Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service

June 16, 2016 (RL33816)
Jump to Main Text of Report

Contents

Tables

Summary

Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a "digital divide" between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.

Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171 ) amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively created and dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant Program. Additionally, the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (previously the Telephone Loan Program) primarily funds broadband deployment in rural areas.

In the 113th Congress, the 2014 farm bill (P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014) was signed by the President on February 7, 2014. P.L. 113-79 amended Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb) to reauthorize the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program through FY2018. P.L. 113-79 also included provisions to redefine project area eligibility with respect to existing broadband service, increase the program's transparency and reporting requirements, define a minimum level of broadband service, require a study on the gathering and use of address-level data, and establish a new Rural Gigabit Network Pilot Program.

Meanwhile, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provided $4.5 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $20.576 million, and $10.372 million to Community Connect broadband grants. The Administration's FY2017 budget proposal requested zero funding for the broadband loan program and $39.492 million for the Community Connect broadband grant program. In the FY2017 budget justification, RUS stated that the budget request shifts resources to the broadband grant program and the Distance Learning and Telemedicine grant program, and that RUS intends to rewrite the Telecommunications Loan Program rules to expand eligibility.


Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA's Rural Utilities Service

Background: Broadband and Rural America

The broadband loan and grant programs at RUS are intended to accelerate the deployment of broadband services in rural America. "Broadband" refers to high-speed Internet access and advanced telecommunications services for private homes, commercial establishments, schools, and public institutions. Currently in the United States, residential broadband is primarily provided via mobile wireless (e.g., smartphones), cable modem (from the local provider of cable television service), or over the telephone line (digital subscriber line or "DSL"). Other broadband technologies include fiber optic cable, fixed wireless, satellite, and broadband over power lines (BPL).

Broadband access enables a number of beneficial applications to individual users and to communities. These include e-commerce, telecommuting, voice service (voice over the Internet protocol or "VOIP"), distance learning, telemedicine, public safety, and others. It is becoming generally accepted that broadband access in a community can play an important role in economic development. A February 2006 study by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration marked the first attempt to 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."1

Subsequently, 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, assuming the economy is not already at full employment.2 Similarly, an August 2009 report from the USDA Economic Research Service found that counties with a longer history of broadband availability had higher employment growth and higher nonfarm private earnings than similarly situated counties with little or no broadband access since 2000.3

Access to affordable broadband is viewed as particularly important for the economic development of rural areas because it enables individuals and businesses to participate fully in the online economy regardless of geographical location. For example, aside from enabling existing businesses to remain in their rural locations, broadband access could attract new business enterprises drawn by lower costs and a more desirable lifestyle. Essentially, broadband potentially allows businesses and individuals in rural America to live locally while competing globally in an online environment.

Given the large potential impact broadband may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a "digital divide" between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities,4 recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment. For example:

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, fiber, 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 urban area where there is more demand (more customers with perhaps higher incomes) and less cost to wire the market area.

The terrain of rural areas can also be a hindrance, in that 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.

Pilot Broadband Loan and Grant Programs

Given the lagging deployment of broadband in rural areas, Congress and the Administration acted to initiate pilot broadband loan and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. While RUS had long maintained telecommunications loan and grant programs (Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees, Rural Telephone Bank, and more recently, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Loans and Grants) none were exclusively dedicated to financing rural broadband deployment. Title III of the FY2001 agriculture appropriations bill (P.L. 106-387) directed USDA/RUS to conduct a "pilot program to finance broadband transmission and local dial-up Internet service in areas that meet the definition of 'rural area' used for the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program."

Subsequently, on December 5, 2000, RUS announced the availability of $100 million in loan funding through a one-year pilot program "to finance the construction and installation of broadband telecommunications services in rural America."9 The broadband pilot loan program was authorized under the authority of the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program (7 U.S.C. 950aaa), and was available to "legally organized entities" not located within the boundaries of a city or town having a population in excess of 20,000.

The FY2001 pilot broadband loan program received applications requesting a total of $350 million. RUS approved funding for 12 applications totaling $100 million. The FY2002 agriculture appropriations bill (P.L. 107-76) designated a loan level of $80 million for broadband loans, and on January 23, 2002, RUS announced that the pilot program would be extended into FY2002, with $80 million in loans made available to fund many of the applications that did not receive funding during the previous year.10

Meanwhile, the FY2002 agriculture appropriations bill (P.L. 107-76) allocated $20 million for a pilot broadband grant program, also authorized under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program. On July 8, 2002, RUS announced the availability of $20 million for a pilot grant program for the provision of broadband service in rural America. The program was specifically targeted to economically challenged rural communities with no existing broadband service. Grants were made available to entities providing "community-oriented connectivity," which the RUS defined as those entities "who will connect the critical community facilities including the local schools, libraries, hospitals, police, fire and rescue services and who will operate a community center that provides free and open access to residents."11

In response to the July 8, 2002, Notice of Funds Availability, RUS received more than 300 applications totaling more than $185 million in requested grant funding. RUS approved 40 grants totaling $20 million. The pilot program was extended into FY2003, as the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 (P.L. 108-7) allocated $10 million for broadband grants. On September 24, 2003, 34 grants were awarded to eligible applicants who did not receive funding during the previous year.

Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program

Building on the pilot broadband loan program at RUS, Section 6103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities.12 Section 6103 made available, from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), a total of $100 million through FY2007. P.L. 107-171 also authorized any other funds appropriated for the broadband loan program. The program was subsequently reauthorized by Section 6110 of the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246), and by Section 6104 of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79).

Beginning in FY2004, Congress annually blocked mandatory funding from the CCC. Thus—starting in FY2004—the program was funded as part of annual appropriations in the Distance Learning and Telemedicine account within the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. Every fiscal year, Congress approves an appropriation (loan subsidy) and a specific loan level (lending authority) for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program. Table 1 shows—for the life of the program to date—loan subsidies and loan levels (lending authority) set by Congress in annual appropriations bills.

Table 1. Appropriations Funding for the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program

 

Direct Appropriations (subsidy level)

Loan Levels Estimated in Annual Appropriationsa

FY2001 (pilot)

$100 million

FY2002 (pilot)

$80 million

FY2003

b

$80 million

FY2004

$13.1 million

$602 million

FY2005

$11.715 million

$550 million

FY2006

$10.75 million

$500 million

FY2007

$10.75 million

$500 million

FY2008

$6.45 million

$300 million

FY2009

$15.619 million

$400 million

FY2010

$28.96 million

$400 million

FY2011

$22.32 million

$400 million

FY2012

$6.0 million

$212 million

FY2013

$4 million

$42 million

FY2014

$4.5 million

$34.5 million

FY2015

$4.5 million

$24.1 million

FY2016

$4.5 million

$20.6 million

Source: Compiled by CRS from appropriations bills.

a. Actual loan levels for a fiscal year can vary from what is estimated in annual appropriations bill.

b. Program received $40 million composed of $20 million from FY2002 plus $20 million from FY2003 of mandatory funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation, as directed by P.L. 107-171. In the FY2004, FY2005, and FY2006 appropriations bills, mandatory funding from the CCC was canceled.

The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program is codified as 7 U.S.C. 950bb. On July 30, 2015, the RUS published in the Federal Register the Interim rule (7 C.F.R. part 1738) implementing the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program as reauthorized by the enactment of the Agricultural Act of 2014 (P.L. 113-79).13 The first application period was opened from July 30 through September 30, 2015. There will be a minimum of two application periods per year. Entities eligible to receive loans include corporations, limited liability companies, cooperative or mutual organizations, Indian tribes or tribal organizations, and state or local governments. Eligible areas for funding must be completely contained within a rural area (or composed of multiple rural areas). Additionally, at least 15% of the households in the proposed funded service areas must be unserved, no part of the proposed service area can have three or more incumbent service providers, and no part of the proposed service area can overlap with the service area of current RUS borrowers or of grantees that were funded by RUS.

A second application window was opened between April 8 and July 7, 2016, with the program raising its definition of minimum broadband speed to 10 Mbps down and 1 Mbps up.14 The interim rule was made final on June 9, 2016. For the latest application information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/farm-bill-broadband-loans-loan-guarantees.

Community Connect Broadband Grants

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-199) appropriated $9 million "for a grant program to finance broadband transmission in rural areas eligible for Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program benefits authorized by 7 U.S.C. 950aaa." Essentially operating the same as the pilot broadband grants, the program provides grant money to applicants proposing to provide broadband on a "community-oriented connectivity" basis to currently unserved rural areas for the purpose of fostering economic growth and delivering enhanced health care, education, and public safety services. Funding for the broadband grant program is provided through annual appropriations in the Distance Learning and Telemedicine account within the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill. Table 2 shows a history of appropriations for the Community Connect Broadband Grants.

Table 2. Appropriations for the Community Connect Broadband Grants

Fiscal Year

Appropriation

FY2002

$20 million

FY2003

$10 million

FY2004

$9 million

FY2005

$9 million

FY2006

$9 million

FY2007

$9 million

FY2008

$13.4 million

FY2009

$13.4 million

FY2010

$17.9 million

FY2011

$13.4 million

FY2012

$10.4 million

FY2013

$10.4 million

FY2014

$10.4 million

FY2015

$10.4 million

FY2016

$10.4 million

Source: Compiled by CRS from appropriations bills.

Eligible applicants for broadband grants include most state and local governments, federally recognized tribes, non-profits, and for-profit corporations.

Funded projects must serve a rural area where broadband service above a minimum speed does not exist, deploy free broadband service for at least two years to all community facilities, and offer broadband to residential and business customers. Up to 10% of the grant may be used for the improvement, expansion, construction, or acquisition of a community center that provides online access to the public.

On May 3, 2013, RUS issued a new final rule for Community Connect grants in the Federal Register.15 The final rule changes previous requirements related to matching funds, eligible communities, and application scoring criteria. The final rule also removes the previous definition of broadband service speed (200 kbps). A new threshold for broadband service speed and broadband grant speed (the speed the grantee must deliver) will be provided in an annual Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) in the Federal Register. The NOFA will also specify the deadline for applications, the total amount of funding available, and the maximum and minimum amount of funding available for each grant. On April 18, 2016, RUS issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) establishing an application window for FY2016 Community Connect grants through June 17, 2016.16 The NOFA sets the minimum threshold for speeds constituting broadband service at 4 Mbps download and 1 Mbps upload for both fixed and mobile broadband. The minimum broadband speed that an applicant must propose to deliver is 10 Mbps download, 1 Mbps upload for both fixed and mobile service to the customer. Further information, including application materials and guidelines, is available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/community-connect-grants.

Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans and Loan Guarantees

The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan and Loan Guarantee Program17 provides loans and loan guarantees for the construction, maintenance, improvement, and expansion of telephone service and broadband in rural areas. The program was first authorized in 1949 to finance rural telephone service. Since 1995, RUS has required that networks funded by this program offer broadband service as well.

Loans are available only to rural areas and towns with a population of 5,000 or less. The annual loan level is $690 million. The long-standing loan program is self-sustaining, with typically no annual appropriation required to subsidize the loans.

Impact of Universal Service Reform on RUS Broadband Loan Programs

RUS currently has three programs that provide loans for broadband infrastructure projects: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program (also known as the Farm Bill broadband loan program), the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP under the ARRA), and the Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program (established in 1949 as the Rural Telephone Loan and Loan Guarantee program).18

Whereas RUS broadband loans are used as up-front capital to invest in broadband infrastructure, the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC's) Universal Service Fund (USF)—specifically, the high cost fund—has functioned as an ongoing subsidy to keep the operation of telecommunications networks in high cost areas profitable for providers. Many RUS telecommunications and broadband borrowers (loan recipients) receive high cost USF subsidies. In many cases, the subsidy received from USF helps provide the revenue necessary to keep the loan viable. The Telecommunications Infrastructure Loan Program is highly dependent on high cost USF revenues, with 99% (476 out of 480 borrowers) receiving interstate high cost USF support. This is not surprising, given that the RUS Telecommunications Infrastructure Loans are available only to the most rural and high cost areas (towns with populations less than 5,000). Regarding broadband loans, 60% of BIP (stimulus) borrowers draw from state or interstate USF support mechanisms, while 10% of Farm Bill (Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program) broadband borrowers receive interstate high cost USF support.19

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 use of both fixed and mobile broadband. More specifically, the high cost program is being phased out and a new fund, the Connect America Fund (CAF), which includes the targeted Mobility Fund and new Remote Areas Fund, is replacing it.20

During this transition, the uncertainty surrounding the FCC's proposed methodology for distributing Connect America Fund monies has led many small rural providers to postpone or cancel investment in broadband network upgrades.21 According to RUS, "demand for RUS loans dropped to roughly 37% of the total amount of loan funds appropriated by Congress in FY2012," and that "[c]urrent and prospective RUS borrowers have communicated their hesitation to increase their outstanding debt and move forward with planned construction due to the recently implemented reductions in USF support and Inter-Carrier Compensation (ICC) payments."22

Appropriations

The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant Program are funded through the annual Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The appropriation provided to the broadband loan program is a loan subsidy which supports a significantly higher loan level.

Table 3. Recent and Proposed Appropriations for RUS Broadband Programs

(dollars)

 

FY2015 (P.L. 113-235)

FY2016 (Admin. Request)

FY2016 (P.L. 114-113 )

FY2017 (Admin. Request)

FY2017 (H.R. 5054)

FY2017 (S. 2956 )

Broadband Loans

4.5 million (24.1 million loan level)

9.6 million (44.2 million loan level)

4.5 million (20.6 million loan level)

0

4.56 million (20 million loan level)

4.5 million (27 million loan level)

Community Connect Grants

10.372 million

20.372 million

10.372 million

39 million

33 million

10.372 million

FY2013

The Administration's FY2013 budget proposal requested $8.915 million to subsidize a loan level of $94.139 million. The loan level was a reduction of $75 million from what was available in FY2012 ($169 million). According to the budget proposal, the reduction "will provide a program level that is consistent with historical annual demand for this program." The increase in loan subsidy (from $6 million in FY2012 to $8.915 million in FY2013) was due to an increase in the program subsidy rate caused by an increase in actual defaults in the program.

The Administration requested $13.379 million for broadband Community Connect grants, which is a $3 million increase over the FY2012 level.

On April 26, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2375, the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 2013. For FY2013, the committee recommended an appropriation of $6 million to subsidize a loan level of $63 million for the broadband loan and loan guarantee program. The committee recommended $10.372 million for broadband grants. In the bill report (S.Rept. 112-163), the committee stated that funds for the broadband program are intended to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. The committee encouraged RUS to focus on projects that bring broadband to currently unserved households.

On June 19, 2012, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the agriculture appropriations bill, H.R. 5973. The committee recommended an appropriation of $2 million to subsidize a loan level of $21 million for the broadband loan and loan guarantee program. The committee recommended $10.165 million for broadband grants. In the bill report (H.Rept. 112-542), the committee stated that funds for the broadband program are intended to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network, and directed RUS to focus expenditures on projects that bring broadband to currently unserved households. Additionally, the committee expressed concern and disappointment with the progress of RUS broadband projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The committee also directed USDA to prepare reports on how the FCC's Universal Service Fund and Intercarrier Compensation reforms are likely to affect RUS telecommunications borrowers.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (P.L. 113-6) funded the broadband loan program at $4 million (supporting a loan level of approximately $42 million) and the Community Connect grant program was funded at $10.372 million.

FY2014

The Administration's FY2014 budget proposal requested $8.268 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $63.356 million. According to the budget proposal, a greater subsidy amount was needed in FY2014 "due to an increase in the cumulative principal write-off rate for this program, causing the subsidy rate to increase from 9.47 percent in 2013 to 13.05 percent in 2014." The Administration requested $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program.

On June 13, 2013, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2014 Agriculture Appropriations Act (H.R. 2410, H.Rept. 113-116). The bill provided $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. In the bill report, the committee stated that funding provided for the broadband program was intended to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. The committee directed RUS to focus expenditures on projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households.

On June 20, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2014 Agriculture Appropriations Act (S. 1244, S.Rept. 113-46). The bill provided $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.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (P.L. 113-76) funded the broadband loan program at $4.5 million (supporting a loan level of $34.5 million), and the Community Connect grant program was funded at $10.372 million.

FY2015

The Administration's FY2015 budget proposal requested $8.268 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $44.238 million. For the Community Connect grant program, the Administration requested $20.372 million, about double the FY2014 level.

On May 29, 2014, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2015 Agriculture Appropriations Act (H.R. 4800, H.Rept. 113-468). The bill provided $4.5 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. According to the bill report, priority for the broadband loan program is to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. RUS was directed to focus on projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households.

On May 22, 2014, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2015 Agriculture Appropriations Act (S. 2389, S.Rept. 113-164). The bill provided $6.435 million to subsidize a loan level of $34.430 million for the broadband loan program, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program. The committee recommended that the broadband loan program promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network, and encouraged RUS to focus on projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households.

The Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015 (P.L. 113-235) provided $4.5 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $24.077 million, and $10.372 million to Community Connect broadband grants.

FY2016

The Administration's FY2016 budget proposal requested $9.675 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $44.239 million. For the Community Connect grant program, the Administration requested $20.372 million, which is about double the FY2015 level.

On July 14, 2015, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations Act (H.R. 3049, H.Rept. 114-205). The bill provided $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. According to the bill report, priority for the broadband loan program is to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. RUS is directed to focus on projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households. Additionally, the committee noted that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband. USDA is encouraged to provide a report that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband and to provide a plan for addressing these challenges, including how the Community Connect program can assist ITOs.

On July 16, 2015, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2016 Agriculture Appropriations Act (S. 1800; S.Rept. 114-82). The bill provided $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. The committee recommended that the broadband loan program promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network, and encouraged RUS to focus on projects that bring broadband service to currently unserved households. Additionally, the committee directed USDA to expedite implementation of the broadband provisions of the Agricultural Act of 2014, including the new authority to increase the minimum speeds available in rural communities. The committee also directed RUS and the FCC to coordinate on major policy decisions such as the FCC reforms of its universal service program (Connect America Fund).

The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (P.L. 114-113) provided $4.5 million to subsidize a broadband loan level of $20.576 million, and $10.372 million to Community Connect broadband grants.

FY2017

The Administration's FY2017 budget proposal requested zero funding for the broadband loan program and $39.492 million for the Community Connect broadband grant program. In the FY2017 budget justification, RUS stated that the budget request "shifts resources to the broadband grant program and the Distance Learning and Telemedicine grant program."23 In 2017, RUS will focus its resources on the Broadband Opportunity Council (BOC) recommendation for a regulation rewrite of the traditional Telecommunications Loan Program to expand eligibility to allow applicants that would have been eligible for the broadband program to be eligible for this program. Currently the Telecommunications Loan program (formerly the Telephone Loan program dating back to 1949) maintains an annual loan level of $690 million, and is only available to communities with populations of 5,000 or less.

According to RUS, funds for the broadband loan program will continue to provide loans in 2015 and 2016 for the costs of construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment to provide broadband service to eligible rural communities. The funding in 2016 will provide for approximately 3 loans for the deployment of broadband infrastructure. No carryover funds will be available for 2017.

The FY2017 request of $39.492 million for the Community Connect broadband grant program is almost four times the FY2016 level. According to RUS, funding will support approximately 7 broadband grants in 2016 and 19 broadband grants in 2017.

On April 19, 2016, the House Appropriations Committee approved the FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations Act (H.R. 5054; H.Rept. 114-531). The bill provided $4.56 million to subsidize a loan level of $20 million for the broadband loan program, and $33 million for the Community Connect grant program. According to the bill report, priority for the broadband loan program is to promote broadband availability in those areas where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment in a broadband network. RUS is directed to focus on projects that bring broadband service to underserved households and areas. Additionally, the committee noted that tribal communities continue to struggle with gaining access to broadband. USDA is encouraged to provide a report that identifies the specific challenges Indian Tribal Organizations (ITOs) have in gaining access to broadband and to provide a plan for addressing these challenges, including how the Community Connect program can assist ITOs.

On May 19, 2016, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the FY2017 Agriculture Appropriations Act (S. 2956; S.Rept. 114-259). The bill provided $4.5 million to subsidize a loan level of $27.043 million for the broadband loan program, and $10.372 million for the Community Connect grant program. Regarding the broadband loan program, the Committee stated:

Recognizing the positive changes the Agricultural Act of 2014 made to the Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees programs, the Committee continues to encourage the Department to implement a comprehensive rural broadband strategy including investment in advanced networks that will meet the needs of a 21st century economy. However, the Committee is concerned that the Department of Agriculture has not prioritized funding on cost-effectiveness on a per-household basis or on the affordability of the service being provided to consumers as factors in the awards process. The Committee believes that the best way to ensure that funds under this program are spent to promote affordable broadband availability in those unserved and underserved areas, where there is not otherwise a business case for private investment, is to prioritize awards that reach as many unserved and underserved Americans as possible for each dollar spent and to ensure that affordable service is provided by award recipients. As such, the Committee directs the Department of Agriculture to develop criteria for the consideration of awards under this program that include the cost-effectiveness of award proposals on a per-household basis and the affordability of broadband service to potential subscribers.

Regarding the Community Connect Program's Minimum Broadband Service benchmark, the committee expressed the concern that the program is not in step with current needs and industry standards, and encouraged USDA to increase the program's Minimum Broadband Service definition which will enable more rural communities to be eligible for Community Connect grants.

Criticisms of RUS Broadband Programs

RUS broadband programs have been awarding funds to entities serving rural communities since FY2001. Since their inception, a number of criticisms have emerged.

Loan Approval and Application Process

Perhaps the major criticism of the broadband loan program was that not enough loans are approved, thereby making it difficult for rural communities to take full advantage of the program. As of June 22, 2009, the broadband loan program received 225 applications, requesting a total of $4.7 billion in loans. Of these, 97 applications were approved (totaling $1.8 billion), 120 were returned (totaling $2.7 billion), and 8 are pending (totaling $170 million).24 According to RUS officials, 28% of available loan money was awarded in 2004, and only 5% of available loan money was awarded in 2005.25

The loan application process has been criticized as being overly complex and burdensome, requiring applicants to spend months preparing costly market research and engineering assessments. Many applications are rejected because the applicant's business plan is deemed insufficient to support a commercially viable business. The biggest reason for applications being returned has been insufficient credit support, whereby applicants do not have sufficient cash-on-hand (one year's worth is required in most cases). The requirement for cash-on-hand is viewed as particularly onerous for small startup companies, many of whom lack sufficient capital to qualify for the loan. Such companies, critics assert, may be those entities most in need of financial assistance.

In report language to the FY2006 Department of Agriculture Appropriations Act (P.L. 109-97), the Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 109-92) directed the RUS "to reduce the burdensome application process and make the program requirements more reasonable, particularly in regard to cash-on-hand requirements." The committee also directed USDA to hire more full-time employees to remedy delays in application processing times.

At a May 17, 2006, hearing held by the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, the Administrator of the RUS stated that RUS is working to make the program more user friendly, while at the same time protecting taxpayer investment:

As good stewards of the taxpayers' money, we must make loans that are likely to be repaid. One of the challenges in determining whether a proposed project has a reasonable chance of success is validating the market analysis of the proposed service territory and ensuring that sufficient resources are available to cover operating expenses throughout the construction period until such a time that cash flow from operations become sufficient. The loan application process that we have developed ensures that the applicant addresses these areas and that appropriate resources are available for maintaining a viable operation.26

According to RUS, the loan program was initially overwhelmed by applications (particularly during a two week period in August 2003), and as the program matured, application review times have dropped.27 On May 11, 2007, RUS released a Proposed Rule which sought to revise regulations for the broadband loan program. In the background material accompanying the Proposed Rule, RUS stated that the average application processing time in 2006 was almost half of what it was in 2003.28

Eligibility Criteria

Since the inception of the broadband grant and loan programs, the criteria for applicant eligibility have been criticized both for being too broad and for being too narrow. An audit report released by USDA's Office of Inspector General (IG) found that the "programs' focus has shifted away from those rural communities that would not, without Government assistance, have access to broadband technologies."29 Specifically the IG report found that the RUS definition of rural area has been "too broad to distinguish usefully between suburban and rural communities,"30 with the result that, as of March 10, 2005, $103.4 million in loans and grants (nearly 12% of total funding awarded) had been awarded to 64 communities located near large cities. The report cited examples of affluent suburban subdivisions qualifying as rural areas under the program guidelines and receiving broadband loans.31

On the other hand, eligibility requirements have also been criticized as too narrow. For example, the limitation of assistance only to communities of 20,000 or less in population excludes small rural towns that may exceed this limit, and also excludes many municipalities seeking to deploy their own networks.32 Similarly, per capita income requirements can preclude higher income communities with higher costs of living (e.g., rural Alaska), and the limitation of grant programs only to underserved areas excludes rural communities with existing but very limited broadband access.33

Loans to Communities With Existing Providers

The IG report found that RUS too often has given loans to communities with existing broadband service. The IG report found that "RUS has not ensured that communities without broadband service receive first priority for loans," and that although RUS has a system in place to prioritize loans to unserved communities, the system "lacks a cutoff date and functions as a rolling selection process—priorities are decided based on the applicants who happen to be in the pool at any given moment."34 The result is that a significant number of communities with some level of preexisting broadband service have received loans. According to the IG report, of 11 loans awarded in 2004, 66% of the associated communities served by those loans had existing service. According to RUS, 31% of communities served by all loans (during the period 2003 through early 2005) had preexisting competitive service (not including loans used to upgrade or expand existing service).35 In some cases, according to the IG report, "loans were issued to companies in highly competitive business environments where multiple providers competed for relatively few customers."36 At the May 1, 2007, hearing before the House Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture, then-RUS Administrator James Andrews testified that of the 69 broadband loans awarded since the program's inception, 40% of the communities approved for funding were unserved at the time of loan approval, and an additional 15% had only one broadband provider.37

Awarding loans to entities in communities with preexisting competitive service raised criticism from competitors who already offer broadband to those communities. According to the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA), "RUS loans are being used to unfairly subsidize second and third broadband providers in communities where private risk capital already has been invested to provide broadband service."38 Critics argued that providing loans in areas with preexisting competitive broadband service creates an uneven playing field and discourages further private investment in rural broadband.39 In response, RUS stated in the IG report that its policies are in accordance with the statute, and that they address "the need for competition to increase the quality of services and reduce the cost of those services to the consumer."40 RUS argued that the presence of a competitor does not necessarily mean that an area is adequately served, and additionally, that in order for some borrowers to maintain a viable business in an unserved area, it may be necessary for that company to also be serving more densely populated rural areas where some level of competition already exists.41

Follow-Up Audit by USDA Office of Inspector General

In 2008, as directed by the House Appropriations Committee (H.Rept. 110-258, FY2008 Agriculture appropriations bill), the IG reexamined the RUS broadband loan and loan guarantee program to determine whether RUS had taken sufficient corrective actions in response to the issues raised in the 2005 IG report. The IG concluded "the key problems identified in our 2005 report—loans being issued to suburban and exurban communities and loans being issued where other providers already provide access—have not been resolved."42

Specifically, the follow-up IG report found that between 2005 and 2008, RUS broadband borrowers providing services in 148 communities were within 30 miles of cities with 200,000 inhabitants, including communities near very large urban areas such as Chicago and Las Vegas.

The IG report also found that since 2005 "RUS has continued providing loans to providers in markets where there is already competing service."43 Of the 37 applications approved since September 2005, 34 loans were granted to applicants in areas where one or more private broadband providers already offered service. These 34 borrowers received $873 million to service 1,448 communities. The IG report found that since 2005, 77% of communities which were expected to receive service from a project financed by an approved RUS broadband loan had at least one existing broadband provider present, 59% had 2 or more existing providers, and 27% had 3 or more existing providers.44

In an official response to the follow-up IG report, RUS fundamentally disagreed with the IG criticisms, stating that the loans awarded between 2005 and 2008 were provided "in a way entirely consistent with the statutory requirements of the underlying legislation governing administration of the program, the regulations and guidance issued by the Department to implement the statute, and the intent of Congress."45 Specifically RUS argued that its May 11, 2007, Proposed Rule, and the subsequent changes to the broadband loan and loan guarantee statute made by the 2008 farm bill, both addressed concerns over loans to non-rural areas and to communities with preexisting broadband providers. However, the Final Rule based on the Proposed Rule and the 2008 farm bill had not yet been released and implemented during the 2005-2008 period examined by the IG, and RUS was compelled by law to continue awarding broadband loans under the existing law and rules.

During 2009 and 2010, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program was in hiatus while RUS implemented the Broadband Initiatives Program (Recovery Act grants and loans) and developed new regulations implementing the 2008 farm bill. On March 14, 2011, the new rules were released. According to Jonathan Adelstein, "this regulation and other measures taken by the agency have addressed all the concerns raised by the OIG," and on March 24, 2011, "the OIG notified RUS that it has closed its audits of the RUS broadband loan program."46

2014 GAO Report

In May 2014, GAO released its report, USDA Should Evaluate the Performance of the Rural Broadband Loan Program.47 In the report, GAO analyzed rural broadband loans awarded between the years 2003 and 2013. GAO found that of the 100 loans awarded (worth $2 billion), 43% were no longer active due to 25 loans rescinded and 18 defaulted (RUS rejected 149 of the 249 applications received); that RUS loans can help promote limited broadband deployment and economic development, but performance goals do not fully align with the program's purpose; and that FCC reforms of the Universal Service Fund and intercarrier compensation have created temporary uncertainty that may be hindering investment in broadband.

To address its findings, GAO made two recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture: evaluate loans made by RUS through the broadband loan program to identify characteristics of loans that may be at risk of rescission or default; and align performance goals under the "enhance rural prosperity" strategic objective in the Annual Performance Report to the broadband loan program's purpose, to the extent feasible.48

Broadband Loan Reauthorization: 2008 Farm Bill

The 110th Congress considered reauthorization of the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill. The following are some key issues which were considered during the debate over reauthorization of the RUS broadband loan and loan guarantee program.

Restricting Applicant Eligibility

The RUS broadband program was criticized for excluding too many applicants due to stringent financial requirements (e.g., the requirement that an applicant have a year's worth of cash-on-hand) and an application process—requiring detailed business plans and market surveys—that some viewed as overly expensive and burdensome to complete. During the reauthorization process, Congress considered whether the criteria for loan eligibility should be modified, and whether a more appropriate balance could be found between the need to make the program more accessible to unserved and often lower-income rural areas, and the need to protect taxpayers against bad loans.

Definition of "Rural Community"

The definition of which communities qualify as "rural" had been changed twice by statute since the broadband loan program was initiated. Under the pilot program, funds were authorized under the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program, which defines "exceptionally rural areas" (under 5,000 inhabitants), "rural areas" (between 5,000 and 10,000) and "mid-rural areas" (between 10,000 and 20,000). RUS determined that communities of 20,000 or less would be eligible for broadband loans in cases where broadband services did not already exist.

In 2002, this definition was made narrower by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act (P.L. 107-171), which designated eligible communities as any incorporated or unincorporated place with fewer than 20,000 inhabitants, and which was outside any standard metropolitan statistical area (MSA). The requirement that communities not be located within MSA's effectively prohibited suburban communities from receiving broadband loans. However, in 2004, the definition was again changed by the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199). The act broadened the definition, keeping the population limit at 20,000, but eliminating the MSA prohibition, thereby permitting rural communities near large cities to receive loans. Thus the current definition used for rural communities is the same as what was used for the broadband pilot program, except that loans can now be issued to communities with preexisting service.

The definition of what constitutes a "rural" community is always a difficult issue for congressional policy makers in determining how to target rural communities for broadband assistance. On the one hand, the narrower the definition the greater the possibility that deserving communities may be excluded. On the other hand, the broader the definition used, the greater the possibility that communities not traditionally considered "rural" or "underserved" may be eligible for financial assistance.

A related issue is the scope of coverage proposed by individual applications. While many of the loan applications propose broadband projects offering service to multiple rural communities, RUS identified a trend toward larger regional and national proposals, covering hundreds or even more than 1,000 communities.49 The larger the scope of coverage, the greater the complexity of the loan application and the larger the possible benefits and risks to taxpayers.

Preexisting Broadband Service

Loans to areas with competitive preexisting service—that is, areas where existing companies already provide some level of broadband—sparked controversy because loan recipients are likely to compete with other companies already providing broadband service.

During reauthorization, Congress was asked to more sharply define whether and/or how loans should be given to companies serving rural areas with preexisting competitive service.50 On the one hand, some argued that the federal government should not be subsidizing competitors for broadband service, particularly in sparsely populated rural markets which may be able only to support one provider. Furthermore, keeping communities with preexisting broadband service eligible may divert assistance from unserved areas that are most in need. On the other hand, many suburban and urban areas currently receive the benefits of competition between broadband providers—competition which can potentially drive down prices while improving service and performance. It is therefore appropriate, others argued, that rural areas also receive the benefits of competition, which in some areas may not be possible without federal financial assistance. It was also argued that it may not be economically feasible for borrowers to serve sparsely populated unserved communities unless they are permitted to also serve more lucrative areas which may already have existing providers.

Technological Neutrality

The 2002 farm bill (P.L. 107-171) directed RUS to use criteria that are "technologically neutral" in determining which projects to approve for loans. In other words, RUS is prohibited from typically valuing one broadband technology over another when assessing loan applications. As of November 10, 2008, 37% of approved and funded projects employed fiber-to-the-home technology, 17% employed DSL, 25% fixed wireless, 19% hybrid fiber-coaxial (cable), and 2% broadband over powerlines (BPL).51 No funding has been provided for projects utilizing satellite broadband.52

While decisions on funded projects were required to be technologically neutral, RUS (through the Secretary of Agriculture) had the latitude to determine minimum required data transmission rates for broadband projects eligible for funding. According to the statute, "the Secretary shall, from time to time as advances in technology warrant, review and recommend modifications of rate-of-data transmission criteria for purposes of the identification of broadband service technologies."

Some argued that the minimum speed thresholds should be raised to ensure that rural areas receive "next-generation" broadband technologies with faster data rates capable of more varied and sophisticated applications. On the other hand, significantly raising minimum data rates could exclude certain technologies—for example typical data transmission rates for fiber and some wireless technologies exceed what is offered by "current generation" technologies such as DSL and cable. Proponents of keeping the minimum threshold at a low level argued that underserved rural areas are best served by any broadband technology that is economically feasible to deploy, regardless of whether it is "next" or "current" generation.

P.L. 110-246

The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Section 6110, "Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas," reauthorized the RUS broadband loan and loan guarantee program and addressed many of the criticisms and issues raised during the reauthorization process. The following summarizes broadband-related provisions that changed previous law.

Eligibility and Selection Criteria

Loans to Communities With Existing Providers

Financial Requirements

Loan Application Requirements

Other Provisions

Implementation of P.L. 110-246

During 2009 and 2010, the Farm Bill Broadband Loan Program was on hiatus as RUS implemented the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). At the same time, final regulations implementing the broadband loan program as reauthorized by the 2008 farm bill were on hold and were being refined to reflect, in part, RUS experience in implementing BIP. Subsequently, on March 14, 2011, an Interim Rule and Notice was published in the Federal Register setting forth the rules and regulations for the broadband loan program as reauthorized by P.L. 110-246.53 While the rule is immediately effective, RUS is accepting public comment before ultimately releasing a final rule. The application guide and all supporting materials for the Farm Bill Broadband Loan Program are available at http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/utp_farmbill.html.

Meanwhile, pursuant to Section 6112 of P.L. 110-246, the FCC released on May 22, 2009, its report on rural broadband strategy, entitled Bringing Broadband to Rural America.54 The report made a series of recommendations including improved coordination of rural broadband efforts among federal agencies, states, and communities; better assessment of broadband needs, including technological considerations and broadband mapping and data; and overcoming challenges to rural broadband deployment.

Broadband Program Reauthorization: 2012 Farm Bill

As reauthorized by the 2008 farm bill, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program was authorized through FY2012. On April 26, 2012, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry approved the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (S. 3240). Section 6104 of the act (Title VI, Rural Development) would have extended the RUS broadband program through FY2017. On June 20, 2012, the Senate agreed to amendment S.Amdt. 2457, offered by Senator Warner, that substituted an amended version of Section 6104. S. 3240 passed the Senate on June 21, 2012.

On April 25, 2012, the House Subcommittee on Rural Development, Research, Biotechnology, and Foreign Agriculture, Committee on Agriculture, held a hearing entitled, "Formulation of the 2012 Farm Bill: Rural Development Programs." Among those testifying were two witnesses representing the National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA), Organization for the Promotion and Advancement of Small Telecommunications Companies (OPASTCO), Western Telecommunications Alliance (WTA), and the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA).55 Among the issues debated at the hearing was whether or not the rural broadband loan program should be modified to prohibit loans to projects serving areas with incumbent broadband service providers.

On July 9, 2012, H.R. 6083, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2012 (FARRM), was introduced by Representative Lucas. Section 6105 of the act (Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas) would have amended the current broadband statute (Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb)).

H.R. 6083 was marked up by the House Committee on Agriculture and approved on July 12, 2012. During the July 11 markup, the committee adopted an amendment offered by Representative Johnson of Illinois that instructs the Secretary to give priority to applicants that offer to provide broadband service not predominantly for business service, but where at least 25% of customers in the proposed service territory are commercial interests. The committee rejected an amendment offered by Representative Gibson that would have authorized loan-grant combinations.

The 2012 farm bill (S. 3240/H.R. 6083) was ultimately not enacted by the 112th Congress. However, Title VII of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extended farm bill program authorizations, including the broadband program, by one year (through September 30, 2013).

Meanwhile, other introduced bills, relating to the 2012 farm bill broadband program, included the following:

Broadband Program Reauthorization: 2013 and 2014 Farm Bills

In the 113th Congress, 2013 farm bill legislation in the House and Senate included the broadband program reauthorization provisions contained in the 2012 farm bill. Both the House and Senate bills would extend the reauthorization of the RUS broadband program through FY2018.

Senate Bill, S. 954

On May 14, 2013, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry reported the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2013 (S. 954, introduced by Senator Stabenow). S. 954 was passed by the Senate on June 10, 2013. The Senate adopted S.Amdt. 998 (introduced by Senator Leahy), which expands pilot loan and grant projects to include ultra-high speed service (1 gigabit per second or higher downstream speeds). Section 6104 of S. 954 ("Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas"), as passed by the Senate, included the following changes from the broadband provision in the then-existing statute (7 U.S.C. 950bb):

House Bill, H.R. 2642

H.R. 2642, the Federal Agriculture Reform and Risk Management Act of 2013 (FARRM), was passed by the House on July 11, 2013. Section 5106 of H.R. 2642 ("Access to Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural Areas") would make the following changes to the current broadband loan statute:

P.L. 113-79, the Agricultural Act of 2014

On January 27, 2014, the conference report for the Agricultural Act of 2014 was filed (H.Rept. 113-333). The conference agreement was approved by the House on January 29, approved by the Senate on February 4, and signed into law (P.L. 113-79) by the President on February 7, 2014.

P.L. 113-79 amends Section 601 of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb) to reauthorize the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program through FY2018. P.L. 113-79 also includes provisions to redefine project area eligibility with respect to existing broadband service, increase the program's transparency and reporting requirements, define a minimum level of broadband service, require a study on the gathering and use of address-level data, and establish a new Rural Gigabit Network Pilot Program. The conference agreement did not include the Senate bill proposal to create a new grant component to the existing broadband loan and loan guarantee program, nor did the conference agreement adopt the Senate bill's broadening of the definition for eligible rural areas.

Specifically, Section 6104 of P.L. 113-79 makes the following changes to the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program:

Additionally, Section 6105 establishes a new Rural Gigabit Network Pilot Program. Specifically, USDA is authorized to provide grants, loans, or loan guarantees for projects that would extend ultra-high speed broadband service (defined as 1 gigabit per second downstream capacity) to rural areas where ultra-high speed service is not provided in any part of the proposed service territory. The pilot program is authorized at $10 million per year for the years FY2014 through FY2018.

Legislation in the 114th Congress

Aside from appropriations bills, several bills have been introduced into the 114th Congress that would impact the RUS broadband programs. These include the following:

Author Contact Information

[author name scrubbed], Specialist in Science and Technology Policy ([email address scrubbed], [phone number scrubbed])

Footnotes

1.

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, available at http://www.eda.gov/ImageCache/EDAPublic/documents/pdfdocs2006/mitcmubbimpactreport_2epdf/v1/mitcmubbimpactreport.pdf.

2.

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., http://www3.brookings.edu/views/papers/crandall/200706litan.pdf.

3.

Peter Stenberg, Mitchell Morehart, and Stephen Vogel, et al., Broadband Internet's Value for Rural America, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Economic Research Report Number 78, Washington, DC, August 2009, p. iii, http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/ERR78/ERR78.pdf.

4.

See for example: National Exchange Carrier Association (NECA), Trends 2010: A Report on Rural Telecom Technology, 23 p., https://www.neca.org/cms400min/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=4892.

5.

Pew Research Center, Home Broadband 2015, December 21, 2015, p. 8, available at http://www.pewinternet.org/files/2015/12/Broadband-adoption-full.pdf..

6.

2016 Broadband Progress Report, pp. 33-34.

7.

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.

8.

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.

9.

Rural Utilities Service, USDA, "Construction and Installation of Broadband Telecommunications Services in Rural America; Availability of Loan Funds," Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 234, December 5, 2000, p. 75920.

10.

Rural Utilities Service, USDA, "Broadband Pilot Loan Program," Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 15, January 23, 2002, p. 3140.

11.

Rural Utilities Service, USDA, "Broadband Pilot Grant Program," Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 130, July 8, 2002, p. 45080.

12.

Title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 (7 U.S.C. 950bb).

13.

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees," Interim rule, 80 Federal Register 45397-45413, July 30, 2015, available at http://www.rd.usda.gov/files/UTP_BBInterimRule.pdf.

14.

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees Program," Notice of Solicitation of Applications (NOSA), 81 Federal Register 20614-20615, April 8, 2016, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-04-08/pdf/2016-08040.pdf.

15.

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "Community Connect Broadband Grant Program," 78 Federal Register 25787-25795, May 3, 2013, available at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05-03/pdf/2013-10502.pdf.

16.

Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "Announcement of Grant Application Deadlines and Funding Levels," Notice of Funds Availability (NOFA), 81 Federal Register 22567-22572, April 18, 2016, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-04-18/pdf/2016-08931.pdf.

17.

For more information, see http://www.rd.usda.gov/programs-services/telecommunications-infrastructure-loans-loan-guarantees.

18.

For more information on the RUS portfolio of telecommunications and broadband programs offering loans, loan guarantees, grants, and loan/grant combinations, 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].

19.

Jessica Zufolo, Deputy Administrator, RUS, Overview of the RUS Telecommunications Loan and Grant Programs, July 2011, Slide 7, http://www.narucmeetings.org/Presentations/Zufolo_[phone number scrubbed].pdf.

20.

For more information, 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].

21.

According to a January 2013 survey conducted by NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, 69% of member companies responding to the survey had either cancelled or postponed $492.7 million in broadband investments due to the uncertainty surrounding the transition to the FCC's Connect America Fund. See NTCA—The Rural Broadband Association, Survey: FCC USF/ICC Impacts, January 2013, available at http://www.ntca.org/images/stories/Documents/Advocacy/SurveyReports/FCC_USF_ICC_ImpactSurvey.pdf.

22.

Letter from RUS to the FCC, February 13, 2013, available at https://prodnet.www.neca.org/publicationsdocs/wwpdf/21513usda.pdf.

23.

2017 USDA Budget Explanatory Notes for Committee on Appropriations, p. 31-34, available at http://www.obpa.usda.gov/31rus2017notes.pdf.

24.

Private communication, USDA, June 23, 2009.

25.

GAO, Broadband Deployment is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas, p. 33.

26.

Testimony of Jim Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Broadband Program Administered by USDA's Rural Utilities Service," full committee hearing before the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, 109th Congress, May 17, 2006.

27.

Rural Utilities Service, private communication, January 18, 2007.

28.

Rural Utilities Service, Department of Agriculture, "Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees," Proposed Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 72, No. 91, May 11, 2007, p. 26744.

29.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Southwest Region, Audit Report: Rural Utilities Service Broadband Grant and Loan Programs, Audit Report 09601-4-Te, September 2005, p. I, http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/09601-04-TE.pdf.

30.

Ibid., p. 6.

31.

Ibid., p. 8.

32.

Martinez, Michael, "Broadband: Loan Fund's Strict Rules Foil Small Municipalities," National Journal's Technology Daily, August 23, 2005.

33.

GAO, Broadband Deployment is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas, pp. 33-34.

34.

Ibid., p. 13.

35.

Ibid., p. 14.

36.

Ibid., p. 15

37.

Testimony of James Andrew, Administrator, Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, before the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and Foreign Agriculture, House Committee on Agriculture, May 1, 2007.

38.

Letter from Kyle McSlarrow, President and CEO, National Cable & Telecommunications Association to the Honorable Mike Johanns, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 16, 2006.

39.

Testimony of Tom Simmons, Vice President for Public Policy, Midcontinent Communications, before Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, May 17, 2006.

40.

Audit Report: Rural Utilities Service Broadband Grant and Loan Programs, p. 17.

41.

Rural Utilities Service, private communication, January 18, 2007.

42.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Inspector General, Southwest Region, Audit Report Rural Utilities Service Broadband Loan and Loan Guarantee Program, Report No. 09601-8-Te, March 2009, p. 9.

43.

Ibid, p. 5.

44.

Ibid, pp. 5-6.

45.

Ibid, p. 14.

46.

Testimony of Jonathan Adelstein, Administrator of RUS, before the House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, Committee on Energy and Commerce, April 1, 2011, p. 8, http://republicans.energycommerce.house.gov/Media/file/Hearings/Telecom/040111/Adelstein.pdf.

47.

Government Accountability Office, USDA Should Evaluate the Performance of the Rural Broadband Loan Program, May 2014, 56 pp., available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/663578.pdf.

48.

Ibid, pp. 31-32.

49.

Rural Utilities Service, private communication, January 18, 2007.

50.

The statute (7 U.S.C. 950bb) allows States and local governments to be eligible for loans only if "no other eligible entity is already offering, or has committed to offer, broadband services to the eligible rural community."

51.

USDA, Rural Utilities Service, "FCC/USDA Rural Broadband Educational Workshop," power point presentation, November 20, 2008, http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/broadband/workshops/FCC_USDABroadbandWorkshopNov20.pdf.

52.

According to the GAO, satellite companies state that RUS's broadband loan program requirements "are not readily compatible with their business model or technology," and that "because the agency requires collateral for loans, the program is more suited for situations where the providers, rather than individual consumers, own the equipment being purchased through the loan. Yet, when consumers purchase satellite broadband, it is common for them to purchase the equipment needed to receive the satellite signal, such as the reception dish." Satellite companies argue that in some rural areas, satellite broadband might be the most feasible and cost-effective solution. See GAO, Broadband Deployment is Extensive throughout the United States, but It Is Difficult to Assess the Extent of Deployment Gaps in Rural Areas, pp. 34-35.

53.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Utilities Service, "7 CFR Part 1738, Rural Broadband Access Loans and Loan Guarantees," 76 Federal Register 13770-13796, March 14, 2011.

54.

Michael J. Copps, Acting Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, Bringing Broadband to Rural America: Report on a Rural Broadband Strategy, May 22, 2009, 83 p.

55.

Hearing testimony is available at http://agriculture.house.gov/hearings/hearingDetails.aspx?NewsID=1567.