Testimony of Beth McConnell
Executive Director, Media and Democracy Coalition

Before the joint Roundtable convened by National Telecommunications and Information Administration, Rural Utilities Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Federal Communications Commission on Post-Award Accountability and Oversight of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program

March 24, 2009

Good morning.  My name is Beth McConnell, and I am the Executive Director of the Media & Democracy Coalition, which is a collaboration of more than two dozen public interest media advocacy groups in the states and in Washington D.C.  Our mission is to amplify the voice of the public in debates over media and telecommunications policies.  Our members have been fighting for ubiquitous, affordable broadband for years, so I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this process.

In crafting my comments on “Post-Award Accountability and Oversight,” I considered two questions:  First, how do we ensure that broadband stimulus grantees are held accountable to the goals of the Recovery Act?  Second, how can we ensure that grantees are complying with the rules and agreements?

To address both, we need:
Clear and Concrete Objectives focused on adoption in grant agreements, making it possible to track successes and shortcomings;
Strong Rules to prevent grantees from abusing the public trust;
And Good Data, so policy makers and the public can assess the impact of the projects.  

CLEAR & CONCRETE OBJECTIVES
The obvious bears repeating:  the goal of the broadband section of the Recovery Act is to get consumers on-line.  Funding to build infrastructure is not enough, and Congress was right to make adoption programs eligible for funding.   

But it is critical that all funded projects contain a component that will measurably increase adoption.  Grantees should be required to offer specific, concrete actions and projected outcomes for how their project will meet that goal.  For some, it may be as simple as committing to offering affordable rates to consumers.  Others may include robust digital inclusion programs that bring hardware, software or training to targeted populations.  What’s important is that adoption remains the focus, and that very specific outcomes are stated and can be tracked and reported on.   Requiring clear adoption goals as part of grant proposals can also help NTIA and USDA select projects that deliver the best bang-for-the-buck.  

STRONG RULES
Recovery Act funds should be spent to provide economic opportunity for many, not to enrich a few.  That’s why it’s important for contracts to contain strong rules to prevent abuse of the public investment.  Specifically, to ensure continued oversight and to avoid “flipping” of networks, it should be made clear in grant contracts that any condition imposed on a grant cannot be evaded by sale, and that any entity that buys a system subsidized with ARRA funds is subject to the same outcomes, reporting and investigation requirements as the original grant recipient.

To improve compliance with and oversight of the non-discrimination rules, NTIA and RUS should require that all grantees report their network management practices, and the agencies should be permitted to approve those plans to ensure they are consistent with the FCC policy statement.  While the Recovery Act does not require that RUS grantees be contractually obligated to adhere to the FCC’s non-discrimination principles as a condition of receiving federal funds (unlike NTIA grantees), the FCC’s principles apply to all network providers, publicly subsidized or not.  The reporting could be modeled on the level of detail required by FCC of Comcast in its proceeding against the cable company last year.  

GOOD DATA
NTIA and RUS need to know what is happening “on the ground” to adequately measure the impact of the broadband Recovery Act funds, as well as to assess grantee compliance.

In order to determine if the project meets Recovery Act goals of increasing affordability, subscribership, and speed of service, NTIA and RUS should require that grantees report the actual speeds delivered, prices paid by consumers, and adoption of services.  Advertised speed and price are not good enough; grantees should report on the speed delivered to consumers when the network is in high demand, and what consumers are actually being charged for the service.  It would also be wise to require that grantees report the demographics of new subscribers to determine if targeted populations are actually being served.

FCC, NTIA and RUS should also approach the dispersing of the $350 million to implement the Broadband Data Improvement Act with the same level of transparency and efficiency as all Recovery Act funds.   First, in addition to sharing data among agencies, NTIA and RUS should consider grantee reporting a critical opportunity to gather data to inform the mapping.  Second, funds should not be awarded to any entity that purports to map broadband services yet withholds critical information.  Several states have passed mapping legislation at the behest of industry-backed mapping initiatives that fail to release publicly the kind of data policy makers and the public need.   That is an outdated approach that FCC, NTIA and RUS should reject, whether funding directly or sub-contracting to states.  

Finally, the agencies may want to consider robust post-grant assessment of the impact of projects.  Access to broadband is the economic gift that keeps on giving, long after the projects are completed and grant obligations are met.  It will be difficult for NTIA and RUS to establish the true impact of projects simply by reading grant reports at the end of the funding period.

There must be some way for the agencies to assess the long-term impacts, perhaps by selecting a few projects and conducting a rigorous post-grant assessment and evaluation.  How many kilowatt-hours were saved as a result of consumers being able to manage their energy usage on line?  How many new users started web-based small businesses?  How did a previously disenfranchised community become civically engaged as a result of being able to communicate with each other and organize on-line?   These sorts of long-range assessments will inform academics, public interest advocates, and entrepreneurs for years to come.  Yet little funding is available to conduct in-depth assessments, so NTIA and RUS are needed to take a leading role. 

In closing, the more than $7 billion for broadband as a result of the Recovery Act is the most significant investment to date by the federal government in addressing the digital divide.  But it’s far short what the U.S. needs to regain our position as a world leader in broadband adoption.  The programs administered by NTIA, RUS and FCC represent a critical opportunity to chart a course away from the hands-off, “business as usual” approach that has defined prior U.S. broadband policy.