Overview
Title
To amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to improve access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, including by encouraging the provision of broadband loans and grants to increase broadband service in rural ports, and for other purposes.
ELI5 AI
H.R. 1838, the “Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act,” is a plan to help people in countryside areas get faster internet, especially in places like farms, ranches, and small ports, by giving money to help build new internet connections.
Summary AI
H.R. 1838, titled the “Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act,” aims to improve access to broadband telecommunications in rural areas by amending the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. The bill prioritizes projects that expand broadband services specifically in rural ports and on cropland and ranchland for precision agriculture. It introduces procedures for identifying unserved rural communities and allows eligible entities to receive grants covering up to 75% of their project development costs if they meet certain criteria. Additionally, the bill mandates the provision of geolocation information for new broadband services and outlines the process for environmental and historical reviews related to these projects.
Published
Keywords AI
Sources
Bill Statistics
Size
Language
Complexity
AnalysisAI
General Summary of the Bill
The proposed legislation, referred to as the "Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act," aims to amend the Rural Electrification Act of 1936. Its primary goal is to enhance access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas, with particular emphasis on rural ports. The bill promotes providing broadband loans and grants to support the deployment of both fixed and mobile broadband services. It also highlights the importance of deploying broadband in agricultural regions and outlines conditions for grant funding and service level coordination.
Summary of Significant Issues
The bill contains several provisions that may raise concerns regarding the equitable and effective distribution of resources:
Priority Funding for Agriculture: The bill gives preferential treatment to broadband deployment on cropland and ranchland. This focus may lead to agricultural areas receiving more funding at the potential expense of other rural communities that also need improved broadband infrastructure.
Broad Definition of 'Port': The legislation defines "port" broadly, which could lead funds intended for critical rural broadband projects to be spent on a wide array of facilities, possibly diluting the focus on areas in dire need of connectivity.
Infrequency of Community Review: Adjusting the list of unserved communities every two years might result in delays in addressing the needs of areas that become underserved between reviews.
Grant Allocation Discretion: The authority provided to the Secretary to increase grants up to 75% of project costs may lead to unequal distribution of funds if not regulated transparently, posing risks of favoritism.
Premature Fund Obligations: The bill allows funds to be obligated before the completion of environmental reviews, potentially leading to non-compliance with necessary regulations and subsequent legal issues.
Limited Oversight Budget: Allocating a minimum of 1% of funds for oversight without specific structures raises concerns about the effectiveness of project monitoring and accountability.
Impact on the Public
Broadly, the bill could significantly benefit rural communities by providing much-needed broadband infrastructure. Enhanced connectivity can lead to various improvements in quality of life, including better access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities. Nonetheless, the prioritization criteria may mean that certain rural communities benefit more than others, potentially leading to disparities in infrastructure development.
Impact on Specific Stakeholders
Rural Agricultural Communities: These communities would potentially benefit the most due to the bill's emphasis on broadband deployment in cropland and ranchland areas. This could support precision agriculture applications, enhancing productivity and economic outcomes for farmers.
Non-Agricultural Rural Areas: Other rural areas might find themselves at a disadvantage if funds are disproportionately allocated toward agricultural regions. This could mean these communities face continued struggles with inadequate internet access.
Environmental Advocates and Regulators: The provision allowing fund obligations before environmental reviews might raise concerns about potential legal and compliance issues. This could lead to conflicts or delays as projects aim to meet environmental standards.
In summary, while the proposed bill could bring substantial advancements in broadband infrastructure for rural areas, the outlined issues suggest a need for careful implementation to ensure that all rural communities, regardless of agricultural focus, have equitable access to these critical resources. Additionally, maintaining rigorous oversight and environmental compliance would be crucial to the bill's success.
Issues
The provision in Section 2, subsection (c)(1)(A)(v) that gives priority to applications for broadband deployment on cropland and ranchland might lead to a disproportionate allocation of funds benefiting agricultural regions over other rural areas that also urgently require broadband access.
The definition of 'port' in Section 2, subsection (c)(1)(C)(i) is broad, potentially allowing funds to be redirected to various facilities not originally intended to be prioritized, thereby diluting the funds meant for critical broadband infrastructure projects in rural areas.
Section 2, subsection (c)(1)(D)(ii) specifies adjusting the list of unserved communities only every 2 years, potentially leaving newly underserved areas without needed resources for extended periods.
Subsection (c)(3)(D) of Section 2 grants the Secretary authority to increase grants to 75% of project costs, which might lead to unequal distribution of funds and requires careful regulation and transparency to prevent favoritism or misuse.
The language regarding environmental reviews in subsection (k) of Section 2 allows funds to be obligated before completing necessary reviews, which could lead to non-compliance with environmental regulations, posing legal and ethical issues.
Subsection (l)(2)(A)(iii) of Section 2 mandates a mere 1% of budgets for oversight, without detailing specific oversight structures, raising concerns over the effectiveness and efficiency of monitoring and accountability.
Sections
Sections are presented as they are annotated in the original legislative text. Any missing headers, numbers, or non-consecutive order is due to the original text.
1. Short title Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The first section of the bill states that it can be referred to as the "Broadband Internet for Small Ports Act."
2. Access to broadband telecommunications services in rural areas Read Opens in new tab
Summary AI
The section amends various parts of the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to prioritize and fund the expansion of broadband services in rural areas, including on cropland and in ports. It adjusts grant limits, emphasizes serving unserved communities, specifies conditions like providing precise location data for new services, and ensures coordination with existing federal programs to maintain the service level.