Input:
	1. What is a "census"?

A census, as distinguished from a survey, is intended to be a complete count of the population. A scientifically designed and conducted survey covers a sample of the population, and the results are generalizable to the whole population.

	2. Why is a census necessary?

The U.S. decennial census is, foremost, a constitutional requirement. The Enumeration Clause of the Constitution (Article I, Section 2, clause 3, as modified by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment) mandates "counting the whole number of persons in each State" every 10 years in order to apportion seats in the House of Representatives. The first census occurred in 1790; 2020 marks the 24 th time the national count has taken place.
The modern census is important for more than House apportionment. Decennial census data are used for within-state redistrictingâthe redrawing of legislative districts. Decennial census and related data are used in certain formulas that determine states' and localities' annual allocations of federal funds, estimated by the Census Bureau as of FY2015 at $689.3 billion and by an academic researcher as of FY2017 at $1.5 trillion. The decennial counts also are the foundation for estimates of current population size between censuses and projections of future size. Businesses, nonprofit organizations, researchers, and all levels of government are steady consumers of decennial and related data collected by the Census Bureau.

	3. When will the census happen?

April 1, 2020, is the official Census Day. The count starts before, and census activities continue beyond, April 1, however. On January 21, 2020, the Census Bureau began the enumeration by counting the population in remote Toksook Bay, Alaska. The bureau is to start making in-person visits to nonrespondents in May 2020. By law, the bureau must provide the official numbers for House apportionment to the President no later than December 31, 2020. Also by law, states that requested 2020 population counts for, as examples, American Indian areas, counties, cities, towns, census tracts, census block groups, census blocks, and "state-specified congressional, legislative, and voting districts," must receive the data no later than March 31, 2021. The final design of the file containing these data remains to be specified, but the file will include data on "voting age, race, ethnicity, occupancy status, and (new for the 2020 Census) group quarters." The rollout of other census products is scheduled to continue until 2023.

	4. What has the Census Bureau done to promote awareness of the census and build support for it?

		The Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study

The Census Bureau has researched ways to engage the people who likely will be hardest to count in 2020. For example, the Census Barriers, Attitudes, and Motivators Study (CBAMS), also called the "2020 Census Planning Survey," was conducted from February 20 through April 17, 2018, with a nationwide sample of 50,000 households. It covered, according to the bureau, "a range of topics related to census participation and completion." Respondents could complete the survey in English or Spanish, online or by mail. "Approximately 17,500 people responded to the survey, which was then weighted to be representative of all householders in the United States ages 18 and older." The bureau focused on differences in responses "across race, age, gender, education, and country of birth." Qualitative information gathered from 42 focus groups in 14 locations nationwide from March 14, 2018, through April 19, 2018, supplemented the survey results. The bureau reported that the use of focus groups was "designed to help the research team understand the attitudes of small demographic groups or groups that were otherwise difficult to reach with the survey." The "chief barrier" to 2020 census participation identified in the survey and the focus groups was "a lack of understanding of the purpose and process of the census." The focus groups showed this lack to be "associated with several negative attitudes toward the census, including apathy, privacy concerns, fear of repercussions, and general distrust of government." The survey results indicated that "certain demographic characteristics, including low levels of education, being young, and being of racial or ethnic minority groups," were related to "low levels of intent" to respond to the 2020 census. The survey and the qualitative findings, however, "revealed common motivators" for answering the census. Despite "important differences" among demographic groups, "funding for public servicesâsuch as hospitals, schools, and roadsâis a key motivator across groups." The bureau observed that respondents resembling the people in the focus groups, especially, might understand "the importance and purpose of the census if they make the connection between completing a census form and the possibility of an increase in funding or support" for their communities.

		Communications Strategy

The bureau used information such as gained from CBAMS to inform its $500 million communications strategy, developed by the bureau and its communications contractor, VMLY&R.

			Advertising

As the bureau has explained, VMLY&R includes "multicultural advertising agencies, seasoned in reaching diverse audiences." An advertising campaign "in English and 12 other languages" will be part of the communications strategy. The languages are Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), French, Haitian Creole, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. As discussed under question 11, below, online questionnaires are to be available in the same languages. The bureau's schedule calls for paid advertising to begin running in January 2020, "across multiple platforms, including print and digital outlets, television and radio, billboards," and ads "at transit stations, grocery stores, and movie theaters." The two largest shares of the total paid media campaign budget are 39.0% for television and 29.1% for digital media. The campaign is expected to reach "99% of all households" nationwide, "particularly in multicultural and hard-to-count populations."

			The Partnership Program

Another part of the communications strategy is the partnership program, which, in the bureau's explanation, "integrates two essential programs." The Community Partnership Engagement Program "employs the strengths of tribal, state, and local governments, as well as community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, schools, media, businesses, social services, ethnic organizations, and others." Much of the community partnership work is being "conducted by partnership specialists who are employed in the field leading up to and during" the census. The National Partnership Program "builds and strengthens relationships with businesses, industries and organizations with national reach." The two programs "are intended to be complementary" and draw on "the expertise of various Census Bureau employees to help maximize" census participation.
The community partnership effort has, among other goals, the formation of Complete Count Committees (CCCs) in all 50 states, tribal areas, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and cities with at least 200,000 residents. A CCC, according to the Census Bureau, comprises "a broad spectrum of government and community leaders from education, business, healthcare," and other organizations. CCC members are to develop census awareness and encourage cooperation with the census "based upon their knowledge of the local community." Still being formed, CCCs are "identifying budget resources and establishing local work plans" for implementation in 2020. The bureau has compiled and posted on its website a guide for those interested in forming CCCs and an alphabetized list of existing committees, with any available contact information.
An additional component of the partnership program is Statistics in Schools, which, in general, promotes statistical literacy for students from kindergarten through high school and, specifically, explains to students why the census is important. One goal is for students to bring this message home. A related goal is to make school-age children and the adults in their households aware of the need to count all children in a household, being sure not to miss any babies or other children under age five. They sometimes can be erroneously omitted from the list of household residents, as has happened in past censuses.

		The Response Outreach Area Mapper

The Census Bureau has developed an application, the Response Outreach Area Mapper (ROAM), to facilitate identifying hard-to-count areas and provide socioeconomic and demographic profiles of these areas using American Community Survey (ACS) estimates. ROAM has helped the bureau, in its words, "create a tailored communications and partnership campaign" and inform "outreach activities and hiring practices across the country," in order to hire "an adequate number of staff and staff with the necessary language skills for a given area." One advantage of ROAM for census partners is that they can use it to identify specific areas most needing their attention.

	5. How and when will people know that the census is underway?

As the Census Bureau has explained, it will let most people know by mail. In March 2020, about 95% of U.S. households are to receive mailed "invitations" from the bureau to answer the census online. A household that does not respond is to receive reminders in the mail, then, in April, a paper questionnaire to complete. Almost 5% of householdsâincluding those who receive their mail at post office boxes and those recently displaced by natural disastersâare to have an invitation delivered by census workers. Not quite 1% of households are to be enumerated in person during the initial phase of the census. These households are in remote areas, like parts of Alaska and northern Maine and certain American Indian areas that have asked to be counted in person.

	6. What questions will the census ask?

The census form asks for the following basic information: the number of people living or staying in the respondent's home as of April 1, 2020; whether any additional people living or staying in the home were not counted; whether anyone in the home usually lives or stays somewhere else; whether the home is owned, with or without a mortgage, or rented; the respondent's telephone number (in case the Census Bureau needs to contact the person to clarify any responses); the name of each person in the household and the person's relationship to the respondent; each person's sex; the person's age and birthdate; whether the person is "of Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin"; and the person's race. The bureau has emphasized that the census never asks a person for his or her Social Security number or bank or credit card account information, for any "money or donations," or for "anything on behalf of a political party." A form purporting to be a census form that requests such information is not from the Census Bureau and is not legitimate.

	7. Some people expected the census form to include a Middle Eastern or North African (MENA) racial or ethnic category. WhyÂ doesn't it?

The Census Bureau announced on January 26, 2018, that the form would not have a separate MENA category. A study the bureau released in 2017 noted that the "inclusion of a MENA category" in the 2015 National Content Test helped MENA respondents "more accurately report their MENA identities" and characterized the use of this category as "optimal." Later feedback, however, reportedly indicated the opinion of "a large segment" of the MENA population "that MENA should be treated as a category not for race but ethnicity," which "the bureau so far has not specifically tested." People of MENA background may continue to report themselves as "White." Two examples of "White" shown on the census form are Lebanese and Egyptian, both in the MENA category. The current Office of Management and Budget standards for federal reporting of race and ethnicity, which apply to the Census Bureau, designate "White" as "A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa."

	8. The census form does not have a question about citizenship, despite the widespread public perception that it might. What happened?

The 2020 census will collect only the basic data described under question 6, above. It will not ask people for detailed social, demographic, economic, or housing information, including about their legal, immigration, or citizenship status. A citizenship question was proposed, challenged, and ultimately not retained on the census form.
Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross announced on March 26, 2018, that the 2020 census form would include the current American Community Survey question on citizenship. The question is, as it has been in the ACS since before 2010, "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" A checkbox appears beside each of the following possible answers: "Yes, born in the United States"; "Yes, born in Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, or Northern Marianas"; "Yes, born abroad of U.S. citizen parent or parents"; "Yes, U.S. citizen by naturalizationâPrint year of naturalization"; and "No, not a U.S. citizen."
The Department of Justice maintained that the census, not a survey like the ACS, was "the most appropriate vehicle for collecting" citizenship data "critical to the Department's enforcement of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act" and its "protections against racial discrimination in voting."
Opponents of the citizenship question expressed concern that it might depress immigrants' census response rates or cause them to falsify data, especially if their status in the United States, or that of their friends or families, was illegal. Census Bureau fieldworkers in 2017 noted heightened anxiety about data confidentiality among certain foreign-born respondents and reluctance to answer questions, particularly about citizenship status. Six former bureau directors signed a January 26, 2018, letter to Secretary Ross, opposing the late-date introduction of a citizenship question that, at the time, had not been tested for the 2020 census.
Multiple lawsuits were filed to block the question. Judge Jesse Furman, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled on July 26, 2018, that a consolidated suit by the State of New York and others could proceed. The U.S. Supreme Court heard the case as Department of Commerce et al. v. New York et al. on April 23, 2019. The Court's decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts and issued on June 27, 2019, found that the addition of a citizenship question did not violate the Enumeration Clause of the Constitution or the Census Act (Title 13, U.S. Code , Census ), but the Court held that Secretary Ross's decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act because his sole stated reason for adding the citizenship question was not the real reason for his decision. On July 11, 2019, the President issued an executive order stating that the ruling had "made it impossible, as a practical matter, to include a citizenship question on the 2020 decennial census questionnaire." The order, instead, directed "all executive departments and agencies" to give the department "the maximum assistance permissible, consistent with law, in determining the number of citizens and non-citizens in the country, including by providing any access" requested by the department to relevant administrative records. This action, the order continued, "will ensure that the Department will have access to all available records in time for use in conjunction with the census." On September 13, 2019, the organization LUPE and others filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the Commerce Secretary, the Director of the Census Bureau, the Commerce Department, and the Census Bureau, seeking to block implementation of the executive order. The outcome of the suit remains to be determined.

	9. Where are all the detailed socioeconomic and housing questions that some people say the census asks?

The American Community Survey is occasionally confused with the decennial census. In past decades, through the 2000 census, the census consisted of a short form, with questions that applied to all U.S. residents, and a long form, which included the short form questions plus many more questions covering social, demographic, economic, and housing topics. The long form went to a representative sample of all U.S. residents, a 17% sample in 2000, and the results could be generalized to the whole resident population. The bureau discontinued the long form after 2000 and launched its replacement, the ACS, in 2005 and 2006. The bureau considers the ACS a part of the decennial census program but conducts it separately from the census. Although the census is administered once a decade, the ACS goes to a small sample of the population every month and, as did the long form, collects myriad data. ACS results are aggregated over time to produce one-year and five-year estimates. For the most populous areas, those with at least 65,000 people, sample data collected over just 12 months can be generalized to an area's whole population. For less populous areas, down to below 20,000 people, data have to be collected over five years to generate representative samples. All areas, however, receive new sets of estimates (either one-year or five-year estimates) every year.

	10. What options will people have for responding?

In 2020, for the first time, people will be able to answer the census online. Some people have heard or assumed that because they can answer online, they must answer online or the census will miss them. This concern is based on inaccurate perceptions. The bureau is emphasizing online responses because they can be quick and easy and because they can help control the cost of the census. Anyone who lacks internet access or simply prefers not to respond online, however, can fill out a paper questionnaire. People also will be able to submit their census answers by telephone, by calling Census Questionnaire Assistance centers.

	11. How can people answer the census if they are not proficient in English or need language support?

The Census Bureau will make the 2020 census questionnaire available online in 12 non-English languages: Arabic, Chinese (Mandarin and Cantonese), French, Haitian Creole, Japanese, Korean, Polish, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Tagalog, and Vietnamese. The bureau will provide Census Questionnaire Assistance in the same languages and through a telecommunications device for the deaf. In addition, the bureau will make field enumeration materials available in Spanish and will provide bilingual (English and Spanish) paper questionnaires and related mailings. It also will provide language guides, language glossaries, and language identification cards in 59 non-English languages. The language guides will be available in video and print, including large print, and braille, as well as American Sign Language.

	12. Can people ignore the census or refuse to answer it if theyÂ wish?

Refusing or willfully neglecting to answer the census is illegal. Title 13, U.S. Code , Section 141, "Population and other census information," specifies that a decennial census is to be conducted. Section 221, "Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers," states, in full
(a) Whoever, being over eighteen years of age, refuses or willfully neglects, when requested by the Secretary, or by any other authorized officer or employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof acting under the instructions of the Secretary or authorized officer, to answer, to the best of his knowledge, any of the questions on any schedule submitted to him in connection with any census or survey provided for by subchapters I, II, IV, and V of chapter 5 of this title, applying to himself or to the family to which he belongs or is related, or to the farm or farms of which he or his family is the occupant, shall be fined not more than $100.
(b) Whoever, when answering questions described in subsection (a) of this section, and under the conditions or circumstances described in such subsection, willfully gives any answer that is false, shall be fined not more than $500.
(c) Not withstanding any other provision of this title, no person shall be compelled to disclose information relative to his religious beliefs or to membership in a religious body.
Title 18, U.S. Code , Crimes and Criminal Procedure , Sections 3559 "Sentencing Classification of Offenses," and 3571, "Sentence of Fine," effectively update the penalties for certain broad classes of offenses, without any specific mention of the census. Under this title and these sections, the possible penalty for the type of offense constituted by refusing or willfully neglecting to answer the census (13 U.S.C. 221(a)) is a fine of not more than $5,000. The possible penalty for providing any false census answer (13 U.S.C. 221(b)) is also $5,000.

	13. Some people say that they filled out a census form in 2018 or 2019. Do they still have to answer the 2020 census?

Yes. The Census Bureau did conduct limited 2020 census tests in 2018 and 2019. The 2018 test was the so-called dress rehearsal for the 2020 census, which the bureau described as "the last operational field test" before the actual census. The test was designed to "assess the readiness and integration of planned" 2020 "operations, procedures, systems and field infrastructure." It began in 2017 with address canvassing (explained under question 14. How will the Census Bureau know where people live so that it can contact them in 2020? , below) in Bluefield-Beckley-Oak Hill, West Virginia; Pierce County, Washington; and Providence County, Rhode Island. The enumeration phase of the test occurred in 2018 in Providence County only. As the bureau marked the "successful completion" of the test, a bureau official noted that work would continue through 2019 "to refine and scale" census systems "to ensure the best possible performance" in 2020. In 2019, the bureau selected a nationally representative sample of about 480,000 housing unit addresses to test how a proposed citizenship question might affect census response rates. The test did not involve nonresponse follow-up in the field. Although respondents' cooperation with these tests was helpful to the Census Bureau, the tests were not the actual decennial census. The 2020 census, the complete count of the U.S. resident population, is to occur only in 2020. Even if a person participated in a census test, the person still is obligated to answer the 2020 census questions and can be part of the census count only by doing so.

	14. How will the Census Bureau know where people live so that it can contact them in 2020?

Even though people will be able to answer the census online, an accurate Master Address File, with the addresses, geocodes, and other attributes of living quarters, will be, as in past decades, the foundation for contacting the public and conducting a good census. It will enable the bureau to notify the public about the census and, as necessary, send census forms and enumerators to nonresponding households. For the 2010 census, the bureau hired about 150,000 "address canvassers" to walk 11 million census blocks, updating addresses and maps as they went. In preparation for 2020, the bureau created Block Assessment, Research, and Classification Application software to compare satellite images of the United States at successive times. Using this software, the bureau could identify new housing developments, changes in existing houses, and other houses that were built after 2010. The bureau could compare, too, "the number of housing units in current imagery with the number of addresses on file for each block." Satellite imagery enabled the bureau to verify 65% of addresses without going into the field, leaving 35% for field verification. The bureau recruited and trained about 32,000 temporary workers to verify more than 50,000 addresses nationwide, covering about 1.1 million census blocks. On August 12, 2019, the bureau announced the start of this work, the first major field operation of the 2020 census. The operation ended on October 11, 2019.

	15. What other census jobs are still available?

The bureau expects to hire up to 500,000 temporary census field workers. Enumerators for the nonresponse follow-up operation, beginning in May 2020 and continuing through early July, are the main example. They will go door-to-door, collecting data from households that have not yet answered the census online, by mail, or by phone. Additionally, in certain remote areas, such as northern Maine and Alaska, visits from census-takers may be the only way for residents to report their census data.

	16. Who can apply for these jobs, and when?

According to a bureau official, "Recent high school graduates, veterans, retirees, military spouses, seasonal workers," and people who are bilingual are "highly encouraged to apply." Others are welcome, too. "It's important we hire people in every community in order to have a complete and accurate census," the official said. People are encouraged to apply now to be considered for positions in the spring of 2020. Recruitment has begun; paid training is to occur in March and April.

	17. What are the requirements for temporary census workers?

To qualify for temporary census employment, a person must be at least age 18, generally must be a U.S. citizen, must be proficient in English, must have a valid email address, and must complete an application that includes the applicant's Social Security number and answers to a set of assessment questions. For some positions, the applicant has to fill out a background questionnaire. Applicants must be fingerprinted, and their fingerprint images will go to the FBI to be processed and checked for criminal records, although a criminal record will not invariably disqualify an applicant.

	18. What are the benefits of being a temporary census worker?

Pay rates, which will vary according to where census jobs are located, will range from $13.50 to $30.00 an hour. Workers will receive paid training. They will be paid weekly, and their hours of work will be flexible. Veterans may be eligible for veterans' preference in hiring, and census employment has no upper age limit.

	19. How can the public know that authorized census workers, not impostors or criminals, are in their neighborhoods and knocking on their doors?

Every census field worker should have an identification badge (ID) that shows the worker's photograph, an expiration date for the ID, and a U.S. Department of Commerce watermark. Every respondent can check this identification and, if unsure about its authenticity, contact a regional census center to talk to a bureau representative.

	20. The census form asks people to report sensitive personal information. How can they be sure that the confidentiality of these data will be protected?

Legal protections for census data exist, and the Census Bureau also continues working to address cybersecurity vulnerabilities that have been, or are being, identified.

		Legal Protections

Title 13, U.S. Code , both requires respondents to provide their data and provides for maintaining the confidentiality of data on individuals.
Title 13, Section 9, "Information as confidential; exception," states, in part
(a) Neither the Secretary, nor any other officer of employee of the Department of Commerce or bureau or agency thereof, or local government census liaison, may, except as provided in section 8 or 16 or chapter 10 of this title or section 210 of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1998 or section 2(f) of the Census of Agriculture Act of 1997â
(1) use the information furnished under the provisions of this title for any purpose other than the statistical purposes for which it is supplied; or
(2) make any publication whereby the data furnished by any particular establishment or individual under this title can be identified; or
(3) permit anyone other than the sworn officers and employees of the Department or bureau or agency thereof to examine the individual reports.
No department, bureau, agency, officer, or employee of the Government, except the Secretary in carrying out the purposes of this title, shall require, for any reason, copies of census reports which have been retained by any such establishment or individual. Copies of census reports which have been so retained shall be immune from legal process, and shall not, without the consent of the individual or establishment concerned, be admitted as evidence or used for any purpose in any action, suit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding.
Title 13, Section 214, "Wrongful Disclosure of Information," states, in full
Whoever, being or having been an employee or staff member referred to in subchapter II of chapter 1 of this title, having taken and subscribed to the oath of office, or having sworn to observe the limitations imposed by section 9 of this title, or whoever, being or having been a census liaison within the meaning of section 16 of this title, publishes or communicates any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited under the provisions of section 9 of this title, and which comes into his possession by reason of his being employed (or otherwise providing services) under the provisions of this title, shall be fined not more than $5,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
Under Title 18, Sections 3559 and 3571, the possible penalty for disclosing "any information, the disclosure of which is prohibited" (13 U.S.C. 214) is a substantially increased fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of less than five years, or both.

		Cybersecurity

The Census Bureau's operational plan has acknowledged the risk that "cybersecurity incidents," including data breaches and denial-of-service attacks, could affect its information technology (IT) systems, such as the online census questionnaires, "mobile devices used for fieldwork, and data processing and storage systems." Under the plan, "IT security controls will be put in place to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the IT systems and data," with the goal of preventing any such incidents from negatively affecting census operations.
At a July 24, 2019, congressional hearing, Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham summarized the bureau's cybersecurity efforts for the 2020 census. He stated, in part
A key feature of the security is encryption of data at every stageâin transit over the internet, at rest within our systems, and on the enumeration devices. Also, enumeration devices are secured with multiple credentials, and if a device is lost, it will be remotely disabled and have all its contents wiped.
Our cybersecurity program is designed to adapt and respond to a changing threat landscape. We incorporate protections in our technology, have processes to continuously monitor systems, and have a team ready to respond immediately to any potential threat.
The Census Bureau works with the Department of Homeland Security, the federal intelligence community, and industry experts to share threat intelligence, giving us the most visibility possible to enable immediate action to protect data. With this cooperation, we identify threats early so that we may proactively respond and improve security.
Our developers and security engineers work together to integrate security into systems design and development. Our systems are independently assessed for cybersecurity before deployment, and ongoing testing of cybersecurity capabilities is conducted throughout the time systems are operational.
Security staff monitor our systems for cybersecurity vulnerabilities with industry-leading tools. We continuously test for more than 100,000 known vulnerabilities, with thousands of new potential vulnerabilities added to the list on a regular basis. If a vulnerability is identified, or security enhancement required, the security team will act quickly to ensure the most effective security posture.
At the same hearing, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted delays or gaps in the bureau's progress toward cybersecurity for 2020:
The Bureau has established a risk management framework that requires it to conduct a full security assessment for nearly all the systems expected to be used for the 2020 Census and, if deficiencies are identified, to determine the corrective actions needed to remediate those deficiencies. As of the end of May 2019, the Bureau had over 330 corrective actions from its security assessments that needed to be addressed, including 217 that were considered "high-risk" or "very high-risk." However, of these 217 corrective actions, the Bureau identified 104 as being delayed. Further, 74 of the 104 were delayed by 60 or more days. According to the Bureau, these corrective actions were delayed due to technical challenges or resource constraints. GAO recently recommended that the Bureau take steps to ensure that identified corrective actions for cybersecurity weaknesses are implemented within prescribed time frames.
GAO commended the bureau for working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) "to support" its "cybersecurity efforts." During the past two years,
as a result of these activities, the Bureau has received 42 recommendations from DHS to improve its cybersecurity posture. GAO recently recommended that the Bureau implement a formal process for tracking and executing appropriate corrective actions to remediate cybersecurity findings identified by DHS. Implementing the recommendation would help better ensure that DHS's efforts result in improvements to the Bureau's cybersecurity posture.
The GAO testimony also called attention to a Commerce Department Office of Inspector General (IG) report identifying challenges in the bureau's "cloud based systems" supporting the census. The bureau "agreed with all eight" of the IG's recommendations concerning these systems and "identified actions taken to address them."
In addition, recognizing that "many of the same digital and social channels" being used to promote the census can work against it as well, the bureau established a "trust and safety team" to combat "the spread of misinformation (incorrect information spread unintentionally) and disinformation (incorrect information spread intentionally)." According to the bureau, the team comprises "more than a dozen communications and social media experts under the executive leadership of career senior officials." It is coordinating the bureau's "efforts with external technology and social media platforms, partner and stakeholder organizations, and cybersecurity officials." Drawing on "best practices from the public and private sectors," the team is monitoring "all available channels and open platforms for misinformation and disinformation about the census." The bureau also has launched a "Fighting 2020 Census Rumors" page on its website and has asked members of the public to email [email address scrubbed] if they see any "resources," social media postings, or websites that they think contain incorrect information about the census.
Noteworthy in this context is a December 19, 2019, press report of an announcement by the social media company Facebook that, starting in 2020, it "will remove posts, photos," and other contents "that mislead people" about the census, "aiming to prevent malicious actors from interfering" with the process. "Under the new rules, Facebook will ban posts from misrepresenting when and how the census occurs, who can participate and what happens to the personal information people submit to the government, company executives said." According to the article, "Facebook and other tech giants, including Google and Twitter, have huddled with government officials in recent months to prevent census disinformation." Other companies "have unveiled their own defensive measures: Google in December said it prohibited ads and YouTube videos that aim to misinform about the 2020 count. Twitter's rules, meanwhile, prohibit 'misleading information about how to participate in an election or other civic event'," which presumably could include the census.


Input:
	Background

		Internet Service Types and Technologies

Consumers receive broadband service from telephone, cable, mobile,  satellite, and utility companies that own and operate the  telecommunications infrastructure. Fixed technologies, like cable or fiber,  can provide broadband to single locations like customers’ homes or  businesses. Mobile technologies provide internet access wherever a  customer has access to a signal. Customers connect to a mobile wireless  network through a mobile device, such as a smartphone. Internet service  that is high speed and provides an “always-on” connection, so users do  not have to reestablish a connection each time they access the internet,  is commonly referred to as “broadband.” FCC’s benchmark speed for  what constitutes “advanced telecommunications capability,” a subset of  broadband, has increased over time as consumers use the internet for an  expanding range of purposes that requires faster speeds. In 2015, FCC  set a benchmark speed for fixed advanced telecommunications capability  to 25 megabits per second when downloading and 3 megabits per second  when uploading (25 Mbps/3 Mbps). Internet service at various speeds  allows for a variety of online activities, such as those shown in figure 1. In  addition to fixed providers, satellite providers have begun meeting this  benchmark, and FCC has recognized them as a viable source of  advanced telecommunications capability. FCC has not set a similar  benchmark for mobile services.

	The Federal Role in Rural Broadband Access

The federal government has emphasized the importance of ensuring  Americans have access to broadband, and a number of agencies provide  funding to subsidize broadband deployment in areas, such as rural areas,  in which the return on investment has not attracted private investment. As  we have previously reported, rural areas may have features that increase  costs of deploying and maintaining broadband networks. For instance,  low population density, low broadband adoption rates, or mountainous or  rugged terrain can make it especially costly for fixed and mobile providers  to deploy infrastructure to rural areas with an expectation of getting a  return on their investment. The Communications Act of 1934, as  amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, specifies that consumers in “rural, insular, and high-cost areas” should have access to  telecommunications and information services at rates that are  “reasonably comparable” to rates charged for similar services in urban  areas. Consequently, federal programs exist to support investment in  broadband deployment for high-cost areas through federal grants, loans,  and other subsidies.
The largest share of federal support comes from FCC’s Universal Service  Fund, which includes four component programs designed to ensure  access to affordable communications for schools, libraries, rural health  care providers, low-income consumers, and those in rural and high-cost  areas. The largest component of the Universal Service Fund is the high- cost program—which includes the Connect America Fund and the Rural  Digital Opportunity Fund—that targets financial support to rural high-cost  areas for the deployment and maintenance of voice and broadband- capable networks. Table 1 shows selected federal programs funding the  deployment of broadband infrastructure.
FCC has other roles and responsibilities in regulating nationwide  communications activities in addition to those identified above. FCC  collects deployment data twice a year from broadband providers in order  to better identify areas where broadband service is available. FCC,  RUS, and NTIA have used and continue to use these data to inform their  broadband programs. Furthermore, FCC and NTIA jointly determine the  amount of spectrum—a finite natural resource that makes a variety of  wireless communications possible—allocated for federal, nonfederal, and  shared use. FCC also regulates the use of licensed and unlicensed  spectrum through its regulatory process.

		GAO Reports on Broadband Programs

This report’s broad view of a decade of federal efforts to advance  broadband access builds on our prior work.
FCC Universal Service Fund. In 2014, we examined FCC efforts to  increase broadband deployment in unserved areas and identified  legal, policy, and economic concerns—for example, low returns on  investment—in deploying broadband in unserved and underserved  areas. We also examined varying approaches for financing  broadband deployment in high-cost areas, including local funding  sources and a variety of ownership structures over the infrastructure.
FCC deployment data. In 2014, we examined FCC’s efforts to reform  its high-cost program and the extent to which FCC was collecting data  to determine the effectiveness of these reforms, among other  objectives. We identified gaps in FCC’s data analysis and reporting,  including a lack of transparency and accountability of spending. We  recommended that FCC analyze how it uses its high-cost program  funding and make that analysis publicly available at least annually.  FCC has taken action to implement our recommendation to address  the lack of transparency and accountability of spending. In 2018, we  reviewed data that FCC collected from providers to describe the  locations of existing broadband infrastructure and help federal  programs identify unserved and underserved areas to target for  federal funding. We found that these data overstated broadband  access, especially in tribal lands, and recommended that FCC take  actions to improve these data. FCC concurred with the  recommendations and has begun taking action, but the agency has  not yet fully implemented any of the report’s three recommendations.
Broadband adoption. In 2015, we stated that adopting broadband at  home can provide a number of benefits, including access to  employment opportunities (searching for and applying to jobs);  education (research, web-based learning, and homework); and  services for economic and social gain (such as telemedicine and  entertainment). We reviewed federal efforts to address broadband  adoption barriers that consumers face and recommended that FCC  revise its strategic plan to more clearly state if broadband adoption is  a priority, and if so, what outcomes FCC intends to achieve, action  that the agency took the following year. We also recommended that  NTIA include performance metrics for the agency’s broadband  adoption efforts in its annual performance plan. Both FCC and NTIA  implemented these recommendations.
RUS grant and loan programs. In 2017, we assessed whether  RUS’s procedures and activities related to its broadband grant and  loan programs are consistent with leading management practices. We  found that its activities and procedures were consistent with four  leading practices and partially consistent with six leading practices.  We made five recommendations to RUS to improve management  practices for specific programs, like the Community Connect  Program. In response, RUS implemented two of the  recommendations to develop and document clear goals and  performance measures for its broadband loan and grant programs  and to establish and implement procedures to conduct a risk  assessment of each program. RUS agreed with, but has not yet  implemented, the report’s other three recommendations to: (1)  conduct periodic evaluations of completed grant projects to determine  the outcomes associated with these projects; (2) establish a timeline  for implementing a centralized internal data system for staff to use in  managing and monitoring loans and grant awards; and (3) develop,  update, and maintain complete written policies and procedures for  RUS’s programs as a way to retain and communicate organizational  knowledge internally among agency staff.
Broadband competition. In 2017, we found that infrastructure costs  and other factors can affect competition among broadband providers.  Such costs can limit competition in urban areas but more significantly  limit competition in non-urban and less populated areas. We made  two recommendations to FCC to solicit and report on the views of  stakeholders regarding: (1) how well FCC’s programs promote  broadband competition and (2) how varying levels of broadband  deployment affect broadband prices and service quality. In  response, FCC implemented these recommendations by soliciting  public comments in July 2018 to seek feedback on the effectiveness  of its actions addressing competition among broadband providers and  on how varying levels of broadband deployment affect prices and  service quality. In December 2018, FCC reported comments that it  had received from this solicitation in the first version of a biennial  report on the broadband market. In May 2019, FCC also reported  stakeholder comments related to the agency’s broadband deployment  data, including service quality data.
Tribal broadband access. In 2018, we examined challenges that  tribes face in accessing broadband services, focusing on two  particular areas: (1) tribes’ ability to obtain and access spectrum for  providing broadband and (2) tribes’ partnerships with private sector  companies and others, and the ability to obtain funding to deploy  broadband infrastructure on tribal lands. We found that tribes cited a  number of barriers to obtaining licenses for spectrum. We also found  that although tribes said partnerships with the private sector improved  access to broadband, there are few such partnerships, and that tribes  face regulatory barriers in applying for funding from RUS grant  programs. We made three recommendations to FCC to collect data  on tribal access to spectrum, analyze unused spectrum over tribal  areas, and make information about available spectrum more  accessible. We also made one recommendation to RUS to identify  and address any regulatory barriers that may impede efforts by tribes  to obtain RUS funding. FCC agreed with the recommendations, and  RUS neither agreed nor disagreed with its recommendation. The  agencies have not yet implemented these recommendations.

	Industry and Federal Investments Have Reduced Broadband Deployment Gaps and Improved How Progress Is Measured, Although Some Challenges Persist

		Industry Invested Billions of Dollars in Broadband

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Capital Expenditures  Survey data, the telecommunications industry that provides various types  of broadband services—fixed, mobile, or satellite (and other)—spent an  estimated $795 billion (2018 dollars) in total capital expenditures from  2009 through 2017. Selected broadband providers that we contacted  stated that they used the majority of their capital expenditures to improve  the capability and reliability of their existing broadband infrastructure or  expand infrastructure into new areas. For instance, one provider said it  expanded wireless broadband service in Iowa and another provider  constructed new towers to transmit fixed-wireless broadband signals  across parts of Oklahoma. Some providers we contacted said that their  capital expenditures may include funds from federal broadband programs  or other items not related to broadband, such as the purchase of real or  personal property or the acquisition of other broadband companies.  Providers that we contacted offered few, if any, details about their  investments. Instead, they said that their detailed expenditures were  proprietary or they referred us to their annual reports, which contain  limited information on capital expenditures. Census data showed that  annual total capital expenditures increased from about $78 billion in 2009  to about $97 billion in 2017 (an increase of about 24 percent), with an  average annual growth rate of about 2.8 percent. See figure 2. Industry  capital expenditures for specific telecommunications sectors varied. For  example, estimated expenditures for fixed services consistently exceeded  estimated expenditures for mobile services, although mobile services  experienced a greater increase—55 percent compared to an 8 percent  increase in estimated expenditures for fixed services from 2009 through  2017.

		Federal Agencies Targeted Investment for Rural Deployment and Improved Their Ability to Measure Impact

In comparison to industry spending, federal investment is much smaller,  representing about 6 percent of total industry capital expenditures.  However, this investment is critical to supporting deployment of  broadband in rural areas where industry might not otherwise invest, due  to potentially higher costs and lower investment returns. According to  FCC, RUS, and NTIA data, federal program investments totaled about  $47.3 billion (2018 dollars) to target broadband infrastructure in unserved  or underserved areas from 2009 through 2017. Of these three federal  agencies, FCC provided the largest share of support through the  Universal Service Fund’s high-cost program—which is an ongoing  program. A second agency, RUS, offered loans and grants. And NTIA  primarily funded broadband deployment through the Recovery Act,  which provided one-time funding for projects that are largely complete  and are no longer active. To illustrate:
FCC’s high-cost program. The high-cost program disbursed about  $41.7 billion (2018 dollars) in support of both deployment and  maintenance of voice and broadband-capable networks from 2009  through 2017.
RUS’s programs. RUS provided grants or loans, or a combination of  both, through a variety of funding programs. The Broadband Initiatives  Program—a Recovery Act program—awarded about $2.2 billion  (2018 dollars) in grants to industry for infrastructure projects in fiscal  year 2010. RUS’s Community Connect Grant Program—a grant  program designed to fund broadband deployment in rural areas where  such service did not exist—awarded $95 million (2018 dollars) in  grants from fiscal year 2009 through fiscal year 2017. In addition to  these grants, RUS provided infrastructure loans that recipients must  repay to the government with interest. Specifically, RUS provided  about $4.0 billion (2018 dollars) in loans to private providers through  the Broadband Initiatives Program, the Telecommunications  Infrastructure Loan Program, and the Broadband Loan Program.
NTIA’s Broadband Technology Opportunities Program,  Comprehensive Community Infrastructure projects. This  Recovery Act program awarded a one-time $3.3 billion in competitive  grants to states, municipalities, and non-profit and commercial  organizations in fiscal year 2010. Nearly all of the 116 broadband  infrastructure projects have been completed.
All three programs have used metrics to show progress in closing  deployment gaps. Specifically, FCC has a metric for locations served,  whereas RUS and NTIA measure miles of fiber-optic cable deployed, in  addition to having metrics that count particular types of locations served  or reported number of new subscribers.
FCC collects data from providers about new locations to which they  deployed broadband using high-cost program support. Deployment  data submitted by providers that receive support from FCC’s high-cost  program showed that they used those funds to make broadband  available to about 2.3-million new residential and small business  locations, mostly from 2015 through 2017. In commenting on a draft  of this report, FCC stated that this figure has increased to about 4.2- million new locations. This updated figure is based on data through  2019 that are not yet publicly available; they are expected to be  released later in 2020. Providers report these data to FCC, which are  subject to verification by the Universal Service Administrative  Company—the not-for-profit corporation designated by the FCC as  the administrator of the Universal Service Fund, including the high- cost program. As of May 2020, FCC officials said that FCC has  authorized Connect America Fund Phase II support to deploy  broadband at 25 Mbps/3 Mbps or higher to more than 631,000  locations by 2025 or sooner.
In December 2016, RUS released the final Broadband Initiatives  Program progress report, which noted that the program deployed  66,521 miles of fiber-optic cable, added 5,468 wireless access points,  and resulted in 334,830 subscribers receiving new or improved  broadband.
In December 2016, NTIA reported that the Broadband Technology  Opportunities Program resulted in the deployment of 117,072 miles of  new or upgraded broadband infrastructure. NTIA also reported that  awardees connected nearly 26,000 community anchor institutions—  such as schools, libraries, and hospitals—to broadband and provided  access to nearly 14,149 homes and businesses.
Although the agencies used metrics to show progress, the metrics used  were not always the same, making it difficult to draw comparisons among  programs.
The impact of these federal programs goes beyond the number of miles  of fiber or the number of subscribers. Although these programs promoted  the availability and use of broadband throughout the country, our prior  work found that they also stimulated economic development and created  new jobs. For example, we reported in 2012 that NTIA’s and RUS’s  Recovery Act programs had created about 9,000 full-time jobs.  Recovery Act grantees we interviewed for our prior work gave examples  of the types of economic development broadband enabled, such as  tourism-oriented businesses being better able to provide web sites and  online reservation systems. They also reported that broadband  infrastructure improved broadband speed for schools, community  colleges, and health care providers.
Several studies have attempted to measure the economic benefits of  broadband. A 2006 study prepared for the Department of Commerce  claimed to be the first attempt to quantify the impact of broadband on  economic growth. The study found that, between 1998 and 2002,  communities in which broadband was available experienced more rapid  growth in employment, the number of businesses, and businesses in  information technology sectors, relative to comparable communities  without broadband. Subsequently, other studies have attempted to  assess the economic impact of broadband. For example, a 2016 study  from the Hudson Institute found that rural broadband providers directly  and indirectly added $24.1 billion to the U.S. economy and the rural  broadband industry supported about 70,000 jobs in 2015, both through its  own employment and the employment that its purchases of goods and  services generated. About the same time, a 2016 broadband forum  sponsored by the National Science Foundation and NTIA concluded that  during the past decade, research has deepened the understanding of the  potential impacts of broadband on the economy and society. The study  made clear the need for more research on the impact of broadband. On  December 11, 2018, FCC opened the new Office of Economics and  Analytics, consisting of economists, attorneys, and data professionals to,  among other things, provide economic analysis, including cost-benefit  analysis, for FCC proceedings.

		Broadband Availability Has Increased, but Measuring Deployment Has Limitations

FCC’s annual Broadband Deployment Report, which reports on  broadband deployment generally and not just deployments made with  FCC funding, states that broadband availability has increased both  nationally and for specific segments of the population, as shown in figure  3.
National: About 94.4 percent of the U.S. population had fixed  broadband service available at customer premises, such as  residences, with minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps in 2018, up from  81.2 percent of the population in 2012.
Rural: About 77.7 percent of the rural population had fixed broadband  service available with minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps in 2018, up  from 45.7 percent of the rural population in 2012.
Tribal: About 72.3 percent of tribal lands had fixed broadband service  available at the same speeds in 2018, up from 32.2 percent of the  tribal population in 2012.
Although these data show broadband availability increasing in a variety of  ways, the data also demonstrate that fixed broadband is still much more  readily available to urban consumers than it is available to consumers in  rural areas. FCC’s Broadband Deployment Report shows that as of 2018,  about 22.3 percent of the rural population and 27.7 percent of tribal  population did not have fixed broadband service available with minimum  speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps; whereas, only about 1.5 percent of the urban  population did not have fixed broadband service available at the same  speed. As we will discuss later in this report, limitations with how FCC  collects and uses deployment data from providers to measure broadband  access overstate the extent to which broadband is available, a weakness  we have pointed out and that FCC has taken steps to address.
As the availability of broadband service has increased over time, some  segments of the population continue to lag behind others in adopting  broadband, even if it is available, and therefore are unable to benefit from  it. Our prior work has shown that several factors have been, and continue  to be, barriers to broadband adoption—specifically, affordability, lack of  perceived relevance, and lack of computer skills. FCC identified these  barriers in its National Broadband Plan of 2010, and our more recent work  in 2015 showed that these three barriers persist. We found that:  the cost of a subscription for internet service and the purchase of  computer equipment was the most frequently identified barrier;  the perception that broadband does not provide enough utility relative  to its cost acted as another barrier; and  the lack of exposure to or knowledge about computers, such as by  those aged 65 or older and those with low levels of income and  education, was another barrier.
Compounding the effect of these adoption barriers is the lack of  competition. FCC has reported that competition could result in lower  prices and higher quality services from broadband providers. However,  our prior work from 2017 found that 51 percent of the U.S. population had  only one fixed broadband provider offering minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3  Mbps. According to the FCC’s 2018 Communications Marketplace  Report, that percentage has decreased to about 27 percent of the U.S.  population who had only one fixed terrestrial broadband provider offering  minimum speed of 25 Mbps/3 Mbps. In addition, FCC’s report stated  that 68 percent of the population had at least two providers and  approximately 95 percent had at least one provider. Competition in rural  areas can be particularly challenging as rural areas generally do not have  enough demand to support multiple carriers.

	Federal Agencies Have Taken Action to Help Close Broadband Gaps by Modifying Funding Programs and Reforming Deployment Data

		Federal Agencies Have Modified Programs to Increase Broadband Support

Over time, the types of technologies that provide access to broadband  have evolved. Federal agencies have responded by making changes to  their programs that support broadband. Specifically, FCC and RUS have  expanded which types of broadband providers are eligible to receive  support from their programs, allowing increased participation by satellite  and wireless broadband providers. Satellite and mobile broadband may  be able to overcome some impediments to access faced by other  services, such as high deployment costs and geographical barriers that  pose challenges for deploying broadband over fixed networks using fiber  or cable. In turn, this expansion of eligibility corresponds with the  shrinking gap in broadband deployment discussed previously.
In the case of FCC, the agency has taken action since the 1990s to  address technological changes related to broadband deployment. For  example, changes in communications technology and competition in the  communications marketplace led FCC to reform the high-cost program for  purposes beyond maintaining telephone service, including supporting  broadband deployment. In 2011, FCC adopted new rules that  fundamentally changed the high-cost program and expanded the program  to support broadband capable networks. Under these rules, FCC  established new funding streams within the high-cost program, such as  the Connect America Fund, which addresses fixed broadband availability  gaps in underserved and unserved areas, and the Mobility Fund, which  supports deployment of wireless networks to provide mobile broadband.
FCC also updated its regulatory framework to recognize changes in  existing technology and potential technologies in delivery of broadband.  For example, in 2016, FCC deemed geostationary satellites eligible to  participate in the second phase of the Connect America Fund.  Additionally, since 2017, FCC also recognized low and medium earth  orbiting satellites as broadband-capable technologies that may be eligible  to participate in programs after deployment. According to FCC officials,  prior to these changes, they did not consider satellite as broadband- capable due to its high signal latency and internet speeds that were  below the FCC benchmark speed, issues that recent technological  advances have improved. Similar to FCC, RUS funding programs used  to focus funding on telephone service but over time, RUS has reformed  them to provide funding for broadband infrastructure and deployment. For  example, according to RUS officials, since 1995 the RUS  Telecommunications program has only funded systems that were capable  of providing high-speed internet and now supports broadband services.
In addition to past program transformation efforts, both FCC and RUS  have proposed actions to further reform or expand their programs that  provide funding for broadband deployment. For example, in August 2019,  FCC started the rulemaking process for the new Rural Digital Opportunity  Fund. In January 2020, FCC adopted a Report and Order establishing a  framework for the fund, providing up to $20.4 billion through two funding  rounds, each providing support over overlapping 10-year periods. This  fund is the next iteration of the high-cost program, and it continues the  overarching goals of prior high-cost programs to expand service into rural  areas. The Rural Digital Opportunity Fund will focus its first round of  funding on census blocks that FCC deployment data have marked as  completely unserved, and per the FCC order will incentivize parties  participating in the program to serve tribal census blocks. Similarly, in  April 2020, FCC initiated a rulemaking to establish the 5G Fund—which  would replace the Universal Service Mobility Fund Phase II—and make  up to $9 billion available to carriers to aid in deployment of advanced 5G  mobile wireless services in rural America. In addition to FCC’s actions,  RUS officials said they are planning for future funding rounds for the  ReConnect Program after they have awarded the initial phase of funding.  As of April 15, 2020, RUS had closed the application phase for a second  round of funding under the program.
Despite federal efforts to address broadband gaps, there are still limits on  participation in some programs. For example, RUS’s ReConnect Program  offers a mix of grants and loans to incentivize broadband infrastructure in  areas not currently served by existing service providers. However, the  ReConnect Program limits eligibility to fixed and satellite broadband  providers, with mobile wireless networks ineligible for funding. In order to  participate in FCC’s high-cost program, a provider must meet FCC’s  definition of an eligible telecommunication carrier (ETC). However, our  prior work and stakeholders we interviewed for this review identified  barriers to attaining ETC status. As we previously reported, tribal entities  cited the statutory requirements applicable to ETC designation as a  primary barrier to accessing federal funds. Additionally, cable providers  we spoke with for this review also said they viewed the ETC designation  as a potential barrier to entry into the high-cost program. At present, FCC  and states have complementary authority to make ETC designation  decisions. During our 2018 review of barriers that tribes face in  supporting broadband investment, FCC officials said that most of the  carriers that were eligible for ETC designation at that time were the  telephone companies that were in existence when the 1996 Act was  enacted into law. Further, FCC officials said they determined that the  statute is clear that only ETCs may receive program support, and  therefore the agency does not have the authority to allow non-ETCs to  receive high-cost support payments. More recently, greater numbers of  companies that are not traditional telephone companies have received  ETC designation, particularly in connection with the Connect America  Fund Phase II.
In addition to the ETC designation matter described above, industry  stakeholders highlighted several other issues that can affect access to  federal support, noting that these issues may require further action by  relevant federal agencies or possible legislative action. The issues cited  included:
Technology Neutral Federal Programs: Most federal broadband  programs focused on fixed technology over other technologies, but as  described above, there have been reforms to broaden eligibility to  other providers. Even with those reforms, industry stakeholders  representing satellite and mobile service providers noted that there  are program requirements that affect one technology more than  another technology. For example, satellite providers that sought  funding through FCC’s Connect America Fund said that, after they  sought funding in 2018, FCC changed how it planned to measure  latency, a change affecting only satellite providers.
Spectrum Availability: Availability of adequate spectrum was cited  by a range of stakeholder groups we spoke with as an issue that  could affect providers’ ability to deploy services. Spectrum availability  affects many broadband services. For example, in addition to satellite  and mobile providers, fixed-wireless—a point-to-point or point-to- multipoint broadband service delivery option—is a type of fixed  broadband service often utilized in rural areas that needs spectrum to  deliver service. In its comments, FCC noted that the changes it made  to the exact testing conditions were in response to requests by satellite  providers and that the agency balanced changing expectations with the  benefits of minimizing unnecessary burdens on carriers and their  customers imposed by the testing regime.
Federal Funding Mechanisms: Some industry stakeholders we  spoke with noted that the programs’ funding requirements and the  type of federal funding mechanism utilized—such as grants, loans, or  hybrids of grants and loans—could affect a provider’s ability to access  federal funds. For example, RUS awards its Reconnect Program  funding through grants, loans, or both. Providers we spoke with noted  that for all of the funding options, the Reconnect Program requires a  lien on the funded assets. For some providers, allowing a lien against  an asset would violate stockholder agreements or other aspects of  their business. Additionally, representatives from an association  representing state public service commissions we spoke with also  stated that the FCC high-cost fund and its various funding programs  should be reviewed periodically to ensure that both the contributions  and funding outcomes are in the best interests of consumers and  providers.
Although agencies have modified their broadband funding programs to  keep up with changes in broadband services, other changes that could be  beneficial to the public would require statutory changes. The last major  overhaul to telecommunications law occurred under the 1996 Act, which  established many of the telecommunications programs that now fund  broadband deployment and established statutory constructs like ETCs,  which, as discussed above, can affect provider eligibility. Given the  significant and ongoing changes in how Americans use the internet and  the technologies that provide access to it, members of Congress have  proposed legislative actions in recent years to sustain progress in closing  the broadband deployment gap. Among the proposals were a range of  federal funding and incentives aimed at improving funding to rural areas  and addressing issues related to deployment.

		FCC Has Proposed Mapping Data Reforms Aimed at Improving Federal Broadband Program Administration

As we previously reported, FCC’s definition of broadband availability can  lead to overstatements of fixed broadband availability. For instance, in  2013 FCC began collecting broadband availability data by census blocks.  The agency counts an entire census block as served if a provider reports  that it does offer—or could offer without an extraordinary commitment of  resources—service some, but not necessarily all, of the locations in the  census block. FCC has recognized that by measuring availability at the  census block level, not every person may have access to broadband in a  block that the data show as served. FCC has noted that census blocks in  rural areas tend to cover larger geographic areas than in urban areas and  providers may only deploy service to a portion of the census block.  Deployment reporting in this manner does not allow FCC to answer with  certainty questions like how many Americans have broadband available  to their homes or where it needs to target its resources. Several selected  providers and industry associations we contacted also expressed  concerns about how deployment is measured, and said the measurement  approach could make it difficult for them to make informed investment  and deployment decisions. In 2013, FCC declined to gather fixed  broadband data at a level more granular than the census block—such as  address-level data—because the agency concluded that the complexity  and filing burden on the industry would outweigh the benefit. In 2018,  we recommended, among other things, that FCC develop and implement  methods—such as a targeted data collection—for collecting and reporting  accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal  lands. Subsequently in 2019, FCC began to address this  recommendation by establishing the Digital Opportunity Data Collection— a more granular, nationwide data broadband deployment collection  effort.
FCC issued a Report and Order, and Second Further Notice of Proposed  Rulemaking, on this new initiative to improve the accuracy of broadband  deployment mapping data in August 2019. This new initiative requires  fixed broadband providers to identify their service areas using free-form  geographic shapes called polygons. The polygons would identify the  presence of service with more geographic precision than the current  census-block method affords. Officials from FCC and USTelecom stated  this new mapping effort was informed in part by a 2019 USTelecom  mapping and data-collection pilot project. According to USTelecom  officials, this pilot project combined several data sources to determine  “serviceable locations,” which refers to specific locations or structures that  could need broadband. With these serviceable locations, USTelecom’s  pilot project sought to distinguish between buildings not typically needing  broadband service—such as a barn or storage shed—from a primary  residence or small business. According to USTelecom representatives, a  combination of polygons and serviceable locations data would yield a  better picture of where to target new investments in deployment to  achieve the greatest increase in access to broadband. FCC officials noted  that the impact of the polygon approach may vary depending on the  service features of each census block. Figure 4 below shows an example  of how the new polygon approach may result in improved data compared  to the census block approach currently used by FCC.
As part of the rulemaking, FCC has requested comments on several  issues, including how providers should define their polygons, and the  procedures that fixed providers should follow if their polygons are  disputed. At the time it issued the report and order, FCC had ongoing  investigations into the coverage maps of some wireless providers, and  therefore limited the new data collection obligations to fixed broadband  providers while seeking comment on how best to incorporate mobile  wireless coverage data into the effort in the future. FCC also proposed  the use of public input to help verify the accuracy of the polygons and  sought comment on whether it should discontinue the collection of census  block data if the polygon-based deployment data prove to be gathering  better deployment data once it is established. Additionally, on March 23,  2020, the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological  Availability Act was enacted. The act directs FCC to issue final rules on  data collection for both fixed and wireless deployment within 180 days.  In commenting on a draft of this report, FCC noted that it is in the process  of implementing the statute, and that the statute largely affirms rules that  FCC adopted in August 2019 but differs in some respects. FCC also noted  that, while it is working to implement the requirements of the act, it is  unable to comply with all of the requirements without a further  appropriation.
This change has the potential to improve how both FCC and RUS target  deployment gaps by providing more accurate and granular information  that could better identify truly unserved areas and results in better  targeting of federal funds to those areas. As we discussed above, our  prior work has found that FCC’s current deployment data lack accuracy in  a manner that overstates where consumers have access to broadband,  which, in turn, limits federal agencies’ efforts to effectively target their  broadband funds. Specifically, our 2018 report noted that overstating  access increases the risk that unserved areas remain unserved, since  areas that deployment data show as served are not eligible for funding.  Although that report specifically looked at this risk for tribal areas, it is  potentially a concern for other unserved areas. FCC officials noted that  improved data would help inform future funding under the high-cost  program by more accurately targeting unserved areas. RUS officials told  us that they use FCC deployment data as a source for RUS mapping and  program eligibility requirements for the ReConnect Program. RUS officials  also believe that their program would benefit from more accurate  deployment data.

		FCC and RUS Continue to Provide Funding while Coordinating to Avoid Overlap

While efforts are under way to improve deployment data and mapping  efforts, both FCC and RUS are continuing to move forward with their  programs for funding broadband infrastructure in underserved and  unserved areas. The lack of accurate data regarding locations that are  not served by broadband may affect the ability of these agencies’  programs to target federal funds. In particular, providers and industry  associations noted there was a risk of federal programs subsidizing  deployment into areas that already have service, at the expense of an  unserved area that does not have any service. Given this risk, FCC and  RUS each have “eligible area” validation processes that they use to  determine if areas are already being served and therefore ineligible for  federal support. Additionally, FCC and RUS have engaged in interagency  coordination efforts to keep each agency’s program staff apprised of key  dates and issues in an effort to avoid overlap between the programs.
Officials from both FCC and RUS have stated that their programs are  complementary and noted that their eligibility validation processes  reduced the likelihood of service overlaps. The agencies use different  processes to determine which geographic areas are eligible for funding,  and they share information about the results of these processes as they  are able. According to FCC officials, the agency has used a process for  validating unserved areas in connection with its support of the Universal  Service high-cost program. This validation process primarily relies on  providers verifying the Form 477 data they self-report, and then using that  data to create and publish a list of unserved census blocks prior to  awarding funding. Results from this process have informed how FCC  establishes eligible areas, such as those eligible to receive funds in the  Connect America Fund’s second phase of awards.  A similar process is  under way in connection with the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. In an  additional step to address concerns regarding program overlap, FCC  officials noted that the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund would exclude  census blocks that have been awarded funding through the RUS  ReConnect Program.
RUS’s process to verify eligible areas includes provider participation in  the verification, as well as onsite testing and research by field staff, to  independently verify eligibility of the geographic areas in each ReConnect  grant or loan application. RUS officials said they use the publicly  available FCC data on unserved areas as a key factor in eligibility  decisions. Specifically, RUS officials said that they focus ReConnect  eligibility on areas FCC reported as unserved as of 2015 when the first  round of FCC’s Connect America Fund program was started. They also  noted that throughout the application and funding process, they seek  input from providers through public notices and emails to solicit feedback  on whether areas selected for proposed funding are already served. After  receiving provider feedback on eligible areas, RUS then deploys field staff to conduct on-location tests and other reviews as necessary to determine  if the area was unserved prior to funding.
In addition to their eligibility validation steps, FCC and RUS officials told  us they share information about where their broadband deployment  programs are funding new deployments, as well as other relevant  information related to program activity, such as the timing of program  applications and awards. FCC and RUS officials told us that they share  program information through participation in interagency meetings and  working groups that focus on broadband deployment issues and through  posting relevant program information—such as funding decisions—online.  For example, the Chief of the FCC’s Wireline Competition Bureau and the  RUS Administrator, along with other FCC and RUS staff, met in July  2019, January 2020, and February 2020 to discuss issues related to their  respective broadband funding programs, including the roll out of the Rural  Digital Opportunity Fund and second round of the ReConnect Program.  FCC officials told us that at these meetings agency representatives  discussed the anticipated timing of elements of their respective programs  and ways in which to maximize coordination and avoid overlap. Officials  from both agencies also noted there has been ongoing communication  between FCC and RUS at the staff level concerning program status and  developments through phone calls and meetings. In addition to this  ongoing coordination between RUS and FCC, representatives of FCC  and RUS also said they participate in relevant working groups through the  American Broadband Initiative, such as the Initiative’s Federal Funding  Workstream, which meets bi-weekly to discuss broadband funding and  deployment.
The range of collaboration activities undertaken by RUS and FCC staff is  especially important because both agencies have similar goals but  different timelines for moving forward with their programs. For example,  as of March 2020, FCC had the eligible area validation process under  way for the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund. Although some timelines are  still to be determined, FCC plans to start bidding on the program’s auction  phase in October 2020. At the same time, RUS was in the midst of  announcing approved projects for the first funding round of the  ReConnect Program, and it had applications open for the second round  with applications due by April 15, 2020. FCC officials noted that they plan  to maintain close coordination with RUS to reduce the likelihood of  overlap with any areas that may be deemed eligible to receive ReConnect  funding in the program’s second round. Through prior reforms of their  respective broadband programs, FCC and RUS have taken steps to try  and effectively target federal dollars to support broadband deployment  while avoiding the potential to duplicate funding in an area. Continuing  to improve collaboration and information sharing regarding eligibility and  program timelines will be critical for both agencies to achieve greater  efficiency in their program’s ability to target funds to unserved areas and  thus make progress toward closing the deployment gap.

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to the Federal Communications  Commission, the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utilities Service, and  the Department of Commerce’s National Telecommunications and  Information Administration for comment. FCC and RUS provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. NTIA had no  comments.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission,  the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, the Secretary of the  Department of Commerce, and other interested parties. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  https://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2834 or vonaha@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: U.S. Broadband Providers’ Capital Expenditures

Another estimate of capital expenditures by USTelecom—a broadband  industry association—uses a different scope and methodology than the  U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Capital Expenditures Survey. The  association reports total capital expenditures for U.S. broadband  providers, as shown in table 2.
USTelecom’s data include expenditures from fixed (wireline), mobile  (wireless), and cable companies. Its primary source of data are publicly  traded companies’ financial statements filed with the Securities and  Exchange Commission. USTelecom also makes estimates for companies  that do not report financial information publicly. Its data exclude some  companies, such as satellite providers, telecommunication resellers, and  electric utilities. USTelecom publishes estimates annually for advocacy or  research purposes. Its capital expenditures data differ from the Census  Bureau’s Annual Capital Expenditures Survey estimates for  telecommunications industry in scope, methodology, and timing, among  other things. For instance, the Census Bureau’s survey is broader in  scope. Specifically, in addition to the types of companies USTelecom  includes in its data, the Census Bureau’s survey data include satellite  providers, resellers, and other telecommunications providers.
In addition, the Census Bureau collects data through a survey instrument  from both publicly traded and privately held companies across the United  States. It makes statistical inferences about the capital expenditures for  the entire telecommunications industry, whereas USTelecom collects  data mainly from financial reports for a defined set of providers and  makes estimates for companies that do not report financial information  publicly. Moreover, USTelecom typically releases its capital expenditure  data within a year after companies release their financial data while  preliminary survey results from the Census Bureau are made public about  2 years after companies report and data reliability assessments occur and  the final revised results are made public about 3 years after companies  report. In addition to the USTelecom and Census Bureau estimates,  investment firms, such as Goldman Sachs and UBS, also estimate or  may report industry capital expenditures for selected publicly traded  companies providing broadband service.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Andrew Huddleston (Assistant  Director); Steve Martinez (Analyst in Charge); Oluwaseun Ajayi; Michelle  Bacon; Carl Barden; Melissa Bodeau; Hannah Laufe; Dan Luo; Malika  Rice; Sandra Sokol; and Betsey Ward-Jenks made key contributions to  this report.