BOB ETHERIDGE
2ND DISTRICT, NORTH CAROLINA
CQMMITIEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TRADE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
COMMITIEE ON THE BUDGET
SENIOR WHIP
ctCongrt~~of tbt Wntttb~tatt~
;!)ouS'e of l\epreS'entatibeS'
~aS'btnlJton,jlBc/c 20515
1533 LONGWORTH HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, DC 20515
(202) 225--4531
DiSTRICT OFFICES:
333 FAYETTEVILLE STREET, SUITE 505
RALEIGH, NC 27601
(919) 829-9122
1 (BBB) 262-6202
P.O. Box 1059
609 NORTH 15T STREET
LILLINGTON, NC 27546
j910) 814-0335
1 (866) 384-3743
www.house.govletheridge
September 3, 2010
Mr. Julius Genachowski
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
Dear Chainnan Genachowski:
I write to share my concern about the potential negative implication for rural Americans
ofthe National Broadband Plan, and to offer my support for the upgrade ofinfrastructure to
connect rural health care providers.
The National Broadband Plan as currently defined risks instituting a dangerous digital
divide between rural and urban areas..SpeCifically, I am concerned about the definition of .
broadband being 4 Mbps for rural areas and 100 Mbps in urban areas. There is no teason that
rural users should be relegated to a second-class system with infonnation available at 4 percent
ofthe rate ofthose in urban areas. In fact, there is an argument to be made that rural users
require at least as good btoadband infrastructUre as urban areas.
As our infonnation technology becoIhesmore robust, we are increasingly recognizing the
potential ofrapid data transmission to improve the lives ofAmerica. Nowhere is this potential
clearer than in applications ofhealth IT in rural areas. r support the Federal Cominunications
Commission's investment in a pennanent fund to support the upgrade ofinfrastructure to
connect rural health care providers. The announcement ofthis investment in the Rural Health
Care Program as part ofthe National Broadband PI!U1 on July 15,2010 can help citizens in North
Carolina. The proposed health care goals in the health IT component arguably require more than
4 Mbps.
Local independent communications carriers have for a century built infrastructure and
provided service to rural· and under-served communities. This growth has been possible in no
small part because ofthe consistent support ofthe Universal Service Fund. Over one hundred
years ago the national commitment to universal service was created as, "one system, one policy,
and Universal service". The current proposal risks two policies, and second-tier service for rural
America. .. .
I ask that you consider the possibleecono~ic;medical, and social implication ofthis·
remarkable change in the national universal serVice coinmitment.Thefinal National Broadband 0
~
::s
....
o
g
Mr. Julius Genachowski
September 3, 20I0
Page 2
Plan must be modified to be truly national, so that every American is served by high quality,
high bandwidth service worthy ofthe label "broadband."
Thank you in advance for your consideration, and for your continued work on our
nation's communications systems that are so important for rural America. Ifyou have any
questions, or would like to meet to discuss this further, please contact Jean Camp my office at
202-225-4531.
Bob Etheridge
Member ofCongress
BE:JC