Congressional hearing in Bakersfield focuses on rural broadband debate
The national debate over how to expand rural access to broadband internet service came to downtown Bakersfield on Friday as Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee heard testimony on the benefits and drawbacks of renewing federal subsidies introduced during the pandemic.
At a nearly two-hour field hearing inside the Mechanics Bank Convention Center, Central Valley farming representatives joined rural internet service providers in highlighting the importance of high-speed connectivity to precision agriculture as well as poor communities reliant on computers for health care, education and remote work.
While there was little question how vital internet service has become to rural areas, the underlying question was what role the government should have in not only helping pay for high-speed access but also what should be done to cut red tape that can slow broadband investments and increase costs to consumers.
The hearing’s host, Rep. David Valadao, R-Hanford, expressed his support for renewing provisions of the Affordable Connectivity Program, which after providing $1.86 billion for California alone is set to expire this month. He said some Central Valley communities will be left behind if more is not done to close what’s known as the “digital divide” between people with versus without high-speed internet.
But Valadao, who is not a member of the committee but spoke as a witness at the late-morning hearing, emphasized protections should be put in place to ensure the measure’s reauthorization targets those that need it most and doesn’t lead to overbuilding. He also said there should be a close look at how to reduce permitting slowdowns, including within California government, that work against the goal of greater connectivity.
“People in my district need it,” Valadao said after the event, referring to broadband internet
service. He declined to say how much money ought to be included in any ACP reauthorization bill.
Valadao was among dozens of House representatives who signed a letter to congressional leaders in March citing an “urgent need to preserve” the ACP. The letter traced the program to a Trump administration emergency measure included later in President Joe Biden’s 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. It said the ACP has succeeded in extending high-speed internet service to 23 million Americans, more than a quarter of whom live in rural communities.
The letter referenced talks on adjusting eligibility requirements and figuring out a long-term funding solution, adding, “Even a short lapse in the program will have devastating consequences.”
Two farming industry representatives called to testify before the committee explained how so-called precision agriculture requires high-speed internet to sustain technological advancements that have increased yield while reducing need for water and materials such as pesticides.
“None of it would be possible without broadband and high-speed broadband,” said Don Cameron, vice president and general manager of Terranova Ranch, a specialty crop operation located southwest of Fresno. Beyond its value in ag, he noted, broadband access helps deliver lessons to schoolchildren.
Two internet service providers testifying Friday said the ACP has been critical to expanding broadband access in rural areas. But they also called for greater coordination between the federal and state governments, as well as streamlined permitting and changes that would force internet companies like Netflix and Google to pay their fair share in the effort.
“They’re getting a free ride,” said CEO Eric Votaw of Varcomm Holdings Inc., a small internet provider in rural communities of the Central Valley.
Committee members didn’t question the need for sustaining and even expanding internet access in rural areas, but they did at times ask how those goals can be reached without committing taxpayer dollars indefinitely.
At one point, committee member Rep. Russ Fulcher, R-Idaho, asked Votaw whether the service he provides can be continued without taxpayer dollars, to which Votaw answered that, no, companies like his need certain costs covered beyond what customers themselves can pay.
Another committee member at the hearing, Rep. Jay Obernolte, R-Hesperia, noted the ACP was approved during the pandemic as a result of closed schools and worries that students would lose out on their educations. After expressing reservations about the growing national debt, he pointed out that low-cost internet plans preceded the measure and then faded away after the ACP.
After the hearing, House Democrats tweeted that none of the Republicans at the field hearing had voted in favor of the ACP. A post by an account called Energy & Commerce Democrats said, “Classic Republicans: didn’t vote for the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funding rural broadband expansion and the Affordable Connectivity Program, but taking credit back home.”
Since Feb. 7, the federal government is no longer taking new applications for enrollment through the ACP, which offers discounts of up to $30 per month toward internet services for eligible households. It also pays qualified recipients a one-time discount toward the purchase of a computer or tablet.
Representatives of the American G.I. Forum Education Foundation who attended the hearing expressed support afterward for the ACP. They said any expansion of rural broadband access should go hand-in-hand with digital literacy programs for families and underrepresented minorities, senior citizens and farmworkers who need to be able to use computers so they can perform duties in the field.