Order Code RL30719
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Broadband Internet Access
and the Digital Divide:
Federal Assistance Programs
Updated January 17, 2003
Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

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 technologies (e.g., telephones, computers,
the Internet) and those who do not. One important subset of the digital divide debate
concerns high-speed Internet access, also known as broadband. Broadband is
provided by a series of technologies (e.g. cable, telephone wire, satellite, wireless)
that give users the ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds far greater
than current Internet access over traditional telephone lines.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed by the private sector
throughout the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers
continue to grow, studies conducted by the Federal Communications Commission
(FCC), the Department of Commerce (DOC), and the Department of Agriculture
(USDA) suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban and high income
areas may be 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. One approach is for the federal government to
provide financial assistance to support broadband deployment in underserved areas.
Others, however, believe that federal assistance for broadband deployment is not
appropriate. Some opponents question the reality of the “digital divide,” and argue
that federal intervention in the broadband marketplace would be premature and, in
some cases, counterproductive.
Legislation introduced into the 107th Congress sought to provide federal
financial assistance for broadband deployment in the form of grants, loans, subsidies,
and tax credits. Similar legislation is likely to be introduced into the 108th Congress.
In assessing this legislation, several policy issues arise. For example, is the current
status of broadband deployment data an adequate basis on which to base policy
decisions? Given the early stages of broadband deployment, is federal assistance
premature, or do the risks of delaying assistance to underserved areas outweigh the
benefits of avoiding federal intervention in the marketplace? And finally, if one
assumes that governmental action is necessary to spur broadband deployment in
underserved areas, which specific approaches, either separately or in combination,
are likely to be most effective?

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Broadband in Rural and Low-Income Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Federal Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Federal Telecommunications Development Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Rural Utilities Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Department of Commerce Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Is Broadband Deployment Data Adequate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Is Federal Assistance for Broadband Deployment
Premature or Inappropriate? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Which Approach is Best? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Selected Federal Domestic Assistance Programs
Related to Telecommunications Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

---

Broadband Internet Access and the Digital
Divide: Federal Assistance Programs
Background
The “digital divide” is a term used to describe a perceived gap between
perceived “information haves and have-nots,” or in other words, between those
Americans who use or have access to telecommunications technologies (e.g.,
telephones, computers, the Internet) and those who do not.1 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. A widely cited series
of reports issued by the Department of Commerce2 during the Clinton Administration
argued that a “digital divide” exists, with many rural citizens, certain minority
groups, and low-income Americans tending to have less access to
telecommunications technology than other Americans.3
In February 2002, the Bush Administration’s Department of Commerce
released its first survey report on Internet use, entitled A Nation Online: How
Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet.4 While acknowledging a
disparity in usage between “information haves and have nots,” the report focused on
the increasing rates of Internet usage among traditionally underserved groups:
In every income bracket, at every level of education, in every age group, for
people of every race and among people of Hispanic origin, among both men and
women, many more people use computers and the Internet now than did so in the
recent past. Some people are still more likely to be Internet users than others.
Individuals living in low-income households or having little education, still trail
the national average. However, broad measures of Internet use in the United
States suggest that over time Internet use has become more equitable.5
1 The term “digital divide” can also refer to international disparities in access to information
technology. This report focuses on domestic issues only.
2 See: U.S. Department of Commerce, Falling Through the Net: Toward Digital Inclusion,
released October 2000, available at: [http://www.esa.doc.gov/fttn00.pdf]
3 Not all observers agree that a “digital divide” exists. See, for example: Thierer, Adam D.,
Divided Over the Digital Divide, Heritage Foundation, March 1, 2000.
[http://www.heritage.org/views/2000/ed030100.html]
4 Department of Commerce, A Nation Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use
of the Internet, February 2002. Based on a September 2001 Census Bureau survey of 57,000
households. See: [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html]
5 A Nation Online, pp. 10-11.

---

CRS-2
One important subset of the digital divide debate concerns high speed Internet
access, also known as broadband. Broadband is provided by a series of technologies
(e.g. cable, telephone wire, satellite, wireless) that give users the ability to send and
receive data at volumes and speeds far greater than current Internet access over
traditional telephone lines.6 In addition to offering speed, broadband access provides
a continuous, “always on” connection (no need to dial-up) and a “two-way”
capability, that is, the ability to both receive (download) and transmit (upload) data
at high speeds.
Broadband technologies are being deployed by the private sector throughout the
United States. A September 2001 survey conducted by the Department of Commerce
found that 10.8% of the population and 20.0% of household Internet users have high-
speed Internet connections in their homes.7 According to the latest Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) data on the deployment of high-speed Internet
connections (released December 17, 2002), as of June 30, 2002 there were 16.2
million high speed lines connecting homes and businesses to the Internet in the
United States, a growth rate of 27% during the first half of 2002.8 Of the 16.2
million high speed lines reported by the FCC, 14 million serve homes and small
businesses. While broadband adoption rates remain relatively low, broadband
availability is much higher. According to J.P. Morgan and McKinsey & Co., 73%
of households have cable modem service available, and 45% of households have
access to DSL. Combined, availability of at least one broadband provider is estimated
to be almost 85%. However, only 12% of households with available access to
broadband have chosen to subscribe.9
More specific and recent data exist for subscriptions over telephone lines and
cable, currently the two principal competing broadband technologies. According to
Kinetic Strategies Inc., a broadband research firm, an estimated 9.0 million
households in the United States subscribed to cable modem10 services by the end of
June 2002, while 4.4 million households subscribed to digital subscriber line (DSL)11
6 For further information on different types of broadband technologies, including their
respective strengths and limitations, see: CRS Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet
Access: Background and Issues.
7 A Nation Online, p. 36.
8 FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2002, December
2002. Available at:
[http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/FCC-State_Link/IAD/hspd1202.
pdf]
9 Remarks of Michael Powell, Chairman, FCC before the National Summit on Broadband
Deployment, October 25, 2001 [http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Powell/2001/spmkp110.html]
10 A cable modem is a device connected to the cable television system which allows high-
speed Internet access.
11 DSL is a technology that provides broadband access over traditional telephone lines.

---

CRS-3
service. Kinetic Strategies estimates that cable modem and DSL penetration of U.S.
households stands at over 13%.12
Broadband in Rural and Low-Income Areas. While the number of new
broadband subscribers continues to grow, the rate of broadband deployment in urban
and high income areas appears to be outpacing deployment in rural and low-income
areas. In response to a request by ten Senators, the Departments of Commerce and
Agriculture released a report on April 26, 2000, concluding that rural areas lag
behind urban areas in access to broadband technology. The report found that less
than 5% of towns of 10,000 or less have access to broadband, while broadband over
cable has been deployed in more than 65% of all cities with populations over
250,000, and broadband over the telephone network has been deployed in 56% of all
cities with populations over 100,000.13
The FCC’s Third Report found that while broadband is being deployed
throughout the United States in a reasonable and timely fashion overall, “certain
factors – such as population density and income – continue to be highly correlated
with the availability of high-speed services.”14 As of June 30, 2002, the FCC found
at least one high-speed subscriber in 84% of all zip codes in the United States. High-
speed subscribers were reported in 99% of the most densely populated zip codes, as
opposed to 50% of zip codes with the lowest population densities. Similarly, for zip
codes ranked by median family income, high-speed subscribers were reported present
in 98% of the top one-tenth of zip codes, as compared to 69% of the bottom one-
tenth of zip codes.15
Finally, the February 2002 report from the Department of Commerce, A Nation
Online: How Americans Are Expanding Their Use of the Internet, found that 12.2%
of Internet users in rural areas had high-speed connections, as opposed to 21.2% of
Internet users in urban areas. The report’s survey also found, not surprisingly, that
individuals in high-income households have higher broadband subscribership rates
than individuals in lower income households.16
Some policymakers believe that disparities in broadband access across
American society could have adverse consequences on those left behind. While
relatively few American homes today subscribe to broadband, many believe that
advanced Internet applications of the future – high quality video, for example – and
the resulting ability for businesses and consumers to engage in e-commerce, may
increasingly depend on high speed broadband connections to the Internet. Thus,
some say, communities and individuals without access to broadband could be at risk
12 See: [http://www.cabledatacomnews.com/cmic/cmic16.html]
13 See: U.S. Depts. of Commerce and Agriculture, Advanced Telecommunications in Rural
America: The Challenge of Bringing Broadband Service to All Americans, April 2000, 80
pages. Available at: [http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/ruralbb42600.pdf]
14 FCC, Third Report, p. 5.
15 FCC, High-Speed Services for Internet Access: Status as of June 30, 2002, p. 4.
16 A Nation Online, pp. 40-41.

---

CRS-4
to the extent that e-commerce becomes a critical factor in determining future
economic development and prosperity.
Federal Role. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) addresses
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.” If this is not
the case, the Act directs the FCC to “take immediate action to accelerate deployment
of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting
competition in the telecommunications market.”
On January 28, 1999, the FCC adopted its first report (FCC 99-5) pursuant to
Section 706. The report concluded that “the consumer broadband market is in the
early stages of development, and that, while it is too early to reach definitive
conclusions, aggregate data suggests that broadband is being deployed in a
reasonable and timely fashion.”17 The FCC announced that it would continue to
monitor closely the deployment of broadband capability in annual reports and that,
where necessary, it would “not hesitate to reduce barriers to competition and
infrastructure investment to ensure that market conditions are conducive to
investment, innovation, and meeting the needs of all consumers.”
The FCC’s second Section 706 report was adopted on August 3, 2000. Based
on more extensive data than the first report, the FCC similarly concluded that
notwithstanding risks faced by some vulnerable populations, broadband is being
deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion overall:
Recognizing that the development of advanced services infrastructure remains in its
early stages, we conclude that, overall, deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability is proceeding in a reasonable and timely fashion. Specifically, competition
is emerging, rapid build-out of necessary infrastructure continues, and extensive
investment is pouring into this segment of the economy.18
The FCC’s third Section 706 report was adopted on February 6, 2002. Again,
the FCC concluded that “the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability
to all Americans is reasonable and timely.”19 The FCC added:
We are encouraged by the expansion of advanced services to many regions of the
nation, and growing number of subscribers. We also conclude that investment
in infrastructure for most advanced services markets remains strong, even though
the pace of investment trends has generally slowed. This may be due in part to
the general economic slowdown in the nation. In addition, we find that emerging
17 FCC News Release, “FCC Issues Report on the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications Capability to All Americans,” January 28, 1999.
[http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/News_Releases/1999/nrcc9004.html]
18 Deployment of Advanced Telecommunications Capability: Second Report, p. 6.
19 Third Report, p. 5.

---

CRS-5
technologies continue to stimulate competition and create new alternatives and
choices for consumers.20
While the FCC is currently implementing or actively considering some
regulatory activities related to broadband,21 no major regulatory intervention pursuant
to Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 has been deemed necessary
by the FCC at this time. Meanwhile, the National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce (DOC) was
tasked with developing the Bush Administration’s broadband policy.22 While the
Administration’s official broadband policy has not yet been formally unveiled,
statements from Administration officials indicate that much of the policy will focus
on removing regulatory roadblocks to investment in broadband deployment.23 On
June 13, 2002, in a speech at the 21st Century High Tech Forum, President Bush
declared that the nation must be aggressive about the expansion of broadband, and
cited ongoing activities at the FCC as important in eliminating hurdles and barriers
to get broadband implemented.
The Bush Administration has also emphasized the importance of encouraging
demand for broadband services. On September 23, 2002, the DOC’s Office of
Technology Policy released a report, Understanding Broadband Demand: A Review
of Critical Issues,24 which argues that national governments can accelerate broadband
demand by taking a number of steps, including: protecting intellectual property,
supporting business investment, developing e-government applications, promoting
efficient radio spectrum management, and others. Similarly, the President’s Council
of Advisers on Science & Technology (PCAST) was tasked with studying “demand-
side” broadband issues, such as whether reforms are necessary regarding intellectual
property or digital rights management in order to spur the availability of “killer-
applications” on broadband networks. The PCAST report concludes that while
government should not intervene in the telecommunications marketplace, it should
apply existing policies and work with the private sector to promote broadband
applications and usage. Specific initiatives include increasing e-government
broadband applications (including homeland security), promoting telework, and
pursuing broadband-friendly spectrum policies.25
20 Ibid., p. 5-6.
21 See Section VI of the Third Report, “Actions to Accelerate the Deployment of Advanced
Telecommunications,” pp. 54-66.
22 See speech by Nancy Victory, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information,
before the National Summit on Broadband Deployment, October 25, 2001,
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2001/broadband_102501.htm]
23 Address by Nancy Victory, NTIA Administrator, before the Alliance for Public
T e c h n o l o g y B r o a d b a n d S y m p o s i u m , F e b r u a r y 8 , 2 0 0 2 ,
[http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/speeches/2002/apt_020802.htm]
24 Available at: [http://www.ta.doc.gov/reports/TechPolicy/Broadband_020921.pdf]
25 Rucker, Terri, “Broadband: President’s Advisors Oppose Intervention in Broadband
Market,” Technology Daily, September 30, 2002.

---

CRS-6
Meanwhile, “high-tech” organizations such as TechNet26 and the Computer
Systems Policy Project (CSPP)27 have called on the federal government to adopt
policies toward a goal of 100 Mbs to 100 million homes by the end of the decade.
A bill introduced by Senator Lieberman on June 5, 2002 (S. 2582, National
Broadband Strategy Act of 2002) requires the President to submit a report to
Congress setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the nationwide deployment of
high speed broadband Internet telecommunications services.
Some policymakers in Congress assert that the federal government should play
a more active role to avoid a “digital divide” in broadband access, and that legislation
is necessary to ensure fair competition and timely broadband deployment. To
accomplish this goal, the Congress considered a number of legislative approaches in
the 107th Congress. First, Congress considered whether to ease certain legal
restrictions and requirements, imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on
incumbent telephone companies that provide high-speed data (broadband) access.
For more information on this legislation (e.g. H.R. 1542 in the 107th Congress,
popularly referred to as “Tauzin-Dingell,” and S. 2430, “Breaux-Nickles”), see CRS
Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues.

Another approach involves federal assistance to support broadband deployment
in underserved areas. Numerous bills were introduced into the 107th Congress
seeking to provide federal financial assistance for broadband deployment in the form
of grants, loans, subsidies, and/or tax credits.
Federal Telecommunications Development Programs

Table 1 (at the end of this report) shows selected federal domestic assistance
programs throughout the federal government that can be associated with
telecommunications development. Many (if not most) of these programs can be
related, if not necessarily to the deployment of broadband technologies in particular,
then to the “digital divide” issue generally.
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC.28 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
26 TechNet represents over 300 senior executives from companies in the fields of
information technology, biotechnology, venture capital, investment banking, and law.
TechNet’s policy document, “A National Imperative: Universal Availability of Broadband
by 2010,” is available at: [http://www.technet.org/news/newsreleases/2002-01-15.64.pdf]
27 CSPP is composed of nine CEOs from computer hardware and information technology
companies. See: “A Vision for 21st Century Wired & Wireless Broadband: Building the
Foundation of the Networked World,” [ http://www.cspp.org/reports/networkedworld.pdf]
28 The section on universal service was prepared by Angele Gilroy, Specialist in
Telecommunications Policy, Resources, Science and Industry Division.

---

CRS-7
with adequate facilities at reasonable charges....”29 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 and high cost areas, by ensuring that
rates remain affordable. Over the years this concept fostered 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 services.30
The development of the federal universal service high cost fund is an example
of provider-targeted support. Under the high cost fund, eligible telecommunications
carriers, usually those serving rural, insular and high cost areas, are able to obtain
funds to help offset the higher than average costs of providing telephone service.31
This mechanism has been particularly important to rural America where the lack of
subscriber density leads to significant costs. FCC universal service policies have
also been expanded to target individual users. Such federal programs include two
income-based programs, Link Up and Lifeline, established in the mid-1980s to assist
economically needy individuals. The Link Up program assists low-income
subscribers pay the costs associated with the initiation of telephone service and the
Lifeline program assists low-income subscribers pay the recurring monthly service
charges. Funding to assist carriers providing service to individuals with speech
and/or hearing disabilities is also provided through the Telecommunications Relay
Service Fund. Effective January 1, 1998, schools, libraries, and rural health care
providers also qualified for universal service support.
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 Sections
254(b)(6) and 254(h)of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, 47 USC 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
29 Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, Title I sec.1[47 U.S.C. 151].
30 Many states participate in or have programs that mirror FCC universal service
mechanisms to help promote universal service goals within their states.
31 Additional FCC policies such as rate averaging and pooling have also been implemented
to assist high cost carriers.

---

CRS-8
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 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
percent 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. 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, $8.2 billion in
funding has been committed over the first four years of the program with funding
released to all states, the District of Columbia and all territories. Funding
commitments for the fifth year, funding Year 2002, totaled $1.6 billion as of
December 24, 2002.32
2. The Rural Health Care Program. Section 254(h) of the 1996 Act requires
that public and non-profit 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 non-
profit 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.33 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 returned to a $400 million cap for
the three most recent years. As of January 10, 2003, covering the first 5 years of the
program, a total of $44.1 million has been committed to 1,589 health care providers.
32 For information on the status, funding and implementation of the program see CRS Issue
Brief IB98040, Telecommunications Discounts for Schools and Libraries: The “E-Rate”
Program and Controversies, by Angele A. Gilroy.
33 Any health care provider that does not have toll-free access to the Internet can receive the
lesser of $180 in toll charges per month or the toll charges incurred for 30 hours of access
to the Internet per month. To obtain this support the health care provider does not have to
be located in a rural area, but must show that it lacks toll-free Internet access and that it is
an eligible health care provider.

---

CRS-9
The primary use of the funding is to provide reduced rates for telecommunications
services necessary for the provision of health care.34
The Telecommunications Development Fund. Section 714 of the 1996 Act
created the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF). The TDF is a private,
non-governmental, venture capital corporation overseen by a seven-member board
of directors and fund management. The purpose of the TDF is threefold: to promote
access to capital for small businesses in order to enhance competition in the
telecommunications industry; to stimulate new technology development and promote
employment and training; and to support universal service and enhance the delivery
of telecommunications services to rural and underserved areas. The TDF is
authorized to provide financing to eligible small businesses in the
telecommunications industry through loans and investment capital. At this time the
TDF is focusing on providing financing in the form of equity investments ranging
from $375,000 to $1 million per investment.35 Initial funding for the program is
derived from the interest earned from the upfront payments bidders submit to
participate in FCC auctions. The availability of funds for future investments is
dependent on earning a successful return on the Fund’s portfolio. As of October
2002, the TDF had $50 million under management of which approximately $12-
15million is committed to twelve portfolio companies.36

Universal Service and Broadband. One of the policy debates surrounding
universal service is 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 [Section
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 services 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; 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
34 For additional information on this program including funding commitments see the RHCD
web site: [http://www.rhc.universalservice.org]
35 The TDF also provides management and technical assistance to the companies in which
it invests.
36 For additional information on this program see the TDF web site at:
[http://www.tdfund.com]

---

CRS-10
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.
Others caution that a more modest approach is appropriate given the “universal
mandate” associated with this definition and the uncertainty and costs associated
with mandating nationwide deployment of such advanced services as a universal
service policy goal. Furthermore they state 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, in July 2002,
concluded such an inquiry and recommended that at this time no changes be made
in the current list of services eligible for universal service support.
Rural Utilities Service. The Rural Electrification Administration (REA),
subsequently renamed the Rural Utilities Service (RUS), was established by the
Roosevelt Administration in 1935. Initially, it was established to provide credit
assistance for the development of rural electric systems. In 1949, the mission of
REA was expanded to include rural telephone providers. Congress further amended
the Rural Electrification Act in 1971 to establish within REA a Rural Telephone
Account and the Rural Telephone Bank (RTB). The RTB is described as a public-
private partnership intended to provide additional sources of capital that will
supplement loans made directly by RUS. Another program, the Distance Learning
and Telemedicine Program, specifically addresses the needs engendered by passage
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104). Its passage has contributed
to an increase in demand for telecommunications loans. Currently, the RUS is in the
process of modifying its regulations in order to allow it to use more of its lending
authority to encourage private sector investment in rural broadband services.37
Telecommunications Loans. This program makes three kinds of loans
depending upon the financial condition of the borrowing utility and the costs
associated with serving subscribers in rural areas. Hardship loans bear an interest
rate of 5% and are intended for smaller utility systems in the most remote areas
where there are fewer subscribers per mile of line. The second category of loans is
RUS “cost-of-money” and RTB loans. These are made concurrently to a borrower,
with the funds drawn from RUS and RTB in proportion to the respective annual
appropriation to each. These loans carry an interest rate equal to its “cost of capital,”
37 See, for example: Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, General Policies,
Types of Loans, Loan Requirements – Telecommunications Program, Final Rule, Federal
Register, Vol. 65, no. 175, September 8, 2000, p. 54399.

---

CRS-11
which is roughly the U.S. Treasury’s cost of funds. Lastly, there are loans
administered by RUS but guaranteed by the Federal Financing Bank (FFB), where
the interest rate is set by agreement between the borrower and the private lender.

The Bush Administration, in its FY2002 budget proposal, requested the
identical level of funding for the Telecommunications Loans program as was
appropriated in FY2001 ($75 million in hardship loan authority, $300 million in
Treasury-rate loans, and $120 million for guaranteed loans). However, the FY2002
budget proposal requested no federal funding for the Rural Telephone Bank, in order
to “continue the progression of the RTB toward becoming a private bank.” The
FY2002 Agriculture Appropriations bill (P.L. 107-76) appropriated the same level
as requested by the Administration for the Telecommunications Loan program, and
a loan level of $175 million for the RTB.
Identical to the FY2002 request, the Administration’s FY2003 budget proposal
requested $75 million in hardship loan authority, $300 million in Treasury-rate
loans,$120 million for guaranteed loans, and no federal funding for the Rural
Telephone Bank. Both the House and Senate versions of the FY2003 Agriculture
Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 107-623, S.Rept. 107-223) would set the same level as
requested by the Administration for the Telecommunications Loan program, and a
loan level of $175 million for the RTB.
Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. This program38 provides
seed money for loans and grants to rural community facilities (e.g., schools, libraries,
hospitals) for advanced telecommunications systems that can provide health care and
educational benefits to rural areas. Appropriations for loans and grants in this
program have increased significantly since its inception in 1993.
For FY2002, the Bush Administration proposed $100 million for broadband
treasury rate loans and $2 million in broadband grants. The funding would be used
as a grant/loan combination to finance installation of rural broadband capacity
provided by RUS telecommunication cooperatives and businesses serving rural areas
and communities. The funding could also be used to finance local dial-up Internet
service for communities that currently lack Internet access via a local call. The
FY2002 Agriculture Appropriations conference agreement (H.Rept. 107-275, P.L.
107-76) appropriated $80 million for the principal amount of broadband
telecommunications loans and $22.5 million for the continuation of a pilot project
for a loan and grant program ($12.5 million is specifically for grants) to finance
broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service in rural areas. P.L. 107-76
also authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to regulatory
commissions in States with communities without dial-up Internet access to establish
a competitively neutral grant program to telecommunications carriers that establish
facilities and services which will result in the long-term availability to rural
communities of affordable broadband telecommunications services. The availability
of Fy2002 grant money ($10 million pilot program) for broadband service in rural
38 7 U.S.C. 950aaa et seq.

---

CRS-12
communities was announced by RUS on July 8, 2002.39 RUS is accepting
applications for these grants through November 5, 2002.
For FY2003, the Administration is proposing $80 million for broadband
treasury rate loans and $2 million for broadband grants. Both the House and Senate
versions of the FY2003 Agriculture Appropriations bill (H.Rept. 107-623, S.Rept.
107-223) would provide a loan level of $80 million for broadband
telecommunications direct loans. The Senate bill would specify $10 million in grants
for broadband transmission and local Internet dial-up service.
Meanwhile, the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171)
authorized a loan and loan guarantee program to eligible entities for facilities and
equipment providing broadband service in rural communities. Section 6103
authorized a total of $100 million through FY2007 ($20 million for each of fiscal
years 2002 through 2005, and $10 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007).
RUS is currently developing regulations to implement the new broadband loan
program.
Department of Commerce Programs. The Technology Opportunities
Program (TOP), formerly the Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure
Assistance Program (TIAPP), is administered by the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration (NTIA) at the Department of Commerce. TOP gives
grants for model projects demonstrating innovative uses of advanced
telecommunications technologies, especially in rural and underserved communities.
Matching grants are awarded to state, local and tribal governments, health care
providers, schools, libraries, police departments, and community-based non-profit
organizations. Applications include distance learning, telemedicine, and economic
development.
Since 1994, TOP has awarded 555 grants, totaling $204.9 million and
leveraging $282 million in local matching funds. As broadband technologies become
increasingly developed and deployed, it is likely that an increasing number of TOP
grants will be related to broadband deployment. In FY2002, TOP awarded $12.4
million to 25 organizations.40
The Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget proposal requested $15.5 million
for TOP in FY2002. This constitutes a 66% cut from TOP’s FY2001 appropriated
level. The FY2002 Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-77)
provided $15.5 million for TOP, the same level of funding proposed by the
Administration.
In its FY2003 budget submission, the Administration proposes to terminate the
TOP program. The Senate Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill for FY2003
(S.Rept. 107-218) would provide TOP with $15.56 million in FY2003.
39 See: [http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/initiatives/index_initiatives.htm#broadband]
40 See: [ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/top/grants/grants.htm]

---

CRS-13
Legislation in the 107th Congress
A number of bills were introduced in the 107th Congress which sought to
provide financial support for broadband deployment, especially in rural and/or low-
income areas. Some provisions would authorize funding for loans and grants, while
others would establish targeted tax credits for companies investing in broadband
facilities.41 The Senate Budget Committee-passed FY2003 budget resolution
(S.Con.Res. 100) included a “Sense of the Senate Regarding Broadband Capabilities
for Underserved Areas” (Section 303). The provision finds that broadband is not
deployed or adequately utilized in rural and other underserved areas, and calls on
Congress to encourage deployment of and demand for broadband technologies in
those areas.
The Senate version of the farm bill – S. 1731 (Harkin) – contained language
authorizing the Secretary of Agriculture to provide grants and loans to eligible
entities providing broadband service in rural areas. Subsequently, the final farm bill
conference agreement (H.Rept.107-424; H.R. 2646/S. 1731, the Farm Security and
Rural Investment Act of 2002) authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans
and loan guarantees to eligible entities for facilities and equipment providing
broadband service in rural communities. Section 6103 authorizes a total of $100
million through FY2007 ($20 million for each of fiscal years 2002 through 2005, and
$10 million for each of fiscal years 2006 and 2007). The Farm Bill was signed into
law (P.L. 107-171) on May 13, 2002.
Meanwhile, a broadband tax credit provision was added to the Senate Finance
Committee version of the economic stimulus bill, H.R. 3090 (Economic Security and
Recovery Act of 2001). Modeled on S. 88 (the Broadband Internet Access Act
introduced by Senator Rockefeller), section 902 of H.R. 3090 would have provided
a 10% credit for deploying “current generation” broadband equipment in rural and
underserved areas and a 20% credit for “next generation” broadband equipment
deployment for rural and underserved areas and for all residential broadband
subscribers. Ultimately, H.R. 3090 was not passed by the Senate.
Subsequently, similar broadband tax credit language was considered as a
possible amendment to the Senate energy bill (S. 517). In the end, this amendment
was not included in the final version of the energy bill passed by the Senate on April
25, 2002.42
The Broadband Telecommunications Act of 2002 (S. 2430) was introduced by
Senator Hollings on May 2, 2002. S. 2448 would provide financial assistance for an
array of programs and initiatives to encourage broadband deployment, particularly
in rural and underserved areas. Specifically, the bill would establish a Broadband
41 For information on broadband legislation which addresses regulatory issues such as lifting
data transmission restrictions on Bell Operating Companies, and “open access” of cable
systems, please see the CRS Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet Access: Background
and Issues.
42 See Senate debate on Broadband Tax Credit Legislation, Congressional Record, April 25,
2002, pp. S3399-S3404.

---

CRS-14
Deployment and Demand Trust Fund financed by monies from the telephone excise
tax. For each of years FY2003 through FY2007, expenditures from the Trust Fund
would be used for a number of purposes, including: grants and loans for broadband
deployment; pilot projects for wireless and other non-wireline broadband
technologies; block grants to States and local governments to encourage and support
broadband deployment; grants to the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), NTIA, the National Science Board, and universities to conduct research on
next-generation broadband technologies; grants to connect underrepresented colleges
and communities to the Internet; grants for digital television conversion by public
broadcasters; and grants for programs aimed at stimulating broadband demand, such
as digitizing library and museum collections, developing consumer applications, and
developing e-government initiatives. In total, S. 2448 would authorize expenditures
of up to $10.87 billion through FY2007 ($2.17 billion per year, FY2003 – FY2007).
The following is a complete listing of bills introduced in the 107th Congress
which sought to provide some form of financial assistance to encourage broadband
deployment:
H.R. 267 (English)
Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001. Provides tax credits for five years to
companies investing in broadband equipment. Provides a 10% tax credit for “current
generation” broadband service (defined as download speeds of at least 1.5 million
bits per second) for rural and low-income areas, and a 20% tax credit for “next
generation” broadband service (defined as download speeds of at least 22 million bits
per second). Introduced January 30, 2001; referred to Committee on Ways and
Means.
H.R. 1415 (Rangel)
Technology Bond Initiative of 2001. Provides an income tax credit to holders
of bonds financing the deployment of broadband technologies. Introduced April 4,
2001; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 1416 (LaFalce)
Broadband Expansion Grant Initiative of 2001. Authorizes $100 million in
grants and loan guarantees from the Department of Commerce for deployment by the
private sector of broadband telecommunications networks and capabilities to
underserved rural areas. Introduced April 4, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
H.R. 1693 (Hall)
Science Education for the 21st Century Act. Authorizes $10 million in each of
fiscal years 2002 through 2004 for federal agencies participating in the Next
Generation Internet program to conduct broadband demonstration projects in
elementary and secondary schools. Directs the National Science Foundation to
conduct a study of broadband network access in schools and libraries. Introduced
May 3, 2001; referred to Committees on Science and on Education and Workforce.
H.R. 1697 (Conyers)
Broadband Competition and Incentives Act of 2001. Authorizes $3 billion for a loan
program administered by the Department of Justice to finance broadband deployment

---

CRS-15
in rural and low-income areas. Introduced May 3, 2001; referred to Committees on
Judiciary and on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2038 (Stupak)
Rural Broadband Enhancement Act. Gives new authority to the Rural Utilities
Service in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband
technology in rural areas. Introduced May 25, 2001; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce and Committee on Agriculture.
H.R. 2139 (Smith)
Rural America Broadband Deployment Act. Authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to make loans for the development of broadband services in rural areas.
Introduced June 12, 2001; referred to Committee on Agriculture and Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2401 (McHugh)
Rural America Digital Accessibility Act. Provides for grants, loans, research,
and tax credits to promote broadband deployment in underserved rural areas.
Introduced June 28, 2001; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Committee on Ways and Means, and Committee on Science.
H.R. 2597 (McInnis)
Broadband Deployment and Telework Incentive Act. Allows taxpayer
deductions for purchase of broadband equipment and provides tax credits to
providers of next generation broadband service to rural and urban subscribers.
Introduced July 23, 2001; referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 2669 (Moran)
Rural Telecommunications Enhancement Act. Authorizes the Secretary of
Agriculture to make loans and grants to improve access to telecommunications and
Internet services in rural areas. Introduced July 27, 2001; referred to Committee on
Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2847 (Boswell)
Rural America Technology Enhancement Act of 2001. Provides: tax credits for
broadband facilities development; rural area broadband support through the FCC’s
universal service fund; and loans from the USDA Rural Utilities Service. Introduced
September 6, 2001; referred to Committees on Agriculture; Ways and Means; Energy
and Commerce; and Education and the Workforce.
H.R. 3090 (Thomas, Bill)
Economic Security and Recover Act of 2001. Section 902 (added by Senate
Finance Committee) provides a 10% tax credit for “current generation” broadband
service (defined as download speeds of at least 1 million bits per second) for rural
and low-income areas, and a 20% tax credit for “next generation” broadband service
(defined as download speeds of at least 22 million bits per second). Introduced
October 11, 2001. Passed House October 24, 2001. Reported by Senate Finance
Committee with an amendment in the nature of a substitute, November 9, 2001.

---

CRS-16
H.R. 4641 (Markey)
Wireless Technology Investment and Digital Dividends Act of 2002.
Establishes a Broadband Infrastructure Investments Program, funded by a trust fund
financed by revenues from spectrum auctions. Program would make grants to
nonprofit organizations, States, or local governments for broadband deployment in
underserved rural areas and low-income housing and community centers. Introduced
May 2, 2002; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 4664 (Smith, Nick)
National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002. Directs the National
Science Foundation to conduct a study of broadband network access for schools and
libraries. Passed House June 5, 2002; passed Senate November 14, 2002. Signed by
President, December 19, 2002.
S. 88 (Rockefeller)
Broadband Internet Access Act of 2001. Provides tax credits for five years to
companies investing in broadband equipment. Provides a 10% tax credit for “current
generation” broadband service (defined as download speeds of at least 1.5 million
bits per second) for rural and low-income areas, and a 20% tax credit for “next
generation” broadband service (defined as download speeds of at least 22 million bits
per second). Introduced January 22, 2001; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 150 (Kerry)
Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. Provides tax credits for five years to
companies investing in broadband equipment to serve low-income areas. Provides
a 10% tax credit for broadband service delivering a minimum download speed of 1.5
million bits per second. Introduced January 23, 2001; referred to Committee on
Finance.
S. 426 (Clinton)
Technology Bond Initiative of 2001. Provides an income tax credit to holders
of bonds financing the deployment of broadband technologies. Introduced March 1,
2001; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 428 (Clinton)
Broadband Expansion Grant Initiative of 2001. Authorizes $100 million in
grants and loan guarantees from the Department of Commerce for deployment by the
private sector of broadband telecommunications networks and capabilities to
underserved rural areas. Introduced March 1, 2001; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 430 (Clinton)
Broadband Rural Research Investment Act of 2001. Authorizes $25 million for
the National Science Foundation to fund research on broadband services in rural and
other remote areas. Introduced March 1, 2001; referred to Committee on Finance.
S. 966 (Dorgan)
Rural Broadband Enhancement Act. Gives new authority to the Rural Utilities
Service in consultation with the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to make low interest loans to companies that are deploying broadband

---

CRS-17
technology in rural areas. Introduced May 25, 2001; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 1571 (Lugar)
Farm and Ranch Equity Act of 2001. Section 602 would authorize the Secretary
of Agriculture to make loans and grants to entities providing broadband service to
rural areas. Introduced October 18, 2001; referred to Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
S. 1731 (Harkin)/P.L. 107-171
Agriculture, Conservation, and Rural Enhancement Act of 2001. Title VI
(Section 605) would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make loans and grants
to entities providing broadband service to rural areas. Introduced November 27,
2001; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry. Committee
report (S.Rept. 107-117) filed December 7, 2001. Incorporated into H.R. 2646 as an
amendment and passed by Senate, February 13, 2002. Conference report ( H.Rept.
107-424) filed in House May 1, 2002. Signed into law May 13, 2002.
S. 2448 (Hollings)
Broadband Telecommunications Act of 2002. Provides loans and grants to
encourage broadband deployment in rural and underserved areas. Also provides
grants to foster broadband demand and technology development. Introduced May
2, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.
S. 2582 (Lieberman)
National Broadband Strategy Act of 2002. Requires the President to submit a
report to Congress setting forth a comprehensive strategy for the nationwide
deployment of high speed broadband Internet telecommunications services.
Introduced June 5, 2002; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation.
Policy Issues
As summarized above, legislation was introduced into the 107th Congress that
sought to provide federal financial assistance for broadband deployment in
underserved areas. Similar legislation is likely to be introduced into the 108th
Congress. In assessing this legislation, several policy issues arise.
Is Broadband Deployment Data Adequate? Obtaining an accurate
snapshot of the status of broadband deployment is problematic. Anecdotes abound
of rural and low-income areas which do not have adequate Internet access, as well
as those which are receiving access to high-speed, state-of-the-art connections.
Rapidly evolving technologies, the constant flux of the telecommunications industry,
the uncertainty of consumer wants and needs, and the sheer diversity and size of the
nation’s economy and geography make the status of broadband deployment very
difficult to characterize. The FCC has begun the process of periodically collecting
deployment data from the private sector. In using these data as the basis of the
Second Report, the FCC acknowledges that broadband deployment data collection
and analysis remain a work in progress. According to FCC Commissioner Tristani,
“[t]he data on which the Report relies suffer from several weaknesses that undermine

---

CRS-18
our ability to draw well-supported conclusions and to identify with specificity at-risk
communities.”43
The FCC is working to refine the data used in future Reports in order to provide
an increasingly accurate portrayal. Meanwhile, other studies have been released or
are forthcoming which could shed further light on broadband deployment. The
General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report in October 2000 which
examined how competition is developing in the market for Internet access services,
including the development of consumer choice of Internet access.44
Some argue that because the overall status of broadband deployment is not yet
adequately understood, government intervention is not appropriate at this time. On
the other hand, advocates of federal assistance for broadband deployment maintain
that the available data indicate clearly enough that rural and low-income areas are
being underserved, and that the risk of delaying assistance to these areas outweighs
the benefit of waiting for more complete data.
Is Federal Assistance for Broadband Deployment Premature or
Inappropriate? Related to the data issue is the argument that government
intervention in the broadband marketplace would be premature or inappropriate. The
FCC currently does not favor significant regulatory intervention, arguing that
broadband deployment is in its early stages, that critical applications and attractive
content for broadband have not yet emerged, and that even in areas where broadband
access is available, it is not yet apparent that most consumers are willing to pay the
average fee of $50 per month for this new service. Some argue that financial
assistance for broadband deployment could distort private sector investment
decisions in a dynamic and rapidly evolving marketplace, and question whether
federal tax dollars should support a technology that has not yet matured, and whose
societal benefits have not yet been demonstrated.45
On the other hand, proponents of financial assistance counter that the available
data show, in general, that the private sector will invest in areas where it expects the
greatest return – areas of high population density and income. Without some
governmental assistance in underserved areas, they argue, it is reasonable to conclude
that broadband deployment will lag behind in many rural and low income areas.
Proponents of a more federal support for broadband deployment also argue that
broadband is an important contributor to future economic growth. Because the
43 Separate Statement of Commissioner Gloria Tristani, Deployment of Advanced
T e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s C a p a b i l i t y : S e c o n d R e p o r t .
[http://www.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2000/stgt043.html]
44 General Accounting Office, Technological and Regulatory Factors Affecting Consumer
Choice of Internet Providers, GAO-01-93, October 2000, 68 p.
45 See: Leighton, Wayne A., Broadband Deployment and the Digital Divide: A Primer, a
Cato Institute Policy Analysis, No. 410, August 7, 2001, 34 pp. Available at:
[http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa410.pdf]. Also see: Thierer, Adam, Broadband Tax
Credits, the High-Tech Pork Barrel Begins, Cato Institute, July 13, 2001, available at:
[http://www.cato.org/tech/tk/010713-tk.html].

---

CRS-19
federal government has not adopted an aggressive broadband policy, they assert, the
U.S. is lagging behind other countries in broadband deployment.46
Which Approach is Best? If one assumes that governmental action is
appropriate to spur broadband deployment in underserved areas, which specific
approaches, either separately or in combination, would likely be most effective?
Targeted grants and loans from several existing federal programs have been
proposed, as well as tax credits for companies deploying broadband systems in rural
and low-income areas. How might the impact of federal assistance compare with the
effects of regulatory or deregulatory actions?47 And finally, how might any federal
assistance programs best compliment existing “digital divide” initiatives by the
states, localities, and private sector?48
46 An OECD study found the U.S. ranking fourth in broadband subscribership per 100
inhabitants (after Korea, Sweden, and Canada). See: Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development, Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry, The
Development of Broadband Access in OECD Countries, October 29, 2001, 63 pages. For
a comparison of government broadband policies, also see: OECD, Directorate for Science,
Technology and Industry, Broadband Infrastructure Deployment: The Role of Government
Assistance, May 22, 2002, 42 pages. Available at: [http://www.oecd.org]
47 See CRS Issue Brief IB10045 for a detailed discussion of these issues.
48 For more information on state, local, and private sector initiatives, see:
[http://www.digitaldividenetwork.org]

---

s
l]
l]
ram
49
og
ram
l Pr
prog
ation
“Al
o
lopment
form
e/top/index.htm
e/ptfp/index.htm
e
n
ic/]: Go t
” and search by
/otiahom
/otiahom
/publ
ov
ov
s for More I
ov
/eda/]
ink
ov
da.g
erically
Web L
://www.cf
Listed Num
ttp
[h
[http://www.ntia.doc.g
[http://www.ntia.doc.g
[http://www.doc.g
ated)
illion
illion
estic Assistance, updated 7/01/2002.
illion
funding
(estim
$13.6 m
$50.15 m
$250 m
0
2
of Federal Dom
ically
CRS-
ation of
in rural
unities
talog
odel
anced
m
, acquisition,
ent and other
oderniz
m
unications
unications
m
ed com
m
escription FY2002
onstrating
ects
D
rants for m
rants to econom
the 2002 Ca
unications
ies, especially
ssistance Programs Related to Telecommunications Dev
e uses of adv
m
proj
ides g
ativ
ects dem
ides g
pes of telecom
Prov
proj
innov
telecom
technolog
and underserv
Assists in planning
installation and m
public telecom
facilities
Prov
distressed areas for construction
of public facilities and
infrastructure, including
broadband deploy
ty
enabling
ation from
ency
ation
ation
g
unications
unications
erce
erce
ent
erce
A
m
m
m
m
ic
m
form
form
n
inistration, Dept.
n
inistration, Dept.
inistration, Dept.
CRS based on inform
elopm
elecom
elecom
National
T
and I
Adm
of Com
National
T
and I
Adm
of Com
Econom
Dev
Adm
of Com
ic
Prepared by49
lanning
ram
ublic
y
unications
ent

m
Table 1. Selected Federal Domestic A
Prog
ram
s and Econom
elopm
echnolog
pportunities
og
ublic
elecom
acilities – P
rants for P
T
O
Pr
P
T
F
and Construction
G
Work
Dev

---

s
]
ram
C/ind
og
ram
]
]
l Pr
prog
ation
“Al
o
form
/index.htm
/rtb/index_rtb.htm
/dlt/dlt.htm
n
AE/AdultEd/CT
ic/]: Go t
” and search by
/publ
us/telecom
/rus/telecom
/r
/rus/telecom
s for More I
ov
ov
ov
ov
/offices/OV
ink
ov
da.g
erically
.usda.g
Web L
w
w
://www.cf
www.ed.g
l]
Listed Num
ttp
[h
[http://www.usda.g
[http://www.usda.g

[http://w
[http://
ex.htm
y
oney
ated)
illion
illion
reasur
illion
illion
illion
illion
illion
funding
(estim
rants)
$75 m
(hardship
loans);
$300 m
(cost of m
loans);
$120 m
(FFB T
loans)
$175 m
$27.6 m
(g
$300 m
(loans)
$32.5 m
1
2
e
ent,
s that
e
CRS-
prov
ice in
ices in
unity
em
m
stem
puters and
, to adults
e
for loans
y
direct and
prov
-incom
ental financing
prov
anced
oney
-term
escription FY2002
the im
., schools, libraries,
D
, particularly
unications serv
unications serv
unications sy
y
ide health care and
ations for the purpose
s to furnish and im
m
m
m
unities in both urban and
ides long
ides supplem
ides seed m
rants to rural com
ides access to com
m
that access
aranteed loans to qualified
aniz
u
stem
Prov
g
org
of financing
expansion, construction,
acquisition, and operation of
telephone lines, facilities, or
sy
telecom
rural areas
Prov
to extend and im
telecom
rural areas
Prov
and g
facilities (e.g
hospitals) for adv
telecom
can prov
educational benefits to rural areas
Prov
technolog
educational technolog
and children in low
com
rural areas who otherwise would
lack
ice,
ice,
ice,
erv
erv
erv
cational
ency
o
g
A
tilities S
tilities S
tilities S
ral U
riculture
ral U
riculture
ral U
riculture
u
g
u
g
u
g
R
U.S. Dept. of
A
R
U.S. Dept. of
A
R
U.S. Dept. of
A
Office of V
and Adult Education
Dept. of Education
rants
ram
Centers
edicine
y
elephone
elephone
Prog
unity
Loans
elem
m
ram
arantees
u
istance Learning
m
o
echnolog
Rural T
Loans and Loan
G
Rural T
Bank
D
and T
Loans and G
C
T
Prog

---

s
ram
og
ram
l Pr
prog
ation
“Al
o
CF/]
form
L
n
/]
/T
y
ic/]: Go t
info/StarSchools/]
” and search by
_
/publ
echnolog
s for More I
ffices/OERI
ov
/T
/prog
/o
/]
g
/offices/OSERS/]
ink
ov
ov
da.g
erically
ov
ov
d.g
tec.or
Web L
://www.cf
www.ed.g
www.ed.g
Listed Num
://www.ed.g
://www.e
://www.r
ttp
[h
ttp
ttp
[http://
[http
[h
[h
[http://
ated)
illion
illion
illion
illion
illion
funding
(estim
$450 m
$27.5 m
$12 m

$10 m

$37.7 m
2
2
in
ice
serv
CRS-
and
ent of
to
ing
y
y
e teaching
m
anced
ent
ities for
unication
based
e the teaching
areas.
prov
em
ent and
ducation
elopm
and learning
m
ram
out a national
prov
escription FY2002
centers, pre-
elopm
edia activ
D
tate E
unications facilities and
unication-
ies to im
to im
ation technolog
e teaching
m
ent, educational and
m
ram
iders, and other educational
encies for dev
rants to S
prov
rants to telecom
G
Ag
inform
im
schools
G
partnerships for
telecom
equipm
instructional prog
Grants to carry
telecom
prog
in core curriculum
Helps states, schools, districts,
adult literacy
prov
institutions to use adv
technolog
and student achiev
Supports dev
application of technolog
education m
disabled children and adults
entary
esearch
ent,
esearch
ent,
esearch
ent,
e
ency
em
ssistant
em
ssistant
em
g
for
for
for
A
prov
prov
prov
m
m
m
ices, Dept. of
ffice of Elem
ffice of Assistant
ffice of A
ffice of A
ffice of Special
ehabilitativ
ducation
O
and Secondary
Education, Dept. of
Education
O
Secretary
Educational R
and I
Dept. of Education
O
Secretary
Educational R
and I
Dept. of Education
O
Secretary
Educational R
and I
Dept. of Education
O
Education and
R
Serv
E
y
ram
Literacy
and
y
unications
echnolog
y
ices for
e Fund
m
atics
Prog
ts
onstration
ect for
iduals with
ional T
ducation
echnolog
an
elecom
em
echnolog
isabilities
T
Challeng
Gr
Star Schools
T
D
Proj
Mathem
Reg
in E
Consortia
Special Education –
T
Media Serv
Indiv
D

---

s
ram
og
ram
]
l]
l Pr
sla.asp#po]
prog
ation
“Al
o
ural.htm
/lib_g
/lib_nat.asp]
form
rantee.htm
n
ic/]: Go t
rants/g
/g
” and search by
/ep/extram
/publ
ov
ov
rants/library
rants/library
s for More I
/g
/g
ov
ov
ov
ink
da.g
erically
.nih.g
ls.g
ls.g
im
Web L
://www.cf
www.im
Listed Num
://www.
ttp
[h
[http://telehealth.hrsa.g
[http://www.nlm
[http://
[http
ated)
illion
illion
illion
funding
(estim
illion
$5.6 m
$44.7 m
$148.94
m
$2.94 m
3
2
s in
inds
ing
CRS-
ation
ices that
link
of health
edical
serv
ices
ery
h State,
s
and
s
ices; facilitate
encies for
serv
ork
rated health care
s or network
ation; plan and
ork
escription FY2002
anced inform
e ag
D
stem
electronically
sy
s; support certain k
edical publications; and
then library
ation serv
atics and related sciences
ation throug
elops integ
ery
ides funds to train
otion of library
elop adv
inistrativ
ide all users access to
ional, and international
ev
rants to state library
D
deliv
rural areas
Prov
professional personnel;
streng
inform
access to and deliv
science inform
dev
network
of biom
conduct research in m
inform
G
adm
prom
prov
inform
reg
electronic netw
Supports library
including
libraries to netw
ices
of
ices
ealth,
anities
anities
ency
stitute of
m
stitute of
m
g
n
n
an Serv
an Serv
u
u
A
esources and
ent of Health
ent of Health
and Library
and Library
ices
inistration,
ices, I
ices, National
ices, I
ices, National
ealth R
stitutes of H
erv
erv
H
Serv
Adm
Departm
and Hum
National Library
Medicine, National
In
Departm
and Hum
Office of Library
S
Museum
Serv
Foundation on the Arts
and the H
Office of Library
S
Museum
Serv
Foundation on the Arts
and the H
edicine
ices
ram
erican
m
Prog
Serv
ts
ram
e A
ral Telem
u
an
ssistance
ativ
R
Gr
Medical Library
A
State Library
Prog
N
Library

---

s
ram
og
ram
l Pr
prog
ation
“Al
o
form
n
ic/]: Go t
” and search by
/publ
]
v
s for More I
ov
o
ink
da.g
erically
Web L
://www.cf
Listed Num
ttp
[h
[http://www.denali.g
ated)
illion
funding
(estim
$24 m
4
2
ed to
n
CRS-
a,
h a federal
lask
hout A
escription FY2002
D
rants throug
in distressed
unities
ides g
ide critical infrastructure and
m
Prov
and state partnership desig
prov
utilities throug
particularly
com
ission
ency
m
g
A
Denali Com
ission
ram
m
Prog
ram
Denali Com
Prog

---