C!Congregg of tbe Wniteb ~tateg wmla%btngton. Jl\QC 20510 The Honorable Tom Wheeler Chairman Federal Communications Commission 445 1ih Street, SW Washington, DC 20536 Dear Chairman Wheeler: October 3, 2014 Received & Inspected OCT l 4 2014 FCC Mail Room Broadband Internet access has become an essential part of the economic and social fabric in many rural communities, as a tool to build businesses, apply for jobs, enhance educational opportunities and connect to friends and relatives. With robust broadband service, even a small town can rely on its residents ' talent and determination to compete with the world. Without it, the same community risks being left behind in today' s technology-centric economy. Phase II of the Connect America Fund ("CAF II") offers a tremendous opportunity to bring speedier, fiber-fed broadband connections to millions of Americans who wouldn' t otherwise receive these benefits. Thanks to the Commission' s well-publicized efforts, thousands of rural communities are now counting on CAF II. And because CAF II represents the final phase of Universal Service reform for these areas, its rules will effectively determine, for years to come, whether millions of rural residents will have a broadband connection or not. Indeed, the June 10 Further NPRM has raised hopes further by more than doubling the promised download speeds from 4 Mbps to 1 0 Mbps. We are writing today to emphasize how important it is to ensure that the final details of CAF II live up to its promise. We are concerned that if the Commission more than doubles the speed requirements without allowing the appropriate level of flexibility in other elements of CAF II, the program' s overall mission could be endangered. To the Commission's credit, the June 1 0 FNPRM identifies a number of constructive ideas that could help achieve the speedier network goals without exceeding the CAF II annual budget. First, the CAF II funding period must be extended from the current 5 years to 10 years to allow adequate time for the construction of the higher-capacity network. Next, the Commission should use an appropriate definition of broadband when identifying which communities are unserved, to avoid leaving rural residents behind. The Commission also must establish network build-out parameters consistent with the goal of providing quality broadband service to as many people as possible within CAP's limited funding framework. As such, providers must be given the 1098 flexibility to substitute extremely high cost locations with unserved locations in partially served census blocks. We also encourage you to be as precise as possible when targeting support to areas where broadband would not otherwise be available. In the "interim" CAF I phases, an entire census block could be disqualified if a competitive carrier claimed to serve even a small fraction of its customers, and many areas were disqualified based on the untested assertions of wireless ISPs with line of sight and capacity issues that made them a poor substitute for fiber-fed networks. Now that we are in the final phase, we hope the CAF II standards can reach those unserved customers, and also require competitive carriers to meet a reasonable standard of verification before depriving a community of CAF II support. Despite years of federal efforts to overcome the digital divide, we still often hear from constituents seeking assistance to bring broadband service to their homes. The concerns they raise are a reminder of how challenging rural broadband policy can be, but also how important it is. Thank you for considering our concerns, and we look forward to working with you. Maria Cantwell & _a Adam Smith U.S . Representative ~~~ Suza Bene U.S . Representative ~ Derek Kilmer U.S. Representative Sincerely, Patty Murray U.S. Senator Rick Larsen U.S. Representative