Doyle Aims to Address C-Band Auction Proceeds Ideas During House Digital Equity Hearing

Doyle told us he wants to use the hearing to showcase his support for using C-band proceeds to fund broadband and other telecom infrastructure projects, “stake that position out a little clearer and see where the Republican support is for that.” Doyle is among lawmakers who back the Clearing Broad Airwaves for New Deployment (C-Band) Act (HR-4855/S-2921), which favors allocating proceeds from the coming auction of spectrum on the 3.7-4.2 GHz C band for rural broadband and other telecom priorities (see 2001090021). S-2921 lead sponsor Senate Appropriations Financial Services Subcommittee Chairman John Kennedy, R-La., and two Senate Commerce Committee Democratic leaders filed their own C-band proceeds bill Tuesday (see 2001280063).

There’s “been some pushback to how much we want” to allocate from C-band auction proceeds for broadband and other projects, so it’s important House Communications “get those questions answered” Wednesday, Doyle said. He has been at odds with Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., and others who back proposals to allocate a lower percentage of sales for telecom projects and provide a larger incentive payment to C-band incumbents. Wicker backs the 5G Spectrum Act (S-2881), which would set a graduated scale for amounts the FCC would be required to return to the Treasury from C-band proceeds, beginning with “not less than 50 percent” of the first $40 billion. Wicker unsuccessfully attempted to attach language from S-2881 to an FY 2020 appropriations law passed last year (see 1912160061).

“The reason we want” to maximize the amount of money returned to the federal government from a C-band auction is “so that we have a pay-for to do broadband deployment” in both unserved and underserved areas of the U.S., Doyle said. “Some have indicated they … only want to do one” and “we want to get a better idea of where everyone stands on that.” Talks with Wicker and others have “been an ongoing process back and forth of where we can come to an agreement” on what percentages of sales would be allocated for incentive payments, infrastructure projects and other costs, Doyle said. “It’s a fluid situation. I think everyone wants to get it done, we just have to find the right combination. This is a tremendous opportunity that we’re not going to have again.”

Congress needs to “act now” on C-band legislation if it wants to have a role in deciding auction proceeds allocations because “the FCC is preparing to act and is ready to act quickly” given the need to ensure the U.S. plays a leadership role in 5G development, Wicker emphasized Tuesday during a speech at the State of the Net conference. Winning “the race to 5G” will help the U.S. advance in a range of technologies, including telehealth, precision agriculture, artificial intelligence and quantum computing, he said. It “will require a dedicated and coordinated effort at all levels of” the federal government.

Doyle was unsure how much House Democrats’ pending infrastructure proposal would factor into the Communications hearing discussions since it had yet to go public Tuesday afternoon. Lobbyists told us they now expect the proposal to be a “framework” or “statement of principles” rather than a fully fledged bill, as had earlier been expected (see 2001240001). The proposal is still expected to draw from a range of existing broadband measures, including the Broadband Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (HR-4127) and the Digital Equity Act (HR-4486/S-1167). The lobbyists noted House Commerce previously planned to hold the digital equity hearing at a later date but decided to move it earlier in the schedule because of Democrats' planned rollout of their infrastructure plan.

Wicker urged the House Tuesday to pass the Senate-cleared version (see 1912190068) of the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (Broadband Data) Act (S-1822). Wicker said he would like swift passage of S-1822 so President Donald Trump can sign the measure “early this year.” S-1822 would require the FCC to collect more “granular” broadband coverage data and create a “user-friendly challenge process” (see 1906130029). S-1822’s House-passed companion (HR-4229) was expanded into a larger broadband mapping legislative package (see 1912160052).

Testimony

Several of the five witnesses set to appear at the House Communications hearing highlight in their prepared testimony the need to address broadband costs to achieve digital equity in their written testimony. North Carolina Department of Information Technology Broadband Infrastructure Office Director Jeffrey Sural says costs are a “main barrier to adoption among households with access,” especially in low-income households. “Where market forces are not working, successful evidence-based solutions include grants, subsidies, tax credits, and partnerships,” Sural says. “Grants to [ISPs] have been shown to lower the capital expenditures for deployment and affordable services.” Subsidies “to customers make services affordable, while tax credits incentivize good corporate citizenship by” ISPs, he says.

Georgetown Law Institute for Technology & Policy’s Gigi Sohn says the U.S. should “develop a multi-pronged strategy” to address broadband affordability with a goal of providing service “at about $10 per month.” Congress and the FCC “should consider as a requirement for funding for broadband deployment the provision of 50/50” Mbps upload and download speeds “for $10 per month to eligible recipients,” Sohn says. She urges Congress to “halt the war” on the Lifeline USF program and “consider enlarging the scope” of program eligibility. Policymakers should “consider whether an additional subsidy should be provided so that Lifeline recipients can purchase robust fixed broadband service,” Sohn says. She also wants Congress to “mandate that the FCC require broadband providers to submit non-promotional pricing information and should require public disclosure of added fees and equipment costs.”

City of Detroit Director-Digital Inclusion Joshua Edmonds cites the city government’s development of “public-private partnerships without any government funding” to help address broadband access and digital equity, but it’s “an unsustainable model. We need federal resources to continue our work. If we were to receive additional funding, we could do more robust outreach, and incentivize more localized funding from philanthropic organizations.” There's "widespread agreement that investing in digital equity initiatives would help arm our children with the necessary footing needed to excel in the classroom by providing home-based support,” he says.

American Enterprise Institute visiting scholar Roslyn Layton questions the need for federal intervention on broadband prices. “As an economic matter, broadband takes up a decreasing share of people’s income, so it makes little sense to reduce the cost of broadband versus addressing the other areas that take up a greater portion of income” like “housing, transportation, education, food, clothing, and even discretionary travel,” she says. “One area where Congress must act is spectrum, and only Congress has the power to the solve the problem.” Only Congress “can authorize auctions, appropriate audit funds, and enable the agency reforms needed" so the U.S. is on “the same page to win the global 5G race,” Layton says. The "window of opportunity for the [U.S.] is closing on this front, and it is critical that this committee encourage the FCC to conduct a speedy” public C-band auction.

Sohn and National Digital Inclusion Alliance Executive Director Angela Siefer urge Congress to pass HR-4486/S-1167. That bill would allocate federal funding for digital inclusion via two $120 million grant programs (see 1909200047). “These funds … will incentivize more states and localities to develop their own digital inclusion programs and will provide sorely needed funds to the small community-based nonprofits that are doing the hard work of connecting their communities on the ground,” Sohn says. Siefer calls HR-4486/S-1167 a “good first start” to addressing “digital equity planning at the state level” and “financial support for that planning.”