fixed and mobile, in high cost areas. The CAF will eventually replace all of the existing support mechanisms in the High Cost Program and contains a Mobility Fund and a Remote Areas Fund to meet these needs. According to data released by program administrators, from 1998 to 2014 a total of approximately $59.6 billion in funding has been approved for disbursement.44
The Schools and Libraries, and Rural Health Care Programs
Congress, through the 1996 act, not only codified, but also expanded the concept of universal service to include, among other principles, that elementary and secondary schools and classrooms, libraries, and rural health care providers have access to telecommunications services for specific purposes at discounted rates. (See §§254(b)(6) and 254(h) of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 254.)
1. The Schools and Libraries (E-Rate) Program. Under universal service provisions contained in the 1996 act, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms and libraries are designated as beneficiaries of universal service discounts. Universal service principles detailed in Section 254(b)(6) state that "Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms ... and libraries should have access to advanced telecommunications services." The act further requires in Section 254(h)(1)(B) that services within the definition of universal service be provided to elementary and secondary schools and libraries for education purposes at discounts, that is at "rates less than the amounts charged for similar services to other parties."
The FCC established the Schools and Libraries Division within USAC to administer the schools and libraries or "E (education)-rate" program to comply with these provisions. Under this program, eligible schools and libraries receive discounts ranging from 20% to 90% for telecommunications services depending on the poverty level of the school's (or school district's) population and its location in a high cost (i.e., rural) telecommunications area. Two categories of services are eligible for discounts: category one services (telecommunications, telecommunications services, and Internet access), and category two services that deliver Internet access within schools and libraries (internal connections, basic maintenance of internal connections, and managed internal broadband services). The current funding year cap is $3.9 billion. According to data released by program administrators, from 1998 to 2014 a total of approximately $29.1 billion in funding has been approved for disbursement.45
2. The Rural Health Care Program. Section 254(h) of the 1996 act requires that public and nonprofit rural health care providers have access to telecommunications services necessary for the provision of health care services at rates comparable to those paid for similar services in urban areas. Subsection 254(h)(1) further specifies that "to the extent technically feasible and economically reasonable" health care providers should have access to advanced telecommunications and information services. The FCC established the Rural Health Care Division (RHCD) within USAC to administer the universal support program to comply with these provisions. The Rural Health Care Program provides funding through three programs: the Telecommunications Program, the Healthcare Connect Fund, and the rural Health Care Pilot Program. The goal of these programs is to improve the quality of healthcare for those living in rural areas by ensuring access to broadband and telecommunications services. Under FCC established rules only public or nonprofit health care providers are eligible to receive funding.
The Telecommunications Program, established in 1997, provides discounts for telecommunications services to ensure that eligible rural health care providers pay no more than urban providers for telecommunications services. The primary use of the funding is to provide reduced rates for telecommunications and information services necessary for the provision of health care.46
The Rural Health Care Pilot Program was established in 2006, to help public and nonprofit health care providers build state and region-wide broadband networks dedicated to the provision of health care services. The program provides funding up to 85% of eligible costs. No new funding is available under this program and current participants that need additional support will transfer to the most recently created program, the Healthcare Connect Fund.
The FCC in December 2012 created the Healthcare Connect Fund,47 a program to expand health care provider access to broadband, particularly in rural areas, and replace the Rural Health Care Pilot Program with a permanent program. The Healthcare Connect Fund program supports high-capacity broadband connectivity and encourages the development of state and regional networks. This program provides a 65% discount on eligible expenses related to broadband connectivity and is available to individual rural health care providers and consortia. Consortia can include non-rural providers but at least 50% of providers must be located in a rural area.
The total annual funding cap for all of the above mentioned USF rural health care programs is $400 million.48 According to data released by program administrators, from 1998 to 2014 a total of approximately $1.1 billion in funding has been approved for disbursement.49
The Low Income Program
As initially designed the Low Income Program provides a discount for voice telephony service for eligible low-income consumers. The major program has two sub-programs, Lifeline and Link Up,50 with the Lifeline Program providing the vast majority of support. The Lifeline Program assists eligible subscribers to cover the recurring monthly service charges associated with telephone subscribership. A monthly discount of $9.25 for one connection, either wired or wireless, per eligible household is available.51 Support is not given directly to the subscriber but to the designated service provider. In June 2015, the FCC initiated a notice of proposed rulemaking52 to, among other proposals, "modernize" the Lifeline Program and is considering expanding it to cover access to broadband as well as voice service. FCC action is still pending.
Rural Utilities Service Programs
RUS implements three programs specifically targeted at providing assistance for broadband infrastructure deployment in rural areas: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (also referred to as the Farm Bill Broadband Loans), the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantees (previously the rural telephone loan program dating back to 1949), and the Community Connect Grant Program.53 The 113th Congress reauthorized and reformed the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program as part of the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79 Agricultural Act of 2014). Additionally, RUS houses the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Grant Program, which supports broadband-based applications.
P.L. 111-5: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
On February 17, 2009, President Obama signed P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Broadband provisions of the ARRA provided a total of $7.2 billion,
for broadband grants, loans, and loan/grant combinations. The total consisted of $4.7 billion to
NTIA/DOC for a newly established Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (grants) and
$2.5 billion to the RUS/USDA Broadband Initiatives Program (grants, loans, and grant/loan
combinations).
42
54
Regarding the $2.5 billion to RUS/USDA broadband programs, the ARRA specified that at least
75% of the area to be served by a project receiving funds shall be in a rural area without sufficient
access to high
-speed broadband service to facilitate economic development, as determined by the
Secretary of Agriculture. Priority was given to projects that provide service to the most rural
residents that do not have access to broadband services. Priority was also given to borrowers and
former borrowers of rural telephone loans.
Of the $4.7 billion appropriated to NTIA:
•
$4.35 billion was directed to a competitive broadband grant program, of which
not less than $200 million shall be available for competitive grants for expanding
public computer center capacity (including at community colleges and public
libraries); not less than $250 million to encourage sustainable adoption of
broadband service; and $10 million transferred to the Department of Commerce
Office of Inspector General for audits and oversight; and
•
$350 million was directed for funding the Broadband Data Improvement Act
( (P.L. 110-385) and for the purpose of developing and maintaining a broadband
inventory map, which shall be made accessible to the public no later than two
years after enactment. Funds deemed necessary and appropriate by the Secretary
of Commerce may be transferred to the FCC for the purposes of developing a
national broadband plan, which shall be completed one year after enactment.
Final BTOP and BIP program awards were announced by September 30, 2010.
With a few exceptions, all ARRA broadband projects were concluded as of September 30, 2015. For more For more
information on implementation of the broadband provisions of the ARRA, see CRS Report
R40436, Broadband Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
, by [author name scrubbed], by
Lennard G. Kruger. For information on the distribution and oversight of ARRA broadband grants
and loans, see CRS Report R41775, Background and Issues for Congressional Oversight of ARRA
Broadband Awards
, by [author name scrubbed].
Other Federal Programs and Initiatives
Broadband Opportunity Council
On March 23, 2015, the President signed a Presidential Memorandum, "Expanding Broadband Deployment and Adoption by Addressing Regulatory Barriers and Encouraging Investment and Training."55 The memorandum established an interagency Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) chaired by the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the USDA, and consisting of 25 other member agencies. The Council's objectives were to engage with industry and other stakeholders to understand ways the government can better support the needs of communities seeking to expand broadband access and adoption; identify regulatory barriers unduly impeding broadband deployment, adoption, or competition; survey and report back on existing programs that currently support or could be modified to support broadband competition, deployment, or adoption; and take all necessary actions to remove these barriers and realign existing programs to increase broadband competition, deployment, and adoption. On April 29, 2015, DOC and USDA put out a notice and request for public comment in the Federal Register.56
On September 21, 2015, the Administration released the Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations.57 In its report, the Council issued nine recommendations encompassing 36 immediate actions that federal agencies have committed to undertake. Each of the 36 immediate agency actions is accompanied by key milestones for completion. Most of these milestones occur during FY2016, with a few stretching into FY2017.
The Council recommendations emphasize actions that federal agencies can take under existing authority, and without additional appropriated funding. This encompasses such measures as making broadband projects eligible for funding from other existing federal grant and loan programs; modifying agency rules and regulations in order to maximize broadband-related uses of federal assets such as highways and federal lands; upgrading public dissemination of broadband information, data, and best practices; and researching new broadband technologies and applications.
BroadbandUSA
BroadbandUSA is housed at the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). Using the expertise gained during administration of the ARRA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP), BroadbandUSA program offers one-to-one technical assistance to communities seeking to plan and implement broadband initiatives. BroadbandUSA will leverage knowledge of federal funding and its network of contacts to help communities identify and leverage funding opportunities; provide support to communities seeking public-private partnerships; review, analyze, and provide recommendations and guidance associated with community-level reports, studies, and procurements; and provide background information and training to organizations that need assistance navigating the broadband landscape.58 BroadbandUSA also organizes regional events and workshops bringing together broadband stakeholders and publishes guides and tools59 that can serve as resources for communities seeking to launch broadband initiatives.
HUD ConnectHome
On July 15, 2015, the White House announced a new Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) initiative with communities called ConnectHome. An initial pilot program is being launched in 27 cities and one tribal nation where regional and local partnerships will be built whereby Internet Service Providers, non-profits, and the private sector will offer broadband access, technical training, digital literacy, programs, and devices for residents in assisted housing units.60
Additionally, as part of ConnectHome, HUD will pursue regulatory changes and modifications that promote broadband availability and adoption in public and assisted housing, including beginning a rulemaking process that requires HUD-funded new residential construction and substantial rehabilitation projects to support broadband Internet connectivity.61
Digital Literacy Initiative
Using the experience gained running the BTOP program, NTIA created the web portal DigitalLiteracy.gov in cooperation with the Department of Education and other federal agencies. The website is intended to serve as a resource to practitioners who are delivering digital literacy training and services in their communities. The portal "organizes content conveniently, enables valuable discussion and collaboration among users and elevates best practices to improve the quality of digital literacy offerings."62
Legislation in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress examined the efficacy of federal broadband assistance programs and how they may fit into the context of a national broadband policy. Enacted legislation included:
P.L. 112-10. Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011. Rescinds existing unobligated past-year funding for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grants at the Rural Utilities Service. For FY2011, appropriates $22.3 million to the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program for the cost of broadband loans, and $13.4 million to Community Connect Grants. Signed by President, April 15, 2011.
P.L. 112-55. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012. Provides FY2012 appropriations for Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program and broadband community connect grants: $6 million for the broadband loan program (subsidizing a loan level of $212 million) and $10.372 million for Community Connect grants. Introduced June 3, 2011; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on Appropriations June 3, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-101). Passed House June 16, 2011. Reported by Senate Appropriations , by Lennard G. Kruger.
42
For information on existing broadband programs at RUS, see CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant
Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, by Lennard G. Kruger.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
16
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
Other Enacted Broadband Legislation in the 111th Congress
P.L. 111-8 (H.R. 1105). Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009. Appropriates to RUS/USDA $15.619
million to support a loan level of $400.487 million for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and
Loan Guarantee Program, and $13.406 million for the Community Connect Grant Program. To
the FCC, designates not less than $3 million to establish and administer a State Broadband Data
and Development matching grants program for state-level broadband demand aggregation
activities and creation of geographic inventory maps of broadband service to identify gaps in
service and provide a baseline assessment of statewide broadband deployment. Passed House
February 25, 2009. Passed Senate March 10, 2009. Signed by President, March 12, 2009.
P.L. 111-32 (H.R. 2346). Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009. Provides not less than $3
million to the FCC to develop a national broadband plan pursuant to the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009. Introduced May 12, 2009; referred to Committee on Appropriations.
Passed House May 14, 2009; passed Senate May 21, 2009. Signed by President, June 24, 2009.
P.L. 111-80 (H.R. 2997). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010. For Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, provides $28.96 million to support a loan level of $400 million for the broadband
loan program, and $17.97 million for broadband community connect grants. Introduced June 23,
2009; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on Appropriations June
23, 2009. Passed House July 9, 2009. Passed Senate August 4, 2009. Conference Report (H.Rept.
111-279) printed September 30, 2009. Signed by President October 21, 2009.
Legislation in the 112th Congress
The 112th Congress examined the efficacy of federal broadband assistance programs and how
they may fit into the context of a national broadband policy.
P.L. 112-10 (H.R. 1473). Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act,
2011. Rescinds existing unobligated past-year funding for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and
Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grants at the Rural Utilities Service. For
FY2011, appropriates $22.3 million to the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee
Program for the cost of broadband loans, and $13.4 million to Community Connect Grants.
Signed by President, April 15, 2011.
P.L. 112-55 (H.R. 2112). Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012.
Provides FY2012 appropriations for Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program and
broadband community connect grants: $6 million for the broadband loan program (subsidizing a
loan level of $212 million) and $10.372 million for Community Connect grants. Introduced June
3, 2011; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on Appropriations
June 3, 2011 (H.Rept. 112-101). Passed House June 16, 2011. Reported by Senate Appropriations
Committee September 7, 2011 (S.Rept. 112-73
). Signed by President, November 18, 2011.
Legislation in the 113th Congress
Enacted legislation directly related to the issue of federal assistance for broadband deployment in unserved areas included:
P.L. 113-6. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013. Funds the broadband loan program at $4 million (supporting a loan level of approximately $42 million) and the Community Connect grant program at $10.372 million. Signed by President March 26, 2013.
P.L. 113-79. Agricultural Act of 2014. Reauthorizes the broadband loan and loan guarantee program through FY2018 at $25 million per year. Signed by President February 7, 2014.
P.L. 113-235. Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. Provides $4.5 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $24.077 million, and $10.372 million to Community Connect broadband grants. Signed by President December 16, 2014.
Legislation in the 114th Congress
The following is a listing of introduced and enacted broadband legislation directly related to the issue of federal assistance for broadband deployment in unserved areas.
P.L. 114-94. Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. Section 1436 authorizes $10 million per year through FY2020 for a high-speed broadband development initiative conducted by the Appalachian Regional Development Program of the Appalachian Regional Commission. Signed by President December 4, 2015.
P.L. 114-113. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. Provides $4.5 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $20.576 million, and $10.372 million to Community Connect broadband grants. Signed by President December 18, 2015.
H.R. 266 (Scott, A.). End Taxpayer Funded Cell Phones Act of 2015. Prohibits universal service support of commercial mobile service and commercial mobile data service through the Federal Communications Commission Lifeline program. Introduced January 9, 2015; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2410 (DeFazio). GROW America Act. Establishes a Broadband Infrastructure Deployment program at the Department of Transportation to expand the use of rights-of-way on federal-aid highways to accommodate broadband infrastructure. Introduced May 19, 2015; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 2638 (Matsui). Broadband Adoption Act of 2015. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to reform and modernize the Universal Service Fund Lifeline Assistance Program. Introduced June 3, 2015; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3049 (Aderholt). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. Provides $5.265 million to subsidize a loan level of $24.077 million for the broadband loan program and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program. Introduced July 14, 2015; reported by House Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 114-205).
H.R. 3064 (Van Hollen). GROW America Act. Establishes a Broadband Infrastructure Deployment program at the Department of Transportation to expand the use of rights-of-way on federal-aid highways to accommodate broadband infrastructure. Introduced July 15, 2015; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 3152 (Nolan). Rural Broadband Initiative Act. Would amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to establish an Office of Rural Broadband within the USDA. The new office would administer all rural broadband-related grant and loan programs previously administered by the RUS. Introduced July 22, 2015; referred to Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3337 (DeLauro). National Infrastructure Development Bank Act of 2015. Includes broadband and telecommunications projects as eligible for financing under a newly established national Infrastructure Development Bank. Introduced July 29, 2015; referred to multiple committees.
H.R. 3805 (Eshoo). Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2015. Provides for the inclusion of broadband conduit installation in certain highway construction projects. Introduced October 22, 2015; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
H.R. 4111 (Lance). Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015. Includes skilled nursing facilities as a type of health care provider under Section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934. Introduced on November 19, 2015; referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 4160 (Huffman). Rural Broadband Infrastructure Investment Act. Would amend Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb) to establish a broadband grant program to accompany the Rural Broadband Loan program. The bill would also make changes to the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee program—specifically raising the threshold for an eligible rural area from 5,000 to 20,000 population, and permitting USDA to give preference to loan applications that support regional telecommunications development. Introduced on December 2, 2015; referred to Committee on Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
S. 56 (Vitter). Ending Mobile Phone Welfare Act of 2015. Prohibits a provider of commercial mobile service from receiving universal service support under the Federal Communications Commission Lifeline program. Introduced on January 7, 2015; referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 268 (Sanders). Rebuild America Act of 2015. Would appropriate $2.5 billion per year through FY2019 for the broadband initiatives program established under title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb et seq.) to expand the access and quality of broadband service across the rural United States. Introduced on January 27, 2015; referred to Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.
S. 734 (Ayotte). USF Equitable Distribution Act of 2015. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to require that not less than 75% of all amounts collected by provides of interstate telecommunications from consumers in a rural state for the purpose of making contributions to preserve and advance universal service shall be allocated to the provision of universal service in that rural state. Introduced on March 12, 2015; referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1472 (Murphy). Broadband Adoption Act of 2015. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to reform and modernize the Universal Service Fund Lifeline Assistance Program. Introduced June 1, 2015; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1621 (Vitter). Ending Mobile and Broadband Welfare Act of 2015. Prohibits universal service support of commercial mobile service and Internet access service through the Lifeline program. Introduced June 18, 2015; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1800 (Moran). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016. Provides $4.5 million to subsidize a loan level of $20.576 million for the broadband loan program, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program. Introduced July 16, 2015; reported by Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept. 114-82).
S. 1916 (Thune). Rural Health Care Connectivity Act of 2015. Includes skilled nursing facilities as a type of health care provider under Section 254(h) of the Communications Act of 1934. Introduced August 3, 2015; ordered to be reported, without amendment, by Senate Commerce Committee on November 18, 2015.
S. 2116 (Shaheen). Small Business Broadband and Emerging Information Technology Enhancement Act of 2015. Seeks to improve certain programs of the Small Business Administration to better assist small business customers in accessing broadband technology. Introduced October 1, 2015; referred to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
S. 2163 (Klobuchar). Directs the Secretary of Transportation to require that broadband conduits be installed as a part of certain highway construction projects. Also streamlines telecommunications facilities deployment on federal lands and properties. Introduced October 7, 2015; referred to Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Concluding Observations
To the extent that Congress may consider various options for encouraging broadband deployment and adoption, a key issue is how to strike a balance between providing federal assistance for unserved and underserved areas where the private sector may not be providing acceptable levels of broadband service, while at the same time minimizing any deleterious effects that government intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector investment.
In addition to loans, loan guarantees, and grants for broadband infrastructure deployment, a wide array of policy instruments are available to policymakers, including universal service reform, tax incentives to encourage private sector deployment, broadband bonds, demand-side incentives (such as assistance to low-income families for purchasing computers), regulatory and deregulatory measures, and spectrum policy to spur roll-out of wireless broadband services. In assessing federal incentives for broadband deployment, Congress may consider the appropriate mix of broadband deployment incentives to create jobs in the short and long term, the extent to which incentives should target next-generation broadband technologies, the extent to which "underserved" areas with existing broadband providers should receive federal assistance, and whether broadband stimulus projects are being efficiently managed and how they may fit into the context of overall goals for a national broadband policy.
Author Contact Information
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])
Footnotes
| 1.
|
The term "digital divide" can also refer to international disparities in access to communications and information technology. This report focuses on domestic issues only.
|
| 2.
|
FCC, Internet Access Services: Status as of December 31, 2013, released October 2014, p. 17. Available at http://transition.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2014/db1016/DOC-329973A1.pdf.
|
| 3.
|
Ibid.
|
| 4.
|
Initially, and for many years following, the FCC defined broadband (or more specifically "high-speed lines") as over 200 kilobits per second (kbps) in at least one direction, which was roughly four times the speed of conventional dialup Internet access. In recent years, the 200 kbps threshold was considered too low, and on March 19, 2008, the FCC adopted a report and order (FCC 08-89) establishing new categories of broadband speed tiers for data collection purposes. Specifically, 200 kbps to 768 kbps is considered "first generation," 768 kbps to 1.5 Mbps is "basic broadband tier 1," and increasingly higher speed tiers are broadband tiers 2 through 7 (tier seven is greater than or equal to 100 Mbps in any one direction). Tiers can change as technology advances.
|
| 5.
|
Federal Communications Commission, 2016 Broadband Progress Report, FCC 16-6, released January 29, 2016, p. 33, available athttps://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-releases-2016-broadband-progress-report.
|
| 6.
|
Thom File and Camille Ryan, U.S. Census Bureau, Economics and Statistics Administration, Department of Commerce, Computer and Internet use in the United States: 2013, American Community Survey Reports, November 2014, p. 3, available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/computer/publications/.
|
| 7.
|
Guila McHenry, NTIA, "Majority of Americans Use Multiple Internet-Connected Devices, Data Shows," December 7, 2015, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/blog/2015/majority-americans-use-multiple-internet-connected-devices-data-shows.
|
| 8.
|
2016 Broadband Progress Report, pp. 45-46.
|
| 9.
|
Ibid, pp. 46-47.
|
| 10.
|
John B. Horrigan and Maeve Duggan, Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015, December 21, 2015, p. 8, available at http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/12/Broadband-adoption-full.pdf.
|
| 11.
|
Ibid., p. 9.
|
| 12.
|
Ibid., p. 15.
|
| 13.
|
Government Accountability Office, Intended Outcomes and Effectiveness of Efforts to Address Adoption Barriers Are Unclear, GAO-15-473, June 2, 2015, p. 11, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/670588.pdf.
|
| 14.
|
Ibid., p. 17.
|
| 15.
|
For more information on rural broadband and broadband programs at the Rural Utilities Service, see CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 16.
|
See for example: National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), Trends: A Report on Rural Telecom Technology, 20 p., available at https://www.neca.org/Trends_Report.aspx.
|
| 17.
|
Home Broadband 2015, p. 9.
|
| 18.
|
2016 Broadband Progress Report, pp. 33-34.
|
| 19.
|
Brian Whiteacre, Roberto Gallardo, and Sharon Strover, National Agricultural & Rural Development Policy Center, Rural Broadband Availability and Adoption: Evidence, Policy Challenges, and Options, March 2013, p. 13, available at http://www.nardep.info/Broadband_2.html.
|
| 20.
|
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Exploring the Digital Nation: Embracing the Mobile Internet, October 2014, p. 16, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/exploring_the_digital_nation_embracing_the_mobile_internet_10162014.pdf .
|
| 21.
|
The terrain of rural areas can also be a hindrance to broadband deployment because it is more expensive to deploy broadband technologies in a mountainous or heavily forested area. An additional added cost factor for remote areas can be the expense of "backhaul" (e.g., the "middle mile") which refers to the installation of a dedicated line which transmits a signal to and from an Internet backbone which is typically located in or near an urban area.
|
| 22.
|
Gillett, Sharon E., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Measuring Broadband's Economic Impact, report prepared for the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, February 28, 2006, p. 4.
|
| 23.
|
Crandall, Robert, William Lehr, and Robert Litan, The Effects of Broadband Deployment on Output and Employment: A Cross-sectional Analysis of U.S. Data, June 2007, 20 pp. Available at http://www3.brookings.edu/views/papers/crandall/200706litan.pdf.
|
| 24.
|
Mark Dutz, Jonathan Orszag, and Robert Willig, The Substantial Consumer Benefits of Broadband Connectivity for U.S. Households, Internet Innovation Alliance, July 2009, p. 4, http://internetinnovation.org/files/special-reports/CONSUMER_BENEFITS_OF_BROADBAND.pdf.
|
| 25.
|
An archive of notices of inquiry and released broadband progress reports are available at https://www.fcc.gov/general/archive-released-broadband-progress-notices-inquiry. The ninth notice of inquiry was concluded without releasing a report.
|
| 26.
|
See Federal Communications Commission, 2015 Broadband Progress Report, FCC 15-10, February 4, 2015, pp. 29-34.
|
| 27.
|
2016 Broadband Progress Report, pp. 2-3.
|
| 28.
|
Ibid, p. 85.
|
| 29.
|
Ibid., p. 81.
|
30.
|
Available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/. For more information on the National Broadband Plan, see CRS Report R41324, The National Broadband Plan, by [author name scrubbed] et al.
| 31.
|
Federal Communications Commission, Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, March 17, 2010, p. 9.
|
| 32.
|
Ibid., p. 11.
|
| 33.
|
Ibid.
|
| 34.
|
Ibid.
|
| 35.
|
See for example, Office of Science and Technology Policy and National Economic Council, The White House, Four Years of Broadband Growth, June 2013, 26 pages, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/broadband_report_final.pdf.
|
| 36.
|
See CRS Report R40436, Broadband Infrastructure Programs in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 37.
|
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, BroadbandUSA: Guide to Federal Funding of Broadband Projects, September 2015, 28 pp.
|
| 38.
|
The section on universal service was prepared by Angele Gilroy, Specialist in Telecommunications, Resources, Science and Industry Division. For more information on universal service, see CRS Report RL33979, Universal Service Fund: Background and Options for Reform, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 39.
|
Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, Title I §1 (47 U.S.C. 151).
|
| 40.
|
2014 Annual Report, Universal Service Administrative Company, p. 45. Total funding approved for disbursement for the months of January-December 2014. .Available at http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/annual-reports/usac-annual-report-2014.pdf.
|
| 41.
|
The Joint Board recommended that the definition of those services that qualify for universal service support be expanded and that the nation's communications goals include the universal availability of: mobility services (i.e., wireless); broadband Internet services; and voice services at affordable and comparable rates for all rural and non-rural areas. For a copy of this recommendation see http:/hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07j-4A1.pdf.
|
| 42.
|
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, Section 6001 (k)(2)(D).
|
| 43.
|
For a detailed discussion of this Order and USF transition see CRS Report R42524, Rural Broadband: The Roles of the Rural Utilities Service and the Universal Service Fund, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
|
| 44.
|
For additional information and data on this program see 2014 Annual Report, Universal Service Administrative Company, p. 37, available at http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/annual-reports/usac-annual-report-2014.pdf.
|
| 45.
|
For additional information and data on this program see 2014 Annual Report, Universal Service Administrative Company, p. 43, available at http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/annual-reports/usac-annual-report-2014.pdf.
|
46.
|
For additional information on this program see the RHCD website: http://www.universalservice.org/rhc/.
| 47.
|
The FCC also established, as part of the Healthcare Connect Fund, a pilot program, to expand broadband connections to skilled nursing facilities. However this program was never established and funding has been postponed indefinitely.
|
| 48.
|
For more details on the USF rural health care support mechanism and the Healthcare Connect Fund see In the Matter of Rural Health Care Support Mechanism, WC Docket No. 02-60, Federal Communications Commission, adopted December 12, 2012. Available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-150A1.pdf.
|
| 49.
|
For additional information and data on this program see 2014 Annual Report, Universal Service Administrative Company, page 42, available at http://www.usac.org/_res/documents/about/pdf/annual-reports/usac-annual-report-2014.pdf.
|
| 50.
|
The Link Up program assists eligible low-income subscribers to pay the costs associated with the initiation of telephone service and is no longer available except for on Tribal Lands.
|
| 51.
|
Tribal Lands Lifeline provides an additional discount of up to $25 for eligible low-income consumers living on Tribal Lands for a total discount of up to $34.25.
|
| 52.
|
In the Matter of Lifeline and Link Up Reform and Modernization et.al, WC Docket No. 11-42 et.al. Available at https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-71A1.pdf.
|
| 53.
|
For more information on these programs, see CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 54.
|
For information on existing broadband programs at RUS, see CRS Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service, by [author name scrubbed] .
|
| 55.
|
Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/03/23/presidential-memorandum-expanding-broadband-deployment-and-adoption-addr.
|
| 56.
|
Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture, "Broadband Opportunity Council Notice and Request for Comment," Federal Register, Vol. 80, No. 82, April 29, 2015, pp. 23785-23787, available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/fr_boc_notice_and_rfc_4-29-15.pdf.
|
| 57.
|
Department of Commerce and Department of Agriculture, Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations, August 20, 2015, available at https://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/broadband_opportunity_council_report_final.pdf. For a summary of the BOC report, see CRS Insight IN10367, Broadband Opportunity Council Report and Recommendations, by [author name scrubbed].
|
| 58.
|
For more information on the types of technical assistance BroadbandUSA offers, see http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/technical_assistance.
|
| 59.
|
See http://www2.ntia.doc.gov/publications.
|
| 60.
|
The White House, Fact Sheet, "Connect Home: Coming Together to Ensure Digital Opportunity for All Americans," July 15, 2015, available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/15/fact-sheet-connecthome-coming-together-ensure-digital-opportunity-all.
|
| 61.
|
Ibid.
|
| 62.
|
See http://www.digitalliteracy.gov/about.
|
). Signed by President, November 18, 2011.
H.R. 1083 (Owens). Rural Broadband Initiative Act. Establishes an Office of Rural Broadband
Initiatives in the Department of Agriculture which would administer the RUS broadband loan and
grant programs, and would develop a comprehensive rural broadband strategy. Introduced March
15, 2011; referred to Committee on Agriculture and in addition to the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
17
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
H.R. 1343 (Bass). To return unused or reclaimed funds made available for broadband awards in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the United States.
Introduced April 4, 2011; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and to Committee on
Agriculture. Reported (amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 112-228)
on September 29, 2011. Passed House October 5, 2011. Referred to Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation October 6, 2011.
H.R. 1695 (Eshoo). Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2011. Directs the Secretary of
Transportation to require that broadband conduit be installed as part of certain highway
construction projects. Introduced May 3, 2011; referred to Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure.
H.R. 2163 (Matsui). Broadband Affordability Act of 2011. Amends the Communications Act of
1934 to establish a Lifeline Assistance Program for universal broadband adoption. Introduced
June 14, 2011; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 5973 (Kingston). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013. For Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, provides $2 million to support a loan level of $21 million for the broadband loan
program, and $10 million for broadband community connect grants. Introduced June 20, 2012;
referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on Appropriations June 20,
2012.
H.R. 6083 (Lucas). Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012. Reauthorizes
rural broadband loan program at $25 million per year through FY2017. Introduced July 9, 2012;
referred to Committee on Agriculture. Ordered to be reported by committee July 11, 2012.
S. 257 (Landrieu). Small Business Broadband and Emerging Information Technology
Enhancement Act of 2011. Seeks to improve certain programs of the Small Business
Administration to better assist small business customers in accessing broadband technology.
Introduced February 2, 2011; referred to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship.
S. 1659 (Ayotte). To return unused or reclaimed funds made available for broadband awards in
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to the Treasury of the United States.
Introduced October 5, 2011; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
S. 1939 (Klobuchar). Broadband Conduit Deployment Act of 2011. Directs the Secretary of
Transportation to require that broadband conduit be installed as part of certain highway
construction projects. Introduced December 1, 2011; referred to Committee on Environment and
Public Works.
S. 2298 (Brown of Ohio). Connecting Rural America Act. Amends the Rural Electrification Act
of 1936 to improve the program of access to broadband telecommunications services in rural
areas. Introduced April 18, 2002; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
S. 2375 (Kohl). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2013. For Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
provides $6 million to support a loan level of $63 million for the broadband loan program, and
$10 million for broadband community connect grants. Introduced April 26, 2012; referred to
Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on Appropriations April 26, 2012.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
18
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
.
S. 3240 (Stabenow). Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2012. Authorizes broadband loan
and grant program at $50 million per year through FY2017. Introduced May 24, 2012; referred to
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. Reported to Senate May 24, 2012. Passed
Senate (amended) June 21, 2012.
S. 3439 (Snowe). Federal Wi-Net Act. Directs the Administrator of General Services to install
Wi-Fi hotspots and wireless neutral host systems in all federal buildings in order to improve inbuilding wireless communications coverage and commercial network capacity by offloading
wireless traffic onto wireline broadband networks. Introduced July 25, 2012; referred to
Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Legislation in the 113th Congress
The following is a listing of broadband legislation directly related to the issue of federal
assistance for broadband deployment in unserved areas.43
P.L. 113-6 (H.R. 933). Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013.Funds the
broadband loan program at $4 million (supporting a loan level of approximately $42 million) and
the Community Connect grant program at $10.372 million. Signed by President March 26, 2013.
P.L. 113-79 (H.R. 2642). Agricultural Act of 2014. Reauthorizes the broadband loan and loan
guarantee program through FY2018 at $25 million per year. Signed by President February 7,
2014.
H.R. 1639 (Gibson). Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize loan/grant
combinations under RUS broadband program. Introduced April 18, 2013; referred to Committee
on Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1685 (Matsui). Broadband Adoption Act of 2013. Amends the Communications Act of
1934 to reform and modernize the Universal Service Fund Lifeline Assistance Program.
Introduced April 26, 2013; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1947 (Lucas). Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013. Section
6105 would reauthorize the broadband loan and loan guarantee program through FY2018 at the
current level of $25 million per year. Introduced May 13, 2013; reported by Committees on
Agriculture and Judiciary.
H.R. 2410 (Aderholt). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014. Provides $5.5 million to subsidize a loan level of
$42.146 million for the broadband loan program, and $10.111 million for the Community
Connect grant program. Introduced June 18, 2013; reported by House Committee on
Appropriations (H.Rept. 113-116).
H.R. 4800 (Aderholt). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. Provides $4.5 million to subsidize a loan level of
43
For information on public safety wireless broadband legislation, see CRS Report R41842, Funding Emergency
Communications: Technology and Policy Considerations, by Linda K. Moore.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
19
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
$24.077 million for the broadband loan program and $10.372 million for the Community Connect
grant program. Introduced June 4, 2014; reported by House Committee on Appropriations
(H.Rept. 113-468).
S. 954 (Stabenow). Agriculture Reform, Food, and Jobs Act of 2013. Includes the establishment
of a new grant program in combination with the existing loan and loan guarantee program
authorization, which is extended at $50 million per year through FY2018. Passed by Senate June
10, 2013.
S. 1244 (Pryor). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014. Provides $4 million to subsidize a loan level of $30.651
million for the broadband loan program, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant
program. Introduced June 27, 2013; reported by Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept.
113-46).
S. 2389 (Pryor). Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015. Provides $6.435 million to subsidize a loan level of $34.43
million for the broadband loan program, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant
program. Introduced May 22, 2014; reported by Senate Committee on Appropriations (S.Rept.
113-164).
Concluding Observations
To the extent that Congress may consider various options for encouraging broadband deployment
and adoption, a key issue is how to strike a balance between providing federal assistance for
unserved and underserved areas where the private sector may not be providing acceptable levels
of broadband service, while at the same time minimizing any deleterious effects that government
intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector investment.
In addition to loans, loan guarantees, and grants for broadband infrastructure deployment, a wide
array of policy instruments are available to policymakers, including universal service reform, tax
incentives to encourage private sector deployment, broadband bonds, demand-side incentives
(such as assistance to low income families for purchasing computers), regulatory and
deregulatory measures, and spectrum policy to spur roll-out of wireless broadband services. In
assessing federal incentives for broadband deployment, Congress may consider the appropriate
mix of broadband deployment incentives to create jobs in the short and long term, the extent to
which incentives should target next-generation broadband technologies, the extent to which
“underserved” areas with existing broadband providers should receive federal assistance, and
whether broadband stimulus projects are being efficiently managed and how they may fit into the
context of overall goals for a national broadband policy.
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
20
.
Table 4. Selected Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Related to Broadband and Telecommunications Development
Program
Agency
Description
Funding Amount
(FY2014 unless
otherwise noted)
Web Links
Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Programs
c11173008
Broadband Technology
Opportunities Program
(BTOP)
National Telecommunications
and Information
Administration, Dept. of
Commerce
Provides competitive grants to public and
private sector entities in order to provide
broadband access in unserved and
underserved areas; provide broadband
support and services to strategic institutions;
improve broadband access by public safety
agencies; and stimulate broadband demand,
economic growth, and job creation.
$4 billion (ARRA,
P.L. 111-5) (2009)
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/
broadbandgrants/
Broadband Initiatives
Program (BIP)
Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture
Provides competitive grants, loans, and
loan/grant combinations to public and
private sector entities in order to provide
broadband access in unserved and
underserved rural areas.
$2.5 billion for the
cost of loans,
grants, and
loan/grant
combinations
(ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
(2009)
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/
utp_bip.html
Rural Broadband Access
Loan and Loan Guarantee
Program
Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture
Provides loan and loan guarantees for
facilities and equipment providing broadband
service in rural communities
$34 million for cost
of money loans
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/
utp_farmbill.html
Community Connect
Broadband Grants
Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture
Provides grants to applicants proposing to
provide broadband service on a
“community-oriented connectivity” basis to
rural communities of under 20,000
inhabitants.
$10 million
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/
utp_commconnect.html
CRS-21
.
Program
Agency
Description
Funding Amount
(FY2014 unless
otherwise noted)
Web Links
Telecommunications Broadband Infrastructure Deployment Programs
c11173008
Telecommunications
Infrastructure Loan
Program
Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture
Provides long-term direct and guaranteed
loans to qualified organizations for the
purpose of financing the improvement,
expansion, construction, acquisition, and
operation of telephone lines, facilities, or
systems to furnish and improve
telecommunications service in rural areas.
All facilities financed must be capable of
supporting broadband services.
$690 million
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/
utp_infrastructure.html
Distance Learning and
Telemedicine Loans and
Grants
Rural Utilities Service, U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture
Provides seed money to rural community
facilities (e.g., schools, libraries, hospitals) for
advanced telecommunications systems that
can provide health care and educational
benefits to rural areas
$20 million
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/
UTP_DLT.html
Connect America
Fund/Universal Service
High Cost Programa
Federal Communications
Commission
Provides funding to eligible
telecommunications carriers to help pay for
telecommunications services in high-cost,
rural, and insular areas so that prices
charged to customers are reasonably
comparable across all regions of the nation.
$4.5 billion (annually
through 2017)
http://www.usac.org/hc/
Universal Service Schools
and Libraries Program (i.e.,
E-rate)
Federal Communications
Commission
Provides discounts for affordable
telecommunications and Internet access
services to ensure that schools and libraries
have access to affordable
telecommunications and information
services.
$2.25 billion
(annually adjusted
for inflation)
http://www.universalservice.org/sl/
Healthcare Connect
Fund/Universal Service
Rural Health Care
Programb
Federal Communications
Commission
Provides a 65% discount on eligible expenses
related to broadband connectivity to both
individual rural health care providers (HCPs)
and consortia, which can include non-rural
HCPs if the consortium has a majority of
rural sites.
$400 million
(annually)
http://www.usac.org/rhc/healthcareconnect/
CRS-22
.
Program
c11173008
Agency
Description
Funding Amount
(FY2014 unless
otherwise noted)
Web Links
Appalachian Area
Development Program
Appalachian Regional
Commission
Project grants to support self-sustaining
economic development in the region’s most
distressed counties and areas. Includes funds
for a Telecommunications Initiative involving
projects that enable communities to
capitalize on broadband access.
$73 million (2013)
http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=
21
States’ Economic
Development Assistance
Program
Delta Regional Authority
Grants for self-sustaining economic
development projects of eight states in
Mississippi Delta region.
$9.4 million
http://www.dra.gov/econom-devel/
application-steps.aspx
Investments for Public
Works and Economic
Development Facilities
Economic Development
Administration, Dept. of
Commerce
Provides funding for construction of
infrastructure in areas that are not attractive
to private investment; most funding is for
water and sewer infrastructure but some
has been designated for telecommunications
and broadband projects.
$96 million
http://www.eda.gov/fundingopportunities/
Library Services and
Technology Act Grants to
States
Institute of Museum and
Library Services, National
Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities
Provides funds for a wide range of library
services including installation of fiber and
wireless networks that provide access to
library resources and services.
$154 million
http://www.imls.gov/programs/
programs.shtm
Native American Library
Services
Institute of Museum and
Library Services, National
Foundation on the Arts and the
Humanities
Grants to support library services including
electronically linking libraries to networks.
$4 million
http://www.imls.gov/applicants/grants/
nativeAmerican.shtm
CRS-23
.
Program
Agency
Description
Funding Amount
(FY2014 unless
otherwise noted)
Web Links
Programs Related to Applications of Broadband or Telecommunications Technology
c11173008
Choice Neighborhood
Implementation Grants
Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing and Office of
Multifamily Housing Programs,
Dept. of Housing and Urban
Development
Helps communities transform
neighborhoods by revitalizing severely
distressed public and/or assisted housing.
Grantees may use funds to provide unitbased broadband Internet connectivity.
$120 million (2013)
http://www.hud.gov/cn/
Special Education—
Technology and Media
Services for Individuals
with Disabilities
Office of Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services, Dept. of
Education
Supports development and application of
technology and education media activities
for disabled children and adults
$28 million
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
osers/index.html?src=mr/
Telehealth Network
Grants
Health Resources and Services
Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services
Grants to develop sustainable telehealth
programs and networks in rural and frontier
areas, and in medically unserved areas and
populations.
$4.9 million
http://www.hrsa.gov/telehealth/
Telehealth Resource
Center Grant Program
Health Resources and Services
Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services
Provides grants that support establishment
and development of telehealth resource
centers to assist health care providers in the
development of telehealth services, including
decisions regarding the purchase of
advanced telecommunications services.
$4.5 million
http://www.hrsa.gov/telehealth/
Evidence-Based TeleEmergency Network Grant
Program
Health Resources and Services
Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services
Provides grants for rural or urban nonprofit
entities that will provide Tele-Emergency
services through a telehealth network.
$2.0 million
http://www.hrsa.gov/telehealth/
Licensure Portability Grant
Program
Health Resources and Services
Administration, Department of
Health and Human Services
Provides support for state professional
licensing boards to develop and implement
state policies that will reduce statutory and
regulatory barriers to telemedicine.
$0.7 million
http://www.hrsa.gov/telehealth/
Medical Library Assistance
National Library of Medicine,
National Institutes of Health,
Department of Health and
Human Services
Provides funds to train professional
personnel; strengthen library and
information services; facilitate access to and
delivery of health science information; plan
and develop advanced information networks;
support certain kinds of biomedical
publications; and conduct research in
medical informatics and related sciences.
$42 million
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/
extramural.html
CRS-24
.
Program
National Environmental
Information Exchange
Network Grant Program
Agency
Environmental Protection
Agency
Description
Provides funding to states, territories, and
federally recognized Indian Tribes to support
the development of an Environmental
Information Exchange Network, including
broadband infrastructure.
Funding Amount
(FY2014 unless
otherwise noted)
$10 million
Web Links
http://epa.gov/exchangenetwork/grants/
Source: Compiled by CRS from FY2014 budget documents, agency websites, the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, and grants.gov.
c11173008
a.
The High Cost program is being phased out and replaced in stages by the Connect America Fund. The program provides funding to eligible service providers to
support the provision of affordable voice and broadband services, both fixed and mobile.
b.
The Rural Health Care program is being replaced by the Healthcare Connect Fund.
CRS-25
.
Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
Author Contact Information
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
lkruger@crs.loc.gov, 7-7070
c11173008
Congressional Research Service
Angele A. Gilroy
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
agilroy@crs.loc.gov, 7-7778
26