Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Given the large potential impact broadband access may have on the economic development of rural America, concern has been raised over a “digital divide” between rural and urban or suburban areas with respect to broadband deployment. While there are many examples of rural communities with state of the art telecommunications facilities, recent surveys and studies have indicated that, in general, rural areas tend to lag behind urban and suburban areas in broadband deployment.
Citing the lagging deployment of broadband in many rural areas, Congress and the Administration acted in 2001 and 2002 to initiate pilot broadband loan and grant programs within the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Subsequently, Section 6103 of the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-171) amended the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 to authorize a loan and loan guarantee program to provide funds for the costs of the construction, improvement, and acquisition of facilities and equipment for broadband service in eligible rural communities. The RUS/USDA houses two assistance programs exclusively dedicated to financing broadband deployment: the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program and the Community Connect Grant Program.
The 110th Congress considered reauthorization and modification of the loan and loan guarantee program as part of the 2008 Farm Bill. The Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 became law on June 18, 2008 (P.L. 110-246). Title VI (Rural Development) contains authorizing language for the broadband loan program.
During 2009 and 2010, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program (also referred to as the Farm Bill Broadband Loan Program) was on hiatus as RUS implemented the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) established under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). At the same time, final regulations implementing the broadband loan program as reauthorized by the 2008 Farm Bill were refined to reflect, in part, RUS experience in implementing BIP. Subsequently, on March 14, 2011, an Interim Rule and Notice was published in the Federal Register setting forth the rules and regulations for the broadband loan program as reauthorized by P.L. 110-246.
As reauthorized by the 2008 Farm Bill, the Rural Broadband Access Loan and Loan Guarantee Program is currently authorized through FY2012. Therefore, it is expected that the 112th Congress may consider reauthorization of the broadband loan program in the 2012 Farm Bill. As part of this consideration, Congress may focus on how effectively and cost efficiently the RUS broadband programs are addressing the lack of adequate broadband service in underserved rural communities.
Date of Report: June 17, 2011
Number of Pages: 25
Order Number: RL33816
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
President Obama has requested $147.911 billion for research and development (R&D) in FY2012, a $772 million (0.5%) increase from the FY2010 actual R&D funding level of $147.139 billion. Congress will play a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities, especially with respect to two overarching issues: the extent to which the federal R&D investment can grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be prioritized and allocated. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities.
At the time the President’s FY2012 budget was released, action had not been completed on FY2011 full-year funding. In the absence of FY2011 appropriations data, the President’s budget compares his FY2012 request to FY2010 appropriations. On April 15, 2011, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) was signed into law. Division A of the act provides FY2011 appropriations for the Department of Defense; Division B provides full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all other agencies at their FY2010 levels unless other provisions in the act specify otherwise. With respect to federal R&D funding overall and to several agencies in particular, it is not possible yet to assess the level of funding provided under the act. Therefore this report compares the President’s FY2012 funding request to FY2011 levels, where possible, and to FY2010 levels elsewhere. This report will be updated as additional information about FY2011 R&D funding becomes available and as Congress acts on FY2012 appropriations bills. Comparison of the President’s request to enacted funding levels is complicated by several factors, including the omission of congressionally directed spending from the President’s FY2012 budget request.
Under the President’s request, six federal agencies would receive 94.8% of total federal R&D spending: the Department of Defense (DOD, 51.8%), Department of Health and Human Services (largely the National Institutes of Health, 21.9%), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (6.6%), Department of Energy (DOE, 8.8%), National Science Foundation (NSF, 4.3%), and Department of Agriculture (1.5%). The Department of Energy would receive the largest R&D dollar increase for FY2012 of any agency, $2.153 billion (19.9%) above its FY2010 funding level. The DOD would receive the largest reduction in R&D funding, $3.969 billion (-4.9%) less than its FY2010 level.
President Obama’s request includes increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies targeted for doubling over 7 years by the America COMPETES Act, and over 10 years by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and by President Bush under his American Competitiveness Initiative, as measured using FY2006 funding as the baseline. Although President Obama supported a 10-year doubling in his FY2010 budget, his FY2012 budget is intentionally silent on a timeframe. Under the FY2012 budget request, funding for the DOE Office of Science would increase by $512 million (10.4%) over its FY2010 funding level, the NSF budget would rise by $795 million (11.4%), and the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s core research and facilities construction funding would grow by $111.1 million (17.0%).
For the past five years, federal R&D funding and execution has been affected by mechanisms used to complete the annual appropriations process. Completion of appropriations after the beginning of each fiscal year may cause agencies to delay or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.
Date of Report: June 21, 2011
Number of Pages: 51
Order Number: R41706
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
The Arecibo Ionospheric Observatory is a radio and radar telescope located in Barrio Esperanza, Arecibo, Puerto Rico. The Arecibo Observatory is part of the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center, operated by Cornell University under a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF). In 2005-2006, NSF’s Division of Astronomical Sciences (AST) conducted a Senior Review of its portfolio of facilities. Among other things, the Senior Review was to identify potential reinvestment in the highest priority existing programs in AST and restructure the operational efficiency of the existing facilities. The Review reported that the scientific value of the Arecibo was modest when compared to other existing and proposed projects and recommended decreasing the telescope’s annual $12.0 million budget to $9.0 million in FY2009, and securing partnerships for the remaining necessary funding. If alternate funding sources or partnerships could not be obtained by 2011, the Review recommended dismantling the facility. At question is if the next Senior Review of the Arecibo will support its continued operation or again recommend its dismantling in the support of construction of new instruments and facilities. The issue before the 112th Congress is whether the Arecibo is more cost-effective than replacing it with newer, available technology.
In June 2011, NSF announced that it awarded a $42.0 million, five-year contract to SRI international to manage, operate, and maintain the Arecibo. SRI International will partner with the Universities Research Association, the Universidad Metropolitana, San Juan, and the University of Puerto Rico. Currently the Arecibo is operating on a $10.7 million budget. It is anticipated that the FY2012 budget will approximate $8.7 million. The Arecibo will, among other things, expand its research on the study of the ionosphere, the remains of imploded stars, and also search within and beyond the Milky Way for asteroids and pulsars. The funding is scheduled to being October 1, 2011.
Date of Report: June 16, 2011
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: R40437
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
Gina Stevens
Legislative Attorney
The first text messages were sent during 1992 and 1993, although commercially, text messaging was not widely offered or used until 2000. Even then, messages could only be sent between users subscribed to the same wireless carrier, e.g., Sprint customers could only exchange messages with other Sprint customers. In November 2001, however, wireless service providers began to connect their networks for text messaging, allowing subscribers on different networks to exchange text messages. Since then, the number of text messages in the United States has grown to over 48 billion messages every month. Additionally, text messages are no longer only sent as “point-topoint” communications between two mobile device users. More specifically, messages are also commonly sent from web-based applications within a web browser (e.g., from an Internet e-mail address) and from instant messaging clients like AIM or MSN.
For Congressional policymakers, two major categories of issues have arisen: (1) “same problem, different platform” and (2) issues stemming from the difficulty in applying existing technical definitions to a new service, such as whether a text message is sent “phone-to-phone” or using the phone’s associated email address. There are numerous examples of each. An example of the first category would be consumer fraud and children’s accessing inappropriate content, which have existed previously in the “wired world,” but have now found their way to the “wireless world.” An example of the second category would be that spam sent between two phones or from one phone to many phones does not fall under the definition of spam in the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act, P.L. 108-187); however, if that same message were to be sent from a phone or computer using the phone’s associated e-mail address, it would.
The increasing use of text and multimedia messaging has raised several policy issues: distracted driving, SMS spam, the inability of consumers to disable text messaging, text messaging price fixing, carrier blocking of common short code messages, deceptive and misleading common short code programs, protecting children from inappropriate content on wireless devices, “sexting,” mobile cyberbullying, privacy of text messages, and using SMS to support law enforcement and emergency response.
Date of Report: June 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 20
Order Number: RL34632
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
The United States has yet to find a solution that assures seamless communications among first responders and emergency personnel at the scene of a major disaster. Since September 11, 2001, when communications failures contributed to the tragedies of the day, Congress has passed several laws intended to create a nationwide emergency communications capability. The 111th Congress considered pivotal issues, such as radio frequency spectrum license allocation and funding programs for a Public Safety Broadband Network (PSBN), without finding a solution that satisfied the expectations of both public safety and commercial network operators. Congressional initiatives to advance public policies for Next Generation 911 services (NG9-1-1) also remained incomplete. The 112th Congress is under renewed pressure to come to a decision about the assignment of a block of radio frequency spectrum licenses referred to as the D Block, and to provide a plan for federal support of broadband networks for emergency communications. The cost of constructing new networks (wireless and wireline) is estimated by experts to be in the tens of billions of dollars over the long term, with similarly large sums needed for maintenance and operation. Identifying money for federal support in the current climate of budget constraints provides a challenge to policy makers. The greater challenge, however, may be to assure that funds are spent effectively toward the national goals that Congress sets.
After years of debate, a majority in the public safety community has agreed to implement common technologies using Internet Protocol (IP)-enabled networks and the wireless technology known as Long Term Evolution (LTE) to build the nationwide PSBN. IP-enabled networks are also considered essential to the introduction of NG9-1-1. The adoption of the Internet Protocol for emergency communications represents a significant advance in the technologies available for response and recovery operations. IP-enabled technologies are faster and smarter, capable of analyzing and directing communications as they move through networks. Achieving the transition to a leading-edge, broadband network powered by the next generation of IP technologies requires significant changes in operations and long-standing agency traditions, major investments in infrastructure and radios, and the development of enabling technologies.
The need appears increasingly urgent for timely decisions by policy makers on new infrastructure for emergency communications and spectrum allocation for public safety radios. Commercial deployment of wireless networks using LTE standards that might also support public safety use are out-pacing the planning efforts of public safety and government officials. Additionally, a number of projects that received Broadband Technology Opportunities (BTOP) grants are moving forward to build broadband infrastructure that could, if the planning is in place, be used to link wireless networks as well as to upgrade 911 systems. Appropriations for BTOP were part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5). Failing to leverage BTOP-funded infrastructure is likely to further increase the costs of emergency communications networks, especially to rural communities.
Legislation that has been introduced in the 112th Congress to address some of these issues includes the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act (S. 28, Rockefeller), the Broadband for Public Safety Act of 2011 (S. 1040, Lieberman), the Broadband for First Responders Act (H.R. 607, King), and the Strengthening Public-safety and Enhancing Communications Through Reform, Utilization, and Modernization (SPECTRUM) Act (S. 911, Rockefeller, as amended).
Date of Report: June 23, 2011
Number of Pages: 48
Order Number: R41842
Price: $29.95
Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.
Posts
