[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, [email protected].
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]