Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal Assistance Programs

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

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 and
advanced telecommunications services, also known as broadband. Broadband is provided by a
series of technologies (e.g., cable, telephone wire, fiber, satellite, wireless) that give users the
ability to send and receive data at volumes and speeds far greater than traditional “dial-up”
Internet access over telephone lines.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout
the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and
data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban and high income areas are 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 unserved and underserved areas.
Legislation introduced in the 110^th Congress sought to provide federal financial assistance for
broadband deployment in the form of grants, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. Of particular note
was the reauthorization and reform of the Rural Utilities Service broadband loan program, which
was enacted as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234). Also enacted was the Broadband Data
Improvement Act (P.L. 110-385) which requires the Department of Commerce to provide grants
supporting state broadband initiatives.
On January 21, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee approved legislative language for the
spending portion of the economic stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill
of 2009). The legislation would provide $6 billion to support deployment of broadband and
wireless services in rural, unserved, and underserved areas of the nation. Of the total, $2.825
billion would be provided to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the Department of Agriculture,
and $3.175 billion to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the
Department of Commerce.
Meanwhile, it is expected that the Obama Administration will ultimately develop a national
broadband policy or strategy that will seek to reduce or eliminate the “digital divide” with respect
to broadband. It is likely that elements of a national broadband policy, in tandem with broadband
investment measures in the American Recovery and Reinvestment stimulus package will
significantly shape and possibly expand federal policies and programs to promote broadband
deployment and adoption. A key issue is how to strike a balance between providing federal
assistance for unserved and underserved areas where the private sector may not be providing
acceptable levels of broadband service, while at the same time minimizing any deleterious effects
that government intervention in the marketplace may have on competition and private sector
investment.
This report will be updated as events warrant.

Introduc tion ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Status of Broadband Deployment in the United States...................................................................1
Broadband in Rural and Underserved Areas...................................................................................2
Is Broadband Deployment Data Adequate?.....................................................................................4
Broadband and the Federal Role.....................................................................................................6
Bush Administration..................................................................................................................7
Obama Administration..............................................................................................................7
Current Federal Broadband Programs.............................................................................................8
Rural Utilities Service Programs...............................................................................................9
The Universal Service Concept and the FCC............................................................................9
Universal Service and the Telecommunications Act of 1996...........................................10
Universal Service and Broadband.....................................................................................12
Legislation in the 110^th Congress..................................................................................................13
Legislation in the 111^th Congress...................................................................................................20
Concluding Observations..............................................................................................................22
Table 1. Selected Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Related to Telecommunications
Deve lopment .................................................................................................................... .......... 23
Table 2. Selected Federal Programs Funding Broadband Access..................................................26
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................28

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 ¹
not. Whether or not individuals or communities fall into the “information haves” category
depends on a number of factors, ranging from the presence of computers in the home, to training
and education, to the availability of affordable Internet access.
Broadband technologies are currently being deployed primarily by the private sector throughout
the United States. While the numbers of new broadband subscribers continue to grow, studies and
data suggest that the rate of broadband deployment in urban and high income areas are 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 unserved and underserved areas.

Prior to the late 1990s, American homes accessed the Internet at maximum speeds of 56 kilobits
per second by dialing up an Internet Service Provider (such as AOL) over the same copper
telephone line used for traditional voice service. A relatively small number of businesses and
institutions used broadband or high speed connections through the installation of special
“dedicated lines” typically provided by their local telephone company. Starting in the late 1990s,
cable television companies began offering cable modem broadband service to homes and
businesses. This was accompanied by telephone companies beginning to offer DSL service
(broadband over existing copper telephone wireline). Growth has been steep, rising from 2.8
million high speed lines reported as of December 1999, to 121.2 million lines as of December 31,

2007. Of the 121.2 million high speed lines reported by the FCC, 74.0 million serve residential ²

users. Since the deployment of residential broadband in the United States, the primary residential
broadband technologies deployed continue to be cable modem and DSL. A distinction is often
made between “current generation” and “next generation” broadband (commonly referred to as
next generation networks or NGN). “Current generation” typically refers to currently deployed
cable, DSL, and many wireless systems, while “next generation” refers to dramatically faster
download and upload speeds offered by fiber technologies and also potentially by future ³
generations of cable, DSL, and wireless technologies. In general, the greater the download and

¹^T^h^{e ter}^m^“d^ig^{ital d}ⁱ^vⁱ^d^{e” can}^also^ref^e^{r to}ⁱⁿ^tern^ati^oⁿ^a^l^dⁱ^s^p^aritiesⁱⁿ^{access to}ⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^atioⁿ^techⁿ^o^lo^g^y^{. T}^h^{is rep}^o^r^t
^f^o^cu^{ses o}ⁿ^do^m^e^{stic issu}^{es o}ⁿ^l^y^.
²^FCC,^Hi^gh^-Sp^eed^S^e^rvi^{ces f}^o^{r Int}^e^rn^et^A^{ccess: S}^t^a^t^u^s^a^s^of^Decemb^e^{r 3}¹^,²⁰⁰⁷^,^J^aⁿ^u^a^r^y^2009.^A^v^aⁱ^la^ble^a^t
^http:^//hr^a^unf^os^s^.^f^c^c^.^g^o^v^/^e^doc^s^_pu^blic^/a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/D^O^C^-²⁸⁷⁹^62A¹^.^pdf^.
³^Initia^lly^{, a}^{nd f}^o^{r m}^aⁿ^y^y^e^a^r^{s f}^o^ll^ow^ing^,^the^FCC^de^fⁱ^ne^{d br}^oa^dbaⁿ^d^(or^m^o^re^spe^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^l^l^y^“^h^ig^h-spe^e^d^line^s^”⁾^a^s^ov^e^r
²⁰⁰^k^ilo^bits^pe^r^s^e^c^o^{nd (}^k^b^p^s⁾ⁱⁿ^a^t^le^a^s^{t one}^dⁱ^r^e^c^tion^,^w^h^ic^{h w}^a^s^r^oug^hly^f^our^tim^e^s^the^s^p^e^e^d^of^c^onv^eⁿ^tio^na^{l dia}^l^up
^In^t^e^rn^et^access.^In^recen^t^y^ears,^t^h^{e 2}⁰⁰^kb^p^s^t^h^resh^ol^d^w^a^{s co}ⁿ^sⁱ^d^e^r^ed^t^o^o^l^o^w^,^an^d^on^M^a^{rch 19}^,²⁰⁰⁸^,^t^h^{e F}^C^C
^a^dopte^d^a^r^e^po^r^t^aⁿ^{d or}^de^r⁽^F^C^C^08-⁸⁹⁾^e^s^ta^blis^hing^ne^w^c^a^t^eg^or^ie^s^of^br^oa^d^b^a^{nd s}^p^e^e^d^tie^r^s^f^o^r^da^t^a^c^o^lle^c^tion
⁽^c^onti^nue^d.^..)

upload speeds offered by a broadband connection, the more sophisticated (and potentially
valuable) the application that is enabled.
December 2008 survey data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project found that 57% of ⁴
Americans have broadband at home. It is estimated that less than 10% of U.S. households have ⁵
no access to any broadband provider whatsoever (not including satellite). While the broadband
adoption or penetration rate stands at close to 60% of U.S. households, broadband availability is
much higher, at more than 90% of households. Thus, approximately 30% of households have
access to some type of terrestrial (non-satellite) broadband service, but do not choose to
subscribe. According to the FCC, possible reasons for the gap between broadband availability and
subscribership include the lack of computers in some homes, price of broadband service, lack of ⁶
content, and the availability of broadband at work. According to Pew, non-broadband users tend
to be older, have lower incomes, have trouble using technology, and may not see the relevance of
using the Internet to their lives. Between 2007 and 2008, low income Americans (under $20,000
annual income) and African Americans showed no significant growth in home broadband ⁷
adoption after strong growth in previous years. Pew also found that about one-third of adults
without broadband cite price and availability as the reasons why they don’t have broadband in ⁸
their homes, while two-thirds cite reasons such as usability and relevance.

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. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art ¹⁰
telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural
areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment. Data (2008) from
the Pew Internet & American Life Project indicate that while broadband adoption is growing in
urban, suburban, and rural areas, broadband users make up larger percentages of urban and

^(...c^on^tin^ue^d)
^pur^pos^e^s^{. S}^p^e^cⁱ^fⁱ^c^a^l^l^y^{, 200 k}^bps^t^o⁷^{68 k}^b^p^s^w^{ill be}^c^o^ns^ide^r^e^d^“^f^irs^t^g^e^ne^ra^tion,”⁷⁶⁸^k^bps^t^o^1.5^M^bps^a^s^“^b^a^s^ic
^br^oa^d^b^aⁿ^d^tie^r¹^,^”^aⁿ^d^inc^r^e^a^s^ing^l^y^hig^h^e^r^s^p^e^e^d^tie^r^s^a^s^br^oa^dba^nd^tie^r^s^{2 t}^h^r^o^ug^{h 7}⁽^tie^r^s^e^v^e^{n is}^g^r^e^a^t^e^r^thaⁿ^or^e^qua^l
^{to 1}⁰⁰^Mb^psⁱⁿ^aⁿ^y^one^dir^e^c^tⁱ^on)^{. T}ⁱ^e^r^s^c^aⁿ^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^a^s^te^c^hnolog^y^a^d^v^a^nc^e^s^.

⁴^H^o^r^rⁱ^g^a^{n, J}^o^hn^,^P^e^w^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^&^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^Lⁱ^f^e^P^r^oje^c^t^{, “}^B^a^r^rⁱ^e^r^s^{to B}^r^oa^d^b^aⁿ^{d A}^dopt^io^{n –}^T^h^e^U^s^e^r^P^e^r^s^pe^c^tiv^e^,^”
^D^e^c^e^m^b^e^r^{19, 2}⁰⁰⁸^{, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:^//otr^aⁿ^s^.^3c^dⁿ^.ⁿ^e^t/f^e^2b6b³⁰²⁹^60d^be⁰^d⁷^_^b^q^m⁶^ib24^2.^pdf^.
⁵^S^.^{Derek T}^u^rn^er,^F^r^ee^P^r^ess,^Down^P^a^ymen^t^on^{Our Di}^gita^{l F}^u^tur^e^{, D}^e^c^e^m^b^e^r²⁰⁰⁸^{, p}^.⁸^.
⁶^Fe^de^r^a^{l C}^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on,^F^our^t^h^Re^por^{t t}^o^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^s^s^{, “}^A^v^a^ila^bility^o^f^A^dva^nc^e^d^T^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^tions
^Ca^pa^bility^{in the}^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^,”^G^N^Doc^k^e^t^{No. 04-}⁵⁴^{, FCC}^04-²^08,^Se^pte^m^be^{r 9, 2}⁰⁰⁴^,^p.³⁸^{. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t
^http:^//hr^a^unf^os^s^.^f^c^c^.^g^o^v^/^e^doc^s^_pu^blic^/^a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/FC^C^-^04-²^08A^1.^pdf^.
⁷^“^B^a^r^rⁱ^e^r^s^{to B}^r^oa^d^b^aⁿ^d^A^dopti^oⁿ^{– T}^h^e^U^s^e^r^P^e^r^s^pe^c^tiv^e^,^”^{p. 1.}
⁸^Horrig^a^{n, Jo}^hn^,^P^e^w^Inte^rne^t^&^Am^e^r^ic^aⁿ^Lⁱ^f^e^P^r^oje^c^t^{, “}^O^ba^m^a^’s^Online^O^p^p^o^rtuⁿ^itie^{s II:}^If^You^Build^{It W}^{ill T}^h^e^y
^L^o^g^On?^”^Ja^nua^r^y^{21, 2}⁰⁰⁹^{, a}^v^aⁱ^l^a^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.pe^w^inte^rne^t^.or^g^/pdf^s/P^I^P_Broa^d^b^aⁿ^d%^20Ba^rrie^r^s.pdf^.
⁹^{For m}^o^re^inf^o^rm^a^{tion o}ⁿ^rura^l^br^oa^dbaⁿ^d^aⁿ^d^broa^d^b^aⁿ^{d pr}^og^ra^m^s^a^t^the^Rura^l^Utilitie^{s Se}^rv^ic^e^,^se^e^{CRS Rep}^o^r^t
^R^L³³⁸¹^6,^Br^oa^db^an^{d L}^o^aⁿ^aⁿ^d^{Grant Pr}^{ograms i}ⁿ^t^h^e^USDA^'^s^R^u^{ral Uti}^litie^{s Se}^rv^ic^e^{, by}^L^e^nna^r^d^G^.^K^r^ug^e^r^.
¹⁰^Se^e^f^o^r^e^x^am^ple^:^N^a^tiona^{l Ex}^c^h^aⁿ^g^e^C^a^r^rⁱ^e^r^A^s^s^o^cⁱ^a^{tion (}^N^EC^A⁾^{, T}^r^e^nds²⁰⁰^6:^Ma^kⁱ^ng^P^r^og^r^e^s^s^{With B}^r^oa^dbaⁿ^d^,
²⁰⁰⁶^,²⁶^p^.^A^v^ailab^l^{e at h}^ttp^://w^ww^.n^eca.^o^r^g^/^medⁱ^a/tren^d^s^_^b^ro^ch^u^r^e_^w^e^b^s^ite.p^d^f^.

suburban users than rural users. Pew found that the percentage of all U.S. adults with broadband ¹¹
at home is 60% for suburban areas, 57% for urban areas, and 38% for rural areas.
Similarly, according to the latest FCC data on the deployment of high-speed Internet connections
(released January 2009), high-speed subscribers were reported in 99% of the most densely
populated zip codes, as opposed to 90% of zip codes with the lowest population densities. For zip
codes ranked by median family income, high-speed subscribers were reported present in 99% of ¹²
the top one-tenth of zip codes, as compared to 92% of the bottom one-tenth of zip codes.
The comparatively lower population density of rural areas is likely the major reason why
broadband is less deployed than in more highly populated suburban and urban areas. Particularly
for wireline broadband technologies—such as cable modem and DSL—the greater the
geographical distances among customers, the larger the cost to serve those customers. Thus, there
is often less incentive for companies to invest in broadband in rural areas than, for example, in an
urban area where there is more demand (more customers with perhaps higher incomes) and less ¹³
cost to wire the market area.
Some policymakers believe that disparities in broadband access across American society could
have adverse consequences on those left behind, and that advanced Internet applications critical
for businesses and consumers to engage in e-commerce are increasingly dependent on high speed
broadband connections to the Internet. Thus, some say, communities and individuals without
access to broadband could be at risk to the extent that e-commerce becomes a critical factor in
determining future economic development and prosperity. A February 2006 study done by the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology for the Economic Development Administration of the
Department of Commerce marked the first attempt to quantitatively measure the impact of
broadband on economic growth. The study found that “between 1998 and 2002, communities in
which mass-market broadband was available by December 1999 experienced more rapid growth
in employment, the number of businesses overall, and businesses in IT-intensive sectors, relative ¹⁴
to comparable communities without broadband at that time.”
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 ¹⁵
increase of about 300,000 jobs.
Some also argue that broadband is an important contributor to U.S. future economic strength with
respect to the rest of the world. According to the International Telecommunications Union, the

¹¹^Ho^rri^gan^,^Johⁿ^B.^,^P^e^w^In^t^e^rn^et^{& Ameri}^can^Lⁱ^f^e^P^r^o^j^ect^,^H^o^m^e^Br^oad^ba^nd^Ad^op^tio^{n 2}⁰⁰⁸^,^J^u^ly²⁰⁰⁸^{, p}^.³^.
^Av^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:/^/www^.pe^w^inte^rn^e^t^.or^g^/^pdf^s^/^P^I^P_B^r^oa^dbaⁿ^d^_²⁰⁰⁸^.p^df^.
¹²^FCC,^Hi^gh^-Sp^eed^S^e^rvi^{ces f}^o^{r Int}^e^rn^et^A^{ccess: S}^t^a^t^u^s^a^s^of^Decemb^e^{r 3}¹^,²⁰⁰⁷^,^{p. 4.}
¹³^T^h^{e t}^e^rraiⁿ^o^f^ru^ral^{areas can}^al^so^b^e^a^hⁱ^nd^ran^{ce t}^o^b^r^o^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^d^e^p^l^o^y^m^eⁿ^t^b^ecau^{se i}^tⁱ^s^m^o^{re exp}^eⁿ^sⁱ^v^{e t}^o^d^e^p^l^o^y
^broa^d^b^aⁿ^d^te^c^hⁿ^o^logⁱ^e^sⁱⁿ^a^m^ountaⁱⁿ^ous^{or he}^a^v^ily^f^o^re^s^t^e^d^a^r^e^a^.^Aⁿ^a^dditio^na^{l a}^d^de^{d c}^o^s^t^f^a^c^t^{or f}^o^{r re}^m^o^te^a^r^ea^s^c^aⁿ
^b^e^t^h^{e exp}^eⁿ^s^{e o}^f^“b^ackh^a^u^l^{” (e.}^g^.^,^t^h^{e “m}ⁱ^d^d^l^{e m}ⁱ^l^{e”) w}^hⁱ^c^h^re^f^e^rs^t^o^t^h^{e i}ⁿ^st^al^l^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^o^f^{a d}^e^dⁱ^cat^ed^lⁱⁿ^e^w^hⁱ^c^h
^tr^aⁿ^s^m^its^a^sⁱ^gⁿ^a^l^{to a}^{nd f}^r^om^aⁿ^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^ba^c^k^bone^w^h^ic^{h is}^ty^pic^a^lly^loc^a^t^e^d^{in or}^ne^a^r^aⁿ^ur^baⁿ^a^r^e^a^.
¹⁴^G^ille^{tt, Sha}^r^oⁿ^E.^{, Ma}^s^s^a^c^hus^e^tts^Ins^tit^ute^of^T^e^c^hnolog^y^,^M^e^as^ur^{ing Br}^oa^db^an^d’^s^Ec^o^nom^ic^I^m^p^a^c^t^{, r}^e^por^t
^pr^e^p^a^r^e^d^f^o^r^the^Ec^on^om^ic^D^e^ve^l^opm^eⁿ^{t A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion,^U^.^{S. D}^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^,^Fe^br^ua^r^y²⁸^{, 2}⁰⁰⁶^p.^4.
¹⁵^Cra^nda^{ll, R}^obe^rt^{, W}^illia^m^L^e^{hr, a}^{nd Ro}^be^{rt L}^ita^n,^The^Ef^fe^c^t^s^{of B}^r^oad^ba^nd^D^e^ploy^m^e^nt^on^O^u^t^put^and
^Em^ploy^m^e^nt:^{A C}^r^os^s^-^s^e^c^tion^a^{l A}^naly^s^is^o^f^U^.^S^.^D^a^t^a^{, J}^une²⁰^07,²⁰^p^p^{. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http^://w^ww^3.brook^ing^s^.e^du^/
^vⁱ^e^w^s/^pa^pe^rs/^c^ra^nda^ll/20⁰⁷^06l^ita^n.p^d^f^.

U.S. ranks 24^th worldwide in broadband penetration (subscriptions per 100 inhabitants in 2007).¹⁶
Data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) found the U.S. ^th
ranking 15 among OECD nations in broadband access per 100 inhabitants as of December ¹⁷^th

2007. By contrast, in 2001 an OECD study found the U.S. ranking 4 in broadband ¹⁸

subscribership per 100 inhabitants (after Korea, Sweden, and Canada). While many argue that ¹⁹
the U.S. declining performance in international broadband rankings is a cause for concern, ²⁰
others maintain that the OECD and ITU data undercount U.S. broadband deployment, and that
cross-country broadband deployment comparisons are not necessarily meaningful and inherently ²¹
problematic. Finally, an issue related to international broadband rankings is the extent to which ²²
broadband speeds and prices differ between the U.S. and the rest of the world.

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 periodically collects
broadband deployment data from the private sector via “FCC Form 477”—a standardized
information gathering survey. Statistics derived from the Form 477 survey are published every six
months. Additionally, data from Form 477 are used as the basis of the FCC’s (to date) five
broadband deployment reports.

¹⁶^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tⁱ^ona^{l T}^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^Uⁿ^io^n,^Ec^o^nom^ie^s^by^br^o^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^pe^ne^tr^atio^n,²⁰⁰⁷^.^A^v^ai^l^a^b^l^{e at}
^http:^//www^.itu.int^/^I^T^U^-^D^/ic^t/sta^tistic^s/a^t^_g^la^nc^e^/top2^0_^broa^d^_²⁰⁰⁷^.htm^l.
¹⁷^O^E^CD^,^OE^{CD B}^r^oa^db^an^d^S^t^a^tⁱ^s^tⁱ^c^s,^Decemb^e^r²⁰⁰⁷^{. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.oe^c^d^.org^/sti/ic^t/broa^d^ba^nd.
¹⁸^O^E^C^D^{, D}ⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^a^t^e^f^o^r^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^T^e^c^hnolog^y^a^{nd I}^ndus^tr^y^,^T^h^{e De}^vel^o^p^m^en^t^o^f^B^r^oa^db^an^{d A}^{ccess i}ⁿ^OE^CD
^Coun^trie^s^{, O}^c^tobe^r²⁹^{, 2}⁰⁰¹^,⁶³^pp.^For^a^c^o^m^p^a^r^is^{on of}^g^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt br}^oa^dba^nd^pol^ic^ie^s^,^a^l^s^o^s^e^e^O^E^C^D^{, D}ⁱ^r^e^c^t^or^a^t^e
^f^o^r^Sc^ie^nc^e^,^T^e^c^hnolog^y^a^{nd I}ⁿ^d^u^s^tr^y^,^Br^oad^ba^nd^Iⁿ^fr^as^tr^uc^tur^e^D^e^ploy^m^e^nt:^T^h^e^Ro^le^{of G}^o^v^e^r^nm^eⁿ^{t As}^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^c^e^,
^Ma^y^{22, 20}^02,⁴²^p^p^.
¹⁹^S^{ee T}^u^rn^er,^{Derek S}^.^,^F^r^ee^P^r^ess,^Bro^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^Rea^{lity Ch}^{eck II: T}^h^{e Tru}^t^h^Behⁱⁿ^d^America^’^{s Dig}ⁱ^t^a^l^Divid^e^{, A}^u^g^u^s^t
²⁰⁰^6,^pp^8-^11.^A^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http://^w^w^w^.^f^r^e^e^p^r^e^s^s^.^ne^t/f^ile^s^/^bbr^c²^-^fⁱⁿ^a^l^.pdf^{; a}^{nd T}^u^rⁿ^e^r^{, D}^e^r^e^k^{S., Fr}^e^e^P^r^e^s^s^,^‘^S^ho^otⁱⁿ^g
^the^M^e^sse^nge^{r’ M}^y^{th v}^s^{. Re}^ality^:^{U.S. Br}^oa^db^an^{d Po}^lic^y^an^{d I}ⁿ^te^rnati^oⁿ^a^{l Br}^oa^db^an^{d R}^ankⁱⁿ^gs^{, J}^u^ly^2007,²⁵^p^p^.,
^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http://w^w^w^.^f^re^e^p^re^s^s^.^ne^t/^f^iles^/^s^hootiⁿ^g^_^the^_^m^e^s^s^eⁿ^g^e^r.^pdf^.
²⁰^N^a^tiona^{l T}^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^aⁿ^{d I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^tion,^F^a^c^t^She^e^t^:^Uⁿⁱ^t^e^d^State^s^M^aⁱⁿ^ta^ins^Iⁿ^for^m^at^io^{n a}ⁿ^d
^C^o^m^m^unic^a^tio^{n Te}^c^h^nol^ogy⁽^I^C^T⁾^Le^ade^r^s^hⁱ^p^aⁿ^d^Ec^o^nom^ic^Str^eⁿ^g^th^,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/w^w^w^.ntia^.doc^.g^ov^/ⁿ^tia^hom^e^/^pr^e^s^s^/
²⁰⁰^7/^I^C^T^l^e^a^d^e^r^_042⁴⁰^7.h^t^m^l^.
²¹^Se^e^W^a^lls^te^{n, Sc}^ott,^Pr^og^r^e^s^s^aⁿ^{d Fr}^e^e^dom^Fo^un^da^tio^n,^T^o^war^d^s^Effe^c^tiv^e^{U.S. Bro}^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^Po^lic^ie^s^{, Ma}^y^2007,¹⁹
^{pp. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.p^ff^.org^/is^s^u^e^s^-pubs^/^pops^/^p^o^p¹⁴^.^7us^br^o^a^dba^nd^po^lic^y^.^pdf^{. A}^l^s^o^s^e^e^Ford,^G^e^orge^{, Phoe}^nix
^Cen^t^er,^The^Br^oa^db^an^{d Pe}^r^f^or^m^a^nc^e^I^nde^x^:^W^h^a^t^Re^al^ly^D^r^iv^e^s^Br^oad^ba^nd^Ad^op^tio^{n Ac}^r^o^s^s^t^h^e^O^E^C^D^?^{, Phoe}^nix
^Ce^nte^r^P^o^lic^y^P^a^pe^{r N}^u^m^b^e^r^33,^Ma^y^2008,²⁷^pp^{; a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.phoe^nix^-^c^eⁿ^te^r.org^/^pc^p^p^/^P^C^PP3^3Fiⁿ^a^l^.^pdf^.
²²^Se^e^pric^e^a^{nd se}^rv^ic^e^s^a^{nd spe}^e^d^da^ta^on^{OECD Br}^oa^d^b^aⁿ^d^Porta^l^,^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:^//www^.oe^c^d^.org^/sti/ic^t/
^b^r^o^a^db^an^d;^T^u^rn^er,^{Derek S}^.^,^F^r^{ee P}^r^ess,^Br^o^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^Rea^l^{ity Ch}^{eck II: T}^h^e^T^r^u^t^h^Behⁱⁿ^d^America^’^s^Dig^ita^l^Divid^e^,
^A^u^g^u^s^t²⁰⁰^6,^pp^5-^9;^K^e^nde^,^Mic^h^a^e^l^{, A}ⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^C^ons^ulti^ng^Lⁱ^m^ited,^Su^{rvey o}^f^Iⁿ^t^e^rn^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^B^r^o^a^d^b^aⁿ^d^Of^f^e^ri^ng^s^,
^Oc^tobe^{r 4,}²⁰⁰⁶^,¹²^{p, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.a^na^l^y^s^y^s.c^o^m^/^pdf^s/Broa^dbaⁿ^d^P^e^r^f^o^rm^aⁿ^c^e^S^urv^e^y^.^pdf^{; a}^{nd A}^t^kⁱ^nson,
^R^obe^r^t^D^.^,^T^h^e^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^a^tⁱ^ona^{l T}^e^c^hnol^og^y^a^{nd I}^nnov^a^tio^{n F}^o^u^nda^ti^oⁿ^,^Ex^p^l^aiⁿⁱⁿ^g^Iⁿ^te^r^nat^io^nal^Br^o^a^dba^nd^Le^a^d^e^r^s^h^ip^,
^Ma^y^2008,¹⁰^{8 p}^,^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.iti^f^.^org^/^f^ile^s^/^Ex^plaⁱ^ning^BBL^e^a^d^e^r^s^h^ip.pdf^.

The FCC is working to refine the data used in future Reports in order to provide an increasingly
accurate portrayal. In its March 17, 2004 Notice of Inquiry for the Fourth Report, the FCC sought ²³
comments on specific proposals to improve the FCC Form 477 data gathering program. On
November 9, 2004, the FCC voted to expand its data collection program by requiring reports
from all facilities based carriers regardless of size in order to better track rural and underserved
markets, by requiring broadband providers to provide more information on the speed and nature
of their service, and by establishing broadband-over-power line as a separate category in order to
track its development and deployment. The FCC Form 477 data gathering program was extended ²⁴
for five years beyond its March 2005 expiration date.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has cited concerns about the FCC’s zip-code level
data. Of particular concern is that the FCC will report broadband service in a zip code even if a
company reports service to only one subscriber, which in turn can lead to some observers
overstating broadband deployment. According to GAO, “the data may not provide a highly
accurate depiction of local deployment of broadband infrastructures for residential service, ²⁵
especially in rural areas.” The FCC has acknowledged the limitations in its zip code level data.
On April 16, 2007, the FCC announced a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which sought comment
on a number of broadband data collection issues, including how to develop a more accurate
picture of broadband deployment; gathering information on price, other factors determining
consumer uptake of broadband, and international comparisons; how to improve data on wireless
broadband; how to collect information on subscribership to voice over Internet Protocol service ²⁶
(VoIP); and whether to modify collection of speed tier information.
On March 19, 2008, the FCC adopted an Order that substantially expands its broadband data
collection capability. Specifically, the Order expands the number of broadband reporting speed
tiers to capture more information about upload and download speeds offered in the marketplace,
requires broadband providers to report numbers of broadband subscribers by census tract, and
improves the accuracy of information collected on mobile wireless broadband deployment.
Additionally, in a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC sought comment on ²⁷
broadband service pricing and availability.
During the 110^th Congress, state initiatives to collect broadband deployment data in order to
promote broadband in underserved areas were viewed as a possible model for governmental
efforts to encourage broadband. In particular, an initiative in the Commonwealth of Kentucky—

²³^Fe^de^r^a^{l C}^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on,^N^o^tic^e^of^Iⁿ^quir^y^{, “}^C^onc^e^r^ning^t^h^e^D^e^ploy^m^e^{nt of}^A^dva^nc^ed
^T^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^{tions Ca}^pa^bility^{to A}^{ll Am}^e^r^ic^aⁿ^{s in a}^Re^a^s^ona^ble^a^{nd T}ⁱ^m^e^l^y^Fa^shion,^a^nd^possi^ble^Ste^p^{s t}^o
^A^c^c^e^l^e^r^a^t^e^Suc^h^D^e^pl^oy^m^e^nt^P^u^r^s^ua^{nt t}^o^Se^c^tioⁿ⁷⁰^{6 of}^the^T^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^A^c^{t of}¹⁹⁹⁶^,”^FC^C^04-^55,^Ma^r^c^h^17,
²⁰⁰^{4, p. 6.}
²⁴^{FCC New}^s^Rele^ase,^{FCC Improv}^e^s^{Data Co}^lle^c^tio^{n to}^M^oⁿⁱ^t^o^{r N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^w^id^{e B}^r^oa^db^an^{d R}^o^ll^ou^t^,^N^o^ve^m^b^er⁹^,²⁰⁰⁴^.
^A^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:/^/hr^a^uⁿ^f^o^s^s^.^f^c^c^.^gov^/e^doc^s^_^p^u^b^lic^/^a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/^D^O^C^-²⁵⁴¹¹^5A^1.p^d^f^.
²⁵^U^.^{S. G}^o^v^e^rnm^e^nt^A^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Br^oadb^an^{d D}^e^pl^oy^m^e^{nt i}^s^Ex^te^ns^iv^e^thr^o^u^g^h^o^u^t^the^Uⁿ^ite^d^Sta^t^e^s^{, b}^u^{t I}^t^I^s
^Diffic^{ult t}^o^Asse^{ss the}^Ex^teⁿ^t^of^D^e^ploy^me^{nt Ga}^{ps i}ⁿ^Rur^a^{l Are}^a^s^,^GAO-06-4^26,^Ma^y²⁰⁰⁶^{, p}^.³^.
²⁶^Fe^de^r^a^{l C}^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on,^N^o^tⁱ^{ce P}^r^op^o^s^ed^R^u^l^e^ma^kiⁿ^g^{, “}^D^e^v^e^l^opm^eⁿ^{t of}^N^a^tionw^ide^B^r^oa^dbaⁿ^d^D^a^ta
^{to Ev}^a^l^ua^te^R^e^a^s^ona^ble^a^{nd T}ⁱ^m^e^ly^De^ploy^m^e^{nt of}^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^Se^r^v^ic^e^s^{to A}^{ll A}^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^s^,^I^m^pr^ov^em^eⁿ^{t of}^Wⁱ^r^e^le^s^s
^B^r^oa^dbaⁿ^d^S^ubs^c^rⁱ^b^e^r^s^h^ip^D^a^ta^{, a}^{nd D}^e^v^e^lopm^eⁿ^{t of}^D^a^ta^{on I}ⁿ^te^r^c^onne^c^t^e^d^V^o^ic^e^O^v^e^r^Iⁿ^te^rⁿ^e^t^Pr^otoc^o^l⁽^V^oI^P⁾
^Subs^c^r^ibe^r^s^h^ip,”^W^C^D^o^c^k^e^t^N^o^.^07-^38,^FC^C⁰⁷^-¹^7,^r^e^le^a^s^e^d^A^p^r^{il 16,}²⁰⁰⁷^,⁵⁶^pp^.
²⁷^FC^C^,^N^e^w^s^R^e^le^as^e^,^“^F^C^C^Ex^pa^nds^{, I}^m^pr^ov^e^s^B^r^oa^dba^{nd D}^a^ta^C^o^lle^c^tio^n,”^Ma^r^c^h^19,²⁰⁰⁸^{. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t
^http:^//hr^a^unf^os^s^.^f^c^c^.^g^o^v^/^e^doc^s^_pu^blic^/^a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/D^O^C^-²⁸⁰⁹^09A¹^.^pdf^.

called ConnectKentucky—has developed detailed broadband inventory mapping which identifies
local communities that lack adequate broadband service. Kentucky is using this data to promote ²⁸
public-private partnerships in order to reach a goal of universal broadband coverage in the state.
Other states are pursuing or considering similar approaches.
The 110^th Congress explored ways to support or implement the types of broadband mapping and
data collection efforts demonstrated by ConnectKentucky. The Broadband Data Improvement Act ^th
was enacted by the 110 Congress and became P.L. 110-385 on October 10, 2008. The law
requires the FCC to collect demographic information on unserved areas, data comparing
broadband service with 75 communities in at least 25 nations abroad, and data on consumer use
of broadband. The act also directs the Census Bureau to collect broadband data, the Government
Accountability Office to study broadband data metrics and standards, and the Department of
Commerce to provide grants supporting state broadband initiatives.

The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-104) addressed the issue of whether the federal
government should intervene to prevent a “digital divide” in broadband access. Section 706
requires the FCC to determine whether “advanced telecommunications capability [i.e., broadband
or high-speed access] is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion.” 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.”
Since 1999, the FCC has issued and adopted five reports pursuant to Section 706. All five reports
formally concluded that the deployment of advanced telecommunications capability to all
Americans is reasonable and timely. The fifth and most recent 706 report was adopted on March ²⁹
19, 2008, and released on June 12, 2008. Two FCC Commissioners (Michael Copps and
Jonathan Adelstein) have repeatedly dissented from the reports’ conclusions that broadband
deployment is reasonable and timely, arguing that the relatively poor world ranking of United
States broadband penetration indicates that deployment is insufficient, that the FCC’s definition
of broadband as 200 kilobits per second was outdated and not comparable to the much higher
speeds available to consumers in other countries, that the use of zip code data (measuring the
presence of at least one broadband subscriber within a zip code area) did not sufficiently
characterize the availability of broadband across geographic areas, and that broadband ³⁰
deployment is impeded by the lack of a comprehensive national broadband policy.

²⁸^T^e^s^tⁱ^m^on^y^of^B^r^ia^{n Me}^f^f^or^d,^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t a}ⁿ^{d C}^E^O^,^C^oⁿⁿ^e^c^t^e^d^N^a^tio^{n, I}ⁿ^c^{., be}^f^o^r^e^the^Se^na^te^C^o^m^m^itte^e^on
^Com^m^e^rc^e^,^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd T}^r^aⁿ^spor^ta^tion,^A^p^{ril 2}⁴^,²⁰^07.^A^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http^://c^om^m^e^rc^e^.^s^e^na^te^.g^ov^/^p^u^b^lic^/^_^f^ile^s/
^D^C^_C^om^m^itte^e^t^e^s^ti^m^oⁿ^y^_04_²³^_07^.p^df^.
²⁹^Fe^de^r^a^{l C}^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^C^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^on,^F^ifth^Re^p^o^rt^,^{“In t}^h^{e M}^a^t^t^e^r^o^f^In^quⁱ^r^y^Coⁿ^cernⁱⁿ^g^t^h^{e Depl}^oymen^t^o^f
^A^d^v^a^nc^e^d^T^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^{tions Ca}^pa^bility^{to A}^{ll Am}^e^r^ic^aⁿ^{s in a}^Re^a^s^ona^ble^a^{nd T}ⁱ^m^e^l^y^Fa^{shion, a}ⁿ^d^Possible^Ste^p^s
^t^o^A^ccel^er^at^{e S}^u^ch^Dep^l^o^y^men^t^P^u^rsu^aⁿ^t^t^o^S^ectⁱ^o^{n 70}⁶^o^f^t^h^{e T}^e^l^eco^mm^uⁿⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^A^c^t^o^f^1996,”^G^N^D^o^c^k^e^t^N^o^{. 0}⁷^-
^45,^FC^C⁰⁸^-⁸^{8, A}^d^o^p^te^d^Ma^r^c^{h 1}⁹^{, 2}⁰⁰⁸^{, R}^e^le^a^s^e^d^J^u^ne¹²^,²⁰^08.⁷⁶^pp.^A^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http://^hr^a^u^nf^os^s^.^f^c^c^.^g^o^v^/
^e^doc^s^_^p^ubl^ic^/a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/^FC^C^-⁰⁸^-⁸^8A^1.pdf^.
³⁰^I^b^id^.,^pp.^5,^7.

The Bush Administration pursued a broadband policy that emphasized deregulation, non-
intervention by government in the marketplace, and general tax policies intended to foster overall
economic growth. On March 26, 2004, President Bush endorsed a goal of “universal broadband
access by 2007,” and on April 26, 2004, announced a broadband initiative which included
promoting legislation which would permanently prohibit all broadband taxes, making spectrum
available for wireless broadband and creating technical standards for broadband over power lines, ³¹
and simplifying rights-of-way processes on federal lands for broadband providers.
Subsequently, on January 31, 2008, NTIA released a report, entitled, Networked Nation:
Broadband in America, 2007 which characterized the Bush Administration’s broadband initiative
as follows:
^Fr^o^m^its^fⁱ^r^s^{t d}^a^y^s^{, t}^h^e^A^d^mⁱⁿⁱ^str^a^tioⁿ^h^a^{s i}^m^p^l^e^m^eⁿ^ted^a^co^m^p^r^e^h^eⁿ^s^iv^{e a}ⁿ^dⁱⁿ^teg^r^ated
^pack^ag^{e o}^f^t^e^c^hⁿ^o^l^o^gy^{, re}^g^u^l^a^t^ory^,^aⁿ^{d fi}^s^cal^polⁱ^cⁱ^e^s^desⁱ^gⁿ^e^{d t}^o^l^o^w^e^{r barri}^e^rs^an^{d creat}^e³²
^an^envⁱ^ronm^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ^w^hⁱ^c^h^broadban^dⁱⁿⁿ^o^v^a^tⁱ^on^an^{d co}^m^p^etⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^can^f^l^ou^ri^s^h^.
The Bush Administration broadband policy embraced the view that a minimum of government
intervention would create an economic climate favorable to private sector investment in the
broadband market. According to NTIA, the report showed “that the Administration’s technology,
regulatory, and fiscal policies have stimulated innovation and competition, and encouraged
investment in the U.S. broadband market contributing to significantly increased accessibility of ³³
broadband services.”
During the 110^th Congress, some policymakers disagreed with the Bush Administration’s
assessment and asserted that the federal government should play a more active role to avoid a
“digital divide” in broadband access. Bills were introduced seeking to provide federal financial
assistance for broadband deployment in the form of grants, loans, subsidies, and/or tax credits.
It is expected that the Obama Administration will ultimately develop a national broadband policy
or strategy that will seek to reduce or eliminate the “digital divide” with respect to broadband.
One of the key elements of the Obama transition’s technology agenda is to “deploy next-
generation broadband,” and specifically:
^Work^t^o^w^a^rds^t^r^u^e^broadban^dⁱⁿ^e^v^er^y^co^mm^unⁱ^t^yⁱⁿ^A^m^erⁱ^{ca t}^h^rough^{a co}^m^bⁱⁿ^atⁱ^{on of}
^ref^o^r^m^o^f^t^h^{e U}ⁿⁱ^v^ers^a^l^Serv^ice^Fun^d^{, better us}^{e o}^f^t^h^eⁿ^a^tioⁿ^’^s^wⁱ^rele^s^s^s^p^ectrum^,
^p^r^o^m^o^tioⁿ^o^fⁿ^e^x^t^-^g^en^er^at^ioⁿ^f^{acilities, tech}ⁿ^o^lo^gⁱ^e^s^an^d^ap^p^licatioⁿ^s^{, an}^dⁿ^e^w^ta^x^aⁿ^d^l^o^aⁿ³⁴
ⁱⁿ^centiv^e^s^.^Am^{erica s}^h^o^u^{ld le}^{ad th}^e^w^o^{rld in}^broadban^d^pen^e^tration^an^{d In}^terⁿ^{et acces}^s^.

³¹^Se^e^W^h^ite^H^ous^e^,^A^N^e^w^G^e^ne^r^a^tion^of^A^m^e^r^ic^aⁿ^I^nnov^a^tio^{n, A}^p^r^{il 2}⁰⁰⁴^{. A}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:^//w^w^w^.^w^hite^hous^e^.^g^o^v^/
^inf^o^c^u^s^/te^c^hno^log^y^/^e^c^onom^ic^_pol^icy²⁰⁰⁴⁰⁴^/ⁱ^nnov^a^tio^n.p^d^f^.
³²^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^C^o^m^m^e^r^c^e^,^N^a^tiona^{l T}^e^le^c^o^m^m^unic^a^ti^ons^a^{nd I}ⁿ^f^o^r^m^a^{tion A}^d^mⁱ^nis^t^r^a^{tion, N}^e^tw^or^k^e^{d N}^a^tion:
^B^r^oa^dbaⁿ^dⁱⁿ^A^m^e^r^ic^a^2007,^J^aⁿ^u^a^r^y^2008,^{p. I}^.^A^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^http:/^/w^w^w^.ntia^.doc^.g^ov^/r^e^por^ts^/²⁰^08/
^N^e^tw^or^ke^dN^a^tionB^r^o^a^d^baⁿ^d^inA^m^e^r^ic^a^2007.^pdf^.
³³^N^T^I^A^,^Pre^{ss Re}^le^ase^{, “G}^utie^r^r^e^{z H}^a^ils^D^r^am^a^tic^U^.^{S. B}^r^oa^dba^nd^G^r^o^w^th,”^J^a^nua^r^y^{31, 2}⁰⁰⁸^{. A}^v^aⁱ^l^a^ble^a^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.ntia^.doc^.g^ov^/ⁿ^tia^hom^e^/^pr^e^s^s^/²⁰⁰^8/^N^e^tw^or^ke^dN^a^tion_⁰¹³¹⁰⁸^.htm^l.
³⁴^Offⁱ^{ce o}^f^t^h^e^P^r^esi^d^en^t^-^E^l^ect^,^Te^c^hnol^ogy^A^g^eⁿ^da^,^a^v^a^ila^ble^a^t^htt^p^://c^ha^ng^e^.^g^o^v^/^a^g^e^nda^/te^c^hno^log^y^_^a^g^e^nda^.

The Obama campaign released a policy blueprint for technology and innovation that includes
policy proposals intended to result in full broadband penetration and deployment of next-
generation broadband. Specifically, policy proposals include:
• redefining broadband at speeds “demanded by 21^st century business and
communications;”
• reforming universal service to support affordable broadband specifically focusing
on unserved communities;
• creating incentives for more efficient use of government spectrum and new
standards for commercial spectrum to bring affordable broadband to rural
communities;
• ensuring that schools, libraries and hospitals have access to next-generation
networks and that adequate training and resources are available to enable these
institutions to take full advantage of broadband connectivity; and
• encouraging public/private partnerships at the local level that result in broadband ³⁵
to unserved communities.
It is likely that these and other potential elements of a national broadband policy, in tandem with
broadband investment measures in the American Recovery and Reinvestment stimulus package
will significantly shape and possibly expand federal policies and programs to promote broadband
deployment and adoption.

The Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect
Broadband Grants, both at the Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, are
currently the only federal programs exclusively dedicated to deploying broadband infrastructure.
However, there exist other federal programs that provide financial assistance for various aspects
of telecommunications development. The major vehicle for funding telecommunications
development, particularly in rural and low-income areas, is the Universal Service Fund (USF).
While the USF’s High Cost Program does not explicitly fund broadband infrastructure, subsidies
are used, in many cases, to upgrade existing telephone networks so that they are capable of
delivering high-speed services. Additionally, subsidies provided by USF’s Schools and Libraries
Program and Rural Health Care Program are used for a variety of telecommunications services,
including broadband access.
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 telecommunications and the “digital divide” issue
generally.

³⁵^{Barack Ob}^a^m^a,^C^onne^c^ting^an^d^Em^pow^e^rⁱⁿ^{g All}^Am^e^r^ic^ans^T^h^r^o^ugh^Te^c^hⁿ^o^l^ogy^an^{d I}ⁿ^nov^atioⁿ^,²⁰⁰^{8, a}^v^a^ila^ble^a^t
^http:^//o^ba^m^a^.3c^dn.ne^t/⁷⁸^0e^0e^91c^c^b6c^dbf^6e^_⁶^u^d^y^m^vⁱ^n7.p^d^f^.

Table 2 (also at the end of this report) presents selected federal programs that have provided
financial assistance for broadband. These programs are broken down into three categories: first,
programs that fund access to telecommunications services in unserved or underserved areas;
second, general economic development programs that have funded broadband-related projects;
and third, applications-specific programs which will typically fund some aspect of broadband
access as a means towards supporting a particular application, such as distance learning or
telemedicine.
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). Rural Telephone Loans and Loan Guarantees provide long-term direct
and guaranteed loans for telephone lines, facilities, or systems to furnish and improve
telecommunications service in rural areas. The RTB—liquidated in FY2006—was a public-
private partnership intended to provide additional sources of capital that would supplement loans
made directly by RUS. Another program, the Distance Learning and Telemedicine Program,
specifically addresses health care and education needs of rural America.
RUS implements two programs specifically targeted at providing assistance for broadband
deployment in rural areas: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and ^th
Community Connect Broadband Grants. The 110 Congress reauthorized and reformed the Rural
Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee program as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-
234). For further information on rural broadband and the RUS broadband programs, see CRS
Report RL33816, Broadband Loan and Grant Programs in the USDA’s Rural Utilities Service, by
Lennard G. Kruger.

Since its creation in 1934 the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has been tasked with
“... mak[ing] available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States, ... a rapid,
efficient, Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio communications service with adequate ³⁷
facilities at reasonable charges.... ” 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

³⁶^T^h^{e sect}ⁱ^oⁿ^on^unⁱ^v^ersal^servi^ce^w^a^{s p}^r^ep^ared^b^y^Aⁿ^g^e^l^e^Gⁱ^l^r^o^y^,^S^p^eci^alⁱ^s^tⁱⁿ^T^e^l^eco^mm^uⁿⁱ^catⁱ^oⁿ^s^,^Reso^u^r^ces,
^Sc^ie^nc^e^a^{nd I}ⁿ^dus^tr^y^Dⁱ^vⁱ^sⁱ^on.^Fo^r^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^uⁿ^iv^e^r^s^a^{l s}^e^r^v^ic^e^,^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³³⁹^79,^Un^iversa^l
^Se^r^v^ic^e^Fund:^Bac^k^g^r^o^un^d^an^{d O}^p^tio^ns^f^o^r^Re^for^m^,^b^y^An^g^e^l^e^A.^Gi^l^r^o^y^.
³⁷^Com^m^unic^a^{tions A}^c^{t of}¹⁹³^{4, A}^s^Am^e^nde^{d, T}^itle^{I se}^c^.¹^{[47 U.}^S.^{C. 15}¹^]^.

universal service support through a number of direct mechanisms that target both providers of and ³⁸
subscribers to telecommunications services.
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 ³⁹
average costs of providing telephone service. 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.
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.
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 U.S.C. 254.)
1. The Schools and Libraries Program. Under universal service provisions contained in the 1996
Act, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms and libraries are designated as
beneficiaries of universal service discounts. Universal service principles detailed in Section
254(b)(6) state that “Elementary and secondary schools and classrooms ... and libraries should
have access to advanced telecommunications services.... ” The act further requires in Section
254(h)(1)(B) that services within the definition of universal service be provided to elementary
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

³⁸^M^aⁿ^y^st^at^{es p}^a^rtⁱ^cⁱ^p^at^{e i}ⁿ^o^r^h^a^{ve p}^r^o^g^ram^s^t^h^at^mⁱ^rro^{r F}^{CC un}ⁱ^v^ersal^servi^ce^mech^anⁱ^s^m^s^t^o^h^e^l^p^pro^m^o^t^{e u}ⁿⁱ^versal
^servi^ce^go^al^{s w}ⁱ^t^hⁱⁿ^t^h^ei^{r st}^at^es.
³⁹^A^dditio^na^{l FCC}^polic^ie^{s suc}^h^a^s^ra^te^a^v^e^r^a^g^ing^a^{nd po}^oliⁿ^g^ha^v^e^a^l^{so be}^eⁿ^im^ple^m^eⁿ^te^{d to a}^{ssist hi}^g^h^c^o^{st c}^a^rrie^r^s.

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, $21.3 billion in funding has been committed over the first ten years of
the program with funding released to all states, the District of Columbia and all territories.
Funding commitments for funding Year 2008 (July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2009), the eleventh and ⁴⁰
current year of the program, totaled $1.9 billion as of January 6, 2009.

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. The funding ceiling, or cap, for
this support was established at $400 million annually. The funding level for Year One of the
program (January 1998 - June 30, 1999) was set at $100 million. Due to less than anticipated
demand, the FCC established a $12 million funding level for the second year (July 1, 1999 to
June 30, 2000) of the program but has since returned to a $400 million yearly cap. As of
December 31, 2007, covering the first 10 years of the program, a total of $221.2 million has been
committed to 3,784 rural health care providers. The primary use of the funding is to provide
reduced rates for telecommunications and information services necessary for the provision of ⁴¹
health care.
Section 714 of the 1996 Act created the Telecommunications Development Fund (TDF). The TDF
is a private, non-governmental, venture capital corporation currently overseen by a five-member
board of directors and fund management. The TDF focuses on seed, early stage, and select later
stage investments in communications and has $90 million under management in two funds. Fund
I, with a portfolio of $25 million invested in five companies, is no longer making new
investments. Fund II which contains $65 million remains active and currently has 12 companies
in its investment portfolio Funding is largely derived from the interest earned from the upfront
payments bidders submit to participate in FCC auctions. The TDF also provides entrepreneur
education, training, management and technical assistance in underserved rural and urban ⁴²
communities through the TDF Foundation.

⁴⁰^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^pr^og^r^a^m^,^inc^l^udi^ng^f^undi^ng^c^o^m^m^it^m^e^nts^,^s^e^e^the^E-^r^a^te^w^e^bs^ite^:
^http:^//www^.univ^e^rsa^l^se^rv^ic^e^.^org^/^s^l/.
⁴¹^For^a^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^hⁱ^s^pr^og^r^a^m^,^inc^l^udi^ng^f^undi^ng^c^o^m^m^it^m^e^nts^,^s^e^e^the^R^H^C^D^w^e^bs^ite^:
^http:^//www^.univ^e^rsa^l^se^rv^ic^e^.^org^/^rhc^/^.
⁴²^{For a}^dditi^ona^l^inf^o^rm^a^{tion o}ⁿ^t^h^e^T^D^{F f}^{und a}ⁿ^d^T^D^{F Fou}^nda^ti^on^s^e^e^the^T^D^{F w}^e^bs^ite^a^t^http^://w^w^w^.tdf^und^.c^om^.

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 service package: voice
grade access to and some usage of the public switched network; single line service; dual tone
signaling; access to directory assistance; emergency service such as 911; operator services; access
and interexchange (long distance) service.
Some policy makers expressed concern that the FCC-adopted definition is too limited and does
not take into consideration the importance and growing acceptance of advanced services such as
broadband and Internet access. They point to a number of provisions contained in the Universal
Service section of the 1996 Act to support their claim. Universal service principles contained in
Section 254(b)(2) state that “Access to advanced telecommunications services should be provided
to all regions of the Nation.” The subsequent principle (b)(3) calls for consumers in all regions of
the nation including “low-income” and those in “rural, insular, and high cost areas” to have
access to telecommunications and information services including “advanced services” at a
comparable level and a comparable rate charged for similar services in urban areas. Such
provisions, they state, dictate that the FCC expand its universal service definition.
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, on November 19, 2007, concluded such an inquiry and
recommended that the FCC change the mix of services eligible for universal service support. The
Joint Board recommended, among other things, that “the universal availability of broadband
Internet services” be included in the nation’s communications goals and hence be supported by ⁴³
federal universal service funds. In response to the Joint Board recommendation, the FCC, on
January 29, 2008, released three notices of proposed rulemaking dealing with specific aspects of
universal service, including an examination of the scope of the definition. The FCC is still

⁴³^T^h^e^J^o^{int B}^o^a^r^{d r}^e^c^o^m^m^e^nde^{d th}^a^t^the^de^fⁱ^niti^on^of^thos^e^s^e^r^v^ic^e^s^tha^t^q^u^a^lif^y^f^o^r^univ^e^r^s^a^l^s^e^r^v^ice^supp^or^t^be
^e^x^pa^nde^{d a}ⁿ^{d tha}^t^the^na^tio^{n’s c}^o^m^m^unic^a^{tions g}^o^a^l^{s inc}^l^u^d^e^the^uⁿ^iv^e^r^sa^{l a}^v^a^ila^bilit^y^of^:^m^obility^s^e^rv^ic^e^s^(i.e^.,
^wⁱ^rel^e^{ss vo}ⁱ^ce);^b^r^o^a^d^b^a^nd^Iⁿ^t^e^rnet^servi^ces;^an^d^voⁱ^{ce servi}^c^{es at}^aff^o^rd^ab^l^e^an^d^co^m^p^arab^l^e^rat^e^{s fo}^{r al}^l^r^u^ral^an^d
^non^-^r^u^r^a^{l a}^r^e^a^s^{. For}^a^c^opy^of^this^r^e^c^o^m^m^e^nda^{tion s}^e^e^h^ttp:^//hr^a^uⁿ^f^os^s^.^f^c^c^.^g^o^v^/^e^doc^s^_pu^blic^/^a^tta^c^h^m^a^tc^h/FC^C^-^07J^-
^4A^1.pdf^.

examining proposals for universal service reform, including expanding the program to include
broadband, but has not, as of November 21, 2008, taken action.

In the 110^th Congress, legislation was introduced that would provide financial assistance for
broadband deployment. Of particular note is the reauthorization of the Rural Utilities Service
(RUS) broadband loan program, which was enacted as part of the 2008 farm bill (P.L. 110-234).
In addition to reauthorizing and reforming the RUS broadband loan program, P.L. 110-234
contains provisions establishing a National Center for Rural Telecommunications Assessment and
requiring the FCC and RUS to formulate a comprehensive rural broadband strategy.
The Broadband Data Improvement Act (P.L. 110-385) was enacted by the 110^th Congress and
requires the FCC to collect demographic information on unserved areas, data comparing
broadband service with 75 communities in at least 25 nations abroad, and data on consumer use
of broadband. The act also directs the Census Bureau to collect broadband data, the Government
Accountability Office to study broadband data metrics and standards, and the Department of
Commerce to provide grants supporting state broadband initiatives.
Meanwhile, the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272) was enacted (P.L. 110-69) and contains a
provision authorizing the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide grants for basic research
in advanced information and communications technologies. Areas of research include affordable
broadband access, including wireless technologies. P.L. 110-69 also directs NSF to develop a plan
that describes the current status of broadband access for scientific research purposes.
The following is a complete listing of bills in the 110^th Congress.
P.L. 110-69 (H.R. 2272)
America COMPETES Act. Authorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide grants
for basic research in advanced information and communications technologies. Areas of research
include affordable broadband access, including wireless technologies. Also directs NSF to
develop a plan that describes the current status of broadband access for scientific research
purposes. Introduced May 10, 2007; referred to House Committee on Science and Technology.
Passed House May 21, 2007. Passed Senate July 19, 2007. Signed into law, August 9, 2007.
P.L. 110-161 (H.R. 2764)
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008. For Rural Utilities Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, provides $6.45 million to support a loan level of $300 million for the broadband loan
program, and $13.5 million for broadband community connect grants. Signed by President,
December 26, 2007.
P.L. 110-234 (H.R. 2419)
Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008. Reauthorizes broadband program at the Rural
Utilities Service through FY2012. Establishes a National Center for Rural Telecommunications
Assessment. Directs USDA and the FCC to submit to Congress a comprehensive rural broadband
strategy. Introduced May 22, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to

Committee on Foreign Affairs. Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development, and
Foreign Agriculture held markup of Title VII (Rural Development) on June 6, 2007. Reported by
House Committee on Agriculture (H.Rept. 110-256) on July 23, 2007. Passed House July 27,

2007. Passed Senate with an amendment, December 14, 2007. Conference report (H.Rept. 110-

627) approved by the House May 14, 2008, and by the Senate May 15, 2008. Vetoed by the
President, May 21, 2008. House and Senate overrode veto on May 21 and May 22, 2008. Became
P.L. 110-234, May 22, 2007.
P.L. 110-329 (H.R. 2638)
Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009. Continuing
resolution funds RUS broadband loan and grant program at FY2008 levels through March 6,

2009. Signed by President September 30, 2008.

P.L. 110-385 (S. 1492)
Broadband Data Improvement Act. Seeks to improve the quality of federal broadband data
collection and encourage state initiatives that promote broadband deployment. Requires the FCC
to collect demographic information on unserved areas, data comparing broadband service with 75
communities in at least 25 nations abroad, and data on consumer use of broadband. Directs the
Census Bureau to collect broadband data, the Government Accountability Office to study
broadband data metrics and standards, and the Department of Commerce to provide grants
supporting state broadband initiatives. Introduced May 24, 2007; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Ordered to be reported July 19, 2007; reported by
Committee (S.Rept. 110-204) and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar, October 24, 2007.
Passed by Senate with an amendment September 26, 2008. Passed by House September 29, 2008.
Became P.L. 110-385, October 10, 2008.
H.R. 42 (Velazquez)
Serving Everyone with Reliable, Vital Internet, Communications and Education Act of 2007.
Directs the FCC to expand assistance provided by the Lifeline Assistance Program and the Link
Up Program to include broadband service. Introduced January 4, 2007; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 1818 (Matsui)
Broadband Deployment Acceleration Act of 2007. Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
provide for the expensing of broadband Internet access expenditures. Introduced March 29, 2007;
referred to Committee on Ways and Means.
H.R. 2035 (Herseth Sandlin)
Rural Broadband Improvement Act. Amends the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to modify the
broadband loan program at the Rural Utilities Service by narrowing the definition of “eligible
rural community” and by limiting loans awarded to applicants proposing to serve areas that
already have a broadband provider. Introduced April 25, 2007; referred to Committee on
Agriculture and to Committee on Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 2054 (Boucher)
Universal Reform Act of 2007. Targets universal service support specifically to eligible
telecommunications carriers in high-cost geographic areas to ensure that communications services
and high-speed broadband services are made available throughout all of the States of the United
States in a fair and equitable manner. Introduced April 26, 2007; referred to Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
H.R. 2174 (Salazar)
Rural Broadband Initiative Act of 2007. Establishes an Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives
within the Department of Agriculture which will administer all rural broadband grant and loan
programs previously administered by the Rural Utilities Service. Also establishes a National
Rural Broadband Innovation Fund which would fund experimental and pilot rural broadband
projects and applications. Introduced May 3, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture and to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2569 (Graves)
Rural Broadband Deployment Act. Codifies certain changes proposed by USDA to the rules
governing eligibility for the rural broadband access program. Specifically, would relax market
survey requirements and eliminate the credit support requirement, including the cash-on-hand
requirement. Introduced June 5, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 2720 (Kind)
FARM 21 Act of 2007. Amends the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 to direct
that the Secretary of USDA shall make available funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation to
the rural broadband loan program as follows: $10 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through
2012. Also specifies criteria to be applied by USDA in considering applications for all rural
development projects. Introduced June 14, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, and in
addition to the Committees on Education and Labor, Foreign Affairs, and Ways and Means.
H.R. 2953 (Space)
Rural Broadband Access Enhancement Act. Seeks to redefine “eligible rural community,
streamline application process and lowers equity requirements, restricts loans to communities
with existing broadband providers, eliminates limitation on eligibility based on number of
subscriber lines, sets 35-year maximum on term of loan repayment, and directs USDA/RUS to
meet specific reporting requirements. Introduced July 10, 2007; referred to Committee on
Agriculture and Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3161 (DeLauro)
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2008. Provides $6.45 million to support a loan level of $300 million for the
broadband loan program, and $17.82 million for broadband community connect grants.
Introduced July 24, 2007; referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported by Committee on
Appropriations, July 24, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-258; placed on Union Calendar. Passed House,
August 2, 2007.

H.R. 3281 (Boucher)
Community Broadband Act of 2007. Sets forth that no state regulation or requirement shall
prevent a public provider from offering broadband services, and prohibits a municipality from
discriminating against competing private providers. Introduced August 1, 2007; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3246 (Oberstar)
Regional Economic and Infrastructure Development Act of 2007. Designates five regional
commissions throughout the U.S. which would provide economic and infrastructure development
grants, including grants to develop the telecommunications infrastructure of the region.
Introduced July 31, 2007; referred to Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to
Committee on Financial Services. Reported by Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
September 7, 2007 (H.Rept. 110-321, Part I). Passed House, October 4, 2007.
H.R. 3428 (McHugh)
Rural America Digital Accessibility Act. Provides for grants, loan guarantees, research, and tax
credits to promote broadband deployment in underserved rural areas. Introduced August 3, 2007;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committee on Ways and
Means and the Committee on Science and Technology.
H.R. 3627 (Space)
Connect the Nation Act. Establishes a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program
within the Department of Commerce to help states develop and implement statewide initiatives to
identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services within each state.
Authorizes $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Introduced September 20,

2007; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 3893 (Allen)
Connect America Now Act. Establishes a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program
within the Department of Commerce to help states develop and implement statewide initiatives to
identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services within each state.
Authorizes $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Introduced October 18, 2007;
referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 3919 (Markey)
Broadband Census of America Act of 2007. Provides for a comprehensive inventory of existing
broadband service. Directs the FCC to conduct an annual assessment of broadband deployment,
including information on bandwidth service tiers, types of technology, and international
comparisons. Directs NTIA to develop and maintain a broadband inventory map of the United
States that depicts broadband deployment at a nine digit zip code area level, census tract level, or
functional equivalent. Directs NTIA to award grants to states for broadband map development
and grants for demand-side broadband service identification and assessments. Directs the FCC to
conduct periodic consumer surveys of broadband service capability. Authorizes $20 million for
each of fiscal years 2008 through 2010, of which not less than $15 million would be available for
the state broadband map grants. Authorizes $50 million in FY2008, $100 million in FY2009, and

$125 million in FY2010 for the demand-side broadband service identification and assessment
(local technology planning) grants. Introduced October 22, 2007; referred to Committee on
Energy and Commerce. Reported by Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 110-443),
November 13, 2007. Passed House by voice vote, November 13, 2007.
H.R. 5682 (Allen)
Rural America Communication Expansion for the Future Act of 2008. Reforms and reauthorizes
through FY2013 the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the
Community Connect Grant Program. Provides for tax incentives and NTIA grant program for
broadband services in rural and underserved areas. Introduced April 2, 2008; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means and
Agriculture.
H.R. 6320 (Markey)
Twenty-first Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act of 2008. Ensures that
individuals with disabilities have access to emerging Internet Protocol-based communication and ^st
video programming technologies in the 21 Century. Introduced June 19, 2008; referred to
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 6356 (Barton)
Universal Service Reform, Accountability, and Efficiency Act of 2008. Reforms the collection
and distribution on universal service support under the Communications Act of 1934. Introduced
June 24, 2008; referred to Committee on Energy and Commerce.
H.R. 7000 (Waxman)
Universal Roaming Act of 2008. Requires any eligible telecommunications carrier receiving
universal service support for the provision of services for rural, insular, and high cost areas to
offer automatic roaming services to any technically compatible carrier upon request. Introduced
September 23, 2008; referred to the Committee on energy and Commerce.
H.Res. 1292 (Eshoo)
Establishes a national goal for the universal deployment of next-generation broadband networks
by 2015 and calls upon the Congress and the President to develop a strategy, enact legislation,
and adopt policies to accomplish this objective. Introduced June 20, 2008; referred to Committee
on Energy and Commerce.
S. 101 (Stevens)
Universal Service for Americans Act (“USA Act”). Directs the FCC to establish Broadband for
Unserved Area Areas Program to be funded by the Universal Service Fund. Requires
communications carriers to submit detailed broadband deployment data to the FCC. Introduced
January 4, 2007; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 541 (Feingold)
Rural Opportunities Act of 2007. Directs the FCC to collect more detailed broadband deployment
data and to periodically revise its definition of broadband above 200 kbps. Directs the Secretary
of Agriculture to report on the adoption or planned adoption of the recommendations contained in
the September 2005 audit report by the Inspector General of the United States Department of
Agriculture. Introduced February 8, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and
Forestry.
S. 711 (Smith)
Universal Service for the 21^st Century Act. Expands the contribution base for universal service
and establishes a separate account within the universal service fund to support the deployment of
broadband service in unserved areas. Introduced February 28, 2007; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S. 761 (Reid)
America COMPETES Act. Authorizes the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide grants
for basic research in advanced information and communications technologies. Areas of research
include affordable broadband access, including wireless technologies. Also directs NSF to
develop a plan that describes the current status of broadband access for scientific research
purposes. Introduced March 5, 2007; placed on Senate Legislative Calendar, March 6, 2007.
Passed Senate April 25, 2007. Senate incorporated this measure in H.R. 2272 as an amendment
July 19, 2007.
S. 1032 (Clinton)
Rural Broadband Initiative Act of 2007. Establishes an Office of Rural Broadband Initiatives
within the Department of Agriculture which will administer all rural broadband grant and loan
programs previously administered by the Rural Utilities Service. Also establishes a National
Rural Broadband Innovation Fund which would fund experimental and pilot rural broadband
projects and applications. Introduced March 29, 2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry.
S. 1190 (Durbin)
Connect the Nation Act. Establishes a State Broadband Data and Development Grant Program
within the Department of Commerce to help states develop and implement statewide initiatives to
identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband services within each state.
Authorizes $40 million for each of fiscal years 2008 through 2012. Introduced April 24, 2007;
referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
S.Res. 191 (Rockefeller)
Establishing a national goal for the universal deployment of next-generation broadband networks
by 2015, and calling upon Congress and the President to develop a strategy, enact legislation, and
adopt policies to accomplish this objective. Introduced May 8, 2007; referred to Committee on
Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

S. 1264 (Coleman)
Rural Renaissance Act. Creates a Rural Renaissance Corporation which would fund qualified
projects including projects to expand broadband technology in rural areas. Introduced May 2,

2007; referred to Committee on Finance.

S. 1439 (Roberts)
Rural Broadband Improvement Act of 2007. Reauthorizes the broadband and broadband loan
guarantee program under Title VI of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Introduced May 21,

2007; referred to Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.

S. 1745 (Mikulski)
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2008.
Provides $10 million to the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) at the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, for competitive
grants for the construction of broadband services. The Senate Appropriations Committee expects
NTIA to give preference to rural projects promoting broadband deployment in support of
educational, cultural, healthcare, or other social services. Introduced June 29, 2007; referred to
Committee on Appropriations. Reported to Senate, June 29, 2007 (S.Rept. 110-124); placed on
Senate Legislative Calendar. Agreed to by Senate in the nature of a substitute (as H.R. 3093),
October 4, 2007. Passed Senate October 16, 2007.
S. 1853 (Lautenberg)
Community Broadband Act of 2007. Sets forth that no state regulation or requirement shall
prevent a public provider from offering broadband services, and prohibits a municipality from
discriminating against competing private providers. Introduced July 23, 2007; referred to
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Reported with amendments (S.Rept. 110-

330) by the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, April 22, 2008.

S. 1859 (Kohl)
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2008. Provides $10.643 million to support a loan level of $495 million for the
broadband loan program, and $8.9 million for broadband grants. Introduced July 24, 2007;
referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported to Senate (S.Rept. 110-134) July 24, 2007;
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 2242 (Baucus)
Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 2007. Introduced October 25, 2007; referred
to Committee on Finance. Amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for the
expensing of broadband Internet access expenditures. Creates a Rural Renaissance Corporation
which would fund qualified projects including projects to expand broadband technology in rural
areas. Reported to Senate (S.Rept. 110-206) and placed on Senate Legislative Calendar, October

25, 2007.

S. 2302 (Harkin)
Food and Energy Security Act of 2007. Reauthorizes broadband program at the Rural Utilities
Service through FY2012. Introduced November 2, 2007. Senate Committee on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry reported measure to Senate (S.Rept. 110-220) November 2, 2007; placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 3182 (Mikulski)
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009.
Provides $20 million to the Technology Opportunities Program (TOP) at the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, Department of Commerce, for competitive
grants for the construction of broadband services and networks. Reported by Committee on
Appropriations June 23, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-397).
S. 3260 (Durbin)
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations for FY2009. Makes $3 million
available to the FCC to establish and administer a State Broadband Data and Development
matching grants program for State-level broadband demand aggregation activities and creation of
geographic inventory maps of broadband service to identify gaps in service and provide a
baseline assessment of statewide broadband deployment. Reported by Committee on
Appropriations July 14, 2008 (S.Rept. 110-417).
S. 3289 (Kohl)
Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations, 2009. Provides $11.618 million to support a loan level of $297.9 million for the
broadband loan program, and $13.406 million for broadband grants. Introduced July 21, 2008;
referred to Committee on Appropriations. Reported to Senate (S.Rept. 110-426) July 21, 2008;
placed on Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 3297 (Reid)
Advancing America’s Priorities Act. Title V, Subtitle A, Part 1 is the Broadband Data
Improvement Act, which seeks to improve the quality of federal broadband data collection and
encourage state initiatives that promote broadband deployment. Introduced July 22, 2008; placed
on Senate Legislative Calendar.
S. 3491 (Stevens)
Telehealth for America Act of 2008. Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to improve the
effectiveness of rural health care support under Section 254(h) of that act. Introduced September

16, 2008; referred to Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.

On January 21, 2009, the House Appropriations Committee approved legislative language for the
spending portion of the economic stimulus package (American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill

of 2009). The legislation would provide $6 billion to support deployment of broadband and
wireless services in rural, unserved, and underserved areas of the nation. Of the total, $2.825
billion would be provided to the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the Department of Agriculture,
and $3.175 billion to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration of the
Department of Commerce. Specifically, the legislation breaks down as follows:
• $2.825 billion to the Rural Utilities Service for additional loans, loan guarantees,
and grants to finance “open access” broadband infrastructure. Specifies that at
least 75% of the area to be served by a project receiving funds shall be in a rural
area without sufficient access to high speed broadband service to facilitate
economic development, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture. Priority is
given to projects that provide service to the most rural residents that do not have
access to broadband services.
• $350 million to the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration to establish the State Broadband Data and Development Grant
Program, as authorized by the recently enacted Broadband Data Improvement
Act (P.L. 110-385). Grants would be used to develop and implement statewide
initiatives to identify and track the availability and adoption of broadband within
each state. Would also be used to develop and maintain a nationwide broadband
inventory map.
• $1 billion to NTIA for Wireless Deployment Grants for wireless voice service
and advanced wireless broadband service (at least 3 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps
upstream). To the extent possible, 25% of the grants are to be awarded for
providing wireless voice service in unserved areas, and 75% for advanced
wireless broadband service in underserved areas. Grant recipients are required to
operate on an “wireless open access” basis.
• $1.825 billion to NTIA for Broadband Deployment Grants for basic broadband
service (at least 5 Mbps downstream, 1 Mbps upstream) or advanced broadband
service (at least 45 Mbps downstream, 15 Mbps upstream). To the extent
possible, 25% of the grants are to be awarded for providing basic broadband in
unserved areas, and 75% for advanced broadband service in underserved areas.
Grant recipients are required to operate on an “open access” basis.
• For the Wireless and Broadband Deployment Grants, the terms “unserved,”
“underserved,” “open access,” and “wireless open access” shall be defined by the
FCC not later than 45 days after enactment of the legislation. Also for these
grants, each state planning to participate is required to submit to NTIA a report
detailing which geographic areas within that state are most in need of wireless
voice, advanced wireless broadband, basic broadband, and advanced broadband
services in both unserved and underserved areas. Unserved and underserved
areas identified by a state shall not constitute more than 20% of the population or
geographic area of that state.
While the RUS broadband programs and the State Broadband Data and Development
Grant Program were previously authorized (the RUS programs have operated for seven
years, while the state grants is newly established by P.L. 110-385, the Broadband Data
Improvement Act, and not yet funded), the Broadband Deployment Grants and the
Wireless Deployment Grants would be newly authorized.

On January 22, 2009, the House Committee on Energy and Commerce marked up and
approved sections 3101 (nationwide broadband inventory map to be developed by NTIA)
and 3102 (authorizing wireless and broadband deployment grants at NTIA). An
amendment in the nature of a substitute, offered by the Chairman, additionally requires
NTIA to issue an annual report assessing the impact and effectiveness of the grants, and
expands the list of eligible entities to include satellite companies. Other amendments
agreed to by the Committee would: include the improvement of interoperable broadband
communications systems used for public safety and emergency response among factors to
be considered in award decisions; direct the FCC to review and revise its definitions of
unserved and underserved areas after completion of NTIA’s nationwide broadband
inventory map; and direct NTIA to consider whether an eligible entity is a socially and
economically disadvantaged small business.

As Congress considers various options for encouraging broadband deployment, a key issue is
how to strike a balance between providing federal assistance for unserved and underserved areas
where the private sector may not be providing acceptable levels of broadband service, while at the
same time minimizing any deleterious effects that government intervention in the marketplace
may have on competition and private sector investment. In addition to loans, loan guarantees, and
grants for broadband infrastructure deployment, a wide array of policy instruments are available
to policymakers including tax incentives to encourage private sector deployment, broadband
bonds, demand-side incentives (such as assistance to low income families for purchasing
computers), regulatory and deregulatory measures, and spectrum policy to spur roll-out of
wireless broadband services. In assessing federal incentives for broadband deployment, Congress
will likely consider the appropriate mix of broadband deployment incentives to create jobs in the
short and long term, the extent to which incentives should target next-generation broadband
technologies, the extent to which “underserved” areas with existing broadband providers should
receive federal assistance, and how broadband stimulus measures might fit into the context of
overall goals for a national broadband policy.

Table 1. Selected Federal Domestic Assistance Programs Related to Telecommunications Development
^{Web Links for Mo}^{re Inf}^orma^tion
^Progr^{am Agency}^Description^F^Y20⁰⁸^{(obligations)}^http://1^2.4^6.2^45.¹⁷^3/^cfd^a/^cfda^{.html: Go}^{to “All Progra}^{ms Listed Numerically”}
^{and sear}^{ch by p}^r^o^gram
^{Public Telecommunications}^{National Telecommunications}^{Assists in plan}^{ning, acquisition, installati}^on^$19.5^million^{http://www.ntia.doc.gov/}^otiahom^e/ptfp/
^Facilit^{ies—Planning and}^{and Informa}^tion^{and modernization of public}^index.html
^Construction^{Administration, Dept. of}^{telecommunications facilities}
^Commerce
^Investme^{nts for}^Public^{Economic Development}^{Provides grants to economically distressed}^$24^{9 million}^{http://www.eda.gov/}
^{Works and Economic}^{Administration, Dept. of}^{areas for const}^{ruction of}^pu^{blic facilit}^{ies and}
^{Development Facilities}^Commerce^infrastr^uctu^{re, including broadba}^nd
^{deployment and other}^type^{s of}
^{telecommunications ena}^{bling projects}
^{Rural Telephone Loans}^and^{Rural Utilit}^{ies Service, U.}^S.^{Provides long-term direct and gu}^aranteed^$14^{5 million}^{http://www.usda.gov/rus/}^telecom^/index.htm
^{Loan Gua}^rantee^s^{Dept. of Agriculture}^{loans to qualified organizations fo}^{r the}^(hardship
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30719}^pur^{pose of fina}^{ncing th}^{e improve}^ment,^loans);
^g/w^expa^{nsion, construction, acq}^{uisition, and}^$25^{0 million}
^s^.or^{operation of telephone lines, facilities, or}^{(cost of}
^le^ak^{systems to f}^urnis^{h and imp}^rove^{telecommunications service in}^ru^{ral areas}^{money loans);}^$29^{5 million}
^://wiki^{(FFB Treasury}^loans)
^h^ttp
^{Distance Learning}^and^{Rural Utilit}^{ies Service, U.}^S.^{Provides seed money for loans a}^{nd grants}^to^$24.7^million^{http://www.usda.gov/rus/}^telecom^/dlt/^dlt.htm
^{Telemedicine Loans and}^{Dept. of Agriculture}^{rural commu}^{nity facilities (e.g.}^{, schools,}^(grants)
^Grants^{libraries, hospitals) for advanced}^$28^million
^{telecommunications systems}^that^{can p}^rovide^{(loans and}
^{health care a}^{nd educational be}^nef^{its to rural}^loan-grant
^areas^{combinations)}

^{Rural Broadband Access}^{Rural Utilit}^{ies Service, U.}^S.^{Provides loan and loan guarantee}^{s for}^$30^{0 million}^{http://www.usda.gov/rus/}^telecom^/
^{Loan and Loan}^Gua^rantee^{Dept. of Agriculture}^{facilities and equipment}^{providing broadband}^{(cost of}^{broadband.htm}
^Program^{service in r}^{ural commu}^nities^{money loans)}
^{Community Connect}^{Rural Utilit}^{ies Service, U.}^S.^{Provides grants to applicants}^pro^{posing to}^$13.4^million^{http://www.usda.gov/rus/}^telecom^/index.htm

^{Broadband Gra}^nts^{Dept. of Agriculture}^{provide broadband se}^{rvice on a “}^community-
^{oriented connectivity” basis to r}^u^ral
^{communities of u}^{nder 2}^0,00^{0 in}^h^abitants.

^{Web Links for Mo}^{re Inf}^orma^tion
^Progr^{am Agency}^Description^FY20⁰⁸^{(obligations)}^http://1^2.4^6.2^45.¹⁷^3/^cfd^a/^cfda^{.html: Go}^{to “All Progra}^{ms Listed Numerically”}
^{and sear}^{ch by p}^r^o^gram
^{Education Tech}^nology^{Office of Eleme}^{ntary a}^nd^Grants^{to State Education Age}^{ncies for}^$26^{7 million}^{http://www.ed.gov/}^{Technology/TLCF/}
^{State Grants}^{Secondary Education, Dept. of}^{development of information tec}^h^{nology to}^index.html
^Education^{improve teaching a}^{nd learning i}ⁿ^schools
^{Ready to Teach}^{Office of Assistant Sec}^retary^Grants^{to carry o}^{ut a national}^$10.7^million^{http://www.ed.gov/}^programs/^rea^dyteach/
^{for Educational Researc}^{h and}^{telecommunication-based progra}^{m to}^index.html
^Improveme^{nt, Dept. of}^{improve the tea}^{ching in}^{core cu}^r^riculum
^Education^areas.
^{Special Education—}^{Office of Special Education a}^nd^{Supports developme}^{nt a}^{nd applic}^{ation of}^$39.3^million^{http://www.ed.gov/}^about/^offices/li^st/osers/
^{Technology and Media}^{Rehabilitative Services, Dept. of}^{technology and education media}^{activities for}^{index.html?src=mr/}
^{Services for Individuals}^Education^{disabled children and adults}
^{with Disabilit}^ies
^{Telehealth Network}^{Health Resources a}^{nd Services}^Grants^{to develop sustaina}^{ble telehealth}^{$3.9 million}^{http://www.hrsa.gov/telehealth/}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30719}^Grants^{Administration, Department of}^{Health and H}^uma^{n Services}^{programs a}^{nd networks}^{in r}^{ural a}^{nd frontier}^{areas, and in medically unser}^ved^{areas and}
^g/w^populations.
^s^.or
^le^ak^{Medical Library Assistanc}^e^{National Library of M}^edicine,^{Provides funds to train}^professional^$67.5^million^{http://www.nlm.nih.gov/ep/extra}^mural.html
^{National Institutes of}^Health,^person^{nel; strengt}^{hen libra}^{ry and}^information
^://wiki^Department^{of Health a}^nd^Human^Services^{services; facilitate access to and d}^{elivery of}^{health science}^{information; plan a}^{nd develop}
^h^ttp^{advanced information network}^s;^sup^port
^{certain kinds of biomedical pu}^{blications; and}
^{conduct resea}^rch^{in medical informatics and}
^{related sciences}
^{State Library Program}^{Office of Libra}^{ry Services,}^Grants^{to state library administra}^tive^$17^{1.5 million}^{http://www.imls.gov/}^grants/^library/
^{Institute of}^Muse^{um a}^nd^{agencies for p}^{romotion of library services}^lib_gsla^.asp#po
^{Library Services, National}^{that provide all users a}^{ccess to in}^formation
^{Foundation on the Arts}^{and t}^he^through^{State, regional, and international}
^Humanities^{electronic networks}

^{Native American a}^nd^{Office of Libra}^{ry Services,}^{Supports libra}^{ry ser}^{vices includin}^g^{$3.7 million}^{http://www.imls.gov/}^grants/^{library/lib_nat.asp}
^{Native Hawaiian Librar}^y^{Institute of}^Muse^{um a}^nd^{electronically linking l}^{ibraries to networks}

^Services^{Library Services, National}
^{Foundation on the Arts}^{and t}^he
^Humanities

^{Web Links for Mo}^{re Inf}^orma^tion
^Progr^{am Agency}^Description^FY20⁰⁸^{(obligations)}^http://1^2.4^6.2^45.¹⁷^3/^cfd^a/^cfda^{.html: Go}^{to “All Progra}^{ms Listed Numerically”}
^{and sear}^{ch by p}^r^o^gram
^{Appalachian A}^rea^{Appalachian Regional}^{Provides project grants for A}^ppal^achian^$73^million^{http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nod}^eId=21
^Development^Commission^{communities to su}^{pport t}^{he p}^hys^ical
^infrastr^uctu^{re nec}^essary^{for econ}^omic
^{development and imp}^{roved quality of life.}
^{Delta Area Economic}^{Delta Regi}^{onal Authority}^Grants^{to su}^{pport self-s}^ustaining^economic^{$7.8 million}^{http://www.dra.gov/}^programs/^inf^ormation-
^Development^{development of eight states}^{in Mi}^ssissippi^technology
^{Delta region.}
^{Denali Commissi}^on^{Denali Commissi}^on^{Provides grants thro}^{ugh a}^{federal and state}^$10^{6 million}^{http://www.denali.gov/}
^Program^partne^rship^{designed to provide critical}
^infrastr^uctu^{re and}^{utilities throughout Alaska,}
^{particularly in distressed comm}^u^nities
^Source:^Prepa^{red by CRS bas}^{ed on information from t}^{he Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance.}

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL30719}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Table 2. Selected Federal Programs Funding Broadband Access
^Progr^{am Comments}
^Progr^{ams Fundin}^{g A}^{ccess to}^{Telecommunications in}^Und^{erserved Areas}
^{Rural Broadband Access}^{Loan an}^d^{Provides loan and loan guarantee}^{s for facilities and equipme}^nt^providing
^{Loan Gua}^rantee^{Program (Rural}^{broadband se}^{rvice in r}^{ural comm}^unities.
^Utilit^{ies Service, U.}^{S. Department of}
^Agriculture)
^{Community Connect}^Broadband^{Provides grants to applicants}^pro^{posing to provide broadba}^{nd ser}^{vice on a}
^Grants^{(Rural Utilities Service, U}^.^S.^{“community-oriented conne}^{ctivity” basis to ru}^{ral communities of}^under
^Department^{of Agriculture)}^20,0^{00 in}^habitants.
^{Rural Telephone Loans}^{and Loan}^{Since 19}^{95, the}^{RUS Rural Telephone Loan a}^{nd Loan}^Gua^rantee^p^rogram—
^Guara^{ntees (Rural Utilities Service,}^{which ha}^{s traditionally financed telephone voice service in}^ru^{ral ar}^{eas under}
^{U.S. Department of Agriculture)}^5,00^{0 inha}^bitants—ha^{s re}^{quired t}^{hat all telephone facilities receiving}
^{financing m}^ust^{be capa}^{ble of p}^{roviding DSL broadband service at a}^{rate of at}
^{least 1 megabyt}^{e pe}^{r second.}
^{Universal Service Fund: High Cos}^t^{While the USF’s High Cost Program does not}^explicitly^fu^{nd broad}^band
^{Program (Federal Communicatio}^ns^infrastr^uctu^{re, sub}^{sidies are used, in many ca}^{ses, to upg}^{rade existin}^g
^Commission)^{telephone networks.}
^{Federal Econ}^{omic Development Programs Fu}^{nding Br}^oad^band^Ac^cess
^{Community Development Block}^{In Mic}^{higan, a Digital D}^{ivide Investment Program (DDIP) combined}^Michigan
^Grants^(Departme^{nt of Housi}^ng^and^{Broadband Development Aut}^{hority loans (initial}^{ly $12 million) and CDBG}
^{Urban Developme}^nt)^{grant f}^{unding ($}^{4 million) to depl}^{oy a hyb}^{rid fixed wireless and fib}^er
^{network in two r}^{ural counties w}^{hich would make b}^{roadband af}^{fordable for}
^{low to moderate income residents.}
^{Indian Commu}^{nity Development}^{In 2}⁰⁰^{5, the}^{HUD awarded the C}^{oquille Indian Tribe a $}^421,³⁵^{4 g}^{rant u}^sed
^{Block Grants (Departm}^{ent of}^Housing^{to fund th}^{e Coquille Broadband Technology Infrast}^ruct^{ure Projec}^{t. The}
^{and Urba}^{n Development)}^{project will al}^{low for improved connectivity for rese}^{rvation reside}^nts,
^{improvements in}^ru^{ral commu}^{nity access, and}^{potentially increase}^{d wireless}
^Inter^{net acces}^{s for t}^{he Tribal and}^surro^{unding comm}^unities.
^Grants^{for Pu}^{blic Works and}^{Supports t}^he^{proliferation of bro}^{adband networks}^{as a key}^{priority for}
^{Economic Development Facilities}^{regional economic growth. Exam}^{ples: $6 million grant to a compa}^{ny in}
^{(Economic Development}^{Virginia for investment in}³⁰^{0 miles of fiber optic ca}^{ble in nine}^cou^{nties and}
^{Administration, Department of}^{three cities; $2}^{million grant to companies in Vermont to}^help^{build a 42}⁴
^Commerce)^{mile fiber optic broadband}^netwo^{rk in r}^{ural north}^ern^{Vermont; an}^{d $27}⁰
^{thousand to s}^u^p^{port a Rhode Isla}^{nd Wireless In}^{novation Network}^{s project.}
^{EDA encou}^{rages commu}^{nities eligible for RUS programs to access}^{that first}
^{before ap}^{plying for}^{EDA investm}^{ent dollars.}
^{Appalachian Regional Commissio}ⁿ^{The Appalac}^{hian Regional Develo}^{pment A}^{ct Amendme}^{nts of}²⁰⁰²
^{reauthorized ARC for five years}^{and created s}^{pecific authority}^{for a Region-}
^{wide initiat}^{ive to bridge the telec}^{ommunications and tec}^{hnology gap}
^{between t}^{he A}^ppalachian^{Region and the r}^{est of the}^{United States.}
^{Supported a telecomm}^unications^{initiative ($33 milli}^{on over five ye}^ar
^{period) which includes}^{projects s}^{uch as: a}^{regional fiber net}^{work a}^cross
^northeast^{Mississippi; wireless demonstrations in r}^{ural New York,}^Ohio,
^{Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virgi}^{nia, and Georgia; and a regionwide effort in}
^{Kentucky to com}^{pile an inventor}^{y of broadband a}^{ccess ac}^{ross the}⁵¹
^Appalachian^{counties a}^{nd work w}^{ith the p}^{rivate sector to s}^ubsta^ntially
^{increase b}^{roadband coverage. I}ⁿ^{Maryland, a county-wide high-s}^pe^ed
^{wireless network, fu}^{nded by AR}^{C over several years,}^{now serves}^over
^4,50^{0 cus}^tomers.

^Progr^{am Comments}
^{Delta Regi}^{onal Authority}^{During a strategic}^planning^retrea^{t in Febr}^uary²⁰^{05, the}^{DRA board}
^{determined that one of}^{the a}^utho^{rity’s three top}^{policy priorities would be}
^{information technology. To supp}^{ort its policy position, the author}^ity
^{devoted $150,}⁰⁰^{0 to create a}ⁿⁱⁿ^{formation technology plan for}^th^{e region.}
^{Denali Commissi}^on^{Funded Telecommunications Sur}^{vey in 2}⁰⁰⁰^whic^{h was}^{used to determine}
^{the state of}^{broadband de}^{ployment in Alaska and}^{used as}^{basis for}^applying
^{for RUS broadband assistance.}
^{Applications-}^{Based Federal Progr}^{ams Related to Broadb}^and
^{Universal Service Fund: Schools and}^{Used to fund b}^{roadband acce}^{ss f}^{or schools and libraries.}
^{Libraries or “E-Rate” Program}
^{(Federal Communications}
^Commission)
^{Universal Service Fund: Rural He}^alth^{Used to fund b}^{roadband acce}^{ss f}^{or rural healt}^{h care c}^enter^s.
^{Care Program (Federal}
^{Communications Commission)}
^{Distance Learning}^{and Telemedicine}^{Provides seed money for loans a}^{nd grants}^{to rural comm}^{unity faci}^{lities (e}^.g.,
^{Program (Rural Utilit}^{ies Service,}^U.S.^{schools, libraries, hospitals) for a}^{dvanced telecommunications sys}^t^{ems that}
^Department^{of Agriculture)}^{can p}^{rovide health care a}^{nd educ}^{ational benefits to ru}^{ral areas.}
^{Public Safety Inte}^ropera^ble^{Provides funding to states a}^{nd te}^{rritories to enable and e}^nha^nce^p^ublic
^{Communications Gra}^{nt Program}^{safety agencies’ intero}^{perable co}^{mmunications ca}^pabilities.
^{(National Telecommunications and}
^{Information Administration,}
^Department^{of Commerce)}
^{Telehealth Network G}^rants^(Hea^lth^Grants^{to develop sustaina}^{ble telehealth p}^{rograms a}^{nd networks i}ⁿ^ru^ral
^{Resources and Services}^{and frontier ar}^{eas, and in medically unser}^{ved areas a}^{nd pop}^ulations.
^{Administration, Department of H}^ealth
^{and Huma}^{n Services)}
^{Public Telecommunications Facili}^ties^Grants^{for p}^{ublic television, public radio, and nonbroadcast distanc}^{e learning}
^{Program (National}^projects.
^{Telecommunications and In}^forma^tion
^{Administration, Department of}
^Commerce)
^{Education tech}^{nology programs}^Exam^{ples include Ed}^{ucation Tech}^{nology State Grants, Ready to Teach.}
^{(Department of}^Education)
^{State Library}^Grant^{s (Office of Li}^brary^Grants^{to state library administra}^{tive agencies for p}^{romotion of library}
^{Services, Institute of M}^use^{um a}^nd^{services that}^{provide all users acc}^{ess to information throug}^{h State, regional,}
^{Library Services, National Founda}^tion^{and international electronic net}^w^orks.
^{on the Arts}^{and t}^{he H}^umanities)
^{Medical Library Assistanc}^{e (National}^{Provides funds to train}^{professional person}^{nel; strengt}^he^{n library}^and
^{Library of}^{Medicine, National}^{information services; facilitate access to and delivery of health}^science
^{Institutes of}^{Health, Departme}^nt^of^{information; plan and develop ad}^{vanced information}^{networks; su}^pport
^{Health and H}^uma^{n Services)}^{certain kinds of biomedical pu}^{blications; and conduct re}^searc^{h in}^medical
^{informatics and related science}^s.

^L^eⁿⁿ^a^rd^{G. Kru}^g^er
^Specialis^{t i}ⁿ^Scieⁿ^{ce an}^{d T}^echⁿ^o^logy^P^o^lic^y
^l^k^rug^e^r@^cr^s^.^l^o^c.g^o^v^,^7-⁷⁰⁷⁰
^An^g^e^{le A}^.^Gilr^o^y
^Sp^{ecialist i}ⁿ^T^e^leco^m^m^uⁿⁱ^ca^ti^oⁿ^{s P}^o^lic^y
^agⁱ^l^r^o^y^@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7}^-⁷⁷⁷⁸