{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-urges-usda-to-target-600-million-investment-in-rural-broadband-to-maximize-impact-for-maine-communities", "King Urges USDA to Target $600 Million Investment in Rural Broadband to Maximize Impact for Maine Communities", "2018-09-17", "2018", "2018-09", "Independent", "House", "ME", "Angus King", "K000383", "www.king.senate.gov", null, null, "legacy", "PORTLAND, ME\r\n U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine), a founder and co-chair of the Senate\r\nBroadband Caucus, urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Rural\r\nUtilities Service (RUS) to allocate funding towards investing in broadband\r\naccess for Maine's underserved and rural areas by submitting a letter during\r\nRUS's comment period. The RUS's funding was included in the March\r\n2018 omnibus, which was supported by Senator King in large part because\r\nCongress funded a $600 million broadband pilot program to help private,\r\nnon-profit and public entities that provide rural broadband services.  Access to\r\naffordable, high-speed broadband is increasingly an economic development\r\nimperative for rural communities in Maine and across the country that are\r\nseeking to attract business investment, increase economic prosperity, and\r\nreverse outmigration by drawing in younger residents, Senator King wrote in\r\nhis letter. This Pilot offers tremendous potential for catalyzing\r\nbroadband investment in rural areas.[USDA Rural Utilities Service] should\r\nencourage the best use of limited Pilot funding by coordinating with states\r\nthat have completed robust broadband planning efforts and continue to modernize\r\nthe program to meet the connectivity needs of rural America.   In his letter,\r\nSenator King highlighted key criteria the USDA should consider when structuring\r\nthis program, including:  \r\nDefining sufficient access to broadband in a\r\nway that accounts for affordability and common business practices including\r\ntwo-way video conferencing. This will ensure that what is deemed as sufficient\r\naccess will actually reflect the needs of local businesses and consumers.  \r\nAcquiring up-to-date broadband mapping data\r\nthrough partnerships with Internet Service Providers (ISPs), state governments,\r\nand local governments, as well as seeking input from consumers. This will allow\r\nthe government to make informed decisions about where to target broadband\r\nfunding with the most recent data. \r\nAccounting for the scope and depth of\r\npartnerships between funding applicants and local governments, employers and\r\nother key regional institutions. These partnerships are vital to the success of\r\nbroadband projects.  \r\nMaximizing the benefit of these initial funds by\r\nworking with states that have completed robust broadband planning efforts. In\r\nstates like Maine where a foundation has been laid, the funds will have the\r\nlargest impact on communities.   Connectivity in\r\nrural regions is a key part ofSenator\r\nKing's economic agendato help grow Maine's rural economy, support\r\ninnovation and create jobs, and in January he sent\r\na bipartisan letter to the President with his co-chairs on the Senate\r\nBroadband Caucus urging stand-alone funding for broadband deployment in any\r\nproposed infrastructure package. During his time in office, Senator King\r\nhassupportedthe\r\nmodernization of federal broadband programs, including the FCC's E-rate\r\nprogram, which supports school and library internet access, and the Senate Farm\r\nBill. Senator King is a cosponsor of the B-CROP Act, which was included in the\r\nSenate Farm Bill and would modernize the USDA's rural broadband loan program;\r\nthis bill's grant-loan model provides the basis for the rules of the $600\r\nmillion pilot in the March omnibus. Last month, he met\r\nwith farmers in Exeter to discuss the importance of rural broadband to fuel\r\nagricultural innovation, and he is also a cosponsor of the Precision\r\nAgriculture Connectivity Act of 2018, elements of which were included in\r\nthe Senate Farm Bill.   Senator King's full\r\ncomments are available here\r\nand below. +++  Ms. Michele\r\nBrooks Regulations Team\r\nLead Rural\r\nDevelopment Innovation Center U.S. Department\r\nof Agriculture 1400\r\nIndependence Ave. SW Stop 1522, Room\r\n1562 Washington, DC\r\n20250   Subject: Docket\r\nNo. RUS-18-TELECOM-0004  Dear Ms. Brooks:  I write to offer\r\ncomments on the notice of inquiry (NOI) and request for comments (RFC) published\r\nby the USDA Rural Utilities Service (RUS) regarding the e-Connectivity Pilot\r\ncreated in section 779 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2018 (Pub. L.\r\n115-141). I commend RUS's interest in hearing from the public as it crafts the\r\nrules governing this important program and encourage your careful consideration\r\nof these comments and those submitted by broadband stakeholders in Maine.   Access to\r\naffordable, high-speed broadband is increasingly an economic development\r\nimperative for rural communities in Maine and across the country that are\r\nseeking to attract business investment, increase economic prosperity, and\r\nreverse outmigration by drawing in younger residents. This Pilot offers\r\ntremendous potential for catalyzing broadband investment in rural areas, so I\r\nam pleased to offer the following responses to this NOI and RFC.   I. Defining\r\nsufficient access  Given the\r\nimportance of broadband to the economic future of rural America, the Pilot's\r\nsufficient access definition deserves special attention. The Pilot must not\r\nbypass rural areas where access and affordability of broadband service fails to\r\nactually and consistently meet the needs of employers, students, farmers, and\r\ntelehealth patients. With this in mind, the term sufficient access should be\r\nunderstood to include metrics related to quality of service, affordability, and\r\nqualitative feedback from community and business stakeholders. Quality of\r\nservice benchmarks should include a minimum-allowable data cap or usage\r\nallowance, as well as a maximum latency amount. These benchmarks should be set\r\nat levels needed to enable regular two-way video conferencing, support content\r\ncreation, and common activities undertaken by rural businesses and remote\r\nworkers connecting with clients and employers in urban centers. In addition,\r\nthese benchmarks should support the connectivity needs for enabling seniors to\r\nage in place and the delivery of telehealth services. Both quality of service\r\nmeasures and the statutorily-defined 10/1 Mbps capacity should be measured at\r\nhours of peak usage and revaluated on an ongoing basis. If a metric fails to\r\nhold up when the highest number of users are on a network, it fails to have\r\npractical meaning.   Affordability\r\nshould also be noted in RUS's evaluation of whether an area has sufficient\r\naccess to broadband. RUS should consider whether the annual urban rate survey\r\nconducted by the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) could be the basis of\r\nan affordability benchmark. When evaluating prices against a benchmark, RUS\r\nshould use the cost of a standalone broadband subscription, rather than the\r\nportion of a bundled bill that an internet service provider (ISP) attributes to\r\nbroadband. Additionally, the measured price should include any ISP-imposed fees\r\nthat are not directly required by regulators or the law. Further, RUS should\r\ncreate a rebuttable presumption that open-access dark fiber projects are\r\naffordable due to the likelihood of competitive service options.   While\r\nquantitative measures should be the primary means for RUS to determine whether\r\nsufficient access exists, RUS should also consider any qualitative feedback\r\nsubmitted by community members, employers, economic development organizations,\r\nproviders, and local governmentsparticularly those organizations and\r\ngovernments that have completed broadband plansas part of an application. They\r\ncan provide specific examples of whether economic development is being hindered\r\nby insufficient broadband availability.   Finally,\r\nalthough RUS is bound to the 10/1 Mbps standard for the Pilot's initial\r\napplication window, RUS should strongly consider modernizing this threshold in\r\nsubsequent years, as allowed under the law. In so doing, RUS should recognize\r\nthe importance of adequate upload speeds for enabling content creators and\r\nemployers and individuals working on increasingly ubiquitous cloud computing\r\nplatforms to compete in the global economy from a rural address. Further, RUS's\r\nmodernization of this standard should ensure that taxpayer funds are not spent\r\nbuilding broadband infrastructure that will be obsolete prior to the end of its\r\nuseful life.   II. Acquiring\r\naccurate broadband mapping data  Existing federal\r\nbroadband data is either too out-of-date or too imprecise to be useful to\r\npolicymakers. Therefore, I support further data-gathering efforts by federal\r\nagencies and additional funding by Congress to improve the accuracy of\r\nbroadband data on an ongoing basis. In the near-term, I recommend that RUS take\r\nadvantage of additional sources of data beyond the National Broadband Map,\r\nincluding:  a.\r\nAny ISP-submitted data that is more recent than\r\nthe most recent National Broadband Map, including ISP data submitted indirectly\r\nvia a state, county, or local government that has compiled such data. Any such\r\ndata should represent actual end-user speeds during peak usage hours. This data\r\nshould be discounted if the ISP has previously submitted inaccurate data to\r\nUSDA.  b.\r\nAny broadband infrastructure surveys or maps\r\nconducted by a state, county, or local governmentor economic development\r\norganizationthat can demonstrate maximum possible speeds based on the\r\navailability of certain types of infrastructure in a given location. c.\r\nActual end-user speeds measured according to a\r\nmethodologically-robust process that is resistant to gaming by ISPs and that\r\ndoes not reflect bottlenecks caused by equipment internal to the user's\r\nnetwork.  III.\r\nMeasuring project benefits and judging utility partnership viability  When evaluating\r\nthe likely benefits of a project, RUS should take note of the scope and depth\r\nof partnerships between the applicant and local governments, employers, anchor\r\ninstitutions, providers, and economic development organizations. When all of\r\nthese stakeholders have input into a project, the odds of a successful network\r\ndeployment likely increase. The presence of a digital inclusion plan paired\r\nwith a network deployment is also likely to boost take rates and increase the\r\nlikelihood of a self-sustaining network that creates a meaningful community and\r\neconomic benefit. In addition to direct grant or loan funding, RUS should look\r\nat innovative financial models and public-private partnerships that maximize\r\nthe leveraging of public funds to spur private sector investment in broadband\r\ninfrastructure.  Local utility\r\npartnerships, including electric, water, and sewer utilities should also be\r\nviewed favorably, given the long history of success of the local utility model\r\nin bringing other vital infrastructure to rural America. RUS should look to\r\nsupport efforts to deploy open access dark fiber optic networks that support\r\nboth digital inclusion and advanced smart grid technologies. These types of\r\ntelecommunications-utility partnerships have great potential to maximize the\r\nasset life of the RUS investment by enabling deployment of other complementary\r\nsmart infrastructure and opening up the provision of digital services to\r\ncompete from a broad array of internet service providers, resulting in greater\r\nchoice and lower costs.  IV.\r\nAdditional feedback  RUS should\r\nencourage the best use of limited Pilot funding by coordinating with states\r\nthat have completed robust broadband planning efforts. This coordination could\r\nbe achieved by allowing states to apply for RUS grant funding that they would\r\nbe allowed to pass through to projects the states select, with appropriate\r\neligibility rules and regulations. In order to retain the program's financial\r\ncontrols, loan funding would be excluded from this option and states would be\r\nliable to reimburse RUS for any funds used for purposes outside RUS's\r\neligibility guidelines.   Thank you for\r\nyour consideration of these comments and your efforts to ensure that the\r\ne-Connectivity pilot improves broadband infrastructure in rural America. If you\r\nhave any questions about this letter, please direct your staff to contact Adam\r\nLachman or Will Woodworth in my office at 202-224-5344.", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://www.king.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/king-urges-usda-to-target-600-million-investment-in-rural-broadband-to-maximize-impact-for-maine-communities"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.5510818921029568, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}