    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

         BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS TO BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS AND TECHNOLOGY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 28, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-95

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov

                                   ____________

                         U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    99-463                      WASHNGTON : 2016

    ________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman
    JOE BARTON, Texas                    FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  GENE GREEN, Texas
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            LOIS CAPPS, California
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
      Vice Chairman                      JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   KATHY CASTOR, Florida
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              PETER WELCH, Vermont
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     PAUL TONKO, New York
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia         DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            KURT SCHRADER, Oregon
    BILL JOHNSON, Missouri               JOSEPH P. KENNEDY, III,
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                     Massachusetts
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     TONY CARDENAS, California
    LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
    BILL FLORES, Texas
    SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
                 Subcommittee on Communications and Technology

                              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
                                     Chairman
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                ANNA G. ESHOO, California
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          PETER WELCH, Vermont
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                  DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BILL JOHNSON, Missouri               JERRY McNERNEY, California
    BILLY LONG, Missouri                 BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico
    RENEE L. ELLMERS, North Carolina     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex
    CHRIS COLLINS, New York                  officio)
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Oregon, opening statement......................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Anna G. Eshoo, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     5
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, opening statement....................................     6
        Prepared statement...........................................     7
    Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................     8

                                   Witnesses

    Heather Burnett Gold, President and CEO, FTTH Council Americas...    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    13
    Scott Bergmann, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA--The
      Wireless Association...........................................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    26
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    81
    Jeb Benedict, Vice President, Federal Regulatory Affairs and
      Regulatory Counsel, Centurylink................................    31
        Prepared statement...........................................    33
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    84
    Deb Socia, Executive Director, Next Century Cities...............    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45

                               Submitted Material

    Statement of the American Public Power Association, submitted by
      Mrs. Blackburn.................................................    78

         BREAKING DOWN BARRIERS TO BROADBAND INFRASTRUCTURE DEPLOYMENT

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2015

                      House of Representatives,
         Subcommittee on Communications and Technology,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:07 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Greg Walden
    (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Walden, Latta, Barton,
    Shimkus, Blackburn, Lance, Guthrie, Olson, Pompeo, Kinzinger,
    Bilirakis, Johnson, Long, Ellmers, Collins, Cramer, Upton (ex
    officio), Eshoo, Doyle, Welch, Clarke, Loebsack, Rush, Matsui,
    Lujan, and Pallone (ex officio).
        Staff present: Gary Andres, Staff Director; Ray Baum,
    Senior Policy Advisory for Communications and Technology;
    Rebecca Card, Assistant Press Secretary; Andy Duberstein,
    Deputy Press Secretary; Gene Fullano, Detailee to the
    Communications and Technology Subcommittee; Kelsey Guyselman,
    Counsel to the Communications and Technology Subcommittee;
    Grace Koh, Counsel to the Communications and Technology
    Subcommittee; Tim Pataki, Professional Staff Member; David
    Redl, Counsel to the Communications and Technology
    Subcommittee; Charlotte Savercool, Professional Staff
    Communications and Technology; Greg Watson, Legislative Clerk
    for Communications and Technology and Oversight and
    Investigations; Christine Brennan, Press Secretary; Jeff
    Carroll, Staff Director; David Goldman, Chief Counsel for
    Communications and Technology; Jerry Leverich, Counsel; Lori
    Maarbjerg, FCC Detailee; and Ryan Skukowski, Policy Analyst.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                   CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

        Mr. Walden. We are going to call to order this subcommittee
    on Communications and Technology for our hearing on Breaking
    Down Barriers to Broadband Infrastructure Investment.
        And welcome our witnesses here today and others.
        Yesterday, this subcommittee met to discuss how the
    President's policy on applying monopoly-era Title II
    regulations on high-speed networks has affected private
    investment in broadband infrastructure. In light of what may
    happen in the marketplace, in light of how the marketplace
    works, I think it is important to look at the uncertainties and
    the barriers in the marketplace and the delays that hinder the
    deployment of communication networks and the availability of
    broadband for all Americans. These are important goals,
    regardless of the outcome of the current court battle over
    Title II.
        Today's hearing will focus on reviewing bipartisan
    legislation to accelerate the permitting processes, open up
    available infrastructure, and cut down on uncertainty and
    delay.
        There is no question that networks are racing to keep up
    with consumer demand. We know that for fact. The Cisco Virtual
    Networking Index predicts that by 2019, the Internet of Things
    will increase the load on our networks exponentially, pushing
    us toward the 2 zettabyte-per-year mark, yes, indeed,
    zettabytes. That is 12 times more data than we used in 2009.
    Streaming video, wearables, and machine-to-machine
    communication are only a few of the developments vaulting
    network use skyward. And that's just based on what we now know.
    It is impossible, of course, to predict what innovations will
    cause us to increase our data consumption by another
    exponential factor.
        We need to ensure that our federal policies allow networks
    to manage the growing tidal wave of data consumption, and this
    subcommittee has been approaching this issue from at least two
    perspectives. First, we have reviewed the availability of
    spectrum and continue to consider ways to make more spectrum
    available for commercial broadband use. Let me make clear, our
    work on spectrum is far from over, but we continue to make
    progress. And it is a big focus of our subcommittee.
        Second, we must consider ways to lower the cost of
    deployment, to make investment in infrastructure more
    attractive to network operators. And yesterday, this
    subcommittee heard from economists on the different challenges
    associated with return on incremental investment: that is,
    whether companies will invest in upgrades and expansion. And
    today, we will consider the other side of the equation, the
    sunk costs.
        We are focusing on lowering the costs of deployment by
    considering legislation that would help to streamline red tape
    in permitting and by providing access to existing
    infrastructure that would help to reduce costs by eliminating
    delay and uncertainty in deployment.
        Specifically, we will consider a bill that would require
    the government to maintain a database of federal assets. Now,
    this is a step that many in the Administration have already
    called for. This database would allow infrastructure providers
    to quickly determine efficient routes for laying fiber or
    attaching antennas. It would provide points of contact to allow
    infrastructure providers to identify their negotiating
    partners. And we will also consider how to ensure that agencies
    make broadband infrastructure permitting a priority, by
    requiring the senior real property officer of each landholding
    agency accountable for the performance of the agency in this
    respect.
        We are also considering a bill to ensure that poles owned
    by federal entities become available to broadband
    infrastructure providers at the statutorily regulated rate.
    Now, poles have been an essential input to the deployment of
    telephone and cable services. They continue to be essential
    inputs to broadband infrastructure. Stringing wire on poles can
    be much more economical than burying fiber in city streets.
    This legislation allows us to explore the possibility of
    increasing access to federally owned poles, as well as discuss
    clarifying the rates and placement of poles across the country.
        We will also review H.R. 3805. Now, that is a bill
    introduced by the ranking member Ms. Eshoo, myself, and many on
    this subcommittee are cosponsors. The Broadband Conduit
    Deployment Act is a sensible idea that many in the broadband
    industry have recommended. The bill will require States to
    evaluate the need for broadband conduit whenever they dig up
    the roads for a federal-funded project. Now, simply having that
    conduit installed in the roads already will reduce the costs of
    broadband deployment significantly.
        This subcommittee will also take on the project of
    streamlining the permitting processes for federal agencies with
    a significant control over federal lands. One of the concerns
    most frequently expressed by those seeking to deploy broadband
    infrastructure is that the permitting processes are
    inconsistent from field office to field office or from army
    base to army base. We will consider a bill to address the
    inconsistencies by requiring the Department of Interior, the
    Forest Service, and the Department of Defense to streamline and
    standardize their permitting processes, making them as
    efficient as possible for those seeking to provide broadband
    service.
        We also have a draft bill before us today that streamlines
    the agency-required reviews under the National Historic
    Preservation Act and under the National Environmental
    Protection Act. This draft bill would seek to eliminate
    duplicate Section 160 and NEPA reviews, striking a balance
    between protecting our cultural and environmental treasures and
    accelerating the pace of broadband infrastructure permitting.
        Last but not least, we will consider the good work started
    in the 112th Congress in the Spectrum Act. We required GSA to
    develop master contracts, forms, and fee schedules for the
    attachment of antennas to federal properties. We have a draft
    bill before us that makes clear that we expect agencies to use
    those master contracts, forms, and fee schedules.
        I would like to thank our witnesses today for taking the
    time to comment on the legislation and to help us understand
    how we can improve the legislation as we move on to the next
    steps. Our intent is to maintain an open and interactive
    process in drafting this legislation so that we can strike the
    right balances and arrive at the right policies for spurring
    broadband deployment.
        With that, I would recognize the gentlelady from
    California, Ms. Eshoo, for opening comments.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Greg Walden

        Yesterday, this subcommittee met to discuss how the
    President's policy on applying monopoly-era Title II
    regulations on high-speed networks has dampened private
    investment in broadband infrastructure. In light of this, I
    believe that it is more important than ever to do everything
    else we can to remove the uncertainties and delays that hinder
    the deployment of communications networks and the availability
    of broadband to all Americans. These are important goals
    regardless of the outcome of the current court battle over
    Title II. Today's hearing will focus on reviewing bipartisan
    legislation to accelerate permitting processes, open up
    available infrastructure, and cut down on uncertainty and
    delay.
        There is no question that networks are racing to keep up
    with consumer demand. The Cisco Virtual Networking Index
    predicts that by 2019, the Internet of Things will increase the
    load on our networks exponentially, pushing us toward the two
    zettabyte per year mark--that's 12 times more data than we used
    in 2009. Streaming video, wearables, and machine-to-machine
    communication are only a few of the developments vaulting
    network use skyward. And that's just based on what we know now;
    it is impossible to predict what innovations will cause us to
    increase our data consumption by another exponential factor.
        We need to ensure that our federal policies allow networks
    to manage the growing tidal wave of data consumption, and this
    subcommittee has been approaching this issue from at least two
    perspectives. First, we have reviewed the availability of
    spectrum and continue to consider ways to make more spectrum
    available for commercial broadband use. Let me be clear, our
    work on spectrum is far from over.
        Second, we must consider ways to lower the cost of
    deployment, to make investment in infrastructure more
    attractive to network operators. Yesterday, this subcommittee
    heard from economists on the different challenges associated
    with return on incremental investment--that is whether
    companies will invest in upgrades and expansion. Today, we'll
    consider the other side of the equation: the sunk costs.
        We're focusing on lowering the costs of deployment by
    considering legislation that would help to streamline red tape
    in permitting and by providing access to existing
    infrastructure that would help to reduce costs by eliminating
    delay and uncertainty in deployment.
        Specifically, we will consider a bill that would require
    the government to maintain a database of federal assets. This
    is a step that many in the Administration have already called
    for. This database would allow infrastructure providers to
    quickly determine efficient routes for laying fiber or
    attaching antennas; it would provide points of contact to allow
    infrastructure providers to identify their negotiating
    partners. We will also consider how to ensure that agencies
    make broadband infrastructure permitting a priority--by
    requiring the Senior Real Property Officer of each land-holding
    agency accountable for the performance of the agency in this
    respect.
        We are also considering a bill to ensure that poles owned
    by federal entities become available to broadband
    infrastructure providers at the statutorily regulated rate.
    Poles have been an essential input to the deployment of
    telephone and cable services, and they continue to be essential
    inputs to broadband infrastructure; stringing wire on poles can
    be much more economical than burying fiber in city streets.
    This legislation allows us to explore the possibility of
    increasing access to federally owned poles as well as
    clarifying the rates and placement of poles across the country.
        We will also review H.R. 3805, a bill introduced by the
    Ranking Member of this Subcommittee with myself and most of
    this subcommittee. The Broadband Conduit Deployment Act is a
    sensible idea that many in the broadband industry have
    recommended. The bill will require states to evaluate the need
    for broadband conduit whenever they dig up the roads for a
    federal funded project. Simply having that conduit installed in
    the roads already will reduce the costs of broadband deployment
    significantly.
        This subcommittee will also take on the project of
    streamlining the permitting processes for federal agencies with
    significant control over federal lands. One of the concerns
    most frequently expressed by those seeking to deploy broadband
    infrastructure is that permitting processes are inconsistent
    from field office to field office or from army base to army
    base. We will consider a bill to address the inconsistencies by
    requiring the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service,
    and the Department of Defense to streamline and standardize
    their permitting processes, making them as efficient as
    possible for those seeking to provide broadband service.
        We also have a draft bill before us today that streamlines
    the agency-required reviews under the National Historic
    Preservation Act and under the National Environmental
    Protection Act. This draft bill would seek to eliminate
    duplicate Section 160 and NEPA reviews, striking a balance
    between protecting our cultural and environmental treasures and
    accelerating the pace of broadband infrastructure permitting.
        Last but not least, we will continue the good work started
    in the 112th Congress in the Spectrum Act. We required GSA to
    develop master contracts, forms, and fee schedules for the
    attachment of antennas to federal properties. We have a draft
    bill before us that makes clear that we expect agencies to use
    those master contracts, forms, and fee schedules.
        I'd like to thank our witnesses today for taking the time
    to comment on the legislation and to help us understand how we
    can improve the legislation as we move on to the next steps.
    Our intent is to maintain an open and interactive process in
    drafting this legislation so that we can strike the right
    balances and arrive at the right policies for spurring
    broadband deployment.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANNA G. ESHOO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you. And good morning, Mr. Chairman. And
    all of our thanks from this side for having this hearing. And
    welcome to the witnesses.
        Competition, competition, competition. We have heard
    Chairman Wheeler, members of the committee repeat these words
    over and over and over again, and yet \3/4\ of U.S. households
    have access to just one broadband provider capable of offering
    the speeds needed to unlock everything the internet has to
    offer.
        This summer I heard from Vince, a constituent in Santa
    Cruz, who told me he pays about $140 a month for two landlines
    with long distance and a DSL line that is supposed to be 6
    megabits. He told me that if he were actually able to get those
    speeds, the service would be almost usable for running his home
    business and having a movie night using Apple TV and Netflix.
        Unfortunately, Vince's story is all too common not just in
    my congressional district, which may surprise many of you given
    that it is Silicon Valley, but around the country. With
    competition comes lower prices, faster speeds, and better
    customer service.
        Last week, Chairman Walden--and I am so grateful to him for
    joining and being the Republican lead along with 26 other
    cosponsors--joined me in reintroducing--my idea has been around
    since, what, 2009. But you know what? Some things take time to
    mature or be appreciated--the Broadband Conduit Deployment Act.
    It is commonly called ``Dig Once.'' And it is so commonsense
    that I have even wondered why we didn't come up with this a
    decade ago. But at any rate, we are at it now.
        And it would mandate the inclusion of broadband conduit,
    plastic pipes which house fiber optic communications cable,
    during the construction of federally funded roads when there is
    a demonstrated need for broadband during the next 15 years.
    Well, we know that there is that demand. So it is commonsense,
    it is bipartisan, it would expand access to broadband for
    millions of Americans, and the cream on the top is that it
    would save taxpayers considerable sums.
        So the subcommittee today is also considering five draft
    bills intended to improve and streamline government process
    that can hinder the deployment of broadband, and I think they
    are really terrific ideas. The best part is that if we can
    package all of these and move them forward, that collectively
    they will really put a dent in the processing that we have. So
    I welcome them, especially by expanding the FCC's
    nondiscriminatory access obligation to include telephone poles
    located on federal property, the Federal Government owns a lot
    of property in the country, so to inventory that and then be
    able to really up our game I think would really make a huge
    difference.
        So if enacted into law, as I said, collectively these ideas
    and the ``Dig Once'' policy is going to bring broadband into
    unserved areas in our country and underserved areas, which is
    so important.
        So I thank all of my colleagues for their ideas and what we
    are going to discuss today. Thank you to the witnesses. We look
    forward to hearing from you. And I will yield the remainder of
    my 54 seconds to Congresswoman Matsui.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you very much, Ranking Member Eshoo. And
    I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
        Today, the subcommittee is discussing six proposals to
    facilitate broadband deployment across our nation. Many of my
    colleagues come from rural districts in which you really face
    unique hurdles in building infrastructure. But even in my urban
    district of Sacramento we have challenges to ensuring that all
    of our residents have the access they need to succeed in the
    21st century.
        I am pleased to join Ranking Member Eshoo and Chairman
    Walden as cosponsor of H.R. 3805, which encourages ``Dig Once''
    so that when highway projects are under construction, we also
    install broadband conduit.
        I also support the concepts we are discussing today about
    how to better leverage existing federal assets to support
    broadband deployment. In particular, I hope to hear from our
    witnesses about the proposal to create an inventory of federal
    infrastructure and property that can be used for broadband.
        Broadband infrastructure is essential. Whether our
    constituents are urban or rural, middle income or lower income,
    I look forward to continuing our bipartisan work in this area.
        And I yield back.
        Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time.
        I turn now to the Chairman of the full committee, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

        Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        We all know that robust infrastructure is the skeleton for
    a healthy economy. That is true for transportation, for energy,
    and unquestionably for communications, an industry where the
    pace of consumption is growing exponentially.
        Folks in Michigan, like all Americans, have a near
    insatiable appetite for all the information, products, and
    services that the internet has to offer. To keep up with the
    ever-growing demand of a flourishing sector of the economy,
    broadband communications providers must build and innovate
    constantly, every day.
        But we can't build efficiently if we get in our own way.
    The government permitting process has stymied transportation
    networks, energy networks, and communication networks. Both
    Presidents Bush and Obama have recognized the maze of red tape
    that infrastructure builders must navigate in order to build
    into the backbone of our national economy. Both Presidents have
    also attempted to cut back the endless reviews, requirements,
    and requests that hinder efficient, timely, and economic
    deployment of communications infrastructure. So it is time for
    this committee to put the pedal to the metal and improve
    government permitting for broadband networks.
        This is a bipartisan effort. That has always been the
    hallmark of this subcommittee. Both Democrats and Republicans
    have been at the drafting table together for a long time to
    think through good policy and put them into actionable laws. I
    would hope that we can continue this effort to help our
    nation's communication networks thrive and continue to
    contribute to our success in the global economy.
        And I yield the balance of my time to Mrs. Blackburn.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:]

                     Prepared statement of Hon. Fred Upton

        We all know that robust infrastructure is the skeleton for
    a healthy economy. This is true for transportation, for energy,
    and unquestionably for communications, an industry where the
    pace of consumption is growing exponentially. Folks in
    Michigan, like all Americans, have a near insatiable appetite
    for all the information, products and services the Internet has
    to offer. To keep up with the ever-growing demand of a
    flourishing sector of the economy, broadband communications
    providers must build and innovate constantly.
        But we can't build efficiently if we get in our own way.
    The government permitting process has stymied transportation
    networks, energy networks, and communications networks. Both
    Presidents Bush and Obama have recognized the maze of red tape
    that infrastructure builders must navigate in order to build
    into the backbone of our national economy. Both presidents have
    also attempted to cut back the endless reviews, requirements,
    and requests that hinder efficient, timely, and economic
    deployment of communications infrastructure. It's time for this
    committee to put the pedal to the metal and improve government
    permitting for broadband networks.
        This is a bipartisan effort. That's always been the
    hallmark of this subcommittee. Both Democrats and Republicans
    have been at the drafting table together to think through good
    policy and put them into actionable laws. I hope that we can
    continue this effort to help our nation's communications
    networks thrive and continue to contribute to our success in
    the global economy.

        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all
    for being here to talk with us.
        I think, as you can see, there is a lot of agreement on the
    fact we have got a big job in front of us. And basically, you
    can sum it up and say how do we expedite building out the
    network and how do we allow the environment for increased
    speeds? This is what people want.
        When you look at the demand, the demand is not sitting
    around waiting on some committee to do its job. The demand is
    continuing to increase. And as you are looking at 2019 and you
    are talking about 3.9 billion interconnected devices, it means
    we have to move forward with this.
        The other issue is access to federal property. It does need
    to be addressed. And as we go through this process, I would
    encourage, Mr. Chairman, that we look closely at how we
    approach that.
        And with that, I yield to any Member who is seeking time.
    Mr. Latta gets the balance of the time.
        Mr. Latta. Well, I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding.
    And I also thank our witnesses for being with us today.
        Broadband has fundamentally changed the way we live our
    lives. From online banking to streaming videos, the demand for
    high-speed is relentless. There is a clear need for more
    investment in American broadband networks, and this is
    especially evident in the rural areas I represent where some
    households are not afforded access to high-speed services.
        However, there are real challenges to investing in
    broadband infrastructure. The costs associated with building,
    maintaining, and upgrading networks is often overlooked and
    taken for granted. That is why our law should not further
    impede build-out.
        The Federal Government should find ways to eliminate
    barriers and encourage a continued model of private network
    investment that has been successful in our country. I hope that
    the discussion that we have today will start a healthy debate
    on how to best assist deployment of this critical
    infrastructure to support wireline and wireless broadband
    services.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time to the
    gentlelady.
        Mr. Walden. Are there any Republicans who want to use up
    the remaining minute? If not, I will turn to the gentleman from
    New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the full committee, Mr.
    Pallone, for opening comments.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE
                IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Walden. I will keep my
    remarks short because I think there are some other Members who
    would like to use my time.
        Consumer demand for high-speed broadband continues to
    surge. To meet this consumer demand, we must continue to invest
    in the networks that carry our data. As we can see here today,
    discussions about whether to invest in infrastructure do need
    to have two sides. Our priorities should never be whether to
    invest in infrastructure; it should be only how we invest. And
    the best way to build a sound infrastructure is to ensure that
    both industry and the government are working together.
        The bills we are considering today demonstrate how this is
    done. And I want to thank the authors of all of today's bills
    for their efforts and dedication to meeting consumer demand and
    doing it in the right way.
        But our work is not done because more and more of our
    communications needs are going wireless, and when it comes to
    wireless networks, infrastructure is only half the story. But
    for wireless networks to handle consumer traffic, we also need
    spectrum.
        The budget agreement that we are considering today would
    direct the auction of 30 megahertz of spectrum for commercial
    use, and that is a good start. But we can't stop there. We
    should continue our bipartisan work in this committee to
    authorize more spectrum auctions going forward. By continuing
    these twin efforts to improve network infrastructure and to
    freeing more spectrum, I believe we can meet consumers'
    communication needs for years to come. And by working in a
    bipartisan fashion, we can show the country that our government
    can still work for them.
        I was going to yield whatever time he needs to
    Representative Loebsack.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

                 Prepared statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

        Thank you Chairman Walden for calling this hearing. I will
    keep my remarks short so we can hear from some other members
    who also care deeply about these issues.
        Consumer demand for high-speed broadband continues to
    surge. To meet this consumer demand, we must continue to invest
    in the networks that carry our data.
        As we can see here today, discussions about whether to
    invest in infrastructure do need to have two sides. Our
    priority should never be whether to invest in infrastructure;
    it should be only how we invest.
        And the best way to build a sound infrastructure is to
    ensure that both industry and the government are working
    together. The bills we are considering today demonstrate how
    this is done. I thank the authors of all of today's bills for
    their efforts and dedication to meeting consumer demand and
    doing it the right way.
        But our work is not done. Because more and more of our
    communications needs are going wireless. And when it comes to
    wireless networks, infrastructure is only half the story. But
    for wireless networks to handle consumer traffic, we also need
    spectrum.
        The budget agreement that we are considering would direct
    the auction of 30 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use.
    That is a good start, but we cannot stop there. We should
    continue our bipartisan work in this committee to authorize
    more spectrum auctions going forward.
        By continuing these twin efforts to improve network
    infrastructure and to free more spectrum, I believe we can meet
    consumers' communications needs for years to come. And by
    working in a bipartisan fashion, we can show the country that
    their government can still work for them.
        I yield the rest of my time to Representative Loebsack.

        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Ranking Member Pallone, for
    yielding me the time. And I would like to thank the
    subcommittee for holding this important hearing today.
        As I have said many times before this subcommittee,
    including yesterday, just yesterday, improving broadband access
    is essential, particularly in districts like mine that are
    rural and have significant barriers to infrastructure
    development.
        Every time I go home to my district, which is just about
    every weekend, I hear from my constituents about how important
    it is for Iowa families, businesses, hospitals, and schools to
    be connected in today's economy. I am very pleased that the
    subcommittee has worked to put together the draft bills that we
    are looking at today. I look forward to discussing these bills
    and exploring ways that we can help smooth the way for further
    infrastructure development.
        At some point soon, I hope we also, however, turn our
    attention to the challenges of building and operating networks,
    especially wireless coverage, in areas of the country where
    people work and live and visit but where companies do not find
    it in their economic interest necessarily to build out. I
    believe that that challenge will require us to consider how
    networks are funded and will become an important component to
    the issue we are discussing here today.
        And I thank the witnesses who are here today, and I yield
    back my time. Thank you, Mr. Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Mr. Chairman, I yield to Representative Lujan
    what time he might use.
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much and to our
    chairman and ranking member for scheduling this incredibly
    important hearing to continue the conversation on how we expand
    access to broadband.
        This issue is vital both to our economic future and our
    constituents' quality of life. By supporting broadband
    deployment, we support the entrepreneurs and innovators who
    want to build brighter futures for their people. By connecting
    schools, we help tackle the homework gap and prepare children
    to succeed in today's competitive economy.
        But as we all know, when it comes to broadband, too many
    Americans have been left behind. This is especially true for
    rural parts of America. Currently, more than half of rural
    Americans and \2/3\ of Americans living on tribal lands lack
    access to advanced broadband. In New Mexico, those numbers are
    77 percent and 89 percent respectively.
        Clearly, we have more to do to scale this digital divide,
    and the discussion drafts we are reviewing today are a good
    first step. And I am happy to see a bipartisan commitment to
    support the deployment of broadband infrastructure.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Pallone. I am not sure if anyone else on my side would
    want to say anything.
        All right. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields back the balance of his
    time. All time is expired. We will now go to our witnesses.
        Thank you very much for being here to each of you and your
    testimony that you have submitted for us. We will start with
    Heather Burnett Gold, who is the president and CEO, FTTH
    Council Americas. Thank you for being here.
        All of you, when you use the mics, just pull them
    uncomfortably close and make sure that little light is lit and
    you will be good to go.
        So thanks for being here, and please go ahead, Ms. Gold.

      STATEMENTS OF HEATHER BURNETT GOLD, PRESIDENT AND CEO, FTTH
     COUNCIL AMERICAS; SCOTT BERGMANN, VICE PRESIDENT, REGULATORY
    AFFAIRS, CTIA; JEB BENEDICT, VICE PRESIDENT, FEDERAL REGULATORY
      AFFAIRS AND REGULATORY COUNSEL, CENTURYLINK; AND DEB SOCIA,
                EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NEXT CENTURY CITIES

                   STATEMENT OF HEATHER BURNETT GOLD

        Ms. Gold. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
    Eshoo, and members of the subcommittee. Thank you for inviting
    the Fiber to the Home Council Americas to testify on breaking
    down barriers to broadband infrastructure deployment.
        The council is dedicated to accelerating deployment of all-
    fiber networks by incumbent telephone companies, cable
    providers, competitive private builders, municipalities, and
    others.
        Fiber optic cable is by any measure the most future-proof
    wireline infrastructure. Recent studies show that all-fiber
    networks promote economic growth and actually increase property
    values. Much progress has been made. Today, fiber-to-the-home
    networks pass approximately 30 percent of our households and
    many more of our businesses. Many agencies from the FCC to
    state and local governments have already lowered barriers and
    provided incentives for all fiber deployments.
        But as the experience of my members has told me, there is
    much that needs to be done. I will focus on two such areas
    today: access to federal property and access to poles.
        Earlier this year, the President created the Broadband
    Opportunity Council, which focuses on federal-agency efforts to
    facilitate broadband deployment. The BOC appropriately
    identified many actions to incense such deployment, but it is
    clear that legislative authority would further their
    implementation and make the Federal Government more efficient
    when administrating those assets.
        First, Congress should mandate creation of a complete and
    interactive database of federal assets maintained by agencies
    on which broadband infrastructure can be attached or installed.
        Second, legislation is needed to ensure that ``Dig Once''
    is implemented by the relevant federal agencies where conduit
    is installed simultaneously with government highway
    construction projects.
        Third, legislation should require common permitting
    application processes and fee schedules for access to federal
    assets regardless of the technology being deployed and obligate
    federal agencies to maintain records tracking applications and
    their resolution.
        Fourth, where historic, cultural, and scientific reviews
    have already been undertaken regarding a federal asset,
    subsequent providers seeking access ordinarily should not have
    to complete such a review.
        And finally, to reduce open-ended delays in the approval
    process, Congress should adopt a shot clock providing for
    automatic permitting approval after a specific time period.
        I would like to now turn to the significant problem
    providers face when seeking access to poles of utilities and
    local exchange carriers.
        In 2011, the FCC addressed some of the key problems service
    providers were facing with pole owners and attachments. Yet
    even after the FCC's action, the council members still
    encounter substantial problems when seeking access to poles,
    which compels me to ask for Congress's help on their behalf.
        First, because attachers have found the FCC's timelines are
    regularly flouted by many pole providers, Congress should
    codify the timelines, direct the Commission to develop
    streamlined procedures for expeditious resolution of any
    complaints concerning timeline violations, and give the
    Commission clear authority to impose fines at levels that would
    motivate adherence to those timelines.
        Second, new legislation should make clear and provide for
    prompt enforcement of the obligations of pole owners to
    identify properly certified contractors that attachers can use
    to perform pole survey and make-ready work in a timely fashion.
        Third, Congress should preclude utilities from requiring
    new attachers to pay for make-ready to fix existing violations
    of others before obtaining access to poles and allow only cost-
    based make-ready charges for the work still needed after the
    violations are corrected.
        Fourth, Congress should simplify the Pole Act and eliminate
    the cause for continuing disputes by making clear that so-
    called cable rate, which the federal courts have found fully
    compensatory, applies to all attachers.
        Finally, all pole owners should be brought within the scope
    of the Pole Act and the FCC's implementing regulations.
        [Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
        Ms. Gold. Pole attachments can be found in my written
    testimony.
        In closing, the council commends the subcommittee for
    hearing concerns about barriers that stand in the way of fiber
    network deployment. We stand ready to work with you as you move
    forward.
        Thank you again for this opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gold follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walden. Ms. Gold, thank you for your testimony. We
    appreciate your comments.
        We will now go to Mr. Scott Bergmann, who is the vice
    president for regulatory affairs, CTIA. Mr. Bergmann, thank you
    for being here. Please go ahead.

                      STATEMENT OF SCOTT BERGMANN

        Mr. Bergmann. Chairman Walden, Ranking Member Eshoo, and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    share the wireless industry's perspective on promoting
    broadband infrastructure deployment.
        Sound infrastructure policy is a necessary complement to
    good spectrum policy. CTIA commends the subcommittee for its
    leadership on a long-term spectrum plan to ensure that
    America's wireless industry can remain the world's leader and
    an engine for investment and innovation.
        We also applaud your focus today on promoting reasonable
    and predictable policies that enable timely deployment of
    wireless infrastructure. To that end, CTIA commends the
    bipartisan staff discussion drafts and the Eshoo-Walden ``Dig
    Once'' bill. These proposals can help CTIA's members
    effectively deploy the world's most advanced wireless networks.
        To build out wireless infrastructure that reaches all
    Americans, our members need access to locations controlled by
    the Federal Government and by non-Federal Government entities.
    In the roughly \3/4\ of the country governed by the local
    zoning process, the FCC's 2009 shot-clock order produced a
    framework that has provided clarity and accelerated wireless
    broadband deployment. That order established much-needed
    deadlines for local governments and recognized that co-
    locations, which take place on existing sites, should move
    faster.
        CTIA supported the FCC's order and helped defend it in
    court, where it was upheld in a 2013 Supreme Court decision.
    The shot-clock order has already begun to produce positive
    results. Siting applications that were backlogged began to move
    speeding facilities' deployment and improving network coverage.
    And a number of states have embraced the successful shot-clock
    approach, most recently, California just 3 weeks ago.
        Congress took an equally important step when it adopted the
    2012 Spectrum Act. In Section 6409 Congress provided that
    zoning authorities may not deny and shall approve eligible
    requests to modify existing wireless facilities. As implemented
    by the FCC in 2014, this ability to co-locate by right is
    enormously helpful to carriers as we migrate to new generations
    of technology and look forward to 5G.
        But more needs to be done. The FCC has helpfully started a
    proceeding to speed deployment of small cells and is working to
    permit greater access to so-called twilight towers. We urge the
    Commission to complete these proceedings expeditiously.
        Unfortunately, Section 6409's provisions for federal
    property have not been implemented as successfully or as
    rapidly. The act directed GSA to establish common processes and
    contracts for wireless antenna deployments on federal property.
    And GSA was required to develop a common application form for
    federal easements and rights-of-way. Despite a 60-day deadline,
    GSA only recently acted on Section 6409.
        While we commend GSA's efforts, federal agencies must
    consistently adopt the standardized forms and contracts in
    order to fulfill Congress's intent. Congressional oversight is
    particularly important because the Federal Government controls
    several thousand buildings and roughly 28 percent of the U.S.
    landmass. Siting on these properties today is often complicated
    and time-consuming. Even lease renewals are often lengthy and
    bureaucratic. These delays deter investment and harm consumers.
        So we encourage the subcommittee to make federal citing
    process look more like the municipal process. This will produce
    revenue for the Federal Government; will help improve and
    extend service; it will spur investment and jobs; and it will
    enable government users, the private sector, and the public at
    large to benefit from America's world-leading wireless
    networks.
        So in addition to moving forward with the ``Dig Once''
    legislation and the staff discussion drafts, CTIA offers
    several recommendations.
        First, federal agencies should have deadlines for acting on
    requests to site on federal properties. Those deadlines should
    reflect the lesser impact associated with co-locations.
        Second, all agencies should be encouraged to consistently
    use the common processes and contracts recently established by
    GSA.
        Third, Congress should direct the Commission to conclude
    its work on the small cell deployment proceeding by a firm
    deadline.
        And finally, Congress should direct the FCC to
    affirmatively state that twilight towers that have not been
    subject to prior objections need not be processed under the
    National Historic Preservation Act. This would allow those
    longstanding facilities to be upgraded on a timely basis.
        Collectively, these actions will improve the wireless
    industry's ability to deploy infrastructure and to enhance
    America's economic well-being.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
    forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Bergmann follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Bergmann. We appreciate your
    testimony.
        We go now to Jeb Benedict, Vice President, Federal
    Regulatory Affairs and Regulatory Counsel for CenturyLink. Good
    morning. Thanks for being here.

                       STATEMENT OF JEB BENEDICT

        Mr. Benedict. Good morning, Chairman Walden, Ranking Member
    Eshoo, and other distinguished members of the committee. Thank
    you for having me, and thank you for introducing the Broadband
    Conduit Deployment Act. Measures like this can make it easier,
    faster, and more cost-effective to connect more Americans.
        CenturyLink operates a nationwide broadband network. We
    have a local network that covers nearly 600,000 square miles.
    We have a quarter-million miles of domestic fiber and more than
    a million miles of copper cable. We have millions of customers
    we serve directly, we provide wholesale capacity to many other
    providers, and we deliver connectively to tens of thousands of
    wireless towers nationwide.
        With such a large network, we necessarily work closely with
    federal land use employees, and I can say we know that they are
    dedicated public servants. They are professionals who take
    their responsibility seriously. And we have and value
    constructive relationships with them. But even so, the cost and
    delays associated with access to federal lands pose a real and
    frustrating problem, and it is one that this committee could
    help with.
        Congress should consider steps to reduce permitting delays,
    as discussed here. Broadband deployment, needed upgrades to
    rural communities, and urgently needed connections to wireless
    towers all are routinely delayed because of the slow review
    process. Agency permits commonly take 12 to 15 months, whereas
    on state and private lands, similar arrangements can be
    completed in just weeks.
        We realize that agencies have limited resources, but within
    agency budgets we think headquarters really aren't treating the
    permitting function as a priority. We like to think that
    Congress can at least ensure broadband applications receive
    priority over other applications, just as electric utilities
    commonly and appropriately receive priority today.
        Congress could consider legislation to expand categorical
    exclusions for previously disturbed areas. We support good
    stewardship of public lands and we strive to follow responsible
    environmental and historic practices, but in most of our
    installations, we are simply adding fiber to existing poles and
    conduit or we are trenching new fiber in road shoulders.
        Federal land use agencies should be directed to expand use
    of categorical exclusions under NEPA and Section 106 just as
    the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit
    Administration did last year under MAP-21.
        Congress should consider steps that minimize or eliminate
    federal permitting fees and lease rental for broadband
    facilities. Any dollars spent on federal right-of-way is a
    dollar unavailable for network. Where economics of deployment
    are marginal, some people won't be connected or upgraded when
    they otherwise could be.
        Congress also should encourage better interagency
    coordination. Permitting delays are most frustrating when a
    fiber route crosses several agency lands where more than one
    agency must approve our request. We are held hostage to
    whichever review is slowest.
        This committee could also examine some of the other
    barriers to broadband deployment. It could help ensure that we
    have equal and nondiscriminatory access to municipal and co-
    operative poles. We are compelled to make our poles available
    to other providers but co-ops, munis, and public utility
    districts routinely deny us access or demand unreasonable fees.
        Congress should ensure municipalities can't discriminate in
    access to public rights-of-way. Too many jurisdictions charge
    us an unreasonable rate for permission to place our facilities
    in the public right-of-way. And many others give providers,
    especially municipal systems, free access when we are assessed
    discriminatory franchise fees, taxes, permit requirements, and
    rights-of-way fees.
        Congress should also clarify the limited rights of
    railroads in rights-of-way that are granted by the government.
    It should confirm that other users have reasonable, cost-
    effective access to those public corridors.
        We have seen signs of improvement on federal rights-of-way
    issues, and we welcome the President's 2012 executive order. We
    appreciated the White House OSTP's review of the categorical
    exclusions and the Broadband Opportunity Council's attention to
    access and permitting. And Congress has helped with measures
    like MAP-21 and the legislation being discussed today. These
    are all positive starts.
        We look forward to working with Congress, with the federal
    agencies and the White House to help promote needed broadband
    infrastructure investment, especially in rural areas.
        Thank you for letting me appear today, and I will welcome
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Benedict follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walden. Mr. Benedict, thank you for your testimony. We
    appreciate it.
        We will now go to Ms. Deb Socia, who is the executive
    director, Next Century Cities. Ms. Socia, thank you for being
    here today. We look forward to your testimony.

                         STATEMENT OF DEB SOCIA

        Ms. Socia. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Walden,
    Ranking Member Eshoo, and distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. My name is Deb Socia, and I am the executive
    director of Next Century Cities, a bipartisan city-to-city
    initiative with 120 member communities across the country. Our
    leaders are dedicated to ensuring that all have access to fast,
    affordable, and reliable broadband.
        High-speed internet access is essential from our smallest
    community, Alford, Massachusetts, to much larger cities like
    Los Angeles. Our members are committed to universal high-
    quality internet access from multiple providers, and not just
    for economic development but to improve the quality of life for
    everyone in the community. Our communities are doing yeomen's
    work, wiring businesses, schools, and residents.
        On behalf of our membership, representing 25 million
    Americans, our message today is simple. This is hard work, and
    we welcome bipartisan federal leadership to reduce the cost-
    and time-intensive burden on Next Century City members and
    communities across the Nation. For example, easing access to
    federal land and assets for those deploying next-generation
    networks will encourage investment from both public and private
    entities. Dig-once policies will reduce capital costs and
    streamline new broadband deployments.
        Consider Santa Monica, California, which adopted ``Dig-
    Once'' some 20 years ago, thus lowering the cost of both public
    and private investment throughout the city. The city leases to
    many ISPs, and that means real competition for local
    businesses. They also use their conduit and fiber to connect
    more than 100 buildings and deliver wireless connectivity to
    all major city corridors.
        Elsewhere, Mesa, Arizona, has used ``Dig Once'' to
    encourage private sector investment from both ISPs and from
    high-tech firms that can use the conduit to establish redundant
    fiber pathways. And in building its municipal fiber network,
    Longmont, Colorado, realized cost savings in connecting some
    neighborhoods because they had already been built with conduit.
        This July, Next Century Cities released a comprehensive
    policy agenda identifying concrete steps that all policy
    stakeholders could take from government officials to community
    members to members of the civil society of non-governmental
    agencies and institutions. All can take steps to help achieve
    fast, reliable, and affordable internet access. And our
    recommendations included ``Dig Once'' approaches, a low-cost
    solution at all levels of government.
        Next Century Cities believes that conduit can make
    significant difference, particularly at key bottlenecks such as
    bridges, overpasses, and railroad crossings. Particularly in
    rural areas, the cost of deploying fiber is far higher at these
    bottlenecks. Navigating these bottlenecks is especially
    challenging for new entrants, whether local companies, local
    governments, or other entities that lack the existing
    infrastructure of long-established providers.
        We are particularly interested in your deliberations on
    pole attachments. Some of our members own their own poles.
    Others have struggled to gain access to privately owned poles
    in a timely manner. So we are uniquely suited to participate in
    these conversations.
        In our experience, one of the fundamental challenges with
    pole attachment is not just the cost but the time it may take
    for make-ready to occur, despite the FCC's existing shot-clock
    order. To the extent the FCC is directed to examine this
    subject, it should investigate both time and costs. We believe
    it is useful to have more information on the location of poles
    and ducts.
        The one thing we are concerned about is the significant
    burden this mandate may place on cities and small utilities. We
    therefore encourage Congress to focus on the larger utilities
    that will cover the majority of our population rather than on
    the smaller utilities and cities that may not have yet fully
    computerized records.
        We would like to stress that while pole attachments are a
    concern for some network deployers, we hear as much or more
    frustration about the challenge of crossing railroad rights-of-
    way, and we hope that Congress will soon address that potential
    barrier to investment.
        Day by day, the need for fast, affordable, and reliable
    broadband becomes more evident. Communities across the country
    are recognizing this urgent need and developing the critical
    broadband infrastructure their residents demand. And it is an
    issue that transcends partisanship here in D.C. and in
    communities nationwide.
        I am encouraged that the subcommittee has chosen to hold
    this conversation today. Hearings such as this can provide a
    critical platform for communities to share their experiences
    and develop opportunities for collaboration with federal
    policymakers.
        I look forward to continuing to work with members of the
    subcommittee and your colleagues to ensure that communities
    across the country can enjoy the next-generation broadband that
    is now crucial infrastructure for all citizens.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Socia follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Walden. Ms. Socia, thank you for your testimony. I want
    to thank all of you. It has been most helpful in our efforts
    here.
        I am going to start off with a couple of questions. First
    of all, I want to tell you what we face in a district like
    mine, which would stretch from the Atlantic to Ohio. It is one
    of the biggest land masses for a single district other than
    some of the single-member states. I was in Mitchell, Oregon,
    recently on a Sunday afternoon with a town hall, population
    126, 126 people, and there were probably 20 or 30 people at the
    town hall. They have been waiting 2 \1/2\ years for the Bureau
    of Land Management to finish a NEPA so that they can plug four
    power poles into the ground and finally get three-phase power
    to this town, 2 \1/2\ years and still don't have a decision.
        Meanwhile, they were pretty excited because finally they
    have some level of cell service if you are a Verizon customer
    because they bought these little extenders. And so now in
    downtown Mitchell, Oregon, which is about a block-and-a-half,
    if you are a Verizon customer, you can actually get cell
    service.
        There is a major east-west road that goes through this area
    with thousands of people every day going past. The city has a
    payphone booth there--the younger people in the audience, we
    will explain what that is/was--that the city pays for and a
    local grocery store houses just so they have a phone in town.
        So this occurs all across the country. Fifty-five percent
    of my district is federal land. We face this NEPA issue on
    everything. And it shouldn't take 2 \1/2\ years to figure out
    if you can put four power poles in the ground, but it does and
    they are not done yet.
        So I appreciate your testimony on what we are trying to do
    here. I want to ask Mr. Bergmann more about the shot clocks
    because I am intrigued by what you talked about there and
    others, as well as if you could--all of you are open to this
    one on these twilight tower issues and if you can talk in
    layperson's terms about what that really means is going on out
    there.
        So Mr. Bergmann and others, we will start with you. Shot
    clocks, do they work? We have tried to put them in other bills
    because we think they work, but clearly, if the GSA took 3
    years to do something we mandated them 60 days to complete,
    they have a problem.
        Mr. Bergmann?
        Mr. Bergmann. Thanks so much for the question, Mr.
    Chairman. And unfortunately, the experience you describe is not
    an uncommon one when looking to cite on federal lands, and it
    is something that our members have experienced particularly in
    parts of the country where extending coverage is really
    critical to the local economy and to public safety. Making sure
    that we have wireless infrastructure siting on federal lands is
    really key to that mission.
        So learning the lesson from what Congress did in 2012 I
    think is really instructive. When Congress adopted a shot clock
    for the ability to co-locate in the municipal context, what we
    found is that the process started to move much more quickly.
    And we found that with the FCC's 2009 shot clock order, in both
    cases applications that had been backlogged started to move.
    Our folks were able to deploy. And now we need this same sort
    of discipline to the process on the federal side as well, too.
        Mr. Walden. OK. Others on the panel want to comment on
    that?
        Ms. Socia. I will mention that this issue applies to our
    rural communities as well. And one of our rural communities was
    trying to build a public safety network, and it took them 2
    years longer because of the time required to get permitting.
    And in some of our urban communities, they suffer with long-
    term permitting issues as well, and in some cases, our cities
    have determined to just find more expensive workarounds----
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Ms. Socia [continuing]. Rather than ask for permission to
    use federal lands.
        Mr. Walden. We are fighting this with a major power line,
    the Boardman to Hemingway line. And to avoid going on the
    federal ground, I am convinced Idaho Power is picking the
    private ground because they can use their powers for eminent
    domain, which they are trying not to do. But it is taking
    irrigated ag land out of production because they just don't
    want to fight this fight on the federal ground that is right
    there.
        Ms. Socia. That is what we are finding as well.
        Mr. Walden. Mr. Benedict?
        Mr. Benedict. We have similar frustrations. And I should
    also add that there really is no wireless without wires.
        Mr. Walden. Right.
        Mr. Benedict. A delay that is affecting a cell tower, even
    once resolved, if we are facing delays getting our fiber rooted
    to the tower, it is still out of operation.
        Mr. Walden. Yes. Ms. Gold?
        Ms. Gold. My members face all the same frustrations. I
    think the example I used was a 250-mile fiber route where they
    built the two ends, completed two ends and waited for the 8
    miles in between on the federal property an additional 6
    months.
        Mr. Walden. Out of 250 miles----
        Ms. Gold. Right.
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. There was 8 miles of federal----
        Ms. Gold. Eight miles and the----
        Mr. Walden [continuing]. See, I am just talking four power
    poles, 2 \1/2\ years.
        Ms. Gold. And a similar company has pending federal
    permitting applications that have been in place since May of
    2014. So I think the frustration is real.
        Mr. Walden. Yes. Thank you all.
        We will turn now to the gentlelady from California, Ms.
    Eshoo, for questions.
        Ms. Eshoo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And again, thank you to
    each of the witnesses. This is a softball question. Do you all
    support the ``Dig Once'' policy?
        Ms. Gold. Yes.
        Mr. Benedict. Yes.
        Mr. Bergmann. Yes.
        Ms. Eshoo. Terrific. A plus. You all passed.
        Last week, there were several elected officials in one of
    my local communities that wrote to me about the need to ensure
    that federal policies don't undermine their local permitting
    decisions for wireless facilities. And the Communications Act
    and the Spectrum Act have frequently been cited as provisions
    that limit local decision-making. It is a big issue for local
    government. And do you find that the bill and the ideas that we
    are considering today that are under discussion that would
    weaken or alter local permitting decisions?
        Ms. Gold. I don't see that. My members, generally when they
    get to a community, the community is so happy to have the
    deployment of fiber networks that they work with them, and this
    is a subject that we talk to our communities about a lot, how
    they need to situate themselves in order to welcome fiber
    providers.
        Ms. Eshoo. They don't find anything----
        Ms. Gold. So I don't see----
        Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Menacing in what we are----
        Ms. Gold. No.
        Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. Doing relative----
        Ms. Gold. I----
        Ms. Eshoo [continuing]. To that issue?
        Ms. Gold. No.
        Ms. Eshoo. Good. Ms. Socia--that is a lovely name--I
    regularly hear from constituents that are mentioned in my
    opening statement who are frustrated by the high cost of
    broadband and the lack of choice in service providers. Your
    members include two of my constituent communities, the city of
    Palo Alto and Santa Cruz County. Have you seen evidence that
    the cost and speed of service are improved when local
    governments deploy high-speed broadband in their communities?
        Ms. Gold. Indeed, we have found that to be true. Whenever
    there is a new entrant into the market, it has become very
    clear that more investment happens, not less, and that in fact
    the cost for broadband reduces and the speed increases.
        Ms. Eshoo. On both fronts, that is excellent.
        Mr. Benedict, in July we heard from Governor Lewis of the
    Gila River Indian Community about the challenges of bringing
    broadband to tribal communities. You noted in your testimony
    that it can be especially difficult for your company to deploy
    or upgrade broadband on tribal lands given the cost and the
    challenges in accessing federal lands. If the six draft bills
    before the subcommittee were enacted into law, would
    CenturyLink be able to expand its deployment into unserved
    tribal land? It is a big issue that many of us have raised for
    several years here, and it really is a form of neglect, real
    neglect in our country. So can you enlighten us on this?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, the challenges of course are low
    population densities. And with the size of our footprint, we
    have a great many areas that are low density. We also have made
    a commitment to the FCC for Connect America Fund build-out to
    1.2 million locations, including in tribal communities.
        That said, the types of problems we are talking about here
    today are incremental cost and incremental barriers to our
    broadband deployment. As a consequence, you know, measures such
    as are considered in the draft legislation and in the ``Dig
    Once'' bill would in fact help reduce our costs.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, that is encouraging.
        To all of the witnesses, we are talking about built-out of
    wireline and wireless broadband infrastructure. But given that
    the consumer experience also includes the use of Wi-Fi and
    other unlicensed uses, I want to make sure that we don't forget
    about them. So how do Wi-Fi and unlicensed uses factor into the
    infrastructure investment discussion that we are having today?
    For all of you, who would like to go first? Mr. Bergmann.
        Mr. Bergmann. I am happy to take the first pass. So we
    certainly support deployment in both licensed and unlicensed
    spectrum, and so we are big supporters of that from a spectrum
    perspective and also from an infrastructure perspective as
    well, too. We want to make sure that those facilities out
    there--and just to your first question, Congresswoman, wanted
    to make sure--California adopted a streamlined procedure just 3
    weeks ago.
        Ms. Eshoo. Yes.
        Mr. Bergmann. So the steps that you all are contemplating,
    I think, are very consistent with that overall reasonable
    framework for making sure that local officials can perform
    their roles but that we have some reasonable and predictable
    deadlines associated with the process.
        Ms. Eshoo. Great. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Walden. Before I move on to, let's see, Mrs. Blackburn,
    I want to introduce into the record, ask unanimous consent, a
    statement from the American Public Power Association giving
    APPA's analysis of the draft bill on pole attachments. Without
    objection.
        [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
        Mr. Walden. The chair will hear from others in the utility
    world about their views. I know they are not on this panel but
    they are not unnoticed.
        So now, let's go to Mrs. Blackburn for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am going to
    try to not take the 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bergmann, I want to come to you. Let's talk about these
    master forms, contracts, fee schedules that were due in 2012. I
    think the GSA missed that deadline. And I want to ask you about
    your opinion on that, what more should we do or have we reached
    the final goal on that? So your comments, please.
        Mr. Bergmann. Thank you so much.
        So the GSA's adoption of the master forms and contracts, as
    you correctly point out, was over 1,000 days late. So we would
    have loved to have seen that process happen sooner, but we are
    very glad that they are adopted. Now, the key is to get them
    implemented. We need to make sure that federal agencies
    actually put them to use if we want to get the benefit out of
    those master forms and contracts. So oversight from this
    subcommittee would be very helpful to make sure that agencies
    adopt them and that they apply them in a consistent manner.
        We often find from base to base or office to office in
    agencies that processes are not applied in a consistent manner.
    So your help and oversight with that would be extremely
    helpful.
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK. Thank you. We will continue that
    oversight, and I think we probably had the frustration that was
    shared by many of you with the delay in hitting that deadline.
        Mr. Benedict, I want to come to you. You are hearing a good
    bit, and the chairman talked about the federal right-of-way and
    the issues that we are seeing there. In Tennessee I have 19
    counties, 10,000 square miles. And in that I have got a lot of
    rural, I have got a lot of underserved areas. And they are
    adjacent to federal lands or there is critical defense and
    energy projects that are around these areas.
        But it seems that the communities need the Federal
    Government out of the way in order to allow broadband because
    not being able to get that in there is stifling educational
    opportunities and economic development. And we hear about it
    every single time, and rightfully so we hear about it every
    single time we are in those communities.
        What I would like to do is to hear from you and any of you
    on the panel what the Administration could do to improve the
    interagency coordination without congressional intervention,
    just decide today that they are going to do this so you don't
    have the ridiculous issues of years of being required to
    complete a NEPA process for, as Chairman Walden said, putting
    in a pole for an attachment. So if I could hear from you first
    and then any others that want to add.
        Mr. Benedict. Well, one thing that could help significantly
    is taking steps to streamline applications that have minimal
    real environmental or historical impact, and that is through
    the obscure categorical exclusion process. We have actually, as
    an industry group, been talking with the White House Office of
    Technology Policy on measures that the Administration could
    undertake directly----
        Mrs. Blackburn. OK.
        Mr. Benedict [continuing]. As they are directed to agency
    to try to streamline the process where installation of new
    wireless or wireline facilities actually has minimal
    environmental impact because it is in previously disturbed
    areas, consistent with what Congress has done on MAP-21.
        Mrs. Blackburn. Yes. Thank you. Anyone else to add a point?
        Ms. Gold. I do think the Broadband Opportunity Council
    looked at this issue, and they have made recommendations about
    streamlining the processes. I just think it would be
    legislative oversight and authority would be helpful to making
    the executive action more----
        Mrs. Blackburn. So continue to hold them accountable.
    Excellent.
        Thank you. I yield back.
        Mr. Walden. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her
    time.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I wanted to start with Mr. Bergmann. For most of us,
    broadband has become an essential part of our day-to-day lives.
    Unfortunately, for over 60 percent of those living in tribal
    lands access to the kind of broadband remains out of reach. In
    many of these tribal areas, wireless services may be their best
    chance of getting online. So I just wanted to ask what is the
    industry doing to promote build-out on tribal lands?
        Mr. Bergmann. Congressman, thank you for the question. And
    I recall that you care deeply about tribal lands. The work that
    you are doing today can really make a big difference.
        In that part of the country, much of the land is controlled
    by federal agencies, so taking some of the steps that we have
    been talking about today to put some deadlines on BIA, on BLM
    can help us build out infrastructure to those areas more
    quickly.
        I might point out another area as well, too, which is that
    the FCC has talked about ongoing funding mechanisms to support
    build-out in rural areas and in tribal areas for mobile
    broadband. And so the attention of this committee to making
    sure that those mobility funds and tribal mobility funds are
    fully implemented can also help as well.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks.
        Ms. Socia, for much of the country, the private sector has
    done a good job making sure consumers have access to high-speed
    broadband, but still gaps remain, and I don't think we will
    find the silver bullet to close those gaps, which is why the
    draft bills we are discussing today try several different
    approaches. What do you think the Federal Government could do
    in striving for this goal? Do our discussion drafts help move
    us forward?
        Ms. Socia. I think they do. I think also the acknowledgment
    that this is critical infrastructure has been very helpful. I
    think, as I mentioned earlier, thinking about those key
    bottlenecks is very helpful locally as well.
        I think at the local level when it is difficult topology,
    when it is limited population density, there really isn't a
    financial model that makes it make sense for big companies to
    come in and build out and thinking about how we can help to
    incentivize that and to give local communities the capacity to
    make decisions about their own future.
        So, for example, we have a rural community in Massachusetts
    that chose to build their own, Leverett, Massachusetts, because
    even their copper line was not really successful for them, and
    every time it rained, they couldn't call 911. And no one else
    wanted to build out so they took it upon themselves to do it.
    And so we really applaud that kind of local control and that
    local opportunity for our folks to be able to solve their own
    problems at that level.
        Mr. Pallone. Well, thanks. I know there had been a number
    of creative experiments with new ways of deploying fiber for
    high-speed broadband, and one of the most well-publicized
    efforts has been Google Fiber. So I was going to ask you what
    early lessons we have learned from these types of experiments
    in deploying fiber throughout the country?
        Ms. Socia. So, one of the things we learned from that was
    that competition is great. And we all knew that competition is
    a good thing in any marketplace. When Google came in, the
    prices went down, the speeds went up. And we also learned that
    it is really important for communities and providers to work
    collaboratively to solve problems. And when they do, outcomes
    are positive. And the changes that our cities made to support
    Google they offered to all providers. That is a really helpful
    process for us to begin to think about how do we work
    collaboratively and how do we empower that local community to
    be part of the solution.
        Mr. Pallone. All right. Thanks a lot.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta [presiding]. Well, thank you very much. The
    gentleman yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes the Chairman Emeritus, the
    gentleman from Texas, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am not as familiar with these issues as some of the other
    members of the subcommittee. I have looked at the draft bills,
    and I must say that I am a little bit troubled. I am a market
    person. I believe markets work. I believe open, transparent
    markets are better than regulated markets. I believe incentives
    are better than federal mandates.
        I understand there are some real problems in siting on
    federal lands, and I understand that NEPA has been abused in
    ways that we didn't intend when that particular law was passed.
        So my first question is just a general question. Are the
    problems that you folks are facing in your business models, are
    they primarily generated because of the problems dealing with
    federal lands and federal facilities, or do you think that
    there are broader problems in the private land private sector?
    Anybody can answer that.
        Mr. Benedict. Well, I will begin. Our chief concern is on
    federal lands we face challenges in rights-of-way and property
    access everywhere, but the principal frustrations we run into
    are not state lands, they are not private landowners, but
    federal lands. And it is not because our permits will be
    denied; it is because of the processing delays. It is really a
    problem of process and not substance.
        Our concern isn't with NEPA. Our concern isn't with the
    National Historic Preservation Act. It is just how these are
    carried out in ways that needlessly delay our ability to get
    broadband infrastructure upgrades deployed.
        Mr. Barton. Do the other panelists agree that your problems
    are primarily on federal lands and federal facilities?
        Ms. Gold. [Nonverbal response.]
        Mr. Bergmann. [Nonverbal response.]
        Ms. Socia. [Nonverbal response.]
        Mr. Barton. I appreciate that. I just want to say I am
    troubled that we are beginning to take the position that access
    to wireless programs, wireless products, wireless services are
    some sort of an entitlement. Some people would hope that we
    would have a McDonald's on every corner but we let the market
    decide where we put McDonald's and Burger Kings.
        Generically, I think we should let the market decide when
    and where broadband is deployed. It is obviously much better
    than the old copper systems and the old telecommunications
    systems we had only like 10 or 15 years ago, but to begin to
    take the position that somehow this is an entitlement that the
    most rural, least densely populated part of our country should
    have the same services as downtown Manhattan to me just is not
    correct.
        In any event, the bills that deal with federal access, Mr.
    Chairman, I am generally supportive of, but I want to tread
    lightly in this area.
        And with that, I would yield back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back. And the chair now----
        Mr. Barton. Oh, wait. If----
        Mr. Walden. Oh, I am sorry.
        Mr. Barton. If I still have time if somebody wanted to ask
    me a question or----
        Ms. Eshoo. I just have----
        Mr. Walden. The gentleman yields? I thank the gentleman----
        Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, the observation that I make, Mr.
    Barton is representing one of those rural states like Mr. Greg
    Walden and his--I was just sharing with our Ranking Member
    Eshoo is that you can board a plane in Albuquerque, New
    Mexico----
        Mr. Barton. I have done it.
        Mr. Lujan [continuing]. And stay on the internet until you
    land in New York or San Francisco or Washington, D.C., or
    Dallas, wherever you go. And so if the technology exists for us
    to be able to stay connected at 30,000 feet traveling at those
    speeds, it appears that the technology would exist to connect
    the United States of America. We just need to figure out what
    that piece is.
        And so not necessarily from the perspective of, as I would
    describe it, as an entitlement, but connectivity is essential
    for safety purposes today, especially as we are seeing the
    abandoning of many of those antiquated copper systems that
    aren't being maintained and now even plain old telephone
    service is starting to lack in many of these communities as
    well.
        So I think therein lies an opportunity where market forces
    have worked, satellite deployment in other areas where we can
    see how we can connect to other people.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman's time has expired, and the chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank you
    for holding this hearing and thank the witnesses appearing
    before us.
        I would also like to thank and commend the chairman and the
    majority staff for working with us to come up with a slate of
    legislative proposals that advanced our shared goal of
    promoting broadband deployment. I am particularly proud of the
    bipartisan legislation introduced by my good friend Anna Eshoo
    and Greg Walden setting the ``Dig Once'' policy into law. This
    is way overdue, and I encourage the committee to move forward
    on this bill.
        Let me start by asking Mr. Bergmann a question. You
    mentioned in your testimony many of the challenges faced by
    wireless carriers in deploying wireless infrastructure on
    federal structures and federal lands. Specifically, you
    mentioned the need for Congress to encourage federal agencies
    to implement the common processing contracts established by GSA
    pursuant to the Spectrum Act. Do you believe that the draft
    bill directing adoption of these practices achieves that goal?
        Mr. Bergmann. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you. I support this bill also, and I think
    it is an example of smart, sensible policies that we need to
    advance wireless broadband deployment in this country.
        I want to ask Mr. Benedict. I noticed in the draft bill
    that addresses pole attachments, I notice a change in current
    law. Among the many sensible reforms to pole attachment policy
    and data collection, I saw that the rates charged to ILECs like
    CenturyLink by energy utilities would be substantially reduced
    as you would pay the FCC-regulated telecom rate for pole
    attachments under the draft bill.
        I just have two questions about that. First, if ILECs were
    to pay a substantially lower rate to energy utilities for
    access to poles, who picks up the cost differential that
    results from that lower rate?
        And secondly, can you explain the differences to us between
    the services that an ILEC currently receives under the current
    rate structure versus what I understand are scaled-down
    services available to service providers that pay that telecom
    or cable rate?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, actually, our chief concern is having a
    more level competitive playing field when it comes to pole
    attachments. The FCC has taken some action to reform the
    process, but we still end up in a situation where ILECs
    commonly pay more on electric utilities than other attachers,
    particularly cable.
        Mr. Doyle. My understanding is you get more services for
    that than those groups that are paying the telecom or cable
    rate is under this new bill, is that equalized, you are paying
    that lower rate that the telecoms and cables pay or are you
    also getting that scaled-down service----
        Mr. Benedict. Well----
        Mr. Doyle [continuing]. Or are you maintaining what you
    have?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, the charges are also a portion
    according to either the space or the usage on the pole.
        Mr. Doyle. Sure.
        Mr. Benedict. And to the extent that we are not imposing
    any larger burden on the pole owner, then rates should be
    comparable. There really shouldn't be a distinction between our
    fiber and another party's.
        Mr. Doyle. But if you are paying less, someone has got to
    pick up that--utilities are saying, well, they are just going
    to pass that on in the utility bills to consumers. So I guess I
    am just trying to understand what happens to that cost
    differential under that bill.
        Mr. Benedict. Well, the FCC's oversight--and indeed States'
    oversights of ILEC pole charges, where they are regulated,
    which is not everywhere, that actually reflects costs from the
    pole based on publicly available information, public accounting
    information. So the numbers are not pulled out of the air. We
    face a different problem where we are talking about co-op or
    municipal-owned poles where they are not subject to that
    oversight.
        But with electric utilities there is a measure of
    discipline that the FCC has helped enforce. Previously, we
    didn't have a clear right to attach, which left us in something
    of a less clear situation in terms of our rights, the rates
    that could be charged to us and the terms that could be imposed
    on us.
        Ultimately, we all have an interest in advancing broadband
    deployment and broadband upgrades, and the cost of attachments
    are significant, especially in rural areas. If we were looking
    at a $25 or a $30 pole attachment rate and need to attach to 10
    or 12 poles to reach a----
        Mr. Doyle. No, I understand that. I am just saying if your
    costs go down, somebody is picking that up and I am just
    curious who is picking up that additional cost.
        Mr. Benedict. Well, I can't speak to that. But I can say,
    the costs are often higher than they ought to be----
        Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
        Mr. Benedict [continuing]. Frankly.
        Mr. Doyle. I noticed a lot of green ties in the audience. I
    thought it was maybe an early St. Patrick's Day, but I
    understand that is the CenturyLink color. And everyone wears
    the green tie, so as an Irishman, I appreciate that.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. All right. The gentleman yields back, and his
    time has expired.
        The chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes.
        And again, I would like to thank the witnesses for being
    with us today. And this is a question to all of our witnesses
    today.
        We have defined broadband in the draft legislation as a
    service capable of providing advanced telecommunications
    capability under Section 706, largely leaving the definition to
    the FCC's discretion. We have some reservations about whether a
    shifting definition will create uncertainty for both agency and
    broadband providers, for agencies denied applications for
    services they may argue is not broadband. And the question is,
    is there a better way to draft this definition? And, Ms. Gold,
    if I could start with you.
        Ms. Gold. We have argued before the FCC for the last year
    that they should get away from a speed measurement and they
    should be looking at the facility. Obviously, we have argued
    for a fiber-based facility because you can indefinitely expand
    the speed. I think that this constant resetting the goalpost
    has created some confusion. I think the Commission and Congress
    should be thinking long-term. What facility can deliver the
    broadband that this country will need 10, 15, 20 years from now
    rather than constantly arguing over what is the market-based
    speed that is acceptable because that is in a sense continual
    investment where one investment policy might be better.
        Mr. Latta. Mr. Bergmann?
        Mr. Bergmann. So I certainly share your observation that
    shifting broadband definitions make it challenging for
    providers to make decisions about whether to participate in
    federal programs.
        I certainly note as well, too, that when aspirational
    definitions are adopted, that can sometimes put those public
    policy goals out of line with the broadband that consumers are
    actually adopting in the marketplace.
        And I would note as well, too, that just last year when
    Congress spoke to a definition of broadband in the context of
    the farm bill, you all adopted a definition that was based on 4
    megabits down, 1 megabit up, and there is some benefit to
    having definitions that reflect what consumers are actually
    purchasing because it allows providers to have a mix of
    technologies, to meet needs in different parts of the country
    with different challenges. It also enables competition to help
    drive subsidies in support programs as well, too. So certainly
    appreciate any guidance on that as well.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. Mr. Benedict?
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, well, we would agree that a general
    definition of a broadband facility would be more sensible than
    a definition tied to Section 706. The FCC already uses more
    than one definition of broadband, and frankly, the focus should
    be on the generic use of the facility, not the specific speed
    or character of the end product that might be provisioned by
    it.
        Mr. Latta. Ms. Socia?
        Ms. Socia. We might argue that primarily because we feel
    that our communities that are very rural, we really need to be
    thinking about how are we providing them with opportunities for
    education, for public safety, for transportation, for precision
    farming, for all the things that are so necessary now. And we
    think that definition is really helpful to folks in those
    communities to ensure that they end up with the opportunity to
    have the same resources as their friends across the country.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. If I could follow up on a question
    that the gentlelady from Tennessee asked, Mr. Benedict, if I
    could ask you, the rural communities that are not adjacent to
    federal lands, how can we best encourage broadband development
    in high-cost areas without federal funding when you have these
    areas that are private lands next to federal? What would be the
    best way to go for those of you who don't get the federal
    funding?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, we actually typically cross federal
    lands to access communities that may be adjacent or even many
    miles down the road. We are not simply talking about local
    broadband facilities that are deployed on federal lands but
    also long-haul and middle-mile facilities that are necessary to
    reach those communities. We may have a long run through a
    national forest in order to connect one community to a major
    hub.
        Mr. Latta. And, Mr. Bergmann, if I could, with my last 25
    seconds, ask you, the environmental review process is very
    burdensome on federal lands. Is there a way to learn from the
    local review process when we are looking at the federal lands?
        Mr. Bergmann. Certainly. There are a number of challenges
    with the environmental review process, but certainly, an
    absence of deadlines is one of the chief challenges. So
    adopting a framework that is similar to what Congress did in
    the municipal side would be very helpful with that
    environmental review process as well, too.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. And my time has expired.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Chairman.
        As I said earlier, I am really glad that the committee is
    addressing opportunities to expedite and streamline processes
    for build-out on federal property. It is very, very important.
    First thing I do want to say is I want to thank you, Ms. Socia,
    for your comments about rural broadband. I know I beat the same
    drum every time at these particular hearings, but given my
    district and it is not as big as Chairman Walden's by any
    means, but it is probably 12, 13,000 square miles, 24 counties
    in southeastern Iowa, and, you know, we do have some urban
    areas, got a town of 110,000, Davenport, about 100,000,
    110,000, but I have so much in my area that is rural. And it is
    very, very difficult.
        You mentioned the different aspects of not just economic
    development but challenges for the educational communities. I
    mentioned yesterday that a lot of our schools are connected to
    the ICN. That is the state-built pipeline, if you will, but a
    lot of those students, when they go home at night, they have
    homework and that homework often has to be accomplished, has to
    be finished on the internet. And they have very limited
    opportunities often to do that. So it is just so important.
        And I am glad you mentioned the agricultural part of this
    as well. A lot of folks don't know that, the precision farming
    that you mentioned. It is absolutely critical nowadays in many
    parts of this country that folks be able to have that kind of
    broadband so they can connect to the internet so they can do
    the things that they need to do.
        And I know that is not specifically what we are talking
    about here today, but at the same time, this is something that
    we have got to be thinking about whenever we talk about the
    expansion of broadband. And it is not just my district; it is
    all over the country obviously.
        I just have one brief question for Mr. Bergmann, although
    before I forget, I should thank Ms. Eshoo again for her ``Dig
    Once'' legislation. Often, it is not the case in this body that
    we think very rationally about how to resolve issues it seems
    like. This is a total no-brainer and it has taken since 2009.
    It makes no sense to me for it to become this important and be
    before us so that we can deal with it.
        But at any rate, Mr. Bergmann, you mentioned some of the
    benefits that could accrue to the Federal Government, in
    particular, if we can improve access for siting on federal
    properties. Can you elaborate on that a little bit if you can?
        Mr. Bergmann. So thank you. And we are certainly supporters
    of the ``Dig Once'' legislation as well, too, supporters of
    robust fiber. But as you know, you can't plug fiber into a
    school bus that is taking kids home in a rural area, but you
    can have an LTE connection so that kids in rural areas can take
    advantage of mobile wireless networks and the innovations that
    we are doing right now, whether it is m-learning, m-health,
    remote monitoring for your elderly in rural communities. There
    are some real opportunities. And access to federal properties
    in rural areas is a really critical issue.
        So the steps that we have talked about today, establishing
    deadlines, making sure that reviews happen in parallel rather
    than one after the next, making sure that fees are related to
    the actual impact rather than just sort of other goals are all
    important steps that this subcommittee can take to promote that
    sort of wireless infrastructure in rural areas.
        Mr. Loebsack. I think a lot of what we are doing is
    creating efficiencies, and sometimes people don't think of
    government being particularly efficient, but there are ways
    that we can do this, there is no question about that, and maybe
    even save taxpayers some dollars along the way.
        You did mention, I think, in your testimony on page 3 that
    there would be revenue for the Federal Government. Can you talk
    about that a little bit as well?
        Mr. Bergmann. Sure. So whenever there is siting on federal
    lands, we are not asking for that access for free.
        Mr. Loebsack. Right.
        Mr. Bergmann. We pay for that access. And so it produces
    revenue for the government when we are able to put those
    facilities on federal lands.
        Mr. Loebsack. Is there any estimate as to how much that
    might be at this point?
        Mr. Bergmann. We would be happy to work with you to get
    back with your staff to see if can provide some of that
    information.
        Mr. Loebsack. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
    back the remainder of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman yields
    back. And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from New
    Jersey for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gold, when your member companies decide to trench fiber
    in a new location, I am sure that you calculate the cost
    associated with that. Do you also project possible delays in
    whether the deployment will be outweighed by the fact that it
    may take so long, and therefore, it is not economically
    feasible?
        Ms. Gold. For many of my members they are operating as
    local entities, and so they go ahead and they do a feasibility
    study----
        Mr. Lance. Feasibility study, yes.
        Ms. Gold [continuing]. And the time and cost are critical
    components of that feasibility study. So with my one member
    that was building a middle-mile network, they had no idea it
    was going to double the time it took to put in the federal
    permitting in the 8 miles. But for anybody going into a local
    community to actually do fiber to the home, time and cost are
    critical. So a private company may decide not to go to a
    community if there are sufficient constraints on how long it
    will take.
        Mr. Lance. And is it your experience that this is often the
    case, that where the projects are either delayed or do not
    reach fruition because of that?
        Ms. Gold. It is hard for me to answer that because the
    projects we see are where they are moving ahead. In other
    words, the community has already determined that they want this
    asset, and so they are working to make it come about as
    expeditiously as possible. Obviously, when they have to cross
    federal property and there is a delay, that is a fly in the
    ointment but----
        Mr. Lance. Your universe, therefore, may not be the
    complete universe because----
        Ms. Gold. Correct.
        Mr. Lance [continuing]. Of projects that you do not see
    because they have been abandoned?
        Ms. Gold. Exactly.
        Mr. Lance. Is there anyone else on the panel who would like
    to comment?
        Ms. Socia. I would mention that----
        Mr. Lance. Ms. Socia?
        Ms. Socia. Yes, thank you. In some cases our members have
    found that there has been a significant delay for one project,
    and in the next project they therefore choose not to go on
    federal lands and to instead really increase the cost by doing
    a workaround.
        Mr. Lance. I see.
        Ms. Socia. And so it really is problematic for a lot of the
    communities that we support.
        Mr. Lance. And Mr. Benedict?
        Mr. Benedict. We have run into similar situations. And if
    the cost or delay of securing that federal right-of-way gets to
    the point that it is unacceptable, if we find another way
    around, we are talking about a longer route. Our projects are
    typically budget-limited, which means that we have to scale
    back the amount of build-out in that local community. That
    basically means that there are houses, possibly businesses in
    that community that would have been upgraded that we now can't.
         Mr. Lance. Thank you. In your testimony, Mr. Benedict, you
    state, ``CenturyLink is compelled by law to make its poles
    available to other providers, even competitors at modest cost-
    based rates. Yet co-ops, munis, and public utility districts
    routinely deny us access and demand grossly unreasonably rates.
    Congress should act to create a level playing field, and
    consequently, CenturyLink supports the committee's plans for
    legislation on access to poles, ducts, and conduit.'' Could you
    go into a little greater detail on that?
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, certainly. The problem isn't universal,
    but it is too often the case that with co-operatives, public
    utility districts, municipalities that have their own poles, we
    have no clear legal right to attach and there is no state or
    federal oversight of the rates, terms, and conditions. And that
    can and does lead to unreasonable situations.
        We have had a recent case where we were threatened with the
    removal of poles by a co-op and disconnection of power at our
    central office unless we accepted a huge increase in rental
    rate. And that type of, frankly, extortion is something that
    shouldn't be happening in this marketplace.
        Mr. Lance. And this is an area of law with which I am not
    completely familiar. Are these matters governed by state boards
    of public utility or not?
        Mr. Benedict. When you are talking about municipalities and
    co-ops, as a general rule, no, they are not subject to state
    oversight and they are not subject to FCC oversight. And that
    frankly is a problem we would suggest Congress help correct.
        Mr. Lance. Thank you very much. I am interested in this
    topic and hope to be able to follow up.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentlelady
    from California.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gold, you spoke about the importance that localities
    can play in accelerating their deployments. In my congressional
    district in Sacramento, as part of our light rail expansion,
    the fiber backbone was installed. And I also have to reflect on
    what my colleague Mr. Loebsack mentioned about schools and the
    connections. I say this because I represent an urban area, yet
    I am hoping that this fiber that is already in the light rail
    expansion that it really connects to community colleges. There
    is a lot of territory in between which is economically
    depressed, and I would like to leverage this fiber that the
    expansion has provided here, so I am asking you, how can we
    best encourage broadband providers to leverage this fiber?
        Ms. Gold. So we have seen in several situations where the
    availability of a robust middle-mile network, often the cost--
    and I think CenturyLink testified to this. The cost of getting
    to a community can be as expensive as building it out. Once you
    have the access, the middle-mile access which you now have,
    that helps incent fiber deployment actually to the premises.
        There are several models, as Ms. Socia said. There is no
    one model for every community. We have found demand aggregation
    models, which was the big innovation that Google brought to
    play, has worked very well even in lower income areas. One of
    my members is building out the State of Mississippi, and they
    are going to towns as small as 3,200 constituents. And they
    have done it by using their middle-mile network and then
    actually building a demand aggregation model in that community
    where people all sign up. They pre-sign----
        Ms. Matsui. Yes.
        Ms. Gold [continuing]. So people know exactly where they
    are going to go.
        Communities have a lot of assets in place, such as access
    to building for central offices. They have the common conduit
    where a fiber provider could pull fiber. So these are the kind
    of assets that a community needs to have an inventory of such
    as we need an inventory of federal assets.
        Ms. Matsui. Community assets inventories we are talking
    about, so if we identify, for instance, some anchor
    institutions like libraries and particular schools that might
    be strong, those might be assets----
        Ms. Gold. Yes.
        Ms. Matsui [continuing]. That we could leverage.
        Ms. Gold. Absolutely, especially if they need fiber access
    because then you can get funding to help build those, which
    releases more financial availability to actually build to the
    homes.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. That is good. Thank you.
        Ms. Gold, you also endorse the concept of the inventory of
    the federal assets on which broadband can be attached or
    installed. Will using these existing assets drive down the cost
    of expansion of fiber networks?
        Ms. Gold. I think it is very important for any fiber
    deployer, be it local or long-haul, to know where they are
    going and what is available to access. And yes, that will drive
    down the cost of a feasibility study, it will release then more
    funds to actually put the fiber in the ground.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Great. Mr. Bergmann, when it comes to
    broadband, we know that increasingly consumers are relying on
    wireless, and this is especially true for our minority
    populations and low-income Americans. What are the biggest
    barriers to wireless broadband infrastructure deployment?
        Mr. Bergmann. So, Congresswoman, I think you are exactly
    right. We see the same thing, which is that minority and low-
    income consumers are active adopters of mobile wireless and
    mobile broadband. They tend to have mobile broadband as their
    primary connection to the internet; they tend to be heavy users
    of the mobile internet.
        So as we look to upgrade our networks, we are trying to
    make sure that we can provide all of the services that our
    consumers want. And so a big part of that is building out these
    next-generation networks that have much higher capacity. And so
    being able to do things like to deploy DAS and small cells,
    which are much smaller than traditional macro sites but allow
    us to provide that kind of capacity is really critical.
        The FCC is working on a proceeding right now to speed up
    the deployment of those small cells, and we think that is
    really helpful. We have appreciated the opportunity and
    continue to work with the FCC.
        We certainly think that this committee could help by
    putting a hard deadline in there for that proceeding, and that
    would be consistent with what the FCC is doing. They have
    endeavored to complete the proceeding by this time next year,
    and we are hopeful that that will happen. We will address some
    of those barriers that you talked about.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Thank you. And today, we are basically
    talking about physical infrastructure, but I am also focusing
    on making more spectrum available because we know spectrum is
    really the invisible infrastructure needed for robust wireless
    networks. So what impact does access to the spectrum have on
    the broadband infrastructure deployment?
        Mr. Bergmann. So I completely agree with you. It is a
    symbiotic relationship between spectrum and infrastructure. We
    absolutely need the infrastructure to build out the spectrum.
    We have talked and certainly applaud your leadership,
    Congressman Guthrie's leadership in creating incentives for
    federal agencies to make spectrum available.
        We really believe that you need to have low-band spectrum,
    mid-band spectrum, high-band spectrum. As you start to deploy
    in those higher bands, infrastructure becomes even more
    important. Those bands tend to propagate in much smaller areas,
    so you really need to have a dense network. If we are going to
    be the leaders in 5G, if we are going to be the leaders in the
    Internet of Things, maintain that global edge, we need to make
    sure that we have those dense networks and that we are able to
    build out that infrastructure quickly.
        Ms. Matsui. OK. Fine, thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentlelady yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Olson. I thank the chair. And welcome to all four
    witnesses.
        Once you cross the Mississippi River to Arizona heading
    West, most of that land is controlled by the Federal
    Government. There is one exception, my home State of Texas,
    almost all private land, but that is because we were a nation,
    a Republic before we became State.
        To maximize broadband access, we need commonsense actions
    that balance jobs and growth with expense and the environment.
    And rural access is important. For example, my home State of
    Texas has a state law that guarantees access to state
    universities for people graduating from high school depending
    upon their GPA, their standing in their class. That sounds
    great, but what happens sometimes, kids from rural schools
    don't have the technology to succeed. They go to a great school
    like University of Texas and can't compete because they didn't
    have that opportunity in high school. So rural access is
    important.
        And if we all dig on federal land or highways for broadband
    access, a whole swarm of agencies pop up: EPA, the Corps of
    Engineers, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service,
    Department of Transportation, FCC, Department of Defense with
    the Army, the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Air Force
    involved, Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the
    Interior, Department of Agriculture, and on and on and on. Over
    and over, say, for example, BLM says good to go, EPA or Fish
    and Wildlife Service says stop, object, no, don't move forward.
    We all want growth, and that means a lean, mean federal machine
    for permits.
        So my question is for each of you, you can be the king or
    the queen. Ms. Gold, you are the queen today. If you had to
    pick among offenders, which federal agency generates the
    biggest problems for your organization, and how should we fix
    that? Pick one out, ma'am. You are the queen.
        Ms. Gold. I don't think there is anyone because in every
    situation it is somebody else that is--it could be the U.S.
    Forest, it could be the Bureau of Indian Affairs. There is
    just--such a panoply of agencies control permitting and federal
    properties. I would be hard-pressed to say there is one.
        Mr. Olson. That is scary.
        King Bergmann.
        Mr. Bergmann. I would simply echo----
        [Audio malfunction in hearing room.]
        Mr. Bergmann [continuing]. Range of those agencies that you
    mentioned. Just by contrast, in the municipal environment
    Congress and the FCC have imposed deadlines of 60 days, 90
    days, 150 days. In the federal space, we regularly see delays
    of 2 to 4 years and sometimes even longer than that. So the
    steps that this committee is taking to apply some deadlines
    consistently across agencies would be very helpful.
        Mr. Olson. King Benedict, your call, sir.
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, I sort of hate to point fingers.
    Frankly, we endure the same problems with all of the agencies,
    and in some instances it is not because of circumstances
    employees can control. And if you are talking about dealing
    with an emergency like wildfires, then everything tends to be
    back-burnered.
        But, that said, we do think that some offices seem to be
    quicker than others, but all across the board we face similar
    problems and unreasonable delays. And if it is good now, 6
    months from now we may be facing similar backlogs because some
    employees have, you know, gone on leave or some other crisis
    has crowded out our broadband applications.
        Mr. Olson. Queen Socia.
        Ms. Socia. I like being queen. Thank you so much. I will
    echo my co-panelists' comments that there doesn't seem to be
    any one agency that is really problematic, that it is much more
    endemic to the larger group.
        Mr. Olson. Well, thank you. I am running out of time. I
    yield back the balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentlelady from New York
    for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the ranking
    member. I thank our panelists for really honing in on today's
    subject matter. It is helpful for us to have a deeper
    understanding of what broadband deployment in relation to the
    Federal Government and the private sector really means for our
    constituents.
        My first question is to Ms. Socia. While it might seem
    obvious that access to high-speed broadband is essential for
    consumers, I have seen some reports where some don't hold that
    view. Indeed, there are some members on this very committee
    that don't hold that view. How do you respond to those that
    don't believe that broadband is critical or an essential
    infrastructure?
        Ms. Socia. I would start by sharing that I was an educator
    for a long time, so for me, education of our children should be
    a primary responsibility. And so much of what we use now in
    education to provide good services to children involves
    technology. And I will further say that in rural communities it
    is even that much more important. If your child would like to
    take a course that is not available in that small school, they
    can go online and take a course, but only if it is available.
        I will add that precision farming, as I mentioned before,
    is very important in our rural areas, and in particular in
    communities that are drought-stricken that it has really added
    efficiencies that have been really helpful.
        It helps our communities with things like transportation.
    It is essential for public safety. And these all go beyond the
    obvious economic development part of this problem. You can't
    possibly get a job or maintain a job without access these days,
    and I think that we need to be pretty clear about it being
    essential infrastructure.
        Ms. Clarke. So when we hear the argument that the market
    has to determine that, what would you say moving forward in the
    21st century that would mean for our nation quite frankly?
        Ms. Socia. And I would say that there may have been similar
    comments when we were bringing electricity across the country
    and we wouldn't have that question today about electricity
    being a market problem. And I think that broadband at this
    point we are coming to the place where we need to think of it
    in the same way, that it is essential infrastructure and that
    we need all hands on deck, and that if the market can't solve
    the problem, then we need to figure out how to solve the
    problem.
        Ms. Clarke. In one of the discussion drafts we offered
    today, we create an inventory of federal property and real
    property that can be used to help deploy broadband
    infrastructure. In addition, this draft would also permit local
    and municipal governments to add their existing facilities to
    the inventory so they might be better utilized by broadband
    developers. Would your members be interested in having their
    infrastructure added to such an inventory?
        Ms. Socia. I don't think they are adverse to doing so. I
    think the problem would be that our communities and many of the
    smaller utilities are so tiny and so lean and their information
    is on paper only that such an obligation could be really an
    undue problem for that particular group. We are happy when
    folks come to our communities and ask for information, and we
    readily share it, but generally, it is person to person,
    somebody walks in the office and we can share with you where
    those assets are.
        We do, however, encourage our communities to be fiber-
    ready, to identify those assets, to be ready to move forward in
    the marketplace however they choose to move forward.
        Ms. Clarke. Is there currently coordination between
    Federal, state, local governments, and would this discussion
    draft help foster that sort of cooperation?
        Ms. Socia. I imagine the draft will certainly foster that
    sort of cooperation.
        Ms. Clarke. OK. Very well. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the
    balance of my time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
        And the chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    being here. I appreciate it. Hopefully, I won't take all 5
    minutes. It depends on you guys.
        So, Mr. Benedict, you speak briefly in your statement
    regarding the problems in locating facilities on military
    bases. How does that process usually go, and what delays do you
    typically encounter?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, the delays we run into in crossing
    federal lands that are managed by Department of Defense units
    are akin to what we see in other federal lands. We are running
    into the same NEPA reviews, we are running into the same 106
    reviews, but we also have some peculiar problems, and on
    occasion we have run into undue fees for accessing buildings or
    putting facilities onsite----
        Mr. Kinzinger. Can you explain like undue fees?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, it is just, for example, we were
    assessed something on the order of $30,000 to put in a small
    central office facility on one particular base that it was just
    not something we were expecting.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes.
        Mr. Benedict. And these units, like other agencies, see an
    obligation to recover costs and apply fees for permitting
    applications. And all of those add up.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So who loses when a company like CenturyLink
    is unable to deploy on a military base?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, one of our, you know, major customers,
    of course, are military agencies. We also provide broadband and
    voice service to military residents in military facilities. So
    anything we can do to make the cost and the timely access of
    our facilities to those communities is important.
        Mr. Kinzinger. Yes. Mr. Bergmann, one of the staff drafts
    addresses deployment on DOD properties. Why is this important
    to your members, and how could enhanced deployment on these
    properties benefit the armed services?
        Mr. Bergmann. So, Congressman, thank you. Certainly, two
    ways leap to mind. One is as the Department of Defense looks to
    commercial off-the-shelf solutions, right, which are
    innovative, world-leading, often more cost-effective, having
    wireless facilities on DOD bases can help that.
        Certainly, another way is if you look at the personnel on a
    typical military base often very youthful, right, and we know
    that the young adults in this country certainly are big
    adopters of mobile broadband. So if we are looking to promote
    the quality of life for the men and women who are members of
    the armed services, making sure that there are robust mobile
    services there is a great way to do it.
        Mr. Kinzinger. So I am still an active guardsman so I still
    fly planes, do military duty. I can't think of one time I have
    ever been on a military base where there has been available
    wireless access. It is all--maybe there is a caf AE1e on base
    that has some kind of a thing but I have never--at least that I
    know of never been on one where there was wireless available,
    which is to me kind of astonishing.
        And you also mentioned in your testimony in 2012 Congress
    provide relief to expedite modification requests for eligible
    facilities. Is that working well, and are these changes having
    a positive impact on speed of siting?
        Mr. Bergmann. So that law has been very effective in
    helping us deploy co-locations so where we are adding onto an
    existing site, making sure that we have timelines so that that
    happens quickly. And we are certainly seeing the benefits of
    that. We believe that there is more that can be done to further
    streamline that municipal process. We talked a little bit about
    the small cell deployments, and that is another area where we
    are working with the Commission and certainly appreciate this
    subcommittee's guidance. The lessons of the 2012 act, the
    deadlines have been very helpful in the process.
        Mr. Kinzinger. OK. Great.
        Does anybody else have anything to add to that? Otherwise,
    I will yield back. Thank you.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back.
        The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gold, as you know, one of the draft bills proposes to
    create a database of federal assets that can be used to support
    broadband deployment, a proposal that was also endorsed by the
    White House's Broadband Opportunity Council. Can you quickly
    share how this database would support our efforts to expand
    access to rural and tribal communities, as well as penetration
    elsewhere?
        Ms. Gold. If you take the database and you couple it with
    more expedited permitting, all of a sudden people are going to
    know where there are assets that they can use to attach fiber
    or conduit they can use to pull fiber or attach wireless
    devices. Right now it is a real hodgepodge of trying to figure
    out who controls the property where and who you need to go to
    to get permission to have access to it. If you have that
    someplace logically and easily accessible, it makes the
    building process much better and more rapid, especially if you
    couple that with some sort of a shot clock on permitting.
        Mr. Lujan. I appreciate that. And, Mr. Benedict, do you
    believe that the discussion bills before us would advance
    infrastructure build-out by the private sector? Do the bills
    strike the correct balance to successfully address some of the
    roadblocks you face in New Mexico and elsewhere when it comes
    to applying for a permit from entities like the BLM?
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, we think so.
        Mr. Lujan. There has been a lot of conversation from some
    of our colleagues, as well as with our witnesses today
    pertaining to how we work closer with our electric cooperatives
    as well. Ms. Socia, I appreciate your observation that if
    market forces would have driven the wiring of electricity
    across America, rural parts of America that grow most of our
    food would have been left out. We wouldn't have electricity
    running to these parts of the country. But with that being
    said, we also see the benefit of rural utility service and
    other aspects that help deploy those services.
        Mr. Benedict, can you touch on the importance of making
    sure that if we indeed are going to touch rural parts of
    America, how a partnership with the rural electric cooperatives
    with a co-locate is essential to that? Last time I looked at a
    map of where those electricity lines ran, it was mostly rural
    parts of America.
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, and we actually have facilities and
    provide voice and broadband in much of rural America.
        And I don't mean to suggest that there is any antagonism
    between us and the cooperative community or municipalities for
    that matter, municipal systems. We actually have cooperative
    arrangements with a great many. Our concern is that there are
    some that in effect use their position to wring some additional
    revenue out of attachments beyond anything that we would
    consider truly a compensatory rate.
        We, as a pole owner, fully appreciate that no party should
    be expecting to have access to poles or conduit at rates that
    are not compensatory.
        Mr. Lujan. But you said something earlier that investor-
    owned utilities are required by the FCC to consider these co-
    locates for fiber connectivity but that others may not be
    required to do that. Can you expand on that?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, under FCC rules, unless a state has
    asserted oversight, investor-owned utilities are subject to an
    FCC regime, as are we, as an ILEC, that mandate cost-based
    rates. And that provides a basis for apportioning and
    allocating costs. So it doesn't necessarily mean we are the
    cheapest non-power attacher, but it provides a basis for
    ensuring that there is more predictable and more reasonable
    rates applied and that some of the potential abuses that we
    have experienced don't recur.
        Cooperatives and municipal poles aren't subject to that
    regime. They are not subject to FCC oversight and they need
    not----
        Mr. Lujan. If I just may interrupt here, I apologize, Mr.
    Benedict, as time is running short. I just hope that that
    prompts us to look at this because, look, if we are going to
    cover rural parts of America, we should look at all the assets
    that we have to be able to move into this realm as well. And
    being a former public utility commissioner, I understand the
    constraints that exist, whether it is at public utility
    commission levels, it is at FERC, PURPA, FCC, whatever it may
    be. Let's bring this into a realm we have an opportunity. And
    to complement again the ``Dig Once'' legislation, I appreciate
    Mr. Loebsack's assessment of this, Ms. Eshoo, that this is a
    commonsense approach.
        I would hope that also as we look at utility easements, as
    they are engaged with each and every one of you, whether it is
    water, electricity, telecom, natural gas through these
    easements with federal partners, including the BIA, that once
    one easement is approved for water, then when the next one
    comes in under electricity or telecom, that those same
    approvals that were put in place once can be put in there and
    maybe you can enter a cost-share with one another so you are
    not having to do this repeatedly.
        And then, Mr. Chairman, lastly, I know time is running out,
    but I hope that we can have a conversation to some of the
    disincentives that exist when we talk about distribution versus
    transmission, as I would describe it, where you are providing
    connectivity or power for a community as described and required
    by federal law, especially into tribal communities, but then
    you enter into going into those communities but then you incur
    liability to have to provide service. We need to have this
    conversation, which is a rulemaking currently before the BIA
    and to see how it intersects with these conversations not only
    for broadband and communication penetration but for providing
    power and water.
        So thank you for the indulgence, Mr. Chairman, and I
    appreciate the witnesses and the hearing today.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much. The gentleman's time
    has expired.
        The chair now recognizes for 5 minutes the gentleman from
    southeastern Ohio.
        Mr. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I thank
    the panel for being with us today. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Bergmann, I understand that when one of your members is
    sitting on a piece of land or a building governed by a
    municipal zoning authority, there is a shot clock imposed by
    the FCC that gets you a yes or a no within 150 days. But when
    one of your members wants to put a tower on a piece of real
    estate controlled by the Defense Department, that approval
    process can take multiple years. With the understanding that
    there are certainly sensitive sites where it might not make
    national security sense to deploy commercial wireless
    infrastructure, aren't there many other situations where
    improved commercial wireless access could improve the quality
    of life for those people living on the DOD facility and in some
    cases where that same commercial access could improve the DOD's
    ability to leverage commercial off-the-shelf technology to
    achieve its mission at a lower cost?
        Mr. Bergmann. I think you are exactly right, Congressman.
    In the municipal context the deadlines are 150 days, 90 days,
    and 60 days, recognizing that where we are adding facilities
    where they already exist, the timelines should be even shorter,
    and contrast that to our experience with the Federal Government
    where delays are routinely between 2 and 4 years. There are
    tremendous opportunities here to move more quickly and to
    deliver the sorts of benefits that you described, enabling our
    military to take advantage of commercial off-the-shelf
    solutions and improving the quality of life for the men and
    women who serve in the armed services.
        Mr. Johnson. Do you know what drives that complicated, long
    timeline? What is it? Is it the paperwork or just slowness?
    What is your thought?
        Mr. Bergmann. So I certainly think deadlines are a helpful
    construct, also making sure that when we are doing more than
    one review, if you are doing an environmental review as well,
    too, or in the context of military facilities doing a spectrum
    review, that we try to do those reviews in parallel as opposed
    to sequentially, and that that will help considerably as well,
    too.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Ms. Gold, the Broadband Opportunity
    Council that the President created called for an inventory of
    federal assets such as the one contemplated by one of our draft
    bills. In your opinion, how does this help would-be network
    builders?
        Ms. Gold. It is very important to know where assets are
    available that you can use. Just such as we encourage every
    community to do an asset inventory, we would like to have such
    an asset inventory from the Federal Government because that
    would help us understand where we need to go to get permission
    to cross federal land or where there may be conduit or where
    there may be federal poles that we can use to attach fiber or
    pole fiber. It all helps expedite the process. And this is
    basically a construction project, so time is money. And I think
    that having legislative authority behind the Broadband
    Opportunity Council recommendation would be very helpful.
        Mr. Johnson. OK. Mr. Bergmann, back to you, and I just
    thought of this. Do you have any examples--and if you don't,
    that is fine--but do you have any examples of any of those
    unreasonably long DOD approval processes where it could have
    brought some really positive advantages to the community?
        Mr. Bergmann. So we do have examples across a variety of
    different agencies, and we would be happy to share those with
    you and happy to work with your staff to give you those
    examples.
        Mr. Johnson. If we could see those, that would be great.
        All right. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remainder of my
    time.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Illinois for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank the
    witnesses for being here today.
        Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Ms. Socia. In July, your
    organization released a comprehensive policy agenda
    recommending the ``Dig Once'' approaches to spur broadband
    deployment. And in my city in the county region of Cook County,
    we have a lot of railroad tracks, and we have over 3,000 public
    highway railroad crossings. And I would just like to know what
    are some of your frustrations that you have found that you have
    heard of that you might be aware of regarding access to
    railroad rights-of-way.
        Ms. Socia. Our members actually find the railroads
    particularly difficult to work with with regard to getting a
    right-of-way to build under a railway. The timeline has been
    fairly long and the expense very high. It would be really
    helpful if there were a ``Dig Once'' policy that provided that
    resource available to anyone who needed to use it to pull fiber
    through, could save significant amount of time and money for
    our members.
        Mr. Rush. Have there been any discussions at all with some
    of the railroad companies? Are they implacable in terms of them
    cooperating or have there been any discussions that you all are
    aware of with any railroad companies?
        Ms. Socia. I couldn't speak specifically to that, but I
    would be happy to ask my members for specifics and get back to
    you.
        Mr. Rush. OK. Now, this is a question that may or may not
    have been answered already, but it is dealing with the
    historical preservation review process for the twilight towers.
    Mr. Bergmann, do you have any idea, are there any impediments
    to the deployment of broadband to these twilight towers?
        Mr. Bergmann. So thank you, Congressman. So there are a
    group of towers that were built over a decade ago during a time
    when the historic preservation laws were unclear that exist out
    there today and that are not eligible for the streamlined
    treatment that this subcommittee and Congress helped provide
    for in the 2012 Spectrum Act. So we are working closely with
    the Commission right now to develop a resolution so that we can
    put those twilight towers to good use, but we would certainly
    appreciate any guidance from this subcommittee to make clear
    that towers that exist that have been out there for 10 years
    and that don't have objections are not required for approval
    under the National Historic Preservation Act.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
        Mr. Latta. The gentleman yields back, and the chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Florida for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. I appreciate it, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Bergmann, thank you for joining us here today. I have a
    few quick questions for you. We all want to protect the
    environment and preserve scenic views and natural areas. To
    what extent do today's modern infrastructure technologies
    impact the surrounding environment?
        Mr. Bergmann. So thank you. So certainly one of the things
    that we see is a move toward much more small cell deployment,
    which is a fraction of the size. It tends to have a much
    smaller impact. And so one of the things that we are working to
    do is to try to make sure that the review process reflects that
    lighter impact. So that is a big part of the small cell
    deployment over at the FCC right now. And we would certainly
    like to make sure that we are able to move forward with that
    because, as you know, when we are able to deploy our service in
    those areas, we are not just taking advantage of that land, we
    are providing service to the folks who go into those areas.
    Whether they are rural communities, whether they are parks, we
    are making service available there as well, too.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. And I understand that using a
    DAS--distributed antenna system--reduces the need for new
    towers, is that correct?
        Mr. Bergmann. That is absolutely correct. These are
    typically placed on existing towers and are used to improve
    coverage or to improve capacity so that we have better quality
    services there.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Has there been adequate
    streamlining of the FCC environmental and historic preservation
    review procedures? What has been your experience so far on that
    and what remains to be done?
        Mr. Bergmann. So the Commission has launched a proceeding
    to streamline that process, particularly for small cells and
    DAS systems, and we are certainly supportive of that effort and
    would like to make sure that it is completed in a timely
    fashion.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. A question for Ms. Socia--welcome
    back to our subcommittee--can you explain a bit more about how
    streamlined infrastructure protocols on Federal land like at
    the MacDill Air Force Base in the Tampa area, how it can help
    programs like your Next Century Cities more efficiently meet
    their goals?
        Ms. Socia. I think in building out public safety systems it
    is really important that there be a timely response to requests
    for permitting on those sites, and I think that is also
    accurate even in our more urban areas where there are federal
    buildings located in areas that our cities have had to work
    around in order to provide service to their citizens, free Wi-
    Fi or public safety.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. And, Mr. Benedict, just for my
    clarification, can you describe your view that railroad
    companies have unrealistic expectations about their rights to
    public corridors? Is that a question of statutory
    interpretation or maybe a general question of enforcement?
        Mr. Benedict. Well, it is a question of the statute not
    having been as clear as it might have been. Many of these
    rights-of-way have been in place for a very, very long time.
    And the real question is are we entitled to access? Are we
    entitled to place in the ballast what rates would be reasonable
    to expect?
        We also have problems with railroad crossings, just as Ms.
    Socia described, and we would like to think that these could be
    more easily worked out with a clear directive from Congress
    that the holders of railroad right-of-way granted by the
    Federal Government must provide reasonable access on reasonable
    terms and conditions.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you very much for the suggestion.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you. The gentleman yields back the balance
    of his time.
        At this time the chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Missouri for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Long. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Ms. Gold, this first question is kind of a sticky
    wicket. The electric utilities say that the statutory rate for
    cable attachment on poles is a subsidized rate that ultimately
    will result in electric utility ratepayers subsidizing
    broadband build-out. I have got a two-part question, and this
    is where the sticky wicket comes in. What is your response to
    that argument, and how should we balance the rights of
    homeowners and pole attachers in order to continue to encourage
    both pole ownership and broadband build-out?
        Ms. Gold. So in fact the Supreme Court found in 1987 that
    the cable rate formula adopted by the FCC provides pole owners
    with adequate compensation, and it did not result in an
    unconstitutional taking. The cable rate, as it is set up today,
    charges the cable owner just for that part of the pole which
    they use.
        I would argue that any attacher to the pole should only be
    assessed the same rate. Right now, because we have all
    attachers under two different regulatory regimes--we have the
    telecom attachers and the cable attachers--we go through
    regulatory gymnastics to try to come up with a rate that is the
    same for both. If we instead say there was going to be a common
    rate set for any attacher to a pole, then we wouldn't be going
    through this whole discussion.
        And in fact, because the cable rate that--we always default
    and say it should be the cable rate because that was found
    years ago to be compensatory. I certainly think we would all
    welcome some further proceeding that might look at pole
    attachment rates, but for all attachers on a common basis,
    regardless of whether you are a cable company or a telecom
    company, because basically we are all putting up a cable of
    some kind, so they should be equal.
        Mr. Long. Yes. What year was that ruling again?
        Ms. Gold. Eighty-seven.
        Mr. Long. So the answer to my second question, how do we
    encourage both pole ownership and broadband build-out? That is
    your suggestion?
        Ms. Gold. I think we need to--there are two aspects to
    using the poles. It is not just the rental rate, but we also
    need to look at make-ready costs. This is an area that has
    really become a problem for new fiber deployers. When they try
    to get on a pole, the costs can vary widely. If a pole has
    violations on it from a previous attacher, often the investor-
    owned utility, which are the ones that are most regulated
    today, will argue that that violation needs to be corrected by
    the new entrant prior to their attaching to a pole. Obviously,
    we don't want to discourage new fiber deployment by making new
    entrants pay for some old attacher's violation.
        So I think there are a whole host of issues. I think
    equalizing the rates and looking at make-ready costs on a
    nondiscriminatory cost basis would be very helpful to further
    fiber deployment.
        Mr. Long. OK. My next question is a two-part question for
    two different people. Start with Mr. Benedict and then I have
    got a follow-up for Mr. Bergmann.
        Mr. Benedict, one of our bills requires the FCC to assume a
    lead role on Section 106 historical preservation reviews that
    are required in most federal undertakings. As I understand it,
    the draft bill would help eliminate duplicative reviews by
    other agencies. In your opinion, would this help speed
    deployment?
        Mr. Benedict. Yes, we believe it would. In fact, this would
    be an expansion of what Congress has already done with MAP-21
    with the Department of Transportation agencies.
        Mr. Long. OK. And then, Mr. Bergmann, how does this help
    with tower siting?
        Mr. Bergmann. So it would certainly help in our ability to
    deploy the sorts of next-generation technologies like DAS and
    small cells that are going to be used to improve both coverage
    and capacity. So as we try to think about moving towards 5G
    networks, maintaining our global leadership, the ability to do
    that quickly will be extremely important.
        Mr. Long. OK. And then, Ms. Socia, one for you, do you
    recommend to towns looking to deploy fiber that they collect a
    map of assets, conduit poles, ducts, buildings, utility
    cabinets, and offer access to the broadband provider at a cost-
    based rate?
        Ms. Socia. We recommend that all of our communities do an
    asset inventory and really create a circumstance whereby their
    city is fiber-ready, whether they choose to build themselves,
    work with a partner, create an open-access network, or enter
    into a public-private partnership. We feel like having that
    information ready is definitely a helpful step in making this
    deployment happen faster.
        Mr. Long. OK. I am asking because I would like to know if
    the Federal Government should do the same, but I am out of
    time. I don't have any time, but if I did, I would sure yield
    it back.
        Mr. Latta. Well, in that case, the gentleman's time has
    expired.
        And I am going to turn to the ranking member if she would
    like a point of personal privilege.
        Ms. Eshoo. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        We know that the age levels vary with the wonderful
    staffers that work with us, and there are two that have joined
    us here in the hearing room. They are my godsons, and if they
    would just stand up. This is Paul Voss and this is Thomas Voss.
    And so they want to learn about what we do here. So look at
    people waving to you. Isn't that great? So we welcome you. Who
    knows--yes, hi, guys. Yes. Maybe someday they will either be at
    that table or this one.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Latta. Well, thank you very much.
        And with that, and seeing no other Members to ask questions
    this afternoon, on behalf of the subcommittee chairman, the
    gentleman from Oregon, the ranking member, the gentlelady from
    California, and myself, I would like to thank this panel for
    your excellent presentation this morning. We really appreciate
    your time.
        And if there are no other issues to come before the
    committee, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]